Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMM] MINUTES TIME: Tuesday, July 16, 1974 - 7:30 plm. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting on: CE-172 - Draft Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of Zoning Request from "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-1-40~O00 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community) TABLE OF CONTENTS ..:~ ................ ? Pa~e I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION CALL B. INTRODUCTION - Chairman Marshall ..................... 1 C. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - Howard Hodges, Boy Scout Troop 488 ......... 1 D. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE .......................... 1 II. PUBLIC HEARING A. BLACKWELL HOMES PRESENTATION - Mr. william Heiss ............. 2 B. PURPOSE OF EIR - Ms. Sandra Rennie, ENVIROS ................ 2 C. EXPLANATION OF EIR - Mr.~'.Richard Frisbie, Center for Environmental Design. . 3 Mr.'~en Patterson; Applied Soils Mechanics, Inc. 3 D. ANALYSIS OF EIR BY ENVIROS - Ms. Sandra Rennie ............... 4 E. REBUTTAL BY CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN - Mr. Richard Frisbie ..... 6 F. PUBLIC AGENCIES INPUT ........ ' ................... 6 G. FRIENDS OF PAINESS PARKER PRESENTATiON~ 1. Introduction - Brian Unter ................... 6 2. Charactersitics - Joe Butler .................... 7 3. Geologic - Gary StephenSon ................. 7 4. Hydrologic - Joe Butler .i ................... 8 5. Biotic - Steve Stuc~_ . ................. 9 6. Atmospheric - .~!~key6~'i~.. ................ 9 7. Historical - 'f~aryiSte~hen~on.'~ ................. 9 8. Land Use - Zettler Greely'. ................. 10 9. Recreation - Ron Knapp .................... 10 10. Education - Brian Unter ................... 11 11. Fire - Andy Varardi .................... 11 12. Police - Brian Unter: ................... 11 13 Traffic - Zettler Greely .................. 14. Liquid Waste - Joe Butler -i ................... 13' 15. Water Supply - Joe Butler .! ................... 13 16. Sonic - Joe Butler ..................... 13 17. Scenic - Brian Unter 18. Alternatives - Andy Varardi'. .................. 14 19. Summary - Brian Unter .................... 14 H. PRESENTATION BY GREATER ARGUELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: Mr. John~.~Weir . 15 Mr. R.L. Crowther . 16 I. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................... 19 J. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS .~ ................... 19 ~j~ ADJOURNMENT ............... i ................... 20 -i+ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINU~ES' TIME: Tuesday, July 16, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special!Mee=~'~n~'7'-. ******************** ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Chairman Marshall opened the Special Meetipg of July 16, 1974 at 7:45 p.m. A. ROLL CALL : Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callbn, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and W~g~a~d Absent: None B. INTRODUCTION Chairman Marshall stated that the purpose of this special hearing was to give the public an opportunity to present input. relative to the draft Environmental Impact Report on the Parker Ranch change of Zoning request (C-172). He outlined the agenda for the meeting, stated that the intent was to close the public h~earing by midnight, and concluded by informing those preseht that a continued EIR meeting could be scheduled if necessary. C. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mr. Howard Hodges, 21451 Arrowhead Lan!e, Cupertino, introduced himself and five members of Boy Scout Troop 488. He in'troduced to the Commission for their consi- deration a 23-page report relative to zthe Parker Ranch entitled "Environmental Science, Ten Acres Off Prospect Road,"'. and added: "We are here to present the Prospect Creek area. We feel that this study shows that man should protect and not further damage or destroy the natural wildlife habitat of this area. As a citizen of the community and a Boy Scout, I would like to help protect this area for future enjoyment"· of this wildlife.," D. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Chairman Marshall introduced the following written communications to the record received relative to the EIR: Date Received Received From Information Rec ' d 1. June 27, 1974 Pacific Gas & Electric Company No Comment 2. July 2, 1974 Traffic Engineer,: City of Saratoga Memorandum - 2 pgs. 3. July 5, 1974 State of California, Department of Letter - 1 page Transportation 4. July 9, 1974 Cupertino Sa~i't~ry District Letter - 2 pages 5. July 12, 1974 Santa Clara Vaile.'y Water District Letter - 3 pages 6. July 12, 1974 Santa Clara County Health Department No Comment 7. July 15, 1974 The Citizen's Environmental Impact Report Report - 52 pages on Parker Ranch 8. J~'il~ll5, 1974 Chairman, The Greater Arguello Homeowners Letter ..., 9 pages Association : 9. J~y 15, 1974 Elden G. Marquardt, Citizen of Saratoga Letter ..~"~"i=.p. age~'' 10. J.~Lt.'~ 15, 1974 Cupertino Union School District Letter 11. Jh'!Y 16, 1974 City of Cupertin0 Planning Department Letter - 1 page 12. Juiy 16, 1974 HenZy Hodges, Boy Scout Troop 488 Report - 23 pages ~1- MINUTES OF JULY 16, 1974 II. PUBLIC HEARING CE-172-- Draft Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of Zoning Request from "R-I-40,000" (Single- Family Residential) to "R-I-40,000 PC'-' (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); a 218 acre parcel; Continued from June 12~ 1974 At this time, Chairman Marshall opened the .public hea:~.ing-on CE-172 at 7:47 p.m. A.' BLACKWELL HOMES PRESENTATION : Mr. William Heiss, representative of Blackwell Homes-'~'a~'e-a_Lvsi'fae ~'resentation of the proposed planned community development, showing aerial photographs of the p.r. Rp_e_r_ty as well as the proposed development plan depicting the placement of 135 'dWe!lihg units and street patterns. He stated that of the 218 acres proposed for development, 201 acres were on the Parker Ranch and 17 acres were on the Hall Ranch, which was the subject of discussion relative to the Williamson Act. He stated that the developer was trying to maintain as much of the heavily-wooded area as possible in order to keep the site in a natural state. He noted that the street pattern was primarily along either side of the ridgeline, with the homes being downsl_ope from the road. He stated that Prospect Creek would require a crossing, and .wqdld necessi- tate the removal of many trees. He explained that no home construction was being planned near the area of the ancient landslide based on the geological study done on this area;- a'~'-added that a secondary access road to help circulation within the proposed development was proposed through the landslide area, as well as recrea- tional facilities. He further pointed out that the only development on the Hall Ranch would occur in the far northwest corner and would involve approximately two acres of development. B. PURPOSE OF EIR Ms. Sandra Rennie, Executive Director of ENVIROS, Los Altos (the environmental firm hired by the City to make an objective critique of the .EIR) gave a brief explanation of the purpose and intent of an envirOmmental impact report. She stated that the specific legal purpoS,e for an EIR was to provide useful information ~o~.'~'h.'.~. Planning Commission ~nd City ~uncil to' make decisions about the development-q~'a project; to understand the environmental aspects of project~ and also give an oppor- tunity to incorporate the ways in which. to reduce any adverse affects. She explained that the legal term used for'~.-this was mitigation: to find ways to change a project to make it less objectiona$!'e and to make the impacts on the environmental less adverse. She stated it also means to allow for official consideration of alterna- '.[ive.~-'ways to develop the project. She explained that when the need for an EIR was applied was when it was determined after preliminary review that there was a ..p'0~enL'-. tial for adverse impact on any of many possible factors; an EIR was requested wa~ "we need more information so that the Commissi'on and Council can better judge whether this project should be modified, approved or disapproved." She stated that when it was determined that an EIR should be prepared for a project, the degree of specificity of the report. should be compatible with the degree of specificity of the project. She explained that if the EIR was for a General Plan it would be very general ~cause the documentation i~'t~'~S'&'d.'~lon was very general, but if it was a conditional use-permi~ the action w~uld' '~ecific and the report should also be very specific. She stated the project being discussed presently fell somewhere between these two extremes. Ms. Rennie stated that the City of S'~ratoga had adopted EIR guidelines from the State of California Resources Agency, and included such things as air-'a~h'a'~w~'~r- quality, soils and geology, traffic, congestion, parking, noise and hydrology. She stated that in addition to these specific areas of impact, the EIR must also include comments on growth inducement: will this project open up a new area for development j~nd what will be the growth inducing impacts of the project. She explained that the report must also include alternatives, and it must include long-.'~.-'~d~i~s~g'~[~'n~.~. uses of the resources.~.~(in this case the resource discussed was the use of the land).." She explained that the legal responsibility for an EIR lay_ with the City, ' ~ason teh~City of Sara'toga had hired ENVIROS was in ord.e.~.~.~'['.~'-'~'~:~'e 't~'~'~'~.i~f'.~'~-~ · . 