Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-1995 Planning Commission Minutes-_ ~A\T\I\TG CO~TMISSION AZINUT~. ~: _ - JU\'E 14, 199 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular i\Ieeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried, Murakami Late: None Absent: Abshire. Asfour City Attorney Riback was present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAI~TCE MINUTES May 24, 1995 BY CONSENSUS, THE MAY 24, 1995 MINUTES WERE DEFERRED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND INDIVIDUALS PRESENT THIS EVENING. ORAL COMMUNICATIO`TS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\'G AGE\TDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 9, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren noted two corrections as follows: - Agenda Item 9, page 93, condition 9 of the approval resolution: the City Attorney has recommended wording revision to the condition relating to all agreements and obligations entered into pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Saratoga and the Community Foundation of Santa Clara County Dated 11-21-95. He indicated that the content of the condition would not change but would clarify the connection of the MOU. - Agenda Item 12, 13 and 14, page 163 of staff report: there is discussion of the replacement value for the 5 trees that were removed prior to receiving permits for removal. Two trees were inadvertently included in this valuation and should be excluded, bringing the replacement value from $26,690 contained in the approval resolution to _ ,PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 2 - $17,016. The resolution should be amended to reflect the reduced replacement valuation. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Siegfried requested removal of Agenda Item 2 and Commissioner Kaplan requested that Agenda Item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. 3. DR-94-061 - Lester; 11950 Walbrook Dr., request for Design Review approval to construct 468 sq. ft. second story addition and 470 sq. ft. of first level floor area to an existing 2,317 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 20,418 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-15,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/10/95; application withdrawn at the request of the applicants). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 1. V-93-020 - Heath; 14300 Saratoga Ave., request for Lot Adjustment approval to DR-93-032 - Linemerge a 20 ft. wide property strip to the main parcel. Variance LL-93-008 - approval is requested to allow the proposed cumulative building square footage (including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this property, to allow a 25 ft. tall two-story garage (one-story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. Design Review approval is also necessary to add 2,204 sq. ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two-story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 to prepare denial Resolutions for adoption) . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kaplan inquired about page 1, subparagraph (a) which reads: "The Planning Commission recognized that three of the existing accessory structures, the "shed", "carriage house" and "office" per Exhibit A, could be considered locally historically significant" . She did not believe that there was discussion about a shed and noted that there was a stone pump house, and a shed that was referred to by Commissioner Siegfried and recollected that Commissioner Patrick did not want to retain any of the structures. Planner Walgren responded that the names given to these buildings were taken directly from Exhibit A which would be attached to the resolution. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. Community ~ Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the applicant for Consent Calendar Item 1 has appealed the Commission's denial of the applications and that the appeal would be considered by the City Council on July 5. ;. ~ ,PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Caldwell stepped down from discussion of this Agenda Item 2 due to a potential conflict of interest. 2. UP-574.3 - The Brookside Club of Saratoga, 19127 Cox Ave. ; request to amend existing Use Permit conditions to allow for the use of an amplified sound system to announce and start the previously approved summer swim meets and time trials and to modify the swim season hours of operation to allow t~vo swim instructors to arrive at 8:00 a.m. for swim practices, where 9:00 a.m. is the current Use Permit limitation. The subject property is approximately 3 acres in size and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 to prepare approval Resolution). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami informed the public that consent items are not normally opened to public hearing. However, the Commission would allow testimony on this item but that the comments would need to be specific regarding the resolution. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report for this item. He felt that the conditions as listed in the resolution of approval reflects the Commission's action at its last meeting with the stipulation that the use of a loud speaker system would be allowed as part of the swim meets. He indicated that at the last meeting, there was a question as to when the loud speaker system could be used and that the Commission requested that staff incorporate a condition which would allow for the use of the sound system which would state specifically how the equipment is to be used. He informed the Commission that a letter was distributed to the Commission dated June 12, 1995 from Kent Bossange, Brookside Club President, requesting that the condition relating to the use of the sound system be amended to include the following language: "The electronic system may be used to conduct swim meets and to address any safety issues that may arise during the meets. Use of the electronic system for any other purposes is prohibited" . He also noted that aletter/petition signed by 41 members of the Brookside Club was received and that a copy of one of those letters was distributed to the Commission this evening. The letter indicates that the members of the club felt that the wording in the condition relating to the sound system was too severe and would prevent meets from being held in a safe and timely manner. Also received this afternoon was correspondence from Robert Salutric expressing concern regarding the number of times the system was used in the meet that was held this past Saturday. Community Development Director Curtis felt that a resolution was prepared per the Commission's direction. He indicated that staff was also interested in safety issues. He questioned the use~of the term "safety" in conjunction with the operation of the meet. He was unclear as to the members definition of safety and that it was not spelled out in the communication received. Staff felt that if the wording of the condition was changed to include the word "safety", Brookside Club and the City of Saratoga may be exposed to legal liability. He felt that if there was a safety issue, that there may be a need to review the operation of the facility at a future date. He recommended that the Commission adopt the resolution of approval as presented. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it was known what the members of the public were going to address because this item was not scheduled for public hearing. She felt that the comments should be specific because she did not want to set a precedent. ,-PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JUNE 14. 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Siegfried commented that he visited the site on Saturday and listened to the sound system in operation and indicated that he did not find it to be terribly offensive or different than the ambient noise in the neighborhood. He noted that the noise from the kids and parents screaming were louder than the system. He indicated that he would change his views in terms of the sound system itself. His only concern would be that it be clearly and carefully defined what the sound system could be used for and that he had no concern for the additional hours of operation. He reiterated that the whole question of the use of the club should be brought back to the Commission in two to three months. Commissioner Kaplan noted that condition l.a. in the resolution stipulates that "The electronic system shall only be used to start the swimmers for each heat or race." She stated that she did not find any ambiguity in the language at all. Commissioner Siegfried felt that there vas some ambiguity because the use of the sound system was more than just the replacement of a starting gun. He wanted to make sure that what can be announced is clearly defined. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Siegfried in that the Commission's intent was that the time it not to be recited, winners or losers announced, or the announcement of any other types of announcements. The electronic system was to be used to direct the swimmers to swim which included the beep. Chairman Murakami stated that no specific language vas included that would preclude any emergency use. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a sentence could be added that indicates that the word "start" means calling the event and calling the swimmers to their mark. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she was inclined to approve the resolution with the clarification of what "start" meant. Chairman Murakami stated that speakers should be specific with their comments relative only to the resolution. Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, informed the Commission that she submitted two letters previously to the Commission, one from George White, Associate Planner, and one from Kent Bossange, President of Brookside Club. She felt that the letters sent to the neighbors from Brookside Club proves that the Club ignored the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and that the Club is now before the Planning Commission requesting approval of the violations by amending the use permit. She asked whether the disregard for the conditions of the use permit should be rewarded by the Commission? She did not believe that they should. City Attorney Riback informed Ms. Askew that the speakers can only speak to the issue of the specific wording of the resolution that is before the Commission and that this item was no longer considered a public hearing. The issue of whether there should be an approval or not was an issue that was not before the Commission. . ~ ;PLANNING COMMISSIM MINUTES . JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Ms. Askew felt that the Brookside Club has operated successfully for 35 years without the electronic sound amplification system that was not allowed as part of its use permit and felt that the Club should adhere to the original conditions of approval. Commissioner Kaplan suggested that the speakers reference specific language of the resolution because if they didn't, it would be considered a public hearing and that she would object to it. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Drive, concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that the word "start" needed to be defined because it is subject to interpretation. He requested that a short and specific example of what "start" means be included in the definition for clarity sake. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, President of Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated that he did not feel that the problem was the sound system or the swim meets but that the problem was the noise, noise sources and its control. Kent Bossange, President Brookside Club, informed the Commission that Brookside Club has 250 families, with 200 swimmers in total. He felt that the language contained in condition l.a. relating to the use of the electronic system to be used only to start the swimmers for each heat or race may constrain the Club from conducting a race quickly, efficiently, safely and in accordance with USA swim meet regulations and guidelines. If the proposed language is followed to the latter, the neighbors may be subjected to noise for a longer period of time then what is being experienced today. He requested that the wording be modified which would allow swim meets to be conducted similarly to the competing club and USA swim meets. He felt that the use of the electronic system for safety reasons was a fair statement to be include in the resolution. Mary Jane Karas spoke in support of the language as proposed by staff. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not have a problem with the use of the sound system to announce events or to call swimmers to their mark but that he wanted to make sure that the language reflected that. He did not support the language that was suggested by Brookside because it would open it to anything. He recommended the inclusion of an additional paragraph to define the word "start" . Community Development Director Curtis recommended that a sentence be added which would define the word "start" to mean: calling the events by title, calling the swimming to their marks to be followed by an electronic beep. Commissioner Kaplan stated that Commissioner Abshire contacted her and that he informed her that he had visited the neighborhood. He indicated that he had no problem with what was heard and would approve the resolution before the Commission had he been present this evening. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP- 574.3 INCORPORATING THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "START" AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: CALDWELL; _ _PLANNING COMMISSIiMINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 - PAGE - 6 - ABSENT: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the Commission would be looking at the issue of advertising and the overall use for the Brookside Club from a public standpoint at a later date. Commissioner Caldwell resumed her seat on the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioners Caldwell and Kaplan requested that Item 5 be pulled from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. 4. DR-94-022 - Chang; 21423 Saratoga Hills Rd. , request for Design Review approval ~. 94-005 - to construct a ne~v 4,821 sq. ft. t~vo-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate a property line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcels involved are approximately 53,306 and 21,965 sq. ft. in size, and are located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. to 6/28/95 due to public noticing error; application expires 11/25/95). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 5. S-95-002 - Grace United Methodist Church; 19848 Prospect Rd., request for Sign Permit approval to construct a new 23.6 sq. ft., 7 foot tall, externally illuminated, freestanding identification sign for Grace United Methodist Church. The proposed sign would replace the two existing freestanding signs along Prospect Rd. The subject property is located within an R-1- 10,000 residential zoning district and is approximately 2.6 acres. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Caldwell stated that since the Commission was being asked to approve a request from the Church, she wanted to know the status of the parking problem and whether the Church was being a good neighbor. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he has been in constant contact with one of the neighbors who indicated that cars have been parked in the Church's parking lot past 10 p.m. He indicated that he has met with the pastor to address the neighbor's concern. He informed the Commission that he has been keeping a log in the file and that should there was a consistent problem or impact to the neighborhood, he would bring the issue back to the Commission for direction. However, he did not believe that there was a significant problem at this time. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she wanted to review a color rendition and noted that what the Commission received was a picture of the building showing a white background. She asked if there was to be a red frame. Planner Walgren responded that the logo would utilize a red frame. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the first paragraph under the third "Whereas", page 18 of the resolution, states that "The sign complies with the regulations of this Article" . She =PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 7 - asked which Article was being referenced and recommended that it be included in the resolution. Planner Walgren clarified that the reference was that of Article 15 of the City Code in the regulations of the district in which it would be located and that it would be included in the resolution. Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the second paragraph under the third "Whereas" which states that the illumination would not exceed what currently exists. She requested that it be specified what is existing. Planner Walgren clarified that illumination of the existing signs would not be greater than 280 and that it would so be clarified in the resolution. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 5-95-002 WITH THE MODIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 15 AND THE INCLUSION OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUMINATION THAT EXISTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARI\'GS 6. DR-95-008 - Kim; 20472 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for Design Review approval to develop a currently vacant 11,998 sq. ft. lot with a 3,217 sq. ft. single story dry cleaning and one-hour photo building. The property is located at the northwest corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Oak St. within a Commercial-Historic zoning district; formerly the site of a Chevron gas station (cont. from 5/10/95; application expires 10/19/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received this afternoon signed by four property owners along Oak Street objecting to the photo drive-up business and that two letters were received this evening objecting to the use, the style of the building and concern with the traffic to be generated with these uses. He clarified that the application before the Commission vas for design review of the building. Both the photo development business and the dry cleaning establishment are permitted uses that do not require Planning Commission approval. He noted that the photo drive-up was not truly a drive-up but that it was a photo business that would require an individual to pull into the parking lot and walk to the retail establishment. Commissioner Kaplan asked if all frames were to be wood material and noted that page AS-3 of Exhibit "A" depicts the use of aluminum frames. Planner Walgren indicated that all windows were to be of wood frame. He noted that page AS-3, Exhibit A, depicts the use of wood frame and that the window glass would be set in aluminum. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the arbor and the building be stained with a natural wood stain because she was concerned that the project would result with the problem that is seen at City Hall with a building that looks like it has "dermatitis" most of the time. If that is what this project would end up looking like, she recommended that it be painted. She inquired as to the reason for requiring the use of wood stain. Planner Walgren responded that the wood stain would lend itself to both the architectural guidelines for the Saratoga Village area and to the style of the building with the arbors. The use of the wood stain does not mean that it would end up with the same kind of finish that is being seen in the City Hall complex. The finish was ;PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 8 - more of a result of the weathering treatment that was put over the stain. He indicated that what is being proposed would be similar to that seen on the real estate building across the street. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:2~ p.m. Eddie Shen, LRS Associates, project architect, addressed the changes made to the project to address the concerns expressed by the Commission at its May 10, 1995 meeting. He stated that he did not object to the use of paint instead of stain because it would last longer and that he would not object to the use of wood frame material for the windows. He addressed the latest technologies associated with the dry cleaning and photo drive-up businesses. Community Development Director Curtis noted that the variance was no longer being requested as the project now meets parking requirements. Dave Sorensen, 14493 Oak Street, expressed concern with parking problems, the hours of operations, and the traffic associated with the high volume of business. Gary Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, expressed concern with parking. He noted that there were 18 parking spaces on Oak Street and that there were 30 residents who live on that block. He also noted that the Odd Follows Hall, a commercial building, a library, and the firemens' hall were located in the vicinity. He felt that with the approval of the photo drive-up and the laundry establishments, the employees would be taking 5 of the 18 parking spaces on Oak Street. He inquired as to the hours of operation for the photo drive-up. Erna Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, expressed concern with traffic circulation, traffic impact to Oak Street and Big Basin, for the safety of the children as they walk to and from school, and with the destruction of part of Saratoga's heritage. Kip Turgason, 14516 Oak Street, requested that there be a good balance between residential and non-residential uses. He noted that this was the fourth dry cleaning establishment approved by the City. He felt that the significant number of customers who will patronize the businesses would impact and parking and traffic. He did not believe that the City would want to have customers and employees use the local neighborhood streets for parking. He expressed concern with the traffic impacts to Oak Street as well as concern for the safety of the children walking to and from school. Diana Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, indicated that traffic and parking were of great concern to her. She felt that there would be more than five employees as indicated by the applicant. She felt that Oak Street has been used and abused over the years by Big Basin businesses. Also of concern to her were the chemical odors that would result from the photo business. Commissioner Caldwell asked ho~v many employees were to be employed, where the employees would park, and the hours of operation. Mr. Shen responded that it would be a family run business, employees would park in the parking lot on-site and that the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. (whatever is allowed per city code). He felt that there would be less traffic associated with these businesses than the previous use of a gas station. .PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 9 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had no problem with the use now that it has been redesigned and noted that the use now meets parking requirements. Since the project meets parking requirements, the review this evening was that of the design of the building and not its uses. He did not feel that a dry cleaning business would take up much parking and that this was a one hour photo service and not adrive-up business. Community Development Director Curtis stated that there restrictions would exist if a business was to be opened 24 hours. He noted that dry cleaners were typically opened from 7-7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that he would need to check the code to determine how a 24 hour business was defined. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission had the discretion to limit the hours of operation? Community Development Director Curtis responded that he did not believe that the Commission could stipulate the hours of operation because this was a design review application and not a use permit review. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the neighbors have expressed concern with parking on a neighborhood street. She asked if the owners of the property would be able to block off their parking lot from use after hours or would the parking lot be available to be used by the other uses in the area to relieve congestion on Oak Street? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the property owners could chain off their parking lot. The question would be if the owners would consider joint parking with some of the other uses that are opened at night. However, at this point, it is a private matter unless one of the uses came before the Commission, there could be some discretionary action taken to require additional parking. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the residents have approached the city to seek some sort of control such as permitted parking during certain hours for residents as the residents have expressed that there is a serious parking problem. Community Development Director Curtis responded that to his knowledge, he did not believe that the residents have requested city assistance with parking issues and that it vas his belief that there was a two hour limit for parking along Oak Street. Commissioner Patrick commented that the applicant has satisfied her design concerns. The applicant has gone into a more "woodsy" look which is appropriate for the neighborhood and indicated her support for the application. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was not present at the original introduction of this item. In reviewing this item, he believed that he had enough information relating to the design aspect to render an opinion on this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-008 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE WINDOWS COULD BE SET IN ALUMINUM BUT THAT THE WINDOWS ARE TO BE CASED IN WOOD FRAMES. . PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was with reluctance that she would vote for this application because the application before the Commission was for design review. She stated that she has continued concern with traffic problems at this intersection and felt that the situation would only get worse with the Farmers Market. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 7. DR-95-022 - Kraule: 14433 Springer Ave. , request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,880 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a conflict with the relocation of the patio? Planner Walgren noted that there was an oak tree located to the rear of the site at the property line and that a patio was proposed to be within proximity of the oak tree's trunk. He indicted that the City arborist has reviewed this application and felt that the patio could be built at the proposed location so long as it is of a pervious paving material which is a condition of the resolution. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a condition to require bonding to protect the oak tree? Planner Walgren responded that requesting a security deposit was a discretionary decision which staff would include if there were trees in question that could be damaged during construction. In this case, bonding may not have been required by the City arborist because it may have been determined that the tree could easily be protected. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she wanted to do everything that she could to make sure that every applicant knows that the Commission means business about the protection of trees and that fences are to be used and left in place during construction to protect the trees. Commissioner Siegfried noted that Chief Kraule called him several weeks ago and that he walked the property separately from the land use visit. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Warren Hyde, project architect, informed the Commission that he and the property owner have reviewed the staff report and the conditions contained in the resolution. He further stated that he would comply with the requirements of the arborist. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:52 P.M. Chairman Murakami noted that the site was a constrained, narrow lot and that the project was nicely designed. Commissioner Patrick stated that she spoke to the applicant a couple of weeks ago relating to the building located next door. .PLANNING COMMISSI~~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 11 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-022 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE BONDING FOR THE OAK TREE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:~2 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. Chairman Murakami noted that there were over 21 individuals requesting to address the Commission on agenda item 8. He requested that the speakers consolidate their comments especially if there was a large group that would be addressing the same issues. He requested that two spokespersons be selected or that the redundancy of speaking be shortened and that speakers not repeat comments previously expressed. 8. TUP-95-001- Church of the Ascension; 12033 Miller Ave., request for Temporary use Permit approval to allow the Church of the Ascension to host the "Faith in Action" Rotating Shelter Program for the homeless during the month of August, 1995.y The church would provide shelter, meals, and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults in the gym portion of the Parish Center Building. The hours of operation would be from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. seven days a week during the month of August. The church site is located within an R-1-10,000 residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended approval of the temporary use permit on a trial basis for the month of August. He informed the Commission that staff received a large amount of correspondence regarding this application and that staff was not able to reproduce the large amount of correspondence for the Commission's packet. He summarized that the Planning Commission vas mailed a petition with a location map identifying the immediate adjacent neighbors who are opposed to the use for the reasons cited in the letters. Also, the Commission was mailed a supplemental packet from the applicants describing in much greater detail the purposes of the operation and how it would function. Also, received was a packet of letters and form letters signed by over 120 area residents in support of this program. Commissioner Kaplan noted that condition 6 of the resolution located on page 6 states that "All food preparation shall be in accordance with the County of Santa Clara Health Department regulations." She then noted that condition 7b states that "No cooking shall occur in the kitchen except for warming of food. " She asked if these t~vo conditions were in conflict of each other? Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that the two conditions were in conflict because the warm meals in the evening are to brought from off-site and that the morning and lunch meals were to be assembled sack lunch-type meals. Commissioner Patrick asked if this temporary use permit was granted for the month of August, and that should a violation of the temporary use permit be noted, would the use stop at that point? Planner Walgren responded that the City could revoke the permit immediately if there was a significant violation. If there was a minor violation, it would be noted in the file for .PLANNING COMMISSI'~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 12 - future reference. Commissioner Caldwell <<sked staff to explain what would be considered a "minor" and "significant" violations, «~hat would the mechanics be for recording the violation, and what would the City do to address the violations. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the issue would be whether it was a correctable violation during the 30 day period. If there was a significant violation in terms of health and safety issues that impacted the neighborhood that could not be corrected, the City would close the use down. He provided the Commission with an example of a minor violation (i.e. a call received that the hours of operation were being violated and that the violation was corrected). If minor violations continue to exist, the City would stop the operation ~f the facility and that the procedures to address the violations and revoke the temporary use ~~ermit would be handled in the same manner in which the temporary use permit was approved. It was staff's opinion that the hours of operation could be the area where there would be a problem that would cause the revocation of a use permit. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission would need to meet to revoke the permit? Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff would not revoke the permit but that staff would inform the applicant that a violation exists. The only way that the use could be shut down would be if th°re vas a significant amount of problems that created a health and safety hazard and that the Municipal Code deals with how one handles an emergency situation. He further stated that it wars hard to answer that question because it was highly speculative and that the City has not had to deal with this situation. Commissioner Patrick statf:d that the residents are present and want to know how the City would address their concerns should violations occur. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that complaints or violations would be immediately responded to by city staff. Planner Walgren noted that condition 8 of the resolution of approval requires that the names and phone numbers of church representatives be available to address any neighborhood concerns. Chairman Murakami asked if the Commission had the authority to revoke the permit should it be necessary. Community Development Director Curtis responded that he did not believe that a situation would arise v~~here a public hearing would be scheduled to consider revocation because if the complaint vas significant enough, staff would be able to cease the operation immediately via an emergency situation. Commissioner Caldwell asked if a participant of the program was caught wandering around the neighborhood would that be considered as a significant or a minor violation. Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff would contact the operator or attendant on duty to find out why a particip~rnt would be allowed to wonder and that it should not be continued. He did not feel that this example would be an emergency situation and that it was a situation that could be corrected. He ciid not believe that one instance would be considered a significant violation. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Howard Stallman, representing Ascension Church, informed the Commission that he has been ,PLANNING COMMISSI" MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 13 - a member of this communi~:y since 1967. He noted that no matter whether you were an old timer or a new member to the community, you do not want to do anything that would change the neighborhood that would create a safety problem or decrease the value of ~rie~ property. He informed the Commission that the rotating shelter was not a new concept which has not been tested, but that it was a m~iture program and existence for five years. It was only new to this neighborhood. He noted tltat the Los Altos program was in a 100% residential program similar to that of Ascension Church's neighborhood and that the Los Altos neighbors have not experienced any negative itnpacts as a result of the Alpha Omega Rotating Shelter program. He noted that the rotating shelter programs have been proven to be safe and successful. He emphasized that he would :not recommend this program to his church nor consider the program in his neighborhood if he :nad not seen it tested and demonstrated to be a program that would benefit its participant witr~out any negative effects on the neighborhood. He noted that the Prince of Feace Church vas recently granted a use permit to act as a host church for the last three years and last month. the Commission granted a use permit to allow it to continue for the next five years. He indica~:ed that an informational meeting was held with the neighborhood on April 19 and May 14 and that over 100 individuals were in attendance at the first meeting. At the end of the first meetin;=_, based on the numbers offering positive comments, he felt that the majority of the neighbors lead agreed to Qive the program a chance. He acknowledged that the Church has not reached e~•eryone as there is a croup that has expressed strong issues with the program because the progr;tm may increase crime and have negative impacts on property values. He felt that every effort h,~s been made to demonstrate that the concerns have not occurred in other communities. He started that he was surprised to see that the neighbors signed a petition opposing the shelter. He rioted that the petition did not indicate that Ascension Church would be participating as a host church only for the month of August, limiting its participant to 15 men and that the participants are carefully screened prior to being accepted. Ray Muzzy, 15918 Eric Drive, representing a group of concerned homeowners who reside in the vicinity, noted that the: petition submitted was signed by 142 residents. He informed the Commission that an attemft was made to survey the 171 homes in the neighborhood. He felt that the citizens who are affected by the use should have a vote on the use. Out of 171 residents in this area, over 70~I~ of the individuals opposed the use. He noted that there was a different lay out of the Church of Ascer..sion to that of Prince of Peace. He indicated that homes were bought in this neighborhood becaL.se one thought that they were going to be living in a residential area. He felt that this issue would divide the community and that the local residents feel that a group of outsiders are coming into the community imposing this use on the community and that the local residents would have to live with the use. Ted Braucht, 19620 Ascension Drive, informed the Commission that he resides directly across the street from the church ~tnd that he represented 112 homeowners in opposition to the proposal. These 112 individuals represent t~vo-thirds of the homes within 500 feet of the church property. All of the individuals who signed the petition believe that a temporary housing shelter in a residential area has no po~:itive effect and would impact property values and the neighborhood negatively. He did not believe that any future buyers would purchase homes in a 100 percent residential area knowing that there was a homeless shelter in the neighborhood. He acknowledged that the Prince of Peace Church recently received use permit approval and that the Church was zoned agricultural and is surrounding on three sides by professional, . ` .PLANNING COMMISSI~, MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 14 - administrative and commercial districts and that was not the case with Ascension Church. He did not believe that a buffer- zone existed between the Ascension Church and the residential area. The residents are aware o:' the screening process that is planned for the program but that the residents were realistic enough to know that any screening program cannot be 100% effective 100% of the time. He brol~ght up an incidence that took place at the Prince of Peace Church as well as the unpleasant incident that took place at the YMCA. That incident resulted in the YMCA withdrawing from.. the Prince of Peace Program. He indicated that residents have compassion for these individuals but that the residents felt that this type of assistance is provided in appropriate places. He felt that the two-third majority vote was a mandate to the Planning Commission and that it was one that should not be ignored. He requested that the Commission not approve a homeless shelter in this residential area. Commissioner Caldwell requested that Mr. Braucht explain his comments regarding the problem which occurred at the Prince of Peace Church that he referred to. Mr. Braucht recommended that a representative from the Prince of Peace Church be requested to address the incident. He informed the Commission that he read a newspaper article in the June 7 Saratoga News which stated that the YMCA stopped the use of the facility last year because a shelter guest was involved in an unpleasant ;.ncident. Commissioner Kaplan con mented that there appears to be a number of homes included in the survey that are located orc the opposite side of Prospect and that those homes were not in Saratoga. Mr. Braucht res~~onded that those homes were in San Jose, but that those homes were located within 500 feet of :he Church. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that noticing is conducted beyond the Saratoga City limits if the property is located within 500 feet of a proposed project. Bill Wittmers, 10210 Adriana Avenue, spoke on behalf of Mary Burkhart, Development Director of Community Services foi• an agency with the cities of Mt. View and Los Altos. He informed the Commission that Ms. Iurkhart could not be present tonight and that she asked that he read a statement in her behalf :tnd the Alpha Omega Rotating Shelter program of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Mt. View encouraging endorsement of a similar program in Saratoga. The letter indicated that the churches that participate in the shelter program are located in residential areas and surrounded by residential homes. The program has not experienced any acts of violence, destruction of property, theft or burglary or a single complaint of any kind from a neighbor. The Alpha Omega Shelter :.s a program which assists people who are homeless and that it is not a drop in program. The people who make up the shelter family are carefully screened, sign a contract and work with case: managers on individual goals to end their homelessness. The letter further states that it would lie unlikely that any member of the shelter family would wish to harm the individuals who are supportive of them or jeopardize the program in anyway. Barbara Wallace, 12056 Inf=rid Court, informed the Commission that she resides six houses away from the church and that she «jas not included in either the letter inviting her to attend informational meetings nor to sign petitions. She expressed concerns for the rotating shelter as she has two small children and that given the screening process that the project would be giving to individuals, the supervision and the requirement to leave the premises. She recommended that a decision be made which would address any potential problems. • PLANNING COMMISSl• MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Ernest Gordon, 12176 Terrance Avenue, stated that he resides within 500 feet of the site and that he has lived in the area for 29 years. Regarding this proposal, he raised the question as to what is meant by "carefully screening" the participants? He inquired if the participants have been carefully screened in regards to criminal records, substance abuse, or deviant behavior. He did not believe that the screening was enough to ensure the safety of residents. He recommended that the Santa Clara Sheriff's office be involved in the careful screening of these guests. He was also concerned that the one month trial would be opening the door for a future extended time period. He asked if there was a neighborhood disturbance or some other undesirable instance occurring due to the presence of these guests, would it result in the cancellation of the remainder of the one month period? Ronnie Gordon, 4734 Durango River Court, San Jose, spoke not only in support of this program as a member of the congregation of the Beth David in Saratoga but also as an individual who has experienced the rotating shelter program in her neighborhood. As a neighbor of this project, she had no indication of when the residents were there or when they left. Regarding the concern for real estate prices, she indicated that several of her neighbors make their living as realtors and that if these realtors felt any impact on their business by having a similar project adjacent to her, they would have made some sort of move to make sure that the project did not get renewed year after year. She requested that the Commission support the request. Joie Wesolowski, 12069 Kristy Lane, informed the Commission that she resides approximately two blocks away from Ascension Church. She indicated that in her own professional capacity, she dealt directly with services to the poor and the homeless in the downtown area on a daily basis. She was a~.vare first hand of the stereo-type profile of the chronically homeless and of a person struggling with alcohol and drug addition who have given up. In contrast, she indicated that she had the privilege for the past three years of volunteering at the Prince of Peace in the Rotating Shelter Program. She did not feel that these two scenarios were parallel. She felt that the participants were trying to break out of their situation and that they want to participate in a program that would enable them to get on their feet, reclaim their dignity and their proper place in the function of society. She felt that Saratoaans are willing to share unselfishly with those less fortunate and requested that the Commission approve this program. Jack Sutcliff, 1360 Brookland Drive, San Jose, member of Ascension Parish Council, informed the Commission that the Council raised many of the concerns that were being raised tonight and that the Council was concerned about the impact on their facility, on their neighbors and understood the neighbors concerns. However, he felt that it was a wonderful opportunity to serve members of the community who may be less fortunate. He requested Commission support of the use. Elizabeth Thomas, 12148 Miller Avenue, informed the Commission that she resides across from Ascension Church and indicated that she observed one of these shelters in action and that it appeared to be a low key use. She attended the second informational meeting and noted that the Sheriff was in attendance who expressed positive comments regarding the shelter and that the representatives from the Los Altos program also spoke positively about the program. She recommended that the program be given a chance. . ' .PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 16 - Cathey Edwards, 7572 Holindary Place, Cupertino, Chair of the Shelter Board and the Action Program, Ascension Church stated that she vas present to represent the Boards recommendation to approve the program. She addressed the participants of the program and felt that the cross section of individuals who are served by the program are extraordinary. She commented that the concerns of the neighborhood were no different than all of the churches' and the congregations' concerns when the church vas first approached. The church has carefully thought out how the program is to be run to make sure that the program was well screened. She indicated that the participants want to be good neighbors and she challenged Saratoga to welcome these participants. Commissioner Siegfried asked Ms. Edwards ~vhy the thirty day rotational period and where the participants would go after the thirty days were completed? Ms. Edwards responded that the program moves from one church to another church and that the participants would go to another church after the 30 day period so that it does not become a burden to any one church and so that the participants do not get too comfortable at any one place. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the participants go when they check out at 8 a.m.? Ms. Edwards responded that the participants leave the shelter at 7 a.m. and then they either go to the YMCA to shower and get ready for their day or they go on to work. She indicated that approximately 75 percent of the participants are employed at any one time. Mary Ellen Chell, 74151 Prospect Road, Cupertino, Director of Cupertino Community Services, addressed the participant screening that takes place by a professional case manager. She indicated that this was a transitional program to help individuals to go from being homeless to being tax paying members in society. It was not a program for individuals who want to hop from one shelter to the next. She indicated that any participant who violates the program's policies would be dismissed from the program. The shelter does not allow anyone with an alcohol or drug problem into the program and that no one is accepted who has suffered from an ongoing mental illness or who have a major felony or assault and battery conviction. She indicated that there is no way to identify the participants by looking at them. Commissioner Kaplan asked if criminal background checks were conducted on each participants? Ms. Chell responded that it was her understanding that the shelter could not conduct criminal background checks. Maxine Eggerth, 740 Sunshine Drive, Los Altos, indicated that she has participated with the inception of the program in Los Altos, Alpha Omega, as well as Faith in Action. She endorsed these programs and recommended Commission approval. Alison Ruebusch, 19815 Viewridge Drive, indicated that she resides five houses from Ascension Church and stated her support of the shelter program. She noted that when she bought her home in Saratoga, she was not asked about her background. She felt that the participants should be given a chance. Richard Schumacher, Cupertino, indicated that he has been associated with the rotating shelter program at St. Joseph Church in Cupertino since it was implemented four years ago. He noted .PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 17 - that St. Joseph Church was bordered on the north side by a residential area, separated only by a masonry fence and that the other three sides of the property were commercial properties. He stated that there has been no negative reactions to the program from Cupertino residents nor local businesses and that he was not aware of any single crime or nuisance committed by the shelter guests during this time period. The program has been viewed as a model and that it one that was beneficial to the community. Dr. Richard Dorsay, 1210 Sara Glen Drive, Cupertino, informed the Commission that he resides within 2.5 blocks from the church and stated his support of the rotating shelter program because these people are different from indigent people as they over extended themselves and made a mistake. He felt that having the rotating shelter in Saratoga would serve as a model to the children of Saratoga as a means of showing how we can help each other. Jean Barrick, 19927 Pineridae