Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-1995 Planning Commission Minutes_ J} f i` _ f. PLA\~tiING COMMISSIO\ MI1~TL?TES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 City- Council Chambers. 13777 Fruit~-ale A~~enue Regular ~Teeting Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Cald«°ell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick. Siegfried Late: l~TOne Absent: \one Staff: Communit}- De~-elopment Director Curtis, Planner ~~-al~~ren, Cite Attorney- Riback Pledge of Allegiance 1~Iinutes - 9,!13!9 COMMISSIONL-RS CALD~~~ELL-`KAPLANT MOVED TO APPROVE `l HE SEPTEMBER 13, 199 MINUTES `?~%ITH THE FOLLO~~'ING MODIFICATIONS: - Page 1, August 8, 199 minutes, correcting paragraph 3, line 7 to replace the ~t~ord ~ «-ith eliminated. - Paae 10, paragraph 6, second sentence amended to read: "...She felt that the S~,000 e~e~y equitably distributed among applicants, e~-en if the City- continues to "s«-allo~t~" the cost. ~ «~ould be a good a~ttr~ee insurance for promoting communication and allo~t•ing the nei~~hborhoods to be ~i~ell informed...." v THE ;vIOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 ~~`ITH COMMISSIONTER ASFOUR ABSTAINING. ORAL CO`I~iUNICATIONS Tom Reddick, 12378 Larchmont A~-enue, referred the Commission to nc«-spaper articles distributed regarding regulation of trees. He noted that on page 142 of the last it article mentions the beautiful tree located in Saratoga. the liquid amber. He noted that it was one of the most destructi~~e trees. often times infringing onto a neighbor's propem- and damaging property. He requested that the City adopt State Regulation 833 ~~~hich «-ould require that a property o«~ner be responsible for the maintenance and dama~7e of trees. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Go~-ernment Code X4954.2, the agenda for this meeting ~~-as properly posted on September 22. 199. y y ~• •• PLANNING COMMISSIO\T MINLTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet Planner ~'~'algren informed the Commission that there «ere t«-o technical corrections to the Packet as follows: - Item 2, page 3, under the Staff Anal~•sis, at the bottom of the Cable, the i\~Iinimum Parcel Size Requirement. Parcel 1, to be corrected to read 3.09 acres (not 2.87 acres). - Item 6, the application is referred to as being made b~~ the International Order of Odd Fellows. It should be corrected to read Independent Order of Odd Fello«-s. CO\'SENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING COI~TSENT CALE\DAR Commissioner Cald~i~ell requested that agenda item 2 be removed from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. 1. DR-9S-031 -TANG; 12512 SPRING BLOSS01i CT. Request for Design Revie~y approval to construct a new 3,73 sq. ft. single story residence on a ~-acant 13,1 ~4 sq. ft. parcel. The subject property- is lot 3 of the Spring Blossom Court subdivision and is located ~yithin the R-1-12.00 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR~PATRICK MOVED TO APPROV1r PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM ] BY iV1I\LTE ACTIO\. THE ~10TIOl~T CARRIED 7-0. 2. SD-95-001 & LL-94-007 - HORVATH; 22122 itIOIJNT EDEN ROAD. Request for Building Site Appro~-a1 for an existing 2 acre hillside parcel located on the east side ofivlount Eden Road ~yithin a Hillside Residential zoning district. Lot Line Adjustment appro~-a1 is also requested to relocate an existing parcel boundary. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City- Code. Building Site Approval may be requested to ascertain ~yhat off-site improvements would be necessar~~ to develop the parcel in the future: no on-site development is proposed at this time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Cald~yell asked about condition 8 of the proposed resolution of approval. The condition states that the replacement of the dilapidated bridge may involve some alteration of stream banks. She stated that the City has been careful to make sure that the Department of Fish and Gamc was also consulted. She asked if there should be some provision made for ensuring that there is full compliance with Fish and Game requirements. Planner ~~'algren responded that compliance with Fish and Game requirements «ould occur automaticalh~ but that it can be added as a condition to the resolution of approval. •• •• PLANTING COA~iMISSIO\ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 3 - Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:=1~ p.m. John Keenan. 2221 ~ Mt. Eden Road. informed the Commission that he resides t~t-o parcels north from this proposal and that there «-as a parcel located bet«-een ti1r. Hor~~ath's and his parcel. He expressed concern that approval of the application as proposed «-ould create an access to parcel number 2 that is not sho«n on the map. If that «-ere to happen, he believed that his parcel ~t-ould be insubstantial danger as the parcel located to the north contains a very active land slide to «•hich he almost lost his house in 1982. He e~:pressed concern «-ith grading and soil stability. He felt that should the Commission approve this parcel. it «°ould also approve access to parcel 2 across an e~:isting bridge. He informed the Commission that the future o«ner ofparcel 1 strongly objects to the access and that there is current litigation with ~Ir. Horvath about the access and other matters relating to propem~ boundaries. He requested that the Commission consider an alternative such that all parties involved are agreement so that he does not have to face excavation of the propert~• below his parcel. Commissioner Asfour indicated that the items «-ere unrelated and that the Commission would need to act on the application before it. Planner ~~'algren informed the Commission that an application ~~~as submitted for building site approval for the lower parcel 1 «~ith access off the south corner of the parcel which goes through a native existing stream. He noted that a large number of native oak trees and other vegetation located on the propert~~. He indicated that staff spoke with the applicant about not being able to support the request and conditioned the application to require that the existing bridge be replaced and that an easement be recorded across it to serve parcel 2 above. If parcel 2 comes in at a later date and proposes an access off an adjacent parcel. it would be subject to Planning= Commission. City geologist and Planning Division revie~~~ and approval. ackno«~ledging that an existing easement exists across the bridge located below. Mr. Keenan expressed concern that the current o~iner would not be the owner of record long term. He asked what «~ould happen if a superior court overturns the easement and directs that an alternative access be provided? Commissioner Caldwell noted that a condition of approval stipulates the recording of an easement. If an easement is recorded and there is litigation about the recordin~_= of the easement, she asked what «-ould happen to the approval if the easement is overturned in court? ~~'ould that negate the approval? Commissioner Siegfried noted that this «~as a lot line adjusunent, and not the splitting of a parcel. City Attorney Riback stated that if for some reason the easement Sias negated, he would find it difficult to imagine how that «°ould occur if the City is the beneficiary- of the easement. •• •• PLANNING COMMISSION ~~1INLTTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Cald~~°ell noted that the beneficiat-~- of the easement «-ould be the propcrt~- o«~ner of the other parcel. Cit~° Attorney Riback stated that even if that was the case and the easement .vas overturned, the issue would need to return to the Cit}~ to determine access to the parcel. Commissioner Asfour stated that from his reading of the regulations. the applicant has submitted a lot line adjustment application. The Commission cannot arbitrarily deny the application because of the possibility of a future la~~- suit. The Commission needs to act on what is before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Cald«-e11 noted that the approval before the Conunission was for a building site and not just for a lot line adjustment. Aside from the issue ofwhat ultimately happens ~~ith the access to parcel 2, she inquired if staff would be making the same recommendation for the adjacent parcel regarding the requirement to rebuild the bridge at its current location. Planner ~~'algren responded that the bridge ~t-ould need to be replaced and that it ~-ould be a single access bridge, built to a sixteen foot width where the minimum access bridge for a two to four parcel development would be 18 feet. Commissioner Siegfried commented that parcel 1 and parcel 2 were originally one parcel. He recollected that the parcel was subdivided 1 ~ years ago and that parcel one has to provide access to parcel 2 as it was originally one parcel. James Anderson, 1943 DeHavilland Court. informed the Commission that there is current litigation and a court sponsored settlement on the subdivision. IIe informed the Commission that he «-as not the owner of record at this time. Under the court sponsored settlement, there are certain requirements that are to be met by ~1r. Horvath that have not been met under this proposal. One of the court sponsored settlement conditions was that ~1r. I-Iorvath «-as obli~~ated to inform him when engineering drawings, etc.. have been completed and that i\1r. Hors°ath has not met that requirement. He requested that the Commission give him one week so that he could review the application and meet ~r°ith staff. He indicated that he does not kno«- at this time „-hat he «-ould be objecting to other than knowing that 1~Ir. I-Ior~~ath does not conform to several items listed in the court sponsored settlement. y Rowland Mitchell. 2201 i~It. Eden Road. informed the Commission that he resides across the road and owns 106 acres. He stated that he opposed the creation of any substandard-sized lots. He noted that the application before the Commission was fora 2.8 acre lot and noted that 3.09 acres is the minimum according to the Hillside residential zonins~ district. Commissioner Asfour stated that the lots are legal lots of record and that the only revie«- before the Commission this evening ryas for the lot line adjustment. Conunissioner Cald«-ell asked staff whether the mininnun parcel size requirement listed in the staff analysis table was gross or net? Planner «~algren responded that the figures were net parcel •~ •• PLANNING COMMISSION MI\LTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - ~ - numbers. Commissioner Caldwell asked if by virtue of the lot line adjustment. ~~-ould parcel 1 be coming more into conformance «-ith the City s code requirements? Planner ~~'algren responded that the lot line adjustment would bring the parcel more into conformance with the Citv's code requirement. Frank Horvath, o«mer!applicant, confirmed that the 2.8 acre and ~.7 acre lots «-ere legal lots of record. He indicated that he «~as requesting to increase the 2.8 acres to 3.09 gross acres. I-Ie addressed the bridge and access to the second lot. As this was his lot, he felt that he has the right to give an easement to the back lot. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOL?R MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARII~TG AT 7:~8 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan noted corrections to Resolution tiro. 9~-001. Section 1, third and fourth sentences and requested that staff make the appropriate corrections (i.e., change ~ to read end and to point). Commissioner Caldwell asked if Mr. Anderson ~i~as purchasing the lot and noted that for some reason he did not receive public noticing. Planner «~ al~ren informed the Commission that the original application for the lot line adjustment was submitted over a rear ago ~~~ith several meetings being held «~ith Mr. Anderson and ~Ir. Horvath and their representatives to come to an agreement on what they «-anted staff to process. He noted that the applicant ~~-as ~~ettinU near to the end of the Permit Streamlinin~~ Act timeline and that Mr. Horvath ~~~as insistent that staff schedule his application as he «•as the legal property o«ner. He informed the Commission that the Andersons ~~°ere not listed as the legal o~~ners of the parcels and that it may be the reason that they- did not receive a notice of public hearing. Ho~~ ever, the Andersons have been a«~are of the application as it has been an ongoing issue for over 12 months. He noted that there was enou;~h time to allo«- for a continuance of this application should the Commission «~ish to continue the item. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not see anv reason to continue this item and that he did not believe that the City should get in the middle of this situation. There has to be an access to parcel 1 and felt that parcel 2 provides that access. Commissioners Kaplan and Asfour concurred with Commissioner Sieafried's comments. Commissioner Cald«-e11 stated that she did not hear ~1r. Anderson state that access w•as his only issue but that he indicated that he did not have a chance to review the application and that he did not kno«- if there were any others issues of concern. She did not see the harm in continuinv this item for t«-o weeks for the purpose of allo«~ing Mr. Anderson to revie~~~ the proposal. y Commissioner Kaplan noted that staff has been in contact with both parties for over a year. . ~s •• PLANNII~TG COMMISSION ~~IINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Asfour concurred with Commissioners Kaplan and Siegti-ied and felt that the issue has been going on for a long time. He did not feel that the Cite should get in the middle of litigation. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the posting listed as 1992 be corrected. Commissioner Caldwell did not feel that continuing this application for t«•o ~~~eeks ~~-ould hurt and that it would give the parties invol~ed an opportunit~~ to «-ork out their problems. She felt that it was clear that Mr. Anderson had some interest in this project. Slle felt that the bridge location seemed appropriate. She requested that the motion to approve. should it be given this evening, include the Fisll and Ganle requirement. y Commissioner Asfour requested that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant if he ~~-ould agree to a continuance. Commissioners Asfour;'Siegfried reopened the public hearing at 8:0~ p.lll. Chairman tilurakanii asked ~Ir. IIorvath if he «~ould object to a t«~o ~i~eek continuance to allow the other individuals involved to more thoroughly eYanline the application. ti~ir. Horvath stated that he has been in litigation for over four rears. He noted that he has received building site approval and felt that he has suffered enough. He felt that he and the buyer would be able to resol-e their problems. He stated that he «°ould agree to compl~~ «-ith the conditions of approval and indicated that he would object to a two ~t~eek continuance. Commissioners AsfouriPatrick moved to close the public hearing at 8:07: COI\1MISSIONERS KAPLAN.%ASFOLR I~~IOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION i\O. SD-9~-001 CORRECTING THE TYPOS IN SECTIO\ I AND TO MODIFY CONDITION 8 TO 1NCLLDE NOTIFICATION OF THE FISH AND GAME DEPAR"1~~9EN~1'. THE ~~10TIO\ CARRIED 6-1 `'WITH COMA~ISSIONER CALD~~'ELL VOTII\TG NO. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN.'ASFOLR MOVED TO APPROVE- RESOLUTION LL-94-007 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTIO\ CARRIED 6-1 ~?~'ITH COMMISSIONER CALD~?~'ELL VOTING \O. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-9~-03~ - PALi`IER; 2148 CONTI\ENTAL CIRCLE Request for Design Revie~~- approval to construct a new 6.189 sq. ft. t«-o-stop- residence on a vacant 1.6 acre hillside lot within the Parker Ranch Subdivision (Lot 76). ~1-he subject parcel is in the middle of Continental Circle and is in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner ~~'algren presented the staff report on this item. •w •• PLANNING COMMISSION ~iNLTTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Cald«-e11 noted that there used to be a knoll on the hill and that it has been ~~raded. She asked if the ridgeline «-as bein~~ measured from the original knoll and not the nest- knoll. Planner ~'~'algren clarified that the ridgeline «-as measured from the orig=final knoll. He noted that this situation occurs only in a fe~i~ hillside subdi~~isions that «-ere appro~-ed prior to the ridgeline ordinance being adopted and that the ridgeline «-as identified based on the natural contours of the land. If an indi~•idual submits an application to build and a knoll existed. that ~~~ould establish the natural ridgeline and one «-ould be able to cut the knoll off to set the house do~~n belo«- the ridgeline. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission «-as constrained from discussing findings of size and bulk e~~en if it falls «-ithin eight feet of the ridgeline. Planner ~~'algren responded that the 8 foot top «-as a specific ordinance requirement similar to setback requirements. He noted that the Planning Commission still needs to be able to make the design re~~ie«° findings that the building is appropriate for the site, that it does not obstruct ~-ie«~s or pri~-acy, that it is compatible in terms of massing ~i~ith adjacent structures, and ~~~hether it is appropriate for this particular parcel. Commissioner Abshire noted that he did not see any requirements for landscaping. Planner ~~'algren stated that a conceptual landscape plan identifies about 6 or 8 trees on either side of the parcel. There is a condition that requires additional nati~~e screenin~~ trees be planted to the southeast and north, do«-n on the lo«~er pad of the parcel. The condition also reads that these 1 ~ to 20 nati~-e trees be a mix. and that the~~ be 2~ inch-boxed size and 1 ~ gallon sizes at a minimum. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:11 p.~n. Pete Palmer, applicant. informed the Commission that he ~t-ould ans«~er an~~ questions «-hich it may have. He furnished the Commission «~ith a colored rendering of the house. Commissioner Asfour asked 1~~Ir. Palmer if he would oppose moving the house a little bit f urther on the lot. 1\~1r. Palmer responded that he searched for a lot that «-ould pro~•ide him ~~~ith a ~~ie~i-, studying the ordinance to ensure that the location of the house met ordinance require~.nents. He indicated that he would like to retain the house at its current location. Commissioner Kaplan asked ti1r. Palmer if he «°ould be amenable to reducing the height of the home. Mr. Palmer responded that the home «~as already 8 feet belo~t• the maximum height limitation and that the home «-as a contemporary style of design. He indicated that he ~~as co~Tnizant of the height. He indicated that he «-ould like to maintain the plans as proposed. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she liked the desi<7n but that she ~t-as concerned about its size. Chairman Murakami asked ~~Ir. Palmer if he had given consideration to lo«~erin~.: the pad. Mr. Palmer responded that he «~ould not have a problem ~;-ith lowering of the pad if there «~as not an expense associated with additional grading and that he be allo~~~ed to retain the dirt. Planner ~~'algren stated that the City's Hillside Grading Guidelines discourages altering the natural topography by a• •• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 8 - spreading large amount of exca~~ation as yard till and altering the lo~~er topography. Commissioner Asfour stated that the Commission can add a condition to require that the pad be lo~i-ered by ti~-e feet and that the dirt be hauled a~i=a~-. Mr. Palmer informed the Commission that the color of the house «-ould be that of earthtone colors as depicted on the color board rendering. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Palmer «-ould be ~~•illing to consider the use of darker colors. 14r. Palmer responded that he «-ould like to retain the colors as proposed. Marty Oakley, project designer, addressed the building height. He noted that the a~~erave building height from the existing pad a~-erages 22 feet. y y y Commissioner Cald«~ell asked «-hat the length of the house «~as? Planner ~~`algren responded that the length of the house ~t~as 99' x 87'. Chairman IViurakami asked Mr. Oakley -hat he ~~~ould consider this stele of home to be? Mr. Oakley responded that the design «-as that of modern contemporar}' st~•le design. Chairman Asfour noted that one of the gara~=es «-as attached and that the left ~~ara~~e «°as detached. He also noted that the garages do not appear to be aligned «~ith each other and appear to be staggered. Mr. Oakley- informed the Commission that the ~=arage that appears to be detached «as attached by a breeze«-a~~. He stated that the garages are located side b~- side. Commissioner Cald«•ell inquired about the dimensions of the rear and east ele~~ations as depicted on page B of the plans submitted. She also inquired as to the full len~~th across the diagonal of the house. Mr. Oakley responded that one «-ould not be able to see the ele~~ation from Cox A~~enue and that it ~i-as approximately 10~ feet from the lo«~er left garage to the rear right corner of the building. He informed the Commission that the house ~~~as designed to fit the natural slope and to stay belo« the maximum building height. He noted that if the house ~~~ere to be lo«-ered, it «-ould require unnecessary- grading. Commissioner Abshire asked if the raised «~all in the s~;-immin~7 pool area «-ould comply- «-ith the city safety requirements for fencing of s«-imming pools. ~~ir. Oakley responded that the fencing ~~-ould meet city safety requirements and that in addition to the raised ~t~all, heavy- landscaping is proposed to screen the entire «~all. Fuad Abuabara, 21412 Continental Circle, informed the Commission that the existing rid~~eline has been in existence for the past 13 rears. He noted that the home sits at the most risible part of the ridgeline and that it appears to be a massive structure. blocking his vie~~ s. He felt that the home could be lo~~-ered on the site and still meet setback requirements. He requested that additional s~ •r PLA\1~iING C0~IMISSIOly= iV1I~LTES SEPT'EVIBER 27. 