Join Public Comment on Proposed Development at 14076 Quito Road
The Issue
PUBLIC COMMENT APPLICATION CPX24-0007/SUB26-0003
14076 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA
Planning Commission Hearing
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
c/o Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
criordan@saratoga.ca.us | (408) 868-1235
Also submitted via the City’s Planning Commission public-comment portal
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
We are writing regarding Application CPX24-0007/SUB26-0003, the proposed development at 14076 Quito Road. We live along Quito Road which becomes Lawrence Expressway is the only route in or out of our neighborhood.
We are submitting this letter with a clear understanding of the legal posture of this application and with considerable disappointment in how the City has managed this process.
We support responsible housing development. We are not asking the Commission to prevent this site from being developed. But increasing this site from the roughly 10 units contemplated in the City’s own Housing Element to the 69 units now proposed requires careful, specific, on-the-record consideration of the project’s actual effects on the surrounding Quito neighborhood and the adjoining Los Gatos community.
A Note on Where We Stand
We want to be direct with the Commission: we understand that this project’s unit count, density, height, and general scope are effectively no longer within the Commission’s discretion to change.
In Saratoga’s adopted Housing Element, the 14076 Quito Road site was identified as an approximately 3.56-acre vacant parcel surrounded by existing single-family uses. The City contemplated rezoning the site from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000, with an estimated capacity of approximately 10 residential units.
The current proposal is for 69 total units, including 55 attached three-story residential units plus 14 accessory dwelling units, nearly seven times what the City’s own Housing Element contemplated for this site.
We understand this discrepancy exists because the project’s preliminary application was submitted on March 18, 2024, before Saratoga’s Housing Element was certified by the State on July 8, 2024, allowing the project to proceed under the Builder’s Remedy. We further understand that the project has since been deemed exempt from environmental review under AB 130.
We are not asking the Commission to relitigate those determinations. We recognize that the battle over whether 69 units, at three stories, should be built on a site the City itself once envisioned for roughly 10 homes has effectively already been lost.
That is precisely why the specific, answerable questions below matter so much to us. They represent the remaining decisions the Commission and staff can still influence, and we expect direct, specific, on-the-record answers not general reassurances.
The City’s Communication With Affected Residents
We respectfully but candidly believe the City’s public communication regarding this project has been inadequate.
To our knowledge, no on-site signage has been posted at 14076 Quito Road notifying passersby, pedestrians, or neighboring residents of the pending application and hearing. This differs from the practice of neighboring jurisdictions. The Town of Los Gatos, for example, posts on-site notice signage for comparable pending developments, such as the project at Knowles and Dardanelli.
Given that the intensity of this project is approximately 6.9 times what the City’s own Housing Element anticipated for the property, we believe on-site signage should have been a baseline courtesy to the surrounding neighborhood. We ask that the City commit to this practice for future applications of this magnitude.
Cross-Jurisdictional Notification: The Adjoining Los Gatos Neighborhood
We are particularly concerned about notification and participation by the immediately adjoining Los Gatos neighborhood along Pollard Road.
This project does not exist in isolation simply because it sits within Saratoga’s city limits. The neighboring Los Gatos community along Pollard Road is directly adjacent to this area and may experience many of the same traffic, parking, pedestrian, bicycle, drainage, emergency-access, and quality-of-life impacts as Saratoga residents.
We therefore respectfully ask the City to clarify, on the public record:
● Was the Town of Los Gatos itself formally notified or provided an interagency referral regarding this project?
● Have Los Gatos Planning, Public Works, traffic engineering, or emergency services been given an opportunity to evaluate potential impacts on Pollard Road and the adjoining Los Gatos neighborhood?
City boundaries should not determine whether an immediately adjoining homeowner has an opportunity to be heard about impacts that cross those boundaries.
Rolling Hills Middle School, Marshall Lane Elementary, and Student Safety
This area also serves as a walking, biking, and drop-off/pick-up route for students attending Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary School, both part of the Campbell Union School District.
Rolling Hills Middle School draws students from this immediate neighborhood, including areas along Quito Road, Marshall Lane, and Pollard Road. Student pedestrian and bicycle traffic on these streets is significant during school arrival and dismissal times. These are hours that overlap directly with morning and afternoon commute peaks already affecting this corridor.
We ask the City to answer, on the record:
● Has Campbell Union School District and specifically Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary been formally notified of and consulted on this project, given that student walking and biking routes to both schools run through the affected Quito Road/Marshall Lane/Pollard Road area?
● Has a school-route safety analysis been conducted addressing the added vehicle trips from this project and the nearby Marshall Lane development during school arrival and dismissal windows?
● What specific crossing guards, signage, striping, or other pedestrian-safety measures will be required at the Marshall Lane development’s new, currently uncontrolled entry/exit and at other new or modified access points?
● Will the City coordinate with Campbell Union School District’s transportation and safety staff before this project is approved, rather than after safety issues are observed post-occupancy?
Given that Rolling Hills Middle School serves students from both the Saratoga and Los Gatos sides of this boundary, student safety deserves the same cross-jurisdictional coordination we are requesting for the surrounding neighborhoods.
1. One Entrance/Exit for 69 Residences
The entire 14076 Quito Road development is proposed to use a single ingress/egress point at Marshall Lane.
We understand the City’s Public Works Department has already required substantial changes at this location. The driveway is to function essentially as another leg of the Marshall Lane intersection, with 35-foot corner radii, ADA ramps, a minimum 30-foot street width at the intersection, a new six-foot sidewalk, a five-foot bike lane with a two-foot buffer, and roadway work along the project’s Quito Road frontage.
We ask the Commission to require the City to answer, on the record:
● Has the City formally evaluated whether a single access point is adequate for 69 residences for everyday traffic and emergency access, including fire, paramedic response, and evacuation? If so, please provide that analysis.
● What specifically happens at the Quito Road/Marshall Lane intersection during morning school and work commute periods and evening peak periods once this project and the nearby Marshall Lane development are both occupied?
2. Traffic and Circulation Analysis
We request that the City provide, and that the Commission review on the record, the traffic-impact or circulation analysis performed for this project, including:
● Existing AM/PM peak-hour traffic conditions and delay along the Quito Road corridor and relevant intersections;
● Projected trip generation from the 69 units;
● The effect on Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Pollard Road, and adjoining neighborhoods;
● The effect on emergency response and evacuation;
● Construction traffic, including haul trucks and worker vehicles; and
● Cumulative impacts from other nearby development rather than evaluating 14076 Quito Road in isolation.
Quito Road already experiences significant AM and PM congestion. Because it is the sole point of ingress and egress for residents on Ravenwood Drive and surrounding streets, this is not merely an inconvenience. It affects how quickly residents can evacuate during a fire, medical emergency, or other emergency and how quickly emergency vehicles can reach our neighborhood.
3. Parking
The 55 primary units have two-car garages, but the project provides only 15 guest parking spaces. This is roughly one guest space for every 4½ residences when the 14 ADUs are included.
We ask the applicant and staff to answer:
● Where are residents with more than two vehicles, visitors, caregivers, contractors, delivery drivers, and service providers expected to park once those 15 spaces are full?
● What specific mechanism will prevent parking generated by this project from spilling into Marshall Lane, Ravenwood Drive, Pollard Road, and surrounding single-family streets?
Given the additional vehicles this project and the nearby Marshall Lane project will introduce, we also ask the Commission to consider recommending a residential parking-permit program for Ravenwood Drive and Marshall Lane if post-occupancy conditions demonstrate that one is necessary.
4. Three-Story Buildings, Privacy, and Neighborhood Transition
The proposed buildings are approximately 37–38 feet tall and directly adjacent to an established single-family neighborhood.
Residents on the second and third floors will be able to look down into neighboring backyards and potentially into windows and private outdoor living areas of the single-story homes immediately next door. This is not simply a concern about having a larger building nearby. The additional height creates new sightlines into areas of property that currently have reasonable residential privacy.
Saratoga’s own residential design guidance recognizes that privacy should be addressed primarily through building design, not simply through landscaping or fences. The City’s standards specifically address upper-story windows, balconies, setbacks, sill heights, and privacy screening.
For homes immediately adjoining the property, we ask the Commission to require specific answers regarding:
● The placement of second- and third-floor windows and balconies relative to existing homes and backyards;
● Direct sightlines into neighboring properties;
● Increased setbacks where feasible;
● Window-orientation changes;
● Privacy screening and landscaping; and
● Preservation of mature perimeter trees as part of the privacy mitigation.
● Not to rely on future landscaping as the sole mechanism for ensuring privacy, as newly planted trees take years to mature and provide meaningful screening;
● The impact of the three-story buildings on sunlight and shadow access for adjoining single-family yards and windows, and whether a shadow study has been prepared; and
● Visibility and sightline design (natural surveillance) between the development and adjoining properties, so that building orientation, fencing, and landscaping do not create hidden or poorly lit areas along shared property lines that raise safety concerns for neighboring children and residents.
Even if the City must accommodate the project’s density, we respectfully ask that it use every authority it retains to minimize the direct privacy impacts on the existing homes immediately bordering the development.
5. Removal of Mature Trees and an Unexplained Discrepancy
The City of Saratoga has been recognized as an Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA for more than 15 consecutive years. As part of this program, the City commits to maintaining and growing its tree canopy. Trees provide significant community benefits: they reduce traffic noise by up to 40 percent, make neighborhoods seven to nine degrees cooler than those without trees, reduce energy costs up to 25 percent by shading buildings and protecting them from winter winds, play a major role in improving mental and physical health, and help absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, mitigating the effects of climate change.
Project materials have stated that 111 trees would be removed, including 71 protected trees. We understand that more recent agenda materials instead state that 64 protected trees are proposed for removal.
This discrepancy has not been explained to the neighborhood.
We ask:
● Why did the number of protected trees proposed for removal change from 71 to 64, and which specific trees account for the difference?
● Exactly which trees, identified by number and location on the arborist plan, will be removed versus retained?
● How many mature perimeter trees separating the development from existing homes will remain after construction?
● What size and species of replacement trees are proposed?
● How does staff justify replacement trees as adequate mitigation for mature trees when newly planted trees may require years or decades to provide comparable privacy screening, canopy, and noise buffering?
● Will the City require mature 15-gallon replacement trees along the perimeter together with full financial escrow deposits to ensure long-term survival and privacy protection?
As residents of a Tree City USA, we value all the benefits trees provide and we ask the Commission to continue investing in Saratoga’s tree future by requiring meaningful, not merely symbolic, mitigation for the removal of 64 protected trees.
6. The Extraordinary Density Increase Deserves a Direct Answer
Saratoga’s Housing Element contemplated approximately 10 units on this site and specifically recognized that it is surrounded by existing single-family uses.
The current proposal is 69 units, approximately 6.9 times what the City itself anticipated for this parcel.
We are not asking the Commission to reduce the unit count. We understand that determination has effectively already been made.
We are asking:
Given that the realized intensity of this site is nearly seven times what the City’s Housing Element anticipated, what specific additional conditions involving traffic, parking, tree retention, privacy, drainage, safety, or other impacts is the City imposing in recognition of that difference beyond what would have been required for the originally contemplated 10-unit project?
7. Creek
We understand that the property backs onto a creek.
With approximately 133,386 square feet of residential development, plus streets, driveways, and other hardscape, on a roughly 3.85-acre site, we ask:
● What is the projected increase in stormwater runoff compared with existing conditions, and what specific drainage infrastructure will manage it?
● What creek setback will be maintained?
● What erosion-control, water-quality, and habitat-protection measures will apply during and after construction?
● What is the flood risk to the creek corridor and downstream or adjacent properties from increased hardscape, and what analysis supports the City’s conclusion?
Because this project is currently being treated as exempt from CEQA review under AB 130, we believe these questions are especially important to place on the public record.
8. Cumulative Development: 14076 Quito Road Cannot Be Reviewed in Isolation
This is one of multiple Builder’s Remedy and other housing projects the City is processing in this corridor.
In particular, the 14076 Quito Road project and the separate, larger planned development near Marshall Lane sit close enough together that their access points and combined effects on Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Pollard Road, and surrounding neighborhoods must be reviewed together and not as unrelated applications.
A number of neighbors along Ravenwood Drive, Quito Oaks, Montpere, and Marshall Lane collectively representing roughly 100 existing households who already enter and exit onto Quito Road believe the following access/circulation concept merits serious consideration:
● Convert the existing signal at Pollard from a three-way to a four-way intersection and route the larger Marshall Lane development’s entry/exit directly to that controlled intersection. This would place the higher-volume development’s traffic at a controlled intersection rather than creating additional uncontrolled turning movements on Marshall Lane.
We also ask the Commission to consider whether a roundabout at Pollard/Quito would be the superior solution. There is sufficient space at the Pollard/Quito intersection for a midsize roundabout. A roundabout would dramatically improve ease of entry and exit and safety for residents of both new developments. It costs approximately one-third the price of installing the proposed signalized intersection at Marshall Lane and Quito. It improves traffic flow by 70–89 percent at all times, reduces accident-related injuries by 75–90 percent, and requires annual maintenance at just 15 percent of the cost of maintaining a signalized intersection. It also reduces environmental impact by eliminating the need for vehicles to idle and accelerate at lights. This is a win-win-win solution for developers, existing and new residents, and the City. Most critically, routing traffic to a roundabout at Pollard/Quito rather than to an intersection at Marshall Lane — the narrowest street in Saratoga, used daily by children walking to school — would meaningfully reduce the risk of serious injury to children that the current proposal creates.
The rationale is straightforward:
● It avoids stacking multiple traffic signals at close intervals along the relatively short stretch of Quito Road between Allendale and Pollard;
● It reduces the risk of Quito Road backing up across that corridor during peak periods;
● It avoids creating a new uncontrolled street crossing on Marshall Lane where children currently walk to and from school; and
● It places the higher-volume development’s traffic-control burden at the already controlled Pollard/Quito intersection rather than introducing additional uncontrolled turning movements on a smaller residential street with school foot traffic.
We recognize that the Commission’s authority to dictate site design on a Builder’s Remedy project is limited. Nevertheless, we ask that the access and circulation design and the rationale for rejecting a four-way Pollard configuration, if one exists be placed on the public record with full transparency.
We also ask the City to state plainly whether preserving the current access configuration is related to preserving the developer’s unit count. We understand that as many as six units may be affected. If that understanding is incorrect, please clarify it on the record.
A private economic preference for a handful of additional units should not outweigh documented neighborhood safety concerns.
9. First Responder Access
Quito Road is a semi-rural two-lane road that already experiences significant congestion during commute hours and school drop-off and pick-up times. The two Builder’s Remedy projects in this neighborhood are adding nearly 200 units—equating to more than 400 people and 400 cars. Those residents will have emergencies, and their vehicles will compound existing traffic. Paramedics traverse Quito Road daily responding to emergencies, and ambulances transport patients to the hospital on Pollard Road.
Increased daily traffic from the proposed developments will complicate the ability of first responders to reach residents quickly and to transport patients in a timely manner, particularly during peak traffic periods. The narrow, winding character of Quito Road makes it challenging for vehicles to pull over and allow emergency vehicles through.
If there were to be an emergency requiring evacuation, major gridlock is expected due to the added density from these Builder’s Remedy developments and because Quito Road is the designated evacuation route for neighborhoods in Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos all the way to Highway 9. An evacuation would simultaneously impede the ingress of first responders and slow residents’ ability to evacuate—a dangerous situation for everyone.
The Ask
We ask the Planning Commission to take the following actions to address First Responder Access:
● Analyze the impact of the proposed developments on traffic and make decisions about the placement of traffic lights, ingress/egress driveways, and project density with First Responder Access explicitly in mind.
● Base these decisions on the cumulative effect of all development projects in the area including Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Vineyard One, Cox Avenue, and El Paseo, rather than on a project-by-project basis, as their cumulative effect will be the reality.
● Work with First Responder agencies to confirm that they are adequately staffed to handle the increased population density and that expected traffic conditions will not impede service metrics. Our lives depend on it.
10. Emergency Evacuation
This project adds 69 households and nearly 140 cars to the area, all of which would need to evacuate through a single entryway onto Quito Road in the event of an emergency such as a fast-moving wildfire. Imagine the difficulty of evacuating in a timely manner along Quito Road, particularly given traffic signals at Pollard to the south and Allendale to the north, which is a situation that could be worsened further by a new signal at Marshall Lane.
While we understand that an Environmental Impact Review is not required for the Quito Road project, the draft EIR for the nearby Marshall Lane Builder’s Remedy project noted that there is no mitigation for increased traffic when considering cumulative projects in the area, which includes the development at 14076 Quito Road. The Marshall Lane EIR additionally asserts that area projects will have “no significant cumulative impact” to emergency access “because other developments may be required to perform mitigations.” The Quito Road development can only worsen the impact identified in the Marshall Lane EIR, as it will use the exact same intersection as a point of access to and from Quito Road.
The Ask
We ask the Planning Commission to take the following actions to address risks to Emergency Evacuation:
● Update the City’s Emergency Evacuation Plan to account for all development proposals currently submitted to the City, and take into account all neighborhoods that have Quito Road south of Allendale as a designated evacuation route.
● Require traffic improvements that will streamline evacuation for this development and surrounding neighborhoods, including other new developments. In particular, consider how three closely-spaced traffic signals along Quito Road will impact evacuation from the area.
● Analyze the cumulative evacuation capacity of Quito Road for all existing and proposed developments and confirm that the corridor can support safe and timely evacuation of all residents under emergency conditions.
11. Conditions of Approval We Are Requesting
Given that this application is proceeding under the Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy, we understand the Commission’s ability to deny the project or alter its density, height, or unit count is extremely limited.
We are not asking the Commission to disregard state law.
We ask that, consistent with whatever authority the City retains under Government Code § 65589.5(d)(5) and (j) and applicable local ordinances, any approval include:
● A construction traffic-management plan limiting haul-truck and heavy-equipment movement to off-peak hours;
● Funding or provision of specific intersection and signal improvements identified as necessary by the traffic analysis before occupancy;
● A monitoring and reporting requirement so that if post-occupancy traffic data shows unsafe delay at Quito Road/Marshall Lane or elsewhere in the affected corridor, mitigation is triggered;
● A dedicated, earmarked funding mechanism, such as a traffic-impact-fee reserve, to pay for neighborhood traffic-calming or pedestrian improvements if post-occupancy data demonstrates a need;
● Maximum feasible retention of mature trees and landscape buffering along shared property lines;
● Specific privacy mitigation for adjoining single-family properties;
● Specific, binding drainage and creek-protection measures addressing creek; and
● Appropriate measures to address parking spillover if post-occupancy conditions demonstrate a problem.
We are not requesting that specific physical improvements such as sidewalks or speed bumps automatically be constructed on Ravenwood Drive or Marshall Lane today. We are asking that funding be identified or reserved so residents are not forced to begin the process from scratch after problems occur.
12. Summary of Our Core Concerns for the Record
Traffic: Daily traffic management along Quito Road and surrounding neighborhoods, including traffic-light placement and spacing between Allendale and Pollard, cumulative development impacts, and transparency regarding why a four-way signal at Pollard has not been pursued.
Safety: The potential uncontrolled pedestrian and vehicle crossing associated with new development access; the safety of children walking and biking to Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary; the risk of cut-through traffic on Ravenwood Drive; and whether Campbell Union School District has been consulted regarding school-route safety.
Emergency Access: Traffic management and access planning for fire and paramedic response and neighborhood evacuation, particularly during weekday school drop-off/pick-up and work-commute periods when congestion is at its worst.
Parking: The possibility that insufficient on-site guest and secondary-vehicle parking will push vehicles into established Saratoga and Los Gatos neighborhoods.
Privacy and Trees: Protection of adjoining single-family homes from direct third-story sightlines and preservation of mature perimeter trees and landscaping.
Creek and Drainage: Specific protections for creek and neighboring and downstream properties.
Cross-Jurisdictional Impacts: Confirmation that directly affected Los Gatos residents, the Town of Los Gatos, relevant Los Gatos departments, and Campbell Union School District have been appropriately notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate.
Closing
We recognize that this letter raises concerns after key legal determinations affecting Builder’s Remedy applicability, unit count, and CEQA/AB 130 exemption status have already been made.
We are not asking the Commission to reopen those determinations.
We understand that state housing law limits much of the City’s discretion here. But that should not mean that reasonable protections for existing residents on either side of the Saratoga/Los Gatos boundary simply disappear.
Having lost the ability to meaningfully shape the fundamental scope of this project, we are asking the Commission and City to use every authority still available to reduce its impacts and require meaningful mitigation for both the Saratoga and adjoining Los Gatos neighborhoods.
We ask the City to:
Provide direct, specific, on-the-record answers to the questions above;
Hold the line on traffic, safety, parking, tree-retention, privacy, drainage, and creek-protection conditions;
Evaluate the cumulative impact of this development together with the nearby Marshall Lane development;
Confirm that neighboring Los Gatos residents have been properly notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate;
Confirm that the Town of Los Gatos and Campbell Union School District have been appropriately consulted regarding impacts within their jurisdictions; and
Improve how future projects of this scale are communicated to affected communities.
We believe this is the least the City can offer residents who had no meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the project’s fundamental scope.
We want to be very clear: we are not asking Saratoga to prevent housing from being built here. We recognize the City’s and the State’s need for additional housing.
We are asking Saratoga to make sure that 69 new residences can coexist responsibly with the families who already live here on both sides of the city line, and that all directly affected neighboring communities have a meaningful opportunity to participate before final decisions are made.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
We respectfully request a written response addressing each of the items raised above and ask that these questions and responses be made part of the public record.
Petition Closed
The Issue
PUBLIC COMMENT APPLICATION CPX24-0007/SUB26-0003
14076 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA
Planning Commission Hearing
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
c/o Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
criordan@saratoga.ca.us | (408) 868-1235
Also submitted via the City’s Planning Commission public-comment portal
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
We are writing regarding Application CPX24-0007/SUB26-0003, the proposed development at 14076 Quito Road. We live along Quito Road which becomes Lawrence Expressway is the only route in or out of our neighborhood.
We are submitting this letter with a clear understanding of the legal posture of this application and with considerable disappointment in how the City has managed this process.
We support responsible housing development. We are not asking the Commission to prevent this site from being developed. But increasing this site from the roughly 10 units contemplated in the City’s own Housing Element to the 69 units now proposed requires careful, specific, on-the-record consideration of the project’s actual effects on the surrounding Quito neighborhood and the adjoining Los Gatos community.
A Note on Where We Stand
We want to be direct with the Commission: we understand that this project’s unit count, density, height, and general scope are effectively no longer within the Commission’s discretion to change.
In Saratoga’s adopted Housing Element, the 14076 Quito Road site was identified as an approximately 3.56-acre vacant parcel surrounded by existing single-family uses. The City contemplated rezoning the site from R-1-40,000 to R-1-10,000, with an estimated capacity of approximately 10 residential units.
The current proposal is for 69 total units, including 55 attached three-story residential units plus 14 accessory dwelling units, nearly seven times what the City’s own Housing Element contemplated for this site.
We understand this discrepancy exists because the project’s preliminary application was submitted on March 18, 2024, before Saratoga’s Housing Element was certified by the State on July 8, 2024, allowing the project to proceed under the Builder’s Remedy. We further understand that the project has since been deemed exempt from environmental review under AB 130.
We are not asking the Commission to relitigate those determinations. We recognize that the battle over whether 69 units, at three stories, should be built on a site the City itself once envisioned for roughly 10 homes has effectively already been lost.
That is precisely why the specific, answerable questions below matter so much to us. They represent the remaining decisions the Commission and staff can still influence, and we expect direct, specific, on-the-record answers not general reassurances.
The City’s Communication With Affected Residents
We respectfully but candidly believe the City’s public communication regarding this project has been inadequate.
To our knowledge, no on-site signage has been posted at 14076 Quito Road notifying passersby, pedestrians, or neighboring residents of the pending application and hearing. This differs from the practice of neighboring jurisdictions. The Town of Los Gatos, for example, posts on-site notice signage for comparable pending developments, such as the project at Knowles and Dardanelli.
Given that the intensity of this project is approximately 6.9 times what the City’s own Housing Element anticipated for the property, we believe on-site signage should have been a baseline courtesy to the surrounding neighborhood. We ask that the City commit to this practice for future applications of this magnitude.
Cross-Jurisdictional Notification: The Adjoining Los Gatos Neighborhood
We are particularly concerned about notification and participation by the immediately adjoining Los Gatos neighborhood along Pollard Road.
This project does not exist in isolation simply because it sits within Saratoga’s city limits. The neighboring Los Gatos community along Pollard Road is directly adjacent to this area and may experience many of the same traffic, parking, pedestrian, bicycle, drainage, emergency-access, and quality-of-life impacts as Saratoga residents.
We therefore respectfully ask the City to clarify, on the public record:
● Was the Town of Los Gatos itself formally notified or provided an interagency referral regarding this project?
● Have Los Gatos Planning, Public Works, traffic engineering, or emergency services been given an opportunity to evaluate potential impacts on Pollard Road and the adjoining Los Gatos neighborhood?
City boundaries should not determine whether an immediately adjoining homeowner has an opportunity to be heard about impacts that cross those boundaries.
Rolling Hills Middle School, Marshall Lane Elementary, and Student Safety
This area also serves as a walking, biking, and drop-off/pick-up route for students attending Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary School, both part of the Campbell Union School District.
Rolling Hills Middle School draws students from this immediate neighborhood, including areas along Quito Road, Marshall Lane, and Pollard Road. Student pedestrian and bicycle traffic on these streets is significant during school arrival and dismissal times. These are hours that overlap directly with morning and afternoon commute peaks already affecting this corridor.
We ask the City to answer, on the record:
● Has Campbell Union School District and specifically Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary been formally notified of and consulted on this project, given that student walking and biking routes to both schools run through the affected Quito Road/Marshall Lane/Pollard Road area?
● Has a school-route safety analysis been conducted addressing the added vehicle trips from this project and the nearby Marshall Lane development during school arrival and dismissal windows?
● What specific crossing guards, signage, striping, or other pedestrian-safety measures will be required at the Marshall Lane development’s new, currently uncontrolled entry/exit and at other new or modified access points?
● Will the City coordinate with Campbell Union School District’s transportation and safety staff before this project is approved, rather than after safety issues are observed post-occupancy?
Given that Rolling Hills Middle School serves students from both the Saratoga and Los Gatos sides of this boundary, student safety deserves the same cross-jurisdictional coordination we are requesting for the surrounding neighborhoods.
1. One Entrance/Exit for 69 Residences
The entire 14076 Quito Road development is proposed to use a single ingress/egress point at Marshall Lane.
We understand the City’s Public Works Department has already required substantial changes at this location. The driveway is to function essentially as another leg of the Marshall Lane intersection, with 35-foot corner radii, ADA ramps, a minimum 30-foot street width at the intersection, a new six-foot sidewalk, a five-foot bike lane with a two-foot buffer, and roadway work along the project’s Quito Road frontage.
We ask the Commission to require the City to answer, on the record:
● Has the City formally evaluated whether a single access point is adequate for 69 residences for everyday traffic and emergency access, including fire, paramedic response, and evacuation? If so, please provide that analysis.
● What specifically happens at the Quito Road/Marshall Lane intersection during morning school and work commute periods and evening peak periods once this project and the nearby Marshall Lane development are both occupied?
2. Traffic and Circulation Analysis
We request that the City provide, and that the Commission review on the record, the traffic-impact or circulation analysis performed for this project, including:
● Existing AM/PM peak-hour traffic conditions and delay along the Quito Road corridor and relevant intersections;
● Projected trip generation from the 69 units;
● The effect on Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Pollard Road, and adjoining neighborhoods;
● The effect on emergency response and evacuation;
● Construction traffic, including haul trucks and worker vehicles; and
● Cumulative impacts from other nearby development rather than evaluating 14076 Quito Road in isolation.
Quito Road already experiences significant AM and PM congestion. Because it is the sole point of ingress and egress for residents on Ravenwood Drive and surrounding streets, this is not merely an inconvenience. It affects how quickly residents can evacuate during a fire, medical emergency, or other emergency and how quickly emergency vehicles can reach our neighborhood.
3. Parking
The 55 primary units have two-car garages, but the project provides only 15 guest parking spaces. This is roughly one guest space for every 4½ residences when the 14 ADUs are included.
We ask the applicant and staff to answer:
● Where are residents with more than two vehicles, visitors, caregivers, contractors, delivery drivers, and service providers expected to park once those 15 spaces are full?
● What specific mechanism will prevent parking generated by this project from spilling into Marshall Lane, Ravenwood Drive, Pollard Road, and surrounding single-family streets?
Given the additional vehicles this project and the nearby Marshall Lane project will introduce, we also ask the Commission to consider recommending a residential parking-permit program for Ravenwood Drive and Marshall Lane if post-occupancy conditions demonstrate that one is necessary.
4. Three-Story Buildings, Privacy, and Neighborhood Transition
The proposed buildings are approximately 37–38 feet tall and directly adjacent to an established single-family neighborhood.
Residents on the second and third floors will be able to look down into neighboring backyards and potentially into windows and private outdoor living areas of the single-story homes immediately next door. This is not simply a concern about having a larger building nearby. The additional height creates new sightlines into areas of property that currently have reasonable residential privacy.
Saratoga’s own residential design guidance recognizes that privacy should be addressed primarily through building design, not simply through landscaping or fences. The City’s standards specifically address upper-story windows, balconies, setbacks, sill heights, and privacy screening.
For homes immediately adjoining the property, we ask the Commission to require specific answers regarding:
● The placement of second- and third-floor windows and balconies relative to existing homes and backyards;
● Direct sightlines into neighboring properties;
● Increased setbacks where feasible;
● Window-orientation changes;
● Privacy screening and landscaping; and
● Preservation of mature perimeter trees as part of the privacy mitigation.
● Not to rely on future landscaping as the sole mechanism for ensuring privacy, as newly planted trees take years to mature and provide meaningful screening;
● The impact of the three-story buildings on sunlight and shadow access for adjoining single-family yards and windows, and whether a shadow study has been prepared; and
● Visibility and sightline design (natural surveillance) between the development and adjoining properties, so that building orientation, fencing, and landscaping do not create hidden or poorly lit areas along shared property lines that raise safety concerns for neighboring children and residents.
Even if the City must accommodate the project’s density, we respectfully ask that it use every authority it retains to minimize the direct privacy impacts on the existing homes immediately bordering the development.
5. Removal of Mature Trees and an Unexplained Discrepancy
The City of Saratoga has been recognized as an Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA for more than 15 consecutive years. As part of this program, the City commits to maintaining and growing its tree canopy. Trees provide significant community benefits: they reduce traffic noise by up to 40 percent, make neighborhoods seven to nine degrees cooler than those without trees, reduce energy costs up to 25 percent by shading buildings and protecting them from winter winds, play a major role in improving mental and physical health, and help absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, mitigating the effects of climate change.
Project materials have stated that 111 trees would be removed, including 71 protected trees. We understand that more recent agenda materials instead state that 64 protected trees are proposed for removal.
This discrepancy has not been explained to the neighborhood.
We ask:
● Why did the number of protected trees proposed for removal change from 71 to 64, and which specific trees account for the difference?
● Exactly which trees, identified by number and location on the arborist plan, will be removed versus retained?
● How many mature perimeter trees separating the development from existing homes will remain after construction?
● What size and species of replacement trees are proposed?
● How does staff justify replacement trees as adequate mitigation for mature trees when newly planted trees may require years or decades to provide comparable privacy screening, canopy, and noise buffering?
● Will the City require mature 15-gallon replacement trees along the perimeter together with full financial escrow deposits to ensure long-term survival and privacy protection?
As residents of a Tree City USA, we value all the benefits trees provide and we ask the Commission to continue investing in Saratoga’s tree future by requiring meaningful, not merely symbolic, mitigation for the removal of 64 protected trees.
6. The Extraordinary Density Increase Deserves a Direct Answer
Saratoga’s Housing Element contemplated approximately 10 units on this site and specifically recognized that it is surrounded by existing single-family uses.
The current proposal is 69 units, approximately 6.9 times what the City itself anticipated for this parcel.
We are not asking the Commission to reduce the unit count. We understand that determination has effectively already been made.
We are asking:
Given that the realized intensity of this site is nearly seven times what the City’s Housing Element anticipated, what specific additional conditions involving traffic, parking, tree retention, privacy, drainage, safety, or other impacts is the City imposing in recognition of that difference beyond what would have been required for the originally contemplated 10-unit project?
7. Creek
We understand that the property backs onto a creek.
With approximately 133,386 square feet of residential development, plus streets, driveways, and other hardscape, on a roughly 3.85-acre site, we ask:
● What is the projected increase in stormwater runoff compared with existing conditions, and what specific drainage infrastructure will manage it?
● What creek setback will be maintained?
● What erosion-control, water-quality, and habitat-protection measures will apply during and after construction?
● What is the flood risk to the creek corridor and downstream or adjacent properties from increased hardscape, and what analysis supports the City’s conclusion?
Because this project is currently being treated as exempt from CEQA review under AB 130, we believe these questions are especially important to place on the public record.
8. Cumulative Development: 14076 Quito Road Cannot Be Reviewed in Isolation
This is one of multiple Builder’s Remedy and other housing projects the City is processing in this corridor.
In particular, the 14076 Quito Road project and the separate, larger planned development near Marshall Lane sit close enough together that their access points and combined effects on Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Pollard Road, and surrounding neighborhoods must be reviewed together and not as unrelated applications.
A number of neighbors along Ravenwood Drive, Quito Oaks, Montpere, and Marshall Lane collectively representing roughly 100 existing households who already enter and exit onto Quito Road believe the following access/circulation concept merits serious consideration:
● Convert the existing signal at Pollard from a three-way to a four-way intersection and route the larger Marshall Lane development’s entry/exit directly to that controlled intersection. This would place the higher-volume development’s traffic at a controlled intersection rather than creating additional uncontrolled turning movements on Marshall Lane.
We also ask the Commission to consider whether a roundabout at Pollard/Quito would be the superior solution. There is sufficient space at the Pollard/Quito intersection for a midsize roundabout. A roundabout would dramatically improve ease of entry and exit and safety for residents of both new developments. It costs approximately one-third the price of installing the proposed signalized intersection at Marshall Lane and Quito. It improves traffic flow by 70–89 percent at all times, reduces accident-related injuries by 75–90 percent, and requires annual maintenance at just 15 percent of the cost of maintaining a signalized intersection. It also reduces environmental impact by eliminating the need for vehicles to idle and accelerate at lights. This is a win-win-win solution for developers, existing and new residents, and the City. Most critically, routing traffic to a roundabout at Pollard/Quito rather than to an intersection at Marshall Lane — the narrowest street in Saratoga, used daily by children walking to school — would meaningfully reduce the risk of serious injury to children that the current proposal creates.
The rationale is straightforward:
● It avoids stacking multiple traffic signals at close intervals along the relatively short stretch of Quito Road between Allendale and Pollard;
● It reduces the risk of Quito Road backing up across that corridor during peak periods;
● It avoids creating a new uncontrolled street crossing on Marshall Lane where children currently walk to and from school; and
● It places the higher-volume development’s traffic-control burden at the already controlled Pollard/Quito intersection rather than introducing additional uncontrolled turning movements on a smaller residential street with school foot traffic.
We recognize that the Commission’s authority to dictate site design on a Builder’s Remedy project is limited. Nevertheless, we ask that the access and circulation design and the rationale for rejecting a four-way Pollard configuration, if one exists be placed on the public record with full transparency.
We also ask the City to state plainly whether preserving the current access configuration is related to preserving the developer’s unit count. We understand that as many as six units may be affected. If that understanding is incorrect, please clarify it on the record.
A private economic preference for a handful of additional units should not outweigh documented neighborhood safety concerns.
9. First Responder Access
Quito Road is a semi-rural two-lane road that already experiences significant congestion during commute hours and school drop-off and pick-up times. The two Builder’s Remedy projects in this neighborhood are adding nearly 200 units—equating to more than 400 people and 400 cars. Those residents will have emergencies, and their vehicles will compound existing traffic. Paramedics traverse Quito Road daily responding to emergencies, and ambulances transport patients to the hospital on Pollard Road.
Increased daily traffic from the proposed developments will complicate the ability of first responders to reach residents quickly and to transport patients in a timely manner, particularly during peak traffic periods. The narrow, winding character of Quito Road makes it challenging for vehicles to pull over and allow emergency vehicles through.
If there were to be an emergency requiring evacuation, major gridlock is expected due to the added density from these Builder’s Remedy developments and because Quito Road is the designated evacuation route for neighborhoods in Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos all the way to Highway 9. An evacuation would simultaneously impede the ingress of first responders and slow residents’ ability to evacuate—a dangerous situation for everyone.
The Ask
We ask the Planning Commission to take the following actions to address First Responder Access:
● Analyze the impact of the proposed developments on traffic and make decisions about the placement of traffic lights, ingress/egress driveways, and project density with First Responder Access explicitly in mind.
● Base these decisions on the cumulative effect of all development projects in the area including Quito Road, Marshall Lane, Vineyard One, Cox Avenue, and El Paseo, rather than on a project-by-project basis, as their cumulative effect will be the reality.
● Work with First Responder agencies to confirm that they are adequately staffed to handle the increased population density and that expected traffic conditions will not impede service metrics. Our lives depend on it.
10. Emergency Evacuation
This project adds 69 households and nearly 140 cars to the area, all of which would need to evacuate through a single entryway onto Quito Road in the event of an emergency such as a fast-moving wildfire. Imagine the difficulty of evacuating in a timely manner along Quito Road, particularly given traffic signals at Pollard to the south and Allendale to the north, which is a situation that could be worsened further by a new signal at Marshall Lane.
While we understand that an Environmental Impact Review is not required for the Quito Road project, the draft EIR for the nearby Marshall Lane Builder’s Remedy project noted that there is no mitigation for increased traffic when considering cumulative projects in the area, which includes the development at 14076 Quito Road. The Marshall Lane EIR additionally asserts that area projects will have “no significant cumulative impact” to emergency access “because other developments may be required to perform mitigations.” The Quito Road development can only worsen the impact identified in the Marshall Lane EIR, as it will use the exact same intersection as a point of access to and from Quito Road.
The Ask
We ask the Planning Commission to take the following actions to address risks to Emergency Evacuation:
● Update the City’s Emergency Evacuation Plan to account for all development proposals currently submitted to the City, and take into account all neighborhoods that have Quito Road south of Allendale as a designated evacuation route.
● Require traffic improvements that will streamline evacuation for this development and surrounding neighborhoods, including other new developments. In particular, consider how three closely-spaced traffic signals along Quito Road will impact evacuation from the area.
● Analyze the cumulative evacuation capacity of Quito Road for all existing and proposed developments and confirm that the corridor can support safe and timely evacuation of all residents under emergency conditions.
11. Conditions of Approval We Are Requesting
Given that this application is proceeding under the Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy, we understand the Commission’s ability to deny the project or alter its density, height, or unit count is extremely limited.
We are not asking the Commission to disregard state law.
We ask that, consistent with whatever authority the City retains under Government Code § 65589.5(d)(5) and (j) and applicable local ordinances, any approval include:
● A construction traffic-management plan limiting haul-truck and heavy-equipment movement to off-peak hours;
● Funding or provision of specific intersection and signal improvements identified as necessary by the traffic analysis before occupancy;
● A monitoring and reporting requirement so that if post-occupancy traffic data shows unsafe delay at Quito Road/Marshall Lane or elsewhere in the affected corridor, mitigation is triggered;
● A dedicated, earmarked funding mechanism, such as a traffic-impact-fee reserve, to pay for neighborhood traffic-calming or pedestrian improvements if post-occupancy data demonstrates a need;
● Maximum feasible retention of mature trees and landscape buffering along shared property lines;
● Specific privacy mitigation for adjoining single-family properties;
● Specific, binding drainage and creek-protection measures addressing creek; and
● Appropriate measures to address parking spillover if post-occupancy conditions demonstrate a problem.
We are not requesting that specific physical improvements such as sidewalks or speed bumps automatically be constructed on Ravenwood Drive or Marshall Lane today. We are asking that funding be identified or reserved so residents are not forced to begin the process from scratch after problems occur.
12. Summary of Our Core Concerns for the Record
Traffic: Daily traffic management along Quito Road and surrounding neighborhoods, including traffic-light placement and spacing between Allendale and Pollard, cumulative development impacts, and transparency regarding why a four-way signal at Pollard has not been pursued.
Safety: The potential uncontrolled pedestrian and vehicle crossing associated with new development access; the safety of children walking and biking to Rolling Hills Middle School and Marshall Lane Elementary; the risk of cut-through traffic on Ravenwood Drive; and whether Campbell Union School District has been consulted regarding school-route safety.
Emergency Access: Traffic management and access planning for fire and paramedic response and neighborhood evacuation, particularly during weekday school drop-off/pick-up and work-commute periods when congestion is at its worst.
Parking: The possibility that insufficient on-site guest and secondary-vehicle parking will push vehicles into established Saratoga and Los Gatos neighborhoods.
Privacy and Trees: Protection of adjoining single-family homes from direct third-story sightlines and preservation of mature perimeter trees and landscaping.
Creek and Drainage: Specific protections for creek and neighboring and downstream properties.
Cross-Jurisdictional Impacts: Confirmation that directly affected Los Gatos residents, the Town of Los Gatos, relevant Los Gatos departments, and Campbell Union School District have been appropriately notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate.
Closing
We recognize that this letter raises concerns after key legal determinations affecting Builder’s Remedy applicability, unit count, and CEQA/AB 130 exemption status have already been made.
We are not asking the Commission to reopen those determinations.
We understand that state housing law limits much of the City’s discretion here. But that should not mean that reasonable protections for existing residents on either side of the Saratoga/Los Gatos boundary simply disappear.
Having lost the ability to meaningfully shape the fundamental scope of this project, we are asking the Commission and City to use every authority still available to reduce its impacts and require meaningful mitigation for both the Saratoga and adjoining Los Gatos neighborhoods.
We ask the City to:
Provide direct, specific, on-the-record answers to the questions above;
Hold the line on traffic, safety, parking, tree-retention, privacy, drainage, and creek-protection conditions;
Evaluate the cumulative impact of this development together with the nearby Marshall Lane development;
Confirm that neighboring Los Gatos residents have been properly notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate;
Confirm that the Town of Los Gatos and Campbell Union School District have been appropriately consulted regarding impacts within their jurisdictions; and
Improve how future projects of this scale are communicated to affected communities.
We believe this is the least the City can offer residents who had no meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the project’s fundamental scope.
We want to be very clear: we are not asking Saratoga to prevent housing from being built here. We recognize the City’s and the State’s need for additional housing.
We are asking Saratoga to make sure that 69 new residences can coexist responsibly with the families who already live here on both sides of the city line, and that all directly affected neighboring communities have a meaningful opportunity to participate before final decisions are made.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
We respectfully request a written response addressing each of the items raised above and ask that these questions and responses be made part of the public record.
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on September 27, 2026