Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairwoman Bernald. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioners Patrick and Roupe Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 10, 1999 ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE NOVEMBER 10, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1, the first item underneath "Minutes" amended to indicate that the motion was made by Commissioners Patrick and Jackman to approve the October 27, 1999 Minutes (Commissioner Page abstained). - Page 3, first paragraph, line 5, amended to read: "...the proposed homes fronting Seagull Way should make be integrated into the one story home. - Page 6, paragraph five amended to read: “Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ward to reduce convert the 10.3 dwelling units per acre . . . " - Page 7, paragraph six, line 2, amended to read: "...She said Measure G either does or does not require something apply...." - Page 10, paragraph eight amended to read: Responding to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry regarding her vision of fencing, Ms. Siadat described something the open space where one can see the trees, ground, and the wildflowers." - Page 10, last paragraph, line 2 amended to read: "...applicant could consider something fencing at the end of the property . . . " - Page 12, paragraph 13 amended to read: "Commissioner Patrick stated that she had no objection to the proposal, and noted that the red with a green roof is hardly unobtrusive . . . " - Page 14, second paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...He said that there are ways to take down the chimney and have a projection off the wall, but he would argue that it would not be as good-looking as a full chimney." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 2 - - Page 14, paragraph 13, last two sentences amended to read: "...He said just because some houses over the hill and through the dale can be seen does not make it them part of the neighborhood and one has should consider the homes one goes has to go through in the egress and ingress to the site . . . " THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Planner Ratcliffe stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-95-007.2 (503-19-048, 070, & 075) - KENNEDY, Rodeo Creek Hollow/Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for a one-year extension for Phase Two (7 lots) of an approved Tentative Subdivision Map for a 12-lot subdivision located off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Paramount Court. This is the second request for a one-year extension. Up to three one-year extensions are permitted to Tentative Subdivision Map approvals. The total site area is 9.42 acres and is located within both the R-1-12,500 and the R-1-40,000 zoning districts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. DR-96-023.1 & UP-96-002.1 (517-08-048) - SARATOGA MOTEL, 14626 Big Basin Way; Request for one-year extensions of approved Design Review and Use Permit applications to construct two single story and two, two-story motel "cabins" at the Saratoga Motel in the upper Saratoga Village area. Up to three one-year extensions are permitted to Design Review and Use Permit approvals. The three existing cottages along St. Charles Street would be removed and the front motel abutting Big Basin Way would remain. The subject property is approximately 11,252 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R-M-3,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONERS PAGE/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2, APPROVING BY MINUTE ACTION THE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION REQUESTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-99-032 (397-28-047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two-story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/99 FOR A RE-VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3-3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She stated that at the time of subdivision approval, the five-lot subdivision, the architectural design as well as the footprints of the houses and the driveways were included as part of the tentative map approval process. Staff felt that the lot layout was the only one that would adequately insure proper protection of the trees involved and to get a better idea of what the final subdivision would look like. The architecture designs for all five homes and the footprints were reviewed and approved in concept at that time. The individual applications, as a condition of subdivision approval, have to come back before the Planning Commission. She indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, this project was heard and resulted in a split vote. At that time, the applicant had the option of continuing the application to the next meeting to have another vote taken or they could have accepted a split vote as a denial and then appeal this vote to the City Council. She indicated that another split vote would result in a denial. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that the applicant has chosen to try and address some of the Commission's concerns expressed at the last meeting such as the appearance of bulk and height, proposed at 26 feet, as well as the second chimney. Although it was a non-functioning chimney, concern was expressed that it may be converted at a later date. She identified the changes made to the original elevations from the revised elevations. The roof has been reduced to 24-feet, the pitch has been altered and the second chimney located to the left of the original front elevation has been removed. The applicant has made these modifications in order to respond to the Commission's concerns. She noted that the floor area proposed is 4,197 square feet with a 687 square foot basement. At the time of subdivision approval and the tentative map was vested, the applicants had the option of requesting a floor area exception to allow the maximum floor area for heights in excess of 18 feet. The maximum floor area with this exception would be 4,362 square feet. At the reduced height of 24 feet, if the floor area was not to be granted by the Commission, would be 3,969 square feet. The difference of what the applicant is proposing at this time is 228 square feet. Staff felt that the findings can be made to support the design review and the floor area exception. The changes that the applicant has made serve to reduce the appearance of bulk and height and further serve to support these findings. Staff recommended approval of the application by the adoption of Resolution DR-99-032. Commissioner Kurasch stated that since she was absent from the last meeting, she has read the minutes, reviewed the video and also visited the site with Director Walgren. Therefore, she was prepared to vote this evening. She said that she reviewed the minutes for the September 15, 1999 City Council meeting where the City Council voted on the appeal to the Commission's action on the exception request for lots 1 and 2. The recommendation by staff, according to the report, was to deny the appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission's action and not to grant the floor area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 4 - exception. She asked if it is usual for city staff to vote with the Commission as this was so indicated in the minutes for that meeting? Commissioner Jackman stated that it was her recollection that the Planning Commission turned down the square footage above what is current and that it did not allow the vested square footage. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission's action and stated that the applicant could have the vested square footage. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that page 4, bottom paragraph of the November 10, 1999 staff report states: "Earlier this year, the Planning Commission approved lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision with the condition that the floor areas be reduced to meet the current zoning requirements. The applicant appealed this condition to the City Council. The City Council stated that the vesting tentative map gave the applicant the right to request the floor area exception, found that findings could be made to support the exception and approved the appeal." This means that the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's action. Commissioner Kurasch referred to page 32 of the November 10, 1999 staff report distributed to the Planning Commission. The report indicates that staff's recommendation was to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Page clarified that it is typical for staff to support the Planning Commission's decision. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that there are times when staff recommends approval of a project, only to be denied by the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission denies an application and the action is appealed, staff argues the Planning Commission's action. Chairwoman Bernald said that it was staff's responsibility to represent what occurred at the Planning Commission meeting to the City Council. It may appear that staff may have reversed themselves but clarified that staff was representing the Planning Commission's vote. Commissioner Barry requested that staff explain what is meant by its statement that "staff approved the footprint in concept." Planner Ratcliffe said that the entire subdivision was designed with tree protection measures in mind. The footprints were designed as two stories in order to bring the house in and not spread out so that you would impact as few trees as possible. Commissioner Barry asked if the size of the footprint had been determined at this point. Planner Ratcliffe responded that at the time of submittal of the tentative subdivision map, there were specific floor areas that were submitted with the tentative subdivision map. The square footage and the design of the homes were not approved at that time. The designs were submitted as part of the tentative map which is unusual in this case. It was her belief that the Commission felt that it was a sensitive site and that they wanted as much information as possible up-front. She said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 5 - that the footprints of the driveway were an integral part of the tree protection and the layout of the individual lots. Commissioner Barry stated that she understood the review was to identify the orientation and the location of the lots. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that the review, in part, included the size of the home. She said that when staff met with the applicant it was determined that two-story structures would be more appropriate because of the smaller footprint that would result. Commissioner Page said that at the time that the Commission reviewed these plans, it was his thinking, at the time, that the Planning Commission had all the information in front of it but that it was in no way, shape, or form voting on the floor area of the homes at that time. The Planning Commission understood what the applicant was going to propose but that the Commission was not approving the homes at that time. The design is returning to the Planning Commission for the third time. He noted that all three reviews resulted in requested modifications. He said that the City Council took a different view the last time the project was reviewed and said that because you can see the houses across the way and through the woods, they would consider them part of the neighborhood. The City Council viewed this as the only reason for allowing the floor area exception. He said that he stated at the last meeting that one needs to look at the size of the homes. He said that Commissioner Patrick eloquently stated that the size of the house is what the Commission is making an issue of. He said that the Planning Commission should consider the floor exception each time. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that her understanding was different from that of Commissioner Page which she would address following the presentation this evening. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, shared a rendering with the Planning Commission and explained the changes made to the design since the last meeting. He said that the Commission expressed concern with the overall height of the building. He was able to reduce the height by two feet, bringing the top of the ridge down from 26 feet to 24 feet. He also eliminated the very long ridge that occurred at the top of the house and has broken up the ridge at three locations by redesigning the roof element. He said that he was very pleased with the changes that were made to the residences and felt that it was still in keeping with the original craftsman style design and an improvement over the last design. He noted that he also took out the chimney that occurred at the living room fireplace to ensure that this never becomes a gas-fired box. Chairwoman Bernald informed Mr. Britt that the Planning Commission appreciated the changes made in response to its concerns. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Barry appreciated that modifications were made to the roof design as it was one of her issues. She said that the modification has definitely made a difference. She said that she is still PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 6 - struggling with this application. She stated that she understood the vesting issue as it has been explained. She said that she will set this issue aside and respond to the design based on design review criteria and characteristics. She read from Policy No. 1 of the Design Review Handbook that talks about the bulk of the structure and its relationship to its surroundings, not only other buildings. She said that the Planning Commission has had a lot of discussion about two-story homes and the neighborhood. She said that from her perspective, the wooded glen is its own neighborhood and environment. This was the neighborhood as she sees it. She felt that this is part of Saratoga's heritage as Saratoga does not have glens similar to this and felt that this property was a real gem. The issue of bulk relates to the trees in the glen. The issue for her would be what size and bulk would fit in with the natural settings, noting that these are words that are contained in Policy No. 1. Also, what size and bulk would not overwhelm the natural setting. She was looking for a size and shape of a house that would recede into the trees and not overwhelm the trees. She said that she understood the reason that the two-story homes were designed and stated that she could support this. However, if they are too big, they would overwhelm the trees. She felt that the trees would attract individuals to reside in the subdivision. Commissioner Jackman also appreciated the effort made by the applicant to contact her and go over the roof design. She sympathized with Commissioner Barry's comments. However, she felt that the City has stated that a property owner can build a certain square footage. This is what the builder has gone ahead and planned. She did not feel that the city, after it has said this, can state that it wants a smaller house. She felt that the Blackwell Builders have done everything in their power to design an acceptable home. If the city did not want this big a house in this area, she felt that the city should have stated so when it was first subdivided into lots. She said that at this point, she was very willing to vote for the house. She felt that Blackwell Builders have worked very hard to have the design address the Planning Commission’s concerns. Commissioner Page felt that the changes were good ones. Lowering the roof really helps to minimize the "extra bigness" of the house. He felt that now, coming down the road as you look at the house, you will not only see the roof but that you will see a nice house hidden behind the trees. He stated that it was his recollection when the Planning Commission first approved the project, that the Commission had discussion about the square footage of the home. The Planning Commission specifically stated that it was not in any way, shape or form vesting the right to the design. He said that the Planning Commission can approve a floor area exception based upon certain criteria but that it does not have to be granted. He stated that he would support the project and support the floor area exception to the amount that it has been minimized. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supported Commissioner Page's comments expressed at the previous hearing and that she supports his comments, in part, this time. She felt that it was important to make the distinction of what is allowed and what is not allowed in an application. She said that no one has said that an individual has a specific right to a project before it is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. It simply means that a property owner has a right to apply for a floor area exception. Whether the floor area exception is granted or not is a discretionary decision and that it is why the Planning Commission was here and to apply the California Land Use Law. However, she felt that in order to be fair, a check and balance occurs. Looking at the count of one and two story homes, she sees them as almost being evenly split. She felt that all of the two story homes were a little heavy handed in defining this neighborhood. She did not believe that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 7 - neighborhood was defined and felt that the Commission would be defining the neighborhood. She concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Barry because the Planning Commission has design review findings that need to be made in order to grant an exception, floor area, or design review. One finding that occurs to her is compatibility with the environment. The environment of the neighborhood is the wonderful glen as it does define the area. She noted that it states clearly in the City's codes and the handbooks that there needs to be compatibility with what is built and the natural environment. She said that she was torn because she felt that the design has turned out wonderful and that she would like to support a quality project like this one. However, she could not support it at this time as she would have to look at the results that the city wants. She felt that a mix of one and two story homes would be very appropriate and would help the view sheds, the community views of the trees and would help it to be integrated as a whole, retaining the resale value of all of the homes. She stated her appreciation of the applicants' work. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she agreed with some of the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She said that she has a different interpretation of what happened during the meeting with the vesting issue. She said that at the original subdivision application review, the Planning Commission reviewed the footprints and that it saw architectural drawings because they were included in the plans with the idea that the Planning Commission would see two story homes in the subdivision. It was felt that the two story homes would fit the best to minimize the impact to ordinance protected trees and provide a riparian easements, specifically to this lot. She agreed that design review was not included. However, she felt that the Commission gave some indication to the applicant that he could move forward. She felt that in fairness, the subdivision was approved with these plans in mind. She also felt that a 4,197 square foot home was a reasonably sized house in Saratoga these days and that she did not believe that it was overwhelming. She felt that the design was well articulated and fits well on the site. She commended the applicant/designer for lowering the roofline as it helps reduce the bulk. At the time of subdivision approval, the home conformed to a city ordinance that has been reviewed and tweaked over many years. Much thought was given to what works and does not work in Saratoga in situations similar to this. The ordinance may have been changed but she felt that the design precedes the amendments to the ordinance. She said that this is a two-story subdivision and that with the two existing homes on Alta Vista and the two that the City Council have approved, it will create its own neighborhood. She agreed that the trees do create the neighborhood and that is the joy of being there because of the lovely setting. She felt that the wood siding and the stone siding blends well with the natural setting. She noted that the home is under the floor area coverage allowed at the time of subdivision approval. The two previous home applications were approved by the City Council with the floor area exceptions. Therefore, she felt that it was time to move forward. She stated that she would be voting in support of the project. Commissioner Barry requested staff clarification regarding the 24-foot height limit. Planner Ratcliffe explained that under the current zoning code, it requires that a structure over 18 feet in height have a reduction of 1.5 % for every foot above 18 feet. She said that the last proposal was at 26 feet. It had a 12% reduction of the allowable floor area. By lowering the height, there is only a 9% reduction in the allowable floor area. Therefore, the percentage changed from the last staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Jackman said that after the Planning Commission takes a vote on the Blackwell property, she would like to have a general discussion on size that is not related to the Blackwell property in particular. She did not want to mix general discussion with a specific discussion. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-99-032. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND KURASCH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Page asked if the Commission should request that Commissioner Jackman's request for general discussion relating to size be agendized? Chairwoman Bernald agreed that this item should be agendized for a future meeting or scheduled for discussion at a study session or at a Planning Commission retreat. Commissioner Jackman said that Director Walgren provided her with a floor area table per net lot size. She said that she felt bad that things are coming before the Planning Commission all drawn at a great expanse by the contractor with the Planning Commission stating that the lot does not really fit with a certain amount of square feet. She recommended that the Planning Commission review and discuss the floor area before the issue gets far along. The Planning Commission may review a lot and notice that it has a lot of trees and states that a property owner cannot build a house of a certain size. She said that she would like this concern raised prior to the plans being drawn so that the applicants hear from the Planning Commission that the home is too large. She would like this concern addressed early in the planning stage and that it comes to the Planning Commission early on. Director Walgren stated that the topic is so comprehensive and that it has been looked at very carefully every couple of years. The issue of allowable building size and process comes up and the city will convene a task force consisting of Council Members and Planning Commissioners to look at the issue. This has been done several times over the recent years. Rather than to try to take this as an agendized item or adjourned meeting item, this may be a topic for the Planning Commission that can be scheduled as a retreat topic early next year. Commissioner Jackman recommended that this issue be discussed by the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Barry supported this issue being discussed at the Planning Commission retreat as she is struggling with the desire of not encouraging larger and larger homes. She said that the Planning Commission is starting to see 7,000 square foot homes coming before it. She asked if the Planning Commission can look at the allowable square footage and did not know if this issue requires a zone change. Director Walgren stated that the maximum square footage that a house can be built is based on the net site area adjusted for slope, creeks, roads, rights of way, and landslides. He said that in the mid to late 1980s, the City of Saratoga was seeing 10,000 to 12,000 square foot homes being built. These homes were built on lots where the floor area table kept extrapolating upwards so that you can have these types of homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Kurasch agreed with Commissioner Barry that a perception carries a lot of weight. The perception of a builder would be that they would want to protect their property rights. On the other hand, adjacent residents are stating that the proposed design is too big and questioned why the property owner is being allowed to overwhelm the neighborhood. She said that the perception depends on what side of the fence you are on. Adding the word "maximum" helps her to understand the issue. When individuals come in with an application for 6,120 square feet and the allowable maximum is 6,125, they acknowledge that they are proposing a design that is under the maximum allowed, therefore, the design should be approved. She asked if the words "maximum allowable" could be included in the staff report as a basis for the applicant to understand that a certain square footage is the maximum as defined in the code. She felt that this would be a general improvement although it may not be substantive. Commissioner Jackman stated that young families seem to feel that a 4,000 square foot home is not an awfully large home. She said that she was having trouble with how much Americans consume and that she was trying not to let this enter into her judgment. She said that she could not imagine what two people could do with a 7,000 square foot home. However, she could not make this value judgment nor was it the job of the Planning Commission to do so. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the community makes the value judgment every time something is built. She felt that individuals react to the scale of the homes in neighborhoods. She felt that comments of concerns are expressed about neighborhood compatibility as a big issue. Planner Walgren stated that the table can be adjusted and that it is continuously adjusted. Commissioner Page noted that large homes keep getting built and individuals want to move into them. He felt that the community does want large homes. Chairwoman Bernald felt that good, valid remarks have been expressed this evening and felt that the Commission needs to move forward with its discussion. However, she felt that the issue needs to be agendized for a future meeting or a retreat. She said that the Planning Commission has to work with the ordinances that are in place. Director Walgren recommended that discussion of this issue start at the scheduled retreat and then from there, take the issue to public meetings. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH DIRECTOR WALGREN'S RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that it should not feel obligated this evening to review the entire document draft EIR and be prepared to respond to it. He said that he is trying to prepare a draft response this week or early next week for the City Council's review at their December 1, 1999 scheduled public meeting. He indicated that he had this item scheduled before the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Public Safety Commission to keep PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 10 - the three Commissions that would be most directly involved in the loop and direct him on specific areas of concern that they would like to see addressed in his evaluation of the document. He said that the public review deadline for submitting comments to the County Planning Commission is December 15, 1999. The County Planning Commission will be holding a public meeting open to any member from the community or the Commissioners to attend at the County Planning Commission Chambers on Thursday, December 2, 1999. He said that he and the Mayor would be attending the meeting. He said that staff is trying to get the City's and the Mayor's formal response prepared by Wednesday evening, December 1 so that staff can have these comments read into the record at the December 2 meeting. If the comments are not completed by that time, the City has until December 15 to generate responses. He said that the responses would be regarding the draft EIR that has been prepared to legalize the events that have been occurring at the Mountain Winery for many years which include the restaurant, business retreat activities, wedding reception activities and the concert series. If the EIR if determined to be adequate and is adopted by the County, the property owners would be able to move forward with a conditional use permit to legalize the facility and the uses. It was his understanding that the document does not approve any physical expansion. Expansion would occur at a later date and would be subject to later discretionary approvals. He said that staff wants to fully utilize this opportunity to review the project. He requested Planning Commission feedback on the draft EIR. In response to Chairwoman Bernald's question, Director Walgren stated that there may be a chance that the City of Saratoga could incorporate this area and have it under its control. If the property was included in the city's urban services boundary, being contiguous to Saratoga, the city's agreement with the County states that the City has the first opportunity to annex county properties within the city's urban services and within its spheres as the property redevelops or expands. Since the property is not currently under the city's urban services, the city does not have any control. The property owner would have to voluntarily come to the city to request annexation. At the request of Commissioner Barry, Director Walgren explained that sewer is one of the primary utilities that is not currently available to the Mountain Winery. This is one of the reasons that the property is not included in the City's urban services boundary. He said that this is something that staff would be looking at carefully. If the determination is that the septic system cannot be upgraded and sanitary sewer connection is required, this would set off a chain of events that would bring the property into the city's urban services and give the city more leverage to negotiate annexation. He indicated that the closest sewer line to the Mountain Winery site is located near Pierce Road. He noted that the new homes off Vintage Lane and Congress Hall Lane are served by sanitary sewer. Commissioner Jackman asked if the City would receive tax revenues from the Mountain Winery if the property was annexed into the City? She felt that the City is paying for all of the road upkeep on Pierce Road, Big Basin and Congress Springs without the City receiving any monetary benefit or reimbursement. She referred to page 3.2-17, intersection studies and their grading and noted that the existing level of services is rated at D and C on several of the intersections that are affected by the current status. She said that Pierce Road/Saratoga Heights Drive, Pierce Road/Vintage Lane access roads are currently rated as level of service A, noting that they are minor intersections and that the big intersections are rated as C and D. She felt that the level of service would only get worse. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Kurasch addressed her four areas of concern as follows: traffic, noise, potential growth and sewer/septic question. She did not follow the way that the study characterized the volume growth in percentages. The draft EIR is stating that there is no impact. She felt that more review and attention needs to be given to looking at the micro area and surface roads as individuals are already impacted, noting that the Mountain Winery owners/operators are talking about adding more patrons with a 750-seat increase. She did not see that the analysis includes the increased seating capacity in the main amphitheater, the retreats and the addition of a 1,500 square foot kitchen area. This may result in additional trips being generated and more surface roads that would be impacted. She requested that these issues be addressed. She also requested that the already existing parking problem be addressed. She did not understand how 844 parking spaces would be sufficient for this increase. She felt that adding more services and individuals is considered an expansion. It is stated that the Winery already has adequate parking. However, she noted that individuals are parking in homeowners' driveways. She felt that these two issues were critical impacts. Director Walgren stated that it was his initial impression of the document that the consultant performed a thorough, but traditional traffic engineering analysis of levels of services using traffic projection modeling which is accepted for key intersections. However, the issue is how patrons are getting into and out of the site. He felt that the study is short on conducting field observations during attendances at the summer concert series during peak hours. A worse case scenario has been used for the study's traffic modeling (e.g., 2,500 seat venue sold out with a corporate activity occurring at the same time during p.m. peak periods). He did not believe that the consultant conducted field observations at Pierce Road at Highway 9 or Pierce Road and the project's entrance. Commissioner Barry stated that in terms of representing how the city or the Planning Commission feels about the draft EIR, she said that her point is that you cannot buy the characterization that this is just a conditional use permit for activities that already exist and are on going. It is being requested that there be an increase of 750 seats and a new building being proposed at 1,500 square feet. She said that common sense would indicate that you are talking about an increase in usage. She felt that the applicant is miss characterizing what they are asking for. She agreed with the comments of her fellow Commissioners that the use would result in additional traffic and more wear and tear of the roads. She said that 750 additional individuals would overload the septic system. Commissioner Kurasch felt that expansion should be acknowledged because most of the analogies are based on a 750-seat amphitheater change. She felt that a 43% increase in the existing seating would be more of a impact than "minor impact" on solid waste, wastewater, traffic and parking. She said that she would like the response of the blanket statements to be more specific. Director Walgren clarified that staff would be responding to the projected increases. He said that the discretionary approval only applies to the current facility but that there would be another discretionary approval necessary for the expansion. He noted that the facility is not operating legally at this time. Commissioner Jackman referred to chapter 2, page 2-18, Consistency. She said that this chapter describes a winery's low density, recreational and structures being a small percentage of the site. She would call it a sporadic use but that she could not call 1,725 seats low density in any shape or form. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 12 - She agreed that the winery is not used eight hours, five days a week but that it is a high density use. She expressed concern with grease going into the septic tank system with the addition of a kitchen because it may leech into nearby wells. She did not believe that the septic tank could support the addition. Commissioner Page also expressed concern regarding the septic tank, noting that Director Walgren has indicated that he would consider the Commission's concerns. What struck him as interesting is the number of additional car rides. The study talks about an average of 2.2 passengers per car but only talks about two-tenths of a second increase at the intersection of Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He said that he sat more than 50 seconds at this intersection on his way to the Planning Commission meeting this evening and that it was not during the rush traffic hour. It was curious to him how the numbers were derived. He agreed that field observations were warranted when concert series are held. Director Walgren agreed that the study has to model for future projections. He noted that the document has been in the works for many years and felt that site specific observations should have been included from the past several summers. Commissioner Page felt that it was interesting to note the usage and how it has gone down from the number of concerts. He noted that the study indicates that in 1991 there were 110 performing art sessions and in 1999 there were only 68 performing art sessions. The number of weddings, banquet and corporate events have gone up. He noted that these events do not typically occur during the rush hour traffic. He said that most corporate events that he attends start at 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., therefore, he misses rush hour traffic. Even though the impact would not be great, it would increase traffic at off peak hours. The impact may not be recognized except by an individual who is home during the day or driving around. He felt that the broader perspective needs to be looked at as well. He felt that the study included interesting dichotomies. In response to Commissioner Barry's question, Director Walgren said that there has been discussion regarding a shuttle system getting people up to the winery instead of everyone driving their cars. He said that this is the opportunity to pursue a shuttle service. He said that the Chamber group and the Village Merchants group would be supportive of individuals taking their cars, parking the cars at the Village and spending some time in the Village on their way up to the Winery. He said that this alternative would be something that staff would be looking into and something that would be included in the traffic management plan. Issues to be addressed would include how do you keep individuals from using Pierce Road, a very narrow, winding collector residential road, and a traffic management plan that can be developed that would use shuttling from West Valley College or other areas. Commissioner Jackman felt that the merchants could come up with a gimmick such as a free shuttle for patrons who eat at their restaurants. This would increase their business and decrease the number of cars going up Pierce and Congress Springs. Director Walgren noted that there is not enough parking in the Village. Therefore, parking would need to occur in areas like West Valley College. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Kurasch requested that the study also address or answer the concern that the design review would occur at a later date. Therefore, it is not known how much expansion is possible. It troubles her that it is not known what the cap would be on commercial activities, noting that this is a "hot button" issue in the community. She felt that it was important for the study to accurately reflect the potential impacts. Director Walgren said that the city could state that its position is that an increase of 750 seats is absolutely not acceptable. This message can be conveyed at this time as part of this document before the property owner submits plans for an amphitheater and/or other uses. Commissioner Kurasch asked how this issue has been posted or noticed? Has the city received community input or solicited community input? Director Walgren said that meetings have been held by the three commissions mentioned. He said that there is a community mailing list of community groups consisting of approximately 120 groups that were mailed notices. He said that the City Council meeting will be treated as a public hearing. A public announcement was posted in the Saratoga News. He indicated that the City Attorney has been provided with a copy of the study and has been requested to comment on the document. The City Attorney is aware of the turnaround time to respond to the document. He said that the City Council will decide on December 1 who will be joining him at the County's December 2 meeting. He said that everyone has been invited to attend the meeting. However, procedurally, the Commission should be represented by the Chairperson or the appointed representative at the Council meeting. On the other hand, the County meeting is open to any member of the public who wants to comment on the document. He said that other comments can be forwarded to the Chairperson. - Memorandum from City Attorney Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that a City Attorney memorandum was distributed some time ago that talks about the development of the city's web site. It addressed how to deal with e-mail correspondence and its ramification relative to the Brown Act. He said that Commissioner Barry raised the question relative to correspondence sent to him by a Commissioner and then distributed to other Commissioners in advance of a hearing. There was a question as to whether this was a Brown Act violation. The City Attorney was also asked this question. The City Attorney's office referred to the e-mail policy as a good guideline to use for all correspondence. The policy states that if in advance of a hearing, a Commissioner forwards information to him to be distributed to the rest of the Planning Commission it is acceptable in itself. A problem arises if a quorum of Commissioners begin discussing the correspondence in a manner that might lead to the development of a pre-conceived position on a topic. If there is information that is directed to him that he and the Planning Commissioner feel may be useful for other commissioners to have, the information can be made available. However, it needs to be kept in mind that the Commission should not be debating this correspondence. He clarified that this policy would only apply to correspondence that is substantive in nature or decision oriented. Chairwoman Bernald asked why it is stated that you should only talk to one council member as it takes three council members to be a majority. She asked if this number applies to the Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 14 - Commission as it takes four votes to constitute a majority. She requested that the City Attorney be consulted about this question. Director Walgren agreed with the City Attorney's position. Should the Planning Commission receive correspondence, he did not recommend that Commissioners contact other commissioners regarding the correspondence because the Commissioner does not know if the Commissioner will be contacting another Commissioner. As soon as four planning commissioners link together in a connected conversation, this would result in a Brown Act concern. Commissioner Barry said that she understood the issue of individuals talking to each other and reaching a consensus or influencing each other ahead of time. She felt that it was helpful to put ideas down on paper as the Commission reads through the material presented to it as a way of clarifying them or better communicating with them. When the Commission comes together, it is hoped that the Commission will listen to the issues raised by other commissioners and be prepared to debate the issues. She felt that the written communication portion, with the qualification that the Commission does not meet and confer ahead of the meeting, should be supported. She could not understand why written communication could not be made available to Commissioners ahead of a scheduled meeting as this correspondence would become part of the public record. Director Walgren said that submittal of written information is acceptable in advance of a hearing. However, if written communication is to be made available to other commissioners, it needs to be made sure that it is not going to the next level. Chairwoman Bernald said that the Commission would only make its determination after receipt of the report from the applicant and the members of the community who come before the Planning Commission. She felt that it was essential that the Planning Commission come to meetings with an open mind and that the discussion that occurs before a meeting, evening if only with one other individual, may create an unfair setting for the responsiveness to the information that the Commission will receive at a public hearing. Commissioner Page felt that it was wrong to receive a letter that tries to influence his decision before he hears all of the facts. Correspondence from one Commissioner to another in advance of a public hearing is regulated by the Brown Act as the communication is an influence. If he gets inundated with several e-mails, he may form an opinion before he attends the meeting, resulting in a violation of the Brown Act. He said that the Commission has a set agenda and a described method of conducting its meetings that is formal. He felt that the Commission has a responsibility to follow the procedures. If there are side conversations occurring, the Commission was taking away from the public and what the City Council appointed it to do. He felt that the Commission's discussion should take place at the meetings as the Commissioners are public appointed officials. It is the Commission's job to discuss issues in front of the community and not in back rooms. Commissioner Barry said that the Commission is also deliberating on written material that it will look at before public discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Kurasch indicated that she forwarded information to the Commission on deer protection and alternatives which she felt was appropriate information that would aid in the discussion. Chairman Bernald clarified that information can be distributed in advance of the meeting but that it would be inappropriate to discuss the information in advance of the meeting. She felt that the Commission needs to come to public hearings with an open mind with the idea that there is still an appropriate forum for additional information to come to the commission at this point and not forming small discussion groups. Commissioner Barry said that she raised the issue of forwarding written communication to the Commission that would be made public. She gave an example of a public hearing proposal where the Commission had a seven-page letter on the dais. She did not believe that the Commission had the opportunity to read a portion or the entire seven page document at the meeting. She asked how the Commission can consider fully this kind of communication when the Planning Commission does not even see it until it arrives at the meeting. The issue of being able to consider written communication ahead of time is a serious one if the Commission is to be giving serious consideration to what someone has taken the time to write. She requested that this be added to the discussion. Chairwoman Bernald agreed that Commissioner Barry's request was an appropriate one. It is hoped that any citizen who feels strongly enough about an issue to write an extensive document would submit it early enough to be included in the Planning Commission packet. She agreed that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to read correspondence because it is part of the hearing process. She felt that the discussion was specific to the concerns of the Brown Act and the understanding that the Commission has to conduct itself appropriately and not talk out of school. Commissioner Jackman felt that if one of the Commissioners has some good background information similar to the information that Commissioner Kurasch had on the deer, the information should go through Director Walgren to be distributed to the Planning Commission. This procedure would eliminate concern with prior discussion of submitted material. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kurasch thanked everyone for their condolences. She appreciated that the Commission accommodated her schedule. She requested that staff identify the topics that are to be scheduled the next meeting. Director Walgren said that staff is proposing a 6:00 p.m. to 7:00/7:15 p.m. meeting to discuss the telecommunication memorandum prepared by the City Attorney. Also, the fencing zoning ordinance amendments are scheduled for this agenda under the regularly scheduled public hearing. If it is decided that the Commission needs an adjourned study session meeting, the fencing zoning ordinance amendments can be postponed as there is no pressing deadline to act on this item. Commissioner Page indicated that he may be out of town on December 8 but that he would try to see what he can do to change his schedule in order to be in attendance at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Chairwoman Bernald stated that she received some communication this evening from Dr. Arthur Anderson regarding the Tennis Club. She said that there appears to be a rather extensive neighborhood questionnaire that should go through staff before it comes to her so that it can be summarized, reproduced and distributed to the Planning Commission. She indicated that there was a tremendous amount of input on the questionnaire and noted that it was very detailed. Director Walgren recommended that staff hold on to the communication until an application is submitted. It was his understanding that Dr. Anderson plans to submit a new application soon. Commissioner Jackman recommended that the meeting begin at 5:30 as 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. seems too short a time period to discuss issues. Director Walgren said that staff can schedule the study session to begin at 5:30 p.m. He indicated that the Commission needs to plan for its retreat for the month of January or February. If the topic gets continued to January, the Commission may wish to schedule this issue as a retreat topic. Commissioner Kurasch did not believe that the issue should be deferred to the retreat and that it should be considered at a public meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for adjourned regular meeting of October 26 and regular meeting of November 3, 1999 - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1999 ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to Wednesday, December 8, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Irma Torrez James Walgren Minutes Clerk Secretary to the Planning Commission