Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-1995 Planning Commission Minutes~~. `` ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 City Council Chambers. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami. Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Caldwell Staff: Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 9/27/95 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. - Page 6, paragraph 1. delete the word i~ at the end of the first sentence. - Page 6, last paragraph, first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell noted that there used to be a knoll.... " - Page 9, last paragraph, line 4, replace the word eat with exit. - Page 10, second paragraph, line 2, replace the word mess with mast. - Page 10, paragraph 4, the inclusion of the following: "Conrniissioner Abshire it;gt~i.red ,.:, ... if ~i fence was proposed . io enclose thc~ p.roperty.. Mr. Oakle}~ indicated that a feiee around the propcrt.y~ was not proposed and t:liat the only ~f'encc proposed would bc,tci enclose'~~the s«`inlmlllg p0(31. " - Page 13, third paragraph. line 8, replace the word €ae~y with ac~:tate; line 21 to read: "of the rs~~ect surroundings...."; and line 23, replace the word measure with measures. - Page 14, line 23 amended to read: "...air.:q~lity.:prtbletn:aiicl€1}e Bay Area Air Quality Management district ~~iil€1r~ed to correct any violations.... " - Page 15, paragraph 1, line 4, replace ~5 with 7:123 cfs. "; line 11 amended to read: "...provided. She informed the Commission that there vas a correction to the ear#suitant?s:::respor#s..e t~~he Shute. Mihaley and Weinberger letter.... "; and line 21 amended to read: "...be required to go in phase I of the development. eke e indicated r` ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 2 - that the third issue.... " - Page 16, first paragraph, fourth sentence amended to read: "Due to the regional area axe a~c~izir attainment statustl~~e~e in existence at the time of the EIR preparation.... - Paae 17, first paragraph, line two amended to read: "...would be reviewing the final EIR and that at some point, decides «rhetler that is adequate." - Page 18, paragraph 2, fourth thru sixth sentences amended to read as follows: "He and the neighbors believe that information °'~,,,,.,~;~ «ras provided to staff which would indicate that there is a hydrology impact to the individuals who live below the site. Also, there was 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 which is referenced .in the.:~E1R and required t<a be~ removed. by'`a local ~~enc}? ~°~ ~°-~°••~' Line 12, replace the word were with~~was. - Page 19, first paragraph, correct the spelling of Ralph Borellie; line 20 amended to read: "that the EIR here-r~lacks a reasonable amount of information...."; and last sentence to read: "...included in o.r respvnded~:.to in the final EIR. " - Page 19, second paragraph, line 12 amended to read: "...or 'shall ~ ~1~.= be permitted after further study' .... ". - Page 22, last paragraph, line 5, replace I~~c~ with r±ribi~r. ........................... ........................ ......................... - Page 23, paragraph 2, line 21 amended to read: "...in the Qdd'Fellflvi?s document)."; line 25 amended to replace the word n~~atiens with rriitigatQns; and line 30 amended to read: "...should be known at this time whether there are burrowing owls. She felt that there ti~as qualified language about the kind of mitigations that are going to be implemented. " y y - Page 24, first paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences amended to read: "She felt that ................ one ages gauges the level of specificity of response according to the level of specificity of the comments provided. She felt that in most cases, very detailed comments were stated a~ )~ulQrI~F general responses to the comments ~~e provided. She felt that this ....... :.... was caused because ~e sttff..cierit evaluation bf the.puh.lic cc~mmcnts had not occurred." - Page 25, paragraph 3, line 2, deletion of ~l~e. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 199 PAGE - 3 - • THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AS HE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE EIR FOR THE INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. ORAL CO~ZitiUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\G AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 6, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet \To corrections ~vere noted. CONSE\TT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARI\G CO\SENT CALENDAR Chairman Murakami noted that there was a speaker present to address the Commission on Item 2. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED T'O REMOVE AGENDA ITEM 2 FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. 1. SD-95-006, LL-95-005, GPA-95-001 & AZO-95-002 - itIILLER; 15001 BOHLi\~IA~\ RD. Request for Building Site approval for two existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to relocate an existing parcel boundary between the two lots. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Building Site Approval may be requested to ascertain what off-site improvements would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on-site development is proposed at this time. The application also includes a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries (cont. to 10/25/95 at the request of staff; application expires 2/10/95). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. r` • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 4 - LJ 2. DR-95-040 - VIDANAGE; 12536 SPRING BLOSSOM CT. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,691 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant 12,672 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is Lot #4 of the Spring Blossom Court Subdivision and is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, informed the Commission that he owns the property located directly behind the proposed building site. He stated that he hoped that no changes were proposed to the building site and that it remain an 18 foot. single story building. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 P.M. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a letter was received from Phillip Lieou, 20538 Carniel, expressing concern regarding the landscaping that was removed when the five lot subdivision was originally approved. Mr. Lieou requested that additional landscaping be reincorporated into the development. He (Walgren) informed the Commission that staff has reviewed one of the set of house plans for the subdivision and that both applications provide for comprehensive landscape plans. He noted that a nursery was previously located on the site with temporary on-site landscaping and that the property did not contain a lot of on-site vegetation. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Lieou expressed the same concerns when the first lot was reviewed? Planner Walgren responded that staff did not receive any correspondence from Mr. Lieou regarding lot 1. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-040 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. PL`BLIC HEAR][\GS 3. DR-95-035 - PALMER; 21485 CO\TINENTAL CIRCLE Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,189 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.6 acre hillside lot within the Parker Ranch Subdivision (Lot 76). The subject parcel is in the middle of Continental Circle and is in a Hillside Residential zoning district (cont. from 9/27/95; application expires 3/6/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that the only unresolved issue was the large amount of do~vnslope fill. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Pete Palmer, applicant, indicated that he has addressed the main issues of concern. He expressed concern with lowering the house any further because it would compromise his view. Regarding the fill, he requested that the fill be allowed to remain on the lower portion of the site because it would be an aesthetically pleasing arrangement as opposed to the use of a five foot retaining wall. Commissioner Abshire noted that a safety fence around the pool was not depicted on the plans and inquired where the fence would be installed. Mr. Oakley responded that a wrought iron fence would be installed at the perimeter of the lawn area. Commissioner Asfour thanked Mr. Palmer for working with the Commission. He indicated that he would have preferred to have the fill removed from the site, but that he would agree to allow the fill to remain for aesthetic reasons. Pam Robichaux, 21471 Continental Circle, indicated that at the last meeting, she expressed concern regarding the driveway and safety issues. She stated that she has reviewed the revised plans and thanked the Commission for requesting that the driveway location be chanced. Other concerns were the location of the house and its height. Although she would prefer that the house be lowered and located further down the slope, she felt that the changes that have been made are reasonable and ones that she could live with. However, she continued to express concern regarding the perceived mass and bulk of the house. Judie Stepper, 12553 Parker Ranch Court, furnished the Commission with a picture depicting the height poles and the impact the house would have on her view. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he vas not troubled by leaving the dirt on site because it would help the visual aesthetics of the site (i.e., elimination of the retaining wall). He felt that the dirt would restore the original grade and that he did not believe that it would set a precedent as this was a unique case. Commissioner Abshire concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. Although it was more dirt being moved then the City would like to see, he felt that special circumstances exist to allow the dirt to remain on site. Chairman Murakami indicated that he performed calculations on the cut and fill and found them to be large. However, after viewing the site and the revised drawings, he could support the request to retain the dirt on site. Regarding the concern about mass and bulk, he did not feel that the style of the house fits the site. However, the applicant has cooperated with the city to make modifications as requested and felt that this was the best compromise. a • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 6 - • Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Chairman Murakami. However, she did not like to see the use of a wrought iron fence around the pool. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-95-035 WITH THE INCLUSION OF A CONDITION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF POOL FENCING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. 4. DR-95-039 -CARSON; 15431 MONTE~'~'OOD COURT Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,688 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 46,980 sq. ft. parcel. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for ` total allowable floor area. The subject property is parcel #1 of the Woolworth Subdivision, and is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that he spoke with the immediate adjacent neighbor, Steve Young, ~vho expressed concern that the trees located on his property were not addressed in the City Arborist's report. Staff felt that the omission was due to the fact that the city arborist may have misjudged the location of the property line. Staff indicated that a revised site plan was faxed to the arborist. He informed the Commission that a condition of project approval would be that the storm drain line be relocated out of the dripline of the trees. Regarding the driveway, the city arborist did not feel that the construction of the driveway at its proposed location would necessarily be detrimental to the trees if the following measures were followed: use of pier and grade beam construction for the driveway retaining wall; use of pervious material for the driveway surface; and the use of aeration tubes. He informed the Commission that Mr. Young would prefer that the house be moved 20+ feet to the west so that the hard surfaces and improvements would be out of the trees' dripline and that the trees be fenced. Commissioner Asfour asked if there was a problem with the second alternative (shifting the house) as the lot appeared to be a flat lot. Planner Walgren responded that the setback envelop was so large, that the house could be shitted in any direction. However, it was his belief that the applicant would have a concern regarding shifting the house that far for aesthetic reasons. Commissioner Abshire asked if moving the house away from the trees would lengthen the driveway. Planner Walgren indicated that shifting the house would lengthen the driveway slightly. He (Walgren) indicated that another solution would be to utilize a combination of measures such as shifting the house on the diagonal and moving it so that it would not have to be moved the entire 20 feet. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Glenn Cahoon, project designer stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation. Regarding the neighbor's concern for the safety of the trees, he offered to shift the house away i • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 7 - from the setback requirements approximately 7 to 10 feet and to use a combination of the arborist's recommendation such as the use of pier and grade beam and the use of pervious coverage to prevent damage to the trees. This alternative was being proposed so that the entrance of the house would not be moved around and back away from the entrance to the property. He indicated that the house was designed with symmetry in mind. He indicated that a two foot retaining wall would be used so that as one backs out of the driveway and not appear as though one is backing down the hill. Regarding the drainage line concerns, he indicated that they can be kept out of the dripline of the trees. Commissioner Asfour asked if the driveway would come up to the dripline. Mr. Cahoon responded that the driveway would encroach into the dripline slightly and that was the reason that he was proposing the use of a pier and grade beam retaining wall. Steve Young, 15471 Monte Vista Drive, distributed a site plan prepared by the city arborist. He noted that the arborist recommends that a fence be installed five feet away from the dripline so that there is no construction damage to the trees. He requested that the arborist's recommendation of installing a protection fence five feet away from the dripline with no activity allowed within the fence be required. He further requested that the applicant be required to install a fence between the properties to mitigate the visual impact of the oversized house. Commissioner Kaplan thanked Mr. Young for his efforts to protect the trees. However, regarding the request for a fence between the two properties, she recommended that Mr. Young work with the applicant as it was a private matter between property owners. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the city arborist report was not attached to the staff report as the project vas straight forward with the exception of the omission of the trees under discussion. The only recommendation being made vas that the applicant provide tree protection fencing. Mr. Cahoon indicated that he was having a problem with the recommendation of moving the house back 25 feet because it would shift the entrance to the rear, around the corner. If he rotates the house, one would be looking into the garages. He stated that he would agree to move the house 12.5 feet if the Commission felt that it was a better tree protection solution (Chairman Murakami's suggestion). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:21 P.M. Richard Beam, 15125 Monte Vista Drive, stated that he did not have a problem with the design as presented. He indicated that he submitted a letter to the Planning Department expressing • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 8 - concern that the applicant was not paying towards the maintenance of the private road. He indicated that he has not received a response to his letter from the City. Commissioner Asfour informed Mr. Beam that he would need.to pursue the CC&Rs through the legal system to rectify the situation as the Planning Commission cannot assist in this matter. Planner Walgren indicated that he had not seen the letter referenced by Mr. Beam and that the letter may have been sent directly to the Public Works Department. As the road is a private road, it would be a private maintenance agreement issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:24 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would support moving the house 12 feet and incorporating the provisions as recommended by the city arborist. He recommended that fencing be installed to preserve the trees until such time as the driveway is constructed, at which time, the fence is to be moved closer to the dripline. Chairman Murakami felt that Mr. Cahoon's alternative was a good compromise to preserve Mr. Young's trees. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-039 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: ADDING A CONDITION FOR THE PROTECTIVE FENCING; THE HOUSE TO BE MOVED FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 12 FEET, AND BE ROTATED IF NECESSARY; THE DRIVEWAY PAD TO BE OF PERVIOUS MATERIAL AT THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION WHERE IT MIGHT AFFECT THE DRIPLINES OF THE TREES: AND THAT THE RETAINING WALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE APPROPRIATE PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION PER THE ARBORIST'S RECOMMENDATION. THEMOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. 5. DR-95-034 & V-95-011 - DAOU; 21329 DIA110ND OAKS CT. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,796 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.6 acre hillside lot in the Parker Ranch Subdivision (Lot ~1). Variance approval is also necessary to allow the home to be built on a slope of greater than 30~~ and to encroach into the required front yard setback. The subject parcel is in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question. Planner Walgren indicated that a variance from the front yard setback would not be required if the ordinance that was in place at time of subdivision approval was sill in effect. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:30 p.m. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Ed Dauo, applicant, informed the Commission that he worked with staff to design a home that provided a solution to the constraints of the site. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:31 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that given the constraints of the site, findings can be made to approve the applications. y Chairman Murakami stated that given the slope, the applicant provided a nice design. Commissioner Abshire recommended that replanting be done early during construction to stabilize the slope. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the site would be monitored by the grading inspection staff to ensure that erosion is mitigated. He informed the Commission that the trees are not required to be planted until the house is ready to be finaled and that it is required that the trees be installed prior to the issuance of a final. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95- 034 AND V-95-O1 l AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. The Commission recessed at 8:32 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:47 p.m. 6. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOR'S; 14500 FRUITVALE AVE. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed Master Plan includes the remodel of the I.O.O.F. Home. the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single-story duplex cottages. The proposed Master Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housing units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to identify and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed expansion (cont. from 9/27/95; application expires 3/6/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that tonight's focus would be on the Final EIR. He informed the Commission that Laura ' • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Worthington-Forbes, project manager for Michael Brandman and Associates, was present to respond to any questions which the Commission may have. He indicated that the issues and questions raised during this meeting and that of the September 27 meeting would be responded to in writing at a subsequent public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried noted that in staff's introduction, staff recommended that comments on the project's design be deferred to a later date. He indicated that he did not expect to review a plan design at this time, but that if there was going to be substantial movement of buildings, changes made to the buildings, or a recommendation fora 100 foot setback from the existing riparian areas, he was not sure what the project's impact would be on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Planner Walgren responded that should the Planning Commission find that all of the environmental issues were addressed and that the mitigation measures were appropriate, it is then the applicant's responsibility to address those mitigation measures in the project's design. The mitigation measure which states "Where possible, no development shall occur within 100 feet of the riparian corridor" would be an issue that would need to be addressed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had a problem with the paragraph in the staff report which reads: "The EIR has identified several areas where environmental impacts will need to be mitigated though plan modifications. Staff anticipates also recommending plan modifications based on design and site development concerns. " He stated that he could not make sense as to the meaning of this statement as far as the project was concerned. He did not know whether it meant moving the building 50 feet, moving a building up the hill, down the hill, across the hill, etc. Planner Walgren responded that as a design concern, the applicant was informed that staff wold be recommending that the five cottages located at the hilltop on the 10.6 acres of vacant land be moved off the hilltop to protect the existing trees and to mitigate grading concerns. This may not be an issue that is specifically addressed in the EIR. However, there is some overlapping of certain sections in the EIR (the aesthetic sections addresses the impact of having a home on the hilltop). y Commissioner Kaplan shared some of the concerns as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. She referenced page 1-11, mitigation measure 3.1-3 addresses internal loop road and structures adjacent to off-site residential land uses. It seemed to her that if you were going to move roads around and move homes up and down hills, that in itself has environmental consequences. If in fact the five cottages located on the 10.6 acres caused a visual impact, she asked if their removal or relocation would be the mitigation measure? She did not feel that the impact should be addressed at a later date as part of the design review process. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the consultant clearly define the impacts should the internal roads and homes be moved or relocated. - • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 11 - • Chairman Murakami stated that the public hearing remains open and that the Commission would receive new testimony on the EIR at 8:50 p.m. y Morris Jones, 19472 Riesling Court. President of the Saratoga Area G Homeowners Association, indicated that he submitted his concerns in writing for the record. He expressed concern with the review process of the draft EIR. He felt that a number of issues were not addressed in the EIR. Some of these issues include: a mitigation plan; mitigation standards; site specific hydrology report; flooding impacts and drainage issues; site specific earthquake materials report: hazardous materials mitigation report; demographic study to benefit the citizens of Saratoga; impacts of additional employment on housing on-site; earthquake impacts and resident safety; mitigation criteria and standards for meeting the required parking; mitigation and criteria standards for on-site emergency personnel; erosion control programs; storm water pollution prevention plan: and vegetation plans with the required impact mitigations. It was his understanding that these issues were mentioned as though they were going to be prepared at some future date. Therefore, they were not available to be reviewed in the EIR. He felt that it was difficult to assess the impacts and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures if they were not identified. He expressed concern with the layout of the document