Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-1994 Planning Commission minutes'~ CITY OI~RATOGA PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES May 3, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Moran, and Wolfe Absent: Commissioner Murakami City Attorney Faubion present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one addressed the Commission. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 29, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet No technical corrections were reported. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. DR-94-004 - Odd Fellows Home; 14500 Fruitvale Ave., request for design UP-94-001 - review, Use Permit and General Plan Amendment approval to GPA-94-001 - renovate, redevelop and expand the existing Odd Fellows Senior Care and Housing facility. Phase I includes the remodel of the I.O.O.F. Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single-story duplex cottages. Community Development Department staff is requiring that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public input in identifying potential environmental impacts which will be addressed in a Draft EIR. Planning Commission Minu. May 3, 1994 Page - 2 - Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended that the Commission receive public testimony in identifying the potential significant environmental impacts associated with these applications. The impacts identified tonight would be incorporated to those which have been identified by staff. He explained the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff would include the environmental impacts associated with this project as the public addresses the Commission this evening (determination as to how many individuals are concerned about a particular issue). He explained that the identification of the impacts are not determined by how many individuals stated a concern, but that of determination of the potential impacts. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the status of the geotechnical review that was being under taken for this site. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the project applicant would be presenting a description of the project. He also informed the Commission that a Notice of Completion letter was mailed to the applicant. The geotechnical information which is required as part this project was underway. Staff has not been informed as to the progress of the geotechnical report. He (Curtis) anticipated that the geotechnical information would be submitted as part of the EIR as opposed to preparing it separately. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the consultant undertaking the geotechnical review was working for the City or working under the supervision of the applicant? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the consultant was working for the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Caldwell requested clarification of the drainage issues. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the draft EIR would evaluate and describe in detail all the drainage issues of the site. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it was not clear to her whether any vegetation removal was anticipated with this project. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it was unknown at this point how much vegetation was anticipated for removal. Commissioner Caldwell questioned what the total duration for the project would be. She also questioned what the change in population would be for this project. Community Development Director Curtis deferred the last two questions to the applicant. Commissioner Jacobs summarized the key points that staff brought up to ensure his understanding. There will be an Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he has made a determination that an EIR would be prepared for this project. Commissioner Jacobs stated that it was his understanding that tonight's hearing was solely to take public testimony on the environmental impacts associated with this project. Community Development Director Curtis explained that the City was conducting this hearing to take public input up front before preparation of the EIR. Commissioner Jacobs confirmed that the Commission would not be making any decision regarding this project at tonight's meeting. Community Development Director Curtis responded that no specific decision would be made at tonight's meeting. However, staff would be requesting that the Commission agree, by consensus, that the environmental impacts addressed are to be included in the EIR. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the Commission would not be evaluating the project itself. Community ,Planning Commission Minu~ May 3, 1994 Page - 3 - Development Director Curtis commented that there would be no project discussion as to whether or not this project should proceed or not proceed. Discussion of whether or not the project should proceed would come at a later date. He (Curtis) further commented that the EIR was an informational tool to assist in that decision. Commissioner Jacobs stated that staff has already identified that studies will be completed on the following environmental impacts: traffic study; environmental view shed; creek and water shed; drainage and creek protection; riparian and biological habitat preservation; and evaluation of noise impact. Community Development Director Curtis concurred that the studies which will need to be completed are those identified thus far. Community Development Director Curtis suggested that members of the public indicate the potential environmental impacts which should be addressed in the EIR and the reasons why those impacts should be addressed. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was not clear to her what the depth of the study would be on each of the items identified by staff because only certain sub items have been identified as "yes". She questioned whether it would be appropriate for individuals to speak to those subcategories that have not been checked nor addressed in any way. Community Development Director Curtis stated that all comments by the public should be taken under consideration. Commissioner Caldwell stated that this was a scoping session for the EIR and that this scoping session was to ensure that concerns were addressed. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the concerns addressed needed to be substantiated. However, all comments expressed would be included in the EIR. Commissioner Caldwell elaborated on the CEQA guidelines and read a section as follows: "On marginal cases in which it is unclear whether substantial evidence of significant effects exist, the presence of public controversy indicates that an EIR review is necessary if the controversy is related to the project's environmental affects." Chairman Asfour further commented that public controversy does not, by itself, require an EIR. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Chairman Asfour's comments in the absence of any environmental effects. Community Development Director Curtis commented that an EIR would be prepared for this project whether or not every possible impacts could be indicated. There has to be some substantial evidence that there may be environmental impacts. He did not anticipate a debate as to whether or not an issue is to be addressed in the EIR. The EIR needed to be a complete and accurate document. Commissioner Moran commented that on looking over the Initial Study, there were some areas marked as "yes", "maybe" or "no". She questioned whether it was staff's feeling that those areas that were not marked were backed by substantial evidence and that although it was staff's feeling that they should be included, they were not marked at this time. Planning Commission Minu• May 3, 1994 Page - 4 - Community Development Director Curtis commented that the unmarked items were left unmarked because at this time, staff does not feel that there would be a potential for environmental impacts. The "no" responses were removed so that the public and Commission could address the areas that were left blank versus staff being questioned as to why the areas were marked as "no". Commissioner Moran requested Community Development Director Curtis' comments regarding the "no project" alternative. Community Development Director Curtis commented that one alternative in approval was the "no project alternative" (what happens if the project does not proceed). He (Curtis) presented an example of a "no project alternative" (e.g., subdivision review whereby a road would be required as part of approval to alleviate traffic impacts which currently exist; evaluation of the project should the road improvements not be installed). A no project alternative in this case would not lead to lessening of the environmental impacts. In this "no project alternative", nothing would change. Commissioner Moran questioned which part of the "no alternative project" would the EIR consultant address. Community Development Director Curtis responded that both project build out and no project build out are to be evaluated. Chairman Asfour stated for the record that City Attorney Kit Faubion was present for tonight's scoping session. City Attorney Faubion commented that in determining what a reasonable alternative was, its not truly a matter of picking something between no project and project build out. The alternative needs to be crafted so that it addresses the significant or potential significant impacts as well. Commissioner Caldwell expressed confusion in her review of the project plans. She questioned how many stories were proposed with this project? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the elevation plans indicates a variation in elevation. A four story elevation was depicted but that building was located on a slope. He recommended that the applicant be allowed to address the project. Chairman Asfour clarified that if there was an item that needed to be included in the EIR that was not already listed in the initial study, he requested that the public state why the item should be included in the EIR. He also advised the public that there would not be a debate tonight as to whether or not there should be a project. That was not the scope of tonight's meeting. Tonight's scoping session was solely to indicate what environmental impacts should be included in the EIR. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 P.M. George Ivelich, architect for the Odd Fellows Home project, presented the Commission and , the public with a slide presentation of the site and project. He summarized the project by stating that the Odd Fellows Home was located on a 37 acre parcel, very rich in history. He addressed the fact that the existing home was still in the same state as it was in 1912. Planning Commission Minu~ May 3, 1994 Page-S- He also addressed the villas and the health center. He commented that the site was blest with beautiful trees. He presented a perspective of the original complex and inventory of the site as well as access to the site. He informed the Commission that two swells exist on site. All proposed modifications and additions would meet city codes and compliment the original structures. He addressed the remnants of the villa foundations. A pedestrian bridge has been built to connect the home to the villa buildings built in the 1970s. He addressed the miscellaneous buildings slated for removal. The bridge and the lodge are also scheduled for removal. Additional units would be added to the villas with support facilities (e.g., dining room and kitchen). Of the original buildings, the home would be maintained and rehabed extensively. The villas are to remain and the bridge is to be removed. All the miscellaneous buildings and the home occupied by the assistant administrator would remain. The infirmary/health center, the remains of the old barn, and the old villa foundations are slated for removal. He also addressed the slope of the property. Mr. Ivelich informed the Commission that a master plan has been prepared for the site so that it is known what is proposed for the property. Traffic flow is to remain and be maintained as currently utilized (access to remain from Fruitvale Avenue) unless the City felt that there was a reason for an alternative access. No connections to new streets are proposed. Emergency access is proposed from Crystal. Of the existing villa building consisting of 79 units, four units would be lost. He felt that working with the land and working with the contours would lend to two story increments down the hillside. The existing nursing center is to be removed and replaced with a new one story nursing facility. Phase I of the project would consist of remodelling the home, the addition of units to the existing villa building, and the construction of the new skilled nursing building. Phase II of the project would propose two additional buildings (two story buildings of apartments with parking underneath). He informed the Commission that some of the parking facility might be visible from the lower portion, but that landscaping would be installed to mitigate visual impact. The small units are proposed to be duplexed units (two units attached consisting of two bedrooms, two baths and one enclosed car garage). He felt that two of the duplex units would have less of an impact than that of a residential unit. The rest of the project was to remain as open space with no fences proposed (to remain i.n its natural setting). All the trees are to remain in their original groupings with no development proposed around the trees. The trees were being used to screen the buildings from the "Acres". He would return at some future date and address in detail the building structures. Commissioner Moran questioned the number of trees which were slated for removal. Mr. Ivelich stated that at this time, no trees were slated for removal. Commissioner Moran commented that parking spaces and paved areas are being proposed. She questioned what would it do to the current paving. Mr. Ivelich stated that he has not completed a comparison between the existing and proposed paving. He stated that there was a percentage of coverage indicated in the proposal (cooing of the buildings themselves equals approximately 14%, including the roadway and would equate to 33%. He did not have the figures for the proposed paving. Mr. Ivelich responded to the question posed by Commissioner Caldwell regarding the Planning Commission Minu• i May 3, 1994 Page-6- geotechnical requirement. He stated that he was under the impression that the report that was received from the Public Works Director lays out the parameters of what was being requested to be investigated. It was up to the applicant to retain a geological consultant to respond to the questions posed by the Public Works Director. Community Development Director Curtis concurred with Mr. Ivelich's interpretation and further clarified that the City's geologist would review the applicant's geologist report. Commissioner Caldwell questioned which creeks or waterways the onsite runoff were tributary to? Mr. Ivelich responded that he was not sure which creeks or waterways the onsite runoff were tributary to. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the roadway has transacted one of the swales. She felt that there would be some vegetation removal. Mr. Ivelich responded that it was anticipated that all trees would be saved. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the phasing and timing of the project. She commented that Mr. Ivelich stated that the Odd Fellows Home was not planning to "move on the master plan on its entirety". Mr. Ivelich stated that the objective was to upgrade and replace the buildings that were clearly in need of replacement and repair (Phase I}. He further stated that Phase II would not occur within five years and that it was uncertain when Phase II would commence, if ever. Mr. Ivelich stated the he envisions a more diverse population (an opportunity for the younger, elder population to locate within the facilities). Mr. Ivelich clarified that the younger population would consist of 65 years and older. Commissioner Caldwell questioned how many years would Phase I span? Mr. Ivelich responded that Phase I was to commence immediately and would take two to three years to complete. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the population changes associated with this project. Mr. Ivelich acknowledged Commissioner Caldwell's question and stated that he would be better able to provide an answer at the next meeting. Commissioner Wolfe questioned whether the existing utilities were to be incorporated into the new structures. Mr. Ivelich responded that the utilities would be evaluated to determine whether they should be removed, utilized or replaced. Regarding removal of foundation, Commissioner Wolfe questioned whether new vegetation would be planted in the area where the foundation slated for removal were located? Mr. Ivelich stated that it was the intention to infill with landscape all the sites that were being tampered with and that areas which were not to be disturbed were to remain in their natural state. Commissioner Wolfe questioned what the net fill of vegetation would equal to. Mr. Ivelich responded that he would return with an answer when he was certain of his response. Chairman Asfour reminded his fellow Commissioners that questions specific to site development were not appropriate at this time. Commissioner Caldwell begged to defer with Chairman Asfour in that what comprises the project were relative to determining whether or not there would be environmental impacts. Planning Commission Min May 3, 1994 Page - 7 - Jeffrey Schwartz, San Mateo, requested that he be allowed more than three minutes to address the Commission because he was speaking on behalf of a large number of neighbors. He informed the Commission that he lives down stream and down grading from the Odd Fellows property. He stated that the homes located along San Marcus, have over the years, experienced substantial flooding. He provided the Commission with a copy of a report which he felt was of essential background, dated March 7, 1991. It was a letter of transmittal to the mayor at that time. He informed the Commission that a committee was appointed by the City Council to study the appropriateness of the Odd Fellow's site for increased density, specifically for future housing. The Council not only accepted the report but also accepted the public member committee's recommendation. Chairman Asfour questioned if City Attorney Faubion felt that the document submitted by Mr. Schwartz was appropriate to this hearing. City Attorney Faubion responded that if the letter addressed environmental impacts associated with the property, that it would be appropriate to submit it. Commissioner