Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1992 Planning Commission minutesx ~ • ./" SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 28, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Present: Caldwell, Moran, Favero, Tucker Absent: Durket, Forbes, Bogosian ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 7:00 p.m. -Closed Executive Session Concerning City Attorney Evaluation ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 7:30 p.m. -Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission 1. FENCE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO HERITAGE LANES The Planning Commission requested clarification of the Heritage Preservation Commission position related to the fence ordinance and sound walls on designated Heritage Lanes. Chairman Koepernik explained that the HPC was clearly against permitting sound walls along Saratoga Avenue. However, since sound walls were recently approved on Saratoga Avenue, the Commission recommended inclusion of a provision for sound walls outside the required yard and subject to HPC review. In response to Planning Commission questions, the Heritage Preservation Commissioners present at the meeting, clearly indicated that they would prefer that no sound walls be allowed. Larry Fine, who initiated the designation of Saratoga Avenue and was recently appointed by the City Council to serve on the HPC, also indicated his objection to sound walls. Chairman Koepernik informed the Planning Commission that at the direction of the City Council, the Heritage Preservation Commission is i -•/M currently working on a list of objectives and guidelines for the designated portion of Saratoga Avenue. Planning Commissioner Durket suggested that the HPC prepare Design Review Guidelines similar to the Residential Design Guidelines Handbook. 2. KERWIN RANCH SUBDIVISION Discussion with HPC regarding possible alternatives for retaining a part of the orchard and the historic structures. The Heritage Preservation Commission reiterated their recommendation to preserve a portion of the orchard at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue as one of the City's gateways, and to connect it with the historic orchard across Fruitvale Avenue. The Commission recommended exploring a way to preserve the structures, but realized that it may not be possible. The HPC will not object to demolition of the structures if they cannot be preserved. 8:15 p.m. -Regular Adjourned Meeting 1. KERWIN RANCH SUBDIVISION Linda Davis, representing Kerwin Ranch L.P., made a presentation to the Commission regarding the circulation and land use concerns raised at the March 25th public hearing. The project engineer was also present and reviewed a number of alternative subdivision arrangements for the Commission's and the public's benefit. The Commissioners then directed questions to Larry Perlin, City Engineer, and Ernie Kraule, Saratoga Fire Chief, regarding health, safety and traffic engineering considerations of the alternative maps. Mr. Perlin reiterated his support for map #2, citing objection for a number of reasons to any access off Fruitvale Avenue. He also summarized the following improvements which the Engineering Department anticipate as a result of approving this development: - Full-width bicycle lanes with separated pedestrian paths. - Elimination of the free right-turn merging lane at the Fruitvale/Saratoga Avenue intersection, and other associated improvements. - Alignment of Lisa Marie Court with Scotland Drive. 2 • ~ A member of the Pubic Safety Commission (PSC), Rollin Swanson, was also present to express the PSC's objection to any access off Fruitvale Avenue. He also expressed the PSC's support for the alignment of Lisa Marie Court. Chief Kraule expressed a preference for map #2, but also noted that other arrangements could be acceptable.. Residents of Lisa Marie Court and Ronnie Way spoke in favor of map #2. A number of residents of Ronnie Way and Wendy Lane spoke in opposition to any access through their neighborhood to the proposed development. It was noted that a petition, signed by approximately 60 Ronnie Way area residents opposed to the development, which was distributed to the Planning Commission at the March 25th meeting, was not included in the study session packet. The Planning Commission concluded the item by directing staff to schedule the application for a May 27th public hearing. Discussions at that meeting are to be focused on the Heritage Preservation Commission's recommendation and the alternative maps presented this evening. 2. City of Saratoga -HOUSING ELEMENT -Assessment of housing needs, inventory of resources, governmental and non-governmental constraints and opportunity for energy conservation. Planning Director Curtis outlined the concept for the approach that staff will be taking to update the Housing Element. He explained that they (staff) had the following objectives: 1. Reflect in the Housing Element the current goals, policies and any implementation tools that are desired and used by the City of Saratoga; and 2. Provide to the State that information which is required and supply findings which support this information. Therefore demonstrating to the State that Saratoga has made a good faith effort at drafting a Housing Element. The Planning Director continued to outline the strategy in which these objectives could be met. These are as follows: 1. Recognize the General Plan as a Policy document for the City of Saratoga which reflects what the community thinks Saratoga should be now and in the future. 2. Affirm that Saratoga is required to maintain consistency in decisions that 3 • i ~~ involve implementation of the General Plan as a whole and its individual Elements. The material to be presented to the State will put emphasis on the fact that Saratoga's Goals and Policies that have been established in the City's General Plan have been consistently followed in the decisions made in regard to the Housing Element update. 3. Affirm policies that maintain the residential character of the City of Saratoga that have been applicable throughout the history of the incorporation of the City. , 4. Recognize that Saratoga stands ready to assist or work with other localities in meeting regional housing ~ needs given the constraints of limited resources. Mr. Curtis reported that he had received a status report in the mail that indicated that 80% of the cities in the State of California do not have Housing Elements that meet the State requirements. He encouraged the Commission to do their best to try to design a Housing Element to meet the requirements of the State. He asked the Commission to comment on the format of the existing "Available Land Inventory" and to review staff's proposal to update this list to satisfy this requirement. Commissioner Moran asked if the Commission could go over the draft section page by page. Aline by line review ensued with various comments regarding the submitted draft pages. The Commission agreed that the existing "Available Land Inventory" format was appropriate and directed staff to proceed with updating the figures by verifying the existing available land in the City. The Commission also directed staff to prepare the draft Goals and Polices section for the next study session as indicated by the Housing Element Work Program. ADJOURNMENT 4~ • • Reviiew of outline of Housing Element content and Planning Commission work Pro,. rc~ am. Planning Director Curtis addressed the Commission and gave a brief introduction regarding the Housing Element, the State of California's mandate to devise a Housing Element to meet it's criteria, the work/meeting schedule proposed for the Planning Corr~mission in regard to writing such a document, and specified topic for each of those schE~duled work session. He requested that the Commission review and concur with the proposed work/study session schedule and to discuss, in general, the things staff should have prepared for the next scheduled study session and its specific topic. Planner Adar gave background information regarding the Council's review of the Housing Element Abstract and their approval of the Scope of Work in order to draft a Housing Element. She asked the Commission to focus on the Scope of Work for the Housing Element and to provide staff with direction as to how to start the Housing Element update process and any specific direction in regard to any item relating to the Housing Element draft process. Corr~missioner Favero stated that he was far more concerned with protecting the citizens of Saratoga than meeting the State's specific requirements to gain certification of the Housing Element and therefore felt that public comments should be the basis on which the Housing element is written. He offered the following direction to staff in regard to presenting ideas/proposals on this item to the Commission: 1. Clearly stating whether various proposals are legally mandated by the State; 2. Whether or not the idea is optional or if it is merely something the staff feels is a good idea; and 6 ~ i 3. In the case where statistics/graphs/surveys are used, that the information be compiled in a presentable manner with both the numbers and graphs and also a clearly objective staff analysis Commissioner Moran inquired as to which the Council had approved, the Housing Element Scope of Work, the Housing Element Abstract or the Critical Path for the Housing Element or if it was all three which had been approved. A discussion in regard to the posed question commenced among the staff and Commissioners. Planner Adar and Commissioner Moran agreed that the Council approved the Scope of Work and the Critical Path to the Housing Element (an unspecified time allowance for the Planning Commission to spend on working toward a draft Housing Element. Commissioners Favero and Durket inquired as to the consequences incurred if Saratoga's Housing Element did not meet the State's certification requirements. Planning Director Curtis explained that the City would not be eligible to obtain certain state housing funds and that a noncompliance status would leave the City open to legal challenges which could limit the City's ability to issue building permits, institute zoning changes, and carry out other general policies or programs. He stated that the Housing Element is a State mandated document and that the State could legally take steps to ensure that Saratoga complies. The City Attorney explained that the State has become stricter in the last couple years and have pursued cities that have not at least made a "good faith" attempt to devise a certifiable Housing Element. She suggested that the Commission make a good faith effort toward drafting a Housing Element and to use Saratoga's statistics to show the State the factors which played a role in the composition of Saratoga's Element. In response to Chairperson Caldwell's question as to whether the Commission could update the previous version of the Housing Element using the figures from the last census, the City Attorney explained that the State would probably send it back for further work. The City Attorney also recommended that the Commission look into ways in which the City could link as many of the new permits being issued to the Housing Element. She also answered questions in regard to the Housing Element and the relative power of the State. A speaker suggested that the Commission work off of the old Housing Element as opposed to starting over again. The person also suggested that the Council be consulted as to what they had intended for the Planning Commission to do. It was the speakers recollection that the Council had intended for the Planning Commission to go back to the Abstract which was presented, work from the notes of the Council's comments, write a draft in one shot, not in phases, and submit it to the State for review. 7 ~ ~ Commissioner Favero spoke in favor of using the previous Housing Element as a guide therefore spending a minimal amount of time on the element. He expresses support for doing only that which is required by the State and not cluttering the document with any unnecessary "extras". Commissioner Moran stated that she was in favor of going back to listen to the tapes of the Council to determine what exactly was approved, what direction the Council had intended the Planning Commission to take and their various comments on the Abstract, the Critical Path and the Scope of Work. Chairperson Caldwell stated that time was of the essence and expressed support for just talking with the Council to get a clearer direction as to whether they want the Planning Commission to start by using the Abstract or did they adopt the Scope of Work. Carol stated that she recollected that it was not the Council's intention for the Planning Commission to start over again. Commissioner Favero asked that Housing Elements from economically comparable cities be obtained for the Planning Commission to review and use in updating Saratoga's Housing Element. Planner Adar recommended that the Commission give staff direction to proceed with preparing materials for the scheduled work session so that the Commission could begin work on the Housing Element. Chairperson Caldwell expressed concern with staff proceeding with material preparation such as surveys and studies and needlessly alarming citizens at this time when the process by which the Housing Element is to evolve is not yet clear. Planner Adar stated that the staff would not be surveying or conducting studies for the next work session. Chairperson Caldwell directed staff to prepare materials for the next Housing Element work session. Commissioner Favero spoke in favor of using the Abstract which was presented to the Council and any other information from previous work conducted and move forward with the Housing Element. Chairperson Caldwell requested that any information, materials, minutes and staff notes from past work sessions/meetings on the Housing Element be gathered and given to the Commission for their review. 8 ~ • Discussion on the Housing Element was continued to the next scheduled work session.