Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 03062007 Study Session Attachment 2Attachment 2 October 30, 2006 City of Saratoga Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Element Amendments Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Saratoga issued a Negative Declaration for this project on August 25, 2006, to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed project includes consideration of an updated Land Use and Open Space Conservation Elements. The Negative Declaration was published and circulated for a 30 -day review ending on September 25 2006. Comments received: A Study Session was held by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2006. The Planning Commission directed that the following changes be made to the Project Description and related attachments of the Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration for the proj ect: 1. Delete all references to redesignation of a 9.7 acre parcel at 13025 Saratoga Avenue, as follows: • Table 1: Delete reference to parcel under PA (Professional Office Land use Map Amendment (page 11); • Exhibit 8: Delete parcel from map; delete CR to PA from legend; • Land Use Discussion: Under a) — delete third sentence in first paragraph; • Traffic and Transportation Discussion: Under a -b) — delete third paragraph; Response: Noted. Any and all references to redesignation of subject parcel are hereby deleted from the Initial Study/MND, accordingly. 2. The following maps require correction/clarification: • Exhibit 6: • QPF to CFS designation should cover entire Cemetery parcel; • Show Blaney Plaza parcel to be redesignated from CR to OS -MR; • Delete PA to CR in legend; Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment 1. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 2 • Exhibit 8: • Show redesignation of parcel on Sousa Lane from QPF to CFS; Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment 1. • Exhibit 10: Show redesignation of San Marcos Open Space (city -owned parcel) from QPF to OSMR • QPF to RVLD only applies to four parcels on Via De Marcos; • City owned parcel (San Marcos Open Space) from RVLD to OS -MR; Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment. • Add land use exhibit for parcels to be redesignated to Highway 85, near Saratoga Avenue. Response: Correction noted. Exhibit 11 added and included in Attachment 1. Nine comment letters referencing the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were received during the comment period, at the Study Session on September 27th, and on October 11, 2006: No. Commenter Date 1 West Valley Sanitation District 9/12/06 2 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency 9/25/06 3 Santa Clara Valley Water District 9/25/06 4 Maureen Hill 9/25/06 5 Jeffrey Hare 9/26/06 6 Kathleen Casey Coakley 9/26/06 7 Cheriel Jensen 9/26/06 8 Mary Robertson 9/27/06 9 Barbara Stewart 9/27/06 10 Valerie Fitch 9/27/06 11 Sandra Cross 9/27/06 12 Alan & Meg Giberson 10/11/06 Copies of these letters are included in Attachment 2. Following are responses to each of the comment letters. 1) West Valley Sanitation District Comment 1: The District notes that the proposed changes to the Elements will have no impact to District facilities. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 3 Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Comment 2: The District requests that the District be added to the Discussion section at the bottom of page 52 of the Initial Study. Response: The West Valley Sanitation District is hereby acknowledged as providing wastewater treatment and disposal services within Saratoga and this is included by reference into the Initial Study. 2) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Comment: The District has no comments on the Initial Study at this time. Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. 3) Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment 1: The District notes several discrepancies between the checklist and Discussion of Impact section in the Initial Study as noted in the comment letter Response: In all instances the finding of significance contained in the Discussion section of the Initial Study take precedence over the table designations. These corrections are hereby included by reference into the Initial Study document. Comment 2: The District notes that cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge areas an increased watershed runoff may be significant as development continues. Please describe how cumulative impacts are determined.. Response: The proposed amendment that would adopt the updated Land use Element of the General Plan makes no significant changes to the buildout potential for the City of Saratoga over cumulative, buildout potential under the existing Land Use Element, Therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge areas and increased watershed runoff is anticipated to be less -than -significant. 4) Maureen Hill Comment: The commenter asks when the General Plan Update was initiated, what was the process for noticing the project, when and in what format were community meetings held and what is the basis for the adequacy of the CEQA determination of the project and how will the City comply with CEQA for the General Plan as a complete document. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 4 Response: In responses to the first three questions regarding initiation of the General Plan update, public notification of the General Plan Update and format of community meetings regarding the general Plan Update, these are not related to the CEQA aspects of the project and will be responded to by City staff or consultants as part of the public hearing process. Regarding the basis of the adequacy of the CEQA determination for the project, City staff and City consulting staff have prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA addressing all of the topics mandated by CEQA. The Initial Study was circulated for a 30 -day public review period as mandated by CEQA. The City Council will ultimately determine the adequacy of the CEQA documentation recommended by City staff. In regard to the comment concerning CEQA compliance for other General Plan Elements, no other Elements are proposed to be amended at this time and no CEQA documentation is required until amendments are proposed. 5) Jeffrey Hare Comment: This comment letter constitutes a formal objection to the proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the General Plan. Copies of all documents, writings and other public documents pertaining to the project, including he Initial Study, is requested. Response: The objection to the Draft Elements is noted. The City of Saratoga is in process of collecting all public documentation regarding the project as requested by the commenter. 6) Kathleen Casey Coakley Comment l: The commenter states that she also represents five other individuals who oppose the proposed Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements updates. The City should vote on the updated elements after the November elections. This includes an annexation program. The commenter would stop annexations since these hurt the future needs of Saratoga residents, since they will be responsible for old county roads, water and sewage. Landslides and water supply problems are a big expense. Response: The commenter's concerns about the proposed Elements of timing of City Council consideration are noted. Concerns regarding the City's annexation policy is also noted. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 5 7) Cheriel Jensen Comment: The commenter raises issues with regard to missing policies in the Draft Elements, lack of public participation, lack of an EIR to assess impacts of the proposed Elements, incomplete information and a missing land use designations. Response: The commenter's concern regarding the draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements. These concerns will be considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations regarding the proposed Elements and the City Council as they act n the proposed Elements. 8) Mary Robertson Comment 1: The commenter is concerned about lack of sufficient noticing of the September 27, 2006 Planning Commission study session. Why are not area plans also being considered? The commenter has concerns about the proposed Open Space/Conservation Element. The commenter also has concerns regarding references to the Master Plan of Parks and Trails. A concerns is raised regarding OSC Strategy 12.1, which regards maintaining and increasing an Urban Forest, This should require full design review and an EIR should be prepared as well. In sum, the commenter strongly opposes adoption of the proposed Elements. Response: The commenter's concern regarding the draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements. These concerns will be considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations regarding the proposed Elements and the City Council as they act n the proposed Elements. Regarding the Open Space/Conservation Element Strategy concerning Urban Forests, this is a recommended strategy only. If adopted, the City would need to prepare additional plans for the Urban Forest, as well as consideration of CEQA. 9) Barbara Stewart Comment: The commenter asks about public noticing for the September 27, 2006 Planning Commission workshop and asks that discussions be tabled until appropriate noticing is given. Response: Notice of the Planning Commission workshop was given consistent with State Law. The Commission has scheduled other workshops and public hearings to review the Draft Elements. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 6 10) Valerie Fitch Comment: The commenter cannot attend the September 27, 2006 Planning Commission workshop and wishes to adopt the letter sent by Mary Robertson (Letter 8). Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required. 11) Sandra Cross Comment: By filing a Negative Declaration, the City will attempt to avoid an EIR and any mitigation, After an overturn on a proposed utility tax, the Draft Open Space/Conservation Element allows the Council to impose taxes. These changes should be opposed Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required. 12) Alan & Meg Giberson Comment: The commenters believe an EIR should be required before this document can be accepted by the City Council. The proposed Draft Land Use Element is lacking in detail and, in some instances, is erroneous, that it cannot function as stated in the Draft Element,. Specific concerns include: a) The maps of specific parcels do not clearly specify actual boundaries of the specific plans and should be clarified so that the general public and decision makers can understand where these parcels are located. b) Some of language included in the Draft Element is non-specific, such as goals related to the Village Specific Plan. c) Some of the language in the Vision Statement lacks definition and are meaninglessly vague. d) No Land Use Diagram is included e) The term "net area" should be better defined. f) The definition of impervious surface is incomprehensible. g) Site coverages and densities for Medium Density Residential and multi -family appear reversed. h) Allowing up to 100% coverage in the Village area would increase density beyond that traditionally accepted and valued in the area. The Study and an EIR should precede acceptance of value. i) The Draft Land Use Element is incorrect that the OP -S (Open Space -Private) land use designation is only applied to the Saratoga County Club is incorrect. This designation is also applied to a private open space grant made by owners D. Jon Cary and Teresa Cary affecting APN 517-22-112. City of Saratoga Response to Comments Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements October 2006 Page 7 Response: Regarding the comment that an EIR be prepared to satisfy CEQA requirements for the proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements, City staff has prepared an Initial Study as required by CEQA and is recommending certification of a Negative Declaration. This final decision regarding certification of a Negative Declaration versus preparation of EIR will be made by the Saratoga City Council. Other comments regarding the content of the Draft Elements are acknowledged and will be addressed as part of the public hearing process for this project.