6b]ec~iV{ty and completeness. "She' S'ta~=ed, "we are ngt' 6g~ne~'~"'i~' a~y~way {~i'['h 'the developer or the firm that prepared the. impact report on the project." She added, "however it is important that you understand that the City must weigh..~[.he need for a MINUTES OF JULY 16, 1974 B. PURPOSE OF EIR - Sandra Rennie - ContinUed project against the environmental impacts of building that project and this would include the adverse impacts to the neighbors of the project and especially the impa~'~to the Community as a whole." She stated that the legal effect of an EIR was very ~pecific: it was an informational document only and it meant that the City.'~ls6~'h~"~h'~'~ibi.lity to balance other factor~ such as social and ec0n~mics along'~it~"e~iro~e~'~i"~'~tors when i~ makes its de~ision. She also stated it was not mandatory for a City to hold.a public hearing on an EIR, but that inso- much as the opportunity had been given, Zthe citizens of Saratoga should help the City establish its priorities and goals~ and also provide specific information to the City concerning environmental impacts on the project. Ms. Rennie explained that the way to under~'~and an EIR was to keep in mind that "virtually no development project.'~'~ witho'ut adverse impact. The very nature of a development.~roject is to change and Undoubtedly affect the environment in some way. So the critical thing is not to say there is an adverse impact associated with this project, but to determine howZbad the adverse impacts are,;~.~n~.'to deter- mine the preponderance of the impacts te see whether they are more bad than good." She added that an EIR was also a vehicle for offering specific ways to modify a project, and to reduce the environmental impacts. She concluded' her~=statements 'with a touch.of levity when she quoted Paul Sedway in the recent publication of Cry California in~.the definition of an EIR:_ <l~._i__mpa~; .(~) ~dver§e affectS;_'. (3) ~itigation; (4') ~lterna~ives; (~) ~oduct and effect; (6) inducement; and (7) Mrowth -- provides an acronym: I am a pig. C. EXPLANATION OF EIR Mr. Richard Frisby, representative from.the Center of Environmental Design, stated that his f~rmhad been involved in the preparation of the EIR on Parker Ranch. He stated that his firm had also been involved in several communities~ requiring EIR's and stated,' "I must say that in Saratoga we have received the most comment on any EIR we have ever done." He explained that he had received the written input on the draft EIR on July 15 and July 16, and ~=~Z'~'~'~'Ssition to comment on i~ · ~'~t~i~l'~f'ih'i~'~im'~7',"but I am very impressed with the community interest." He ~'~tit~d"'thYf'he was "present tonight to help out with the presentation, to listen a ~gr'~f'd~l~'~'~d' t0...report back to the City. At this time Mr. Ben Patterson, engineering geologist with Applied Soils Mechanics, Inc. was introduced, and it was noted that .~his firm had.p~ed. the geology study on the Parker Ranch EIR. He stated that on the questfOn'Bf the ancient land- -slide, "the first comment I would like to make is that in the situation where you are involved with an ancient landslide,.one thing that none of us attempts to do is to suggest a positive definition of the stability and permanence of that slide in its current position." He pointed out that !.~the case of the Parker Ranch the slide had possibly been there for a considerable length of time, and that there were "no features of the type which would indicate recent movement, that is, move- ment within relatively recent historical or prehistorical geological timeST~''' He pointed out there were a laEge number of oak trees growing in the slide ~r'~a with the diameter of from 24-36"i and that they are essentially vertical in attitudes'.- "which would indicate ~'~a~h~'~'~b~c shifted much in the attitude of their r6o~"~yStem,"-~hat'~-sV"r~lative-to'the hori- zontal plane." He stated tha~'there were [I~':Sbvious cracks, no recent scars, and no major seepage-zones near the lower portion." He stated, "I would comment that this migh't stay stable for many or perhaps hundreds of generations, but I am not "mi ht" going to unless I very strongly emphasize g because the nature of landslides are sucb~d'fh'~'lev"V~l"~f'i~i~'~fi~we ~'d, we cannot say. It appears to be a pretty solid area bU~'we recon~ended th{~'~"a~0ided~' ~n'~ '~h~' ~lan you see noW' is part of the result of that particular advice." Commissioner Martin asked if additional~core samplings would ..~esignate the probab'iiity of increased run-off of whether this slide would/again become active. ~' Mr. Patterson stated, "I myself would not venture in writing a profe~si0nal opinion because there are a number of unknown factors on down~into the future that I cannot foresee, and also the fact that a lot of things are not completely known about landslides. The economics of exploration are such that you canno~ in the process of making a project viabl~"~.[~7.~'~.unlimited number of test .borings to considerable depth." He added, -3- 'MINUTES'OF ~IrLY C. EXPLANATION OF EIR - Ben Patterson - Continued "another thing that we do not know is the reason this thing orig{~'Ily slid. It could be from ~i~e~o~.~_~-~of water f~om a different climatic system than we have presently today, or because of some se~ere~xcelleration from a..maj.Or..ear~bqUake in the area in prehistoric times. This is the reason°~hy we said this area should a limited use, perhaps recreational faqilities; particularly not to construct individual homes where if something did happen an~!~dividual would be put into a position of losing the work of a lifetime in his home." Connnissioner Belanger aske~'l if an appraisal of the surrounding soils of the land- slide had been made. Mr. Peterson replied, "we have made a cursery examination of the area surrounding the landslide by means of a few test excavations only. We have not made a detailed study." He stated that he had observed the material in the valley below the landslide and that it appeared to be of similar material as the landslide. He added, "but I canno[ give you anything very definitive beyond that." D. ANALYSIS OF EIR BY ENVIROS ~s'~o~C'~tha~ th~"~ViR~S..~nalysis was circulated with the draft EIR to the Cbfm~sioners~-an~_.~aff. onl'y. Ms. Rennie stated that the comments contained in the analysis summarized information regarding the legal role of the EIR, and "it d~ined the major deficiencies which we felt were in the report." (1) !.l~m~ stated they had felt there wa~ an inadequate discussion of the area-wide setting and impact, and comment'~, "development affects the environmentz.'~q~'~.~ the site but it might also have effects well beyond the site." She stated they gave a citation on the State'Guidelines that indicated the area-wide impact and area-wide setting was a mandated element, and she pointed out that ENVIROS had recommended an addendUm to the EIR to contain an adequate descrip- tion of the area-wide setting and impact. (2) Ms. Rennie stated that they felt there was an inadequate analysis of aesthetics~H view. She stated, "in terms of magnitude of impact, one of the most significant impacts is visual. The site overlooks a large section of the City and as such is seen ae a distance by residents and visitors alike. Additionallyl~p~a~b~j~'p'~'~ such as the Arroyo de Arguello and Pierce Road area~ will have ~'~'y"md~"~'l'~ered:views. Rolling grassy hillsides have high scenic value in both urban and suburban areas. State Guidelines state sub- jects to be discussed in the EIR,.preferably in separate sections or paragraphs, include 7'~'scenic quality.'~'~b She p~inted out they recommended an addendum be prepared to the EIR 'to cover thiszsubject. "We also felt that in addition to a professional independent evaluation that it would be well to incorporate comments of nearby residents and ~hat they should be solicited for their opinions. We specifically cited the Arguello Street Neighborhood Association and the Greater Prospect Hill Homeowners Association, and recommended copies of the draft EIR be made available for their review." (3) She state~, "we felt there was insufficient Considering the potential heal th-~~:~'Z~r~a'~f ~th..e ss.~; ~h.~h:-..m~y '-b ~' subject to surficial sluffing and'~[h~ake ~'~ra~(~f"~B'~n'[{o~"¥h~ "' ' ~:~-~. ..... potential for loss of property value), it §eems.lmportant to have a more '.~[ ~s~.~i~ic understanding of soil c~ability before proceeding with the '~'~'.'. ........~ ",-..~:project." She added that ENVIROSlspecifically recommended the developer sub- mit a preliminary soils report based on 10 to 20 test borings or trenching samples taken '~-~appropriate points,and .~p~rted that this had been done. She further stated that they had ~ecommended a modification of the written EIR section on soils and geology as the result of the soils testing. ......................... j ............ (4) She stated that;~areawaSc'a cormnp~tobn~ate~ ;'i:ghts in the hydrology section, and added, "we .f~t~-.~'~0"~l~"City lPublic'--WO~ Department and resolved that there were no diverters in the vicinity of the project." (5) She stated that ENVIROS had requested there be a map,included in the EIR depicting the location of trees which are planned to be removed, "so that ~the Commission and others in the City could easily see which trees were ~.~p~_. ~. be.._l?~t_._'l__S_h~ R?.~nt~d_ ~H~ t~ _~ 'had als0 ~een' dohe. 197>+$ D. ANALYSIS OF EIR BY ENVIROS - Sandra Rennie - Continued (6) She stated ENVIROS had ;~['~'for ~peci~lci~ddi.tions to the section on atmospheric information particularly a~--.~i~ pertains. to-'ai~' quality. She stated they felt a definition of the affected airshed should be included and that the present quality of the airshed and the comparison of the present quality of the air- shed to State standards should be.included~! along with the emissions.?~B~ ......................... " (7) Ms. Rennie explained that on the historical sectio~ "we suggested that there is a histSrical significance on the property; however, it does not particularly pertain to the house because of the number of modifications made to the ho~7se. The property was the si'~e of one Of the earliest vineyards in Santa Clara County as well as being ;0wned by ~he first governor of California. The governor of California, whose name was Burnett, has relatives living in Santa Clara County at this time. We reqommended that since the eucalyptus trees were not native to California, this is a remnant of the early history of the area and perhaps the eucalyptus grove would be ..~ppropriate for/.pUb~h~a'~ and dedication as a park. We also. recommended the streets in ~he deVel6pment be considered to be named after some of the persons, including Painless Parker, from the history of the site." (8) Ms. Renni~stated that ENVIROS pointed out that serious overcrow'dl~':~hia? occur in the Cupertino Elementary School District. "My understanding iS'that a letter has been received from the school district that they do not antici- pate that this would cause overcrowding now; so they have said i.~:Wduld~6:~;."'~ then they said it would, and once again they have said it would no~'"" ..... ""'!' ''~ (9) .!'~'h'~...explained that the EIR had staled there was a need for five more policemen t6 serve the general area, and added "this was refuted by the Sheriff's Department who felt the service was adequate." She noted that the EIRhad %Ydlc'~d' a more adverse impact than the Sheriff'~ Department' felt there was. (i0) She pointed out in the section on land use, "we commented that the EIR did not discuss the impact of high tension PG&E lines which cross the property on property value, aesthetics and possible interference with TV and radio transmission," She added, "we als6 felt there should be a more complete dis- cussion on the use of ,the trails s~stem which crosses the property, and also how it relates to the City policie~ and goals relating to e~tablishing a City-wide trail system." She further added that ENVIROS had made a recommendation that the homeowners association hold and protect the open area in perpetdi.ty. "We included some recommendations ,'o~[~'~i'~lsi.~7~.! and the key elements to be included in the form, of the homeow~i~' ~Ssociation to insure that open area would be in perpetuity." (11) She stated that ENVIROS differed in opinion on the traffic conclusions, and that"'![here were a .)few typographica! erro~-.which were corrected. She stated, "in addition we disagreed on the percentage of new trips on Stelling Road. We felt the prediction of 5% of the new trips going north would use Stelling and the rest would use Saratoga-Sunnyv~le Road, and we felt the estimation was low because we felt that St~ll_ipg was ~ much faster way to Highway 85 than Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road~,'~(~__S7~ce 25~ of northbound traffic use stelling..' .,' Road now, we felt probably that amount would continue tO use Stelling rather than Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road." (12) She stated that they also had requested that inclusion be made of mitigation measures concerning energy impact, land reported that they had been incorporated in the EIR. (13) She reported that they had made comments to the City based on the review process, and specifically had suggested that copies of the EIR be made available for use by the public at !such places as the City Hall and the public libraries. MINUTES OF JULY 15, 1974 E. REBUTTAL BY CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Mr. Frisby stated that he had no specif.ic comments to what Ms. Rennie! had said. He' explained that he had worked with Mr:. Rowe of the City Planning Department in preparing the draft EIR, and that it wa's the~?-understanding they had responded to all of the .qb~.s'. in Ms. Renni~'s analysis in an adequate way. Ms. Renni.~' agreed with these comments. F. PUBLIC AGENCIES INPUT Chairman Marshall gave a brief summary 'of the written correspondence received from public agencies as follows: (1) Santa Clara ~!ley"W~ter District ;letter of July 11, 1974 expressed concern over the effects' of"a"fili'-type bEidge and suggested a clear-span bridge instead. In addition there were sZeveral pages of comments relative to the ._: effects of drainage and the necessity for mitigating measures' to alleviate that condition. (2) Cupertino Sanitary District lette~ of July 5, 1974 !~j~d~.ted a clarification of language in the EIR, and indicated they had more than"adequate capacity to handle the anticipated land use. (3) Memorandum from the Traffic Engineer of the City of Saratoga dated July 1, 1974 which pointed out that the greatest.'~ct (297% increase) of traffic would occur on Prospect Road, and the increase on other roads would be considerably (4)..· Cupertino School District letter of July 12, 1974 stated it had adequate " capacity in their school system tq handle the enrollment of students from this development. (5) City of Cupertino Planning Department letter of July 16, 1974 indicated they had reviewed the EIR, and their only concern was related to the traffic increase on Stelling and Prospect ;Roads. BREAK: 8:55 p.m. REOPEN: 9:15 p.m. Chairman Marshall stated that one of the Commissioners had commented that the plan the developer outlined was nothing more than that. He stated that the developer's outline was what he proposed to do if the dhange of zoning was granted. He added that the p·~an had not been presented to the Planning Commission for adoption or acceptance, and therefore such things as types, numbers and location of houses and streets, and the number of trees to be removed were somewhat academic. He added that "they represent wh~t he would like to do and not necessarily what the City would allow or what would be in the final plan They are appropriate in terms of assessing the imp~c'[~.~.:~h~"e~iron- ment on a hypothetical basis rather than a real basis." G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION (1)'j~').Introduction: Brian Un~er~ 21192 Maria Lane~ Saratoga~ Ca!i!fornia Mr. Unter stated that their slide;presentation would~cover the highlights ·· of the Citizen's Environmental Impact Report on the Park~ RanCh. He indicated that they had been limited by la¢~ of time and expertise in criti'q~'ing envi~0n- mental impact reports;/a~d added they had concentrated on areas of inconsistency. Mr. Unter stated that overafl"'~he~"had ·felt the EiR prepared·by 'the Center of Environmental Design had attempted to be complete and accurate, and he ~d~_· "we applaud the City in hiring its independent consultant." He stated ~.'~n~&~"~'6'~.lt there were two areas of shortcomings in the draft EIR: (a) Lack of Total Area-Wide Analysis: As an example Mr. Unter stated that there was a rumor that the City of Cupertino planned in the next few years 3,000 additional homes in the area. He added to thi~Y "there are yalready tr~fic_s~!.s_ in th~ ~ur~p~in~ .P~k~r_.Ran?~ ar~';:" i'.T.~ -6- G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION - In~'roduction - Continued Prospect Road, Stelling Road., the Arguello area, Wardell Road and the Rainbow Drive intersection. 'He stated that there was a lack of impact · ~ analysis relative to time as well, and pointed out that this would result from ~esidential expansion and from possible expansion from such areas as the Saratoga C~u~'tr'~"Ci'~b'~ iand~ pr~s'ently under the Williamson Act being release~. He concluded that this would be a ~reat i~p~t on the traff~.p~tuati0n.~~ w~ll as ~ impact. on .the land. (b) Total Lack of Cost/Benefit Analysis: Mr. Unter asked, "how much is this going to cost the tax payers: of the City? How much school '.~evenue do we hope to gain from this? What additional Saratoga business revenue will come from this =d~l~ment?''. To the latter question, Mr. Unter explained o that most of the residents o.f this area felt that business would ~o to Cupertino, San Jose, and the adjacent area~of the Highwa~ ~5~P~spect Road intersection. There Were no cormnents on 'Section I-A .and Section I-B. (2) Characteristics~ Section I-C: Joe Butler~ 21400 Arrowhead Lane~ Cupertino Mr. Butler stated that they disagreed with the EIR in its assurance of insuring the view. He stated they felt the development would degrade the view of the Saratoga residents and the residents of the surrounding area. He cited page 6, Assessor's Map 3j66 as being a good example of his point, and noted this property ran contiguous to the Parker Ranch for over a mile. He stated there were 24 homes built on 40.06 acres the~, with a density of 0.6 house per acre; he added thae the Blackwell project proposed 2.2 houses per acre,~ then added, "but we realize there is a consideration for cluster housing~ '~'~eve~'=~'~ ~oint 0~'~ a'l~ 0~'°~hese'i35 homes are going to be placed on 61 total acres." He explained that they had taken a photoclimete~ and had found that.42~ of those 61 acres were going to be cut and fill, '~nd that 243 trees over 12" in diameter were planned to be removed along that cut-and-fill line. He stated, "it generates, in our estimation, a gigantic scar on the terrain. We do.not consider this iS a'preservation of' the view for the citizens of Saratoga and the citizens in the adjacent area." (3) Geologic~ Section II A-l: Gary Stephenson~ 22505 Rolling Hills Road~ Saratoga Mr. Stephenson stated that he had found many inconsistencies~'~n the draft ~_!.R._aS _f°!10~s:_.__/ (a) He explained that the EIR states that=~?the Azule-soil group is essentially "well-~rained, moderately fi~e, and fine textured soils on steep upland." He reported that the Monte Bello Ridge Study states that other charac- teriSticS of the Azule-soil'group are its clay content, its high shrink- swell potential, and its low geogolic stability, and he recommended these additional characteristics be included in the ~-. (b) He remarked that the Santa ~lara formation was not presented completely, and recommended the words "With varying amounts of clay" be included in the following statement in the EIR: "The Santa Clara formation Lithology is characterized by brown buff-colored stream deposits composed of rounded pebbles and cobbles (mostly Franciscan debris surrounded by a gritty matric of coarse-to-fine sand and silt." He further stated that the Santa Clara formation had additional characteristics as brought out in the Monte Bello Ridge StUdy and the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Saratoga and shouldZbe included in the EIR as follows: "It is relatively young and composed of relatively soft, easily eroded sedi- mentary rocks. It has very poor surficial soil conditions which are often unstable in the presence of water."~ (c) Mr. Steph. enson stated that they disagreed with the statement made in the EIR that the site was 10w in agricultural potential, and that they_~ felt this was inconsistent With a previ6i~'~'~statement that/'fertility .~s moderate to ~%~h'7""'H~ ~%~d'Bu'Y'~h~'~ Henry Fair, a previous ~w~r, 17- MINUTES OF JULY 16 G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION -/Geologic - Continued was well known for the quality of his produce, citing an article written in 1895: "Henry Farr's Ranch is all choice vineyard land and he has one of the richest vegetable gardens on the west side .... the olives are as healthful and bright as any in the county, the soil and climate of this locality seeming to present a combination particularly suited to their culture." He further pointed out that the Ranch.~-s adjacent to prime agricultura!~soils as reported in the General Plan of the County of Santa Clara, and recommended the agricultural potential be reassessed. (d) Mr. Stephenson stated that they disagreed with the EIR statement that the site was not c~'ssed by any known acfive fault. He cited the Monte Bello Ridge Study as~.follows~: "It does appear that a major fault zone (with two possible b~anches)l does exist generally along the mountain front from Moody Road to Prospect Road. As Brown and Lee (1971) suggest, the fault may be active below grOund-surface even though data indicate no surface displacement has occurred since disposition of the older alluvium. Therefore, in order to err on the side of safety, the fault has been rated next to the San Andteas Fault zone in probability of future displacement." He further noted that a map had been included in the Citizen's EIRwhich reflected the Shannon Fault .line crossing the Parker Ranch in two places. He recommended this data be included in the EIR. (e) Mr. Stephenson stat~, "I al'so believe that the landslide danger as represented in the Report is:..~ery mitigated from what i~7i actually is... The EIR states 'isolated landslides exist on the property and a large ancient landslide is located' in the southeastern portion of the site.' In the Geotechnical. Study Se:ismic Safety Element for the City, 'areas "of steep slope, genera~y.co~Side__red g~eat~r than 30% overlaying areas 0~'relatively'p0or geologic ~stability can be interpreted to create a condition for high landslide potential.' In both cases these conditions are met, and I feel both of !these should be included in the EIR." (f) He stated that relative to the impact portion of the EIR,~'~0~[h~g other than the word "typicalZ" should be used when referring to the side road going down on the western side of the property. (g) He stated that it was estimated that 190,000 Cubic yards of excavation would be required for the project, and that the cuts and fills on the property would be 60% cut and 50% fill. He recommended that the impact on soil erosion and slides should be assessed in the EIR. (h) Mr. Stephenson disagreed with the EIR statement that residential con- struction would have minor effects on the soil's behavioral characteris- tics, and substantiated his!disagreement by quoting the following state- ments from the Santa Cruz Mountain Study Environmental Geologic Analysis: "Man's development activities in most cases promote erosion and decrease geologic and slope stability... These ad'tivities steepen slopes, remove stabili~'~ng vegetation, andSincrease water saturation... all of which decrease'geologic and slope.stability and may induce landslides, accel~i- erate downhill soil creep, etc." He stated, "we feel the impact of residential construction on.the soil's behavioral characteristics should be reassessed. We also feel that since a preliminary geologic feasibility study of the Parker Ranch has been done, it would be appropriate to include it in the EIR." (4) HydroloSAc~'~S~C't'ion II-A-2: Joe iButler Mr. Butler stated that the EIR did not deal adequately with major problems which they felt might lead to potential dangers as follows: (a) Mr. Butler contended the runoff on Prospect Creek toward the Arguello area caused severe flooding every winter, and that this situation had been ignored..i~"'the EIR. H~ showed examples of this situation whereby -8- MINUTES OF JULY 16~ 197 G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION - HydroloSic - C6ntinued an area property owner had been forced to spend thousands of dollars to install retaining wall~ and-'to sink in 40-foot poles encased in cement to hold back landslides caused :by water. He recommended this section of the EIR be{~written to ,show detail plans on how flooding alon~ Prospect ~C~'~'~'d' the Arguello area would be prevented.' (b) He stated that siltation was' due to softness of the Santa Clara formation which underlies the site, and he contended that siltation serious thRn can be dismissed by saying they will take care of it." He pointed out that the EIR st~tes~that desilting facilities might be ';.necessary, and stated, "we believe these facilities should be an absorUee" ~eq~irement and d__e~ign _of .t~em shoU~d be ~..~.~_Ei~'." (c) Mr. Butler noted that the EIR states that all building sites are free of siltation or inundation, and he pointed out that the creekside homesites would not be taken care of insomuch as there had been a widening of the creek and further erosion which would undermine yards and building structures in the area. He ~recommended ,the soils report 'b'~'~done to determine additional erosio~ in the creeks{de area~ (d) He stated that the EIR specified an earthfill bridge over Prospect Creek; that due to unstable soils and adverse hydraulic effects, the earthfill bridge should be eliminated:and an alternative means of access should be included in the EIR. (e) He pointed out that the substantial water problems found by Williams ~nd Mocine in the 1974 Sphere of Influence Plan, ENVIROS and the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintained unstable soils exist on the Parker Ranch. M%. Butler recommended the EIR include a more thorough soils report be :'.'~p.~n~b~',fore construction began ~'~. the (5) Biotic~ Section II-A-3: Steve Stuckey~ 22600 Prospect Road~ Cupertino Mr. Stuckey noted that the EIR s~ates that no endangered species of birds had been found on the Parker Ranch~ 'He reported that the Conservation of Resources of the Santa Clara County General Plan referred to four species of endangered birds, the white-tailed k~:e among them. He pointed out the white-tailed kite was on the list of birds occuring on the site. He further pointed out that the EIR states that overgra~ing would destroy a grassland, but~.~hat it further states that a program of.controlled gra~ing would control the high grasses and complement the environment. Mr. St~ckey recommended.~"B~d~'~7'~'~ the contradictions'i~present"this ~ection of the E!_R_ShoU!~ be.. ~e~itt.~7" (6) Atmospheric~ Section II~,]'i~"""Steve Stuckey Mr. Stuckey stated that the EIR ~ad a chart of air emissions in pounds, and stated that this should be converted to pphm measurements;~ He further con- tended that all pollutants should be measured at various times, including the ~a~!concentration levels du~ing summer, and that the EIR measured only CO in November. He further recommended that the impact of this development on the southern, downwind areas ef the valley should be analyzed and evaluated in detail in the EIR. There were no comments on Archeologic~='~Section II-B-1. (7) Historical, Section II-B-2: Gary Stephenson Mr. Stephenson made the following comments relative to what he felt were inaccuracies of the historical s~ction of the EIR, and he recommended these historical aspects b~"~incorporat&d in the EIR: (a) Peter Burnett, not C.H. Burnett, was the.first governor of California. (b) He stated there seemed to be no s~c[7~eWson as C.J. Ryland who sold the property to Peter Burnett as stat~d'"i~'the EIR, but there was a C.T. Ryland -9- MINUTES OF JULY 16~ .... ','-'~.i{%ENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION ~ Historical - Continued who was the ~'overnor's private secretary and son-in-law. He further reported that there was no record of when Dwight Burnett, the governor's son,obtained the property, but he stated that it was recorded that in 1861 the land was placed under the Homestead Act. (c) Mr. Stephenson noted that the Report "~'.tated that the property changed hands '~:everal times during several decades and the original dwelling was modified by each of the occupants. He .pointed out that D.J. Burnett;'~L. .". sold the property to Mary Smith in 1867, and in 1868 the property was Sold"~o Henry Farr who na~.~iiC Grand View Vineyard. (d) !ilHe.sea~ed ~that the EIR contended that one of the buyers was George Miller, [~^t"~th:~"'~riginal governor's structure remained on his land, and that in 1923 E,R. Parker bought the 'land from Miller. Mr. Stephenson pointed out that the transaction bet, ween Miller and Parker in 1923 turned out to be a settlement over water rights; that Miller bought the section of the Ranch presently zoned as Prospect Hills Subdivision but that it did not contain the governor's dwelling on it; and that the "Parker Ranch" was purchased by Oli~er Blanchard in 1910, sold to William Calder in 17.12, and then sold to Painless Pa~er in 1915, (8) Land Use~ Section II-B-3: Zettler Greely, 21450 Prospect Road~ Cupertino Mr. Greely contended that the EIR states the City .~Attorney advised the Planning Commission and EIR people to use I. the Genera!._Plan !.~as it now exists in evalua- ti'~-~of the zoning change, but h~ asked w~_!.~H~General Plan should be used, He went on to point out that there was an implication that the property owners may have vested interest in the property, He stated that the EIR state'~'~ under the present zoning of R-I-40,000, .the property cou__ld. ihave 135 homes;_he ,: added:h~wev. er~i"'if the new General Plan was adbpted in May and will become final next month,"a substantially lower numbe~ Of ho~ses could be developed." He recommended the EIR be supplemented to provide information on the number of houses that could be placed on the property if the 1974 General Plan was approved. He further recommended that the City Attorney__provide a legal opinion. ~n wh.e.t_h~_r' the property qWners .have vested interest. in the property. There were no comments on Population and Housing, Section II-B-4, (9) Recreation~ Section II-B-5: Ron:.Knapp~ 20885 Wardell Road~ Saratoga/~. Mr, Knapp stated he was very impressed with the work done by the Planning Commission and Williams & Mocine 'on the General Plan in that "they were ~_uite perceptive to some of the ideas On recreation and area." He stated that some of the objecti.,.V. 4s of th~"'~ty w~"t'~'~{t'eg~te "' horseback riding, mountain trailS, a new trail plan, .protect rural atmosphere, and provide open space and recreational areas for all re~..idents of the City. He stated, "if you put in a subdivision with 157 acres of open land, it can be a very positive thing to the City; but it could also be a very negative thing too." (a) Mr. Knapp stated that'~f~lt one d~'flciency in the EIR was n6~mention of how this open-space area 'would be us'e~ 7.i.eiL~.'~r by the City' o~"'~lackweil Homes. He stated that the developer had ihdicated providing .phblic riding-..'~rails, but that their proposal only showed a horse trail from opposit~ of Maria~..'iLane up through Prospect Creek, which he felt would be "inaccessible during the '.winter months and probably difficult to maintain." : (b) He stated there were other recreational uses in nature (such as pi~n. fC- ing, kite flying, photography, small animal wildlife and bird watching, and the study of botony and lzoology) which were not mentioned in the EIR, (c) He further stated that the EIR had not mentioned whether the homeowners association.~77'~.would allow pdblic usage or whether it would be just priva~.[~e. -10- -~ .,I~INUTES OF JULY 16, G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION - Recreation - Continued Mr. Knapp stated that their recommendation was that the recreational study in the EIR was not incorrect but__w._as:_very limited in scope, and they felt,_ this "should be expanded to ~'~-'7*ail,i~' the positive-~'~nd~'~_'g~,~-~'~'~'[~ ~h~t migh~'e envisioned," ' (10) Education, Section II-B-6: Brian Unter Mr, Unter stated ;.~hey agreed with the comments that the development would not ~ impact th'~'~h~'6f~'=i~=~he next ~w'years .due to the declining' student en~oll- ,7~_n~t-.~-iJ th~Yea,' .... ~ ............................ Mr. Varardi *stated ""*~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [arker Ranch "'~: Ord n lies entire'i~h~ Hazardous Fire Area"' as defined ~' City ina ~e. He 'p6i~d"Sut ~hYt'~hl' p'~s~6'~e 0¥ hor~s ~azi~g'~b~'*[he grasslands shoul c n ider the'p ~[~ntial eq strian usgs of the property. He added to this that if equestrian r iking trai were not developed on the property or were developed inadequately, there would be a need for additional 8-10 ft. fire breaks. He pointed out that fire breaks on a hillside would b~' definition have no vegetation, and would thereby cause a potent.~'~l erosion.%? problem. Mr. Varardi further pointed out that another significant fire problem in the area would be from pole-type construction of homes. He explained that fire spreads upward from the bottom of a hill; if those'~'cuses /~' ~e top of~h~h'frr were of~le-type construction and had v~getati~:under- neath$~'7i a ki~iin~"~r~' "~n~er' 'the ~.house' would be ~reat~'d. He "a~dea [ha[' Lh'is .... Io · . probl~ would'* be c~pounded especially since there was proposed cluster ~ using . ~ He stated he felt the EIR was insufficient, and reco~ended "that present facts and certain uses of certain construction should be reviewed in the EIR." (12) Police~ Section II-B-8: Brian Unter Mr. Unter stated he talked with Lt. Harte of the Santa~.Iara County Sher.ff's Department who indicated that Saratoga did have the a~l~lity to pull resources from the County Sheriff's Department for emergency reasons. Mr. Unter cen- tended on the basis of this, "any above-average use of those resources w&uld result in a net reallocation of. cost of the County resources to the City~ which we feel would impact '6~~ taxes." He further stated that the statement in the EIR that the increased call load could not be estimated by the Department was not totally correct. He stated · ~ .~ Lt. Harte had indicated that national figures reflected approximately .one officer per one-thousand population. Mr Unter explained that if ther~ I . were . , o ~""'1=' 135 h~es on the property at fou~ people per dwelling this would be r u'gh~ y 540 people or one-half ~n.~He added to this one-half man for patrollin~ the hillside area, and stated "so we: feel an additional patrol~n should be added to the Force as a result of this development, and very likely additional. trail vehicles or motorcycles as':well." Mr. Unter further stated that a ~e~.ondary access would improve response time as indicated in the EIR around the Comer Road/Pierce Road area. He co~nded the City Council for having authorized a study ~ich was underway n~% "looking at these roads to se~ice that area, and this would also 1 g at y e~ance the access for the firemen." (13) Traffic~ Section LiI-B-9: Zettler Greely Mr. Greely opened his remarks with the quote "to be or (not to be," stating that "the large print {in the EIR ~veth a 40-foet road,' but the small pr~t ............. 'stated "I ga,t~er from [he ~=ents tonight there' i~ no intentio~ '0f"'~idening Prospect ROad." He showed slides of the Prospect Road area :~7~j~'~[h~ jneed for widening Prospect Road; slides of the narro~ess 'n ' f and danger"6"~"*~a~i'a' Lane Bridge; and slides of Rainbow Drive ~ tersectxon focusing on a sign post which had been hit so many times that the City o~ Cupertino no longer uprighted it'. He also showed slides of a bus shed put '-11- G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION - Traffic - Continued 10-feet off Prospect Road by one~of the area residents. He stated the shed had been knocked down six times in the last two months, hit twenty times in the last two years, and finally demolished. Mr. Greely stated that a trafficSsurvey had been taken of the Greater Prospect Homeowners Association by Friend~ of Painless Parker, with the following results: (a) ~.~Traffic Cou~t: He reported 295 cars of thelresidents in the area along with 100-200 additional cars from the Saratoga Country Club; he added that the Country Club estimated 250-~00 cars on special-function days. This would be approximately 396 ~ound trips per week day or 514 round trips per weekend day (or 790 trips p'~'week day and 1,028 trips per weekend day). : Mr. Greely reported there were 32 joggers, 41 bikes on the road, 14 horses, 50 kids waiting for. buses and 17 kids who actually walked along the road. He further stated this count covered only the residents of the area from Maria Lane south on Prospect Road, as well as the Saratoga Country Club, and did not p~ovide for people who "just want to enjoy the beautiful drive." (b) Specific questions: Mr. Greely stated that 80% of every survey sent out was r~:turned with the following results to the following questions: - Do you feel Prospect Road could handle double its present load without widening? 91.8% no - Do you feel that the present Prospect Road Bridges are adequate? ~ -93.8% no - Have you or any driver in the house ever had an accident, or near miss,.on Prospect Road? 85.7% yes - If the area is going tozbe further developed, do you feel that Prospect Road;must be widened even if that would destroy the Prospect Creek area environment? 71.4% yes Mr. Greely ,~de the following comments on the above-mentioned data": (a) He stated that if Prospect,Road was to be widened, "we have showed you there will be severe environmental impact." (b) He stated that according to the General Plan, an area with 15 houses needs to have secondary access, and added, "I submit this project as proposed amounts to a 135-~ome cul-de-sac." (c) He pointed out there were two critical intersection on Prospect and Stelling Roads, and stated~that the traffic data cited in the EIR had been 1971 data from the City of San Jose Engineering Data. He noted that since the lights had been installed on Highway 85 in Cupertino, much of the traffic had shifted over to Stelling Road, and stated, "I '. ~ think a new traffic study is warranted." (d) He noted, "there is an implied concept in the EIR that the West Valley Freeway will alleviate some of the traffic problems," with which he disagreed. (e) He pointed out that the secondary access impact was incomplete, and added, "there is a way traffic circulation could be improved here, but it was not a~essed in the EIR." ~-12- MINUTES OF JULY 16. G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATION - Traffic - Continued (f) He further pointed out that' the traffic on Wardell Road had been a concern to the community for years, and that it~.~l~o had the same narrow bridge condition as .Prospect Road which he felt was a traffic · hazard~and~which the.EIR.~.a~ not addressed. Mr. Greely concluded his statements by stating that their reco~hdation was relatively simple: I~The City Council had authorized a traffic study on the northwestern hills area, and they requested that the Planning Commission hold any action on this matter until the results of this study had been reported back to the City Council. ~Ther~f'~ere no comments on 'Solid Waste, Section II-B-IO. (14) Liquid Waste~ Section II-B-11: lJoe Butler. Mr. Butler stated the EIR had not answered two questions which they felt were important: (a) He stated that there was a 'necessity of relocating at least a portion of .~"8" sanitary sewer main which c~es Prospect Creek very close to the Maria Lane Bridge. He ~stated, "if the road does need to be widened, the EIR must consider what is going to happen the~." (b) He stated that 23 homes on the sou6~eastern portion of the Ranch would not be served by the present sanitary s~stem, and added that a pump station would be provided for these 23 ~omes. He='e~PtamBe_.~at...3-b ~es would produce approximately 550 gallons of sewage apiece (or 12,650 gallons per day), and if the power were~to go off for one day, the pump might not be able 'to run. He stated, "if this iS so, there' must be a smell-free reservoir by the applicant to insure the residents and the surrounding area t~at there will be no danger ~iTpublic health." He added that this was not addressed in the EIR!, and he further added there was no provision set ~Rp for a homeowners' association to main- tain this pump station=~'~l~'~r].-i~"Y~ (15) Water Supply~ Section II-B~Zi' Joe Butler Mr. Butler pointed out that in their opinion the EIR underestimated the complexity of the water supply situation. He stated, "when you look at the topographic map, you find that 70% of the houses planned are above the ability of the present gravity-feed water system, so that 70% of the homes (roughly 100 homes) would have ~o have a separate system. Nowhere has the EIR mentioned setting up a separate homeowners.a§sociation~.~.~o prepare, maintain, pay bills, send out the water bills, ~o insure tH'e~w~ter system does not fail, especially for the prevention of fires. We submit that ENVIROS' criticism of the EIR o~ the homeowners association lack of des- cription is just as evident in the areas of sewage control on 23 homes, and for the 70% of the homes no~ serviced on t~ water supply." There were no comments on Gas & Electric, Section II-B-13. (16) So~'~c~ Section II-B-13: Joe Bu~ler Mr. Buti~r contended the T~ffi~ Section and So~i.¢~Section "are not together," and stated that the "sonic"Section indicates at least 1,000 cars per day through the~." He explained the traffic study on this was done Monday, November 12, 1973, and that the '~.~Tq~'~j.~Country Club was closed that day." He added, "we submit !~t this section b~r~edone in the revised EIR." (17) Scenic Quality~ Section II-B-15:. Brian Unter Mr. Unter stated there three points where the EIR was inadequate: trees, skyline and cut-and-fill area: (a) Trees: He stated, "we were all shocked with the 243 trees in excess of 12" in diameter being cut down." He stated that it was proposed -'13 - "MINUTES OF ~IrLY 16~ 1'9e G. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER PRESENTATI6N - Scenic Quality - Continued that all of the 10-12 palm'trees were to be taken down, and added that there was no mention of the hundreds of smaller trees and shrubs less than 12" in diameter "that will fall under the blade of the bulldozer." ~e added that at least 10 oak trees upwards to 10 feet in diameter were proposed to be taken out, ~nd further added "it seems inconceivable to us that anybody would want to take out and run a road t~'~ough an oak tree which is probably 150 ~to 200 years old." He stated that they would like to have a point ,cla.~{'~'.~regardi~g the two adjacent lots ~U~der the oak grove shown~ earlier on a map by the developer. He asked ~ho would own the grove and how it would be preserved or protected. Mr. Unter stated that the EIR had not mentioned the 50 or more oak trees along Prospect Creek 'that would have to be removed in order to widen Prospect Road, and ad~ded, "it would endanger Prospect Creek due to the increased fill in the area and the increased amount of silt in the stream." (b) Skyline: In a sequence of .slides of the skyline, Mr. Unter drew attention to those trees which "jut above the norm like the proposed palm trees'~t~t~'~'eT~'~'~~'~'~'~'~ (c) He stated, "I think we all ban recognize that in generating 190,000 cubi~57yards for cut and fill (which is approximately 20% of the site) it is a very great and visible eye sore." ..-..._..~ ='There'were no comments on Section"' III-A or Section III-B. (18) Alternatives~ Section Ill-C: Andy Varardi Mr. Varardi made the following comments relative to this section: (a).. He stated that there was a ~eference under one of the alternatives, "a slight remark of agricultdral use of the land," which he felt should be stricken from the EIR. (b) He stated that he felt overall the alternatives were the lea~t factual of the entire report, adding "there were no tangible comparisons'offered between the alternatives discussed." (c) He asked what the impact would be if the last General Plan were to be used as a base, and added "we feel that section should use a'm~re free-thinking and creative approach to the aspects of considering various comparisons." . (d) He stated there were other kinds of parks than "the park around the block," and stated that other areas'for parks should be considered which fwere rugged in nature. He indicated that the EIR should look especially "at theire dangers and the potential preservation of land; and askeS" ~f there were to be a dedication to '~h'e 'p~'Bl{c to maintain some kind"~f'i' ,open space, 'how coal~'~'h'['~u~l~'~ai'~tain i~L (e) He asked "what would be so Bad if the willieins & Mocine study were to be implemented," He further stated, "if you are talking about single- family houses on a large loe, you can still make Planned Community' either by prezoning or making a distinction of the kinds of houses and materials used." Mr. Varardi concluded his statements by stating, "we would like to suggest that other alternatives recommended at the public hearings be included in the final EIR." (19) Summary: Brian Unter Mr. Unter stated, "we essentially stated that the deve~g~S']ireport attempted to be accurate and complete. However, we think it missed in some areas, and we think 'the-'Ci[y WSuld'be.'best'..~erved if most of these questions were clarified for the citizens in-the area. All things considered -- the 243 trees, the '190,000 cubic yards of cut and fill -- we suggest'~ry harder." -i4- .... i970 Mi TES oF ~Y'i~', .... BREAK: 10:30 p.m. REOPEN: 10:45 p.m. Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation tp the Friends of Painless Parker for their "excellent presentation." He added that there were a number of slides in the presen- tation pointing out potential problems. relative to flooding and road damage, and noted that "they all occurred in the area a~jacent to Saratoga in the County. That is why we are concerned with having an EIR, and why the City wants to make sure mitigating factors are taken so there is not a .~'ed~'~'~Tf~~.~i'~'i'q~''~ H. PRESENTATION BY GREATER ARGUELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Mr. John M. Weir, Chairman of the Greater Arguello Homeowners Association, residing at 12343 Arroyo de Arguello Saratoga,Z stated their presentation covered those. areas which were not covered by the Friends of Painless Parker presentation,'~i~_l._."> particular interest given to the Argue:llo Homeowners. Mr. Weir's presentation: (1) He stated that they recomnended 'disapproval of the EIR as it stands, stating "we feel it is inadequat:e for its research and f~ not supported by facts." He pointed out that one. member of the EIR consulting staff, Jennings-McDermott-Heiss, also s'erved as designers for Blackwell Homes, adding, "and we don't feel they .can be very objective in both positions." (2) He contended that the slope-dens:ity data based on slope and acreage as predicted in the EIR to cover 135 homes did not .a~,with current Saratoga ordinances. : (3) Mr. Weir stated that the EIR ignored the Hall property status "in that it presumes the Hall property will be released from the Williamson Act." He stated that approximately 10 homes could be built on the Hall portion of the project, and additionally "i't cuts across the main ridge line which would prevent them from building; the road as to plan, which would have quite an adverse impact and should be 'considered in the EIR." (4) He stated that the EIR falsely moved the Shahn~n Fault line off the property to the northeast by 1,200 feet. (5) Mr. Weir stated he felt the EIR ignored the soil runoff effects in the Arguello area. He stated the EIR says, "No erosion or sedimentation ap~.ears to have accrued in the past few years. Erosion probably occurred only during periods of highflow, such as the 1963 major storm." Relative to this he distributed to the Commission a .one-year's listing of maintenance calls by the City of Saratoga in this area, quoting the input dated November 14, 15 and 16, 1973. He stated, "this is characteristic of the flooding we have year after year in the Arguello .area." He explained that there was a major ravine with trees in that area Which formed a natural water-flow, and at the same time the area on the other side flowed into Prospect Creek. He added, "this all joins in the area of Norada Court, so we cannot dismiss the state- ment they made-~:.~"~ere would be a 12% increase in runoff." Chairman Marshall pointed out that the one-year's listing of maintenance calls was a City-wide status, a~d that there:~'a.~'~'~n~h~'~'f~'~'~e" numerous streets which are not within several mii'e~"~'E'~t~i'~"~&~."He ..... '~" added, "this is a report which s"hows that there are problems in the Arroyo de Arguello area during rainfall, but at the same time, those conditions cause serious flooding problems :practically everywhere in the City." Mr. Weir stated that the EIR states, "An on-site storm drainage system is planned to pick up the water collected in the streets and developed buildin~ pads. These storm-drainage systems will discharge either into.Prosp~c~ Creek or into the existing ravines within the property. 'The n~t'runoff from the site is increased by the proposed improvements. -'EX~'~'~{~e'~'6'~n~.l'~-"t~e7 site are left in their natural ~tate, resulting i~"n~'d~af~"change'. .... However, the acreage devoted to:streets and impervious roofs, decks, sidewalks -15- MINUTES 'OF JULY 16~ : H. PRESENTATION BY GREATER ARGUELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Mr. Weir - Continued and the like probably approximate 37 acres. Hence, approximately 37 acres has a runoff factor of around 85% whereas the remaining 181 acres continue"? to have approximately 50% runoff~in its natural state. This is compared to its present condition of 218 acres with a 50% runoff factor. The net effect is approximately 12% increase in' the total amount of runoff." Mr. Weir stated they did not agree,'~hat there was a 12% increase on those factors, and added, "they also ignored the fact that they are removing trees, gradingj.:the property, that early concentrations will occur on runoff, and they are taking the vegetation opt. So we feel there are a number of im- proper calculations on total runoff which will!~obably be greater than 12% r~noff." Mr. Weir further quoted the EIR, "The result of this runoff is d{minished somewhat since the streets interupt the normal flow and tend to increase the time required for the rainfall after falling on the ground to reach its eventual disposition point." He contended this was incorrect in this case, adding "they proposedl dumping excess water into Prospect Creek or dumping it into the ravine which will end out down on Norada Court." He staked this situation was what they were trying to show: "we have this problem already existing. We feel Norada Court was totally ignored in the EIR, and we are saying it shou~'d~be considered." Mr. R~L'.r.C~o~th~r:~7's:~.e~entation: Mr. R.L. Crowther, 20788 Noradd Court,2 Saratoga, gave the second portion of the presentation as follows: (6) He stated that the homes per-acre calculation was not consistent, and stated that if the City Ordinance equation was used, the figure would be 127 homes ~.~3-5~nB~f~'~H~a in the E!IR. He added, "'~n this case 8 homes is not '~"~"~%k'thing~---bu~""'=i~'i~'an examplle of the kind of inaccuracies that exist." He explained that if the 28~% average slope was applied to"'%~'~'~ty Ordinance, the slope densiXty calculation would be 1.71 acres per dwelling unit not 1.56 acres, and added "we are re2questing this be reconsidered." (7) Mr. Crowther ~itated th~e were two statements in the 1974 General Plan rela- tive to vegetation re~6val which~ were not stated in the EIR, which they felt were particularly important to this site: - "The importance of the viewsf.;of the mountains and hills from the City shall be a factor when consi'deriDg development." - "The natural beauty of the ri'dgeline should be protected. Only minimum cut and fill should be permi!tted.'' He added they felt these two "key statements" should be included in the EIR. (8) He stated "we feel visual impact is so important to neighboring areas, and we request the EIR include visual-impact profiles of effects of tree removal, grading and constr~ction from important view within the City." He added that they would also like roof-top elevations be given relative to neighboring ridgetop elevations, and that they would like detailed information on vegetation removal other than trees ~reater than 12" in diameter. He further added that they would also like to see incorporated in the EIR the visual impact of pole-type housing and'fencing; the visual impact of fire breaks and vegetation removal; and the jvisual impact of widening Prospect Road and the proposed Comer Drive extension. (9) Mr. Crowther stated they felt alvery important impact not thoroughly discussed in the EIR was the geotechnicaliconsiderations, and added that the references they used were the following: Monte Bello Ridge Study, California Division of Mines.and Geology, Santa Cruz Mountains Study, Fugro, Inc. Study= done for..~ the City of Saratoga in 1973, the maps which back up the 1974'~n~ga General Plan, and City Ordinance No. 28.,26 on Tree Removal which points out adverse effects of tree removal in terms of mitigating effects on geotechnical stability. -16 - MINUTES OF JULY 16 H. PRESENTATION OF GREATER ARGUELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Mr. Crowther - Continued He pointed out that i~hl report "Environmental Geologic Analysis of the Monte Bello Ridge Mguntain hrea ~tu~" by T.H." R0g~_Tj~=~.'~._'~rmstrong the California Division of Mines' and Geolog~ :~afr~th~..~_~7~7~Sh'~nno~a~!t ~passes directly !throUgh the Parker pr~p.~.r~y., with a neighboring..fault running "parali~i'ther'eto and which "almoSt cuts the Hall property in half." Mr. Crowther stated there were s~veral specific items which they request(~be included in the Geotechnical Section of the EIR: (a) Correct the statements on s0il stability. (b) Correct the fault lines to ~gree with the Monte Bello Ridge Study and the Saratoga General Plan. ~ (c) ~.An individual detailed soil! and geotechnical site study should be executed, including core s.a~ples, bedrock analysis, fault line stability, "~ecause it may have a major impact on whether this site can be developed at all." (d) The positions of faults sh'~'H. be~wn relative to homes, roads, sewers, services, vegetation removal, and ~uts and fills. (e)There should be a cut-and-fill plan on contour map with depth of cuts and fills. ; (f) There should be a map which' shows all landslides. (g) He stated, "there should be; an effort to determine the age of all land- slides which can be done thlrough various techniques such as taking tree core samples, for example. ". (h) Analyze the effects of cuts and fills, vegetation removal, and addition of weight on potential for ~rainfall or earthquake-triggered landslides. (i) Analyze-the effects of soilz creep and shrink-swell potential. (j) Define the construction limitations on foundations and "whether you can even put swimming pools upon th.~j~e hills." (k) There should be an analysis. on seismic and slide effects on services and water tanks. He quoted Mr. Stephenson and the Monte Bello Ridge Study ~ respectively as follows: "Th.is fault (Shannon) is rated next to the San Andreas Fault zone in probability'of fu[ure displacement .... Location of utility lines with respect to active faults "~;' constitute an acute problem during earthquakes.. If utility lines cross active faults without regard to fault displacement, services which are virtually needed to assist in publicSdisaster programs and meet post-earthquake recovery may not be available. In addition, the cutting of such lines may cause fires by emission of leaki~g gas or other material by electric sparks or mechanical friction. E~rthquake-triggered landslides are also capa- ble of destructing such facilities." He explained that there was a water tank which was to be~built near the fault, and "in the event of an earthqOake or other mov.ement along the fault, chances are the heavy weight of that type of thing would go and you would lose the water when you need it the most. In addition, you have services crossing these fault lines which need to be considered." He added that another aspect which should be consideredwas the many trees being removed in the "bowl areaSwhich is going!to have potential effects on landslides." He further ~dded that ther~ might be a need for redundancy in services (as in the wRter tank) in Order to maintain a safe condition. (1) Detailed explanation of any EIR 'keot'echnical or soil stability differences relative to other geotechnical reports. -17 - MINUTES OF JULY 16 H. PRESENTATION OF GREATER ARGUELLO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Mr. Crowther - Continued (10) Mr. Crowther stated that the risks of development of this type "have been greatly magnified by an analysis. of the City of San Jose's Highlands/Boulder Drive area." He explained simil'ar to the Blackwell Homes project, this development has azule clay, ther'e were steep slopes, foothil'ts, and prior- known soil conditions. He stated that in this case, there were streets, homes and sewer lines slipping dlown the hill, and that services could no longer be placed underground but' were beside the road. He reported that the property owners were sueing the 'City of San Jose for negligence in allowing construction on this unstable soil; there were four homeoi~ners who had been paid, three homes which had bee~ abandoned, two homes which were close to being unlivable, and that they were still in litigation. He stated that he felt the most significant part of this was that one of the major bases for the suit was "the soils stabilit'y question~;~ had been raised at the Planning Commission a~'d City Council meetin~'~ but had been essentially ignored." He reported that the builder had declared bankruptcy, and "the City was left holding the bag." He stated that the streets were constantly moving, and repair crews had to make two to .five .~ips per month; also that the City had to build a road in from the bac~ side that cost a half a million dollars." Mr. Crowther explained they had done an analysis on the two faults in com- parison with'~he San Jose litigation matter: there are 76 homes going through the Blackwell project w{thin 300~et of the two fault lines with an estimated 5 people per home, :totaling approximately 380 people. "!'f you look at the home values in the ~ange of $4-8 million, the potential litiga- tion risk to the City of Saratoga is somewh~lre in the range of $10-20 million. ~'~'~-.ma'~htenance and service ~aintenance costs are in the range of $100,000 ~['~ar, and if you had to replace services like the streets in the San Jose case, you are talking an additional financial risk. We feel this type of risk analysis should be included in the EIR." (11) Mr. Crowther stated that econom{c considerations could affect the environ- mental impact by diverting Saratoga resources from resource management and protection of health safety and.welfare. He felt there should be a Cost/ Benefit Analysis .~hcluded in the EIR which should consid'~'dthe following: (a) Risk analysis of landslide~ and faults. (b) School costs including busing, and "we noticed in 'the recent letter from Cupertino School District they mentioned that they were going to solve the problem by using relocatable units, and I think that should be included in the analysis.": (c) The widening of Prospect ROad and the bridges which would have to be replaced; the widening of ~ia Roncole, Prospect Road west of Stelling Road, and Stelling Road to.Route'~'~p'~ (d) Access road on the south (~he Comer.lprive extension). (e) A drainage canal on the east"'~side of the property. (f) Increased storm sewer and Creek capacity. (g) Pump station for ~'~ewage and maintenance. (h) Proposed sewer main and co~ts of services crossing faults. (i) Water tank (earthqdake safe) and maintenance. (j) Street and services maintenance. (k) Extra police and fire protection. (1) Annual fire break maintenahce. I. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time Chairman Marshall opened~the public hearing to the general public for comments. (1) MS. jean'Wood, 7647 Prospect Road~ San Jose, stated that Mr. Joe Bass, the head of the Transportation Department, City of San Jose had expressed con- cern over not being consulted a~out this EIR. She contended~h~"C~y of San Jose had not been notified 6f the EIR, and asked that they~=B~"~'0 notified. Ms. Wood stated that trucks going through that area would be going through San Jose and Cupertino, but that Cupertino had a Code against trucks traveling on Stelling Road; "therefore, they will go through Prospect Road and San Jose." She further commented that she ~ad been in contact with the California Highway Division and the Sheriff's Department and stated "the traffic on that road (Prospect Road) has b~en misrepresented in a letter to the City of San Jose. Mr. Blackwell said there were 500 cars going up there. In 1971 I requested a traffic survey in that area because there was a death there and because there had bee~ multiple accidents." She stated she "lived on the corner and that t~affic is impossible. In 1971 there w~e 15,000 cars going around there, !900 going up Prospect Road, and you plan putting in more people there?" She reported that there was a lawsuit going on "involving 40 homeowners against the dra~'age off that h~l. The lawfirm is Atkinson, Farasyn and Smith in Mountain View, and the Zattorney is Paul Smith." She added,~?,that if the City wanted to find out some' of~'the information.~,,'~""wa~d~in~ge~'~'~ng up there and the water table .! .... . you contact that"IaWfirm. If ~..' entert'a~n there were any further da~age tol a~"'of the property down there, then I would feel the City of Saratoga would be responsible for it, because they are planning to allow something to g.o through there." Chairman Marshall informed Ms. Wood that information had been circulated to the City of San Jose and thatl Saratoga had not yet ~eceived a ~ponse from them. (2) Mr. Raymond R. Worrell, 13010 Pierce Road, stated his concern was in the reference to extending Comer Drive. He stated that the traffic report stated the greatest/i~l[~6'fm2~7% increase of traffic would occur on Prospect Road west of Stelling Roa~, adding "if you are going to take the traffic off of Prospect Road and put it ~ Comer Drive, this means it has to go on Pierce Road up to the highway. .~Zt thatZpoint Pierce Road is 20 feet wide, and Prospect Road looks like a boulevard compared to ProSpect. I think in the traffic study you should take a ~eal good look at the intersection of Pierce Road and Comer Drive." (3) Mr. Quirino Santoriello, 20802 Norada Court, stated that he w~nted to put forth the idea that he owned a home and this project was going to involve not only himself but everyone on his street. He stated, "it seems like there has always been silt in the few years I have lived there, and if this is going-"t'87 increase by 12%, I think I am going to have to get myself a fishing rod." There were no further comments. , J. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Chairman Marshall stated that on behalf of the Commission they would like to see the EIR updated to reflect the comments received to date plus those comments which are outstanding from public agencies such as the Fire District. He explained that if the Planning Commission were to approve the EIR, it would then be forwarded to the City Council for approval or disapproval at public hearings. He further explained that all of these hearings would only be relative to the EIR which was a prelude to the zoning request, and would not be relative to the number, ki~ or location -i9- MINUTES OF jULY i6~ J. COMMENTS '~Y PLANNING COMMISSIONERS - Continued of houses. He further added that should this be approved by the City, there was still the matter of the change of zoning which would have to be approved by the Commission and the City Council, and then the design review matter would have to be approved. After some discussion, Chairman Marshall stated that the..~Upl~"_~'~{n~-.should be closed fo~',~the evening, and should be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1974 under the Miscellaneous Section whereby the developer could give a definite date as to when they could respond to the questio~TiY-!raised to date. Commissioner Matteoni stated that he felt "the Citizen's EIR was thorough and they raised s?~e_.qUestions which should be further answered and studied." He stated that he:hoped.~ completely new EIR would not be prepared.'~'n~' suggested that the Citizens input be appended to the draft EIR and the questions 'raised t~er~in 'b~ answered. Commissioner Matteoni stated that the Planning Commission could not address them- selves to the specifics of the subdivision so that it would be difficult to answer all of the questions raised by the pubiic. He stated as a word of caution that "we have not consented to 135 units inzan~ particular configuration. If in fact the zoning were granted by the City, the E~R here must be somewhat general in nature and must 5e continually updated." He further stated that in r~ards to the request for an economic or cost/benefit analysis in the EIR,,~'he'.'law .did not require specific economical evalu'~tions be included in an environ~l"~mpact report. He reported that a bill had been '~troduced which would probably become effective in January of next year, for requiring economic impact evaluations under certain conductions where an EIR Was required. He added, "so I am not sure the Commission concurs with the citizen's request for economic evaluations, but the Center for Environmental Design may choose to respond. to those comments." Commissioner Martin stated that one ofthe things brought up. was the fact that the traffic survey was the result of a~1971 survey. He stated that there was not a specific request that a new survey be made, but that he felt before the Planning Commission could accept the EIR, an upLto-date traffic survey should be made in and around this development. Chair~n'Marshall requested Mr. Heiss consider this matter. · Commissioner Belanger stated that she had been concerned with the lack of geotechnical input in the EIR, and stated she would like to see the information from the citizen's studies (especially!on the Monte Bello Ridge Study and the Santa Cruz Mountain Study) be provided' to the Commission. Chairman Marshall directed Staff o~'tain matter relative to this,as well as abstracts of the presen- tations given by the Friends of PainleSs Parker and the Greater Arguello Homeowners Association, to be distributed to the Commissioners, the developer and the file. III. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Marshall thanked all those present for their participation and input on this matter, and expressed appreciation to the Good Government ~roup for serving coffee. He adjourned the special meeting of July 16, 1974 on CE-172 at 11:45 p.m., and continued this matter to the Planning Commission meeting ~.~L~July 24, 1974 at which time a date would be set for the developer to answer questions raised to date. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~"~'~-'-'i ~ .....