Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~4ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April .11, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Crowther Minutes Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 28, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Annual Reorganization Commissioner Schaefer nominated Commissioner Siegfried for Chairman. Commis- sioner' Hlava seconded the nomination. It was moved and seconded to close the nominations and Commissioner Siegfried was unanimously appointed Chairman. Commissioner Hlava nominated Commissioner Peterson for Vice Chairman. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the nomination.. It was moved and seconded to close the nominations and Commissioner Peterson was unanimously appointed Vice Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1329 - D. Apker (Krajeska), Vista Regina, 2 lots ~ Request for One- Year EXte'~si'on Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. GPA-83-1-A Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report; continued from March 28, 19'84 3. GF-344 City of Saratoga, Consideration of an ordinance to completely preclude allowing second units in any residential district per Section 65852.2(c) of the Government Code of the State of California, per Article 18 of Ordinance NS-3 of the City of Sarat'oga These two items were discussed simultaneously. Chairman Schaefer explained that the second units are being considered to be precluded at the direction of the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission had sent forth to them a proposal that allowed second units on 45,000 sq. ft. lots or greater, with many conditions. She noted possible alternatives that have been men- tioned, i.e., moratorium for five years or two years, on 45,000 sq. ft. lots or greater and in the Village area, either On a timeframe or indefinite, in each tract or determined area and a certain number of homes would be allowed in each of those areas, or a designated number throughout the City, and also the issue of illegal units. Commissioner Hlava added another option that had been suggested to her, i.e. to have illegal units to be able to come in for a use permit under some kind of standards. Staff noted that there are some corrections to be made to the Housing Element and also some outstanding items in the element that need to be decided by a separate vote. They indicated that they did review many of the Second Unit Ordinances that have'been adopted by other communities and t.he findings that had been made. They commented that, in reviewing, they are of the opinion that Saratoga is not .in similar situations, ei. ther 'in terms of limited urban ser- vices.or lot size or overcrowd'ing that some of these communities had indicated were a problem. They added that, therefore,'they feel that the City cannot make the findings necessary to preclude second units entirely, especially if 1 - Pla~ing Commission Page 2 .~Meet'ing Minutes 4/11/84 GPA-83-1-A and GF-344 (cont.) a moderate number were allowed. Staff noted that there are two findings required by State law. Commissioner Harris stated that the Housing Element and General Plan identify the goals of this community with zoning and density regulations reflecting the desires of Saratoga residents. She commented that beyond that she con- siders it an encroachment of the State to tell the City to change those guidelines merely to increase the amount of housing. She added that the public health, safety and welfare of the residents should be the prevailing consideration for adopting an ordinance. She presented the basis for a pro- posal that the City make the findings which will preclude the allowing of second units. She passed this out and read it into the record (attached). 'The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p~m. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson Avenue, stated that he feels that the City is talking about serious long range planning when discussing the Second Unit Ordinance. He commented that he was against second units as a general prin- ciple in the City, and he feels there are a lot of people who share that view. He stated that he does not know how the Commission can make findings and go forward if they do not know what the end result will be. He added that he is in favor of second units for senior citizens if appropriate con- trols were put on them; however, the City Attorney has pointed out that this option is not available. Regarding ~options, he commented that he would sug- gest that the Commission do nothing at this time unt~_l.~they have clearly defined where they want to end up'~ ...... " Discussion followed on limiting second units to senior citizens only~and the possibility of the court throwing out the restriction on age. The City Attorney noted that approximately 20% of the cities that have adopted ordi- nances have restricted second units to seniors only. He commented that he thinks everyone of them has recognized that there are constitutional problems with respect to that restriction and there are also practical problems in terms of enforcement. He added that, recognizing that, they may have simply opted to run that risk, rather than run the risk other cities have of a total prohibition being declared ineffective because it did not have the factual support for the findings. Mr..'