Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-1997 Planning Commission minutes'~ -` ~ ~NNING COMMISSION MINUTF.~ -~ MARCH 12, 1997 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried 6 Late: None Absent: Bernald Staff: Interim Planning Director Walgren and City Attorney Fabian. Minute:; - 2/26/97 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 26, 1997 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER BERNALD 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 March 7, 1997. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-96-005, UP-96-004 & V-97-003 - EITZEN, END OF OLD OAK WAY OFF PIERCE RD.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 31.1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 2.6, 2.4 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately - 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Variance approval is also requested to allow a potential future Lot 3 structure to be located on a City identified Major Ridgeline -more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR} zoning district (cont. to 4/9197 at the request of the applicant; City review deadline is 8/5/97). PLANNING COMMISSI(~~IINUTES ' MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 2 - Interim Planning Duector Walgren informed the Commission that the applicant's representative, Mr. Matteoni, is requesting that this item be continued to Apri19, 1997. He indicated that staff did not object to the continuance as the City's responsibility to review this project is not until August 5, 1997. He noted that two letters were received since the last meeting from Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, and Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, expressing their concerns with the environmental initial study. He indicated that staff would respond to these two letters at a subsequent meeting. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM I BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-96-073 & V-97-004 - ROSKOPP; 12468 TED AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,435 sq. ft. one-story single family residence and Variance to allow a 25-foot front yard setback where 47 feet is required. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the floor area maximum of 4,173 square feet allowed for the lot. The property is 21, 240 square feet, and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that staff supports the design review and variance from the front yard setback requests. However, staff did not find that there was a majority of two story homes in the neighborhood to support the request for floor area reduction. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:39 p. m. Lynne Birch, project architect, stated that there were several obstacles that hindered development of the site (i.e., Santa Clara Valley Water District easement bisects the site, a 47 foot front setback is proposed with an extensive rear setback, and two oak trees). These constraints result in 90% of unbuildable area. It is proposed to remove two oak trees located within the building envelops with a replacement value to be given, retaining the other two oak trees. A request for an exception to the maximum square footage is being made because the height of the roof is proposed to be over 18 feet. She said that the exception would still comply with the maximum allowed for the site. She felt that there were several two story homes in the neighborhood and one single story home with a height of over 18 feet in the area. Therefore, she felt that the home was compatible with the homes in the neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to the railroad tracks with streets located to the front and rear of the property. She did not believe that there would be a great impact to the neighbors (i.e., blockage of views or shadows). She also noted that remodels in the area are adding interest and diversity to the neighborhood and that this home would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Lepa Galeb-Roskopp, applicant, said that a large home was needed to accommodate her large family. She noted that there were a number of two story homes in the neighborhood with the same roof pitch. She felt that the design would add to the neighborhood. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 3 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. 6 Commissioner Siegfried said that he did not have a problem with the request, particularly when you look at eight trees through the roofline. Commissioner Patrick said that she did not oppose the variance to the setback but that she could not support the exception. She stated that she did not want to lose the tree located to the left of the lot. She recommended that the home be moved closer to the railroad track and that the home be reduced in square footage. She said that the height of the home does not bother her but killing the oak`tree does. She recommended that the applicant do whatever she could to save the tree. Commissioner Abshire agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick. He supported the removal of one oak tree but recommended that tree number three be saved to balance the property. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the square footage be retained but that the home be reconfigured to save the tree. Chairwoman Kaplan supported the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick because the removal of the tree would detract from the value- the property and that of the adjacent property if the larger tree is removed. Commissioners Murakami stated that he liked the design of the home and agreed that the tree should be saved. Commissioner Pierce felt that the tree at the edge of the property line could be saved with a redesign and a reduction of the structure. Interim Planning Director Walgren stated that it needs to be clarified whether the Commission is approving the floor area reduction. If approved, the floor area can remain as it is if the applicant can redesign the home to shift it away from the tree. Otherwise, the floor area would need to be reduced by a minimum of 250 square feet. Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 9 of the arborist report which states that "Trenching for utilities shall be shown on the site plan and located, as much as possible, outside of the driplines of all trees which will be preserved during construction. She recommended that "ate-mxe~-$s possible" be deleted. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIEDMOVED TOAPPROVE RESOLUTION V-97-004 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 4 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-96- 073 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: AMENDING CONDITION 6A, LAST BULLET, TO DELETE "~!S-MU£~~4~~E~&I~E"; THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO STIPULATE THAT THE HOME BE IS TO BE RECONFIGURED/MOVED TO SAVE THE OAK TREE; AND APPROVAL OF THE FLOOR AREA REDUCTION EXCEPTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 3. DR-96-044 - GIRAUDO; 20791 REID LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 586 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,944 square foot one- story home. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the floor area maximum of 1,406 square feet allowed for the lot. The property is 13,298 gross square feet, and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that staff finds that there are a number of two story homes in this particular part of town that would support the exception to the floor area reduction rule. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. No testimony was offered on this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the request as it appears to be a reasonable one for the area. Commissioner Murakami said that in looking at the plans, he did not see any place else to place the addition. . COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-96- 044. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 4. DR-97-009 - BONYADI; 13061 MONTROSE STREET; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1, 344 square foot one-story home and to construct a new 3,273 square foot two-story home. The property is 11,200 square feet, and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He noted that the proposed home is much taller and more elaborate than the existing, very low 14 to 15 foot tall, single story homes in the neighborhood. He said that there seems to be a lot of community support for two- story home remodels. He noted that this development backs up to a 94-unit development that are similarly two-story in height and square footage. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the design review application with the tree replacement requirement as recommended • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 5 - by the City arborist, including the two street trees. Commissioner Murakami noted that the home directly behind this property has trees planted to screen it from the home. He asked if the applicant proposes to install screen trees to augment the neighbor's screen trees? Interim Planning Director Walgren stated that landscaping is required as replacement value for the trees being removed as well as the two street trees in the public right of way. The remaining trees are to be planted at the homeowner's desire. He said that the condition could be clarified to require the planting of additional screen trees along the rear property. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:59 p. m. Dr. Kevin Bonyadi, applicant, stated that a 42 foot rear setback is proposed and that he did not believe that this two-story home would impact any of the adjacent neighbors. He noted that existing trees provides 20 to 25 feet of screening. He said that he would not object to the installation of additional screen trees. Commissioner Murakami said that additional screening would provide Dr. Bonyadi with privacy as the two, two story homes would have bedrooms looking into each other. However, he would not condition the application to require additional screen planting. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Pierce said that the rear neighbor has planted five trees and that he was not sure that additional trees would provide additional screening. He felt that the design would add to the neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that Condition S.a, second bullet located on page 8, be used as a standard to prohibit the stock piling of debris under trees. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-97- 009. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. S. DR-96-053, UP-96-015 - SHOCKLEY; 15185 QUITO ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story, 5,632 square foot home and a request for Use Permit approval to place a new detached garage, at a maximum height of 13 feet, in the required rear yard setback pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The site is 40,000 square feet in area and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan said that there seems to be confusion in the arborist report over the various plans not depicting the location of the trees. She asked how the Commission is to make a • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 6 - decision if it is not known whether or not trees exist on site. Interim Planning Director Walgren said that the City arborist's recommendations were resolved based upon the review of a fmal plan that was accurate. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:00 p. m. Richard Augustine, project designer, addressed the location of the trees on the property. He said that he took the tree locations from the tentative map and that it was determined that the trees were not properly located. He said that at a site visit, the trees were properly located. He said that none of the neighbors would be able to view the bedrooms. He noted that the home is of a low profile and that he tried to conform as much as possible to the City of Saratoga requirements. Commissioner Patrick asked if the reason the driveway was so large was because of the way the house was sited? Mr. Augustine responded that the driveway was designed to maintain the integrity of the trees. Dan Jenkins, 15201 Quito Road, owner of property to the rear of this site, expressed concern with the placement of the driveway close to his garage. He said that his house sits higher and looks down to this lot. He requested that additional screen planting be required to mitigate bedrooms looking into bedrooms for privacy reasons and to protect his property value. Richard Shockley, applicant, informed the Commission that his engineer was present this evening should the Commission have questions regarding grading. He said that he was not adverse to installing additional screening. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Interim Planning Director Walgren informed the Commission that staff anticipated the need for additional screening and that it was included as a condition of approval. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP-96- 015. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-96- 053. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 6. SD-96-002 8t UP-96-001 - WONG/CIVITAF CORP., CHIQUITA COURT; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 26 acre hillside parcel into five individual lots ranging in size from 1.1 to.3.2 net acres. Approximately 15 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed to access off Comer Dr. Lots 2 - 5 would be accessed via an extension of Chiquita Ct. The PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 7 - • property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to identify potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed subdivision. The Draft EIR has been made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. Written comments received during the review period, and testimony taken at the March 12th public hearing, will be included with responses in the Final EIR. Chairman Kaplan informed the public that the Commission would be taking testimony solely on the contents of the EIR this evening. Comnrissioner Siegfried recommended that comments be taken this evening and that this item be continued to a study session as he would like to review the EIR in more detail. He said that this was the most difficult EIR that he has reviewed and that he would like to understand it. Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the request is to subdivide 26 acres into five single family residential building sites. It also includes a request to allow the lots to be clustered together on the knoll. He informed the Commission that Parsons Engineering Science was contracted to prepare the EIR. He presented the Commission with a background history of the site. This application is being made by Ed Daou in place of Mr. Wong. He said that Parsons Engineering Science (PES) has prepared a draft EIR for this most recent submittal, acknowledging changes to the map and changes that have occurred to the property over the past four years. The draft EIR was made available to the public via mailed notices in the middle of January and was also published in the Saratoga News on January 22, 1997. He informed the Commission that three written letters were received addressing the draft EIR. These letters and any other testimony received tonight or at subsequent meeting(s) would be addressed and incorporated in the final EIR. Once the Commission acts on the final EIR, it would then move to project consideration. He said that the EIR is not intended to solve all of the identified environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR identifies the impacts and analysis the mitigation measures that would address the impacts. The EIR is an informational document for the Planning Commission to then make decisions on the application itself. He said that the Planning Commission can go through the process and certify the EIR but can ultimately reject the project. He introduced Nannie Turrell, project manager PES, overseeing the preparation of the draft EIR. Nannie Turrell, PES, addressed the findings of the EIR and identified the six topic areas to be addressed as follows: geotechnical, hydrological, biological, traffic, noise, and cultural resources. She said that the project was inconsistent with three General Plan Land Use policies. She said that development of the site would be inconsistent with Policy 1 because of the earth movement and the extent of grading that would need to be made to stabilize the site's slope. Also, Policy 3 would be affected because of the native trees that would be removed for site development. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 8 - Ms. Turrell said that there were some inconsistency in the EIR as two arborist reports were received by PES. She said that the latest arborist report would be used. She stated that there were a total of 101 trees on site and that 69 trees are proposed to be removed (57 oaks that over 10 inches in diameter, 8 bay laurels that are over 10 inches in diameter and 4 bays/oaks that are less than 10 inches in diameter. The EIR recommends revegitation of the slope moving keyway. She said that mitigation impacts were found not to be sufficient to reduce the project to a less than significant level. Ms. Turrel addressed the following: Hvd~gy Impacts: The impacts associated with this site would be the potential increase . in water runoff and sedimentation d,iring construction, increasing the potential for landslide. A soils engineer storm drain plan could decrease the sedimentation. She said that the installation of landscape could help mitigate these impacts. Geology Impacts -The most important impact found was that private structures could be damaged by landslides. She addressed the potential mitigation measures (i.e., soils study, provide sufficient setbacks from landslide areas, stabilization of the access road). It was also recommended that the City's consultant, Larry Cotton's recommendations relating to landslide and that they be incorporated. The potential damage from earthquakes to structures due to slope instability would need to be mitigated primarily through the geotechnical reports to be prepared and approved by the City. The developer would need to prove soil stability before issuance of a grading permit for construction. - Traffic impacts -Noise would be primarily associated with construction and can be mitigated by following noise control standards. - Visual impacts -This is an area where lighting can be an impact. This can be mitigated by the review and approval of an outdoor lighting plan consistent with the existing Residential Design Guidelines. - Cultural Resources -The site was not found to be a cultural resource. A standard mitigation that would apply would be the stoppage of construction and that an archeological survey be conducted. - Bi~gX -The site contains wildlife habitat. As a mitigation measure, it is recommended that a continuance of the open space corridor be maintained along the back of lots 3 and 4 to allow wildlife to move thru. Ms. Turrell addressed three access alternatives to the site. Access from Chiquita Way was considered to be a geotechnical problem. She indicated that a through road would have the greatest visual impact. Commissioner Siegfried said that he has been a long time area resident. He asked Ms. Turrel to rate the difficulty of the site on a scale of 1 to 10. Ms. Terrell responded that in terms of land use, she considered the site to be a 10 in terms geotechnical difficulties. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan said that the draft EIR does not describe nor addresses specific mitigation measures. She asked if the mitigations would not be significant to be considered a reduced impact? She said that she did not understand the outcome of the chart located on Table 1.1. She noted that the site contained landslide areas and asked how one would get rid of a landslide? She requested a definition of a "keyway." Ms. Turrell said that the site can be engineered for development with the removal of the problematic landslide. She said that it would take extensive engineering to make the site safe and stable for development. Ray Skinner, project geologist, stated that the general procedure for landslide repair would be to excavate the landslide debris to the bedrock, breaking the weak surface of the slide. You would establish a flat area on bedrock, referred to as a keyway. He indicated that it would take anywhere from five to twenty feet in depth to reach the bedrock. The earth above the bedrock would be moved to an area needed for engineer fill. It would then be compacted to engineering standards to prevent future landslides. Commissioner Patrick stated that development would result in the removal of trees and scraped earth. Mr. Skinner said that vegetation would be removed in the graded area. Once the slides are removed and fill is placed back, it will appear as bare dirt until such time that landscaping and vegetation are established. He said that there would be no tree removal to the north side of the site closest to Chiquita Court. Commissioner Murakami asked if the technical appearance of the site would be the scraping of earth to bedrock? He also asked if the earth is to be removed and recompacted back into the original space that it occupied or whether large retaining walls would be used to hold up whatever stable soil is left, resulting in reallocation of the compacted soil back in the area to make it stable? Mr. Skinner said that the finish grade would be different than the grade that is currently seen at this time. In order to generate a flat space for the road, retaining walls would be proposed on the downhill side of the road. There would be alteration . Commissioner Patrick asked how tall the proposed retaining walls would be for the roadway and bridge area? Mr. Skinner responded that it was his belief that the retaining walls would be constructed six to eight feet in height. Chairwoman Kaplan said that the EIR document contains a statement that the retaining walls would be larger than allowed by state law. Mr. Skinner said that there were no laws that limit the height of retaining walls, noting that the cost of the retaining wall would dictate its height. He indicated that soil can only be compacted at an optimum moisture. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 10 - Fred Kintzer, geologist, concurred that the proposed solutions are workable and geotechnically feasible. Earlier, it was thought that there may be a solution to cross landslide area H with roadways without massive grading_.. However, in recent years, it was found that the landslide areas may not be dormant as initially thought. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Kintner to rate the site on a 1-10 scale with 1 being the easiest and 10 the most difficult. Mr. Kintzer responded that technically, development of the site was not difficult as he has seen much larger grading projects and landslide repairs on steep terrain. In terms of amount of landslide, he said that it was in the high difficulty range because of the .Proximity of so many landslide areas, a number of which are active. Also, surface erosional features are evident on site. He said that landslides are independent of earthquakes and tend to be slow evolving features. Chairwoman Kaplan said that the city's geologist informed the Commission that bedrock also slides. She asked what guarantee there would be that the bedrock would not slide? Mr. Kintzer responded that there are engineering means to correct the extra moving that would be generated by an earthquake. If measures are incorporated in the geotechnical design, it would add an increment of safety in terms of strength and size to correct fora 20 percent force. If careful analysis is prepared and proper methods are used, the site can be made safe. He informed the Commission that the San Andreas fault was located 2.5 miles from the project site and that the Hayward Calaveras fault was located 16 to 18 miles away. Ms. Terrell further indicated that a fault is located 1 mile to the northeast. Commissioner Siegfried asked if there was anyway to know that once you dig down and return the soil, that the same situation would not occur. again? Mr. Kintzer said that soil removal involves bed change in key locations. When you remove the landslide, you create a step surface. The recompaction, in addition with the use of stronger material would create a b u t t r e s s . Gary Halsey, biologist, summarized the biological impacts associated with the project as being the massive remedial grading that would take place to make the site geotechnical feasible and safe. The two acre area of the site to be developed contains a combination of oak bay woodland and coastal chaparral which are considered a riparian habitat. The most valuable habitat on the site is the valley oak, located in the contiguous corridor used by birds and mammals. Mr. Halsey addressed the impacts on a local scale versus a regional scale. He felt that there is more than an adequate tree count on site. Half of the tree removal would occur in the two acre area due to the proposed construction of the access road and the installation of a storm drain system. The trees to be removed in the area are the largest trees. It was investigated to see if it would be possible to engineer a road in a way that you would not have to have extensive landslide removal. It was found that a steep retaining wall would be required. Mr. Halsey said that a restoration plan has been designed to replant the site with riparian species of the same kind but that it would take 50 years to establish a riparian habitat. Regarding impacts to wildlife associated with zhe construction of the bridge, Mr. Halsey said that it would not be • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 11 - a great impact. The bridge could be located in such a way to minimize drainage and not restrict wildlife movement. He indicated that wildlife does not walk along drainage but that wildlife wallcs along the sides of hillsides. He noted that lots 3, 4, and 5 are to be maintained as open space without fencing and that this would provide access from the lower area to the higher open space areas. Mr. Halsey also addressed hydrology. He said that the project site contains a high erosion potential. With the massive amount of grading that is proposed, the potential risk would be significant. He said that it would be important to have remedial grading performed to mitigate drainage erosion. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this project would add a lot of sediment to the existing catch basin located on Comer Drive? Mr. Halsey responded that additional sedimentation could occur. He said that it would be the responsibility of the city to make sure that the proper erosion control plan is implemented. He felt that a good erosion control plan can mitigate impacts (i.e., minimize grading, staking the graded areas, use of erosion control techniques). He said that the erosion control plan is only as good as its administration. He recommended that the contractor designate someone to be responsible for the implementation for the erosion control plan. City Attorney Fabian said that Impact No. 2 talks about the potential stream bed erosion. She said that a mitigation measure addressed was the proper design of foundation for drainage control. She said that it was possible to control erosion if a properly engineered drainage/erosion control plan was prepared. She said that sometimes you have a mitigation that tells you to do something and that under CEQA law, it often raises the question of whether one has adequately identified the impacts and the mitigation measures. Through the EIR process, the impacts are identified and mitigations established through engineering techniques that can be considered less than significant impacts. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the City Attorney was suggesting that the report does not contain details of what can be done to mitigate the site's conditions. City Attorney Fabian addressed the Sun Stream case. This case states that you have to have an analysis of the impacts. Once the impacts are identified, you have to identify mitigations that will resolve the problems. If an accepted engineering technique is identified, then you really do not need to know, at the point of approving the EIR, which mitigations will be required. Mitigations need to be identified that will resolve the issues. Then you go onto the policy and aesthetics of which would look better. You may have a condition that is difficult or unusual. It may not be known if there is a well established technique that would mitigate the condition. In this case, the EIR would need to go a step further. She did not believe that it was the situation in this case based on the summary description provided. For CEQA purposes, the Commission needs to know that there are accepted ways of deal with what the EIR is stating. Commissioner Siegfried asked the City Attorney if the Commission can ask the applicant what exactly is being proposed and focus the EIR on this proposal? • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 12 - City Attorney Fabian said that the Commission received testimony on landslide repair. She said that repairs of landslides is commonly performed and often times, successfully done. She felt that it may be helpful to have a commentary in the fmal EIR that explains how one repairs a landslide. It may also be important to know what a keyway is, why it is called a keyway, its location, and how does the interlocking of the new and the original bedrock material work. She felt that technical information can be very helpful if appended to the final EIR. A clearer site plan that shows the fmished grade would also be of benefit. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the type of mitigations that would be applied to the project was not under consideration at this time. The Commission is reviewing and considering the comments expressed by the experts that state that the impacts can be reduced to non significant levels. The Commission is not reviewing the difficulty and the cost of site construction. City Attorney Fabian said that the Commission would also need to review secondary impacts. She said that all significant impacts would need to be included in the EIR. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m. Ed Daou, applicant/builder, stated that he has built similar projects over the past 12 years and that some sites were more difficult than this site. He said that the site contains 26 acres with only 2-3 acres being disturbed and 16 acres to be left in open space. Development of the site would be very small in relationship to the entire site. He said that erosion and landslides have occurred to the site, but that they have stabilized themselves over the past years. He said that the proposed development would solve several problems (i.e., sewer and storm water runoff). He indicated that he would propose to cluster four homes. He said that he is investigating engineer solutions to solve the storm drain problems. He did not believe that the construction of the bridge would significantly impact the wildlife habitat. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Daou if any thought was given to the noise impact of traffic going across the bridge in the canyon and its impact to the neighbors next door and below the property? Mr. Daou said that the factors that contribute to noise were weight and speed. He felt that the traffic noise, in relationship of the design of the cul-de-sac, would not be significant. Cheriel Jensen said that the City has a General Plan and that projects in the City are suppose to conform to the General Plan. She noted that the EIR identified three areas that the proposal violates. She asked what the process is after the EIR identifies that the General Plan has been violated? She said that she would be submitting a letter addressing her concerns with the project and the EIR. She said that she could identify several more violations/inconsistencies with the General Plan as follows: Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11 violated the North Hillside Plan; policies 1, 3, and 4 violated the ecology portion of the Northside Hillside Plan; policies 2 and 4 violate esthetics and density; policies 1 and 2 violate Energy Policies; and policies 5, 6 and 8 violate Geology policies. She felt that there were inconsistencies throughout the EIR document. She said that it is not known how many trees are located on site nor their diameters. She said that she identified over 1,000 birds who reside in this area and that the EIR does not identify these birds. She said that the EIR lacks details? She did not believe that you could reestablish vegetation on • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 13 - bedrock as a constant moisture soil is needed. Yet, it has been indicated that the site cannot be irrigated. She did not believe that all the mitigations come together. She said that the landslides are visible because they are recent landslides. She said that as a County Planner, she has seen all mitigation measures fail with the development of the eastern hills. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that Ms. Jensen summarize her concerns in writing and that her written concerns would be addressed. Commissioner Pierce suggested that further discussions be conducted at a future worksession. r. City Attorney Fabian stated that written correspondence would also be included for the record and would also be addressed in the EIR. Planner Walgren said that the City is extending the 45-day public review period. The review period would be kept open until such time that the Planning Commission has concluded its public review of the EIR. He said that it has been indicated that the Commission intends to hold one more meeting on March 26, 1997. Therefore, the public comment period would be extended at least until March 26, 1996. He recommended that correspondence be submitted by the March 26, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Siegfried requested that written comments be submitted a few days in advance of the meeting to allow adequate review. He said that he has been on the Planning Commission since 1978 and that he was the Chairman of the Hillside Specific Plan Committee that developed the rules for this area. He stated that this was the most difficult document that he has reviewed and that it was the most difficult property on the hillside that he has ever seen. He recommended that the applicant address the specific issues (i.e., how much land is to be removed, where is it be placed, etc.). He said that if he was asked to vote on this issue today, he could not support it. Commissioner Patrick said that there were problems with the site and that the problems would need to be resolved before she could approve a building site on this property. The Commission would need to be convinced that the site can safely be built upon. Commissioner Abshire agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AN ADJOURNED STUDY SESSION TO BE SCHEDULED ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1997 AT 6:00 P.M. DIRECTOR ITEMS Interim Planning Director Walgren informed the Commission that the selection of Chair and vice-chair would be scheduled for its March 26, 1997 meeting. He indicated that the Teen • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1997 PAGE - 14 - Saratoga presentation would be deferred to another date. COMMISSION ITEMS .~ • Chairwoman Kaplan said that the reports prepared by Planner Deming were very good in terms of details and that she should be commended. Commissioner Patrick said that she noticed that no addresses were being provided on the building permits that have been noticed . t- Commissioner Siegfried said that he did not see a need to review the building permit activity report. Interim Planning Director Walgren said that the process was adopted by resolution. In the 1980s, there was a concern that there was too big of a gap between the items that are being approved over the counter and items that were coming to public hearing. He said that the threshold is that if it is a 50 percent or greater expansion or over a 100 square foot addition to a second story, the City goes through an administrative noticing process. Based on the comments made this evening, he would advertise the resolution to rescind it. These actions would then become staff approvals. Chairwoman Kaplan announced that she and Commissioner Patrick would be attending the Planning Commissioner's Institute and that they would report back to the Commission of the sessions attended. COMMUNICATIONS ri n 1. Letter from Jackie Welch re: Hakone Gardens. By consensus, the Commission accepted the letter by minute action. 2. City Council Minutes dated 2/ 11; 2/ 19; 2/20 3. Planning Commission notices for 3/26/97 City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to 5:00 p. m. , Wednesday, March 26, 1997, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk 111PCU31297.SAll