Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-1995 Planning Commission Minutes,~ ~. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried Late: Caldwell Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, and City Attorney Riback. Pledge of Allegiance Min - 10/25/95 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 25, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. - Page 10, paragraph one, line one, replace the word pass with the word per. - Page 11, last paragraph, line 10, replace the word alle~vv~ay with the word hf THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 4, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-91-023.3 - SINSLEY; 12496 PARKER RANCH COURT; Request for a third and final one-year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a 4,651 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 50,442 sq, ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zone district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Caldwell entered and was seated. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. LL-95-006 & DR-95-042 -GRAY & FLICK; 14433 WILDWOOD WAY; Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to combine two parcels into one lot and to adjust the northern property line so that an adjacent garage no longer crosses the property. Design Review approval is requested to construct a new 2,504 sq. ft. two-story residence. The subject property is 6,938 sq. ft. in net site area and is located in an R-1- 10,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan noted that there appears to be a piece of Springer Avenue that is blocked off on either side. She asked if the blockage had anything to do with this project. Planner Walgren clarified that the blockage occurred on Wild Wood Way, a loop road that connects to Springer Avenue at either end. He indicated that it can be blocked off and that it would not affect this particular application. Commissioner Kaplan noted that there appeared to be a road down the middle of the project inside a cyclone fence and requested to know what the road was for. Planner Walgren responded that Wild Wood Way parallels the cyclone fence, the boundary of the Wild Wood Park. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Dave Flick, builder/developer of the site, informed the Commission that it was his belief that the street that Commissioner Kaplan inquired about was the old abandoned portion of Wild Wood Way that is going to be repaired at the completion of the project but that a portion of the road would still remain blocked off. He further stated that the rough road going up to the neighbors house would be repaved and serve as a private driveway. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Kaplan noted that the site contained several oak trees. She asked if any of the oak trees would be impacted by construction of the road. Planner Walgren indicated that the primary trees on site were large coast live oaks located at the upper corner of the site and that there was a smaller 9 inch coast live oak adjacent to it. The arborist report stipulates that as long as the trees are fenced off with protective fencing, that they are far enough away from construction that the arborist has determined that they would survive. Commissioner Kaplan cautioned the applicant to ensure that the construction trucks do not drive- up underneath the driplines of the trees. Chairman Murakami indicated that at the site visit, he found the lot configuration to be odd for this area but that he did not have objections to the design. Commissioner Abshire felt that design would improve what is in the area. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL- 95-006. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-042. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 -INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 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 10/11/95; application expires 3/6/96). Planner Walgren indicated that this agenda item was a continued public hearing intended to conclude the review of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA) for the Odd Fellows Master Plan application. He stated that there were 18 specific topical issues that were outlined in the staff report. In addition to narrowing down the review process to the 18 specific topical issues, the Commission also asked to review revised w • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 4 - schematic site plan that would incorporate some of the major mitigation measures that have been discussed to date. He informed the Commission that the three primary modifications to the site plan at this point were: 1) the northwest comer), the four duplex cottages that were originally on the interior side of the access road with the road abutting the adjacent residences has been reversed, locating the road further away from the existing residences with cottage backyards abutting the homes; 2) the Odd Fellows have taken the five duplex cottages off the hilltop on the 10.6 acres of the southern property and have been relocated down in the natural canyon and off of the hillside where the great majority of the significant live oaks are located; and 3) the emergency access road has been eliminated which the fire district felt that they could do without so long as other mitigation measures were incorporated. He informed the Commission that MBA has prepared the report attached to the staff report which addresses the 18 final issues that the Planning Commission has requested be expanded upon. Staff recommended that the Commission accept the MBA report and that following discussion, recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City Council. He indicted that Laura Worthington-Forbes and Curtis Alling, MBA, were present to fiuther expand on the report. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the modified plans represent what staff perceived it would like to see or were there to be further modifications to the site plan. Planner Walgren responded that the modifications represent a combination of staff's and MBA's recommendations in the EIR that comprises the substantive changes to the plan that staff anticipates. Laura Worthington-Forbes, project manager, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA), indicated that she was responsible for the preparation of the draft EIR and a response to comments on the EIR. She stated that over the past month and a half, the Planning Commission and the public have expressed a number of concerns and questions regarding the Odd Fellows Master Plan EIR. She informed the Commission that the submittal before the Commission was organized into 18 topical issues. She discussed the five issues that appeared to be the most common concerns to the community. She indicated that Mr. Schwartz highlighted five concerns in his letter dated 11- 2-95 to the Commission indicating their continued importance to the community. She addressed the five topical issues as follows: 1) Traffic: In compliance with mitigation Measure 3.3.-1, the City conducted post Route 85 p.m, peak hour turning movement on 10-25-95 at the four intersections analyzed in the EIR which included Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenue; Allendale/Fruitvale; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road/Fruitvale and Fruitvale/San Marcos Road-Odd Fellows Access Road. The Level of Service (LOS) calculations were performed at these intersection for the existing, existing plus cumulative development, and the existing plus project plus cumulative development scenario. She referenced Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 and indicated that the only intersection that was affected by post-Route 85 was the Saratoga Avenue/Fruitvale Avenue intersection. She indicated that under baseline conditions, this intersection has degraded from a LOS B to LOS C. However, the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on this intersection. The LOS at this intersection would be maintained at LOS C with or without the proposal. Also, the LOS would not exceed the threshold of LOS E which has been established by the Congestion Management Agency for this :~ • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 5 - intersection. Since there is no discernable change and no change in the LOS created from the delay at this intersection, no significant impacts are anticipated. This would be consistent with the conclusion in the EIR and no mitigation measures would be required. Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the time frame that the study was conducted. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the traffic study was conducted on October 25 in the p.m. peak how. She indicated that the a.m. peak hour was not studied as it constituted only 54% of the traffic at that intersection for this project. She indicated that based on the baseline traffic counts at this intersection under phase I conditions, applying the project to the intersection and based on the information provided by the Public Works Director, the total traffic when the project is added to this intersection would only be 54% of the total traffic. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it would have helped if the Commission ~ would have been permitted to sit down with staff and be given an explanation on how traffic studies are conducted and an explanation of what the information meant. She indicated that she did not understand what was meant by "delay in seconds". Worthington-Forges referred the Commission to the draft EIR and addressed the LOS calculation for each of those LOS A, B, C, D, E, and F as being: LOS A equates to perfect traffic conditions where there is no delay in an intersection. An LOS B is a degree beyond that, LOS C indicates that there is a measurable increase in delay (you will need to wait at the intersection for about 30 seconds) and so on. Commissioner Kaplan asked who devised the various criteria to come up with these LOS standards. Ms. Worthington- Forbes responded that the LOS were standards established by the Highway and Housing Manual and that they are used as a standard by traffic engineers. Commissioner Siegfried requested clarification as to whether this was a one day study conducted in the p.m. only. Ms. Worthington-Forges responded that Commissioner Siegfried's statement was correct. Ms. Worthington-Forbes addressed the remaining four issues as follows: 2) hvdrolo~v (topographical issue no. 5) it was indicated that the project site is located within two very small watersheds. Both of these watersheds were considered in the EIR analysis. The western watershed covers approximately 8 acres and appears to be causing localized flooding to the homes of adjacent residents. With the proposed project, surface water runoff would increase by 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 22 percent in this watershed. She informed the Commission that the culvert in this location has an existing capacity of 30 cfs. Absent any mitigation, the 1.5 cfs increase would represent approximately 5 % of the total culvert capacity. Even without mitigation, this increase would not be considered substantial given the small size of the watershed and the existing 30 cfs capacity of the culvert. She indicated that the project design includes a preliminary grading and drainage plan and that the intent of the plan was to provide for a storm drainage extension that diverts water from this location to the 36 inch mainline, redirecting all surface water runoff. This mitigates not only the project's incremental impact of 1.5 cfs, but the entire runoff from this watershed of 6.89 cfs. This would • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 6 - result in an overall improvement to the drainage system. She indicated that CEQA does not require a project to improve an existing situation, but only to mitigate the project's impact. In the eastern watershed which covers approximately 52.6 acres, the increase runoff is estimated to be 4 cfs, an increase of 12%, This could be potentially significant as the drainage is discharged to the two creek outfalls and could ultimately result in damage to the downstream facilities. Having reviewed the preliminary drainage calculations, the City has determined that the incremental increase in runoff can be mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring that the applicant improve the existing drainage facilities to accommodate the maximum peak discharge or to provide on-site retention. In either case, the project would not only be mitigating the incremental impacts but also the baseline condition. She noted that such mitigation goes beyond the requirements of CEQA. She indicated that deciding which measure would be best would require engineering design and that deferring the decision as to which mitigation measure was more appropriate and complies with all relevant applications and interpretations of CEQA case law. 3) Compatibility with surrounding land uses: She felt that this issue would more than likely be the issue that is most sensitive to the surrounding property owners. She indicated that the both the revised schematic site plan prepared by the project applicant and/or adoption of the "Modified Design Alternative" would reduce land use compatibility impacts associated with the visual obstruction of the project to a level considered less than significant. The Modified Design Alternative would replicate the formerly approved San Marcos Heights Residential Subdivision Phase III footprint, including provision of an open space easement along the riparian woodland corridor which would restrict development within that comdor. This alternative would also result in the removal of the five cottages located on the southern ridgeline and relocation of three of the five cottages. She indicated that the staff report incorrectly states that the five cottages would be completely removed. It is anticipated that the two cottages would actually be removed, for a total loss of four units as opposed to ten. The revised schematic plan is different than this alternative and would result in the relocation of the five cottages to the southwestern periphery of the project, resulting in no loss of units. 4) Wildlife wetlands and riparian corridors and habitat -She indicated that the proposed project would result in the removal of a total of 12 native oak trees and 33 other regionally common and/or non-sensitive trees onsite. The identification of which trees are to be removed is included on pages 19 and 20 of the report. She informed the Commission that the applicant has prepared an illustration of the proposed project with the inclusion of the design-related mitigation measures. With the incorporation of these measures, the possible loss of native trees would be reduced to four trees, all of which are candidates for relocation on-site. In terms of the 100-foot buffer, the non- development setback area would be provided only where possible. This would not preclude development from occurring within the buffer zone, but suggests that the 100- • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 7 - foot buffer be used as a standazd to allow sufficient separation between human activity and the creeks. She indicated that the Fish and Game Department considers distances less than 100 feet and as little as 20 feet as being acceptable. In regards to the issues of wetlands, she indicated that the EIR identifies impacts to less than one acre of wetland habitat based on vegetation types. Subject to formal permitting, the wetlands would likely qualify as Section 404 jurisdiction as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers, three-parameter delineation protocol (i.e., vegetation, hydrology and soils). A jurisdictional delineation is the formal regulatory procedwe that the Corps of Engineers requires in the cowse of the permitting process. The procedwe will not identify more wetlands than the EIR did. Therefore, the EIR has adequately analyzed potential impacts to wetlands. As part of the applicant's ongoing investigations on the requirements of the regulatory permit process, the applicant's biological resource consultant has preliminarily identified a few thousand squaze feet of habitat that would be defined as Coip's jurisdiction. Therefore, the EIR's analysis is conservative in that it identifies the loss of potential wetlands habitat as significant, does not underestimates the area affected, and identifies compliance with the Corps' and Fish and Game Department regulatory process as suitable mitigation because it is reasonable to expect that permit compliance will avoid the significant impact. 5) Geology and seismic risks: She informed the Commission that the City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary and supplementary analysis that were prepazed by the project applicant's geotechnical engineer and has been granted geotechnical clearance to the project based on this review. These reports have been included in the draft EIR as aze the recommendations prepared by the City's geotechnical consultant. This clearance is granted only after the City's Public Works Director is satisfied that the impacts have been identified and that based on an analysis of preliminary plans, that standard engineering practices can be applied to mitigate them. The purpose of any follow-up or final geotechnical engineering is to identify specific mechanisms among several engineering practices that apply to the site once the final detailed engineering is complete. As the impact has been identified, the commitment to the mitigation measures has been made and the performance criteria established. The analysis of impacts and development of mitigation measures are consistent with the appropriate and applicable CEQA case law decisions that guide standards for determining adequacy. Ms. Worthington-Forbes informed the Commission that there has been some concern as to the number of changes or additional information that has been provided since the circulation of the draft EIR. She informed the Commission that the changes to the draft EIR text aze confined to pages 4-1 through 4-7, Section 4, Volume III and Pages 37-39 contained in the package presented to the Commission. She indicted that based on the 1994 CEQA Guidelines, none of the changes included in these few pages met the criteria for recirculation. She indicated that following Curtis Alling's summary of the mitigation measwes, that she and Mr. Alling would be available to answer any further questions which the Commission may have on the EIR. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 8 - Curtis Alling, Director of Environmental Services, MBA, informed the Commission that at the October 11, 1995 meeting, he gave the Commission a presentation about what the courts have concluded regarding when deferring mitigation is and is not in violation of CEQA. Because this issue is important in the Commission's consideration of the EIR, he briefly summarized the key principals that came from the three primary cases that define the law about deferral of mitigations. He addressed the three basic rules as follows: 1) deferring the environmental assessment of significant affects conflicts with CEQA. He indicted that the analysis must be contained within the environmental document (you cannot put off evaluating the environmental impacts and concluding whether it is significant or not). Also, you cannot defer a decision of whether to adopt mitigations until a future study determines what that mitigation is to be. That study must be completed as part of the environmental document and the city must make a commitment by adopting the feasible mitigation measures. He indicated that it is adequate to recognize the significant affect on the environment to adopt the measure that commits the city to mitigate it and to recognize the concept of that measure and the performance criteria for mitigation, even if the actual plans, the design details, and the precise means to mitigate that affect are not practical to the findings at that time prior to project approval. He stated that it was also adequate to require compliance with environmental regulations as mitigations when there is a reasonable expectation that compliance with the regulation will result in that affect being mitigated such as with any state or federally adopted environmental standards or with environmental permits. CEQA does not ask a project proponent to go through the time and expense of preparing engineering plans, facility designs, or detailed elevation plans that implement mitigation measures prior to the approval of the project. Examples of plans and maps that are to be used as mitigations that the courts have found to be acceptable to defer until after project approval are transportation management plans, grading plans, drainage improvements plans and final maps. He used hydrology as an example to illustrate how these principles can be applied to the Odd Fellows EIR. He noted that drainage impacts has been an important concern to the surrounding property owners. The EIR has provided an assessment of those drainage changes which include the review of preliminary drainage and grading plans and quantified the calculated estimates of changes in the rates of surface drainage flows. The EIR recognized that the project's impact would be significant and the mitigation requires the submittal of final drainage plans to handle the peak surface water discharge and also set the criteria for what those plans have to accomplish and when they would need to be submitted. These are considered detailed engineering plans. He indicated that the commitment to mitigate the physical concept of what the mitigation measures involves and the performance for that mitigation are contained in the EIR. He indicated that what has been deferred was the preparation of the engineering plans needed to develop detail designs of the infrastructure improvements. This was an approach that the courts have found to be acceptable. He further stated that the EIR was a response to public comments and to provide information that defines the environmental affects identified as significant, presents mitigation measures, analysis of alternatives and responds to the environmental concerns that have been raised by the community. It was MBA's belief that the information provided was sufficient to make an informed decision about the project, understanding the environmental consequences and how to minimize those consequences. It was also MBA's opinion that the EIR does comply with the requirements of CEQA. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern regarding the traffic. She also expressed concern with page 19 as it relates to seismic hazards. It was her impression from her readings that those hazards would be identified at the design stage. She asked if it was known if there were any seismic hazards on the site. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the seismic hazards on the site are not different than what is found throughout the region. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her impression that before you can place the homes on the ridge, it would need to be determined if the proposed location would allow for the placement of the homes. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that based on the preliminary geotechnical assessments that have been conducted, there are no constraints that affect the placement of buildings on the site. All of the structures will need to follow the standard Uniform Building Codes in terms of building types. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was anything that needed to be mitigated in terms of building some kind of structures underneath the building to hold it in place? Ms. Worthington-Forbes indicated that pier structures would be required to be included as a mitigation for the construction of homes. Commissioner Kaplan indicated a concern with the visual impacts located on page 21. The middle of the page states that "While Mr. Borelli may regard the `visual' impacts as adverse, it is not significant by City of Saratoga height limitation standards. " She asked what was MBA's support and foundation for the statement. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the height of the structures would be in compliance with the City's height standard. Planner Walgren stated that the R-1 40,000 zoning district limits residential structures to a maximum height of 26 feet and that institutional facilities such as schools, senior care facilities, police stations, etc., are allowed to be constructed to a maximum height of 30 feet height limit. He informed the Commission that this proposal was considered an institutional facility and that the structures are permitted to go to a maximum height of 30 feet. Commissioner Caldwell asked if this standard was also being applied to the cottages or was it being used as a measure of figuring out whether or not there is an impact with respect to the cottages? Planner Walgren responded that the congregate two story apartment building was well under the 30 feet maximum height limit and that the three story structure was at the maximum height of 30 feet. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not understand how a study conducted for only one Wednesday p.m. would satisfy the need for a traffic study. He stated that based on his experience that the a.m. traffic on Fruitvale Avenue was heavy with the opening of the freeway. He felt that something more than a short p. m. traffic study would be necessary to really get a sense of what is going on. It would be particularly important to know what is going on at the entrance and access points from this development once it is fully developed. Ms. Worthington Forbes stated that the traffic report was based on the traffic counts that the City Engineer had available and indicated that the heaviest peak hour, a.m. or p.m., was the p.m. hours. Based on a worse case condition, that was what was used as a baseline to conduct the traffic study. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Siegfried inquired about the methodology that was used to conduct the traffic study and whether it can be relied upon on a one afternoon study versus a seven day study. He could not believe that there tends to be a reliance of only one afternoon study and knowing if that is the peak day versus some other day of the week. Mr. Alling responded that the study first relies on consultation with individuals who are knowledgeable with circulation of the community (i.e., city traffic engineer and staff). He indicated that he understood Commissioner Siegfried's concern that the count only occurs in one day but stated that the study was based on the knowledge about traffic in the community. He stated that 80% of the EIRs that are prepared, traffic studies are based on this type of one day methodology (based on knowledge of circulation and based on traffic analysis of the highest peak travel within the community). Commissioner Siegfried asked if there was a definition for the existing drainage. He indicated that he did not know what was meant by "ground zero". Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that there are two sections in the draft EIR study that addresses the description of the existing hydrological conditions based on the existing surface water and existing permeability and impermeability at the ground surface (sections 3.5 of the draft EIR and in the response to comments). Commissioner Siegfried indicated that the neighbors have complained about flooding and that in his reading of the reports, he does not get a sense of their complaint versus what Ms. Worthington-Forbes is describing (there is an understanding of what is happening in major rain years versus what happens most of the time). He stated that he was not sure that ground zero was clear in any of the information provided. Ms. Worthington-Forbes informed the Commission that the technical calculations that were prepared to establish ground surface were included in the technical appendix to the Final EIR response to comments. In terms of what the actual baseline condition is, it is described in the draft EIR. In response to the area residents who have indicated that there was flooding in the eastern watershed, she stated that there was a response to the Shute, Mahaly, Weinberger letter as well as a response to Mr. Schwartz's letter that provides specific responses to the issue of flooding based on the capacity of the culvert. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the report talks about the 100 foot setback from the riparian corridor and states that it would be ideal if a 100 foot setback could be achieved. He asked what the actual setback would be given the new map provided? Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the setback from the riparian corridor would not be 100 feet in some locations. She stated that the baseline for establishing 100 feet was merely a standard wherever possible and that in some location, that would not be possible. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes that there is a need for flexibility. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he agreed that there should be flexibility but that he could not tell from the report what the percentage would be. The report states that it is desirable to have a hundred foot setback, recognizing that it cannot be achieved in all those areas. Mr. Alling clarified that what the EIR attempts to do is to give a standard to adopt and to apply it to the site plan. That is why it was recommended that the 100 feet be the standard to accomplish wherever possible. At that point, it would transition to site plane review. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Siegfried indicated that in the schematic drawings, he calculates that there would be 20 cottages, not 19 cottages (12 below and 8 above the site). He stated that unless it was known where the buildings were to be located and how much setback (what percentage) there would be from the riparian corridor, how is it known what is being discussed? Mr. Alling clarified that the site plan is a scaled drawing and can be measwed using scales to determine setbacks along the creek for the various buildings. He informed the Commission that page 3-68 of Volume III in the response of comment document states that hydrology and rates of infiltration of water are based on soils type, and calculations of baseline runoffs. The project changes are then applied to that amount. He indicated that as infiltration rates change, there would b a change in water run off. This methodology determines existing conditions as well as future conditions. Commissioner Siegfried noted that it was indicated that the project may not build within the next 10 years. He asked what was the degree of confidence that the traffic study, hydrology, etc., conducted would still apply to the second phase 10 years from now? Ms. Worthington Forbes responded that the document before the Commission was intended to provided environmental clearance up through the year 2005. The applicant has suggested that if the market conditions are not favorable, phase II may never occur. However, in compliance with CEQA, it is required that review be conducted of the full built-out of the project. If phase II is not built by that time, this document would be used as the ground basis for determining whether or not additional environmental evaluation is needed. Chairman Mwakami referred to Table 3.3-3 as it relates to traffic and asked about the LOS delineation. He asked if the delineation of LOS were based on the actual time delay or was it considering a selective criteria? Ms. Worthington-Forbes informed the Commission that the information on LOS was described in Table 3.3-1a, page 3-25 of the Draft EIR. She responded that LOS D and E would equate to significant congestion on critical approaches at an intersection. Vehicles would be required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. The delay equates to between 25 and 40 seconds. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff explain how a development agreement can guarantee accessibility. She also was interested in knowing if a development agreement can be modified`? City Attorney Riback responded that the development agreement was a separate process that is provided for statutorily and does provide for a great deal of flexibility to the parties involved. He indicated that he was not sure that he could tell the Commission how it would guarantee continued accessibility. He was swe that there were means by which it could be done. They could be by statements in the agreement that require that accessibility be provided and that if it was not provided, that certain consequences would occur. A development agreement was one mean to guarantee continued accessibility. Development agreements can be modified if both parties agree to the modification but that modification would need to go back through the same public hearing process. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Siegfried asked about page 28 of the consultant's report describing Topical Issue 16: Use Permit/Project benefits as it relates to the sentence that reads: These comments do not raise environmental issues and thus, are not addressed in the context of the EIR. " It was indicted that one does not really have to address whether or not the project would be opened to Saratogans or not. He asked if the project was going to be opened to Saratogans or whether or not the project was fully opened. He also asked if the Commission should be considering if something cannot be mitigated for the benefit of Saratogans to balance the scale and to state that "while you cannot mitigate this, it is a good thing. " He asked if this statement should be known so that it could be considered a mitigation factor? City Attorney Riback responded that in this particular stage of review, the Commission was reviewing the environmental issues. The Commission was not looking at the particular issue raised by Commissioner Siegfried unless you can somehow place it into an environmental context. He indicated that he did not know if that was feasible or whether it could be done. In so far as the project itself was concerned, he indicated that if the Commission can somehow articulate that the particular issue impacts the project in some fashion, he did not believe that it would be an inappropriate issue to raise. The issues that the Commission should be raising are land use issues. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the issue of benefit has some environmental impacts in the sense that if it is opened to Saratogans, there is one type of traffic impact versus individuals who live hundreds of miles away who would not be visiting often. It also raises the question that if there are some things that cannot be mitigated, but if there is a benefit to the community, that it would come into the scheme of balancing the issues. Commissioner Patrick indicated that it was her understanding that there are some EIR impacts as to benefits and the overriding statement of the unavoidable impacts. City Attorney Riback responded that when there are impacts that are unavoidable, the Commission would be looking at a statement of overriding consideration. At this time, the Commission can take into consideration economic issues or other issues that may be of benefit to the community as a whole. If it is determined that those considerations override the fact that there are unavoidable impacts and consequences, than the statement can be adopted. Commissioner Asfour asked about the status of the Odd Fellows and whether it would be opened to Saratoga residents who are not members of the Odd Fellows and could change the character of the franchise. He asked what affect this issue would have. City Attorney Riback stated that opening the Odd Fellows facility to non-members would not affect the issue. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the consultants have concluded that there are certain impacts that are unavoidable. Ms. Worthington-Forbes concurred that there would be certain impacts associated with this project that would be unavoidable but that_with the adoption of the modified design options, that the unavoidable impacts would be avoided, except for the air impact. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it seemed to her that the project has been a moving target for th~ Commission, mutating with different designs. She indicated that ~~e was not swe what the project was anymore. ' • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 13 - Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded to Commissioner Siegfried's comment about the calculation of 20 cottages. She indicated that one cottage, located midway on the northwestern site, is an existing home. She responded to Commissioner Caldwell's comment by stating that the project has not really been a moving target. What the applicant has done was to provide a revised schematic plan that incorporates the mitigation measures that have been recommended in the draft EIR. In addition to that, the applicant has incorporated some of staff's recommendation as to what they would want to see develop. There have been no other structural moves in the location of the buildings. The five cottages that she referred to in the modified design alternative would replicate Phase III of the San Marcos Height subdivision. She informed the Commission that this footprint is found on page 5-15 of the draft EIR. This alternative would eliminate two of the cottages and that all five of the cottages located on the southern ridgeline would be removed from that location, with three of them being relocated and two of them being eliminated. With the revision of the schematic plan that the applicant has prepared, all five of the cottages would be retained, but would be relocated. Commissioner Caldwell referred to page 9 of the consultants report which states that: "Because the final locations of the structures have not been determined...." Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the location of the five cottages has not been determined because the modified plan alternative has not been adopted. The only change in the location of the structures would equate to those five cottages and that the cottages along the northwestern boundary of the project would be relocated from one side of the internal roadway to the other (flip-flopped). Commissioner Caldwell asked about the phasing of the project. She asked if phase I could stand on its own in terms of impervious coverage and all of the impacts that are located on phase I properties or does the development proposed on phase I really need the land of phase II to rationalize the entire development of phase I. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that phase I can stand on its own. In terms of impermeability, phase I and phase II have been considered as a whole. Therefore, phase I can stand on its own. Commissioner Caldwell asked what would happen if the City gives approval for phase I and then in ten years the applicant states that he cannot proceed with phase Il, later proposing another development. The City would have approved intense development in phase I with the presumption that it would be mitigated by the extra land in phase II with a later review of a different project in Phase II. She asked how the City would handle this scenario? Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that based on the time frame of the environmental analysis, additional environmental documentation would need to be conducted to evaluate the different proposal at that time. Commissioner Asfour asked if the EIR and the project was approved and if phase II was never implemented, would the EIR stand on its own for phase I, disregarding phase II at this time. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the EIR would stand on its own for phase I of the project, regardless of whether phase II builds out or not. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the amount of impervious surface that would result due to the addition of driveways and structures congregated on the one side of the project and could it be averaged out over the entire project? Mr. Alling responded that the impact analysis does not rely • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 14 - on an averaging range over the entire area. Commissioner Siegfried asked if any of the environmental impacts averaged out? Mr. Alling responded that they do not. Ms. Worthington-Forbes stated that in terms of understanding permeability, that often times, you would look at the entire site rather than phasing of the site. If you look at how the impacts were analyzed and the mitigations that have been identified to mitigate the impacts, she felt that phase I could stand on its own. Commissioner Caldwell noted that Ms. Worthington-Forbes indicated in her presentation a description of what an adequate EIR was. She recollected that it was stated that an adequate EIR identifies the performance criteria for the mitigations that have been identified. She indicated that this was precisely what she was not able to fmd in the EIR (the objective performance criteria against which success or failures of mitigations could be measured). Mr. Alling stated that performance criteria can come in many forms. An example used was in the drainage mitigation that has been written in the final EIR response to comments. He called the Commissions' attention to pages 4-4 to 4-5 of the document. The mitigation in the document states that: "Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit the final drainage plan which demonstrates the downstream drainage facilities can accommodate the maximum peak surface water discharge generated by phase I and phase II of the project development. " Mr. Alling indicated that the terminology that demonstrates the downstream drainage facilities can accommodate the maximum peak surface water discharge is in essence a performance criteria that the public works department would be able to use to evaluate the detailed engineering plans. If it is determined that those plans cannot accommodate the peak surface water discharge, then it would not comply with the performance criteria. He stated that it was not a criteria that states that it shall accommodate 5.5 cfs. It states what public works calculates as the maximum peak surface water discharge would be in the detailed engineering calculations and that this was an example of a performance criteria that the report references. Commissioner Caldwell asked about traffic and the baseline figure that was derived prior to the opening of Highway 85. Ms. Worthington-Forbes indicated that she was informed by the city experts that the peak traffic flows were in the evening and that the morning traffic was not half the p.m. traffic. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that it was her observation of the intersection that Highway 85 altered traffic patterns in the city. Based on her experience, that intersection was impacted more in the morning. She noted that page 19 of MBA report talks about the trees and the fact that there were a limited number of oak trees (4) can be relocated. It was her observation that the City has had a poor success rate with the relocation of oak trees in Saratoga. She felt that it would be a folly for the City to rely on the relocation of oak trees because it has not been found to be successful. Ms. Worthington Forges indicated that one of the elements of the mitigation measures establishes a monitoring phase for the replanting of the oak trees to determine if transplanting is successful. ' • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Caldwell noted that page 24 addresses the hazardous materials on site. She recollected that a letter was received from the county requesting that the tankers be removed. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the Environmental Health Department did recognize that there were four bunkers located on site that were not contained, three of which are completely empty and the fourth has some degree of remaining fuel. The bunkers have not been actively used nor does the project involve the relocation or any change in the bunkers even though an agency requires action. Commissioner Asfour noted that section 2.2.1 calls for the closure of the four underground containers. Commissioner Patrick inquired about the traffic and requested clarification as whether or not the traffic from this project would be measured as negligible. She also asked what the addition of traffic count that this project was contemplated to add to the Saratoga traffic pattern. She commented that while the traffic impact would be minimal or negligible, she felt that it was regrettable that the date and time indicated were chosen based on the information that she has. She noted that the public school lets out at 2:15 p.m. She felt that 8 a.m. is the peak hour at the intersection. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that the traffic that would be generated from this project would be negligible. She also stated that the total number of trips to be generated would be 374 trips over the course of 24 hours. Broken down in the p. m. peak hour, it would equate to 15 trips in and 13 trips out of the site area for a total of 28 trips. She stated that it was the assumption that the p.m. would be the peak hour of traffic. Commissioner Patrick inquired about the hydrology surface drainage. She asked if the drainage problems which may occur in phase I would only be mitigated if phase II was developed. Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that Phase I drainage was independent of phase II and vise versa. City Engineer Perlin responded to the Commission's questions regarding the traffic study (i.e., when it was taken, why such a short period, and whether or not it really represents a full traffic study). He indicated that a traffic study for a project similar to this one, you can analyze traffic impacts when one identifies the area surrounding the site that could potentially be impacted by traffic that would be travelling to and from the project, identifying particular intersections that could be burdened. You would then evaluate the condition of those intersections and make an analysis as to how much traffic could be added to these intersections as a result of the project. When you do a traffic analysis, you attempt to define the operating level of service at the intersection. The standard method of defining how well an intersection is operating is to assign a letter of A through F, with A being the best condition and F being considered a grid lock. The traffic engineer would need to define the one hour period of time during the day when most traffic is travelling through the intersection. In this case, that one hour was considered to occur in the p.m./afternoon period. The traffic engineer took the intersections that were of concern and prepared counts at those particular intersections to determine how much traffic is actually • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 16 - traveling through the intersection at this time and then project the amount of traffic that the project would generate. A certain percentage of that traffic is assumed to be entering and leaving the project during that peak hour. That traffic is then added to that current peak hour traffic and then the intersection would be reevaluated again on the level of service criteria with the added traffic from the project. The traffic engineer went back and evaluated the intersection with the additional 28 trips using the standard methods contained in the traffic manuals and determined that there was little to no.impact (the operating efficiency of the intersection would not change measurably by adding the additional 28 trips). Commissioner Siegfried asked what reliance can be put on a study that was done on one Wednesday afternoon versus a week or two weeks. Public Works Director Perlin responded that when intersection counts are conducted, one would pick a representative date. Wednesday afternoon was considered by traffic engineers as a typical peak hour/day. He indicated that the City would be taking post Highway 85 traffic counts in throughout the city to determine the traffic volumes on selective streets. Those counts would be analyzed to determine what the peak hours are and that those peak hour counts would be based on a one day count. Chairman Murakami asked what measures would be taken to improve the LOS E of the Saratoga/Fruitvale Avenues intersection? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the City would be moving the crosswalk across Saratoga Avenue from the northeast side of the intersection to the southwest side of the intersection. He indicated that once the pedestrian conflict was eliminated, those two movement of traffic would be able to move simultaneously and that traffic would flow through the intersection much better. If conditions continue to remain bad, other alternatives would need to be considered. Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the impact that the traffic to be generated from this project would have to the area. Public Works Director Perlin clarified that the amount of additional traffic to be generated from this project during the worst time of day would be insignificant. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the San Marcos Heights and the Odd Fellows currently have two streets adjacent to each other. He asked how this situation be mitigated? Public Works Director Perlin responded that it would be an ideal situation for the two streets to merge together before the intersection to Fruitvale so that there is only one intersection coming out of Fruitvale. He informed the Commission that the San Marcos Road and the Odd Fellows roads were not under the control of the City and he was not sure to what degree the City could enforce or encourage the parties that have responsibilities for those roads to work something out. Commissioner Abshire indicated that in this valley, there are several scientific individuals who have discussed scientific principles that are suspicious. He recommended that in the future, that it be demonstrated why one can base the facts on the collection of data used. Public Works Director Perlin commented that traffic engineering was not an exact science and that it was based primarily on modelling. Traffic engineers continue to refine models used to get the best predictable model that can be used to present a traffic pattern. He felt that in general, traffic studies and traffic predictions are accurate to the extent that they need to be whet} deteri~iirlg • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 17 - mitigations for particular projects or for improvements that might be made to accommodate traffic from projects. The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:40 Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the process that would need to take place from this point forward? Chairman Murakami asked the Commission if it would like to accept additional testimony from the public on the EIR. Commissioners Asfour and Siegfried indicated that they would agree to receive public testimony not on the substance of the EIR but on information that the public felt that the Commission would need to know to proceed from this point. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she would agree to reopen the public hearing as long as new information was being presented and that past comments are not reiterated. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it was appropriate for the public to tell the Commission what the procedure should be and that she was unclear what the speakers would be requested to address. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would agree to receive public input on what was presented this evening and not on the actual substance of the EIR. Commissioner Caldwell noted that staff has posed the question as to whether the Commission was ready to certify the EIR as an adequate decision making document. She felt that this was a relevant issue for the public to address. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that having heard what was discussed tonight and the receipt of additional reports, he felt that public comments should be received as to what it did not believe should be certified. He recommended that the public focus on the issues of concerns. Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE EIR. THE MOTION PASSED 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN VOTING NO. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Linda Callon, attorney representing the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, requested the opportunity to speak following receipt of public testimony. She informed the Commission that the project's architect as well as other members of the Odd Fellows team were present to respond to any questions which it may have. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 18 - Mr. Schwartz requested a point of order as he thought that this item was agendized as a public hearing on the draft EIR. He indicated that he did not understand the discussion about limiting comments to certain information. Chairman Murakami clarified that the public hearing, as it relates to comments on the DEIR, was closed at the last meeting. The Commission was discussing whether it should allow the public to address those items brought up this evening. Moms Jones, 19472 Riesling Court, stated that the EIR was the Commission's document. One of the concerns that he has with the document was that the City did not have a lot of standards. The result was that staff and the consultants picked whatever they could find. He felt that proper review of the project would mitigate impacts to the neighborhood. He requested that the Commission look at the standards that underline these decisions. He did not believe that the Commission was ready to state that an LOS D was acceptable for the City. He felt that it was important that the Commission give clear direction to the consultant as to what standards, objectives, and objectives for significant impacts are for the City of Saratoga. He requested that the Commission review the document carefully, to adjust it as needed and to make sure that all of the mitigations fall in line with the values that is held dearly for Saratoga. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, noted that the revised drawings were not included in the document that he was in receipt of. He asked if the applicant was making a formal amendment to their site plan application? Commissioner Siegfried responded that the Commission requested that the applicant indicate where structures would be moved to. Mr. Borelli indicated that his comments were predicated on what the applicant was trying to do. He asked if the applicant was proposing to abandon the previous plan and was now pursuing a revised plan. He stated his support to the modified design alternative. He indicated that he submitted a letter to staff on November 16, 1994 that raised four to five issues and that he resubmitted that letter at the September 27, 1995 meeting. He indicated that one or two of those issues were addressed in the revised report but that there were some other issues that were not addressed (i.e., page 2 paragraph 3, and issue No. 4). He indicated that site development application SD-88-088 addresses the phasing schedule for Phases I, II and III. Now discussion is solely on phase I and II of the current plan, and that it was mentioned that phase II may not occur within 10 years. He expressed concern that the applicant would return in a number of years and go through the review process again. He indicated that various issues were raised in his previous letter. Paragraph five dealt with the private open space easement that was to be dedicated to the City as part of phase III of SD-88-088 and that the dedication did not occur because phase III did not develop. Now, there is discussion regarding developing in some of those areas. There is now discussion with mitigations associated with phase II and noted that it has been stated that phase II may not occur. He asked if there was anything that would happen any differently this time than occurred seven years ago? He felt that it would be an impact if phase II does not occur. He indicate~d~ht this was ~ concern to him and noted that this concern • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 19 - has not been addressed in the document. Vic Monia stated that he hoped that the Commission would require that the entire EIR document be reassembled to make it easier to follow the issues. He recommended that the EIR state recommendations should phase II be implemented. He felt that there should be a control mechanism whereby the 10 acres does not to get developed into something else (i.e., development at a higher density). Regarding community benefit, he felt that there was an opportunity to get something for Saratoga and that the City make the connection that a 30 foot height is being allowed in return for a public benefit. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, informed the Commission that he was in receipt of the latest EIR document. He stated that it was impossible to review the document in detail and cross reference against the mitigation monitoring plan that was not included in volumes I and II against the changes contained in volumes III. He recommended that the Commission not certify the document because some issues have not been made clear (i.e., hydrology and traffic issues). He felt that much of the information provided this evening was wrong, incomplete, and that serious issues raised by the community have not been responded to. In many cases there is no discussion regarding neighborhood compatibility. At the last meeting, the Commission requested a specific statement about the numbers of units that would be available to the public. Also requested was a mechanism that would guarantee that those units would continue to be reserved for Saratoga residents. He noted that the Commission received wrong hydrology information. He indicated that open culverts exist on site and that the EIR was based on a drainage system that does not exist. The review of Volumes I and II indicates that the percentage of impervious surface will not meet the City standards if only phase I goes forward. He requested that a logical procedure be followed and that the document be reformatted in a readable manner and that there be discussion on each issue. Linda Callon requested that the Commission ask that the City's expert respond to the public's comments. She did not believe that there was no new information that has not been provided before. She indicated that she was amazed with the amount of time and effort that the Commission has put in as far as allowing public comments and taking testimony and then directing consultants and staff to responded to the issues raised. She indicated that from the applicant's point of view, they were looking at the process to move into the project design stage. Some of the questions raised by the public would be addressed at that time as they were not appropriate to the EIR document (i.e., height of structure, number of stories in the structures). She felt that the Commission has taken and considered all public input. As such, it was her belief that CEQA requirements have been exceeded. The document exposes any potential adverse impacts and provides some feeling for mitigations. The mitigation monitoring plan would be a part of the project approval. Regarding the request that the EIR documents be packaged neatly, she indicated that the Commission has before it a standard draft EIR and a standard volume in response to comments. She indicated that the Commission was in receipt of a letter from Odd Fellows stating that the project will be opened to the public. She did not consider this fact a major environmental impact and felt that this issue could be addressed at the project mitigation stage. She recommended that the Commission certify the EIR and make the • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 20 - determination that it is adequate. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was not known what "open to the public" means. Phase I talks to adding three beds to the apartment units. He stated that he did not know what that would equate to nor did he know what the turnover in the Off Fellows facility would be. He felt that it was important to understand what the benefit of this project would be to the senior citizens of the community. Ms. Callon indicated that she was not prepared to answer the benefit question this evening. Commissioner Siegfried asked what the project was (i.e., was it a project for Odd Fellows or was it a project for Saratoga?). He felt that before you act on the EIR, one needs to understand what the project is and indicated that he did not know what the project is. George Means, president of the Odd Fellows Board, indicated that the project was primarily an Odd Fellows' project. However, a year ago, the Odd Fellows opened the homes to Saratoga and the public. He indicated that since June 1, 1995, approximately 45 % of the new admissions comes from the general public (53 individuals from within the Order and 43 individuals that were not in the order. He indicated that some of the individuals in the Order reside in Saratoga. He felt that the project would be an asset to the community. Commissioner Patrick asked if priority consideration could be given to residents of Saratoga. Mr. Means responded that there is currently not a waiting list for the facility. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:20 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Commissioner Asfour asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to include language in the EIR that stipulates that a specific development plan has been adopted for the site so that future buyers are made aware of this fact or should this wait until the project is reviewed? City Attorney Riback responded that this type of discussion should take place during the consideration of the project itself and could be imposed as a condition on the master plan for the project. Commissioner Siegfried asked if there was a response to the question about what would happen should phase II not develop. How can the City put closure to this concern so that it does not go on for years (i.e., zoning restriction or sunset the EIR)? City Attorney Riback responded that the City cannot force someone to build a project. He indicated that CEQA addresses EIRs that are out dated and would require supplemental or addendum EIRs. Commissioner Asfour asked if the City could require that both parcels be merged and developed as one or that one parcel cannot be sold? City Attorney Riback indicated that a deed restriction could be applied to limit the use of the property in consideration which would limit the use of the property but that it would need to be investigated. Commissioner Asfour asked for clarification of the City Attorney for the benefit of the audience that should the Commission recommend that the EIR be adopted, would an i~~lied agreet~nt stipulate that the project can proceed only as presented? City Attorney Riback responded that • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 21 - there is not an implied agreement of any sort. The Commission is being asked by staff this evening to recommend to the City Council that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Commissioner Caldwell felt that there were some specific issues that beaz some attention. She did not believe that the statement of overriding consideration that relates to the public benefit issue has been clarified. There was at least one unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated (air) and that the Commission would need to recommend a statement of overriding consideration that would stipulate a public benefit that would allow the project to proceed. She noted four issues that have not been adequately addressed as follows: 1) the project definition has not been identified; 2) the mitigation monitoring reporting program has not been identified. This is the document that would be referred to at a later date when there is review of the intricate project design. You would need to know what mitigation measures should be employed, whether they aze going to be adequate and whether there is confidence that they will meet the objectives of the project. She felt that this program would guide the City in that decision. She recommended that Section 5 be reviewed and asked if the Commission was comfortable with the level of details that has been provided and with the standazds that are spelled out. She felt that there were particulaz substantive issues that have not been resolved. 3) The control mechanism (issues relating to phasing; whether it can be trusted that the mitigations for phase II are independent of the mitigation of phase I; can Phase I stand on its own; and the issue of public benefit). 4) The issue of usability -was this document in a format that the Commission feels it can use well in its decision making process? Commissioner Asfour asked Commissioner Caldwell if the document satisfies the requirements of CEQA? Commissioner Caldwell responded that she was not comfortable with the level of detail that was provided in the mitigation monitoring program. She indicated that CEQA leaves it up to the City to decide whether the document was adequate for its decision making process. She did not find that the mitigation monitoring program was adequate because she could not use it. She wanted to be able to use the mitigation monitoring program once the project is placed before the Commission because it will be known what mitigations would be appropriate, it would be known how it is to be implemented, who is going to implement it, when it is going to be implemented and what standazds aze going to be applied. It would be known that if that mitigations aze not working as expected, that there would be some mechanism in place to deal with that. Commissioner Abshire took exception with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. He noted that the Ciry's consultant indicated that the three documents comply with CEQA requirements. He felt that it would be unfair to require that the consultant spend time to reassemble the document. He felt that the information that was needed was contained in the document and that it was in a form that the City Council can base its decision on. He indicated that he was prepared to forward approval on this document to the City Council. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 22 - Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission has reviewed the document for adequacy and that she was ready to forward a recommendation to the City Council as she has considered the explanations to questions raised this evening. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he was satisfied with the information provided by the consultant this evening as well as with the information provided on the traffic study. However, he still had questions pertaining to hydrology and whether or not the existing conditions were to be improved and whether it would impact existing development. He stated that he was satisfied with the recommendations by the City's geologist and that he understood that the report indicates that there may be a need for future studies. He was also concerned with the lack of project definition (i.e., it was not known where the buildings were going to be located and how they would impact the riparian corridor; phasing; what benefit this project would bring to the community, etc.). He stated that he had major concerns regarding the project but that they were not concerns related to the EIR. He did not believe that the report was adequate, but that he could be convinced otherwise. Commissioner Patrick indicated that her concerns related to development issues rather than EIR concerns. She expressed concern that the City was given the application approval and felt that the City should receive something in return for the approval (i.e., a guarantee or asswance that the project would be developed as approved and conditioned. She indicated that she did not understand the previous parcelling of the parcel. She stated that she had concerns with the open space easement of the San Marcos development. She understood the concerns of the neighbors regarding the uncertainty as to what is going to develop. She indicated that the consultants and staff have indicated that development as proposed would not impact the existing traffic. Regarding the geological study, the project can be engineered to mitigate concerns. The compatibility issue that has been raised by the neighbors has been somewhat mitigated and felt that this concern should be mitigated. Chairman Mwakami indicated that his main concern was that of the completeness of a traffic study. His stated that his questions have been adequately answered by the City's Public Works Department. The other major problem that he was having was with the actual benefit to the City of Saratoga. He felt that this question/concern would be answered more in detail in the next phase of development. As far as the EIR was concerned, he felt that it contained some weak spots, especially in the mitigation monitoring process. In looking at the nature of the project itself, as far as the usage and the density, he felt that the general nature of the project, the mitigation process can be monitored adequately. He indicated that he would be willing to forward a recommendation to the City Council at this time. Commissioner Asfow stated he had some concerns relating to the EIR and that one such concern related to hydrology. However, mitigations have been identified. He indicated that he would like to see :.the entire document reassembled but that he would agree to forward a recommendation of approval if that was the consensus of the Commission. • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 23 - Commissioner Caldwell indicated that it was important to recognize that this was the single largest project that the city has seen and will see for a long time. The level of detail that she saw for the Saratoga Country Club expansion was far more detailed in the mitigation monitoring plan than what she saw with this EIR. She felt that if there were issues that the Commission was concerned about, those issues should be addressed. A section of the report that was of concern to her was pages 5-2, Visual Resowces Aesthetics which reads: "minimizes visual impacts associated with wildlife vegetation" . She noted that the applicant would need to prepare a vegetation plan for the oak tree to be removed. She inquired as to what standard would be applied for the compensation of the oak tree. She felt that the standard should be included in the report. She stated that a few meetings ago, she provided the Commission with examples of thorough mitigation monitoring plans. She felt that how the development is played out should be included in the report. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the City has a planting program and that it would be considered as the standard, thus meeting legal requirements. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the Commission ask itself whether this was a document that it would like to certify regardless of whether a judge is going to rule one way or another on it. She felt that the document was for the Commission's use and information in the land use process. She noted that three Commissioners have indicated that they were concerned about hydrology and have stated that they do not understand it. She felt that this was where the hydrology issue should be explained to the Commission so that it is understood. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would vote to forward a recommendation to certify the document because the EIR has identified the problems and that in the development scheme, the Commission would specify how the problems would be resolved. Commissioner Kaplan noted that page 5-5 addresses surface hydrology and that the document contained sufficient language as to what would have to be done as the project develops. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the report did not provide additional analysis to compensate for the fact that the hydrology information was wrong. She indicated that these were issues that she was addressing this evening. She felt that if the Commission was satisfied with the level of detail contained in the document and if it felt confident that the development would be played out appropriately based on the instructions given, that would be a decision that the Commission would need to make. She indicated that she was not comfortable with it. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ABSHIRE MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DOCUMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS. THE MOTION PASSED 5-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND CALDWELL VOTING NO. Planner Walgren stated that as the Commission has made a recommendation on the EIR, staff would recommend that the entire project be continued to December 13, 1995 which includes the ,- F •• ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 24 - physical development proposal, general plan text amendment, conditional use permit and design review. This would allow staff time to provide a thorough analysis of the physical project and the various applications involved. He indicated that the Commission may wish to take public testimony on the physical development so that staff can be informed as to the specific issues that the Commission may have. He informed the Commission that the EIR would be tabled until such time that the Commission acts on the other related applications and then the entire matter would be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not understand the process. He indicated that he had major concerns about the project. Commissioner Asfour asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to discuss its concerns regarding the project itself at this time. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that a certified EIR would need to be approved before the Commission can review the project. City Attorney Riback indicated that this was one master plan application. He indicated that staff was recommending that the entire master plan application be considered by the City Council so that it can review the General Plan Amendment, design review, use permit and the EIR impact report all at the same time. In order for that to occur, staff was recommending that the Commission review and take action on the project conditioned upon the EIR being ultimately certified by the City Council. The Council, in turn, would make a decision on the entire project. In forwarding the entire master plan application and the EIR to the City Council, the Council would have all of the comments, the conditions, and the actions taken by the Commission that it would consider appropriate. Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff provide the Commission with a timeline as to when the applicant would need to present information. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff would return with a comprehensive staff report on the other components of the application at its December 13 meeting. Commissioner Asfow asked what would happen if the Commission has recommended certification of the EIR and recommendation of denial on the other components of the application. City Attorney Riback responded that the Commission would be taking action to deny the design review and/or the use permit, and that the applicant could appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. This would result in all applications being considered by the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission may be looking at potentially several months of discussion of the merits of the project. The entire package would then be reviewed by the City Council. Should the City Council not certify the EIR, than the whole discussion would be meaningless. He indicated that if he was the applicant, he would:_want to have the EIR certified at this time. •~ •• r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1995 PAGE - 25 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 13, 1995. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a neighborhood meeting would be held on November 14, 1995. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she attended the last City Council meeting and indicated that she did not know why it was necessary for her to attend. She informed the Commission that the City Council would be taking up the matter of Commission attendance at City Council meetings, particularly on nights that appeals are not being considered. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that Commissioners attend a meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 29 at 7:30 p.m, in the Los Altos Public Library, the Director of Technical Services for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would be addressing the public regarding the use of wood burning stoves and the importance of not approving them in the future for air quality. COMMUNICATIONS ri n 1. City Council Minutes dated 10/ 14; 10/ 18; 10/24 2. Planning Commission Public Notices dated 11 /21 /95 C~ Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m, to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 21, 1995, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully submYtted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk