Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Thursday, October 17, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting , **********,~,~,~******** CE~172 - Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of'Zoning Request ~rom '~"'(Agriculture) and "R-1-4O,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); Continued from July.16~ 1974 TABLE OF ~CONTENTS Page I. .-ROUTINE ORGANIZATION 'A. ROLL CALL ............................... 1 (. !!. PUBLI~'~AR~Nd" : ~"~ ' A. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION · .i'.,'.!' Introduction: Brian Unter . . .z ................ 1 :~,L.'-..Geology and Soils Stability: RUssell and Gary Stephenson . 1 (a). Fault Zones: Gary Stephen~on ............... 2 (b) Soils Stability and Landslides: Russell Crowther ..... 2 (1) Impact of Geologic and soils Investigation ...... 2 (2) soils Stability ................. 3 (3) Cost of Landslide Problem .............. 4 .. (4) Geological Information Prior to Tentative Map Approval 5 (5) Conclusions ..................... 5 (6) Requests by Friends of Painless Parker ........ 6 3. Traffic on Comer Road: Don Norling .............. 6 4. Traffic - Prospect and Stelling Roads: Mary Lou Greely .... 7 · ~. Cost/Revenue Analysis: John Weir ............... 8 6. Scenic Quality: Joe Butler . .. ................ 9 7. Conclusion: Brian Unter .... · ................ 10 B OTHER PUBLIC RESPONSE ........ . ................ 10 C CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN: Richard Frisbie .......... 11 D APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS: Car~'Green!ee'.and Ben Patterson ...... 11 E ENVIROS: Sandra Rennie ....................... 12 F WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ....................... 13 G COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ..................... 14 III. ADJOURNMENT ........... · .................... 14 OF SARATOGA PLANNING MINUTES DATE: ThurSday, October 17, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni and Woodward Absent: Commissioner Smith II.! PUBLIC~R~ CE-172 - Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-4Q;000'~PC'' (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); Continued from July 16~ 1974 Chairman Marshall explained that this public hearing had been continued from July 16, and that it was required as part of the request for rezoning. He noted that no action would be taken at this meeting in that Enviros was not prepared to present their response. He reopened the public hearing on CE-172 at 7:40 p.m. A. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION 1. Introduction: Mr. Brian Unter~ 21192 Maria Lane~ SaratoSa~ California Mr. Unter commended the Center of Environmental Design on a more complete EIR, · : particularly in regards to the sections on hydrology, flood control, biotics, atmosphere, and the effort to save more trees. He stated that the Friends of Painless Parker had prepared a 50-page supplement to the Citizen's EIR which addressed four major points~, and of which an oral presentation would be given: geology and soils stability, traffic, cost/revenue, and scenic quality. 2. GeoloSy and Soils Stability: Russell Crowther and Gary Stephenson Mr. Crowther, 29788 Norada Court, explained that in reviewing the revised EIR, the following questions were considered: "(~) How do other communities located along these fault lines treat these faults? (2) Is geotechnical information re- quired prior to or after tentative map approval? (3) Is there a requirement for geotechnical information in the EIR?' He stated, "we found in general that the information in the EIR conflicted with the information obtained from:" (a) Monte Bello Ridge Study (b) Saratoga General Plan by Fugro, inc. (c) Santa Clara County Geologist, Jim Berkland (d) Los Altos Hills Geologist, Professor William Cotton (e) Santa Clara County Hazards Map (.1974) by Dr. John Willjams and Thomas Rogers (f) California Division of Mines and' Geology (g) U.S. Geological Survey (h) Geologic Analysis of Glover/Persing p~operty across the road from Parker Ranch (Relative to this, Mr. Crowther pointed out that the County of Santa Clara required detailed geotechnical study prior to tentative map approval.) At this time, Mr. Crowther ~xpressed appreciation to the!~ollowing people who assisted in providing geologic- and soils-information: (a) Santa Clara County: Jim Berkland, County Geologist (b) City of Los Altos Hills: Profes:§or':nCotton and Virginia Huffstetter (c) U.S. Geological Survey: Robert McGlaughlin, Dennis Sorg, Earl Brabb and Dave Jones (d) California Division of Mines and Geology: Dr. Willjams and Charles Armstrong (e) Thomas Rogers, Woodward and Lundgren in Oakland (f) Woodside Planning Commission (g) San Mateo. County Planning Commission .. .... . .. .......... ; - .. .................................................................... i-._ ' ............ .................................. _ . _:- ...... MINUTES OF SPECIAL OCTOBER 17, 1974 Fault Zones: Gary Stephenson~ 22505 Rollin~ Hills Road~ Saratoga Mr. Stephenson stated that the p~rp6se of his presentation was to clarify ques- tions relative to what kind of faults existed, whether they were faults, where they were located, and the kind of activity each fault had. He explained that the Santa Clara County Hazards Map by Rogers and Armstrong, and conversations with Robert McGlaughlin (U.S. Geological Survey) were the primary sources of information. Relative to the Santa Clara County Hazards Map, Mr. Stephenson pointed out Shannon Fault and two fault traces'or "shear zones"~went through the property. Further he quoted the following expIanation of the double deltas as shown on map: "Indicates a point of fault evidence, such as off-set bedding, fault gauge, local complex structure and fault trenches." Mr. Stephenson pointed out, however,! that Mr. McGlaughlin (~SGS)'~i~dicated he felt the strata might be folded in the area rather than faulted; stating that if this were. true, the~Sha~'F~'~l~'~'~b~ly curved around the base of the mountains. Mr. Stephenson offered as a possibl~ explanation for the differenCe'6f opinion between these two sources, the scale of the maps used: the scale of the map used by Rogers and Armstrong was 1" = 1,000 feet, while the scale of the map used by Mr. McGlaughlin was 1" = 24,000 ~eet. Further Mr. Stephenson pointed out that Mr. McGlaughlin had recently published a paper on the Berrocal Fault which clZaimed the fault was definitely active. The paper explained that the S~a.nnon Fault was presently locked into position, and the pressures were being relieved by stress into.the Berrocal Fault. He pointed out that the BerrocalFEaUlt was located 5,000 feet from the Parker Ranch. He noted that the EIR claimed State and federal agencies rated the Shannon Fault as inactive. He sltated: "In talking with geologists, this is not true at all. We found very few geologists who rate any fault as inactive. State and federal agencies are attempting to map all of the active faults in the State of California; but the fact that a faultis not on .the maps does not mean it is imactive; it just means it'is ~till under study." Mr. Stephenson stated: "Our conclusion on these shear zones is that it is not a question of if they exist, but rather what is the activity and potential danger of a fault zone such as this. We feel this is best answered by a detailed, geo- logical analysis of the site, and a clarification by geologists who map the site in detail and who are very familiar with-the site." In summary, Mr. Stephenson stated: '~e feel the Shannon Fault is potentially active and may cross the northeast corner of the property. The shear zones do cross the property and the severity 'of the zones is in question. The Berrocal Fault is definitely active and falls. 