Way, applauded the t~vo groups wishing to help the participants and who are working together with the religious community. She indicated that she has worked as an overnight volunteer at a family shelter in San Jose and that she participated in the Alpha Omega program in the Los Altos Methodist Church. She felt that these individuals are worthy of a second chance and that the door should be opened to these individuals rather than closing the door on them. Dorothy Dorsay, 1210 Sara Glen Drive, informed the Commission that she resides 2.5 blocks away from the Church and that she is part of the social action committee for the congregation at Beth David and spoke in support of those present and those not present for the program. She was excited about being a part of the solution of homelessness. She addressed the fear she heard that once the shelter gets its foot in the door that it would become a more frequent use. She did not believe that the use would be extended beyond the time period requested because the facility is so well used. Sheila Chestnutt stated that she concurred with the comments in support of the use. Kelly Terwilligic, San Jose, member of Beth David in San Jose, indicated that she researched this project and presented it to her congregation as a possibility. Her research showed that the program was a very effective and well run program. She felt that fear was a human emotion but that so was generosity. She hoped that this community would overcome its fear because once it does, people would realize that this vas a very effective program. Barby Ulmer, 13004 Paseo Presada, informed the Commission that she resides close to the Prince of Peace Church and that she has never been aware of the comings or goings of the guests. She also indicated that she vas a member of the YMCA. She indicated that the reason for making the temporary decision not to allow the shelter guests to use the facility was because there was a transition period for the replacement of the director. She felt that the YMCA would open its doors and showers to guests. She felt that a little compassion would be returned a thousand fold. She requested that the Planning Commission and the city of Saratoga to show that compassion. Richard Tavan stated his concurrence and support of the use. .. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES , JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 18 - Dale Brunett, 1690 Larken Avenue, San Jose, indicated that he resides directly across the street from Beth David and that he resides within 500 feet of this site. He indicated that he has two small sons. He asked who would check the guests out as the guest would go by his house to catch the bus. He supported such programs but that at the same time he has concern with who is checking the participants out. He was not too concerned with the value of his property but that he was concerned for the safety of his children. If there was no way to check the guest's record to determine if they were criminals and if there is no way to police the guests, he felt that these areas needed to be addressed before approving this use. Steve Dennis, 12165 Sara Glen Drive, indicated his support of this program. He stated that he has heard no negative comments for this proposal other than fear and concern. He indicated that he has a son who is a teacher in Los Angeles. His son would send a message to the Commission that the community needs to reach out to individuals who have fallen onto difficult times. His son would want his neighbors to talk to their children and use this as an opportunity to give them a lesson on how citizens should reach out to other individuals. His son would be very concerned about the petition sent around with the message that is given to the children in the neighborhood. He indicated that his entire family supports this request. Marjorie Shultz, Prince of Peace Church, indicated that she has been involved in this program for three years and that there has not been any incidents with the program and stated her support of the program. Eugene Meyer, 19447 Eric Drive, stated that he was not a member of either the congregation of Ascension Church nor Beth David but that he supports outreach programs. He indicated that he was surprised to find out that a majority of his neighbors had signed a petition in opposition to the use. He contacted several of his neighbors and that most of his neighbors had mixed feelings. However their concerns outweighed the positive feelings. The Commission would need to decide whether the neighbors concerns were justified or not. The first question to be addressed was whether their concerns were justified based on experience. He failed to understand the aversion of the opponents of this program for the homeless. He did not believe that the concerns expressed in the petition had any basis from experience. He had problems with the comments stating that this area was primarily a residential neighborhood. The other question that needs to be answered would be whether the concerns of the opponents are justified based on the opinions of the experts. He felt that the experts have indicated that the programs are of great benefit to the community. He did not believe that the residential neighborhood has a right to exclude itself from the responsibilities of the community as a whole. Donna Massey, Eric Drive, indicated that she resides across the street from the program. She stated that there were two incidents that were not mentioned tonight: 1) the incident that occurred at the southwest YMCA and the other was the alcoholic problem at the Prince of Peace Church. She felt that it would only take one instance and that it would be that one instance that would not be forgotten. She requested that the Commission consider the neighbors when the Commission makes its decision. Mr. Stallman commented that there is apprehensions when there are changes from the status quo and to some, it may even be frightening. He did not feel that these apprehensions and fears .., PLANNING COMMISSI~'~VIINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 19 - should not allow for change and that changes must be properly investigated and considered before proceeding. He felt that the church has investigated the program. He noted that the program has been tested for five years in other communities with the experiences being positive ones. He listened to the concerns that have been expressed by his neighbors. If the use permit is granted, he knows that the church would make every effort to make sure that the experience to the neighborhood is a positive one. Mr. Muzzy commented that he felt that a lot of the attention has been drawn from the successes of other programs. However, the neighbors have viewed the situation and read the material provided, that the residents have addressed their concerns and that these neighbors have been criticized for their opinion. He felt that the neighbors in opposition should be heard and that their concerns be addressed. If anything happens, the adjacent residents would take the full brunt of the incident. Commissioner Kaplan asked for clarification about the incident which occurred at the Prince of Peace Church. Ms. Shultz informed the Commission that it was her belief that the incident that has been referred to was that one of the night supervisors came on duty and that the participants noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath and reported this incident to the cooks. The cooks informed her about the incident and she took care of the incident and that the supervisor was dismissed immediately. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that it was a policy of the Commission that there would be no new public hearings conducted after 11:30 p.m. It was his belief that the Commission may conclude its review of this item and maybe be able to commence the public hearing on the next item. He indicated that the Commission may want to inform the individuals present for items 10-16 that it would be the intent of the Commission to continue those items to June 28. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO TABLE AGENDA ITEM 8 AT THIS TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE EVERYTHING FROM AGENDA ITEM 10 ON, INCLUDING COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR'S ITEMS TO ITS JUNE 28 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 10. DR-95-019 - Mostaan; 20720 Leonard Rd. , request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,336 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 1.2 acre hillside parcel currently developed with an 832 sq. ft. one-story "cottage". A public hearing is required for this proposal pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. DR-95-009 - Chen/Chuang; 15020 Gypsy Hill Rd. ,request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,143 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.2 acre - 1 . PLANNING COMMISS>, MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 20 - hillside parcel. A public hearing is required pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the San Marcos Heights subdivision (Lot 32) and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. DR-95-016 - Lotus Development; 12886 Cumberland Dr. (Lot #1), request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,875 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 13,767 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. 13. DR-95-017 - Lotus Development; 12844 Cumberland Dr. (Lot #2), request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,105 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 20,127 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. 14. DR-95-018 - Lotus Development; 12822 Cumberland Dr. (Lot #3), request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,430 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 22,650 sq. ft. is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. 15. AZO-95-003- City of Saratoga, consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 15- 30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to standards for the placement of temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts and consideration of a draft ordinance establishing interim standards for temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts. 16. AZO-95-004- City of Saratoga, consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 15- 30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to the prohibition of certain signs within the Public Right-of-Way. COMMISSION ITE1~iS 1. PD-94-002; Greenbriar Homes Co. , Saratoga Ave. & Route 85 Request for consideration of entry walls. 2. DR-94-052; Heritage Oak Subdivision, 20018 & 20026 Saratoga Ave., Request for building pad elevation modifications. 3. DR-95-010; Toung, 1901 Glen Una Dr. Request for building location modification. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS 10-16 AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR'S ITEMS TO THE JUNE 28. 1995 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO RETURN TO AGENDA ITEM 8. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. ' ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 21 - Commissioner Caldwell commented that she had a couple of concerns about the way this hearing has progressed. She felt that it was different from the hearing conducted with the Prince of Peace where neighborhood opposition was nothing close to this request. She had a fundamental concern about the neighbors who have spoken out in opposition to the program being characterized as "fear mongers" or people ~vho are afraid of a phantom program that doesn't really exist. She felt that the residents in opposition have organized themselves and limited themselves to two speakers as requested by the City. She noted that the Planning Commission typically goes out of its way not to make decisions based on a popularity contest but that it tends to remain objective on the decisions that are made. She did not believe that anyone would argue that this program has fundamental merits. The question that the Commission needs to deal with this evening was whether this was the right neighborhood for this program. The residents felt that this was a residential district and that there was no where in the General Plan nor in the zoning regulations that talks about shelters. She did not believe that if someone moves next to a church that they would assume that having a shelter was within the normal realm of church activities. She felt that the neighbors who have spoken in opposition do have some legitimate concerns such as screening of the participants. It has been indicated that there have not been any problems with the project bein¢ operated elsewhere. The Commission has been assured that the program cannot conduct criminal background checks to address the neighbors concern. Also addressed was the physical difference of the Prince of Peace Church as being surrounded by professional and commercial institutions. She vas not sure that the city should take a generic approach to this kind of program. She has to place herself in the shoes of the residents who live in this neighborhood and understands where they are coming from and understands their concern regarding one small incidence. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he vas concerned with the use as there was a difference between the location of the Prince of Peace and this location. He also was concerned by the fact that there were so many neighbors surrounding the church who voiced such strong opposition. He stated that there appears to be a communication break down between the church and the neighborhood. He stated that if he had moved into this neighborhood, he was not sure that he would have perceived this kind of program occurring in a church. He indicated that he was torn with a concern that a private organization was trying to do something that the government has not done a very good job at. He accepted the fact that the individuals who spoke in opposition represented 150 other residents. He would await the comments to be offered by his fellow Commissioners but indicated that at this time, he was inclined to vote no on the request. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she vas somewhat concerned by the degree of entrenchment that she sees on both sides and the fact that there does not appear to be someway to alleviate fears and concerns. She vas also concerned that she was hearing the same thing here that was heard with the Brookside Club and parks. People in Saratoga do not want noise, disruption and they do not want people ~vho they do not know next door to them. She indicated that many of one's neighbors were alcoholics, drug addicts and may have been arrested. She was concern with the "us and them" perception. She stated that she was in support of the use not because she believed that the neighbors were wrong and that anyone else was right. She did not see the impact on the neighborhood by the use. She understood the concern that this was something new and different. She felt that the church was located in a multi-use area. Although this was a residential area, it vas located on a busy commercial street. She did not feel that these .PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 22 - individuals could be restricted from using public streets. She had a concern about privatizing something that was rather public. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Patrick in many ways. She indicated that she has listened very carefully to the opposition tonight and reviewed the information submitted. She indicated that she had spoken to Mrs. Dorsee previously without making a commitment. The comment by Commissioner Patrick about keeping people out was one that was on her list. She submitted that the presence of Highway 85 through the community could probably bring criminal activities to the community. She did not believe that the guests would create any more of a risk to the property and to security. She felt that part of the problem was that the language that being used by both sides vas imprecise. The term "homeless shelter" has been used but that this was not a homeless shelter program. The Prince of Peace Church has been instrumental in her thinking as this program currently exists in the community and notices that it has worked. She felt that the community can make a contribution to a problem that it did not necessarily create and reach 15 individuals on a one to one basis and turn their lives around. She indicated that she would support the use. Chairman Murakami stated that he resides close to the churches and that he was familiar with the area. He noticed that there was a physical difference between this neighborhood and the other churches who run this program. He was concerned that the one incident which may occur was a fact that should be considered. He stated that he had mixed emotions regarding approval of this request. He sees a breakdown with the community and the church in its communication with each other. He felt that the residents felt that this use was being forced upon them and that they had no choice in the matter. Commissioner Caldwell commented that Chairman Murakami and Commissioner Siegfried brought up a good point about the break down in communication. She felt that it may be a matter of education and that she did not feel that the education has occurred. She did not know if the Commission should force a use on a neighborhood that was not ready for it. She suggested that action be deferred to allow the Church to work with the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried stated that based on the comments as presented by Commissioners Patrick and Kaplan he has been swayed to support the use. He felt that this was the kind of use that should be implemented to solve problems and based on the history of the program in other communities, he would vote to support the use. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. TUP- 95-001 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: CALDWELL, MURAKAMI; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR. 9. GPA-94-003- Trinity Development Co.; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd., request for AZO-94-002- Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two hillside - parcels totaling ~.1 acres into 9 single-family residential building sites. A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change are requested to allow the properties to be rezoned from an Open Space-Outdoor Recreational/Agricultural ..PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 23 - designation to a Residential/R-1-12,500 and R-1-40,000 designation. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be presented. These documents have been prepared and have been made available for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that the tentative map would be for phase 1 (the lower 7 lots) and that phase 2 would be reviewed at a later date once that part of the subdivision receives geotechnical clearance from the City's consultant. He stated that the subdivision vas tied to the map as a whole and that no final map could be recorded until both phase 1 and phase 2 are decided. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question, Planner Walgren indicated that the geotechnical report has not been completed for upper parcels 8 and 9. Commissioner Patrick asked if the geotechnical issues have been resolved for the tower lots or whether the geotechnical report would address any impacts. She expressed concern that the project was not being reviewed as a whole. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City was still reviewing the project as a whole in terms of drainage, tree protection, utilities, safety, and other issues. He indicated that the lower seven parcels have been cleared by the City's geologist. However, the upper two parcels with the stepper terrain have not yet received geotechnical clearance. While staff anticipates that the clearance would be granted within the next four to six weeks, it has not occurred as of yet and that if for some reason the geotechnical clearance was not granted, than those building sites would not be guaranteed as shown on the tentative map. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the piece-meal approach being taken with this project. Commissioner Caldwell asked what would happen if the City establishes that the geotechnical review of the upper portion requires that some mitigation measures be undertaken that may involve the lower lot lots. Planner Walgren responded that a condition in the resolution stipulates that phase I is contingent on phase II and that a final map cannot be recorded until clearance has been received for phase 2. Commissioner Caldwell asked how staff could check "no" in the initial study check under the geotechnical sections la and lb if the Commission does not know with respect to the upper lots whether it will receive geotechnical clearance. She indicated that the Commission may not know the geotechnical impacts on the lower lots because they may be affected by what is found on the upper lots. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern about going into this process without having the environmental review completed. She indicated that she was not in support of any piece-meal consideration and that she wanted to have the entire project presented as one packet with all the pertinent information being reviewed and evaluated. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she had a fundamental concern under CEQA in handling this project in this manner. She felt that there was an initial study that involved an entire property with unknowns that may involve the lower parcels. Under CEQA, case laws states that you cannot break up a project in the hopes that some future study is going to analyze , .PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 24 - the problem and that the problem would be understood better then that it would be understood at this time. She felt that now was the time to consider all information so that the public and the Commission can understand and evaluate the environmental impacts. Planner Walgren clarified that the entire property has gone through the first level of geotechnical investigation and that the consultants are anticipating that the two upper lots would receive their clearances. In the consultants' preliminary review, they have not cited anything that would prevent them from granting clearances. Thus, the basis for proceeding in this manner. He made it clear that the City was processing this phased map at the request of the applicant and that such a request is provided for in the city code. If the Commission feels that it is more appropriate to review it as a whole, staff could separate the tentative map from the other General Plan and zoning applications this evening. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she had fundamental concerns regarding zoning changes and what that would imply for some of the environmental impacts that could occur on this property. She noted that this project has been fallow for a long period of time. She felt that a lot has happened since 1988 when the last biologist looked at the property. She indicated that she was very uncomfortable with separating out individual decisions that collectively leads the City to one end. She was concerned with making apiece-meal decision about zoning and then making a decision on the tentative map at a later date. By the time the Commission gets to the last piece of the puzzle for this development, the City has led itself down a path where there are not a lot of options left. Planner Walgren stated that he understood Commissioner Caldwell's concerns but that those controls were built into the resolution but that if the Commission felt more comfortable with dealing with this application as a whole application, that can be done. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she had several concerns with the initial study that she was willing to provide input on this evening but that she was not comfortable with moving forward without the completion of the geotechnical clearance and the report being provided to the Commission for its review. She felt that the City holds a huge responsibility under CEQA to make sure that the City looks into the impacts associated with the project. Commissioner Patrick commented that given what has been seen in hillside development and the instability of the hills in Saratoga, she expressed concern with not looking at the project as a whole, especially given the high level of concern with the hillside parcel. Planner Walgren commented that it would be helpful if the Commission address its concerns with the initial study so that these concerns can be addressed while the Commission awaits the completion of the geotechnical report. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the Commission should open this item to public hearing as the public has been waiting a long time this evening for this item. He felt that enough concern has been raised by at least three of the Commissioners on procedural questions. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 11:25 p.m. Allen Pinn, Pinn Brothers Construction Company, 1475 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, builder/developer for the Trinity Development Company, stated that he would reserve his comments until comments are received from the public. He informed the Commission that the .:PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 25 - geotechnical report was not completed due to rains. Community Development Director Curtis commented that procedurally, this was the time for the applicants to present their project instead of waiting to hear the public comments and then respond to the comments. Mr. Pinn responded that he was in concurrence with the staff report and that he would prefer to respond to comments made by the public in the interest of time. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, commented that the City Council and the proponent of the project have made a decision that was totally out of plan. That decision being that in exchange fora 91ot subdivision, the applicant would pay the City X600,000 for a park. Having made that decision, he felt that the Commission was stuck with the City Council's decision with what they are going to do. He provided the Commission with photographs which would help describe the property and the lands instability. He indicated that he served on the 1960 Master Plan Committee and believed that everything that can be done should be done to retain what is left of Saratoga's fast, disappearing open space. He supported the fostering, wherever possible, small neighborhood parks. He felt that this parcel was general planned as a neighborhood park. He was distressed to see the current trend for more subdivisions, larger homes on small lots. He felt that the San Jose syndrome vas affecting this community. He strongly believed that the Nelson property should not be subdivided but should be retained as a demonstration garden as was originally intended by the owner, Frank Nelson. Since the City Council has allowed the property to be withdrawn from the Williamson Act and allowing the development of the subdivision, his comments relate to the manner of proper zoning and the public interest. He recommended that the lower three acres of the Nelson Garden be reconsidered as to how it should be modified and built. He felt that the upper two acre parcel was unstable and that it was a steep slope that presents a serious problem during earthquakes and at time of flood activities. He felt that there would be extreme removal of trees and the unnecessary disturbance of land and wildlife. He recommended that the Commission take its time to study the issues by visiting the area and to allow review the written report of the Ad Hoc Committee which studied the land use of 1988. He recommended that this item be continued because this was a difficult and serious matter. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, stated that he was a concerned Saratoga resident who wishes to see some of the ambiance that made Saratoga a desirable residential area preserved instead of impacting it. He felt that the area demands an EIR for the following reasons: the parcel is designated as a high impact earthquake area of the ABAG Map issued in 1995 and that the upper area of this parcel is extremely rugged and he questioned the accuracy of the slope density as submitted. He suggested that an independent survey of the area be undertaken because the upper area is reportedly to be of fill material and would be subject to sliding not only due to the unstable fill but the underlying slate, which when vet, has a tendency to slip. The past history of the site includes a natural spring on the hillside which indicates a potential serious building problem and that erosion would occur with development. Another aspect would be the affect of the loss of the major number of mature trees and shrubs, many of which are rare and irreplaceable. The adverse affect on birds and native wildlife would be totalled. Once homes are built and the ecosystem destroyed, the original residential creatures would be excluded. An impact would be made to the history of Saratoga by destroying the last remaining apricot orchard. The neighborhood would be deprived of one last chance for a small community park PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 26 - and garden. This would ignore the original intent of the General Plan for such parks. The lots and park site would not be compatible with the neighborhood nor would it be in keeping with the community's expectation for ho~v this land should be developed. He felt that the mitigations proposed were inadequate and would expedite the desires of the developer. He noted that no adequate penalties were included in the mitigations in the event that these projected consequences would ensue. He felt that this parcel should not be approved as two separate entities because what happens in the lower area could be closely related to the upper areas. Should a massive earthquake occur during a rainy season, he felt that a massive mud slide could shift the greater portion of the upper parcel onto the lower parcel, resulting on one individual parcel. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, requested that the Commission not take any action on the Nelson Garden project until the following problems are considered: the issue of an up to date study as to how development would comply with CEQA laws; it appears that the developer was trying to split the property into flat lands and sloped area, dealing with the geotechnical problems with the slope at a later date; the geologic study that the developer is relying upon is an eight year old study, prepared by the former development company that wanted to develop Nelson Garden; the City needs to complete an independent study and not rely on the developer. She noted that a study has been prepared to look at the negative impacts on the riparian population. She concurred with Dr. Stutzman that the mitigation studies have not been prepared and that the reports were not adequate. She felt that an environmental report needs to be completed. She pointed out that there has been a recently released study with photos prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). She noted that there was a photo in the study that indicates that there is a high shaking amplification area that exists next to the Nelson Garden and that the project would be a liability to Saratoga if allowed to develop. Paul Griffith, 13878 Malcolm Avenue, informed the Commission that he resides in the flat area, four houses away from the property and that his neighbor across the street has been involved with extensive foundation problems as it has sunk down a foot due to improper drainage. He recommended that this project be reviewed as a complete parcel instead of two separate parcels. He was uncomfortable with the way that this project was proceeding. He stated that there appears to be a contract or Memorandum of Understanding between the City Council and the applicant. He noted that there was not a change in zoning and yet the developer was in a contract with the City Council without benefit of review. He felt that once the City reviews the facts, that it may be decided that it may not be in the best interest of Saratoga to develop this property. He did not agree with the funds exchanged between the developer and the City Council. This property vas zoned under the Williamson Act for preservation of the land. He stated that he did not want any more monies placed towards Congress Spring Parks because it was not an appropriate park in its location because it was unsafe and located adjacent to the railroad tracks. He recommended that the City look at alternative parks. He requested that the Commission review the original intention of the land and review the 1988 study referred to by Dr. Stutzman. Bud Alexander, 20760 Trinity Avenue, indicated that he resides across the street from this development. He read the Negative Declaration that states that an EIR study was not needed. He indicated that he could look out of his window and see steep, unbuildable land. He was concerned because the economics of this proposal would create large homes across the street . - -~ ~ : PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES , JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 27 - from him if this project goes forward. He did not believe that the construction of compatible homes to that of the existing single family homes in terms of massing, size and style would be possible. He also noted that Foothill School was in the vicinity and that the initial study indicates that there would be no impact to schools. He felt that there was an impact to the school as he is not able to register his granddaughter into Foothill School because it is too crowded. He recommended that a full EIR be prepared for this project before the City moves forward with the request, understanding that it may be tough with the X600,000 being dangled in front of the City Council. Mr. Pinn addressed the concerns that were raised by the adjacent residents. He noted that the only change that would occur would be the loss of orchard trees which appear to be dead. The arborist report concludes that 90 percent of the existing trees should be removed. He does not propose to do that. He informed the Commission that two new homes would be located where the existing houses are located. He did not believe that anyone would see these two homes because they would be buried within the existing trees. He indicated that as many trees that can would be preserved. He addressed the compatibility issue of the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that all of the lots are to be as big or bigger than the lots located across the street. The homes proposed on these lots would be in conformance with the City's Design and Zoning Ordinances and would be less than 3,000 square feet and would all be single story homes. Comparing this size to that of the houses located across the street, the argument would be small. Regarding the soils problem, the City has one of the toughest geologist in the area and that a consultant was retained by the applicant to prepare a report to provide the City's geologist. These two geologist concur that there are no geologic problems associated with the bottom portion of the project. He anticipated that the reports would be completed in two to three weeks but that it would take the City's geologist three full weeks to a month to research the issues. Therefore, it would be a six week review process for the t~vo geologists to review the reports. He felt that the zoning would be compatible and consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area and that the homes would be compatible with the homes located across the street. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the initial study was based on the 1988 study? Planner Walgren responded that the study vas used to a degree but vas not relied upon heavily. The 1988 study was included as an informational item and that it vas based on the City's horticultural consultant, the City aborist's assessment and was based on part by the geotechnical consultants and staff's on-site and project evaluation as well as the Biology study of 1988. He felt that the specific environmental concerns appear to be the soils stability, geotechnical stability, preservation of significant on site trees and the protection of the existing significant natural habitats and environment. Commissioner Caldwell felt that Planner Walaren's comments indicate that a focused EIR should be required. She felt that a mitigated Negative Declaration was one of the most controversial items that the City uses and that the City needed to be very careful if it was going to rely on mitigated Negative Declarations. She felt that the mitigations would need to be spelled out in detail and noted that they were not. She noted that the mitigations were broad, conceptual statements about complying with Design Review and getting compatible housing and that it was not on the level of detail that would be expected from a mitigated Negative Declaration. She = - , 4 PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 28 - requested that staff go back and think about this because she felt that the mitigated Negative Declaration approach was an inappropriate vehicle to base its decision on. She indicated that she wanted to make sure that whatever development goes in was appropriate and contained appropriate mitigations. The Commission would not know what appropriate mitigations should be applied until it is known what the potential impacts are. Community Development Director Curtis stated that staff has heard the comments as expressed by the Commission and that staff would reevaluate the project once the geotechnical information was received. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to have a better sense of the total geotechnical concerns on the property before proceeding with these applications. He did not believe that there were many other concerns that could not be dealt with as recommended by staff once he was satisfied with the geotechnical review and that he wanted to get a better sense on the whole piece of property. He wanted to know the advantage in proceeding in this manner. Planner Walgren stated that he was not sure of the advantage to the applicant by requesting action on Phase I other than the fact that the applicant was getting a reading from the Planning Commission on the proposed land use configuration. He noted that no building or activity could occur could until the applicant received final map approval. Commissioner Caldwell stated that CEQA case law states that a City cannot approve a project through the tentative map contingent upon further analysis that has not been contemplated up this point. Commissioner Kaplan asked at what point would the city need to commit the number of lots that would be approved. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the number of lots would be determined when the Planning Commission is satisfied that this is an appropriate subdivision of the property. Commissioner Kaplan stated that there may not be a buildable lot on a portion of the property. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the evaluation and analysis has been completed for the bottom portion of land and that the only issue that remains would be what would happen up above if it is found that the land is not stable. He indicated that the preliminary information that staff has states that is not the case. Staff does not feel that any ne~v information would come in that would affect the environmental evaluation of the bottom part of the parcel. It was his believe that enough information has been provided on the lower portion of the parcel, environmentally, that has led the process where it is today. Commissioner Caldwell read from the Sunstrum versus the County of Mendicino Case. She felt that a quote from this case talks about how the County relied on a mitigated negative declaration without the preparation of an EIR. The quote states that "The City's asserting that it could find no fair argument that there would be any potentially significant environmental impacts rests in part in its failure to undertake an adequate em~ironmental analysis. CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than on the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impacts and that they are based on the limited facts on the record, deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of this argument by amending a logical plausibility to a wider range of emphasis." She felt that the case study was talking about what she was concerned about where staff indicates that it is possible that `: PLANNING COMMISSIlMINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 " PAGE - 29 - there will not be any impacts but yet, staff has not heard the concerns she was about to raise. It is being indicated in this phase of public testimony that individuals are saying that they believe there are impacts that need to be looked into (i.e. riparian community; the reference made in the 1988 Biologic Survey). She felt that the City needs to be careful about remaining ignorant about the environmental impacts by stating that if there are some environmental impacts, the City would create exclusive mitigations. She did not know how it could be determined if there were going to be any environmental impacts unless it is looked into. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the purpose of the initial study was to identify the information. He indicated that staff's decision on the mitigated Negative Declaration would not change but that if through the public hearing process, if new information was provided, it would be taken under consideration. Staff has identified that a riparian corridor exists. He indicated that staff was aware of the information that was available. The initial study was completed and a mitigated Negative Declaration vas prepared based on the information that was available for the lover part of the property. Staff would not be ignoring any additional information that would be provided. Commissioner Caldwell identified the following concerns: item no. 1 - geotechnical report needs further reviewed; item no. 3 which deals with water, she did not see any recognition of the drainage area that borders the upper half and lower half of the property which was referenced in the 1988 Biological Survey and that it was clearly evident when she conducted her site visit. She further indicated that she disrupted two deer that were bedded down on the property and that public testimony has been received discussing the issue of vegetation on the property. She felt that it was more than just an issue of removing vegetation but was also an issue of the ramification of the removal of the vegetation and what happens to erosion control when that happens, what does that do to the wildlife habitat that presently exists on the property. Item 5 that deals with animal life, she felt that it vas inappropriate to rely on a 1988 survey that was conducted for another developer and was not conducted under the City's direction. She felt that this survey may be temporarily im~alid because that property has been reclaimed by wildlife over the last decade or so. It is not known what variety of wildlife may be on this property. What areas ares used by the wildlife on a regularly basis may dictate where you would locate fencing to accommodate wildlife. Instead there is a blanket statement in the proposed mitigation that limits the property of 4,000 square feet but that the mitigation does not indicate where that 4,000 square feet was to be located. Furthermore, the 1988 study did not contemplate this project but contemplated the project proposed in 1988. She felt that there needs to be sensitivity regarding construction noise that the nearby residents will need to endure. The mitigations that should be prepared need to be sensitive as the site is virtually surrounded homes. She felt that the City and the developer should be sensitive about the construction phase of the development and to think about the details. Land use -there is a proposal to change the General Plan and zoning designation and felt that the change may have some ultimate impacts. The area will be turned from a piece of land that has been reclaimed by wildlife to 9 homes. Natural Resources -this relates to the riparian community referred to by staff. Item 13 -Transportation and Circulation, she felt that it seemed to be standard procedures for the City to interpret that one home generates approximately 10 trips per day. If there are potentially 9 homes times 10 trips per day per home, that would result in 90 trips per day extra in this neighborhood. She could not believe that there would be no consideration associated with the increased traffic to be generated, ~; I ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 30 - particularly with the one blind corner located on Pontiac Avenue. The issue raised about schools in terms of public services by a member of the audience was a point well taken. She noted that "Aesthetics" was marked "no" in the initial checklist and yet was a continuing concern from the neighbors and felt that the concern vas an appropriate one. She felt that if the City was going to be serious about the conditions that are to be placed on the structures that are to be built on this property, the parameters/mitigations need to be spelled out at this point. She had some general comments regarding her concerns regarding the piece-meal approach, and that the Commission has agreed to deal with this issue responsibly by keeping all the applications together and await the completion of the geotechnical information, keeping all the environmental impacts together. She expressed concerns with delegating any environmental analysis to another day. She felt that the Commission needs to deal with all the environmental analysis all together, at one time. In a case like this where there is significant public controversy, she felt that it was appropriate to require a focused EIR. She submitted to the City Attorney a quote about when it is appropriate to go to an EIR where there is public testimony (page 166 of her Lexis readout, 248 Hal Porter, 352 at 360). Planner Walgren informed the Commission that an EIR would require going out to bid for proposals if that was the route to be taken. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not feel that this process was to that point yet. He recommended that staff consider the comments expressed and return in two weeks addressing the issue of the EIR. He stated that he was not ready to move forward without the geotechnical information. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that this item be continued for six weeks so that staff has the benefit of the geotechnical review in determining the scope, of an EIR. She recommended that other Commissioners affirm some of her concerns if they are in agreement with her concerns or that other legitimate concerns which it may have be addressed this evening. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that Commissioner Caldwell addressed some of the issues she had. She stated that she was concerned with the animal life issues. She noted that the 1988 report concludes that the deer would go somewhere else and that she wanted to know where they would go. Also, she felt that Item 8 was a land use issue that needed to be addressed. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 TO THE AUGUST 9, 1995 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE INTERIM. STAFF RECONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RAISED. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not sure if there would be a need for other types of documents to be produced by staff. He did not have a comfort level with the documentation without the geotechnical information. He did not know if there would be a need for a focused EIR but that he felt that there vas a need to address and contemplate some of the issues a little more in detail. Community Development Director Curtis asked if it would be the direction of the Commission • ~ .PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES ,~ JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 31 - to update the 1988 Study. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would support the update of the 1988 study if it was conducted under staff's direction. Commissioner Patrick felt that the Commission was looking at a two part document. She felt that impacts would need to be reviewed in its totality rather than two separate reviews. She noted that Mr. Coate's report seemed to raise some concerns about things that she noted that were not apparent concerns. She also etpressed concern regarding the seasonal stream and the deer and that these concerns were not discussed in the mitigation measures. She indicated that she would like to review the total package versus review of a piece-meal approach. Chairman Murakami stated that he would want to see the final piece of the puzzle. He felt that an updated version of the 1988 study would be helpful and indicated that he would like to review these applications as an entire project. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it has been a past practice of the Commission to cancel its second meeting in August. He asked if it was the Commission's intent to cancel the August 23 meeting. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CANCEL ITS AUGUST 23 MEETING. Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that the July 4 work session would not be held and that it would be held on July 18, the first hour being spent with the Heritage Preservation Commission. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he would not be present at its June 28 meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS -continued 2. DR-94-052; Heritage Oak Subdivision, 20018 & 20026 Saratoga Ave., Request for building pad elevation modifications. As this item was continued earlier by the Commission to its June 28 meeting, Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff was aware if there were any individuals present to address this item. Planner Walgren indicated that he spoke to the neighbors that came to the office to review the request and that their only concern was that the approved drainage plan not be changed. BY CONSENSUS THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMUI\TICATIONS Written r. =~ • ~ .PLANNING COMMISSI.MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 PAGE - 32 - 1. City Council Minutes - 5/3, 5/9, 5/17 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 6/28/95 Oral Citv Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 1995, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK iftPC061495.S:~R