Moran stated that it could he possible that the Commission may receive additional comments and correspondence and that it would be important to receive public input so that an evaluation of the comment and concerns addressed be undertaken. Mr. Schwartz thanked the Commission for conducting this optional scoping session and stated that he appreciated the opportunity to address the city early in the review process rather than at a later date. He encouraged that a broad review be undertaken to ensure that all issues of concern are addressed. He formally requested that two members of the Commission "recuse" themselves because the two members have already indicated their desire to increase senior housing on the Odd Fellows' site. He referred to the two Commissioners as being Commissioners Moran and Jacobs. He requested that the Commission ask whoever ends up conducting the EIR, to give serious and thorough consideration for the "no project" alternative and that another alternative which should be studied is a project which would be in keeping with the General Plan for the area (R-1 40,000). He requested that economic impacts to existing property values be included in the analysis of impact. He further requested that the applicant, at this point in the process, commit in some binding fashion as to the number of and type of units which would be made available for public occupancy versus properties reserved for occupancy by the fraternal Odd Fellows Organization. Also requested was that the EIR not only examine a project as built but that it analyze the construction and the operational phases because they may have a more serious impact in areas such as water runoff., relocation of individuals, noise and the like. He requested that the Commission take into account in its scope of the EIR that the City of Saratoga already has existing, on-going violations of stormwater runoffs. This project could contribute to the violations. He requested that any interim housing be provided to the residents currently living on the site be described in detail. He requested that careful consideration be given to the four story elevations as presented to the city. He requested that the following items be evaluated as part of the EIR: "yes" on degrading environmental quality; "yes" on the fish and wildlife habitat; "maybe" on threatening wildlife, "maybe" on eliminating plant or animal communities; "maybe" on eliminating important California history and prehistory (Indian artifacts have been found on the site); "yes" on achieves short Planning Commission Minu~ S May 3, 1994 Page-8- term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals; "yes" on the environmental impacts directly or indirectly causing substantial impacts on human beings (referred to the testimony which occurred two years ago by the Odd Fellows Board and executives on the danger to residents on the property of construction, accessing the Odd Fellows home and increase in density); "yes" on possible environmental impacts that are viewed as considerable with past and future causes; "yes" on Council adopted environmental plans and community goals (specifically, the City's General Plan itself); "yes" on substantial demonstrable measures of the site; "maybe" on substantial interference with the movement of the residential and migratory fish and wildlife (all year wet stream); "possibly" on substantial interfering with movement of wildlife species; "possibly" on substantial of degrading which would lead to depletion of ground water resources (a major issue and substantial increase of impervious surface and loss of riparian ways); "possibly" on substantial interference with ground water recharge; "possibly" on encouraged activities requiring large fuel, water or energy; "yes" on induces substantial growth or concentration of population; "yes" on causes traffic increases; "yes" on substantial increase on noise levels (study should include noise levels of all hours of the day and night); "possibly" on causes substantial flooding or erosion or siltation (reminded the Commission that there was a very serious erosion problem on the San Marcos sites); "yes" on exposes people or structures to major geologic hazards; (Odd Fellows Home is not earthquake safe); "yes" on substantially diminished habitat for fish, wildlife or plants; "yes" on disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (neighborhood impacted with dense population and largest institution in the city in an area that is exclusive R-1 40,000); "yes" on creates a potential public health hazard or involves the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area; and "yes" on interferes with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (some residents are not ambulatory and many are elderly). He commented that he had specific comments on two-thirds of the initial study where he felt should have been marked as a "maybe" or "yes". City Attorney Faubion informed the Commission that Mr. Schwartz appeared to be going through Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Asfour requested that City Attorney Faubion clarify the issue that economic impacts could not be used as an issue under the scope for the EIR. City Attorney Faubion stated that it was difficult to deal with economic impacts. Generally, some connection to economic impacts can be associated with environmental impacts. Because it is a difficult area, she recommended that the Commission proceed and receive public input. She did not see a problem with raising the concerns of economic impact at ' this time. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the public submit written documentation as soon as possible so that staff could proceed with completion of the initial study. Don Richiuso stated that Mr. Schwartz addressed many of the issues he was going to Planning Commission Minu~ , May 3, 1994 Page-9- address. He requested an explanation from the developer as to the actual "head count" for the project. It was not clear to him as to the number of stories that exist and are proposed (it would be helpful if there was a current chart of what was actual versus proposed). He reviewed the initial study and commented that he was surprised that there were one out of 70 "yes", 10 "maybes" and 59 "nos" checked off. He suggested that an opposite approach be taken for a project of this size. He recommended that every opportunity be taken to complete an extensive EIR. The items he requested be evaluated were: "Land Use" (no. 8 on the checklist). The General Plan stipulates that any area of open space should develop as a single family detached housing. He quoted from the General plan as follows: "Existing nonresidential zones shall not be expanded nor residential zones added." The plan states that the future development of infill should be restricted to very low density single family homes in order to preserve the character of the area and the wishes of the area residents. He did not feel that the project could be approved and still abide by the General Plan. He was speaking specifically about Phase III. Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Richiuso if he was recommending item 8 be marked as "yes". Mr. Richiuso responded that he would request that item 8 be marked as "yes". Other items to be evaluated were: "yes" on item 4 -plant life (the proposed development would result in the reduction of existing vegetation); "yes" on item 5 -animal life (loss of vegetation would reduce wildlife habitat and therefore in the numbers; "yes" on item 6 -noise; "yes" on item 8 -land use; "yes" on item 11 -population (it is unknown as to what the future population would be but it is indicated that it would be a significant increase); "yes" on item 12 -housing (would create a change in the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhoods of R-1 40,000); "yes" on item 13 -transportation/circulation (large increase in population results in significant increase in services and emergency vehicles); "yes" on increased parking spaces; and "yes" on item 18 -aesthetics (new access roads along the perimeter of the existing homes). He also addressed the Commission regarding water and drainage. He informed the Commission that underground springs exist throughout the area. He requested that a thorough and extensive EIR for this project be completed. David Moss, 13486 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, stated that the proposal for the EIR appeared reasonable to him and that any attempt to make changes to the project would obstruct, delay and increase the cost. He did not feel that the previous speakers had substantial evidence to back up their statements. Mr. Moss commented that Mr. Schwartz stated that he has had drainage problems for many years and that he did not believe that Mr. Schwartz's drainage problem would get any worse. In fact, he (Mr. Moss) felt that project construction may mitigate Mr. Schwartz's drainage problem. It was his belief that this project would provide much needed housing source for senior citizens. He felt that a concentration of population in areas similar to this one would meet the needs of senior citizens. He hoped that the EIR would pursue the fact that seniors do not get out and drive during the rush hours unless they have to. He hoped that the Planning Commission would resist any attempts to increase the scope of the EIR. Planning Commission Minu~ • May 3, 1994 Page - 10 - Kevin Schaller, 18840 Ten Acres Road, Saratoga, pointed out that this proposal was housing for the Odd Fellows Association and not housing for the general population of Saratoga. He expressed concern regarding the number of employees that would be added to this facility. There are state mandated regulations that dictate the number of employees that are required to care for individuals on a residential care, skilled care and/or nursing facility. With the expansion, not only traffic of. the occupants needed to be addressed but also those of the caretakers (24 hour a day traffic associated with employees, staff, and support personal for the facility). He requested that no other access road other than what currently exists be stipulated in the EIR. The EIR should address the specific and not general comments. He requested that specific issues and explanation on how the manner in which the displacement of those individuals that currently reside in the facility would be handled. The issues that needed to be addressed were interim housing, transportation and safety of the existing residents. Mr. Schaller commented that Mr. Schwartz addressed his other issues of concerns. He requested that specific answers to his questions be provided. He also recommended that item 14 (public services) be addressed because of the need for additional firemen. Commissioner Wolfe commented that Mr. Schaller brought up a good point regarding the need for the EIR to address the temporary displacement of the occupants during remodel/construction. Mr. Schaller requested that the Commission request City Attorney Faubion's opinion regarding the two Planning Commissioners excusing themselves from discussion of this item due to their statements of support for this project. Chairman Asfour restated that. the purpose of this public hearing was to identify the environmental impacts associated with this project and that no decision was being made tonight on the project. He did not feel that Mr. Schaller's request for Attorney opinion was appropriate for tonight's public hearing. Commissioner Caldwell commented that interim housing was being proposed as part of this proposal. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:27 P.M. Mr. Schwartz thanked the Commission for the opportunity to study the issue. He requested an answer on how the city ended up with this map. Item 8 ties in with the question of five years ago concerning Phases I, II, and III for the San Marcus Project. He stated that 50 conditions were adopted in association with project approval. Substantial material changes eventually occurred later in the process. He felt that the issue (final map approval) tied into the land use issue and requested an explanation. Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 was passed to allow communities to evaluate mitigation measures of previously approved EIRs. The mitigation measures have not been completed for the San Marcus project approved four or five years ago. He requested that item 18 be addressed (aesthetics). He commented that his view was going to be that of a 15 foot structure. He requested that the Commission take Planning Commission Minu• May 3, 1994 Page - 11 - a hard look into the changes which have occurred without benefit of public notification. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff respond to the concern expressed by Mr. Schwartz in regards to the changes made to the tentative map. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City Council reviewed and approved the final map for the San Marcos project in two phases with the third phase removed/excluded. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the lack of public noticing for final map approval expressed by Mr. Schwartz and the land use issue (item 8) appeared to be germane. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pubbacke Court, Saratoga, requested an answer as to how the city ended up with a final map without public notification. He requested that item 8 (Land Use) be addressed. He commented that four or five years ago, an EIR process was completed for Phases I, II and III for the San Marcos project. Through the EIR process, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted a resolution which contained approximately 16 conditions with respect to that map. He noted that since approval, substantial material changes have occurred with the map. The public was not made aware of the changes. He requested that the changes to the San Marcos project be addressed with this EIR. There were several issues which tied in with the previous EIR. He commented that Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 passed in 1988 requires local municipalities to monitor mitigation measures which have been approved on previously prepared EIRs. He felt that there have been at least a dozen previous mitigation measures from the last EIR on the same site that have not been completed. He questioned the scope of this new EIR when mitigation measures have not been completed from the previous EIR. He questioned how can the next phase of the site proceed when the previous project conditions have not been completed. Regarding item 18 (aesthetics), he informed the Commission that the view from his backyard would be right at the health center. He questioned the height limitation of building number 2 and requested that it be reviewed. He also questioned the change in tentative map of 34 lots with no access designation for the other 18 lots designated as remainder without public notification of the changes to be made. Mr. Borelli reiterated that it was his belief that approval of the final map for this site was kept from the public in such a fashion as a consent calendar item and that adjacent property owners were not notified until this new application surfaced. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the final map recorded was in substantial conformance with the tentative map in terms of phasing. He commented that he did not believe that Phase III impacted the other two phases of project development. He (Curtis) would request a written opinion from the City Attorney regarding the phasing of the project. Bill Chastain, 14484 Chester Avenue, expressed concern with economic impacts (the project was a nonprofit organization with various impacts to the community and facilities which would need to be dealt with). This organization was tax exempt and did not feel that the public was under any obligation to accept an increase of any kind for public egress or facilities that have to service this property. Another issue of concern was the effect that this development would have on groups of people who live on the facility. These group of individuals (seniors) were promised that they would not live in a "squalor". The developer promised that if the City gave a quick approval of the three phased development, that the proceeds from that development would be used to upgrade the existing facilities. He Planning Commission Minu~ • May 3, 1994 Page - 12 - informed the Commission that several residents of the facility have informed him that they were disgusted with the way things were and requested that their concerns be addressed. He also informed the Commission that the average age of the residents were between 83 and 85. He questioned what guarantees would there be that in this round of approvals that anything would be done to fix the existing physical impediments to the group of people living on the property. He also pointed out that at least one public interview by Commissioner Wolfe states that he has taken a position in favor of this project and therefore, should be excluded in the analysis of this project. Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether Mr. Chastain requested that the EIR address the impact of the proposal on the existing residents. Mr. Chastain confirmed that his request was that of impact to individuals who reside in the existing facility. Individuals have indicated that they do not want the proposed interruption in their lives. Chairman Asfour stated that the facility was state regulated and that the residents have recourse with the county and state to address their concerns. Rose Mary Chastain, 14484 Chester Avenue, Saratoga, expressed serious concern regarding the coverage of building structures of a total of 40%. She did not feel that the architect was specific regarding the vegetation, trees and so fourth. She recommended that the surface coverage be investigated. She requested that the following items be addressed: item 2 -air, alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature and change in climate; item 4 -Plant Life, with a 40% coverage there would be an impact on vegetation; item 5 -Animal Life; item 10 - Risk of Upset, subsection b, possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan (Fire Department has specific guidelines for emergency evacuation); item 14 -Public Services, occupancy would need to be made known because it impacts fire and police protection. Commissioner Moran clarified a point with staff regarding the stated 33% pervious surface and the additional 14%? Planner Walgren stated that the grand total of impervious surface was 33% and that the 14% was part of the 33% to be built on. Mrs. Chastain commented that there was a vague building located to the rear which stipulates multi-family housing. Commissioner Moran noted that the building was the existing facility next door and that it was not part of this project (a HUD project known as the Fellowship Plaza). Community Development Director Curtis stated that what was proposed in terms of impervious coverage would need to be evaluated. The purpose of the EIR was to evaluate the impact associated with the project. The EIR would address the impacts of paving and runoff. He felt that all the points addressed were well taken and that the mitigation measures would address the impacts. However, the decision on the project would return to the Commission at a later date. Planning Commission Minu• • May 3, 1994 Page - 13 - Mr. Ivelich stated that the impervious surface would be 33%. What was being projected at this time was that Phase I would be built immediately and Phase II might be built in two or three years (or may never be built). It was very important that things like impervious surface be looked at in Phase I, separately from Phase II because there was no guarantee that Phase II would be built. Community Development Director Curtis commented that the EIR would evaluate the results of the impervious coverage, regardless of its location and what effect it has on water runoff. Commissioner Jacobs stated that it has been indicated that impervious coverage was an issue of the EIR and should be addressed in the EIR. Mr. Ivelich commented that the entire site was being dealt with and that the site was being designed to respect the advantage considering the issues. There were reasons why the density was low in one point and high in another. He felt that the entire project stands on its own. Mary D. Urbano stated that she felt that credit should be given to the Odd Fellows for taking care of the senior residents all these years. She requested that the facilities be allowed to be upgraded. AT 10:00 P.M., COMMISSIONERS ICAPLAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 6-U (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the City has delayed remodeling of the existing buildings. Community Development Director Curtis commented that he was not aware that the City had placed a "stop work order" causing project delay. Mr. Curtis stated that to the best of his knowledge, no building permits had been issued recently and that for improvements and minor building modifications, only a building permit would be required. He (Curtis) distributed copies of Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines to the Commission. Appendix G lists every possible impact that might be created on a particular project. Chairman Asfour questioned when staff would be able to provide the Commission with the documents presented earlier by the public. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would be provided to the Commission at time of project proposal because the material deals with land use issues. He further commented that the input presented this evening would be taken into consideration and that he has heard enough testimony regarding the issues which need to be addressed. Commissioner Jacobs recommended that staff be given the opportunity to review and digest comments presented and return to the Commission with their list of what was being proposed. Commissioner Jacobs recommended that other documents submitted to staff be made available to the public for its review. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he would report to the Commission Planning Commission Minu• • May 3, 1994 Page - 14 - under "Directors Item" as to any additional information presented to staff at the next Commission meeting. He requested that any documentation by the public be submitted to staff by Thursday (May 5). Mr. Schwartz stated that he would try to submit his report by Friday (May 6). Commissioner Caldwell requested that the following issues be addressed: item 2b (Air) - there will be concentrated food preparation and enlarged kitchen preparation and she felt that odors may be a potential impact; Sc (Animal Life) - no discussion was made regarding the introduction of domestic animals; item 9 (Natural Resources) -she wondered how broadly the natural resources were interpreted (does it relate to riparian habitat or strictly mining material like gold or silver or could it also relate to energy issues). Community Development Director Curtis concurred that energy concerns could be addressed under item 9 but not the others indicated by Commissioner Caldwell. Item 13b -there was by virtue of the project itself, a new demand for parking. Community Development Director Curtis stated that parking would be contained on site and would not typically be considered an environmental impact. Item 13f -she (Caldwell) did not believe that there was any mention of construction traffic and recommended that all phases of the project, including construction, be investigated. Community Development Director Curtis commented that there was typically a whole section in the EIR that deals with short term effects versus long term effects of traffic during construction activity. Item 14 (Public Services) -Commissioner Caldwell did not feel that there would be an issue of children impacting schools. However, she felt that there needs to be sensitivity to the traffic impact to the two major intersections that pose difficulty for the schools (e.g. Fruitvale/Allendale and Fruitvale/Saratoga intersections). Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the impacts to school as outlined by Commissioner Caldwell would be that of traffic impact to the school not the need for additional schools. Commissioner Moran referred to item 3b. She commented that Mr. Schwartz indicated that one of his neighbors was experiencing drainage problems and requested that the address of that neighbor be given to the EIR consultant retained by the city so that it was specifically known where the anticipated drainage problem would occur to address that neighbors concern. She also wanted to make sure that the concern addressed by Mr. Schaller regarding additional employees and the increased traffic and noise mitigation be addressed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned staff s position regarding .items 14A, E and F as these items were not marked and questioned if staff felt that they should be addressed. Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff would include these sections to be addressed in terms of public services. Commissioner Wolfe commented that the public input was extremely valuable and helpful. He commented that regardless of any previous public statements that he has made on this issue, his ultimate decision would be the one which would be appropriate for the site and that of the neighborhood. He also commented that he has not made a predetermined decision on this project. Therefore, he did not believe he should be removed from the Planning Commission Minu• • May 3, 1994 Page - 15 - Commission nor from this process. Commissioner Moran commented that she did not think that the review of the scope of the EIR did not unnecessarily delay, obstruct or increase the cost of this project. In fact, she felt that this process would help to expedite the process in the long run. She would prefer that staff error on the side of including issues when there seems to be a grey area. She felt that there were many comments presented tonight and that each comment should be given consideration. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that on May 11, staff would present to the Commission a final study checklist for its review to ensure that staff has included all issues which the Commission recommended be addressed. Staff would then prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) which would be sent to various environmental consultants who have indicated that they have interest in preparing EIRs for the City of Saratoga. A three to four week response time would be given to have RFPs returned to staff. Staff would narrow the consultant selection process to three consultants which the City felt would perform an adequate job on the preparation of the EIR. He informed the Commission that because the applicant was paying for the EIR, the applicant would be allowed to indicate which of the three qualified consultants would be selected. If the applicant wished to select a consultant who would take a longer time in completion at a lesser cost or a consultant who would expedite the completion of the EIR at a greater cost, the applicant should be allowed to make the decision of consultant selection. Once the EIR has been completed, the City is required by state law to post a notice and conduct a 45 day review period to allow the public and other agencies to respond to the draft EIR, followed by a public hearing. Community Development Director Curtis stated that it was anticipated that the public hearing on the EIR would be scheduled before the Commission either in September or October. Once the application has been deemed complete, the City has one year to prepare, review and certify the EIR. He informed the Commission that this application has not been deemed complete because the geologist report has not been completed. Commissioner Moran expressed concern that both the applicant and the public be made aware that the City was trying to move in an expeditious manner as required by law and yet ensure that everyone stays informed as to the process. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if it was a standard procedure to require technical information pertinent to the project before the City deemed the application complete. Community Development Director Curtis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the selection process for the EIR consultant. She commented on the EIR consultant selection process previously conducted on a major EIR (Wang property). The procedure which the City followed in that instance for selection of a consultant was to appoint a subcommittee consisting of Planning Commissioners and staff. Each of the consultants were interviewed and the subcommittee selected the consultant for that project rather than the applicant selecting the consultant. She questioned whether the Commission wanted to deviate from the process which has been used previously in Saratoga. Planning Commission Minu• • May 3, 1994 Page - 16 - Community Development Director Curtis recommended that interviews of consultant candidates occur early in the stage and that at a later date, a subcommittee be selected to confirm the final three consultants. He informed the Commission that less argument from the applicant would occur if the applicant was allowed to select from the final three (in terms of EIR cost). Commissioner Caldwell stated that her fundamental concern was that the Commission was the responsible body in approving the EIR and that she would want to be involved in the process. Commissioner Moran stated that she was comfortable in having staff perform the selection of the consultant to be retained for the preparation of the EIR because staff was knowledgeable in determining consultant qualifications. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/WOLFS MOVED TO REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Mr. Chastain stated that he felt that the objectivity of the study would be impacted if the applicant was allowed to provide input in the EIR selection process. He expressed concern with the expediences of this issue and requested that the three phased development issue and consultant selection process be narrowed. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that at the May 11 meeting there was one new public hearing item scheduled and that the Commission would be adjourning to a work session to review the Greenbriar development (no decision nor action would be taken at that meeting). COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Caldwell thanked staff for the reports furnished on the Odd Fellow scoping session and that she appreciated that elaborated staff. report and found them to be helpful. ' Commissioner Moran questioned whether City Attorney Faubion would be present at the May 11 meeting. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that review of the environmental checklist, incorporating tonight's comments, would be presented at the May 11 meeting. Therefore, City Attorney Faubion would not be present at that meeting. ' Planning Commission Minu• May 3, 1994 Page - 17 - COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT Chairman Asfour adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to May 11, 1994, 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. PC050394