5,000-feet from the property. The San Andreas Fault is active and is only 8-miles from theTprpperty. There are several questions that remain: the :exact .location of faults on or near the property needs to be determined; and. the activity and potential danger of the faults on or near the property needs clarification. With these two items we can find the effect all this has on Zthe development. ~"~S '~ur that because of the complexity of the geological informa~on,'~hat ~ ~onsuIting engineering geologist be retained byZ the City to help them in interpreting a lot of theL jargon, and to help in keeping the developer honest in the assessment of faults and potential hazards on the property." Soils Stability and Landslides: Russell Crowther Mr. Crowther stated that one of the areas of concern had been the fact that the references quoted by Mr. Stephenson were not referenced in the EIR. He further stated that another concern was thatwhen reviewing the references, "we found most of the information was taken out of context, and the content was favorable to the developer. Information that did not favor the developer was not quoted. We feel this geological information ~s biased and inaccurate." .~!.~iTM Impact of GeoloSic and Soils In~estiSation Mr. Crowther pointed out that the EIR indicated a more detailed geological apalysis would be done as soon as tentative map approval. He argued that a MINUTES OF SPECIAL : OCTOBER 17, 1974 detailed geological- and soils~investigation at the time of tentative map approval would impact the development in the following ways: (1) Number of h0~s that can be built on site (2) Location of h.omes and streets (3) Types of structures (4) Amount and location of vegetation that can be removed (5) Amount of cut and fill to achieve required slopes (6) Types of vegetation that must be planted (7) ·Drainage facilities that will be required (8) Other mitigating engineering solutions to identify soils and geolo- gical problems such as replacement of soils to correct soil creep problems He contended that the entire project was uncertain without an in-depth geo- logical and soils investigation, and that the environmental impact of the development could not be accurately assessed without one. He pointed out that it was to the builder's advantage that an in-depth geological-'and soil's- investigation be required in the EIR before a large financial investment was made. "(2). Soils Stability~-~'~_'_;..?~-'--~ ...... ~ ..................~'=,~-~'~':~ .... · .........'-"~" ~ ...........'. .................. · - .............. .-...-~ ~; ........=l'.'.?i~- ,-=:-?.'...~'..~.'..= ......~'..=:.~'..-l~-+--:..'.~"ll:'.-T~-.:-' ..... Mr. Crowther explained;'that a significant percentage of the area's soils contained mixtures of soil, rock and clay. He pointed out that if clay was saturated by water, its physical characteristics were changed and it becameTM a lubricant; further noting that in most cases these areas had found their own equilibrium and that if they could slide have already slid. He stated, "However I think you have to look at the disruptions of adding weight, cut- ~ing and filling, removing vegetation whether through cutting on the hills or fire which burns vegetation off the slopes, or adding water which upsets the balance, and the area becomes more susceptible to earthquake-induced · landslides." : He drew the Commission's attention to the Relative Seismic Stability Map (1974) prepared by Rogers and Willjams for Santa Clara Count'y which relate to vari. pus types of soils. He noted that the soils on the Parker Ranch were rat~dT:~:.."Ds"..r'a~s~ib"e~ an area of earthquake-induced landslides, and included areas of existing landslides and slopes. steeper than 15% unoer- .-, lain by bedrock uni~.s_ of low stability. Further, he maintained that the Santa Clara Formatioff~'soils were known'~o be the most unstable soils in the Bay Area, and -tha~.. th~"soils on the Parker ~'C~"'f~Ii'i~"ih'is category. .~' .. "'~,~"~'aaea- t~at 'D~ ~=~-i'~:i~a~'F"~:~ ~C'~:~'~;d""~'H~& w~s 'a' di'~'ec~ one:'to:0ne;'.. cot.relation-between soi'~.s that Fere susceptible to earthquake-induced land- ..' slides and soi.ls :that were susceptible to rainfall-induced landslides. Mr. Crowther drew attention to .the Surficial Geology Map (1974) by Rogers and Armstrong stating that the nomenclature contained therein pointed out "what we believe to be bias that has crept into the EIR." He stated that modern landslides as indicated .on the map were shown as "Q-.lm" or by "X". Further that the EIR consistently throughout the report indicated the large landslide on the prope.~ty as being ancient. He took issue with this by stating that there was a great difference in an old landslide and an ancient landslide, and that the Santa C,lara Hazards Map did not consider this land- slide to be ancient. Mr. Crowther stated that there were "X's" denoting modern landslides on the SurfiC:ial Map in this area which were not mentioned in the EIR, especially near theproposed Comer Drive extension. Added to this, Mr. Crowther pointed out 'that the map by Robert McGlaughlin, 'soOn to be released, showed the entire backside of the property being dotted with landslides as recent as 1974. He addressed the question of whether there were engineering solutions to these problems by citing the following quotations from geologists at the U.S. Geological Survey: "There are engineering solutions to all geological problems; but there are not practical engineering solutions to some landslide problems." -3- MINUTES OF SPECIAL OCTOBER 17~ 1974 '~'(2) Soils Stability: Russell Crowther - Continued Ba f~ "There are carcasses of houses and streets all through the Area Foothills that had the benefit of in-depth geologic and soils investigations by competent engineering geologists prior to and during construction." He pointed out that San Mateo County had recently rezoned all foothill property in hazardous landslide areas to a minimum of one-unit in 40 acres. In summary, Mr. Crowther stated: "The EIR is incorrect in stating that there are design and engineering solutions to all .landslide problems, and this should be corrected prior to acceptance. Also the problems in Santa Clara County have been small because there has not been much foothill construction. Further, Saratoga should get the help of a Competent engineering geologist who is not to be influenced in a biased way before it has these problems." (3) Cost of Landslide Problems..- ""'i"" 7 '=~:-~-?~'~ ~ ~-7 .......... Mr. Crowther introduced a report prepared by Earl Brabb in 1972 for the U.S. Geological Survey regarding the' costs of landslide damage in the year 1968-69. He pointed out that the Report ~eflected the following:~ (1) San Mateo County $3.6 million in damages due to landslides with over/one-third being paid by the public; (2) Allameda County $5.4 million damages with eight-tenths being paid by the public; and (3) Santa Clara County $1.8 million damages with half being' paid by the public. He explained that the latter figure was less because there was less hillside development in Santa Clara County. roads as a result of landslide problems, a~d that per a detailed analysis of the Persing property $1.2 million was spent through 1972. He stated: "We came to the conclusion that it is frequently the case that the people in the flatlands are subsidizing the people who live on the hills because no matter how good an engineering geologist you have, you are bound to have problemS.. if._yp_u.b~ild on soils like that of the Parker Ranch." Mr. Crowther gave the ~ri~i'ng exampl'a~'~f'l'aYd='s~li'~'~'r~b,~ms in the area: '~'. Slides on Highway 280 .'o ~' Sarahills Road ~o'. Slides in Los Gatos j~O,~ Palos Verdes Hills in Los 'Ang~l'es (He noted that as a result of land- slides, Los Angeles had adopted a very strict grading ordinance, and suggested the City of Saratoga might be interested in obtaining "Oi) In the year 1968-69 the costs in ~e Bay Area due to landslides c~e to $25.4 million. Relative to land-stability insurance, ~. Crowther explain~d~h'~l'I~rance 'Unde~riters reported the combined effect of landsl{'~eS,""~d'~fi"~e~, e~h /movements, expanding soils and other land-failure problems cost property '~['~'$2V3"[illion each year. Further', he noted tha~ th~l'ff~irS~preme :'Court ~i'e'd~h~h~e purchaser was not requiredYknow or interpr~'e ~n- ~'fs~tion 8~ining 'to ~logy, grading or construction, and~i~' was ~d~e~d~hat stri~l'i~b'fl'ity was ~Y~d'b~all'~t'ie~i~ ~h~ construction ~process regardI~'f"~hY pf~'~nce 0r ~b~'~nce. of neglect. Mr. Crowther stated that the following was a list of exclusions relative to land-stability insurance, noting that this was an area of high earthquake- induced landslides: .... ~. Losses which result from earthquakes, swiping pools, failure of the insured to control land-burrowing animals, gradual deterioration or slow and nodal erosion losses ~d~'~re-remov~ng vegetation. 0" Land stability coverage was limited to property- and' land~d~age,' but' not to loss of life, streets or open space. Mr. Crowther stated that -4- '~' MINUTES OF PEC .'ib) (~) Cost of LandSlide Problems: Russell Crowther - Continued per th'e U'.S. Geological SUrvey Repo~'~"'~ost of the costs were associa- ted with replacement of streets and roads, nofing that this was a large risk to the City of Saratoga and the' taxpayers. He further noted that if the City was shown to..~e negligent, as in the San Jose Highlands case, the City would be potentially liable. (o):' ~ssuance of land stability insurance usually for a 5-year period. Mr. Crowther stated that there could be a legal question of whether the City could require the property owners to maintain land-stability insurance for more than 5 years. Mr. Crowther agreed ~with the recommendation in the EIR that land-stabili.~___ ;~n'sur~nce redu'~d"~hU£sk'~dd'should be required, but he pointed out that it. did ngt ~otect the city for t~e largest risks nor for a'sufficient length of time. = (~.) '~Geological Information Prior to Tentative Map ApproVal Mr. Crowther noted that the Santa Clara County Hazards Map classed this property as "area of high potential for earthquake-induced landslides with site investigations mandatory unless detailed information permits waiver." ~H~d~d'~h'~'da~i~'d, recent 'l~'d~l'fd~ were mappdd'~h'~iiF, ~ and that the large landslidejwas not classed as being ancient. He stated that Santa Clara County required in-depth geological and soils investiga- tions as early as possible andlprior to either land division or tentative· map approval, adding "we think.this is quite significant because this property is~ight across the road from the Parker Ranch." He reported· that both Lo~ A~Qx~ Hills and Woodside require in-depth geological-~and.soils-- investigations as early as possible and prior to tentative map approval;··.' y~eh~"f'~h'gf'Sid"MA~Y6vC~un'~dh'~i~'dH"'iY~'~I13~51~'d~i~'b'~d'~ landslide potential, adding that property of Parker Ranch-type was zoned a maximdm of one home per 40 acres. -=... . ..... :~;_. ., ....:- -: --. ., (S) '~0hclusi~ .... Mr. Crowther summarized his presentation by stating that they felt the major danger on this site was from water-caused landslides, ·adding that the probability of earthquakes, even though the severity. of damages was much greater, was much lower than th'e probability of lahdslides caused by rain- fall or removing ~egetati6n. In this regard, he stated that he felt the large amount of cuts and fills,. vegetation removal and water-wdight added greatly to increase the risks.' He noted that Woodside and Los Altos Hills had a minimum grading ordinance not to exceed 3-feet cut and fill. He added: "This EIR proposes 30-45'ffeet cut and fill, a factor of more than 10 over what would be allowed in the ~Cities of Los Altos Hills and Woodside. We think it may be very worthwhile for the Planning Commission to contact these cities and ask them for their cut-and-fill restrictions." Mr. Crowther pointed out that the California Division of Mines and Geology. recommended that to err on the side of safety, the Shannon Fault be rated next to the San Andreas Fault in probability of future displacement. He stated that the Monte Bello Ridge Study regarded the fault as potentially active. He explained that their review indicated that the most reliabt~ technique for determining soils stability and location of faults was the strike-and - dip method. Also that Robert McGla~ghlin had indicated there was a bedrock scarf south of Prospect which was why there were questions on the position of the Shannon Fault. Mr. Crowther stated: "I think there is some possi- bility that the Shannon Fault follows the lines of the hills. We believe this.requires considerable investigation. This may be a tough investigation and may.requi~e an extensive geoteChhical measurement of the magnetic field and the'gravitation field because the fault lines"'are deep in the area and .... may be difficult to trench down to." -5- MINUTES OF. SPECIAL ME OCTOBER 17, 1974 · 'i~') (.5) Conclusions: RusSell Crowther - Continued He stated: 'We th~n~'that the burden of proof with regard to fault and landslide activity should not be with the City but the responsibility of the developer. We think the EIR does not reflect conclusions we have been able to derive in talking to geologists, and we feel it is biased and inaccurate." At this point~ Commissioner Matteoni asked the distinction between faults and shear zones. Mr. Crowther stated he was.not certain, adding that the Santa Clara maps indicated these as faults, while Robert McGlaughlin indicated they were folds. He added: 'We feel that one of the key things in the the .fault at all. But'he indicated that activity of this fault is uncertain; ,and .that the. greatest risk in this area was due to the San Andreas Fault '.because of"[h'~ insYiBiiity of soils, and any movement in the San Andreas '[~'~l'['6'6Ul'd' cause l~'dBl'i'de"~'i'~"this area. ~is is not in the EIR, and we t~al~i~ 'sh6U1H'B~' "~H~'~' along wi[h the"BYr~'~'al Fa'U'i[7''~C .......................... (6) Requests by Friends of Painless Parker The following requests were made: {o ,. Require in-depth geologic jr' ''] s~" ' '~ ~r'~'~15 ~ t~ ~. either land division or tentative ~p approval. ~.o~ City designate geological Consul~aR~,. to be app[0ved in ~ pUbl~q_~earing, to carry out in-depth geologic '~.." zsiiz '.'~x..v.~ti~'z~cz.~ Lt (z '~- ~ '. . . -' ....~.... · expense and to prepare geologic r.'.'6. ~s..ic sz '!c.'7- c=r] ¥-' z ~e Geologic and Soils Investigations% sho~l'd'fn~lVd~i~fh~'EIRi · Listing an,l'analysis of'all related geologic ~]~ ..... ~c~'~ ~'.57-?e~- -' ..... · Mapping of faults and analysis of probable stability -- e Test borings/pits, exploratory trenching, eea., measurements · ~pping of all landslides on site e In-depth soils investigations with regard to creep, erosion and landslides · Detailed analysi~ of landslide risks, including effects of vege- tation removal, weight addition, cut and fill ~ Detailed analysis of ri~ks from water tank location and services crossing faults · Detailed analysis of risks of isolation due to streets crossing faults ·Detailed analysis of soil stability risks from creep, shrin~-swell, lurch crack and erosion' s Detailed sugary of required engineering solutions to identified problems o Enviros to prepare an economical risk/analysis using some of the infomation prepared by the Santa Clara County. 3. Traffic on Comer Road: Don NorlinS~ 21000 Comer Drive~ SaratoSa~ California Mr. Norling stated that the latest maps in the EIR showed three access roads: the main one on Prospect and Stelling; an alternate access on Prospect which crossed the bridge; and a third potential access which~joined Comer Drive. In addressing the later access, Mr. Norling stated that they felt there were several inconsistencies in the Report: "Several places in the Report the coment is made that the Prospect access is adequate and no secondary access is required. Elsewhere in the Report there is an implication made by the Fire Chief and a representative fr~ the Sheriff's Department for reco~endation of secondary access with C~er Drive in parentheses." He explained that they could not con- tact Chief Kraule; but a Mr.---Mar~on,field enforcement officer with the Sheriff's Department, had stated he had been shown a map which had one access on it, 7[hif'h~fi~i't~ly reco~en~d' a ~O'~'dary access, 'b~h~~h~il ~fh~e to Bg'C~D[i~ ', Mr. Norling stated that they felt the Comer/Pierce intersection was a very hazardous intersection, and that.additional traffic would make the situation ......... ,.. . . ~ .~. ._ ~6- MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEE..'~j__ OCTOBER ' 17,: 19 74 =~.3. Traffic on Comer Drive: Don NorlingO- Continued ~" worse. Further, he stated that on down to Sa'ra~'og~-Sunnyvale Road, there was no traffic light and trying to make a left-hand turn would be difficult. He stated that he felt there was the po:ssibility that traffic lights might be' required at both of these intersections. He pointed out that the EIR estimated the traffic on Comer Drive would increase by 120% if there .was. no secondary access, and it would drop to 80% if this access existed. He stated that h~ did not think this made sense, and added: "e w feel the actual traffic estimates made are questionable because they are based on estimates and not actual traffic counts." He noted that the EIR stated r~h'~'increase of'tY~ffi~Co"~Ff"D~i~ w~'~I'd'~'6~'b'~'F~f~i~i~ht, and'F6~ issue Wi[h this statement by contending that 120% increase of traffic was very significant. Further Mr. Norling pointed out that the EIR stated Cbme~ extension would be the "logical circulation 10op for the entire area and the Parker Ranch." He noted that in other places in the Report, however, statements were made that most traffic would not use Comer Drive because it was indirect to arterial streets. He claimed that these two statements were contradictory, and added that if a third access was required, other alternatives rather than Comer Drive should be considered which provided a more direct access to arterial roads. Mr. Norling pointed out that the EIR acknowledged the Comer Drive extension would have growth-inducing characteristieS, stating that he felt it failed to consider the "snOwball effect of the growth-indUcement characteristics of Comer Drive as far as other developments are concerned." He stated: "It does not take into consideration the traffic estimates or effects on the environment." Further, Mr. Norling asked the question of who would be paying for the Comer Drive exten- sion, and stated that they did not feel this was properly addressed in the EIR. He noted that the EIR stated the developer had tentative agreement for sewer- line easements in the southeabt corn'er of Comer Drive, but it failed to mention anything about a road easement. He stated: "Until the specific location of the Comer Drive extension is defined, it is difficult to assess the environmental impact on that extension." Mr. Norling concluded his remarks by stating that they felt there were several homes in the EIR, and that there were conflicts in the EIR with regard to the Comer Drive extension. Further, he =introduced a petition into the record con- taining 45 signatures from residents' in the Comer/Pierce area who opposed the development in general and the Comer Drive extension specifically. Lastly, he added: '~e would recommend the decilsion on Comer Drive be postponed until the area-wide study in process now is completed." 4. Traffic - Prospect Road and Stelling Road: Mary Lou Greely, 21450 Prospect Road Cupertino~ California Mrs. Greely reported that she had contacted the traffic engineers at the County and the City of San Jose, and contended they were both surprised that this.project was being considered. She pointed out that Stelling Road did have a'=90~foot'.~i~h~_ of-way, but that neither San Jose, Cupertino or the County was aware of a pro- posed road-widening project budgeted for even 5-years in advance. She pointed out to the Commission the heavy use~of traffic on Stelling Road both before and after working hours, as well as during the day. Similarly, Mrs. Greely stated that the City ~f San Jose had been surprised also about the mention of improvements on Prospect Road east of Stelling, and contended they had nothing in their budgets for the next 5-years to cover this. Further she reported that Arthur Berger, traffic engineer with the County, had stated that he did not have any knowledge of proposed improvements on Prospec% which she felt would include any proposedZbridge off of Prospect Road. She stated that the EIR had indicated "feeder roads" would be the only problems as far as residential streets were concerned, but she contended that they would not be a problem to the City of Saratoga or the developer as most of the roads . - ..... ~ ...... would be in the County, in San Jose or Cupertino. She stated: "If you know -7- MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEE OCTOBER 17. 1974 4. Traffic - Prospect Road and Stellin8 Road: Mary Lou Greely - Continued your own Genera~'~~r~ is a provision which says that 13 or more houses on one street must have secondary access. I would suggest this proposed plan does not take this into consideration." Mrs. Greely questioned the 1971 statistics relative to the capacity of Prospect Road which stated that the amount of traffic generated from this project would be ably handled by the road. She reported a traffic adcident which occurred earlier in the week. She pointed out that the Public Utilities Commission had indicated there were two dangerous railroad crossings that were in the area, and that as a result the County was planning to abandon same 'and put in a curve west of Stelling. She stated that the EIR indicated this Would be completed next year, but pointed out that the County indicated this would be a long ways off. In conclusion, Mrs. Greely asked whether the answers contained in the EIR were factual, and stated that they felt more statistics should be obtained. Further, she recommended that the EIR consider the impact on ~rospect' Road because of the proposed widening of the curves and because of the proposed bridge. Lastly, she stated with regards to the on-going traffic study in the area: "If you have paid for an engineering firm to do a study, please hold off until this study has ~.~ ...... bee~ made." - ~ __ ~ ._ Mr. Weir directed the Commission's attention to the fiscal impact section on page 8 of the EIR, and stated "we would like to show you how it should have been prepared." He stated that the $60.18/capita used in the 'EIR for municipal expenditures was based on the assumption that there'were norma'l"~'0'~d'frontages within the City for maintenance and service. He pointed out that there were larger expanses of' roadway in the City which the City had to maintain, and that there were'more people per capita' in the City being serviced. He stated: "Although we.have used the same figures for lack of better ones, we .feel in reality this should be higher, and we ask that Enviros look into this. We suggest the ratio should be 2-4 times higher for maintenance costs." He next addressed the municipal revenue portion, pointing out that the sales/ use tax.had been estimated in the EIR at $3,214 on a per capita basis. He stated: '~"This project is within the area of Saratoga surrounded.by ~hepProspect Hills area and~h'~"4r"~U~l~ area, an~ our experience has shown that only 5% of our expenditures ever appear in Saratoga. There is room for latitude, but the point is the majority of expenses are out of the City." His next point was based on the same argument. He noted that the cigarette tax was based on 50% per capita and 50% on the location of the purchase, stating that they did allow 50% per capita but felt that only a 5% figure should be used regarding sales in the City. Regarding the subdivision and building permit fees, Mr. Weir pointed out that the City had recently raised its fee structure in order to just cover costs, ..... adding that the.figures shown in the EIR as income should actually be shown~as expenditures. His point was that in reality rather than having $144,000 income as was shown in the EIR, there would really be an annual loss of ~'377'6~'f~' '- 'wh{ch the remaining people in the City woul'd'have to sub~i~. · He listed the following 14 items as being additional costs which they felt should be addressed in the EIR: (a) Comer Road maintenance (b) Comer Road building costs (c) Possible Prospect Road enlargement or improvement costs including possible bridge replacement (d) Cost to city to enlarge Norada Court sewer and opening to carry extra water (e) Cost to flood control districtS(Santa Clara County Water District) to dredge ...... -. Prospect Creek and improve drainage channel between ArgUello and the ~-"'- ........ "L _~ .....Prospect Road/Stelling Road area where proposed development drainage converged -'8- ~. MINUTES OF SPECIAL ME] OCTOBER 17; 1974 .'5. Cost/Revenue Analysis: John Weir~ 12343 Arroyo de ArSuello~ Saratoga (f) Cost to build'desitting traps on Prospect Creek below development (g) Cost to clean and dredge silt traps annually until development land had heavy ~vergrowth (h) Liability to city for landslides and ruptured roads and services due to geology of areai~ (i) Costs to city for fire b~eaks (j) Costs to city for weed abatement '(k) Cost to city for annual cleanout of proposed catch basins and mosquito control (1) Added cost to Cupertino Sanitary District fo~ sewer maintenance and operation (m) Cost to enforce planned community architectural controls and court liti- gation costs during and after ~roject development (n) Possible Wardell Road and Pierde Road improvement costs including potential .. requirements for street lights;at the blind Pierce Road/C?mer Road intersection ..... Mr.'Weir next addressed [he ~h0ol district analyses made 'in the EIR. 'Pertain' ing to the Cupertino 'School District, he pointed out that the EIR estimated the cost per student at $585, exclusive of bond redemptions. Mr. Weir took issue with this by stating that he had discussed this with the school district, and that they had told him the income redeemed from special taxes or bond redemptions went directly to paying off bonds sO that there really was no income. He further pointed out that the State reduces its support to a school district on any sur- plus because it is based on the total number of students and the assessed valua- tion of property, adding that the school district indicated there was no way in the world they could do better than break even. He stated that in consequence, the surplus indicated was an illusion because the State would reduce. the amount · =' ............ .of aid and the result would be tO break-even. 'Relative to the Fre~ont High Schooi ~{strict, Mr. Weir ~sed "[h~ Same tax-rate bond-redemption argument, adding that the special taxes levied ~gainst the ex- penses had not been included by the school district when they gavelthe figure of $1,016 to the EIR representative.. Further Mr. Weir contended that the collier' factor was erroneous, and explained that this wasfused by the State in order to determine the amount of State aid. to be applied to school districts, adding that it had no application to the amount of funds and assessed valuation provided to the school district taxes. He stated that the collier factor should be $3,175,000 rather than the $2,600,00.0 figure quoted in the EIR. Mr. Weir's next point was relative to the Fremon~ High School District an~ the number of high school attendees. He reported that the Fremon~ High School District stated they had a yield of i.~.9 rather than .26~_;___~urther that the Saratoga High SChool District indicated their y~t~. was .783. He stated that the Saratoga High School District h~d pointed out their studies showed that homes whose ~alues were around $75,0.0p tended to have a yield of between .82 and .85. He stated that he took the more conservative figure of .783 to assess the number of students a 127-home pr~oject would have and h~ arrived at 99 ½' students. He stated: "The result is rather than a surplus of $31~700 as shown ~in the EIR, we suffer a loss of $32,000 annually." He pointed out that this "loss would not be recoverable from the City because the State~s contribution 6'. Scenic Quality: Joe Butler~ 21400 Arrowhead Lane~ Cupertino Mr. Butler pointed out that the EIR admitted the visual impact was adverse but would not be able to tell just how a~verse it would be. He stated: "They indicated they will be furnishing us with overhead maps and layouts, but we feel these are not adequate. Because we who live in this area do not view it from the top, we wish to have side views in order to be able to tell how adverse the impact is going to be." Mr. Buttler requested the following information be provided prior to acceptance of the EIR: (a) A more clear cut-and-fill plan on a contout map. He stated: "We see a great deal of danger in .therebeing scars on the hillsides far greater -~' than looking at a topographical map." He pointed out that no EIR had been required of the Blackwell Homes project in Belmont and claimed that there were scars on the hills there. He added: "We respectively suggest this does not add to the scenic. beauty, but rather would add to the '- - .......... unnatural 'dis-beauty~" MINUTES OF SPECIAL : OCTOBER17 ,~ 1974 Scenic Quality: Joe Butler - Continued (b) .The details of the water tank design had not been spelled out. He stated that the Water Company had indicated they would build a water tank to accommodate this development if the developer would pay them one-half million dollars in advance and prorate it over 25 years. He stated that beyond that, there were no restrictions as to what it would look like, adding: "will it be something Saratoga can see for years and admire rather than criticize?" (c) He stated that there was no treatment of silouhettes from a side-view of .roof-top e~e~ations. He requested profiles from Norada Court and Arroyo de Arguell0, the Greely resident, Highway 9 and the railroad tracks, and Wardell and Carniel. (d) He asked what the basis was for justifying that cut and fill would be minimum as required by the 1974 General Plan. He stated that Los Altos Hills had a maximum requirement of 3-4 feet cut and fill. He added: "If this is a minimum cut and fill in Los Altos Hills, and the 1974 General Plan calls for minimum cuts and fills, is 35-40 feet really what is meant?" Mr. Butler's next point was that pole-type homes as planned by the development were a fire hazard and an earthquake hazard. -He. pointed out that the residents in the area had for many years been trying to raise an ice-plant coverage, complaining that between the gophers chewing out large checker-board holes in the ice plant and weeds.growing .up in between, it was taking 2-5 years to get a .dense coverage. Further, he noted'~hat weed~'growing up und[~"homes coufd~dR'~B fast fire feeding. He pointed out that pole-type homes produced greater earth- quake hazards because they projected into the ai~ and were anchored to the soil on only one side. He stated that cr'ossmembers tould be used to strengthen the _homes, but that they looked like a bridge; further that '"~2'grade" construction'~ was ~aj~~ but more costly. He stated: '~e would strongly reco~end from a scenic ~tandpoint that pole-type homes not be considered adequate construction in the area due to fire, geological problems and maintenance hazards." Conclusion: Brian Unter Mr. Unter stated that they felt there waS a strong need for a more cohesive document; that they proposed an independent group evaluate the infomation sub- mitted to-date, and to organize it into one, cohesive doc~ent which would be a representative EIR for the Parker Ranch. To this statement Chai~n ~rshall 'explained that the Planning CoEission expected to have one more public hearing for any last testimony; afterwards Enviros,.anj · independent consultant. under contract to the City, would evaluate the EIR infor- mation, and in concert with ~e Planning Staff, provide a consolidated EIR. He ex- plained that once this had been done, the Planning Comission would made modifica- tions if necessary, would then vote on it, and forward it to the City Council. Mr. Unter continued by stating they felt that since this was the first develop- ment in the City to use an EIR, a precedent would be set and therefore this project should be a proper model for development in the Saratoga foothills. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review the EIR, and for the .......... Planning Co~ission's patience in reviewing and listening to their co~ents. ~CESS: 9:35 to 9:55 p.m. ' OTHER PBLIC RESPONSE Ms. Carol L~arre, 19332 Titus Court, Saratoga, stated that she was representing SOLVE. She stated that they felt by its very nature an EIR should consider in- depth changes on the effect of traffic patterns, and charged the EIR did not answer many of the questions presented by the citizens regarding traffic congestion. She contended that the EIR assumed the building of roads which were budgeted in the foreseeable future; and that it assumed'the construction of West Valley Freeway of which she pointed out was not planned as a freeway but as a transportation corridor. -10- MINUTES OF SPECIAL IG: OCTOBER 17. 1974 B. OTHER PUBLIC RESPONSE: Carol I~aMarre -.Continued She stated that they suggested the information resulting from the traffic study now in process be included in the EIR, and any decision be postponed until this study was completed and could be evaluated in Zrelationship to the subdivision. She stated that they were also concerned with preserving the environment, adding "and I want to protect my vistas." She showed a picturZe to the Commission of the Blackwell Homes project in Belmont pointing out the scars on the hillsides, and stating "and as you know this is not what our foothills look like now." C. CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN: Richard Frisbie Mr. Frisbie stated that he would be givihg a presentation at the next public hearing but that the consulting geologists were present f6r comment. He gave as a partial explanation for some of the confusion regarding the EIR, the continual up-dating of the Report. He added that·some of the original information went back to last year, that units had been dropped, and alternate plans studied. Mr. Frisbie stated that in regard to tra,ffic, thei~'~ff~c engineer did not consider Comer/Plerce intersection to be a traffic hazard. He added that the engineer assigned a 10% traffic flow through Comer because he felt most of the project's traffic would be going.in a southerly direction~ Mr. Frisbie pointed out that public agenties involved in the EIR process were_barraged by reports each day, that ·he believed"~f~'~'~d'f~'d~ copies of the EIR to the :County and'S'~jo~,b'~'f'~hi'~ reports h~d'~6B~fy not gotten to those p~pi~ ~'~'~'~l'd want to mak~ comments. He answered questions raised earlier on who would be pa~ing fo~ improvements as pro- posed in the EIR. He stated that the costs of improvements, ~ncluding Comer Drive extension, would be borne by the developer not by the City. Relative to the coSt/revenueaanalysis, Mr. Frisbie made several points: first that a cost/revenue analysis was subject to constant change; that it was intended to be exaggerated in opposition of theDp~oj'ect; and that the State guidelines did not require an EIR to consider cost/revenue 'analysis. He pointed out that there were many people who were relunctant to give ·them information regarding cost/revenue, and there were many who did not have the information available.· Further, he commented on the statements made earlier regarding the fiscal impact of the school district.__ He.explii~d'~h'~i'~'~h'8~l'f~s ~h~'~d' very rapidly, and that the answers obtained from the schqol district Oftentimes were dependent upon who one spoke to. He ex- pressed concern of Mr. Weir~s statement relative to the general figures used for students, stating that at the time the original EIR had been forwarded to the school district quoting the .265 figure,' no exceptions·~ad been taken. He explained that they had used bond redemption as income in their cost/revenue analysis because they felt in the absence of project~ bonds were not being redeemed as fast; and that if a project was-the~e~ bonds would be going faster. . ......................... Mr. Frisbie stated that he felt the visual impact was the most important factor discussed this evening. He reported that extensive slide-work with pictures taken from every possible angle had been done in order to ascertain what the impact would be, but they had not presented it this evening because they did not feel it was appropriate. He explained that they would be .presenting!the slides to Enviros and ~Staff in order to'let thom decide whether they were valid enough to present to the ......... ~ Commission. · .............. . ....~ .......... · ............- ............... ' ' ' 7--~ <"-'.~- z._ ~ ..... i~' ".~.' = .=" ' - ..... '~" i~.'.."':: D. APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS: :Carl Greenlee and Ben Patter-son , Mr. Carl Greeni'Ve,president of Applied SOils Mechanics,'.stated that he was a registered civil engineer with the State of California, and had been a consulting geologist in the Bay Area for 14 years. He explained that their firm had been retained by Black- well Homes in 1973 to commence a soils and geological study for the Parker Ranch, adding that their firm had performednumerousi~soils- and geological-investigations for EIRs in the Bay Area. He stated that he felt the work done on the·Parker Ranch so far had been much more detailed than was usually required at this stage. Mr. Ben Patterson, vice presideht, stated that he was a registered engineering geo- ~-~ ~...· · '. logist with the State and that he had been doing geotechnical studies in the Bay · l. ~'11~i' · ~'~ '~...; MINUTES OF' SPECIAL OCTOBER17, 1974 D. APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS: Ben Patterson - Continued _._~_Area for 9 years.~ ..~. explained that their firm had not 'been retained to do an in- depth g~'6'f6~iCal evaluation, but'to i~""for hazards. He reportec that"~h~y had considered the area thoroughly and that ,the actual on-site work had consisted of field reconnaisance, excavations, and loggings of test areas fhat the reconnaisance map indicated should be looked at. He explained that aerial photographs of the Parker Ranch, including'Tf~'fra'~re~, had been taken and studied. With regard to comments made relative to the lack of references in the EIR, Mr. Patterson reported that Prof. Cotton, consulting geologist with Los Altos Hills, had done the original field reconnaisanc.e and geological work for their firm in 1973. He further pointed out that detailed conversations had been had with Tom Rogers on the Monte Bello Ridge Study and Robert McGlaughlin with the U.S. Geological Survey. At this time he pointed out the area of old vs. ancient landslides was a matter of semantics and not of importanc.~e. Further, he stated that in studying the map prepared by Mr. McG!aughli~,' he ~gh~ a no. tat~on.~indicating 'lan~l~-~__a~y.~ty on thel. property. in the spring of 1973. Mr. Patterson: "I dg~"th'i~['~["'[~{S'~'[age~assive detailed geotechnical investi-- gations are appropriate'. I don't'believ'e'it is a part Of the EIR as'it was originally intended to function. We have attempted! to identify potential hazards. We acknow- ledge there may be other hazards; and therefore we recommended before final acCep- tance of this project, that extensive detailed soils and geological studies be done addressing hazards of stability and construction techniques and to provide mitigat- ing measures for hazards that we know exist." Commissioner Matteoni asked if the symbol "X" indicating modern landslides s~6~d'a degree of risk in the future. Mr. Patterson explained that it would require study, but that it did not indicate a particularly severe hazard which would~"r'~ flag" the development~. He stated that there were several landslides ah~places where soil creep existed, adding that there was an area of semantics o'~7,hethe~'~'~a'~.fi~dl~ movement of earth was a landslide or so{1 creep. Commissioner Martin and Chairman Marshall asked if it was the developer~s intention to do extensive geological revisions prior to or after tentative map approval, to which Mr. Heiss, developer's ~epresentative, replied prior to tentative map approval. Discussion followed on this point, and Mr. Crowther urged the City to be consistent with Santa Clara County in requiring an in-depth geological study prior to land division or tentative map approval as was being done on the Glover/Persing property across the road from the Parker Ranch. He pointed out that the Glover/Persing p~operty was an 8-acre parcel which the applicant had requested be subdivided. Chairman Marshall explained that once the developer proposed to subdivide, the City would require in-depth geological studies of-'tthe site, which was the exact thing Mr. Crowther was suggesting. He pointed out that requests for rezoning and requests for subdivision were not the sam~.a~d'~'~ a~'dB'diVision request follows the actual Chang§.of zoning. Mr. Crowther next asked how an EIR could be done without geotechnical information. Chairman Marshall pointed out that the EIR required geotechnical information, but that the point of discussion was the nature of the degree. Commissioner Belang.er expressed concern that a problem could arise where a detailed geotechnical study was done which~i~ alter the EIR so ~ignificantly that it would no longer apply. yCh'~i~Ma~h'~II'~olh~d'~d'e'~ha'~hat was a ri~k"~h'~'de'~loper woul'd'have to bear. E. ENVIROS: Sandra Rennie Ms. Rennie reported that it would be several days before their review would be com- pleted, and made the following comments:' She stated she felt the overriding problem of this EIR was the question of how much information was useful for an EIR. She .explained that her finnwould attempt to address this question based on their experience and on their review of the mitigating plan. .. ;. .-.-._.~ ~ ." .__ ~.-:.~ ... _.::...'~ ~ .... . ..... ~ ..... '.-...~.. .-= . .=._.. · -1~- ~ '.~i. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEOG: OCTOBER 17,~ 1974 E. ENVIROS: Sandra Rennie - Continued Relative to the cost/revenue issue, she 'explained it was a very complicated subject, made more complicated because the City of Saratoga did not provide City services. She reported that Santa Clara County did a 300-page cost/revenue analysis on the City of Cupertino; their conclusion had been that the cost of doi~g_a__complete cost/ revenue analysis was not worth its results. ,Y~e further pointed out that the State 'of California did not require an EIR to contain this in'formation. To 'the Statements relative to conflicting data, she gave as an example if two people talked to different persons in the Sherilff's Department'there probabl~'~'6~ld be two ~' different re~dlts.~ 'She added: "I dontt' think the responsibility of h~ving distorted ~ information necessarily applies to eithe;r one of the persons who received the infor- .~ ...............mation. I think it is important that that be understood." · - Relative to the subject'Of geology, Ms. Rennie emphasized that in the State of C~ti- fornia, a licensed geologist had a great. deal of professional and legal responsibility associated with the license, and that it was not an item to be taken lightly or. g.ranted ~ easily. She stated that the geological problemswas really how much~responsibility the ~.' City really wanted to accept concerning development of an area which might be unstable or be too close to a fault zone. She 'indicated that her firm had '~'~'~ons on ~'. how the City might want.~o respond to that in a positive way. Commissioner Martin asked if an up-to-da~e traffic survey would be m~de, to which Ms. Rennie pointed out that they were not doing the original work on the project but only reviewing the work done by other people. She stated that they would make Cit '~ further comments on traffic and would be giving the y guidelines on same. She added: "I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. A good deal of the comments from the community areaon safety, whereas the comments from the traffic engineer are about road capacity. While the two are related, they are not precisely the same thing. We will try to attempt to address the differences here." Commissioner Martin next drew attention to the sonic ~tudy done November 1973 and the ,, study done in September 1974. 7He stated~ "We. are..3~ 9bs above what we were last . i.'.' year, ~'~'b~a-s~d on this it indicates an increase in traffic .... ..Three.and one-half Dbs ~ ~";~' represept ~ times the amount of noise compared to last year." Ms~ Rennie replied that ]. ~h'~'flgures d'fd not necessaril~ reflect in proport.~on an increase in traffic, adding ~' ~h'~F~"w0dld"addr~sS' ~his matter later'on. .- ;-"' '2'~' F. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ...... . "' The following written communiC'~0ns were introduced to the record: 1. Response dated Sep.tember.l~r, 1974 from the 'County Planning Department from Michael E. Hall, Senior Planner of the Environmental Assessment Section. 2. Response from Fire District received September 20, 1974 requesting the word "Cit" y be changed to "Fire District!' on page 4 of the EIR. 3. Letter from James Geary, County Sheriff's Department, dated September 24, 1974 pointing out that the department was suffering from an injunction and was not able to hire additional men at this time; and further pointing out that the recommendation for a secondary road was made without comment on who should bear the cost. 4. Letter from Harry Mayfield, president of Good Government Group, dated October 9, -i~ response ~'~ F~7~raft EIR.. .... ~ 5. Letter dated October 13, 1974 from Charles and Margaret Guichard opposing the development on the basis that it was discriminatory to the citizens of Saratoga economically. 6. Letter dated October 17, 1974 from 'the Santa Clara Water District wit~ comments relative to the Hydrological Section of the EIR. 7. A petition containing ~5 signatures df Saratoga residents opposing the Comer ... Drive extension specifically and th'e Parker Ranch development in general~ .... ..... 8. A response received September 25, 19~4 from PG&E with no comment. '. 9. Supplement to the Citizen's EIR from the Friends of Painless Parker dated October 17, 1974. -13- .I~NUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING: OCTOBER 17~ 1974' G. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chairman Marshall stated that he felt special emphasis should be given by Enviros to those comments by the public on traffic, scenic quality, and geology and soils stability, adding that he did not feel the cost/revenue information was pertinent for the reasons given by Ms. Rennie and.Mr. Frisbie. He pointed out that if the City requested this information, the developer could argue that the State guidelines · ~ did not require it. ~ .... ~ Discussion followed on this matter. Mr.Z Crowther stated that if he were placed in the position of reviewing an EIR, he would be relunctant to set a precedent which could reflect on EIRs he was preparing in/o~her cities. He requested the Commission designate what the content of the EIRishould be, and then ask the consultant tO evaluate it and determine its accuracy. 'He stated, "there is a feeling that there is a'bias on the basis Of the information produced so far. Many of us have feelings of mistrust." Chairman Marshall replied that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to decide whether the EIR was adequate. He pointed out: 'We have registered profes- sional engineers and people from other professions who are paid good money to do this work; and while the taxpaye~ has the right to question or challenge or attempt to understand, the fact that he does not understand does not give him the right to say it is wrong or he is cheating or he 'is biased.""R~I~five to traffi~,C~'iYman Ma'~hiII stated t~'~h'~'P~5i'i=~'W~k~S~f~h'~=Pf~'n'ing S~ff~ ~d' "the outsi'd~ ' consul~'~'~'t'~f~ engfneer wS'~l'd~k'~' ~hrd~e~minatfSnS on 'th~~{~ .... · ,. Con~issioner Matteoni stated that in r~gard to bias, he felt in any EIR situation there would be natural biases from those who supported and those who were against a project, adding: "The process of an EIR with public participation is designed to focus on that bias and hopefully correct it.~' He stated that relative to the Commis- sion setting a precedent, "I am not concZerned with that because the law gives the table of contents as tow hat is needed in an EIR. However, each EIR must be respon- sive to the setting of the locale. I think the Planning Commission is trying to point.out some of the areas of emphasis.i" He further stated in regard to resolv- ing conflicts: "If there are conflicts of opinions or factual data, I am willing to accept an EIR which points out these conflicts, because overall the EIR document is trying to provide as much information in as a succinct fashion as possible. It .... is not necessary in my mind to resolve every possible dispute." .... At this point Chairman Marshall recommended that the Planning Commission request Enviros to proceed with the EIR response with particular emphasis on traffic, scenic. quality, and geology and soils stability. He stated that upon receipt of the response, it would be forwarded to public agencies and various homeowner associations, and one last public would be held for public testimony. He suggested that at that time Enviros, in concert with the Planning Staff, would summarize the material sub- mitted, and make a recommendation to the Commission on ~he final EIR. The Commission would then modify the EIR if necessary, vote~on it, and forward the results to the City Council. It was the Planning Commission's consensus that Chairman Marshall's reconnnendation be followed. H. NEXT PUBLIC HEARING The Secretary suggested that a public hearing be scheduled when EnViros submitted its response. He stated that the City would readvertise, and send' out public notices to those people who had submitted material on the EIR. Commissioner Belang~r moved,- seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hear- ing on CE-172 be closed for this evening, to be continued to a date which would be specified at a later .time, The motion was carried unanimously. ADJOIIRNMENT Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the special Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 1974 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. .arty Van Duyn, S~tary -14-