Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairwoman Bernald. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 23, 1999 IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 1999, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 6-1 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINED). Page 6, paragraph 4, line 3: “...of what is allowed and what is not allowed in an application.” Page 11, paragraph 1, line 6: “....more patrons with a 750-seat increase.” Page 11, paragraph 1, line 7: “...and the addition of a 50 1500 square foot kitchen.” Page 11, paragraph 1, line 10: “She did not understand how 844 parking spaces would be required by sufficient for this increase. Oral Communications - None. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced that under Item #2 of the Public Hearing (Liu application), the applicants have requested that this item be put at the end of the agenda so they can attend to present their plan modifications. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were in the audience and perhaps the item could be heard as scheduled in the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 2 Additionally, Director Walgren distributed an exhibit of the landslide repair detail on Item #2 which did not go out with the agenda packet. The exhibit was designated Exhibit C of the file record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO-99-001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City’s zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1/12/2000). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/1999). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren reported that this is a continued hearing from the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, noting the proposal is for a contemporary, new, two-story family home at 6500 square feet on a 2.75 acre parcel located within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and within a hillside residential zoning district. He said this is the last lot of the approximately 60-lot subdivision that was approved in the early 1980's. He described the property as being at the end of Masson Court, a private cul-de-sac minimum access road which is developed with two or three relatively new single- family homes. He said the architectural style in the area is an eclectic mix of newer French chateau, Mediterranean villas style, and traditional wood-sided gable roof buildings. Director Walgren added that the Liu application is unique in its design which he described as a very organic, free-flowing, modern building. The building uses natural materials such as stone and wood. He said the plan proposes a copper roof which was a topic of the October 13 Commission discussion. He said the materials should integrate the building well into the hillside terrain; however, he opined that the issue of integrating and compatibility with the existing single-family homes is a difficult decision to make. He stated that a significant landslide exists on the property; that the project had been under geological review for sometime to pinpoint the landslide and to determine what needed to be done to correct it. He said the landslide repair to stabilize the site does not require any PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 3 significant native vegetation removal. However, he noted concern had been expressed that a particular Coast Live Oak tree be retained, and upon further geotechnical investigation, it was confirmed that the tree would be retained. Director Walgren reported that staff had previously told the applicant that staff would take the design review application to the Commission for a preliminary consensus regarding Commission support before the applicant continued to spend time and money in obtaining the necessary geological clearance. The item was heard at the October 13 meeting, and concerns were raised regarding the amount of impervious surface proposed. He said at that time, discussion focused on architecture, landslide repair, and copper roofing and the environmental effect of copper draining into the soil and potentially the storm drain system. Commissioner Barry had not been appointed Commissioner at that time, and the 4-1 vote of the six-member Commission (Commissioner Jackman was absent) resulted in a consensus that the architecture could be supported. The applicant then proceeded to finish the plans. The plan was revised to slightly reduce the lot coverage by eliminating the driveway which previously extended parallel to Masson Court and modifying it to a direct connection perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. He said the pool has been reconfigured to reduce its paved area; the grading plan has been revised to outline the landslide; the landscape plan has been completed as requested; and the area of fencing is under the 4,000 square feet permitted in the hillside districts. Director Walgren reported that the applicant has provided the research materials on copper roofing, noting that the report concluded that copper components that get into the public storm water system become bioavailable and diluted. (For an explanation, he referred to the report on file). He said that the report stated that for this type of application, it is found that there is no environmental concern with the proposed material. He said this finding is consistent with the findings presented to the Planning Commission several years ago by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board. He said that the applicant has noted that should copper roofing material be unacceptable to the Commission, an alternative asphalt shingle roofing could be used. Director Walgren read into the record three letters received from the public regarding the project since distribution of the agenda packet. A letter from Robert and Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, noted concerns about the location of the building and its proximity to their home. Correspondence from Joseph C. H. Park, 14800 Masson Court, expressed concern with the siting of the home, its height, and the copper roofing. Jon and Kathy Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, expressed concerns with soils support and compatibility. Director Walgren responded to Chairwoman Bernald’s questions regarding the project meeting the required setbacks and consistent standards for all homes in the area. Commissioner Barry noted that the letter from the neighbors at 14805 Masson Court states that all existing homes on Masson Court are one-story or were required by the Commission to make the front part of the house one-story to minimize massiveness and that all houses have setback of 30-45 feet. Director Walgren stated that not all homes are one-story; that they are all two-story buildings. He said 30 feet is the minimum front yard setback requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Barry asked whether staff had done any checking beyond the industry-funded copper runoff study that was presented to the Commission. Director Walgren responded that this was done on the applicant’s initiative, and staff had not done any additional research. Commissioner Barry commented that she had more current information on this subject. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Commissioners did not have a chance to review the grading specification. Director Walgren said that the City Geologist made it clear that it would be necessary to make this a stable building site. He said the only concern was the exact location of the landslide. Staff felt that the landslide was large enough, and close enough to a native tree, that it requested a more accurate definition before the project went through the design review process. He noted that the City Geologist reviews the document and it was provided as a very clear graphic depiction of where the landslide is exactly located. The location was on the original Exhibit A, and it has now been more clearly defined. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the information presented tonight was substantially different than what the Commission was led to believe in earlier submittals. Director Walgren responded that it was not expected to be different, and the concern was that it is a significantly large area of repair. He said from a construction standpoint, it would not be unusual for it to grow 10-20 feet in one direction or another. Considering there was a significant tree in the area, it was necessary to have a clear depiction. He further noted that the landslide encroaches onto the Kwong property, and if the landslide is to be repaired, it would require the Kwongs’ cooperation and consent. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioners had been previously made aware of any reference to actual size, and Director Walgren responded that the landslide was plotted on the original plans and the exhibit presented tonight is very similar to the original plan. Additionally, supplemental geologic information was submitted with the original report. Commissioner Jackman stated she felt at a disadvantage being handed Exhibit C tonight. She said she was absent at the October 13 meeting; has read and reviewed the October 13 minutes; and made recent site visits, individually and as a group. She expressed concern with the landslide and noticed an area in back of the Kwong property that has also slid. She said she does not feel comfortable making a decision on this tonight and she would want to go back and look at the area. Director Walgren reiterated that the geologic review process on the project did not occur recently. He said the application was submitted in November 1997, and has been in geologic review since. The landslide information was defined earlier and acknowledged. However, the process is that once the area is defined as a landslide needing repair, the exact location of the landslide is deferred until the applicant applies for the building permits. He noted Exhibit C is only a graphic depiction, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 5 that the information has already been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Page said this is not something the Commissioners would normally see because it is part of the process conducted by staff before the building permits are issued. Director Walgren said that when landslide repair is involved, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary identification of the area to determine how many trees would be removed or whether the building can be shifted to another location that does not require landslide repair. He reiterated that the landslide was depicted on the plans reviewed at the October 13 meeting, and staff asked the applicant to go back and verify the extent of the landslide, which is what was presented tonight. Chairwoman Bernald noted that of four new Commissioners, three have expressed concern with addressing the issue at hand. She asked since the Commissioners are new whether additional time is needed for their consideration. Commissioner Jackman said she did not want to delay the hearing again and asked if this is what the Planning Department routinely does in the geological preparation. Director Walgren responded that the information submitted at the October 13 meeting is standard process. He said the Geologist had granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance at that stage based on the several extensive studies that had been done; however, staff felt that the applicant needed to go to the next stage, particularly because of the large oak tree, for a clear understanding that the landslide could be repaired without impacting the tree. Commissioner Barry stated she was prepared to go forward in discussing the project. However, she noted for the record that there is an issue to contend with regarding late-arriving information which cannot be made part of her deliberation if she has not had time to review it. She said her issue is not because she is new but an issue of the timing of the information. Commissioner Jackman stated she was ready to go ahead with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was mainly concerned with the size of the repair area and how it would impact the neighbor. Chairwoman Bernald shared her earlier experience as a Commissioner and said that when reviewing her agenda packet it is a tight timeframe in which to digest all the information, but Commissioners with questions do have three days to contact staff for answers. She would like to reiterate that when Commissioners have questions on issues as complicated as this, it would be most helpful if Commissioners contacted staff and had their questions answered. She said staff does a tremendous job in presenting information to the Commissioners in a timely manner, and that they have certain things which are out of their control and certain things that they present to the Commissioners just for their further edification and not necessarily for their means in making a decision. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Non Chi Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, California, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He described the revisions made to the plan based on PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 6 comments made at the October 13 Commission meeting. They include: reducing the lot coverage from 14,914 square feet to 13,805 square feet by changing the driveway configuration to minimize the hard pavement area. He said the grading plan was revised to clearly indicate the area of landslide and completed the landscape drawing to indicate the vegetation to provide privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the plan now includes a fence around the pool as required by code. Describing his efforts in researching the copper roof issue, he explained that he spoke to a geotechnical engineer to understand the possibility of installing a drainage system on the property, and in the engineer’s opinion, that solution would not be good for the property because of the landslide problem. He said putting more water into the soil would create a greater burden as runoff from the copper roof would be led through the hard pavement into the storm drain and lead to the bay. He noted that was the only method to address the issue, and now has to rely on the research he did to provide a solution. He asked if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Wang said that after the October 13 Commission meeting, he met with the neighbors. He said concerns expressed in the Park letter were raised since he met with Mr. Park, and that the issue would be discussed with him later on. He said he spoke to Mr. Kwong about privacy issues. He said because of the long and narrow size of the lot, it is necessary to push the limit of the setback. He tried to mitigate the problem by architectural means to address the privacy issue. He addressed Mr. Kwong’s other concern regarding the soils on the Kwong property, explaining how the soil would be protected. Commissioner Barry noted that although she was not a member of the Commission at the October 13 meeting, she was in the audience, heard the presentation, and took notes. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the privacy issue and asked Mr. Wang to describe and explain the project on the model which was passed to Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Page asked whether raising the soil level would be part of the landslide repair and whether additional fill would be required. Mr. Wang responded that fixing the slide takes quite a bit of excavation. The grade cannot be altered and would have to match the Kwong property grade. Mr. Wang responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding using semi-permeable material to reduce water runoff. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the percentage of permeable coverage, and Mr. Wang said that it could probably go up to 30 percent but it would depend on the type of material used. Commissioner Roupe asked whether plans were to use iron pipe for the drainage from the copper roof. Mr. Wang said he read the report and understood iron piping is significant material to absorb copper ions; therefore, he would use cast iron as a drainage pipe to absorb copper. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Wang confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s comment that instead of draining the roof to the concrete surface, the applicant would be willing to use an iron pipe going to the storm sewer system. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren recalled that previous discussion required the roof drains go into pervious landscape areas and not directly into the storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe understood from the Geologist report that the drainage should not go into the soils, but should drain across the concrete into the storm sewer system directly. He reiterated that he was still concerned with the report from the Copper Institute regarding this issue, and he would suggest that perhaps more study could be made on this point. He said he was hesitant to render a decision regarding this issue until he could see additional data or see how the applicant proposes to address the issue to conform the site to the report. Commissioner Barry cited the following from a flyer published by the Regional Quality Control Plant operated by the City of Palo Alto: “Copper in our roofs is copper in our bay and that’s a problem for mussels and other organisms, and the recommendation is to builders and architects to use alternatives to copper roofing and gutters and to advise your clients of the adverse effects of copper and copper products.” She said that with respect to a further study, her information from a local water district contradicts the Copper Institute report. Director Walgren said that a condition could be imposed which would defer to the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board on the topic, and materials could be forwarded to them for evaluation and determine whether they would recommend that local jurisdictions not permit copper roof and rain gutter materials. Commissioner Patrick asked what difference it would make in the plans if copper roof were used or not used. Mr. Wang responded that the only difference would be that he would not have to do the iron drainage system. He said asphalt would be the alternative because it is like a metal roof and flexible. Mr. Wang asked if another type of metal material would be acceptable other than copper. He said other metal roof materials are available which do not create the pollution concern and do not have metallic sheen if it is treated. Chairwoman Bernald responded that they would be acceptable as long as the material meets fire ordinance standards and color requirements. Mr. Wang described the alternate materials as zinc-plated metal, noting that asphalt shingle is not the best option. If another type of material were acceptable, he would submit a material sample for approval. Mr. Wang thanked the Commission for challenging the information he previously submitted which encouraged him to do more research and learn more about copper. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Joseph C. Park, 14800 Masson Court, presented three concerns which he discovered this morning. He said the location of the house is such that the entry cuts right across a part of his property which extends beyond the cul-de-sac. Another issue he raised is the height. He said he was led to believe that the location was different than the mock-up shows. He said the copper roof was of concern to him because of the unique characteristics of the area. Using the property drawing tacked on the wall, Mr. Park described and demonstrated his concern regarding the building location. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, addressed the Commission regarding the landslide area in back of his house. He said his concern was the soil moving downhill and once it goes downhill, it can no longer support the adjacent soils. He noted that in 1995, the soil slid downhill and went down 10 feet overnight. He said the proposed repair does not address his concern. He said he is a registered engineer and soil compaction is not the issue. He said the soil adjacent to his property is natural and is better than 98 percent compacted. He said it is still eroding because there is no support on one side of it. He said that without support, no amount of compaction is going to do any good. He said the applicant is doing the proper thing where the pool is, but it does not guarantee that his part of the lot will not continue to erode. He said this is not being addressed, and Mr. Wang has told him it will be addressed later. He is concerned that the erosion will continue onto his property. He cited a letter from the City Geologist dated September 2, 1999, stating that, “Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern.” (Later in the meeting, Director Walgren addressed this letter.) Commissioner Roupe noting that once the repair has been made, asked Mr. Kwong whether he would be in a better position regarding his property, and Mr. Kwong responded that the issue had not been addressed. Commissioner Jackman referred to Mr. Kwong’s statement regarding the 1995 land drop, and asked when the landslide is rebuilt and regraded whether the new property would bring the property back to the 10 feet it lost. Mr. Kwong responded that the subject had not been addressed. Director Walgren noted that the landslide repair is not only for the pool area, but for the substantial portion of the property which goes into Mr. Kwong’s property and it raises the property approximately 10 feet back up to its condition before the landslide. He said he noted earlier in his comments that this would have to be coordinated with Mr. Kwong to do the improvements. He said this is shown on page 3 of Exhibit C. Chairwoman Bernald asked Director Walgren to provide Mr. Kwong with a copy of Exhibit C. Mr. Kwong addressed the privacy issue and said that the vertical structure of the building is not compatible with the surrounding homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 9 Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding the Geologist report dated September 2, 1999. Director Walgren explained that when an application for the hillsides comes in, staff uses a city-wide base map developed by the City’s consulting firm of geologists to determine whether the area is subject to unstable soil. Staff refers the plans to the consulting firm who reviews the proposal based on their database of information, and submit a response memo indicating that the property has been cleared or further investigations are necessary. He said that in this case further investigations were necessary and have been ongoing for the past two years, an unusually long period. He noted that every time a geotechnical or geological report is prepared, it is resubmitted to the City Geologist for review and response to the City. Mr. Kwong was probably referring to the latest response memo which was available prior to the October 13 public hearing. At that time the geologist had granted the project a preliminary geotechnical clearance. He reiterated that the project was delayed to have further investigations done, specifically because of the landslide. If it had not been for the landslide on the property, the October 13 meeting would have been the point where the geologic work for this process would have concluded. Commissioner Barry asked whether the Geologist had considered and addressed that if the repair work was done, there could be natural forces moving the ground. Director Walgren replied in the affirmative, noting that the process was designed to uncover such issues and that the City Geologist and consulting firm was like a checks and balance system. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, stated that she did not realize how tall and close to the street the house will be, and it does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said that her view is almost completely obstructed and asked that something be done so that it is not such an imposing structure. Commissioner Page asked Ms. Sze if her view which would be impacted was from the second story, and she replied that she could not see from the second story. In response to Commissioner Roupe’s inquiry, Director Walgren referred to the staff report of October 13, and noted that the site map indicated a larger subdivision that was approved as a single subdivision comprised of cul-de-sacs that access off Pierce Road or Saratoga Heights Road, and almost all of them are five, six, or eight clusters of development within themselves. He said this particular cul-de-sac is the only private cul-de-sac which accesses four lots - three on the west side which have been developed, and this project would be the fourth. He said the large parcel which runs down the center is the dedicated open space. He said as is required on all hillside subdivisions, a site development plan is required at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage which indicates where the homes are going to be placed for the purposes of evaluating grading, tree removal, geology, etc. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Sze if she reviewed the plans before purchasing her home. Ms. Sze responded that a different owner existed at the time she purchased her home; that the land had a different house proposal; and because the building pad was larger, it was her understanding that the house would be more spread out. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 10 Ms. Sze responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the year she purchased her home and the square footage of the house. Mr. Wang indicated he had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Kwong a few weeks ago and a communication impasse exists in that Mr. Kwong maintains that the issue will be addressed later. He said the landslide issue is the foundation of the project and if the issue cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the applicant will not put the house at risk on the lot. Mr. Wang said that Mr. Liu purchased the lot three years ago and the landslide happened five years ago. The longer the property sits there the more damage it will sustain to the neighbors. He said once the landslide is repaired, Mr. Kwong’s property will benefit from the repair, and that is how the applicant intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. Wang said the intent is to excavate 30-40 feet down in the landslide area to remove the dirt and put in appropriate materials to stabilize the soil. He said the concern is if the landslide goes beyond the Liu property, what would be the Commission’s position in asking the neighbors to work with the applicant in sharing the costs for the repair. Director Walgren responded that this would not be a question for the Commission and would be an issue between the two property owners. Mr. Wang indicated he would work with Mr. Kwong as the issue will not go away and needs to be addressed. Mr. Wang responded to the issue of the design proximity to the neighbors, noting this is a very narrow lot and every effort has been made to be friendly to the surrounding buildings and not intimidating to the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Mr. Wang’s geological engineer had suggested putting in piers or steel supports either in the house or to backup the swimming pool or under the driveway. Mr. Wang responded that two methods to repair the landslide were considered - one is not to excavate all the way to 40 feet, and install piers to stabilize the soil, and ignore slide planes. He said he chose to excavate the entire slide to give better stability rather than just installing something to hold it. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of support would go in the back wall of the swimming pool. Mr. Wang responded that the area had not been designed yet; however, he said once the soil is compacted and has been certified, it should support any kind of structure put on it. However, if necessary, materials would be installed to support the swimming pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:14 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Chairwoman Bernald asked Commissioner Barry if she would like to read into the record the report regarding copper roofing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Barry responded that if the Commission as a whole agrees that they will not accept a copper roof tonight, she would be pleased to make the report available to Director Walgren for further study. Commissioner Bernald stated that as long as the Commission is not voting for a copper roof tonight, she would prefer that the information be provided to Director Walgren. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission has visited the site twice, and while he finds that the house is contemporary and unique in its design, he also sees the neighborhood does not have a prevailing style. He said the design is acceptable and as a condition of his support, he would want the copper roof issue be held in abeyance until further information is available, with the option of other materials being considered. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the architectural style and the compatibility due to the materials and style of the house. She said she agreed with the neighbors that the house is quite imposing. Her main objections are aesthetic. She stated that asphalt may be a more acceptable option for the roof instead of copper or an aluminum look. Commissioner Page stated this is a lovely design with a contemporary look. He said he revisited the site today and saw an area filled with unique styles, noting that a lot of stone and wood is used. He noted that aside from its unique style, the design uses primarily dark wood and would keep it in the blending of the area. He expressed concern with the metal sculpture piece in the front which does not help to blend in. He would prefer to see an asphalt roof and do away with the copper roof altogether. He would support the project without a copper roof, not for what it would do to the soil and environment, but what it would do to the view. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very well designed house; however, her concern is the neighborhood compatibility. She said it is such a different house and the site is on a knoll. She said she could not support the project because of the appearance of bulk. She would be interested in seeing the same style of house in a one-story design that goes down along Masson Court. She said that the project violates many of the recommendations of the Hillside Residential Design Handbook of having projects blend into the community such as the views. She said because of its prominence on this location, she cannot support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she will support the project. She remarked that it is a wonderful design and cannot say she would want it to be compatible with what the neighbors say they want. Her view of the neighborhood is that they are homes which reflect the light, very visible homes that do not fit into the hillside, and do not fit into the environment. However, she feels this house does fit in. She would prefer the copper roof, but cannot support it because it is not environmentally safe. She commented on the landslide area and landslides that slide into the neighbors’ homes. She said the only way to stop the slide is to build on the property and work with the geotechnical firm to get the necessary support to the hillside. She said that because of the site size, she did not see any other place on the property where anything else could be built as suggested by others. She said she would prefer to have another type of roofing, other than asphalt, submitted for review. She reiterated she would support the project without copper roofing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 12 Commissioner Barry expressed concern with design handbook issues. She said the Commission has on every other occasion that she has been present, whether as a Commissioner or in the audience, taken to heart concerns of the neighbors, and the neighborhood appears to be unhappy with this design. She cited from the design handbook, policy 1, technique #5, the difference between relatively similar homes and one that is significantly different. She said this home is significantly different and stated this is a violation of the design handbook. She also cited from policy 2, technique #2, which specifically says to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting, and said that the design is a foreign object in this setting. Additionally, she referred to the hillside plan book, she said she could not support the project as it is now. Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding parts of the house stepping down into the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald noted that when she first saw the plans for the house, she visited the hillside and realized that this was an eclectic neighborhood. She noted that the house is significantly different from the other homes; however, the design mimics the beautiful hillsides in which it would be placed. She stated that she repeatedly got an impression of the gently rolling hillsides that surround the home; strongly feels that the house fits into the setting; and is probably better designed to fit its location than any of the surrounding homes. By placing the home as a two-story structure, it provides more open space to the surrounding area. She said she understood the neighbors’ concerns regarding their view; however, the homes were purchased with the idea that cluster homes would be built. The fact that the property has a landslide is of no fault to the owner and what the owner is proposing to repair would also benefit his neighbors. She said this is an exciting design well- situated in its location. She expressed concerns with the copper roof and leaching. She would like to have more information and alternate materials, other than asphalt, considered. COMMISSIONER ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-061 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER ROOF ISSUE BE DEFERRED TO FURTHER STUDY, BROUGHT BACK FOR STAFF REVIEW AND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PASSED 4-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, JACKMAN, AND KURASCH OPPOSED). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. 3. DR-99-049 (397-28-047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two-story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren reported that this is lot #5 of a five-lot subdivision approved last year. He said the design is very compatible with the other homes in the subdivision. He said staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 13 At the request of Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained there had been an issue which arose upon review of lots #1 and #2 regarding which zoning ordinances apply to the development of those lots. He said that a vesting tentative map is specifically designed to allow a builder to use the ordinances in effect when the map was approved if they provide certain details to the City. The details can be as minimal as a building footprint. He said that upon staff request, the applicants agreed to develop the actual plans, which were approved as a vesting tentative map. This process allows the applicants to use the setback ordinances that were in effect at that time. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, addressed the Commission stating that the staff report clearly stated the design intent. He referred to a concern expressed at the site visit yesterday regarding the overall height of the house. He submitted a proposed sketch redesigning the roof of lot #5 which takes the roof from a gable-type roof to a hip roof and considerably reduces the bulk of the roof. He said the house would remain at 26 feet high at a pyramid shape and down to a lower point as shown on the original plans. He noted the bulk of the roof would be considerably reduced in the new sketch. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether this redesign compromised any of the interior spacing. Mr. Britt responded in the negative, noting that the hip roof solution is an improvement over the original design. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:00 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Jackman expressed she liked the design which takes away much of the bulk. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was pleased with how the house fit in. Commissioner Roupe liked the design improvements and will be supporting the project. Commissioner Barry said she would not disapprove because of its size; however, she asked about the second chimney. She said on the previous lot design, the Commission’s intent was to set a precedent to send a message to design with only one chimney. Commissioner Page said one of the issues he had was with the second chimney; however, on this house it adds to the balance. He inquired about the view from lot #3, and what the roof line near the garage doors looked like, which he considered to be a minor issue. He liked the design and will be voting for the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she liked the design, noting that she had no problem with the roof lines. She will be supporting the project. Commissioner Barry said that at the site visit it was brought to her attention that the house was designed around the neighbors’ input and that the living and dining rooms were moved. She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 14 commended the designers for their attention to the neighbors’ input. She said discussions were held regarding the pine tree which provides a screening; however, should the tree not live very long, she would prefer redwoods as future screening. Chairwoman Bernald commented this is a lovely house and commended the quick responsiveness. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-049 WITH A HIP ROOF. PASSED 7-0. 4. UP-99-020 (393-21-006) - GTE MOBILNET, Glen Brae Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks; Request for Use Permit approval to install six eight-foot-tall panels (with two antennas each) mounted on top of an existing 135 foot tall utility tower. An associated 220 square foot equipment structure located at the base of the tower is also proposed. The project is located in an Agricultural zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for a conditional use permit consideration required for all telecommunication antennas in Saratoga regardless of where they are located. The proposal is to install six eight-foot tall panels on top of an existing PG&E 135 foot tower located within the utility right of way along the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. He said it was determined several years ago that in Saratoga all telecommunication antenna proposals, whether single monopole or an antenna attached to an existing utility pole, would be subject to a conditional use permit to provide the Commission with discretionary review. He said the two main criteria the Commission and staff focuses on are the aesthetic impacts and public safety of the facilities relative to their radio frequency emissions. He noted that the antennas are subject to a California Environmental Quality Act analysis, and a radio frequency emissions study has been provided for Commission review. He reported that the radio frequency engineer’s conclusions on the emissions are that they are well below the standards developed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He stated that being able to use existing utility poles allows the antennas to be camouflaged into the existing utility. He said that all the necessary findings can be made to support an environmental negative declaration and granting of a conditional use permit. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s remark that the applicant had requested painting the panels white, however, the condition in the resolution states they will be painted a flat gray to closer match the steel structure on which they will be placed. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:10 p.m. Therese Schmidt of the Matthews Land Company, 1033 Snowcarver, Salinas, stated she was present as the agent for GTE Mobilnet. Ms. Schmidt noted that the project would increase the overall height of the existing tower; however, given the nature of the wireless industry, height is crucial to get a signal across to the greatest distance possible. She said a radio engineer accompanied her to address questions regarding radio frequency. She addressed each of the conditions, noting that the applicant was more than willing to comply with them. Commissioner Barry referred to the effective radiated power and asked how many channels was the calculation of 528 watts based on. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 15 Ms. Schmidt noted she would respond to the question after clarifying that due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government has indicated that local jurisdictions are not allowed to vote against a project based on radio frequency range emissions if federal standards are met. Ms. Schmidt deferred to the radio engineer for response to Commissioner Barry. Russ Bentson, 3432 Lodge Drive, Belmont, introduced himself as the radio engineer for GTE Wireless in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. He said that the power referred to by Commissioner Barry is one of three phases for this site, and it generally covers 60 radio channels. Commissioner Barry asked what the total capacity of the antennas was, and Mr. Bentson responded that the antenna itself did not determine the capacity of the cell cite. He said it is determined by the equipment used, and GTE uses equipment made by Lucent Technologies. The number of channels which can be handled by one cell site with all antennas combined may exceed 180 channels; however, the size of the community does not support that number. Commissioner Barry asked how many channels the FCC had approved. Mr. Bentson replied that the FCC application allows them to operate on all channels assigned to the cellular radio system to which GTE has the license for the San Francisco Bay Area which totals in excess of 500 channels. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether limiting the placement of the antenna to the height of the tower would compromise the transmission significantly. Mr. Bentson responded that currently in Saratoga, GTE has only one small site in The Village, and they receive many complaints from people driving away from the area due to fading coverage. He said GTE is looking to this site to put in a higher structure which would provide a wider range of coverage. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Bentson said that with PG&E, one cannot adjust the height to one’s desires because of the high tension wires. He said the antennas must be installed above PG&E’s property or significantly below them. He said putting them significantly below would drastically reduce GTE coverage. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Mr. Bentson said that GTE’s next closest site to the proposed site is located (easterly direction) at the shopping center on Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway; (northerly direction) where Highway 85 crosses Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road; and (southerly direction) downtown Los Gatos and near a water tank system on top of a hill off Quito Road. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:24 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Page asked whether the City had any requirements for certain lights or blinking lights at top of the tower. Director Walgren responded that requirements did exist and he was not familiar with them as they were not local requirements. He said when structures exceed a certain height they require lights placed on them. Commissioner Page asked whether the towers were anywhere near the height requiring lights, and Director Walgren responded he could check into the issue and report back. Upon further discussion, it was decided to re-open the public hearing. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:25 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Responding to Commissioner Page’s inquiry, Mr. Bentson said that on the particular structure, a red blinking light was not necessary. Mr. Bentson said that once the structure gets to the 150-foot level special permission has to be obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) If it is located near an airport, there is a slope ratio between the distance to the airport and the height of the tower; however, in this case, the project would stay at least ten feet under the minimum where permission would have to be obtained from the FAA. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED TO RE-CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:26 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Page commented this would be an appropriate place for a cellular antenna, and he will support the application. Commissioner Kurasch wondered about the screening and watering of native plants. She could not envision how a watering system could be put in the middle of asphalt from any source and saw that as a problematic issue. She asked for ideas from the applicant, and did not see a solution to the issue, however, it was acceptable to her. Chairwoman Bernald asked what had been done in the past with a similar situation, and Director Walgren responded that it had been a difficult situation, and the best solution was to keep the landscaping drought-tolerant and as simple as possible. He said the solution could be to physically bring water to the property until the plants are established. He has said shrubs have been most successful. Commissioner Roupe expressed that the site was a proper location, and commended the applicant for choosing the particular site, trying to minimize the number of the towers in the community, and using existing infrastructure. He said he would support the project. Commissioner Barry concurred with Commissioner Roupe. She said to the extent that she understood the technical issues, she said it is best to have the antenna at the top of this tower. She suggested changes to the wording of the resolution to reflect in the first paragraph that the use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 17 permit would cover 60 channels. She said that with 60 channels it would be known what the effective radiated power is. She noted also that without coming back to the Commission, the applicant has FCC approval for many more channels. She further added that under item #4 of Section 1, she would like to add a request for yearly test data, which she described as an issue of reliability and to demonstrate that no additional power is being put into the environment. Under item #9 of Section 1, she requested that the applicant submit a yearly insurance certificate with the City of Saratoga as an additional insured. Chairwoman Bernald commented that procedurally she had a concern with asking to limit the application with something that has not been discussed with the applicant. She said either vote for or against this or reopen the public hearing to allow the applicant another opportunity to discuss this further. She recalled that the City Council direction was that the Commission should not be changing things after the public hearing has been closed and the applicants have no further opportunity to discuss with Commissioners. Director Walgren agreed with Chairwoman Bernald, noting that if the conditional use permits are to contain a numerical channel limit, that should be disclosed up-front. He said the applicants could anticipate the facility growing beyond the limit, and they would be given the opportunity to do the radio frequency evaluation based on a worst case scenario, regardless of how it starts out. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:33 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Mr. Bentson noted that the Hammett & Edison analysis was based on 60 channels per phase, or a total of 180 channels for three phases. By putting a limitation, the Commission would be stepping on FCC boundaries which may have some pre-emption in this area. Ms. Schmidt addressed the issue of the annual test data. She said that such a condition exists in other jurisdictions, and they are made known by policy ahead of time. She said it has never been required of any other carriers of the city (Saratoga), and she would question whether this would be a new requirement. Chairwoman Bernald recalled that the Commission cannot show preference to one carrier over another and Ms. Schmidt’s comments would apply in this case. Director Walgren said that the annual test would not be as difficult if the radio frequency analysis was based on 180 channels, and the worst case analysis was already available, in which case the conditional use permit could be approved with a not-to-exceed 180 channels and receive annual reporting that it is within that level. He stated that if the maximum range the antenna can accommodate is known, and it is addressed in the environmental analysis, then that should be the threshold in the conditional use permit. Ms. Schmidt asked whether the annual report would be required from Hammett & Edison or would it be a statement from the company that it has not changed its antennas. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 18 Director Walgren responded that the city would only want an annual statement for the files that the channel capacity has not increased. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Commission has discussed having a study session regarding cellular phones and that much work needs to be done that would apply to all carriers within the city; therefore, no extra rules should be made at this time. She said she would like to see a monitoring plan go into effect for all carriers at some point, but one carrier cannot be held to a standard that does not apply to another carrier. She said she would not be inclined to require an annual insurance policy from GTE which has many assets. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said if applicants are told up-front that they need to provide a maximum number of channels they could possibly anticipate and evaluate the emissions based on that, then that could be a numerical restriction in the conditional use permit. He suggested deferring this issue to the Commission’s telecommunications study session. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO RE-CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:40 P.M.). PASSED 7-0. Commissioners Barry, Jackman, and Patrick noted they would support the project. Chairwoman Bernald concurred. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 7-0. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-020 AS PROPOSED. PASSED 7-0. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren reported that Lynda Ramirez Jones, Minutes Clerk, had submitted her resignation some time ago, effective after tonight’s meeting. Director Walgren reported on the Mountain Winery Draft Environmental Impact Report. He said that he and Mayor Bogosian had attended the County Planning Commission meeting, and Mayor Bogosian presented an overview of the Council’s position. He said the Commission was very receptive to the City’s request for a continuance for clarification of the conditional use permit and annexation. He noted that the City’s final comments will be submitted by January 15. Director Walgren distributed the City Council meeting schedule for 2000, noting a joint meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 25, at which time the status of the Housing Element Update will be discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 19 Director Walgren reported that the telecommunications study session would be on the January 12, 2000 Commission agenda. Director Walgren reported that the next Commission meeting should be in a new dais and new sound system. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Barry had planned to present two proposals tonight, but instead will present the information to Director Walgren to be agendized at a later date. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for regular meeting of November 17 and adjourned regular meeting of November 23, 1999 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m., to Wednesday, January 12, 2000, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission