Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Monday, December 16, 1974 - 7:30~p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting **~************************************************************************~************ CE-172 '- Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of Zoning RequeSt from '~" (Agriculture) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-i-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); Continued from October 17, 1974 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL .......... · ................ 1 B. INTRODUCTION ......... z ................ 1 II. PUBLIC HEARING: CE-172 A. WILLIAM NEISS ......... .. ............... 1 B. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS 'PARKER . . .. ............... 2 C. RUSSELL CROWTHER ....................... 2 D. FRANK PERDICHIZZI ......... · .............. 3 E. ROGER LUECK . . . ... ........ .' ............. 4 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ..................... 4 G. SANDRA RENNIE ......................... 6 H. FRANK ANDERSON ........................ 7 I. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS ................. 9 J. ACTION BY COMMISSION ................ - ....... 11 III. ADJOURNMENT ......................... 11 CITY OF SARATOGA 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Monday, December 16, 1974 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Special Meeting ~ ~****************************************************************************************** I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward Absent: None B. INTRODUCTION Chairman Marshall stated that the purpose of the meeting was to take final, public testimony relative to the Parker Ranch Environmental Impact Report. He 'explained that if all public testimony was completed,. the public hearing would be closed and the Commission would seek recommendation from the Planning Department and Enviros as to what action should be taken. He added that if the Commission elected to adopt the EIR, it would forward same to the City Council with recommendation for certification. For informational purposes, Chairman ~arshall citedT[~=following from the '~California Environme~kil'Quality '~'~h'e'S~i~['law regarding EIRs: z"". =' "An Environmental Impact Report is an informational document which, when fully prepared in accordance with CEQA and these Guidelines, will inform public decision-makers and the general public of the environ- 'mental effects of projects they propose to carry out or approve. The EIR process is intended to enableji'public agencies to evaluate a project to determine whether it may have.a significant effect on the environ- ment, to examine and institute methods of reducing adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project as proposed. These things must be done prior to approval o~ disapproval of the project. An EIR may not be used as an inStrument'to rationalize approval o'f. a project, nor do indications of adverse impact, as enunciated in an EIR, require' that a project be disapproved. While CEQA requires that major con- sideration be given to preventing environmental damage, it is recog-' nized that public agencies have Obligations to balance other public objectives, including economic and social factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved." II. PUBLIC HEARING CE-172 - Environmental Impact Report: Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect Road and Stelling Road, Change of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-I-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential Planned Community); Continued from October 17~ 1974 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on CE-172 at 7:40 p.m. A. WILLIAM HEISS~ Engineer Representin8 Blackwell Homes Mr. Heiss stated that he would briefly describe the highlights of the Mitigation Plan which was presented as part of the center for Environmental Design's re- sponse to comments redeived on the EIR, as follows: (1) Trees. Mr~ Heiss stated that the Mitigation Plan realigned streets and adjusted grades so that the silhouette of trees on the skyline would re- main essentially untouched. He noted that the road proposed to go along -1- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 774 A. WILLIAM HEISS - Continued the eucalyptus grove had been realighed to split around and below the grove in order that the grove would be higher than the road itself. He stated that the originally proposed creek-side road to the upper are~ of the property had been eliminated because it would have called for a considerable amount of cut and fill; in its place he stated that a trail had been proposed. (2) Trails. Mr. Heiss stated that the developer was proposing to set aside two trails for public use in thell50 acres of permanent open space. (3) Ancient Landslide Area. He noted that swimming pools and tennis courts were proposed in the area of the.ancient landslide, adding that the Mitigation Plan provided for a s~ngle-alignment access road in this area which would follow the existing trail with no widening, major grading or removal of trees proposed. (4) Circulation. Mr. Heiss pointed but that the developer had agreed to con- struct a paved, minimum access r6ad from an existing roadway and ease- ment on Comer Drive up to the development. He stated that the Mitigation Plan further provided for a road'which would.exit onto Prospect Road, adding that they felt this road Would provide traffic relief for area residents. He stated that' the developer proposed improvement of two bridges, one on Maria Lane and the other on Prospect Road. Of the latter bridge, Mr. Heiss explained that.by providing for this bridge, recon- struction of the road would occur, and the natural water-flow which was presently causing erosion could be collected and discharged in a controlled manner into the Creek'area. (5),;" Drainage. Regarding the drainage problem in th.e Norada Court/Arroyo de Arguello area, Mr. Heiss pointed.out that the Mitigation Plan proposed removal of silt coming into that area from the Parker Ranch and reestab- li~hment of the Prospect Creek channel. Mr. Heiss concluded his presentation by stating that they felt enough informa- tion had been made available for the EIR, and that they hoped they could pro- ceed along with the change of zoning application. B. FRIENDS OF PAINLESS PARKER: Mr. Charles Hunt'er~ 20846 Meadow Oak Way Mr. Hunter read into the record a letter dated December 12, 1974 from the Friends of Painless Parker which summarized their concerns relative to this EIR. He modified the letter by changing Item (1) on page 2 as follows: "(1) The Project Plan is based on assumed Planned Community zoning. This provides greater density than could practically be applied to the site under' the existing R-l~40,000 zoning and is a misuse of the Planned Community con- cept. The General Plan designates that the site is to be zoned~%'Slope Conservations.' under the new ordinance'to be developed. Is this'not contradictory?" C. MR. RUSSELL CROWTHER~ 20788 Norada CoUrt Mr. Crowther stated that some of the Enviros statements on geology helped to clarify many of the questions rai~ed By the citizens, and stated that they felt the recommendations starting on page 32 were.very good in identifying areas where additional work was needed. He briefly summarized, as follows, three letters received relative to the geology of Parker Ranch: (1) A letter dated October 23, 1974 from John Willjams, geologist with the Division of Mines and Geology, made official by the signature of James Slosson, State Geologist. Mr. Crowther stated that the key points of the letter were: (a) The California Division of Mines and Geology did not rate the Shannon Fault as inactive.but. potentially active, citing as reference the Monte Bello Ridge Study. (b) Relative to the two "shear zones" crossing the property, Dr. Williams indicated there was uncertainty with regard to their:activity. (c) Mr. Crowther stated -2- ~-' ~' :~ MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 )74 C. MR. RUSSELL CROWTHER - Continued that the deltas used on Dr. Willjams' map identified a rectilinear valley to the southwest of the large landslide on the property. (d) Mr. Crowther stated that when asked about a northeast/southwest fault being related to the Shannon Fault, Dr~ Willjams had indicated he was uncertain as to its relationship, adding that more information was needed. (2) A letter dated November 11, l~74'from Robert McLaughlin, geologist with the U.S. Department of Interior was received. Mr. McLaughlin indicated in his letter that he would cTasSify the Shannon Fault as potentially active not inactive, and further stated that he felt the two "shear zones" crossing the site were simple folds in the strata not shear zones. Mr. Crowther pointed out that Mr. McLaughlin transmitted a report on the Sargent-Berrocal Fault which indicated the following: (a) It pointed out similarities with the San Fernando Fault system. (b) It indicated a potential for a greater than magnitude 7.0 quake along the Sargent- Berrocal Fault, adding that the Shannon Fault was one of the fault traces within that system. (c) Mr. Crowther stated that the report mentioned the coupling of the San Andreas Fault with the Shannon and Berrocal Faults, and further stated that recent major quakes in the area had occurred in that system and not on the San Andreas Fault. (d) It indicated that the San Andreas Fault was locked in the area, and stresses were being taken out by the Shannon ~nd Berrocal Faults. (e) The report indicated that landslides were more important than faults in the area with regards to potential risk. (f) The Report further showed the Shannon Fault not cro~'sing Highway 9 but running west of Highway 9 all the way through Saratoga. : Mr. Crowther commented on the Mitigation Plan, stating that it had been his observation that Prospect Creek went underground where the Fault was mapped. He pointed out that there was also a sharp off-set at that point, and contended that if there was a disturbance, water might be brought to the surface causin~ major flooding problems. He stated that he felt the Mitigation Planiaided Norada Court, but that it would result in greater flooding along.Via Roncole and the railroad tracks; further, that he felt the increased run-off from the project may cause a greater need for storm sewer capacity in.the area. (e) A letter dated December 12, '1974'from Jim Berkland, geologist with Santa · Clara County, was received. Mr.~Crowther stated that the letter mentioned the slide on the west end of the.propertyw'~uld be excavated and replaced with fill; he questioned the location of this slide. Mr. Crowther stated that the letter indicated the two shear zones which ran across the property were potentially .active,: and recommended not building on these zones because the soils were unstable. The letter made the statement that there was nothing unique relative to the property to the north and south, and Mr. Crowther took exception to this statement. He stated that the property to the north and south was not ridge-line developments, that the density was much less (41 homes by his count), and the developments were much closer to major roads "whereas this development would require more roads through an area which is unknown as far as stability is con- cerned, which concerns us from a:standpoint of economics." D. FRANK PERDICHIZZI~ President of Prides Crossing Homeowners Association Mr. Perdichizzi stated that they wereinterested in the financial impact this development would have on the City of Saratoga. He stated that they felt this development would be a losing proposition to!the City in that the revenue~ gained would barely be able to suRport the normal services rendered. He ~further stated that they felt~er'e were no provisions made for such contin- gencies as landslides and erosion whidh would have to be taken care of by the City and which would amount to hundreds"6F?thousands of dollars to the taxpayers. Mr. Perdichizzi concluded his remarks by ~q~esting a financial impact analysis be included in~'the overall EIR. -3- ~ ~! .~'~'MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16.~74 E. ROGER LUECK~ 20015 Winter Lane Mr. Lueck stated that he represented the Good Government Group of Saratoga and that a concern of the Group was the visual impact the project would have on the City.. He added that they felt'a better understanding of what the impact would be was needed "before the citizens of Saratoga can be called upon to agree or disagree with the project." He noted that some were con- cerned that this development might start a situation called the "Daly City effect," and requested that a presentation be made which would ref.lect how the project wou,'l'd.look. He further commented on the proposed trails on the development, and pointed out that if these trails were to be opened to the public, they would have tO be maintained by the City. There were no further comments from the audience. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin that the public hearing on CE-172 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on CE-172 was closed at 8:15 p.m. ' F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Chairman Marshall stated that Staff had submitted a recommendation in a memo- randum dated December 12, 1974 that the final EIR be comprised of all material received between June 3, 1974 and December 12, 1974, as follows: FROM DESCRIPTION DATE RECEIVED 1. Center for Environmental Design Draft Environmental Impact Report on June 3, 1974 Parker Ranch - 62 pages, with Applied Soils Mechanics Preliminary Geologic Feasibility Study Painless Parker Ranch - 16 pages 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company No Comment - Letter Response June 27, 1974 3. Traffic Engineer, City of Saratoga Memorandum - 2 pages July 2, 1974 4. State of California, Department of Letter - 1 page July 5, 1,974 Transportation 5. Cupertino Sanitary District Letter ~ 2 pages July 9~.1974 6. Santa Clara Valley Water District Letter - 3 pages July 12, 1974 7. Santa Clara County Health Dept. No comment - Letter Response July 12, 1974 8. Friends of Painless Parker CitizenS' Environmental Impact Report July 15, 1974 on Parker Ranch - 52 pages 9. Chairman, Greater Arguello Letter - 9 pages July 15, 1974 Homeowners' Association 10. Elden G. Marquardt, Citizen of Letter - 47_pages July 15, 1974 Saratoga 11. Cupertino Union School District Letter - 2..pages July 15, 1974 12. City of Cupertino, Planning Letter ~ 1 page July 16, 1974 Department 13. Henry Hodges, Boy Scout Report - 23 pages July 16, 1974 14. John Weir~.~nd Russell Crowther, Viewgraph copy of presentation given July 16, 1974 Ci'tizens of Saratoga at Special Public Hearing; 8 pgs. + map 15. Minutes of July 16, 1974 Special 21 pages : July 16, 1974 Public Hearing 16. Good Government Group No Comment - Letter Response July 19, 1974 -4- ~' .'-' 'MYNUTES OF DECEMBER 16 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Continued FROM DESCRIPTION DATE RECEIVED 17. Chairman, Greater Arg.uello Letter and viewgraph copy of presen- July 23, 1974 Homeowners' Association tation given at Special Public Hear- ing of July 16, 1974 - 17 pages 18~ Friends of Painless Parker Letter forwarding additional infor- July 31, 1974 marion - 20 pages 19. Center for Environmental Design Parker Ranch EIR - Response tO sept..,'.!~i~ 1974 comments - 75 pages with Mitigation Plan 20. Saratoga Fire District Co~ment.~- 1 page Sept. 20, 1974 21. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. No Comment - Letter Response Sept, 25, 1974 22. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Letter ~ 1 page Sept. 26, 1974 Department : 23. Santa Clara County Planning Respons~ - 1 page October 10, 1974 Department -~ 24. Good Government Group Letter ~ 4 pages October 11, 1974 25. Charles & Margaret Guichard, Letter + 2 pages October 16, 1974 Citizens of Saratoga ~ 26. Santa Clara Valley Water District Letter - 1 page October 17, 1974 27.' Friends of Painless Parker Supplement to Citizens' EIR on Parker October 17, 1974 Ranch -~52 pages (plus 33-page slide .presentation prepared by Russell Crowther and Gary Stephenson) 28. Residents. on Paramount Drive, 5-page petition containing 45 signa- October 17, 1974 Pierca Road, Comer Drive and natures,regarding Comer Drive extension Houston Court presented at Special Public Hearing 29. Minutes of Special Public Hearing 15 pages October 17, 1974 30. Eric S. Grube, Citizen of Letter ~ 2 pages November 1, 1974 Saratoga : 31. R.L. Crowther, Citizen of Letter ~ 8 pages; (for~arded letter November 7, 1974 Saratoga dated October 23, 1974 from John Williams~ geologist at Division of Mines and Geology in San Francisco) 32. Enviros Review Of Comments and Responses to November 7, 1974 Draft EIR Painless Parker Ranch~38 pages 33. R.L. Crowther, Citizen of Letter ~ 5 pages (forwarded letter November 18, 1974 Saratoga from Robert '~C~L..~'.a~hi~.i.~"~ geologist. at U.S..Geological Survey, Menlo Park) 34. Vic Mendez, Citizen of Mountain Environmental Impact Report Assessment November 21, 1974 View, California (student) on Parker Ranch - 4 pages .35. R.L. Crowther, Citizen of Letter 7..~_.p.~.._.(forwarded paper by .-lDeC~mber 12, 1974 Saratoga Robert ~gh!in,~:-geologist at U.S. GeologicZal Survey, on Sargent-Berrocal Fault zone) 36. Jennings-McDermott-Heiss, Inc. Letter -~ 4 pages December 12, 1974 to Mr. Mayfield of Good Government Group (carbon copy to Planning Commission) -5- ; ~MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Continued Chairman Marshall stated that five additional letters had been submitted since the Staff's ,M~0r~nd'6~'f~llows: FROM DESCRIPTION DATE RECEIVED 1. Friends of Painless Parker Letter ~ 2 pages with modification as December 13, 1974 read into the record by Mr. Hunter 2. Carol La Marre, Citizen of Saratoga 'Letter ~ 3 pages DeCember 13, 1974 3. Mrs. Cassius L. Miller, Citizen of Letter ~j~.'.pages (addressed to Mr. December 16, 1:~'74 Saratoga Marshall - read into the record) 4. James O. Berkland, Senior'Engi- Letter - 2 pages December 16, 1974 needing Geologist, County of Santa Clara :~/'~ Chairman Marshall pointed out that Mr. Berkland was one of three geologists present at the field trip to the Parker Ranch on December 7, 1974. He read into the record the last paragraph of the letter summarizing Mr. Berkland's remarks. 5.!iz, John Weir President of Greater Letter ~ 1 page'~. December 16, 1974 Arguello Homeowners Association Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the letter dated December 12, 1974 from Mr. James Berkland be added to the Final EIR list as Item 37. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the letters dated December 12, 1974 from Carol La Marre and dated December 12.,_ 1974 from the Friends of Painless PaCkerS_ as amended,. be added to the Final' ~'.EIR list as items 38 and 39 respectively. The motion was carried unanimously. Relative to the letter received December 16, 1974 from Mr. John Weir, the Secretary stated that he was not wil~ing to 'add this to the EIR list before clarification was made. At this time Chairman Marshall recognized Sandra Rennie, Enviros representative, who wished to comment on this letter. G. SANDRA RENNIE - ENVIROS Mrs. Rennie stated that she wished to respond to the comments made in Mr. Weir's letter of December 13. She cited quotations from the letter and made responses as follows: (1) The letter stated: "Professor F. Anderson, who was the geologic consul- tant to ENVIROS in preparing their report comments on the Parker Ranch EIR, indicated during the Saturday, December 7 walk of the Parker Ranch that he had written a detailed geological report and submitted it to ENVIROS in detail in their report." Mrs. Rennie stated that this statement was not correct, adding that the Commission had received a copy of the report published in detail. (2) The letter stated: "He (Mr. Anderson) indicated that the report was very thorough and documented all important references. ENVIROS paraphrased the report out of context but did not completely publish the report nor make it available to the City or the public as supporting documentation." Mrs. Rennie stated this statement was not correct, again adding that the Commission had received a copy of the report in its entirety. (3) The letter stated: '~e called ENVIROS to request a copy of this report on the basis that the work had been funded by the CITY and should be available to both the CITY and the PWBLIC." Mrs. Rennie stated that she had received a call from Mr. Crowther around 4:30 p.m. on Friday, December 13. She stated that the letter indicated ENVIROS' work was not funded by the City, and -6- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 74 G. SANDRA RENNIE - Continued ENVIROS had no commitment to make the report available to the City or the public. Mrs. Rennie stated that,this was not correct, adding that she told Mr. Crowther the City of Saratoga had paid for the report and was entitled to see the files. She stated that she explained to Mr. Crowther, insomuch as she had not looked at the files for some time, it would be necessary for her to determine in what,p~'~d~'6eable =condition the material ~·"~ Was in. M~s. Rennie stated: "He (Mr.·Crowthe~) suggested that perhaps " the reason I would not make it available on his demand was to edit the 'material. He specifically asked me if I was unwilling to provide the in- formation on demand because it contained information unfavorable to the · developer. I responded certainly not. I did tell him in fact that I could not respond to him prior to this evening's hearing simply because of the time constraint. I did commit to him toi~!.look in the file to deter- mine what the content of the file was and telephone him today. I called him today but could not reach him because there was no answer at the telephone number he gave me." Mrs. Rennie stated that she was not o~ly concerned about this from the viewpoint of her firm, but more importantly from the point of view of the Planning Commis- sion having full, accurate inforn~tion in order to make its decision on the EIR. She stated that Mr. Anderson was present at the meeting to comment briefl~ on the Robert McLaughlin material, as well as answer any questions the Commission / might have on the geology of the Parker Ranch. H. FRANK ANDERSON - Professor at San Jose State University Prof. Anderson stated that he had been teaching Applied Geology at San Jose State University Since 1970, and explained that he became aware of the Shannon Fault two years ago when Mr. McE~aughlin was doing his master thesis on the Sargent Fault at San Jose State University. Prof. Anderson stated that the existence of the Shannon Fault was not a surprise, explaining that faults usually created mountain ranges. He ~tated that Mr. McLaughlin had spent a considerable amount of time mapping the Shannon Fault, but that his map was not available to the general public at this time insomuch as it was still undergoing geological review by members of the U.S. Geological Survey. Regarding the Shannon Fault, Prof. Andemon stated that it had an alignment of low magnitude, explaining that magnitude Has the amount of energy released by earth movements. He pointed out that a 3.0 Richter magnitude was on the lower threshblj~H~of when one could start feeling earth movement. He added that the lower seismic energy being recorded in this area was on the order of 1.5, further adding, however, that this did not necessarily indicate earthquake movement. Regarding a relationship between the Shannon Fault and the San Andreas Fault, P~of. Anderson stated that the primary difference between the two was the form of movement, adding· that there was no,way yet to show the Shannon Fault being .directly at·eributable to the San Andteas Fault movement. He explained that the San Andreas Fault movement was a strike-dip mOVement where one side of the fault moved past the other in a ho~,izontal direction. The Shannon Fault, however, was a high-angle reverse fault where one Side of the fault moved up relative to the other. With regards to t~e letter dated December 5, 1974 from Mr. Crowther transmitting Mr. McLaughlin's paper on the Sargent-Berrocal Fault, Prof. Anderson made the following comments: (1) Item 1 of the letter stated: "The EIR neglects to mention the strong similarities of the Shannon Fault to the San Fernando Fault which caused the 1971 Los Angeles quake or that the Berrocal-Shannon Fault system is coupled with the San Andreas Fahlt System and is relieving stresses along a locked portion of the San Andr~as Fault." Prof. Anderson pointed out that the San Andreas had several~faul.~s·associated with it in Southern Cali·fornia; that it extends northward, splitting south of Hollister.·~c.·with -7- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 74 H. FRANK ANDERSON - Continued the main trace continuing northward passing within a few miles to the west of Saratoga. To the first portion of Mr. Crowther's statement, Prof. Anderson illustrated the differences between the Shannon and'San Fernando Faults. He stated that the McLaughlin report postulated that the Garlock Fault in Southern California was responsi.ble to the San Andteas Fault. He explained that i'f the San Andreas Fault transferred any stress onto either side of the Garlock Fault, the difference in'direction occurring would tend to crimp the rocks. Consequently, in the. San Fernando earthquake, movement along the Garlock Fault pushed the material upward and towards the Los Angeles area. In the Shannon Fault area, Prof. Anderson contended this was not the case, explaining that the Sargent Fault south of the Parker Ranch split away from the San Andreas Fault causing the faults to run roughly parallel. He further p?dinted out that the geological setting of the two faults were quite different. Speaking to the second part of~z"Crowther's statement, Prof. Anderson agreed with the McLaughlin report in its statement that the San Andreas Fault was locked into position in this area. He warned that the chances were great that.a major earthquake would occur in his lifetime in the Bay Area on the magnitude of 7.0+, but added that there was no guarantee as to where it would occur. P~of. Anderson further stated that the Monte Bello Ridge Study ranked the Shannbn Fault second to the San Andreas Fault in probability of future displacement; he pointed out, however, that the / x ° Study only mapped two faults. Prof. Anderson.e plaxned that there were historical records of active movement along the San Andreas Fault, whereas there were none on the Shannon Fault. He added that active movement meant movement within the past 11,000 years. He stated: "In the case of the Shannon Fault in the area of the.Parker Ranch, we have not been able to show that movement has occurred in the last 11,000 years. It may well be that that f~ult is