.Nellis commented that that is another point for doing nothing at this time. He indicated that, in terms of either putting a moratorium or making the find- ings, maybe a moratorium would be better. He stated that he would like to buy some time and wait to see what comes out of other cities, and if the courts rule that it can be done for seniors, then there will definitely be something to look at. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via ~onte, urged the Commission to come to some.Cgm'- promise, an experimental course of action-'~"~H'-'perhaps '-2~" unit.s,-c~ar.~.- fully considered o.ver a year or two, with review and a sunset clause. Dis- cussion followed on the options that had previously been discussed. Dick Drake, Gordon Court, stated that the character of Saratoga is changing and the needs of seniors are increasing very rapidly. He commented that the point of view of the senior citizens is that they are just as strongly opposed to duplexes and to increasing the whole living unit in Saratoga as anyone. He added that they are just as strongly saying that they want to preserve the single family character but suggesting a way in which it can be done. He stated that he feels Commissioner Harris' proposal does not address the issue, and it should be done under existing ordinances and trying not to destroy the basic housing concept in Saratoga. He clarified that the original ordinance which the Commission passed, that limited this to 45,000 sq. ft., does absol- utely nothing for the senior citizens. He suggested the following: (1) that the Commission stand up to the mark and decree that they simply cannot develop a statement that would support the State requirement that says that the City should do nothing, (2) to reverse the Commission's original posAtion and pass a reasonable ordinance that would give some relief, similar to the last draft of the City Council's, that says this would extend to all areas but be limited to a certain number, such as 20, excluding presently illegal units and deal with those separately. He added that this ordinance makes sense, is a com- promise, and would go a long ways towards bringing harmony to the entire City of SaratOga. Mildred Gordon, President of the Senior Coordinating Council, stated that she '~b~lieves that there is no basis for findings that second units will bring - 2 - =~-~lann~ng Commission ~ Page 3 oMegti'ng~Minutes 4/11/84 GPA~83-1-A and GF-344 (cont.) adverse impacts to SaratOga. She commented that she feels it is necessary to have an ordinance to have any kind of control on ·second units. She added that · she agrees with the ordinance presented on March 1, 1984 by the City Attorney, and the City could experiment for a year, ·make ·corrections, and continue. Chairman Schaefer commented that she· feels that the Commission is for the seniors. She noted that the League of California Cities has composed some figures that say that only approximately 15% of the applications that come in for second units specifically state that they are for seniors. Commissioner Peterson inquired as to what Menlo Park has done, since it is similar to Sara- toga. Staff was requested to contact them to see what they have done regarding an ordinance. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stated that she thoroughly agreeswith Commis- sioner Harris and Mr. Nellis-. She also asked about what type of ordinance Los Altos Hills has done. Discussi'on followed on the communities that have adopted ordinances precluding second units. Commissioner Siegfried noted tha·t, with the exception of San Jose, they are relatively very small cities in si·ze, smaller than Saratoga in area; most of them much larger in population; most of which have less than 1% of their lots exceeding 20,000 sq·. ft., whereas Saratoga has 50% of.its-10t's- exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. He stated that the problem is, again not looking at the options for the· future but just on the question of an ordinance that would totally preclude them, each city, just on the mere fact of the size of the lots and the fact that they have very significant presence of multi-family struc- tures already, can maybe make their ordinance work in terms of precluding~ He stated that he thinks all of those cities have options that allow them to say they have already done it in one way or the· other. He added that that is the problem in saying the· City has to preclude it; then other options have to be discussed if the City doesn't preclude it. He added that he wished the City could find a way to say senior citizens only. ~second units. The City Attorney clarified that the State law specifically allows cities to allocate the second units in certain areas if the~ feel those are the only areas that are appropriate; to preclude second units it would have to be done i~n ~Ci~-wide basis. There was a consensus to go to a study session to get more information on the ordinances that have been adopted.. The following votes were taking on the Housing Element: Page 16 - Re the term "income". Commissioner Schaefer had requested that·it be noted what exactly is considered income, to include a definition on a foot- note. There was a consensus to do this. Page 21 - Re ABAG's arguments rejecting Saratoga's first proposal. After discussion, Commissioner Hlava moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to ~epeat these arguments. The motion was carried 5-1, with· Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Page 51 - Commissioner McGoldrick moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to include the present wording of the last sentence on this page. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. It was noted that the word "alternative" will be removed from the Housing Element and other wording will be used. It was directed that GPA~83-1-A and GF~344 be continued to the·regular meeting of April 25,..1984 and .G~344, Second Unit Ordinance, will be further discussed at a study session on April 17',..1984. 4. A-928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14612 Palomino Way, in the NHR Zoning 'Di's'trict It was directed that this item be continued to May 9, 1984. 5a. A-945 - Bank of America, Request for Use Permit Approval for a minor 5b. UP-557 expansion of an existing bank and for compact parking, and Design Review Approval for exterior remodeling at 14476 Big Basin Way, in the C-C zoning district Staff described the proposal. They noted that the entrance to the parking is - 3 - · P'la,nning Commission r~ Page 4 .... .~Meet. ing Minutes 4/11/84 ~ A-'9'45 'and UP-557 (cont.) being relocated to a single driveway. The parking and circulation were discussed, and Staff suggested that a condition be added to the Staff Report that the street light' that was removed between the two existing driveways be reinstailed. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that there is a tree which will have ·to be removed because of the relocation of the driveway. She indicated that she feels the proposed·parking and circulation are better. She noted that the bank desires to have a strong sodium vapor light over the ATM. She described this, indicating that she did not see any problem with it. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Herb Cuevas, architect, described the walls on the site. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels the retaining wall in back needs some treatment and suggested some landscaping for Staff approval. Mr. Cuevas indicated that they could provide a surface'treatment to the wall which will make it look more like stucco finish. ii~·'·'~·~s~a~.~·d that they could also plant some ivy when they do thei~ landscaping design. Mr. Cuevas described the light fixture, and he noted that the voltage of the bulb can be lowered if it is too intense. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP-557 and A-945, per Exhibits "B-2", "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated April 5, 1984, wi·th the addition of the following conditions: (1) the street light shall be reinstailed, and (2) the retaining wall shall be texturized, and plantings added for Staff approval. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous- ly 6-0. 6. C-206 - Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from R-M-400·0 to R-M-3000 which could eventually allow the con- struction of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga- Sunnyvale 'ROad Chairman Schaefer reported that, in discussions with Staff, there is some question as to whether 12 apartment units, as suggested by the applicant, is possible, or whether it would be closer to 5 or 6 units. It was noted that the rezoning on the Neale property is R-M-4,000. Staff described the applica- tion. Chairman Schaefer described the apartment complex. She expressed con- cern regarding the' fact that if this were zoned separately, and for some reason the property changed ]hands or the development went ahead in several years, that it might be extremely intensified. She commented that it is possi- ble to~impose conditions at the time of reclassification, to include the fact that the project must be done in a specified period of time and the kind of project that would be allowed, so that the City has some control over the kind of things that would go in this development. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the apartment complex and the· adjacent Neale property. The public ]hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. John Kahle, attorney representing Clarence Neale, addressed the impact on Mr. Neale's'property. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic, possi- ble fire hazard since there is one fire hydrant for all of the units, and the drainage. Staff noted that the're will be an additional hydrant in the area when the Neale project goes forward. They also commented that the change of zoning is being addressed now, and if approved there would be a need for tentative and'final approval-.for any intensification on the site, at which time the concerns of Mr. Kahle would be reviewed and conditioned appropriately. Clarence Neale questioned the requirement for an additional fire hydrant when his property is developed. Staff clarified that Chief Kraule had reviewed the area and did suggest the ]hydrant on Mr. Neale's application. Mr. Neale described his property and the surrounding properties, addressing the drainage in the area. He requested a study session with the Commission on his develOp- ment. There was a consensus that the Commission would like the'proposed develop ment on the Morrison and Fox property to come back to a study session. Dave Morrison, the applicant, described the· application. He indicated that he would.like the rezoning considered now, and then the details can be worked out - 4 - Pla~i~g Commission Page 5 o'M%etlng Minutes 4/11/84 C-206.(cont.) during the-preliminary and final site approval. Stephen Fox,. the applicant, addressed the property. He commented that they do not know how many units they ~oU'l~.be proposing. It was pointed out to the applicant that the Commission ~s concerned about the need for variances,.etc. It was the con'~ensus that if the rezoning is granted, it will be understood that it is not granted for 12 units. Chairman Schaefer added that it appears that the Commission is in favor of the rezoning. However, they do not want to give variances on this development or have anyone think they are going to get the maximum possible yield to the detriment of any neighboring property. She stated that 'if something came up in the future and it looks'reasonable, it might be considered, but it is not the Commission's intention to give variances. The City Attorney commented that the Commission does not have to make a judgment on the whole project at this t.ime. He explained that the ordinance allows the Commission to conditionally rezone it, and the condition being that the use to which the property has been reclassified is established within a certain period of time. He stated that the Commission can determine that by making the condition their approval of the Site Development Plan, which will show what the buildings are, where they are, and if variances are required. He commented that if the Commission does not approve the development plan, they can then in effect nullify the reclassification for the zoning. He added that he feels, in view of the language in the ordinance, the Commission should specify a time b'y which a Building Site Approval has to be submitted and approved, and it can be extended if necessary. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney indicated that the resolution would have to be changed and the section of the code specifically referenced, to make sure that it is clear to the applicant what the condition is he has to satisfy, which is the con- ditional reclassification. There was a consensus to approve the rezoning and it was determined that this item should'be put on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting on April 25, 1984. 7. C-207 City of Saratoga, Consideration of amendment of the text of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site area requirement of Section 4A.4, clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second-story structures only when specifically approved by the Planning Com- mission, and other minor modifications per Ordinance NS-3, Article 18 (Planned Communi'ty District) It was directed that this matter be continued to April 25, 1984. 8. A-947 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a two- story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Drive, Lot #7, Tract' 6665 in the NHR 'zoning' distri'ct Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. She indicated that the house will be lower than the street and will not be visi- ble from anywhere. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had indicated that they would be willing to change the color. Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-947, per the Staff Report dated April 3, 1984 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D", with the added condition that the house not be stark white, that it be off white or medium earthtone. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 9. A-950 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a 2-story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Court, Lot #4, Tract 6665 in 'the NHR zoni'ng DistriCt The proposal was described by Staff. They stated that they were recommending denial, not being able to make the finding relative to perception of bulk. - 5 Plan~ing CommissiOn Page 6 ,~,M%~i~ Minu't~s 4/11/84 A-gS0 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She stated that the house was definitely going to be visible from Pierce Road and pretty well across the valley. She indicated that the design has no archi- tectur.al. relief and there is no stepping down the hill. Commissioner Peterson agreed that this house is massive, but it appeared to him that the house is sitting back far enough from where it comes down the hill, so that from almost anywhere that you drive up Pierce a good portion of the house is not going to be visible. The public hearing was opened at 9:SS p.m. Mac Kamingar, representing Parnas, gave a presentation on the house. Commis- the fact ~ha~"it wouia""~6~:v~ry' massive 'from ~o~ ~eiow. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he thinks the problem is.that the lot slopes so steeply down to Pierce; therefore, you look up a sl'ope at.a house that just rises rather dramatically, and that is the bulk the Commission.is concerned about. He added that the location of the house is'right on the slope. Mr. Kamingar stated that the house could be moved forward. Commissioner Harris commented that the homes to the 'north of Pierce are also going to be looking out and seeing this massive house. Commissioner'~lav~ noted that this is a very large flat pad and a big single story house could be built on this, and it would still not come close to covering the flat part of the top. She stated that she has a problem with this two-story in this location, adding that it will look huge from Pierce and from virtually anywhere. in the valley up and down Pierce. Mr. Kamingar commented that there.will be other lots in this project coming 'to'the Commission, and the'project should be looked at as a total unit rather than individual lots. He indicated that if they can move the house forward and take away from that bulk with which the Commission is. concerned, they will be happy to do it and it can be done. However, they would like the Commis'sion to consider this as a total package. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner. McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she is concerned with bulk and height all over the City, but she 'feels that on a lot like this, sometimes'~ 'two-'story home can give less appearance of bulk than some of the single stories that are approved that are only S ft. less in height and spread out a great deal. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he does not disagree with that. However, the problem with this house is that it needs to be a two-story or some com- bination of one and two stories set into the hill. Discussion followed on the design and the location :of the home. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A-9S0. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. The applicant was asked if he would like to come to a study session wi'th other suggestions. Mr. Kamingar commented that if the Commis- sion would just like the house moved forward, that can be remedied. However, he added., their client wants the design and they would like to keep it. There was a consensus of the Commission that major changes would be needed, in addi- tion to moving it forward. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Peterson and Schaefer dissenting. The City Attorney clarified that the vote is based upon the 'findings in the Staff Report plus additional comments made by the Commission member's. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 10a. Negative Declaration SDR-1S64 - Pero Glumac 10b. A-948 - Pero Glumac, Request for Design Review Approval for a 2-story 10c. V-633 - single family residence.on an infill site, Variance Approval 10d'.. SDR-1S64 for a building height exceeding 30 ft. and Building Site Approval for a single lot at 14975 Quito Road Staff explained the project, noting that this home replaces one that burned down. They commented that they are unable to make the findings for the Variance or the Design Review and are recommending denial of those applications Pl~n~ing Commission ~ Page 7 '~eet~ng Minutes 4/11/84 A-948, V-633 and SDR-1564 (cont.) and approval of the"Building Site application. Commissioner Hlava gave 'a Land Use' Committee report, not'ing that there were two very large 'mature tree's' at the 'en'try way to 'the' bridge wh'ich the' Fire District would like 'to have widened. She 'described the site and stated that widening the road will have 'some 'sever'e privacy impacts' to people 'who live in that' neighborhood. She noted that the easement does not belong to the applicant; therefore, they do not have the right to widen the driveway. She commented that the foundation from the previous home is still ther'e and discussed the design of the previous home. Commissioner Hlava stated that in ~he..:.area'wh'ich faces the Butcher home, which is the only house Whi'ch has immediate visual access from this, only the very corner of the'proposed house would have any view at all because of the large trees'. She noted that there might be an impact from the second floor on the house to the north. Chairman Schaefer noted correspondence received in opposition.to the project. The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Dennis McFarland, 18600 Rancho Las Cimas, spoke in opposition, stating that it would impact his rear yard area. He added that he feels ther'e is no way of shielding it because' of the topography. Dick Nelson, who lives on the north side of the Butchers, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that he was also speaking for the Butchers and Foxes. He noted that it impacts his master bedroom and pool and stated that the structure is overwhelming. Sandy Fox, who 'lives across the 'street' from the Butchers, stated that she would like a one-story house