Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-1995 Planning Commission Minutes• n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 Senior Center -Adult Day Care Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Study Session The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami Absent: Patrick, Siegfried Staff: Associate Planner Walgren, Community Development Director Curtis, Kit Faubion, City Attorney's office. 1. Nelson Gardens Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Public and Planning Commission comment on the DEIR for the Nelson Gardens project, 20851 Saratoga Hills Road. Associate Planner Walgren presented the staff report and said that written comments had been received from the law firm representing The Friends of Nelson Gardens, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger; and Ann Waltonsmith. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing. Public Comment Dr. F.L. Stutzman said the DEIR that was prepared was incomplete and flawed. He addressed the following issues: The statement that due to its small size. the existence of the property as an orchard is economically impractical. He said he is an orchardist and that the property has value other than for the amount it produces. He talked about its value as a teaching resource and said the historical significance was not addressed. Also, the statement was made that nothing of historical importance had happened here. He asked what is the basis for that statement and what it would cost to have the orchard replanted. Hakone Gardens recognizes Japanese culture; this could commemorate Santa Clara agriculture. Dr. Stutzman asked what it would cost to replant the orchard and why the possibility of community volunteer support had not been dealt with. Ecology of the orchard. He asked how much time had been devoted to on site evaluation and why it is not possible to make the orchard profitable now -how large an orchard has to be and what location is necessary. Statement that no special status plant species could occur on this rp oiect. He asked what PLANNING COMMISS>~ MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE -2- was the basis for this statement. Statement that wildlife species found are relatively common in the region and their loss of habitat would be less than significant. He asked if this assessment was based on a personal survey or was speculative. He said he thought the phrase °less than significant° which is used throughout the report should be defined. Statement that other undeveloped areas in the vicinity of Saratoga contain better habitat fir special status species. What was the basis for this statement? Preservation of oak trees. He asked what assurances there were that only one oak tree would be removed and the remainder protected, in view of the City Council's recent policy of lifting all tree regulations on private property. Residual vegetation. What guarantees would there be regarding monitoring for residual vegetation? Earthquake faults. He talked about the activation of the Berrocal fault in the 1989 quake. The fault runs through the area. Thrust fault on Pontiac Avenue. What is the significance? He cited a 1995 letter from Freeman-Kern Associates to Pinn Bros. Construction stating they had not made a complete geological investigation. They recommended multiple studies of the soils and bedrock. He asked why these studies were not done as part of this DEIR. Basement flooding. He said there is no data to substantiate the statement that basement flooding is not significant. There is a spring in the area and flooding comes from underground, not from runoff. In addition, there is clay soil and there is a danger of slippage. Surface runoff. He said the DEIR did not deal with the runoff being influenced by the rise in the water table during wet years. No nesting raptors. Mr. Stutzman said it was unlikely that they would be seen and asked how many species of birds and animals were seen and what they were. n ace. He said the open space element of the General Plan recognizes that open space is a limited and valuable resource and must be preserved wherever possible and asked why the report states that the use of this property would be in direct conflict with the development of Area B guidelines. He asked if this inferred that all open space in Area B has to be used for housing. Parks PolicX. He asked where Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) obtained a policy PLANNING COMMISS)~ MINUTES • DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE -3- that all park fees will be used to maintain and improve existing parks and not to acquire land for park use. He said the state recognizes 3 acres of park land for each 1,000 people as a minimum and Saratoga has less than half of this amount. He asked if MBA was aware of the general plan recommendation that small community parks be developed and also asked why parks should be excluded for the sake of building additional housing. $585,000 paid to CitX. He asked why the report takes the position that the $585,000 makes all other considerations (open space, park land, recreation, congestion, impact on infrastructure, impact on hillside view) of less than significant impact. Alternative sites for park land. He asked if there are some available. Community Foundation. He asked why it is essential for them to sell this property to fund charitable activities when they have $4 million in reserves. Mr. Stutzman said he had the impression that the report was written by Planning Department staff and stated that the attorneys would be addressing all the above issues. Mr. Donald Macrae, Reid Lane, said he has lived in the area since 1938 and had friends in the audience who want to keep the area as open space and some who want it developed. He said he agreed with the concerns and issues raised by Dr. Stutzman, Mrs. Waltonsmith and their attorney but had some additional concerns. One is that the DEIR was written from the point of view of the developer and showed no concern for retaining the property for a park devoted to showing the heritage of the area and how it was when farming and orchards reigned supreme. He said it was called the Valley of Hearts Delight, but could not be called that now. He described what he envisioned on the Nelson property. He said it would be a quiet park where people could reflect and meditate and would be devoted to keeping alive some of the heritage of the area. In its own way, it would be as specialized as Hakone Gardens. He said there seems to be no concern on the part of City Council or the Planning Commission for having such a park. Commission members responded to Mr. Macrae's comments. They discussed who would fund such a park and noted that it was currently private property. Also, the question of a park is not before them at this time, although it is one of the alternatives in the EIR. Betty Peck said she had been in education for many years. She said she had gone before the City Council and talked about a need for a place where children could learn about the earth and their relation to it. The result was the project that went on at the Odd Fellows for 15 years and was visited by 6,000 children a year. She said she appreciated the effort and love and devotion the Planning Commission gives and made a plea for saving the property. She said she had not read the DEIR but knows that the kind of park described by Mr. Macrae and Dr. Stutzman is needed in the area. She said she has had calls from -- - ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE -4- many people and knows the Commission will be able to do what is right. Commission comments/auestions Commissioner Kaplan said the community garden referred to by Ms. Peck was fantastic. She said she felt she got a good background explanation of spot zoning from the DEIR and had learned how it went from residential to agricultural. To make it residential again would not be dramatic. As for the alternative that it be a park, her concern is the size of the parcel and the fact that it is quite steep. It would be a nice heritage farming parcel but is small for a park. Her fear is that if you put a park there, cars and pollution would follow. Kids make noise and people leave garbage. She said she is not sure it is the best use in the area. She had questions regarding runoff and drainage (page 4.5-9 Item 4-SA, ponding mitigation). If they eliminate ponding, when will we know whether or not the mitigation would work and what happens next if it doesn't? She also had a question about demolition (Page 4.6-4), that is, how is demolition conducted with the presence of nesting animals? Commissioner Abshire. referred to page 2.3, Section 2.5, Controversial Issues to Resolve. He said it did not mention if this is an attempt to say these are not important or if the list is not complete. Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office, stated that CEQA requires that a DEIR identify areas of controversial issues to resolve. It is an attempt to highlight issues that have been raised in the past. This in no way suggests that this is a complete list of issues that might come up but is a standard requirement for a DEIR per CEQA guidelines. It is not intended to be an analysis. Commissioner Abshire also questioned why tree loss was not identified as a visual impact. He asked what CFS means on the map on page 4.1-1, and asked where the property mentioned in the traffic study was -was it in Area B? He also had questions about fill areas referred on page 4.4-1 Exhibit 4.3-6. At 8:15 p. m. Community Development Director Curtis arrived. Commissioner Caldwell talked about the project description. The way it is articulated is not a description of building nine homes. She said the description has a significant effect on how you view the alternatives. She asked where the City's objectives came from (Page 3.2) and said she had not seen them in the General Plan and was staggered by some of these statements. She asked who articulated them and when they were adopted as official policy. She said some seemed in conflict with General Plan policies that are specific to the preservation of open space. Referring to Table 2.1 4.1-H, she said she was not sure what it means. Is the site in a natural state? In regard to 4.3-A part C, she said they have realized over time is that when they bifurcate they end up at • ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE -5- cross purposes. She said they should deal with all vegetation -trees and landscaping - in one plan. In 4.3-D it states that the $585,000 is full and adequate compensation for the loss of open space. She stated the opinion that compensation is not just providing money, it is doing something with it. It is a plan for compensating for the loss of resources. In the alternative section, page 7,9, she had a question regarding the City policy and what it infers for money to be received for compensation. The City Council refused to give any direction to parks and recreation for development or improvement of parks. That action seems to have been ruled out. She said the assumption that compensation will occur is completely spurious. In regard to retaining walls, Commissioner Caldwell asked what the maximum size and building materials would be. She referred to the inventory of wildlife species and disagreed with the statement that there would be no impact on black tailed deer because they would continue to use the area. She said this is unlikely because of the fences, dogs, etc. that come with development. On page 2-9 it says they will save oak trees. She suggested that the report be explicit as to where trees are measured. On page 4.1, regarding environmental equivalent, she said money is not. She said the point had been raised by several speakers of the historical significance of open space. One of the major problems of this document is that there is no discussion of historic value. She referred to the alternatives section and said she had become confused as to who was making application. She asked why the City feels it is so important to develop. That is the whole tone of alternate section. On page 7.6 there is discussion of three properties for alternative sites. One property had been ruled out because someone came in and talked about it, not because a formal application had been made. She said she sees no reason to rule it out. She objected to the allegation that parks are not consistent with residential use. She referred to the statement that park lighting would create problems and said the City doesn't do that in its parks. On page 7-9 there is a discussion of why the site is not appropriate and feasible as a public park. It talks about the cost of acquisition but there is no mention of numbers. She felt that the attorney's letter made a good point regarding procedure and said she would urge the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing before the EIR is prepared so the public has another chance for input. Associate Planner Walgren outlined the schedule of hearings. Community Development Director Curtis said the Commission could have another one at their January 2 work session. The Planning Commission concurred and continued the hearing of the DEIR to January 2, 1996. Minutes Clerk