itself as they were three different volumes with the substantial corrections located in Volume III. He expressed concern that the policy makers would not be able to find the relevant and correct information. He recommended that the document be republished and that all the corrections be located in one area. He also expressed concern about the scope of the document and felt that it was confusing as to whether it addresses the General Plan, the project, or the program (i.e., page 124 states that the scope is limited to the project). In terms of the assumption of the benefit of the plan, it is stated that it is significant because it would provide senior housing. Yet, demographics were provided in terms of how senior housing would be provided to the residents in Saratoga . It is mentioned that overflo«~ capacity would be made available to Saratoga residents and the number of Saratoga residents that are members of the Independent Order of Fellows (IOOF) (no way to determine the significant numerical value benefit. Other concerns were the risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials from the underground tanks and bunkers located on site and the fact that the site was aself-sufficient working farm for a number of years. As a working farm, it was an accepted practice to use toxic chemicals such as arsenic and DDT and that it was a common practice to clean farm materials and implements. dumping the solvents on- site. He noted that there has not been a site specific study performed to determine if there are contaminated soils on the site. He presented a slide presentation depicting ABAG's Earthquake Intensity Fault Map. He addressed the "materials factor" which is an amplification of ground movement based on the type of material that is present. He noted that the site is located in a zone that is of high amplification of earthquake shaking and that this issue was not addressed in the draft EIR. In fact, the materials report is completely absent from the EIR. He noted that senior housing is being proposed in a highly sensitive area. He felt that the appropriate mitigations should be listed in the report. A major concern to the residents below the site was that of hydrology. He informed the Commission as to the rainfall that has occurred between 189 to 1995. He noted that quite a bit of water drains from the site when it rains and that the existing facilities located below the site are currently not able to deal with the problem as it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 12 - exists. He felt that additional construction would result in additional drainage. He indicated that there were two major incidents of flooding below the Odd Fellows property which occurred in January 1967 and January 1982. He noted that the adjacent residents are concerned that the EIR does not explain what is going to happen with the runoff once it comes off the site and what the impacts would be. He noted that drainage mitigation measures were not in place and recommended that they be required. A major concern was that document does not detail or provides an explanation of what is to be mitigated, how it is to be mitigated, why the mitigation is being required, and the impact on the mitigation. In some cases, it vas difficult to understand who was going to enforce the mitigation and how the enforcement was going to be measured. He felt that these issues and concerns need to be addressed if the project is to be successful and to minimize the impacts to the neighborhood. He felt that this information should be made available before a decision is made in terms of what needs to be mitigated and how they are to be mitigated so that everyone will understand the impacts before a decision is made on the project. David Watson Moss, 13497 Old Oak Way, read a letter from Bill Peckham, a Saratoga resident who was not able to attend this evening's meeting. Mr. Peckham felt that it was out of order for Commissioner Caldwell to be voting on the Odd Fellow's proposal to develop their property for senior housing as she has already made a judgement on this property. One that vas not favorable as she was circulating an anti-growth neighborhood residential initiative. Mr. Moss further indicated that he felt that Commissioner Caldwell has already made up her mind on this issue. Therefore, she should not be allowed to vote on this issue. Chairman Murakami informed Mr. Moss that the letter from Mr. Peckham does not address the issue before the Commission. He informed Mr. Moss that he could submit the letter but that its contents were inappropriate for tonight's discussion on the EIR. Blain Coburn, 20242 Kilbride Drive, noted that senior citizens do not impact noise nor traffic as senior citizens do not make noise nor drive vehicles. Victor Monia, 14665 Granite Way, requested that the Commission allow for a good exchange of concerns regarding this large development. He informed the Commission that flooding occurs in the immediate area and that the residents in the immediate area could be exposed to greater dangers. He felt that the issues were important ones, ones that should be addressed in a study session so that the residents can express their concerns and be given the opportunity to evaluate the standards that should be set in the EIR before the project is approved. He recommended that the most important issues be addressed (i.e., health and safety, noise abatement, etc.) in a work session. He requested that the Commission determine the exact benefit of the project to the community (i.e., how many of the new units would be made available to Saratoga residents). Regarding the standards the he requested be included at the last meeting, he hoped that the Commission would accept those standards before the document is modified and that the standards not be based on the mitigations measure that the consultants felt would be necessary (i.e., if ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 13 - traffic was going to increase to a Level of Service "D", that the City not accept that standard.) He requested that a public notice be sent to all Area G residents of any future hearing dates. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he could not find in the EIR what the benefit of the project would be to Saratoga. He requested that the consultant address this issue. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, addressed the specific concerns that he had regarding the proposed project. He noted that the elevation of 474 would be 22 feet higher than the existing building to be replaced. He felt that this was a significant impact and that it does not conform to the development guidelines of the City. The perimeter road to the south of apartment 2, heading in the westerly direction. results in an elevation change from 420 feet to 465 feet (a 45 foot rise in elevation on the road of a 2:1 cut and fill on the slope would result in massive grading). He noted that lots 10-14 of San Marcos Heights were reserved as open space easements. He noted that many of the duplex units and the roads fall in the middle of the open space easement. He did not support the ridQeline location of the duplex units. He recommended that the duplex units be located in the area that is referred to by the consultant as the "modified design alternative" (lower portion of the site) and that they be kept off the ridgeline. Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff address the comments made by Mr. Borelli. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that an EIR vas prepared for the San Marcos Heights' 34 lot subdivision. The EIR assessed the impacts of the 34 lot subdivision to the community. He informed the Commission that the Phase III map, consisting of nine lots expired and that they never developed. Commissioner Kaplan asked if an open space easement vas dedicated with the approval of the San Marcos Heights subdivision project and whether this project proposes to building in that open space easement. Planner Walgren responded that there was an open space easement shown on the approved tentative map that ran along the riparian corridor located on the upper right corner of the 10.6 acres of the southern portion of the site. It was his belief that the five cottages encroach into the riparian corridor. It vas also his belief that the open space easement was intended to protect the creek and the riparian corridor along the drainage system. Jeffrey Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Road, furnished the Commission with a map of Phase III of the San Marcos Heights project. He encouraged the Commission to conduct one or two study sessions on the EIR as he did not believe that a fe~v minutes was sufficient time to address the thousands of pages contained in the draft EIR. He noted that the draft EIR contained three volumes and felt that it was impossible to navigate through the three documents. He requested that the Commission direct the consultant to put the information in one volume in some comprehensible fashion and then recirculate it for public comment. He felt that the draft EIR vas a profoundly incompetent study. It was not a draft EIR but a promise to provide a draft EIR in the future. It is being proposed that studies be conducted in the future. He noted that a post Highway 85 traffic study has not been conducted. He felt that the traffic study contained in the EIR was irrelevant. He noted that a comprehensive hydrology study .vas not prepared. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 14 - The consultant now acknowledges that the water runoff does not drain into the City's Fruitvale storm drain system. If a study had been conducted, the consultant would have seen that there is an open culvert that carries water from the Odd Fellows site directly -down onto the San Marcos Heights properties. He felt that the hydrology discussion analysis was based on the false assumption about a drainage system that does not exist. The draft EIR states that in the future, a complete hydrology study would be completed with the inclusion of mitigation measures. Again, deferring an EIR and mitigations into the future. The geology study states that once a building site is identified, then a geology study would be performed and that if there are problems, they would be mitigated. He did not believe that this was a CEQA requirement and that this document was not a draft EIR. He noted that the impact of the project was not known as a project description was not provided. The buildings have not been sited. The draft EIR states that a 100 foot buffer would be maintained for the riparian corridor and yet, in another location, it shows the roadway and building footprints proposed 20 feet into the riparian corridor. If the 100 foot buffer is to be maintained, he did not believe that the project can be placed on that site. Without knowing where the buildings are to be placed, it is not known which trees are to be removed, what groves of trees are to be lost, what wetlands would be lost, and that geologic hazards associated with earthquakes He informed the Commission that the Odd Fellows site suffered sever damage during the 1989 earthquake. He felt that the consultants failed to include the 1995 data or analysis in the study. With no project description, no relative project studies, no comprehensive hydrology study, no comprehensive geology study, no statement of project benefits to the community, and no attempt to analyze the ecology, wildlife or flora specifications, it is not known what project would be built on the site or how it will be built. The city is left with a promise that in the future, everything will be analyzed and that in the future, all would be mitigated. He again encouraged the Commission to schedule a study session so that these important issues can be discussed. He felt that the most important issue of the entire project vas that of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In response to the Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger comments (comment 3d.4, page 3-120, the consultants have written a statement which refers to the project, not the duplexes as "the height, scale and mass of the proposed project would be relatively comparable to adjacent single family residence. " He requested that the Commission ask the project's consultant how a health center. a three story apartment building which would house over 100 units are comparable in height, mass and scale to the adjacent, single story homes. It vas his understanding that CEQA does not allow for deferral of information and studies to the future. Roberta Worden, 14204 Squirrel Hollow Lane, informed the Commission that she has been a resident of Saratoga for 6~ years. She indicated that it was her opinion that when individuals move into an area that has an existing use, they want that use to cease. Chairman Murakami noted that there were no other speakers requesting to address the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the City Attorney explain the correct procedure for the Commission to take at this time. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 15 - City Attorney Riback indicated that the appropriate action to take this evening would be to close the public testimony portion of the public hearing until such time that the Commission hears from the consultant. The Commission would than reopen the public hearing so that the Commission can continue the public hearing to another date for the purpose of further discussion relating to the response to the comments. The Commission could then commence its discussion of the project. He indicated that the Commission could, at any time, state that it would not take any further testimony on the EIR but that it would take testimony on the project. The type of testimony that would be taken would be on the specifics of the project. Commissioner Asfour stated that it vas his understanding that the Commission was not ready to consider the project and that it was reviewing the EIR. Based on its findings and recommendations to the Citv Council and once the EIR is certified, the Commission could commence its discussion on the project. City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that should it continue the public hearing on this item, it would be renoticed. He indicated that the Commission would be closing the public testimony portion of the public hearing at this time and that it would not take any more testimony this evening. He informed the Commission that Curt Alling, representing the consultant, would be making general comments regarding the general nature of the deferral of studies. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CLOSED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING. Curtis Alling, Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA), noted that the approach that was discussed at the last meeting was that tonight's hearing would be to listen to additional comments from the public regarding the specific environmental issues with the consultants returning to the Commission at a later date with specific responses to those environmental issues. It was not the intent this evening to respond to those individual environmental issues but that he wanted to comment on CEQA requirements relating to the deferral of mitigation measures. He informed the Commission that during his 19 years of environmental planning, he has directed over 500 EIRS and EISs and other environmental documents. Twenty of the environmental documents prepared by MBA have been subject to CEQA litigation. Of those 20 documents, none have been found to be inadequate at the conclusion of litigation. He informed the Commission that there have been three court cases that have defined the law in this area. The first case was a 1988 case Robert T. Sundstrom vs. County of Mendicino. The case related to a wastewater treatment plant intended to serve a population of approximately 477 residents in an area where it was recognized that problems with ground water and service water hydrology existed. The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Coastal Commission had gone on record about those problems. From a CEQA perspective, the County approved the project using an Initial Study and a Negative Declaration. The court found that the initial study was severally flawed and consisted of a checklist of 41 items where 38 of those items were checked with "no" responses, and three were checked with a designation of "code 2" which indicated that no PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 16 - significant environmental problems would occur if certain mitigation were adopted. No explanations to the answers and no citations of the sources were provided. The two key environmental impacts were ground water hydrology and surface water hydrology impacts. The Board of Supervisors, in an attempt to address these concerns, adopted two conditions to the use permit: 1) "The applicant shall have a study prepared by a civil engineer with a hydrology background or hydrologist which concludes that adjacent sewage disposal systems and surface and ground water hydrology will not be adversely affected by the proposed sewage facility" and 2) "The applicant shall have a study prepared by a civil engineer which evaluates the potential effects of the proposed development upon soil stability, erosion, sudden transport and flooding down slope properties and contain recommended measures to minimize such impacts. The mitigation measures recommended by the study shall be incorporated as a requirement to this use permit. " He noted that the County was deferring the impact studies that were necessary to determine whether or not there were adverse affects and what the mitigation measures would be in the context of a Negative Declaration. The court found that deferring the environmental assessment to a future date and waiting to adopt any mitigation measures until the recommended future studies had occurred «=ere in conflict with CEQA. Therefore, it vas overturned. He indicated that the County made an error when it refused to find that there were significant impacts to the environment in light of the absence of these studies and refused to require an EIR. Another finding of the court that it was appropriate to rely on compliance with environmental regulations as a reasonable mitigating measure. This approach is common and acceptable for compliance with air quality and water quality standards. It is acceptable where there is meaningful information that reasonably justifies the expectation of compliance. What this means is that if reliance on an environmental permit can reasonably be expected to avoid significant impact and that acquisition of the permit and its conditions can avoid that significant impact, that it is an appropriate mitigation approach under this court case. The second case was Sacramento Old Cit~Association versus City Council of Sacramento (1991 case). This court case dealt with the expansion of an existing convention center in downtown Sacramento by 130.000 square feet and associated office towers. This was a downtown location with mixed urban uses. Other office buildings, an existing convention center, and hotel and retail uses were also in the area. The documentation in this case vas an EIR. The EIR looked at five design alternatives in detail. The document was comprehensive and a full scope document that examined 14 different environmental topic areas. The pertinent litigation issue was related to how parking impacts were addressed and how parking mitigations were presented in the EIR. The EIR found that there would be a significant impact on parking in the area. The EIR identified parking shortages as a significant impact and discussed mitigations for it. The mitigations focused on the preparation of a transportation management plan to reduce potential project related traffic and parking impacts with the adoption of a detailed management plan after approval of the project. It involved the adoption of an overall program to reduce area parking to 90 % occupancy instead of overloading the parking during critical weekday afternoons. There was a list of potential components to that plan. None of which were committed to but which could be a part of that plan which included satellite parking facilities without identifying specific locations of where they could be, what their design might be. There were other program elements regarding promoting transit or restricting the time of events and types of events, etc. The plaintiffs argued ` • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 17 - that the EIR failed to describe any true mitigations and that it failed to analyze the affects of the mitigation measures. The plaintiffs contended that it vas only presented in the sense of a general measure that might be included in some unformulated transportation management plan. Thus, it was improperly deferring decisions on mitigations. The plaintiffs used the Sundstroms as its case in point in its analogy. The court differentiated in this situation from the Sundstroms case in that the Sundstrom case dealt with a negative declaration and this case dealt with an EIR. Mendicino County wrongfully determined that no significant impacts would occur before the required studies had been performed, in violation of CEQA. Sacramento City prepared an EIR identifying the significant impacts. In Sundstrom case, Mendecino County approved the project without considering any mitigation measures and did not contain a description of those mitigation measures. In Sacramento City, a record was adopted that committed the City to formulate a plan and listed the possible components of the plan. The plan would be submitted following approval of the project. The Court found that the EIR was acceptable because the City had committed itself to mitigating the impacts of parking. The Court concluded that where the formulation of the precise means of mitigating the impacts is truly infeasible or impractical. the approving agency should treat the impact as significant and commit to eventually working out such measures. Alternatively, where mitigations are known to be feasible but where it is not practical to devise the details of the measures a~ the time of approval, there can be a commitment to a performance criteria for future actions to implement the project which would produce the affect. He indicated that there was a third case filed three months ago, Gentry vs. the Citv of Murrietta in Riverside County, 1995. This project proposed a 190 unit residential project called Adobe Springs II in Riverside County near Murietta Hot Springs. A sub map and a zone change was approved for this residential project consistent with the Community Plan prepared seven years before. An EIR and a Community Plan were certified in 1989. The City adopted a Negative Declaration that contained numerous mitigation measures along with 129 conditions, including a mitigation monitoring program. The Negative Declaration was "piggy backed" off of the earlier Community Plan EIR. The plaintiff contended that some of the conditions were improperly deferred until determination of the appropriate measures into the future. The Court drew from the Sundstrom and Sacramento Old Cities cases in its decision. It found that all of the mitigation measures were adequate in meeting the standards of Sacrament Old Cities and therefore in compliance with CEQA because the significant impacts were identified, the mitigation commitment was made and the performance criteria were discussed. Some of the examples were: "The applicant shall protect downtown properties from drainage patterns by constructing adequate drainage facilities and entering into a drainage easement as approved by the Engineering Department of the City. " There were no specific details about what the design of those facilities would be at the time of approval. Another condition required that "A plan be submitted after project approval where an overall grading plan was to be approved by the Planning Director, an overall infrastructure improvement plan, grading plan and final map was to be approved by the County Flood Control and compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the area. " It was requested that the applicant submit a study of the impacts of the project to a biology study on Stephens' Kangaroo rat, an endangered species, identifying whether the project had an impact on this species and what the • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 18 - mitigation measures might be and apply them to the project. He felt that there were five rules that came out of these cases to be used in the evaluation of the EIR: 1) Deferring the environmental assessment of the significant impacts; 2) one cannot defer adopting a mitigation measure while one is awaiting a future study -that would determine what that mitigation measure might be; 3) it is adequate to recognize the significant affect to adopt a measure that commits the city to mitigate and to describe the performance criteria for mitigation