on the site. Tom Mason, engineer, described the proper'ty and proposal. He indicated that they have an easement over the driveway but the' right-'of-way 'itself is owned by the Andersons. He commented that they could reduce t'he height of the home. There was a consensus to take this matter to a study session, and the other Commissioners who have not seen the site were urged to view it. Commissioner Hlava suggested that the engineer bring in suggestions to minimize privacy impacts on the neighbors. It was 'determined'that ther'e would be an on-site visit on Monday, April 16, 1984 and a study session on Tuesday, April 17, 1984. Richard Anderson appeared, stati'ng that his property has the 'majority of the visual impact from the property. He express'e~ support of the project, indicat- ing that.he has no problem wi'th the'desi'gn. Mr. wong, who lives directly south of the Glumac property, also spoke in support, stating that he has no problem with the design. It was directed that this matter be continued to the regular meeting of May 9, 1984. ll. A-951 - Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Boyce, RequeSt for Des'ign Review Approval for an expansion of an existing 2-story residence at 21000 Boyce Lane in the R-I-40',000 zoning d.is.t'r.ic.t The proposal was described by Staff. 'C0mmi's~ione~'~=Hlav~g~ve'a Land. Use'Co~mit- ~7~.re~j~""~ibing't]ie DrojeC~'~ She stated that th'ere appeared to be no alternative in terms of adding on to this house other than building on this steep a slope. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the COmmission. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded-the m'otio~',".which Was'~arr~d unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-951, per EXhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated April 4, 19'84, with the condition that, prior to the issu~.nce of building permits, the applicant shall comply with the conditions in the City Geologist's letter. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick commented' that if the slope is found to be over 40% she can make the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Com- missioner Hlava amended her motion to include that statement. Commissioner Peterson seconded the amended motion. The motion was carried' unanimously 6-0. - 7 - ~anH.~ng Commission Page 8 M~ee~g ~inutes 4/11/84 ~- 12. UP-554 - Frank Cuddy, Request for Use Permit Approval for a Real Estate Office at 12228 Saratoga-SUnnyvale Road in the C-V zoning district This application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 13a. SD-1554 - Moreland School District, Consideration of EIR and Request for 13b. E-2-83 - Subdivision Approval for 36-1ot subdivision at 12301 Radoyka Drive in the R-i-10,000 zoning district It was noted that this project had been discussed at a study session. Staff stated that there had been resubmittals on one or two lots which had previously had improper d. imensions. Chairman Schaefer commented that she would like some kind of size expectation on the corner lots so they might be a little bit less than what has been seen in a few recent applications. The public hearing was opened at 10:45 p.m. Charles Bennett, Environmental Science Associates, preparer of the EIR, appeared. to answer questions. It was noted that the public hearing tonight is open for comments on the EIR, and the Building'Site Approval will be considered later. However, any concerns on the project should be brought up tonight. D. L. Nourse, 18923 Kosich Drive, expressed concern about the loss of open space in the area. He stated that he would like to see the City consider something regarding open space and maintain it. Chairman Schaefer explained that there had been discussions with the school district, with the 'thought of maintaining either one of the buildings or some of the land. However, the school board did not agree and the City did not have 'enough. money to purchase. She added that there was no movement in the neighborhood to save 'land for open space; therefore.~ it was rezoned. She stated that the only thing that could be done is if private people had the money to buy one of the lots for open space, and the reality of that happening when the lots are so expensive is not likely. Lorraine Bi'rden, corner of Kosich and O'Brad, expressed concern with the traffic which will be generated when O'Brad goes through. The traffic circulation in the area was discussed. Ken Evans, 18779 Kosich Drive, expressed concern about existing overhead utility lines and hoped that this subdivision would cause their undergrounding. Staff stated that the subdivision itself would have to be undergrounded but there might not be any requirement for the under'grounding of the adjacent existing subdivision. If the undergrounding of the adjacent tract were required, there would be cost to the existing property owners for establishing the underground services. Commissioner McGoldrick asked about closing Kosich Drive to preclude shortcu'tting through this area. Staff indicated that closure of Kosich would simply force shortcutters to utilize different streets within the neighborhood. It was indicated that the City had recently received a request to close off SaratOga · .~'~n.~l~'~e~for the same reason. Staff suggested that if there was to be effort' made to modify traffic patterns within the area, it should be on the basis o~ a study of the entire area, rather. than piecemeal. Commissioner Schaefer asked if there was any way to preserve one lot as open space. Staff explained that the Parks and Recreation fees did not equal the cost of one lot. It was'moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the 'Draft EIR."ZI~ ~as ~X~'~ai~e~.?to the audience that there is a copy of the EIR at City Hall for review, and the EIR consultant will provide answers to the concerns expressed tonight. It was also noted that comments would be taken on the subdivision proposal at the next meeting. It was directed that SD-1554 and the Final EIR be continued to the meeting of April 25, 1984. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer commented that many of her neighbors had expressed concern regarding the flow of traffic on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Staff reported that the City Council has requested the State to establish the speed zoning at 35 miles per hour on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road between Big Basin Way and Aloha Avenue, and also on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Big Basin Way and Herriman Avenue. Staff indicated that the State had made a speed study on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and found the speeds to be almost exactly the same as - 8 - ~P'la~;~ing 'Commission Page 9 ~ie'e~i~;tg~.Minutes 4/11/84 Oral Communications (cont.) 'they were prior to the establishment of the speed zoning, and therefore they were likely to have those speed' zones remain as. currently signed. The State had made a warrant study for a traffic signal at Herriman and Saratoga-S,unnyvale Road ahd had dete'rmined that sufficient warrants were met for its installation. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the S'a'~'a't'o'ga','N~'ws 'for attending and the Good Government Group for a,ttend'ing and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the"meeting. The' motion was carried unani- mously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:31 p.m. RespeCtfully submitted, RSS:cd FINDINGS: ~ 1. PROVISIONS FOR ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WHICH EMPHASIZES PROTECTION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING NEEDS WITHIN THE REGION. 2. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD COMPROMISE THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS ENUMERATED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT: A. TO PROMOTE THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC SOUNDNESS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AS INCREASES IN PUBLIC SERVICE DEMANDS COULD FORCE REDUCTION OF SERVICE LEVELS OR INCREASED ASSESSMENT COSTS TO TAXPAYERS. B. TO PREVENT UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION. C. TO RELATE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ITS LAND USES TO PRESENTLY PLANNED STREET CAPACITIES. SARATOGA'S ROADWAYS ARE NARROW WITH NO SIDEWALKS. THE CURRENT CAPACITY AND DESIGN OF THE ROADWAYS CANNOT WITHSTAND INCREASED DENSITIES. AUTHORIZATION OF TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD DEMAND A CHANGE IN THE ROADWAY DESIGN OF THE CITY. THERE IS NO FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR SUCH AN ENDEAVOR AND TO PROCEED WITH TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD COMPROMISE TRAFFIC SAFETY. D. TO AFFIRM THAT THE CITY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES. E. TO PROTECT SARATOGA RESIDENTS FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE. 3. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH~ SAFETY AND WELFARE BECAUSE: A. MANY AREAS OF THE CITY ARE EXPERIENCING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON LOCAL STREETS RELATED TO EXCESSIVE VOLUMES~ SPEEDING~ AND NOISE. MANY TRAFFIC PROBLEMS HAVE RESULTED FROM THE LACK OF A MAJOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTAT.ION FACILITIY WHICH HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO 8Y THE STATE BUT WHICH REMAINS UNFUNDED. TRAFFIC RELATED PROBLEMS CAN DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND WOULD.BE EXACERBATED 8Y THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS WITH THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION~ TRAFFIC~ AND PARKING DEMAND THEY WOULD GENERATE IN NEIGHBORHOODS. 8. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS~ SOUND HOUSING CONDITIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY. C. HIGHER CRIME RATES IN DENSELY POPULATED NEIGHBORHOODS THREATEN THE SAFETY OF ALL RESIDENTS. D. SOME'NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE ALREADY CHARACTERIZED BY MULTI-CAR FAMILIES HAVE CRITICAL ON-STREET PARKING PROBLEMS. THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ON-STREET PARKING IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS. 4. PROBABLE DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE SUFFERED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.