199 PAGE - 9 - landscaping be required to minimize impacts. Commissioner Kaplan asked if he approved the proposed drive~a~ay. ~~Ir.~buabara responded that it appeared to him that this t}-pe of driye~yay did not appear to be practical. Commissioner Asfour asked if Continental Circle was a one way drive. Planner ~~~ algren responded that it was his belief that Continental Circle ~~-as made for one-way traffic. Paul Robichaux, 21471 Continental Circle. felt that there were some inconsistencies in the application and pointed out three of them as follows: 1) the public polio- matter concerning the protection of the ridgeline. He felt that the ridgeline was a major ridgeline and that the inconsistent.- ryas that this home could not be built if that ridge existed today because a permit ~;~ould not be issued to excavate 10.000 cubic yard of material that would need to be removed for the pad. 2) public safety -Continental Circle is a one-«-a}', single lane street. It is so small by normal city standards that special parking areas have been designated along the street to permit parking for the residents. The exit on the north side of this structure Mould violate those parking places and would reduce them substantially and would exit directly onto his drive«~av, a direct personal endangerment of his family. 3) The grading is in excess of 2~% and that ay blind drive is caused by the curve. He recommended that there be no northern exit from this propert}'. He requested that the Commission consider the three issues of public policy that the ridgeline be protected; that it consider public safety as it relates to Continental Circle because of the existence of the blind driveway: and that consideration be ~iyen to the mass and size of the home. Judie Stepner, 12~~3 Parker Ranch Court. stated that the proposed height of the house would impact her view. She requested that the house be lo~yered so that she can retain some of her viewshed. Allen Yamauchi, 21439 Continental Circle. lot 39, informed the Commission that he was not notified regarding the proposal and that it could be that the noticing was mailed to his old address. He expressed concern that the south exposure of the house appears to be very tall. I Ie noted that the view poles make the building look like a massive building. He stated that he supported moving= the house further do~yn the hill so that it does not sit hi~~h on the rid~~c. He felt that the home would be risible from the rallev floor. Stan Gambel, builder. San Jose. informed the Commission that the house was designed to meet city requirements. He noted that the house could have been designed «~ith a higher pitched roof. He did not believe that this ~~~ould be an imposition to residents on Continental Circle. He noted that the size of the house ~~-as similar to those in the neighborhood. Should the house be lowered 3 to ~ feet. 2.000 yards of dirt ~i~ould need to be removed Mr. Palmer stated that he appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood. However, he worked within City ordinance regulations in designing this house. •• ~• PLAI~"NING COMMISSION IV1INiJTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Patrick requested that an explanation be ai~~en regardin~~ the egress of the dri~~c~~~a~~ and ho«- it «~ould ~~°ork. 1~Ir. Oakle~~ responded that the dri~-e«-ays «~ere used to balance the residence aesthetically-. If someone ~t°as to enter this home. they- ~~~ould enter from the south side and go straight into the dri~~e«-a~- and that indi~~iduals can exit from both directions. If indi~~iduals go to«-ards the north. then «-ould need to make a left turn onto Continental Circle. He indicated the dri~~e~~~ay aprons can be mo~~ed and positioned to make it appear s~~mmetrical. Commissioners Kaplan/Patrick mo~~ed to close the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problem «~ith the design but that he ~~~ould like to see less mass on the ridge. He recommended that: 1) the pad be lo«~ered b_v fire feet and that the dirt be remo~-ed from the propert~~ so that it is not used as fill; 2) the house be mo~-ed further do~~n to the right (east): and 3) the deletion of the northern dri~-e~~•a~- «-ith the circle being ~~-idened. If these conditions can be met, he stated that he could support the application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she enjo}•ed looking at nest- and different designs. She liked the house but felt that it ~~-as too big. She indicated that she could not support the request based upon the finding of mass and bulk. Commissioner Abshire felt that this «as a prominent lot and may- be the best lot in the City- of Saratoga. He recommended that a stud~~ session be held to re~~ie«- the profile of the site and proposed building. He inquired if a fence «-as proposed to enclose the property-. Mr. Oakley indicated that a fence around the property- «~as not proposed but that fence «-ould be installed to enclose the s«•imming pool. Commissioner Patrick felt that an~~thing that is built upon this lot ~~~ould be prominent and ~~isible. She stated that she had a concern that the house ~i•ould appear like the ~~'hite House. She also expressed concern «-ith color. the ~-isibilit~- of the house, and that the proposed landscaping mad block the neighbor's ~~ie«-shed. She felt that mo~-in~ the house for«~ard ~~•ould make the height less conspicuous to the neighbors. She indicated that she «~ould not object to a meeting to discuss these issues further to make construction of the house less objectionable to the neighbors and less prominent to the ~~alle~•. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not feel that a stud- session ~a as necessary-. He felt that he could support the request if the pad ~~-as reduced b~- Ii~-e feet and the dri~-e«-a~- ~~-as eliminated. He felt that house ~m~as a nice design and could support it «~ith some modifications. He recommended that this item be continued for t«•o ~~eeks to allo« the applicant to shift the location of the house. Commissioner Cald«-e11 indicated her «~illingness to meet in a stud~~ session or that this item be continued «~ith clear direction being gi~~en to the applicant. She stated that she had concern ~~~ith mass and bulk. She felt that the structure «-ould end up looking like an office building on the hill. She also expressed concern that landscaping «-ould be relied upon to shield the house. She felt that •• •w PLANNING COMVIISSIO\ IVIINLTTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - l l - a landscape plan «~ould need to be revie«-ed to ensure that adequate screening is pro~~ided. She stated that she ~~•ould support a continuance. Chairman Ylurakami concurred «-ith the comments as expressed b~~ his fcllo~~ Commissioners. He stated that the design was a creative style. Ho«-ever. he felt that it was too bad that it «-as not designed for a to«-er flat lot as this ~i~as a prominent lot. I-Ie a~Treed that the pad should be lo«-ered or moved a«:-ay further from the ridge as ~~-e11 as the elimination of the drive«~av. He agreed to a continuance to have the adjustments made. Commissioner Kaplan%Patrick moved to reopen this item to public hearing at 8:~ 1 p.m. Chairman Murakami asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance. l~~Ir. Gambel indicated that the applicant ~i~ould agree to the recommended continuance. He asked if he ~~•ould be allowed to keep some of the dirt as fill if the pad ~~~as lo«•ered. Commissioner Asfour stated that the suggestion «~as to to«-er the pad and the purpose of the removal of the till ~~~as to maintain the ridaeline and not to flatten the lot. COM'_VIISSIONERS ASFOLR~PATRICK MOVLD TO CON"I-INUL• THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR-95-03~ TO OCTOBER 11, 199 TO ALLO`V THE APPLICA\T~~DESIGNER TO: 1) LO~~'ER THE PAD: 2) MOVE THE HOUSE; 3) ELIi\~1INATE THE \ORTHERLY DRIVE~VAY; 4) THE USE OF DARKER COLORS: AND ~) SUBMITTAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS. 'I"HL- MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Commissioner Siegfried excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. 4. DR-95-026 - ELCO\IN; 15315 BOHL~I:~N ROAD Request for Design Revie«- approval to construct a 603 sq. ft. first stork- addition and deck to an existing 3,26 sq. ft. two-stor.~ residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the Cite Code. The application includes a request for an exception to the maximum underfloor clearance requirement of ~ feet. The subject propert~~ is a 2.03 acre parcel and is located in a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner `'L%alaren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Mark Elconin, applicant, informed the Commission that he ~;-ould ans«~er an_~~ questions ~t-hich it may have. Commissioners Asfour; Patrick moved to close the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Commissioners Cald«-e11, Asfour, and Patrick stated their concurrence with staff's recommendation. •• •• PLANNII~'G COMMISSIO\T 1~1INUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 12 - COti1MISSIONERS ASFOt,TRTATRICK 1\10VED TO APPROVE RESOLLTION NO. DR-9~- 026 ~'~'ITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED BY STAFF. THE ~~IOTIO\ CARRIED 6-0 ~~'ITH C01~1_VIISSIOtiER SIL-CrFRIED ABSENT. ~. V-95-008 - ~'~'OTIZ; 21170 SULLIVAN ~?~ SAY Request for Variance approval to raise the existing flat roof of a 2.830 sq. ft. t«~o-story residence to a sloped roof «-ith a maximum height of 36 feet: 26 feet is the maximum height permitted by the City Code. A first story deck with an underfloor clearance ~~~hich exceeds ~ feet in height is also proposed. Variance approval is requested to build the deck upon a slope greater than 30 percent. 1•he subject property is a 2.096 acre parcel and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner ~~'al~ren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Vlurakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:1 ~ p.m. Dick ~?~'otiz, applicant, addressed the roof and pointed out that although the roof is going from 33 feet to 36 feet. if viewed from the street. the only side of the house that «-ould be ~~isible from the propem° is onl~° 26 feet in height. He requested approval of the deck to allow him the opportunity to enjoy some outside area. y Commissioner Asfour stated that in general, he does not like variance requests. However. in this ease. he felt that the roof modification enhances the appearance of the house. Commissioner Abshire concurred. Brian Berkeley, 21140 Sullivan ~~'av, stated that he ~~as in support of the proposal as it would improve the appearance of the house. Ed Cichanowicz, 21131 Sullivan ~Vay, stated his support of the variance request. He felt that the new roof ~~~ould make the house architecturally compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Commissioners Patrick~Asfour moved to close the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Commissioner Caldwell stated that there were extreme, extenuating physical circumstances to justifi- the request. She indicated that she did not have a problem with the request. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR'KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RL•SOLtiTION \O. V-9~-008 WITH TI-IE CONDITIONS AS RECOMit1E`TDED BY STAFF. THL• ~'lOTIO\ CARRIED 6-0 WITH C01~1MISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 6. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 - I\TERNATIONAL ORDE12 OF ODD FELLOWS; 1400 FRUITVALE AVE. The International Order of Odd Fello«-s has i • PLAI~T~TING COMiViISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 13 - submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 1400 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Lse Permit and Desivn Revie~y requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed 1\~laster Plan includes the remodel of the LO.O.F. Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property. «-hich includes two new apartment structures and 19 single-stor<~ duplex cottages. 1~he proposed iltaster Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housin~~ units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds. y An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to identifi~ and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed expansion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner ~~'algren presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission use tonight's meeting and as many other meetings as it may require to concentrate on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) itself. As public testimony is taken on the EIR and questions arise «~hich cannot readily be ans«~ered, staff would recommend that the item be continued to allo«- staff time to respond formally in «riting. If and ~yhen the Planning Commission comes to a point ~yhere it feels that the EIR is adequate and feels comfortable recommending certification of the document to the City Council, staff ~i-ould further recommend a continuance to allow the applicants time to address the necessary plan changes that ~yould result both from the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the findings made based on the on-site analysis of the proposal. He introduced Laura ~'~%orthington Forbes. project manas~er for 1\~iichael Brandman and Associates, to further discuss the EIR and the process that her firm went through in preparing this document. Laura ~'~'orthington Forbes. Michael Brandman and Associates, 174 Technology Drive. San Jose. provided the Commission with a brief sucnman• of the issues that «-ere examined in the EIR and the major findings contained in the report. She indicated that the EiR was prepared to comply ~~-ith the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Examined «-ere the «-hole range of potential impacts associated with project development. Although the EIR provides a substantial technical detail. the intent of the summary «-as to provide an overview of the most critical issues. The E1R has been prepared to inform the Commission for its deliberation and to facilitate public comments on the project. The EIR does not advocate whether or not to approve this project. it provides information about significant environmental effects. mitigation measures and feasible and unreasonable ranee of alternatives. The cumulative impacts and alternatives to the project «-ould be discussed. She described the process that «-as undertaken to get to this hearing. City staff has taken as many steps as possible to maximize the opportunity for public input and publications of the environmental review process. A notice of preparation was mailed on April 2~, 1994 to public agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and to inform the public oi'the proposed project. :~ public scoping meeting ~yhich is not required by CEQA was held on ~~lav 3. 199=1 by the Planning Commission to explain the characteristics of the proposed Odd Fello«•s project. the status of the • i PLA1vTNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 14 - project proposal and the nature of the environmental issues that ~~~ould be examined in the EIR as yell as providing an opportunity for public input regarding the environmental process (not a requirement of CEQA). The city- also conducted an on-site field visit on October 29, 1994 to foster a feel of the project surroundings. Based on the nature and the extent of the comments that «-ere received on the on-site field visit, the City conducted vet another on-site field visit. The ultimate intent of both of these meetings ryas to engage the public in a participation process and a hands on process to alloy the public to reyie«- the proposed development of the project as well as to assist in identif}~ing a reasonable range of alternatives and feasible mitigation measures. As a result of this additional effort. the modified design alternatives «-ere added as supplemental mitigation measures and ~yere subsequently analyzed in the EIR. The environmental issues examined in the EIR include land use. population, transportation and circulation, visual resources and aesthetics, earth resources. surface hydrology and drainage, air quality, noise. biological resources. public services, cultural resources and energy. The purpose of the EIR is to report the environmental implications of the proposed project and to explain the required and the sugvested tniti~Tation measures to minimize potentially significant adverse impacts. Significant impacts, according to CEQA, are substantial and adverse impacts to the environment. In cases ~yhere significant environmental impacts ~yere identified, measures that «~ould reduce or minimize those impacts to the extent feasible «-ere also identified. In all cases. the goal ryas to reduce the impacts with the implementation of measures io a level that is considered less significant. Any impacts that could not be reduced to a level of less significant «-ere identified in the EIR as significant. She informed the Commission that there «-ere t~-o such impacts identified in the EIR. The first one «-as the visual impact of f ye of the 11 cottages on the 10.6 acre parcel. Development of these five cottages ~yould result in the blockage of vie«•s generally to the north from off-site homes alone the southern periphery°. Even with proposed mitigation measures. noted adverse impacts are anticipated for the property immediate to the 10.6 acre parcel. The second unavoidable adverse impact «~ould occur to air quality. The project site does not meet federal and state standards for ozones. The EIR ackno~~~led~es the combined effect of construction of the proposed project and other development projects «-ithin the study area ~yould contribute to an already existing violation of the ozone standards and «-ould lead to a short term significant adverse impact to regional air quality. Since the circulation of the draft EIR for review, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has desi~Tnated the bay area as haying achieved attainment of the federal ozone standards. Ho«-ever. there have been many ozone violations assigned. Therefore. it is appropriate to maintain this finding given that it ~yill nosy add to the air quality problem and the Bay Area Air Quality it~lana~ement District ~~°ill need to correct any violations and implement control measures to monitor the attainment status. As a consequence, identification of air quality has been found to be significant and unavoidable. In addition to these issues, the EIR evaluated several topical issues which «•ould be significant but could include mitigations that could reduce the impact to a less than significant level. l~hese include land use and planning. transportation and circulation, earth resources. surface drainage, noise. biological resources. fire prevention and cultural resources. A number of these topical issues can generate a substantial public controversy and concern during the draft E1R revie~y comment period. These issues are particularly important and significant to the neighbors immediately surrounding the Odd Fellows' project. Those issues are: 1) land use -several individuals expressed concern regarding the • • PLAN\TING COMMISSION MINLTTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 1 ~ - project size, its intensity and scale, in particular, the single store project located on the southern 10.6 acre parcel. The final EIR clarifies that the proposed General Plan amendment «-ould demand a planning area G guideline for area development. Specificall}~, Area Guideline \o. 1 to increase the allo~yable density of residential development from 1.09 d~yelling units per acre to 2.1 d«elling units per acre of senior housing. On the 10.6 acre parcel of the Odd Fello«°s project site. no chan~~e in General Plan land use designation is proposed. The population intent of the cottage units. based on the breakdo«~n of a similar facility and the nature of the seniors livin~z on the facility would result in an on-site population of 3~ individuals. This is comparable to the population intensity that «-ould be expected if the 10.6 acre parcel «~ere developed to single family residential units. As noted in the EIR, the 1 1 proposed single story cottages «-ould also be developed at a reduced maximum scale than would be permitted under the current maximum density on the parcel. She noted that the second issue of concern «-as that of drainage. The final EIR clarifies that there are two ~yater sheds that ~yere taken into consideration in the EIR. In the planning area ~yater shed, run off would increase by 4cfs. In the secondary «ater shed. ~yhich is only eight acres in size and drains adjacent to the San Marcos access road. runoff «-ould increase 7.12 cfs. The draft EIR states that the 4cfs would be considered as a potentially significant impact as the drainage would be discharged into t~yo creek outfalls on the northeastern periphery of the site. The 1.~ cfs from the secondary watershed is considered by the City to result in a less than significant impact due to the size of the watershed. the capacity of the existing culvert, the City's evaluation of the preliminary ~~radinU and drainage plan and the intent to provide a storm drainage extension from the existing culvert. Avoidable impact ~yould not be considered significant at this location as on-site retention facility- ~yould be provided. She informed the Commission that there was a correction to the consultant's response to the Shute. Mihal~• and ~~'einberger letter located on page 31 ~ of the Final L-IR. the second paragraph is to be changed as follo~ys: "Development of phase I and phase II «-ould result in an ayera`~e impervious surface coverage of 33 percent. Phase I impervious surface coverage would be high, ~~% than that of phase II. "the development of this phase covers the possibilit~° of 1 1 of the 37 acres. ~~~hile phase II's impervious surface coverage is 24.4% but is spread over the entire 2~ remainin~~ acres. it is important to note that given the total area of potential development_ it is the overall impervious coverage of the project site that has relevant given the total square footage being proposed. 1\~lore importantly, the existing 30% City standards for impervious surface covera~~e applies to single family residential uses and can be modified to reduce permit process as «•ould be required to go in phase I of the development." She indicated that the third issue «-as that of traffic. There ~ti-as a substantial amount of concern as to the effect of the openin~~ of Hi~h~yav 8~ to the local street systems. As a result. the City has added a mitigation measure «-hich stipulates that the Cite «-ould provide post route 8~ traffic counts as part of the overall city-~yide impacts of trips region to region. If the new counts are higher than the pre-route 8~ opening, a ne~~° level ol~ service calculations will be performed by the project applicant to show the difference bet~yeen the overall calculations. If the counts are lower. no further mitigations ~yould be necessary. If the level of service results exceeds the E threshold established, the applicant ~yould need to mitigate the traffic impact by constructing or paying its fair share for signal timing modification. increasing the lest storage capacity or providing additional vehicular lane. The final EIR presents information clarifying ~yhy mitigation measures, as presented in the draft EIR, are appropriate `liven the identification of the impacts and A • PLANNING COMMISSION MINLTES SEPTEyIBER 27. 199 PAGE - 16 - the threshold for determining the significance of the impact. The mitigation measures specificalt- address the recommendations prepared b~° the city's geotechnical consultant as part of the preliminary geotechnical clearance for the project. It should be noted that the Cite has granted preliminary geotechnical clearance to this subject site. a requirement of the application submittal process. The preliminary geotechnical clearance process established whether there is a significant impact generated by this development and identifies a commonly acceptable engineering practices or technical applications that would alleviate or minimize the impacts. The follow-up studies. or in this case. the final geotechnical report. ~t~ould identify if there is a way to standardize the acceptable engineering practices or technical reporting to address the identified problems for a particular structure or particular location on the site. A final report is required prior to the approval of the final grading plan. The final issue identified through the public participation process was the alternative site. The final EIR presents augmented discussion as to why the alternative sites of the Central Park Heritage Orchard site was not considered in the draft EIR report. The Inal EIR. given the criteria for determining what factors may be considered by the lead a~.;encv, did not consider the Heritage Park site to be consistent with the ease la~~- in the 1994 revision to the CEQa ~~uidelines. She addressed the cumulative impacts and alternatives to the project. Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts that result from the project occurring in addition to other development in the area. Duc to the regional area air quality attainment status in existence at the time of the EIR preparation. cumulative impacts to air quality were identified. All other impacts associated with development can be individually mitigated and would not result in lone term. unmitigated cumulative impacts. The EIR identified five alternatives to the proposed project. 1•he "no project" development alternative which states that the Odd Fellows master plan ma~~ not be implemented in that 1 > land uses within the project area would remain unchanged. "hhe alternative site which places the proposed project on a 24 acre site located on the northeast corner of Saratoga avenue and IIi~hwav 8~. also considered listed was the Paul 1\lasson site. The project would be limited to renovation of the existing facility. This «-ould limit development to recreation of the existin~7 structures and limit development under current regulations for discretionary approval.~dditionally. the EIR analyzes an alternative with build out of the project which would result in the development of Phase I and a portion of phase II. excluding the development of the 11 homes on the ] 0.6 acre parcel. Finall•, the EIR evaluates the modified design alternative which would more closet- resemble the proposed project. This alternative would result in the development of Phase 1 and the confi~~uration of a portion phase II. The 10.6 acre parcel on the southern portion of the site would be reconfigured to that of phase lII of the San Marcos Height tentative map. A General Plan amendment would be necessary to the Priman~ G Guidelines to allow for senior housing at the density of 2.1 d«°ellin~~s per acre. This alternative ~~~ould eliminate the unavoidable adverse impact associated with this project. Based on criteria established by the applicants to meet their project objective and defined density, other than the project alterative, the modified design alternati~-e ~t~ould be the envirorunental superior alternative. "fhe alternative would reduce and or eliminate land use compatibility impacts associated with additional obstruction of resources. The alternative would eliminate significant visual and aesthetic impacts associated ~~~ith development on the 10.6 acre parcel. The alternative would provide additional landscape to buffer adjacent uses and provide a transition from the senior uses to the single family residential uses. Finally. this alternative reduces the grading and associated fill • • PLANNIl~'G COMMISSIO\ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 17 - impact, thereby preserving the ridgeline. She indicated that the public review- period for the draft EIR closed on June 1~, 199. Responses to the comments on the draft EIR «-erc distributed on September 14. She indicated that the purpose of tonight's hearing was to receive public comments on the final EIR. Planner ~'~'algren informed the Commission that a letter was received from Jeftrev Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Road, a neighbor to the project and «-ho has been involved ~t-ith this application since early on in the process. His letter requested that this item be continued based on the fact that the 10 or 12 days notice distributed to area residents was not sufficient time to take into consideration the amount of comments in volume III of the three volume Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Cald~yell inquired if her understanding of the process ~~~as that the Commission would be revie«-ing the final EIR and that at some point. decides whether that it is adequate. The Commission «~ould then forward its recommendation to the Cit~° Council for its consideration. The Cite Council then reviews the EIR and they decide that the final EIR is adequate. If that final document is then challenged in court for some reason under CEQA, and if the court decides that there are in fact some inadequacies in the document that need to be revisited by the City. She asked who bares the responsibility of correcting and paying for the inadequacy? Cit_v Attorney Riback responded that it ~~~as his opinion that the applicant would be responsible for prop iding for revisions to the EIR at that point. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not have enough time to review the huge document thoroughly. She stated that she found no place in the document where responses to the individual Commissioners' comments were provided. Ms. ~~'orthin~==ton Forbes informed the Commission that its comments would not have been included in formal writing but would have been included in the text of the draft EIR. Commissioner Caldwell asked if consideration was given regarding alternative locations outside jurisdictional boundaries of Saratoga. Ms. ~t'orthington Forbes responded that there ryas no requirement under CEQA to look for alternative sites outside of the cit~-'s jurisdiction. Therefore. alternative sites outside of Saratoga's jurisdiction were not reviewed. Chairman itiurakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:47 p.m. George Mean. resident of Saratoga, introduced Georg=e Ivelich, architect for the Independent Order of Odd Fello~ys. y George Ivelich, project architect, presented a slide presentation of the Odd Fellows' site, vistas and structures. He indicated ~i-hich structures ~i~ere to be improved. upgraded and`or removed. He staled that as man~° of the existing trees were to be preserc-ed as possible. He addressed the master plan proposal and access to the project would remain as it currently exists. He stated that the design team were cognizant of the surroundings and that the project would provide a transition to the adjoining • • PLANNING COM~IISSIO\T MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 18 - parcels. One story buildings are proposed adjacent to existing development and that the buildings would be compatible in size and shape. He addressed circulation. parking and the architectural design of the proposed project. In designing the project. he attempted to involve as man~° of the residents from the community as possible. He offered to share some of this thoughts on the mitigation measure that ~~~ere reviewed in the EIR. Andrew Bevereit. 632 ~~'halev Drive. San Jose. informed the Commission that he had been a resident of Saratoga for 2~ rears. He offered three thoughts to the Planning Commission that may assist it in making its decision on this application as follows: 1) He indicated that there were a substantial number of seniors that have moved out of Sarato<~a to senior facilities in other locations because there were no suitable facilities in this cite; 2) Seniors want to move out of large homes into a more suitable-sized floor area: and 3) there are vacancies in senior facilities in the communities around Saratoga. He informed the Commission as to the name of residents who have recently moved out of Saratoga «-ho for many years contributed to the benefit of Saratoga. He felt that the rate of senior move outs were likely to gro«° larger unless senior facilities «°ere made available in Saratoga. Morris Jones. 19472 Riesling Court, addressed the draft EIR. He requested that a study session be conducted to allo«- discussion with staff on issues of the EIR that need to be clarified. Issues of concern to him and the neighbors were: 1) hydrolog~~ -there is flooding along this project. it has a lot of impervious surface, and it will continue to have a lot of impervious surface. He did not feel that the hydrology report «-as correct because it stated that the water ~i-as flowing below the surface. He noted that there were springs located on the site. He and the nei~=hbors believe that information was provided to staff ~~°hich would indicated that there is a hydrology impact to the individuals «-ho live below the site. Also, there ryas a finding that hazardous materials were not an issue. Yet, he noted that there were four substandard storage bunkers and a fuel tank located on the property ~i-hich is referenced in the EIR and required to be removed by the local agency. He stated that traffic was also of concern. Post IIigh~yay 8~, particularly the a.m. traffic time near the junior high has become quite congested, yet only p.m. traffic analysis «°as performed. He indicated that the EIR has to address: the general plan change and associated zoning changes. the master plan and the project. While it is felt that it is appropriate to keep project specific issues in the EIR, the general plan change is an extremely long scoping in terms of the impact that it ~~-ould have. He felt that one needs to consider all possible conditions. He expressed concern regarding the delay in determining the mitigation measures. He felt that mitigation measures should be spelled out and quantified so that decision makers can have accurate and appropriate information. He expressed concern that the needed fire truck would not be provided until phase II development and noted that the residents would increase during the first phase (safety concern for residents and community). David Moss, 13497 Old Oak ~~'av, informed the Commission that his sister was forced to move to Los Gatos. Ile indicated that he has lived in Saratoga for 34 years. He felt that during this time, the population of Saratoga has declined. Yet many subdivisions have been approved and many houses built since he first moved to Saratoga. He felt that this indicates that we have an aging population. He did not believe anything has been done in Saratoga to accommodate these individuals. Ile • • PLANNIl~~G COMVIISSIO\T MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 19 - indicated that he would like live in a smaller unit which is easier to take care ol'. He felt that the plans for duplex units were acceptable. He felt that somethin~~ needs to be done and that government has mandated that the city pro~•ide senior housing. He felt that it ~~°as time to stop dragging one's feet, letting individuals brine up every possible delay that can be thous=ht of I-Ie requested that the project move on and that it be completed. Bill Pecka, 12764 Homes Drive, stated that he has lived at this residence for over 23 rears. He indicated that he has no connection with the Odd Fellows organization but felt that he represents a lot of the seniors in this community. IIe stated that he «-ould like to remain in Saratoga and to more into a facility similar to this proposal. He felt that the design ~~-as well thought out and an improvement to the existing facility. Ile understood that the aesthetics arc to be preserved. He requested that the City more forward «°ith this project as he «~as not ~~etting amp voun~er. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court. inforned the Commission that he is a neighbor of the project and a concerned citizen. He stated that he was not opposed to the project or ~yhat the Odd Fellows °ere trying to accomplish. Ho~~-ever, he would like to see development that is prudent. reasonable and fair not only to the Odd Fello~ys but to the community. He felt that the current development proposal results in numerous, significant and unavoidable impacts. He requested that development not be allowed to occur in the sensitive areas of the site. I-Ie indicated that he submitted a letter dated June 14, 199 outlining his technical concerns rewarding the draft CIR. The main focus of the letter was that the draft EIR. in numerous places. refers to many reports and analysis that would need to be prepared at a later date. His concern «-as that the actual impacts (i.e., visual. biological, drainage, etc.) have not yet been identified. IIe noted that the purpose of the EIR .vas to identity project related impacts and to identifi~ mitigation measures that are needed to reduce those impacts as much as possible. The reports referred to in the draft EIR require additional grading, tree removal. biological impacts, or identification of hazardous materials. He did not believe that time has been taken to perform the project review correctly. He did not believe that the impacts have been fully identified. He did not believe that the Planning Commission had a complete picture due to the fact that the draft EIR references future analysis that have yet to be performed and potential impacts associated «ith the recommendations. He requested that the Comtission look closely at the alternative project locations and the modified design alternatives identified in the EIR. He felt that the EIR lacks a reasonable amount of information needed for the Platltiin~~ Commission to make an informed decision to certifi• the EIR and therefore does not believe that the requirements of CL'QA have been met. He submitted a letter he wrote dated 11-16-94 addressed to James ~Valaren in response to the October 29, 1994 site visit that was not included in or responded to in the final EIR. Victor Monia. 1466 Granite ~~'av. informed the Commission that Dom Richiuso who resides on Chablis Court has been called out of to«n and requested that he relay to the Commission his request that it consider moving the drive«-ay located on the west side of the project as the drive~~°av would be located along his propem~ line. Mr. Monia felt that this ~;gas a difficult process as there was not enough time to review the report. IIe stated that he protested the process because he only had approximately three and a half days to consult with his attoriev on this matter. He requested that • • PLANNING COMMISSION MI~LTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 20 - he be given the opportunity to revie«- and discuss this matter with his attorney. Given the time constraints, he did not have an opportunity° to provide a full response to the draft EIR. In the areas of significant impacts, he did not believe that the responses from the consultant met the barest minimum standards required by CEQA. He felt that the report contained a number of mitigation responses such as "shall be submitted later on" or "shall only be permitted after further study". He felt that these statements ~yere inadequate under CEQA as the public is entitled to know ~yhat the mitigation measures are at this time. CEQA states that mitigation measures which are found to be significant should be kno«n at this time so that responses can be made to them as they- are important in the decision making process. He noted that there «~as no attempt in the EIR to identifi° or to set standards of mitigations to «-hich it can be measured for success or compliance. He felt that standards must be incorporated if there is to be any hope of future compliance to a stated coal. He recommended that the Commission give him the opportunity to review the document and to ask a series of questions in a study session.~He requested that the consultant be required to disclose fully the required mitigation measures for those areas of significant impacts. He also recommended that the consultant and staff detail the standards by which each and every mitigation ~i~ill be measured. He indicated that he was happy with the process itself as it has been a good and open process «-ith the exception of a fey days revie~z° of the final EIR. Bob Finoocchio, 19160 Crisp Avenue, informed the Commission that he o«ns the property immediately adjacent to phase lI of the proposal. He indicated that he has a perfect view of the hillside which ~yould be devastated in phase II. He indicated that he bought his home t~yo years ago at «~hich time, the adjacent property was zoned for single family d«-ellings, similar to his property. It is nosy being requested to increase the density adjacent to him with duplexed units to be constructed to the side of the hill. He indicated that he submitted a letter detailing specific concerns. He felt that the responses ~yere inadequate and the he concurred ~yith the comments of the previous t~~-o speakers. Based on that point, the vague generalities and lack of decision. He stated that the EIR talks about similarities bet«°een the duplexes and the surroundin~_ residents. He indicated that it «-as hard for him to believe that there «-as any kind of similarities that exists bet~yeen single family d«~ellings and the units proposed. He stated that it is proposed to construct a fire access road at the bottom of Crisp Avenue ~yith almost no description provided in the E1R. He felt that a massive earthen wall would need to be built for the road on the hillside. He believed that the proposed fire access road ~~•ould have a massive impact on the site. He addressed noise associated with traffic to the Odd Fellows facility. The trees that are to be removed have not been identified. He raised the issue of landscaping to shield development to Crisp Avenue. The EIR states that landscaping has been indicated in one of the charts. He looked at the chart carefully and did not see a sin~Tle tree or bush indicated on the plans. He agreed that three days was an inadequate amount of time to review hundreds of pages. y James Tennyson, 1431 ~ Springer Avenue. stated that he has been a resident of Saratoga for 1 ~ wars. He commented that if ~~-as his belief that there «-ere neighbors ~~-ho have taken an exception to the project and were fighting it. He informed the Commission that Betty Feldhevm collected the names of 19 individuals on her street in support of the proposal. He stated that he supported the work of -~ ~ • • PLANNING COMMISSION A~IINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 21 - this organization which are known for communiti- ser~~ices. He requested that the Commission approve the proposal. Kris Chellani, 1406 Chester Avenue, stated that he was not opposed to the proposal. Ho«°ever. he «~as troubled with the process as he ryas not aware that the second EIR had been made available. He indicated that he was not receiving notification of the documents being made available nor of the hearing dates. He indicated that he ~yould like to rind a ~i°av to ~york with the applicant to achieve the alternative goals, minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood. He stated that he ~~°ould like to have a better understanding of «-hat is being proposed and to find «~ays to mitigate concerns. Jeanne Olsen, Fruitvale Avenue, informed the Commission that she has been a resident of Saratoga for 2~ ~~ears. She addressed the foliowing points: 1) noise from the ambulances and fire trucks on the streets and the impact to the neighborhood. She recommended that a staging area be designated for the fire trucks. 2) traffic impacts - With all the traffic proposed. she felt that Chester Avenue should be opened up to mitigate traffic. She asked if a traffic signal light ~yould be installed. She indicated that she was not opposed to the improvement of the homes as they were in need of repairs and upgrading. 3) She noted that the Odd Fello«-s advertised in the paper a need to fill vacancies. She asked why- there is a need to expand the existing facilit~~ if vacancies currently exist. Ruth Coburn informed the Commission that she has resided in Sarato~~a for the past 33 ~~ears. Although she ~i-as not read~~ to make a chan~=e, she would like to remain in Saratoga. She encouraged the Commission to make a quick decision to provide senior housin~~ in Saratoga. Mr. Iyelich requested that he be allowed to reserve his time to respond to future comments. Cotmissioner Asfour requested clarification about the procedures should a continuance be necessar~•. Community- Development Director Curtis stated that staff recommends that public testimon~~ be provided on this item and that an~~ questions raised by the Planning Commission regarding the EIR be provided to staff so that responses could be brought back to the Colninission. Staff recommended that the Commission continue the public hearing so that staff can respond to the questions raised. He indicated that the Commission could continue the public hearing or elect to close the public hearing. He recommended that in any subsequent hearings. that the only- testimony received should be on the information that is made available that evening. Commissioner Cald«~ell indicated that she needed additional time to review the document. Community- Development Director Curtis indicated that Volume 3 was distributed to the Planning Commission on September 13. He noted that there has been a 60 day revie«- period for the draft EIR and that there is not another reyie~y period on the draft EIR. -1 ime has been given to review the responses to comments on the draft EIR (Volume III of the EIR). He stated that on Thursda~~, September 14, he tried to contact Morris Jones, leaving a message on his voice mail that a cope of Volume 3 was available. He indicated that he contacted Mr. i\lonia and that dir. ~lonia picked up . • • PLANNING COMMISSION :~~1ItiLTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 22 - a cop~• of Volume 3 on September 18. It was his understanding that intr. Sch~yartz picked up a cope of Volume 3 on Friday, September 1 ~ and that ~~ir. Borelli also picked up a cope. He also indicated that a cope «-as made available in the reference section of the library. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she had difficult~~ using Volume 3 as there were no tabs or aids for her to utilize to reyie~y the document. She stated that the document responds to comments that ~yere previously- raised. She asked if the individual «-ho raised those comment. receives a response and now goes back and takes issue ~yith the response. She inquired as to ~yhen the revie~y process would end? Community Development Director Curtis responded that individuals are requesting additional time to reyie~y the contents.'response to their comments. The Planning Commission ~yill need to determine ~yhen it is satisfied that the information in the EIR is adequate and provides the Commission ~yith enough information to act on the project and to certifi- the L-1R. Commissioner Kaplan stated that there was only so much information that she could absorb from this t~~pe of document. She stated that she ryas afraid that the process would be a continuous situation «-here an individual ~i~ill not like an answer and that the~• ~yill request a better or a different answer. She indicated that she had some issues that she would like ans~;-ered. Commissioner Cald~yell stated that she felt that it ~yould be fruitful to more for~yard «-ith the concerns that the Commission may hare. Ho~yeyer. she stated that she would not like to be precluded from raising additional issues and providing more input following further review of the document. She felt that a stud~~ session would be a better ~~°av of solicitin~~ discussion and understanding of ~~~hat is being proposed so that there could be a better understanding of what the mitigations ~yould be and ho«- they are to be implemented and whether they are reasonable. She recommended that the Commission continue this item to a special meeting to alloy for a less formal and open ~york session. Commissioner Kaplan referred to page 1-7 which references the utilities. She had some questions regarding the statement that certain issues ~yould not be reviewed such as: po~yer, natural gas, communication. ~yater. sewer and solid ~yaste because there would not be a need for ne~y systems or that there ~yould not be an impact to the existing s~-stems. She could not understand ~yh~- there ~yould not be an impact to utilities when additional housing is being proposed. On page 119. she asked ho~y bad ryas the unavoidable impact on air pollution. She also addressed the comments made regarding the short term air quality-. She stated that she understood that the use of construction equipment, digging and similar activities would increase air pollution. She asked for clarification regarding the basin. Page 123. she ~yanted to kno~y which oak trees «~ere to be removed and recommended that a police be implemented regarding better protection of the trees (i.e., installation of construction fencing). Commissioner Asfour raised questions regardin;~ air qualit~• as it relates to the use of equipment during construction. He indicated that his main concern pertained to mitigations measures. He noted that one of the speakers mentioned that the mitigations should be kno«n at this time. He felt that ~. • • PLANNING COMMISSION ~1ItiliTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 23 - there «-ere some major impacts identified and felt that the mitigation measures should also be identified, holding the developer accountable. Regarding the ~;pater issue. he requested additional information as to ~yhat is needed (i.e., special study of the ~~-ater). Chairman Murakami stated that he shared the questions as stated by Commissioner sfour. IIe indicated that his main concern «°as that of traffic impact. He felt that there ~;°ere substantial impacts and that the report does not adequately address the concerns raised. He felt that there ~~-ere current cro«-ded conditions and that in the future, an additiona194 homes are to be constructed (Greenbriar). He ~yanted to kno~y «~hat the specific impacts associated ~yith this project «-ould and the actual measures to be used to mitigate the impacts. He also raised questions regarding some of the utilities (i.e., sewage). IIe indicated that he had an opportunity to contact the ~~`est Vallee Sanitary District to investigate ~yhat progress that is being made for the installation of a major se«~er trunk line. He was informed that this project ~~~ould be going out to bid soon and that no problems «~ere foreseen. He requested further clarification on this issue. He also requested fiirther information regarding the availability of the units to the general public. He felt that this ryas an important issue to the residents of Saratoga. He requested further information regarding the selection process for residency and «-hether priority would be given to Saratoga residents. Commissioner Cald«ell concurred «~ith Commissioner Kaplan in terms of the usability of the document. She found certain sections not to be illuminating. very difficult to use and hard to understand. She maintained that the Commissioners did provide comments on the draft EIR at its public hearing. She stated that she «ould like to see where those comments «~ere responded to in the document.~She asked «-hat ~~-ere Saratoga's thresholds for significance. She did not feel that the mitigations listed in the document have been adequately defined. She felt that there «•ere occasions in which the mitigations needed to be more detailed than in other instances. It seemed to her that where there were confusing statements for mitigations. there ryas a fair amount of detail which is required by CEQA. Where there «-ere difficult ans~i~ers in terms of the appropriate mitigations for impacts that were identified and ~yhere further evaluation might be required, there ~~°as a generalized and boiler plate statement (i.e., "deferred to a special study", "hire someone to investigate"). She felt that the Commission needed to kno«- the ~~~ho, ~;ghat. ~yhen, ~~-here and ~yhy of all the mitigations. She copied a section from a book on CEQA compliance ~;~hich explains «~hat mitigations are. ~~~hat they are meant to do, and «-hat is required in terms of delineation in an EIR for an adequate mitigation and adequate mitigation monitoring. She noted that there ~yerc also examples from another EIR regarding the level of detail that is required by CEQA. She recommended that the consultant use that standard of detail because that is the level of detail that the City ~-ould need in order to certify the document. She felt that mitigation measures needs to be specific and that the discussion of mitigations also needs to discuss the impacts associated «-ith the implementation of the mitigations (no discussion made in the Odd Fello«-s document). She noted that one of the speakers mentioned the fact that there ~yere no measurable performance standards to ascertain the success of the mitigations after they are implemented. She felt that measurable performance standards need to be outlined. She felt that it «-as crucial for a city to look at the implementation of the project and should the City find that certain of the mitigations may not work, the Cit}~ ~;'ould • • PLAN1vTING CO1~IMISSIO\ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 24 - need to adjust and to mitigate appropriately. Ho~yever, it will not be known if there are no standards of measurement. She addressed the follo~yin~ pages of the document: page 120, removal of the project could reduce or eliminate some plant and «-ildlife population. She did not understand this impact statement. Page 122 impact on wildlife, there is to be a future stud}' on burrowing o«-1s. She felt that it should be known at this time whether there are burrowing o~~°ls. She felt that there «•as qualified lan~ua~~e about the kind of mitigations that are going to be implemented. She did not understand the meaning of the statement: "To the maximum extent, ne~~- ve~jetation shall occur". Page 327, removal of oaks. a statement reads: "This is the mitigation that should take place, this is «-hat the program should provide for and the restoration plan must improve the follo«•ing at a minimum". Page 123 -elimination of wetland -another future study «-as being recommended. 1t is not known if there are any ~yetlands, their location. or ho«- big they are and yet there is a need for a future study. Page 12~ -submittal of an emergency fire access plan. There is no indication as of what specifically needs to be contained in the plan «-ith the requirement of a submittal of a construction fire protection plan. Page 126 -submittal of a «°ater conservation plan. She felt that page 126 was a good procedure to carry throughout the E1R because if ~~ives multiple bullets of what should be contained in a plan. She felt that the document should look like page 126. She reviewed the «-ritten comments and the responses to the comments and indicated that she found a number of inconsistencies and places «-here she felt that the responses were generalized. She felt that one gauges the level of specificity of response according to the level of specificity of the comments provided. She felt that inmost cases. eery detailed comments were stated but onl}- general responses to the comments ~yere provided. She felt that this was caused because sufficient evaluation of public comments had not occurred. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was surprised to see that specificities ~~-ere not addressed in the document. She stated that she «~as looking for more specificity. For example, the use of 146.000 gallons per day «~as not a significant impact because Saratoga uses x gallons per da~~. She stated that she does not know how many gallons of ~~•ater Saratoga uses per day and «~hether the 146,000 was significant. She indicated that she got lost trying to cross index the document and that she did not know the degree of specificity. It appeared to her that a lot of generalities «-ere used. She indicated that she needed additional time to review the document. Commissioner Abshire stated that he «-as surprised with the traffic counts as the data ~~~as gathered in one location on a Tuesday and two other locations on a ~~'ednesday ni~~ht in September 1994. He tuiderstood that there «-as to be another count following the opening of High~yav 8~. He asked when that count was to be scheduled. He requested that evidence be provided that a one day data of traffic count was all that was needed. He also wanted to kno«- if the air pollution calculation data .vas also made on that traffic date. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she «-as initially concerned ~yith the creation of the fire access road. Then she thought that she read that the access road Mould not be constructed because of the fire ladder height. She felt that the answer was in the document but that she could not find it. Planner ~~~algren indicated that the staff memo distributed to the Commission last «-eek mentioned ir. '7~ _~ • PLAlV\TING COMMISSION ;VII\LTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 2~ - that the ph~-sical changes that ~yould need to occur to the plans as a result of the mitigation measures would need to be revie«-ed at a later date follo~ying revie« of the EIR. There «-ould also be dcsign modifications recommended by staff. One of the recommendations «°ould be to eliminate the secondary- fire access road to Crisp Avenue. He informed the Commission that his reconunendation has been accepted b~~ the Fire District with the mitigations established in the EIR. Staff also discussed the design alternative consistent ~yith the mitigation measures in the EIR to take the five cottages off the top of the hill for design related reasons and that there are other similar design related recommendations that staff would be making following this review process. Commissioner Cald~i°ell inquired about the issue of short terns ~-ersus long term. She asked if staff ryas referring to two rears as being short term. Ms. ~t'orthington Forbes responded that short term refers to construction time (2 rears) and long term refers to being constructed by the year 200. Communite Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission continue this item either in an informal work session or regular session. If this item is to be continued in a public hearing format. he recommended that it be conducted in a question and answer format. One of the problems that staff finds in an informal setting is that it ma}~ lead into a deliberation. He recommended that all questions be brought out b~~ the Commission,%public and that staff «-ould return with ans«°ers at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with holding an informal session ~yith sensitive issues such as this one because it invariable tends to becomeya debate. He indicated that it would be his preference to continue this item to a regular session. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the next meeting be for the purpose of gathering more questions regarding this document. The question would be what would be the best setting to collect those questions. She stated that did not understand why a «-ork session ~;-ould be a bad forum to collect questions. r Commissioner Asfour responded that a «-ork session is not a bad forum but that it tends to dra~~ on. He noted that other agencies hold several public hearings to gather input and that all the sessions are formal sessions. City Attorney Riback stated that for purposes of the record that is being developed for this proceeding, it was important to have some clarit~° with regards to exactly what the Planning Commission's concerns and issues «-ere. Staff «-ould then return and respond to the concerns and issues as a ~yhole so that the Commission can then go to the next level which is to respond to those responses. Other«-ise, there is going to be a natural overlap ~;-here some Commissioners would be responding to responses that the~~ received while other Commissioners ~eould be respondin~~ to the third volume of this document. Commissioner Kaplan stated her agreement with Cit~• Attorney Riback's comments. She inquired •` ' ~ PLANNING COMMISSION )\~1INUTL-S SEPTEMBER 27. 199 PAGE - 26 - if the Commission w°ould be receiving additional input from the public? Community De~~elopment Director Curtis responded that he anticipates additional public testimony. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if the public still has an opportunity to address the Commission and ask additional questions, she would prefer a regular meeting setting so that there is a transcript of the issues that are raised by the public. City Attorne~~ Riback suggested that there be a record made regardless of the setting. He indicated that ~~•hether the meeting «-as held as a regular meeting or a study session. that it ~~-ould be a continued public hearing. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR!PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM TO THE COA~IMISSION'S OCTOBER 11. 199 1\~IL-ETI\TG. THE ~~IOTION CARRIED 6-0 ~VITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITE1~1S Community Development Director Curtis reported on the follo~~~in~: - He requested that the Commission indicate «°hether it ~~~ishes to cancel the December 27 meeting. BY CO1~iSENSUS, THE COI\1:l~ISSIO\ AGREED TO CAI~TCEL ITS DECEMBER 27 MEETING. - He informed the Commission that he would not be present at the October 11 meeting. - He informed the Commission that the City- Council has an established policy «herebv it reviews proposed draft ordinance amendments such as parking standards in a «-ork session prior to public hearing. He indicated that the Council had questions regarding alternatives (i.e.. reducing parking requirements). He informed the Commission that the City Council tabled this item for further discussion in a «~ork session. IIe recommended that a joint work session be scheduled during the month of February. - IIe informed the Commission that the City Council will be conducting a public hearing on "public noticing expansion" on l~TOVember 1. y CO~iMISSIO\T ITE1tIS DR-94-006 - Ciffone, 14»3 Via De Marcos: Request for minor plan revisions to an approved fencing enclosure request. Planner ~Valgren presented the staff report on this item. BY COI~TSENSL'S, THE C0~IMISSIONT DL-NIED THE REQUEST FOR MII~TOR PLA\ REVISION TO AN APPROVED FENCING ENCLOSURE. __ c a~ PLAl`nvING COMMISSIO\ MINLTES SEPTEMBER 27, 199 PAGE - 27 - COMMtiNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 8i8: 8'16: 8i22: 8128 2. Planning Commission Public l~TOtices dated 10.% 1 l i9~ Oral Cite Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business. the meetin~~ adjourned at 11:3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.. Tuesday. October 3, 199, Senior Da~• Care Center. 196~~ Allendale A~°enue, Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted. Irma Torrez 1~~linutes Clerk