even if the plans of the design details are precise means to mitigate are not practical to define at the time of project approval; 4) It is also adequate to require compliance in environmental regulations as mitigations when there is a reasonable expectation that compliance with that permit or regulation~~vould reduce the environmental affect; and 5) CEQA does not ask a project to go through the time and expense of preparing engineering plans or detail facility designs or detailed management and operational plans that implement mitigation measures prior to knowing whether the project is approved. There were examples of plans that the Courts have found to be acceptable to submit after project approval (i.e., grading plans, transportation management plans, parking management plans, infrastructure improvement plans, and final maps). He felt that the submittal of such implementing plans would need to be tracked by a mitigation monitoring program if they are intended to be mitigation for significant effects. This would be the mechanism of enforcement. y Commissioner Patrick asked if an EIR is intended to provide mitigation measures to correct situations that already exist on the property or was it intended to correct situations that the development would place on the property'? Mr. Alling responded that the EIR first identify the significant impacts of the project which are the substantial changes in environmental conditions that occur as a result of the project. The mitigation measures would need to address themselves to avoid those changes or reduce them to a level that would be less then significant. To fulfill the requirements of CEQA, mitigation measures would need to avoid any increases in flooding or to minimize any of those increases to a point where it is less then significant. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it has been indicated that the EIR addresses Phases I and II of the proposed project. There is language that states that the EIR will serve as the base document for Phase II for any other environmental concerns. He did not understand how this EIR could be for both phases and yet be the basis for Phase II. Mr. Alling clarified that should there be future phases, than those proposals would be examined in light of what this EIR states about impacts. If those later project approvals do not cause any different impacts than what was already addressed in this EIR, then this EIR can be used to achieve later project approvals in compliance with CEQA requirements. Often. changes occur that may require additional analysis (i.e., additional impact analysis, additional documentation of impact analysis). Commissioner Siegfried noted that Phase I is a renovation of an existing lodge which would reduce its potential capacity, a change to the existing apartment building, movement of a health care facility and its expansion. There would be an expansion of three living units and expansion of the health care facility by 30-31 beds. Phase II consists of 135 units which may never be built or under the best case scenario, may not be finished by the year 2005. He stated that he ., • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 19 - was having difficulty in understanding the concept of "base document" when you have that kind of a timeline between two phases. Mr. Allen informed the Commission that more thought would be given to the issues raised by the Commission and that responses would be provided at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the performance criteria can be described in terms of specifics, making reference to city regulations, etc. She asked if the EIR mitigation program can be measured? She inquired when does one get to the performance criteria? She also asked what was being mitigated. She was not sure if the EIR addressed the existing conditions (i.e., increments of runoff, increasing impervious coverage). She was trying to understand what the Commission vas to focus on in its deliberation. She felt that the Commission needs to know what the impacts are and what the increments would be. She also asked as to how many individuals would benefit from this project. Other issues of concern were the traffic impacts and noise levels. Commissioner Asfour noted that the process stipulates that if there is an existing condition and new development is proposed, the EIR does not require the applicant to mitigate the existing problems but that CEQA requires that the applicant mitigate any problems that development may create. It does not prevent the Commission from requiring that the applicant mitigate beyond that point (i.e., the additional runoff to be generated from this project is to be mitigated.) Commissioner Siegfried asked if the EIR has to state that there is a drainage problem that exists today and that an additional amount of runoff is to be generated with future development. He indicated that he had trouble understanding what conditions exist today (conditions are not clearly defined). Mr. Ailing responded that it vas his belief that the EIR has to acknowledge the existing problem but that it does not necessarily mean that there has to be a detailed, quantitative presentation of what currently exists on the site. Commissioner Patrick indicated that the difficulty that the Commission was having was that it would have to indicate whether the report was satisfactory or not. The Commission would not know if the mitigation measures were satisfactory if the Commission does not know what it vas mitigating. She felt that the EIR lacks specificity. Chairman Murakami asked if CEQA gets involved in the process and reviews the EIR reports? Mr. Ailing responded that the agency has a jurisdiction responsibility, (i.e., Department of Fish and Game being interested on the impacts on riparian corridors). In terms of a broader review, there is not an agency that reviews/checks the EIR and that it would be the responsibility of the lead agency to review the document (i.e., city or county). Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission could not tell from the this document _~ • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 20 - whether there would be 134 units built 10 years from now in phase II and what the benefits to the citizens of this community would be. He asked if this was something that should be included in the project's description? Mr. Alling responded that the administrative record needs to include information that the Commission can determine the benefits from. The benefits that the Commission feels that it needs to know in its review and the merits of the project are not required to be contained in the EIR. The EIR needs to examine the changes to the physical environments. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he raised the issue of identifying the project's benefit because if all of the units were made available to Odd Fellow members who do not reside in Saratoga, that might have considerable impacts versus the units being made available to existing Saratoga residents. Commissioner Abshire asked if Volumes I, II, and III met CEQA requirements. Mr. Alling responded that once responses have been made to the comments raised in these proceedings and the responses to comments reviewed by the Commission, it will have met CEQA requirements. The final determination of whether it is adequate for CEQA was a cenification action by the lead agency. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the issues relating to the use of the property, the change of intensity and the benefits to the community would need to be addressed. She noted that the nursing home was being increased by 30 beds. She stated that if the Commission does not know what the target population is that the project is going to serve, then the Commission does not know if it will continue as a charitable organization or whether it was becoming a commercial enterprise. The senior citizens of Saratoga have indicated that they would not have a place to relocate if the Odd Fellows facility is not built. That indicates to her that the citizenry believes that this project is being built for them. She did not know if this was a correct assumption because if it is being built as houses opened to the public, it would be an increase to the City's housing stock, specifically to a certain age group. City Attorney Riback responded that in the case as indicated by Commissioner Kaplan, the project would be different than what is being reviewed. He was not sure whether he would characterize it as a business, but that the project would be opening its door to a much broader base population. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the character has been changed to a commercial enterprise. She felt that a nursing home of 30 beds to serve an ailing population of a charitable order was one character of enterprise but that a nursing home consisting of 99 beds that serves the general public, she has been told, is a big nursing home and that it is no longer a charitable institute. The Commission would also need to decide whether a use permit would be necessary for this project. She felt that a 99 bed nursing home would require increased staffing levels, additional physician traffic at any hour of the day and night, emergency services at any hour of the day or night, etc. She stated that she did not see anything in the traffic study or noise study that .~ `' • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 21 - indicates that the applicants are cognizant of the increased impact from the nursing home. She asked if this was an EIR issue or was it something that the Commission would need to deal with when it discusses land use designation. She requested that this issue be addressed. She also asked if this proposal was going to help the Saratoga housing stock for senior citizens because if it is riot, the existing senior citizens are requesting housing in Saratoga. She noted that the Commission has tried to get open, commercial areas to develop senior housing and that the Commission has been stymied along the ~vay. She felt that this issue should be included in the description of the project. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was concerned with who would have access to the project (i.e., Saratoga or non-Saratoga residents). He felt that it was an appropriate consideration for the EIR because there will be some issues that would be completely mitigated and that there would be a couple of issues that can be mitigated that he would be concerned about. He asked if this project was truly going to be a benefit to this community or to adjacent communities. He stated that he needed to know with some certainty what is being talked about in terms of potential ground movement and whether or not they impact any of the areas of the EIR, particularly the aesthetics. He felt that the City needs to have a sense of this issue. Because the phases are so far apart, he could not tell whether or not the mitigations for phase I might be affected by phase II or the mitigations should be applied to phase II would impact phase I. He found the documents to be cumbersome and difficult to deal with. He felt that the issue of the 100 foot buffer area needs to be included in the document. He was concerned regarding the document serving as an EIR for something that is not going to be done for 7 to 10 years. He was troubled by not having information post dating the opening of the freeway. He felt that the question as to ~vho is going to live in the units is an important one in terms of traffic impacts. He had some concerns with the identification of the drainage area and the existing conditions and whether mitigations are proposed to address existing conditions or whether mitigations are to be required to deal with more than the existing condition. He asked if the typical Cotton-type study was prepared where the report indicates that overall, the project looks O.K. but that site specifics would need to be performed. Planner Walgren indicated that there have been site specific geologic and geotechnical investigations preformed by the applicant's geotechnical consultants which have been reviewed by the City's geologist consultant, William Cotton Associates. The reports are not at a level where both consultants are satisfied with the proposal and have granted it a preliminary geotechnical clearance. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he could not understand the compatibility issue (i.e., how the apartments were compatible with the neighborhood). Commissioner Asfour indicated that his concerns were that of water runoff, traffic patterns and how many units would be made available to Saratoga residents. He indicated that the main issue that he was struggling with was that of "judgement criteria". (What does the Commission use to judge things by?) `, • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 22 - Chairman Murakami read into the record Commissioner Caldwell's concerns as follows: 1) the document should be put into a more usable and understandable format (i.e., use of tabs): 2) there is a need to understand the standards of significance as far as comparison as other cities have sets of standards to compare those things by; 3) spell out the proposed mitigations as they are not explained well enough as far as what the actual mitigation measures are; 4) as far as the alternate site, she did not understand why the Paul Masson site was used as a legitimate comparison as that area is currently being built upon; 5) how will the admittance to the facility be carried out (i.e., old residents compared to new residents); and 6) the fire truck implementation is only mentioned under the second phase. She felt that this should be addressed as part of the first phase. He stated that he would like to see the mitigation measures spelled out in detail as they relate to hydrology and traffic. He also requested an explanation of a "comparison" . Commissioner Patrick noted that this site was located in an R-40,000 residential zoning district. She wanted to know what the specific anticipated difference this project would have versus building it out as a single family residential site (the underlying zoning). She felt that more specifics be provided as it relates to the use of the facility by older individuals. She felt that the base line comparison of the mitigation measures were needed. Commissioner Abshire stated that he doubted that the EIR could go forward without a post Highway 85 traffic count. If not. he requested an explanation as to why the EIR could proceed without the post traffic count. Chairman Murakami noted that several speakers have requested that a study session be conducted. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the Commission should focus on a specified number of major issues. The Commission could decide whether it has enough information or not or state that it will open the public testimony in some kind of a forum on the specific issues. But that no testimony would be taken on anything else. Commissioner Kaplan stated that Commissioner Siegfried's recommendation was a good one. The difficulty with a study session was that there would be a need to keep a constant record of the proceedings and that there be some control on what the topics are to be. She felt that there needs to be a focus on what it is that the project is going to_ do to the site and not what individuals do not like of the existing conditions. She wanted to know what those issues were and to have them quantified. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the earliest meeting that staff can return with the response to questions would be November 8. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 8 TO ALLOW THE CONSULTANT TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS 'A ~~ ~ ~ • s PLANNING COMMISSION MIIV'UTES OCTOBER 11, 1995 PAGE - 23 - RAISED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Mr. Morris requested that the Commission ask that the City Attorney address the issue of water runoff. He indicated that it was his understanding that it was illegal to allow water runoff from one's property to another property. He asked who would be responsible should the Commission and City Council approve a plan that increases water run and creates additional flooding. DIRECTOR'S ITEA~IS No Director's items were noted. CO1tiltiISSION ITEMS There were no Commission items addressed. CO~i1t~IUti ICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 9/12/; 9/20; 9/26 2. Planning Commission Public Notices dated 10/25/95 Oral Citv Council ADJOURNitIENT -There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 1995, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk