Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-02-1996 Planning Commission minutes~` ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Work Session Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the work session meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Commissioners Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick Commissioners Absent: Caldwell, Siegfried Staff Present: Community Development Director Curtis, Assoc. Planner George White and City Attorney Kit Faubion EIR -NELSON GARDENS Chairman Murakami informed the public that the Commission would continue discussions relating to the Nelson Gardens Draft EIR. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he received a call from Betty Peck who made a strong plea to retain Nelson Gardens as a useful garden. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, submitted to the Commission a copy of his comments from the last meeting. He indicated that Ms. Peck was the individual who started the community foundation and that Nelson Gardens was supposed to be retained as a park site. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, stated her concern regarding the additional wording in the EIR and the fact that no new test data has been provided. She referenced page 4.1-16 indicating that it states that there are no alternative sites. She stated her disagreement with this statement and felt that there should be dialogue of alternative ways to protect the Nelson Gardens as a park and as an educational garden. Page 7-6 contains a list of areas that are going to be developed and that they are no longer to be considered as alternatives. One of the sites mentioned was the 6.9 acre Spaich property. It was unclear to her whether this parcel was being developed. It seemed to her that there were errors in the EIR and felt that the EIR was only focused on the development of the property and that there was no discussion of alternative sites nor alternative ways to use the property. Laurel Impett, urban planner for the law firm of Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger, indicated that she was speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Nelson Gardens Foundation. She indicated that the Friends of the Nelson Gardens Foundation were concerned about development of the site, given the historical importance of the site and its value as open space. She stated that the law firm submitted comments to the City in August to alert the City of the firm's opinion that a project of this magnitude could not be approved based on an initial study/negative declaration. She indicated that the firm was pleased that the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Upon review of the EIR, it was her belief that it did not contain additional information other than what was contained in the initial study previously prepared. She felt that the City had gone through the motion of preparing an EIR without undertaking the analysis necessary to truly inform the public and the decision makers about the environmental impacts associated with development of the site. She summarized some of the issues contained in the letter dated January 2, 1996 distributed to the Commission as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 2 - • A concern that the EIR concludes that this project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The EIR comes to this conclusion despite the numerous goals contained in the General Plan which calls for the preservation of private open space in the City. The General Plan states that "the City shall maintain and where possible, improve the existing inventory of public parks attempting to achieve five acres of open space per thousand population by the year 2001." The development of a residential subdivision on the Nelson Gardens site is directly in conflict with the policies, goals, and standards of the General Plan. Yet the draft EIR does not find this impact to be significant. The EIR fails to contain sufficient information regarding geotechnical impacts. While the EIR identifies numerous constraints to the geological constraints of development of the site such as the presence of a stress fault and the identification of a large fault located approximately a mile away from the site. The EIR fails to describe the implementation implications of building homes directly adjacent to these geological hazards. The EIR's traffic analysis is flawed as the document relies exclusively on a level of service (LOS) analysis to gage traffic impacts. The LOS service analysis is not appropriate for this particular location since the LOS analysis only gave the number of cars that can pass through this particular intersection in a given point of time. She felt that this type of analysis was more appropriate for downtown San Jose or San Francisco to determine where grid locks are occurring, but that in a semi-rural residential neighborhood such as this one, an adequate traffic analysis would measure residents' perception of the impact of street traffic on daily activities (i.e., walking, bicycling, playing in the street, maneuvering in and out of a driveway). Because the EIR relies on an inappropriate traffic analysis method, it incorrectly concludes that traffic impacts are insignificant for this project. The EIR fails to disclose the existing flooding problems in the neighborhood despite the fact that numerous residents have complained about flooding of their basements. The EIR acknowledges that flooding has occurred but that the EIR preparers never surveyed the residents in the area to get an idea or to determine to the extent of magnitude of flooding. The EIR also fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives. It only identified two alternatives and dismisses those alternatives because they are considered to be infeasible. The EIR does not consider an alternative that would include fewer homes on the site. it does not include an alternative which would include the preservation of a portion of the site. She felt that at a minimum, the EIR should include an alternative which would restore Nelson Gardens to its originally intended use. The development of a community gazden would result in significantly fewer environmental impacts (i.e., traffic, hydrology and geology). _ ~" • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that the property was envisioned to be used for an environmental park, a nature conservative park, a learning and historical park, or an educational park. It was not to be a busy park such as a ball playing park. The ad hoc committee envisioned it to the reestablishment of an apricot orchard to demonstrate what the fruit industry was like. Also envisioned was locating small animals on the site that would not be disturbing to the community (i.e., rabbits, pigs, sheep, etc.) or that explanation of the handcrafts of times past to show the growing of vegetables, native shrubs and plants, herbal plants, sitting area for seniors to meditate, and/or that the underground creek be reestablished. He felt that a heritage, natural park was needed in Saratoga. He was supportive of retaining the natural heritage and that he would hate to see it disappear. He noted that Frank Nelson wanted to save a piece of the property so that individuals would know what the property looked like (historical significance}. Jeff Wyatt, representing Trinity Development, indicated that the applicant volunteered to complete an EIR and felt that the report was thorough. He stated that he was familiar with the comments of the ad hoc committee. Ne noted that the lots were reduced from 10 to 9 lots and reduced to 1.5 or 1 acre lots. He recognized that everyone would like to see a park in Saratoga but that it was not feasible. He indicated that the seller would be willing to make a contribution to the City's park fund and that the funds would go a long way to preserve parks. He requested continued support for the project. Commissioner Kaplan requested clarification of page 4.1-b which talks about zoning. She indicated that she did not understand the comment contained in the section referring to Exhibit 4.1-2, existing zoning designation. The section states that there are two parcels but that the project is one parcel and that the two parcels are zoned agricultural. The last sentence states that "The single family residential uses must be located on a 2.5 acre site for each dwelling. She asked if this section pertained to the existing agricultural zoning district requirements? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the comments as referenced by Commissioner Kaplan pertained to the existing agricultural zoning district requirements. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it was known if there were other areas that have mixed zoning (i.e., residential zoning districts surrounded by commercial zoning districts, other than a school or public facility? She felt that clarification may be needed in that paragraph regarding the statement that is applied to the agricultural zoning language. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there were other agricultural zoning districts (agricultural preserve) which are in the Williamson Act Contract surrounded by residential lots. The Greenbriar project was a project that was not surrounded by one zone and that there were no properties that are zoned commercial that are completely surrounded or isolated by residential zoning. He informed the Commission that the public hearing was to comment on the draft EIR. He recommended that discussion relating to zoning issues be deferred until such time that the actual project is reviewed by the Commission. ~_ . _• • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Patrick stated that it was her understanding that the Nelson Gardens was under the Williamson Act prior to obtaining the General Plan designation as single family residential similar to the surrounding properties. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the site received its General Plan zoning designation at the time the property owner entered into a Williamson Act contract. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was anything about this property that makes it historically significant; she did not see anything of historical significance with the site itself. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the historic inventory retained by the City identifies this site because of its previous use and its longevity as an orchard in its relationship to the area. The inventory does not indicate that the structures on the site are of historical significance. Commissioner Patrick indicated that Mr. Macrae has identified several alternatives uses for the site. She asked if his recommended uses would be appropriate ones? She was not sure if would be feasible to have children traverse the site. Community Development Director Curtis responded that should the site become a publicly owned facility, the city would need to purchase the site and develop a park plan for the site. The park plan would identify all the potential land uses for the site. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was a general consensus as to the cost of a park per acre that is publicly owned and the cost for its maintenance? She also asked as to the number of individuals who visit a city park. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Parks/Maintenance Director prepared a study as to the cost per acre for park purchase and maintenance. However, he did not have those figures this evening nor the number of individuals who visit a public park. Commissioner Asfour asked if the property was released from the Williamson Act, what zoning designation would be applied to the site? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the zoning would be retained until such time that a request to amend the zoning designation is requested by the property owner. Chairman Murakami stated that he did not recall if there was information available to determine the cost to establish a park. Community Development Director Curtis noted that there were three alternate sites identified in the EIR and that staff would respond to this comment. Chairman Murakami requested that staff respond to the suggestion that the City use a neighborhood traffic analysis as the standard measure of traffic levels. Commissioner Patrick noted that in the previous EIR reviewed by the Commission ,the LOS was used as the standard method of traffic measurement. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the two traffic indicators are "trips per day" and "LOS". Typically, the LOS is a standardized perception. J -~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Dr. Stutzman commented that the DEIR states that the land, as it exists, is not productive for the City of Saratoga and that having 9 homes built on the property would be productive. He asked how much it would cost the city to maintain the infrastructure, the utilities and all the other services that would be required to maintain each house in Saratoga. If having 9 houses is going to be an additional source of income for the city of Saratoga, how does it happen that with all the homes in Saratoga that the City is experiencing problems with finances. He felt that it would cost the City more to maintain the 9 homes on the hillside than it would cost to maintain the park by volunteers and the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick noted that the EIR does not make mention to the maintenance of the Nelson Gardens by volunteers and felt that this should be addressed. Ms. Waltonsmith suggested that staff speak to Betty Peck and to the other individuals who maintain the City of Saratoga's community garden to determine the number of individuals who visit parks. She also indicated that the neighbors have agreed to maintain the gardens but that they were told that they could not maintain it. Mr. Wyatt indicated there is an insurance liability and that the property is privately owned. Commissioner Kaplan noted that section 2-16 speaks to hydrology and drainage and that a column in section 4.5-c (water quality preservation during construction and level of significance after mitigation) states "less than potential". She noted that "less than potential" was not a defined term. Laura Worthington Forbes indicated that this was a typo. Commissioner Kaplan noted that a typo existed on Page 2-13 (catch basin). She indicated that a proposal was not before the City for a community garden but that if was, she could support it. Community Development Director Curtis stated that based upon the information received this evening and written comments, as well as the comments received on December 5, would be responded to and would then become the final EIR. He informed the Commission that a public hearing has been scheduled for the project on Wednesday, January 10 to review the final EIR. The Commission will be asked if it feels the EIR is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED ITS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NELSON GARDENS DRAFT EIR AT 8:15 P. M. The Minutes clerk was excused from the remainder of the work session meeting. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk 1'11PCOID296.SAR