Council denies appeal, allows tentative three‑lot parcel map at 13785 Saratoga Avenue

The Saratoga City Council voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a tentative parcel map that would subdivide 13785 Saratoga Avenue into three parcels, in a 2026 public hearing that focused on bridge design, fire access and potential floodplain impacts.

Appellant Partho Mishra, speaking on behalf of neighbors, told the council the application “is not a NIMBY situation” but raised engineering and safety concerns, saying the plan “relies on a fire access design which is completely unproven” and that the proposed 75,000‑pound bridge crossing Saratoga Creek could present a hazard in flood or earthquake conditions. Mishra and multiple residents urged the council to require engineering and environmental analyses before approving the subdivision map.

The applicants, Michelle and Mark Bridal, said their tentative‑map submittal complies with city code and that the filing is intended to enable future housing for family members. Mark Bridal thanked staff and the planning commission and asked the council to deny the appeal so the applicants could continue the process.

Planning staff explained that a tentative map is a subdivision mapping action and does not itself authorize construction; final engineering, bridge permits, grading and any building permits must be reviewed and approved through subsequent processes. Staff noted nine protected trees are identified for removal for the fire‑turnaround and that the city arborist recommends tree‑removal conditions tied to later permit stages.

Councilmembers asked technical questions about easements, whether the bridge is on private property or a city street extension, and how later reviews by the fire department, Valley Water and state fisheries regulators would be handled. Staff said the bridge would be on the applicant’s property and that the applicant would be responsible for its maintenance; agency reviews and construction‑level approvals occur during the improvement and building‑permit phases.

After discussion, Councilmember Bilal Aftab moved to deny the appeal; Vice Mayor Walia seconded. The motion carried, and the council instructed staff and the applicant that required engineering, permitting and environmental reviews must be satisfied before any work or tree removals proceed. The council’s action preserves the planning commission’s findings and allows the applicant to pursue conditions and final mapping, subject to subsequent approvals and compliance with arborist and permitting conditions.

The council also reiterated existing protections in the conditions of approval: no trees identified by the arborist may be removed until building permits are ready for issuance and required permits are obtained. The council recorded direction to return or review specific permit conditions if future technical work identifies changes or additional protections are needed.

What’s next: The tentative map now moves forward under the city’s standard process; any construction, bridge work or tree removal will require the appropriate engineering studies, agency permits and building permits before work can begin.