active, but there is no information now availabt'e to us to show that. I can't see how you can rate the Shannon Fault as a major, hazardous fault without more information." (2) Item 2 of the letter stated: "The major Berroca~ Fault shown on McLaughlin's maps and on County maps just to the West of the Parker Ranch, between the Shannon and San Andreas Faults, is not. mentioned in the EIR." Prof. Anderson pointed out that Figure 2, page 26, of the Enviros report showed a cross-section interpretation by Tom Rogers of possible relationships between earthquakes and surface faults in the Parker Ranch area. He noted that Figure 2 showed,.via questions marks, the location of the Shannon Fault Zone; however,' Mr. Rogers did not show that it joined the San Andreas Fault. Prof. Anderson explained.that often in a fault the 'amount of mate~ rial on one side of the fault~was pushed upwards over material on the other side of the fault causing a tendency to .sp~ea~ ~utward. He added that the surface of the earth flows, and ~s it spreads outward there Can be a series of faults running parallel that actually may have movement. He reported, however, that currently the only movement known in the Parker Ranch area was about 4 miles below the surface. Prof. Anderson noted that Figure 2 detailed the concept of what Mr..Crowther was referring to; he pointed out, however, that Mr. McLaughlin's recent worklhad not been available at the time Figure 2 was compiled. (3) Item 3 of the letter stated: "The fault related landslides in the area and the associated economic and safety hazards of earthquake induced landslides on the Parker Ranch, as discussed on page 597 of McLaughlin"~'~ paper, are not mentioned in the EIR." Prof. Anderson stated that specifically the 'fault-related landslides referred to the slides at Stevens Creek Reservoir, while generally they referred to movement along the Sargent-Berrocal Fault which may be as much as 10,000 years old, and that there was an ancient landslide on the Parker Ranch itself. He added that a simple shaking of the earth, however, especially on a hillside where there might be relative stability, could trigger landslides. He stated that the particular hazard would be triggered by earth shaking, not by actual land rupturing. -8- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16 74 H. FRANK ANDERSON - Continued (4) I.tem 4 of the letter stated: "Figure 3 of McLaughlin's paper maps an earthquake epicenter in~the vicinity of the Pa'rker Ranch (circ'I~d). This is apparently from the well-known geological references cited and is not referenced in the EIR. This epicenter should be investigated and discussed in the EIR." Prof. Anderson explained that the magnitude of this epicen- ter was 1.5, which was a very low magnitude. I.~.~ummary, Prof. Anderson stated that he felt the Shannon Fault was certainly something to be aware of. He added: ."In my opinion it would not be the sort of thing you could look at the Parker'Ranch and say it ~s such a hazard that development cannot occur." Commissioner Matteoni asked Prof. Anderson for an indication of the type of in-depth geological studies the City ~hould obtain on this matter. Prof. Anderson responded that there were various checklists ?~F~fl~l~'~H'fdh could be '6b'~i~d'f~h'~'~'~lo'~'~ engineering firm. He '~dd~d:" "'I try':'to speak to the merits of the site rather than going by a checklist." Commissioner Martin asked what would%the minimum distance for construction from a fault be. ~Prof. Anderson replied that fault zones werenot simple breaks, but could range up to several hundred:feet wide or could branch several times. He stated that if the last historical'movement was known, many peop!~ setback 50':~feet from the fault. He added tha~ data released by the California Division of Mines on the San Fernando earthquake showed only 3% damage related to surface rupturing while the rest was related ~o shaking. Prof. Anderson contended this was a universal happening, explaining ~that the effect of shaking would be much greater in the valley rather than the;hills because the amplitude of vibrations diminish as they cross the valley flo6r. Commissioner Belanger asked Prof. Anderson if he felt the report he submitted to Enviros was properly recorded in the EnViros report, or whether there was bias against Blackwell Homes not expressed in the Enviros report. Prof. Anderson replied that the report submi'tted to Enviros was a draft report, with paraphrasing made and spelling e~rors .corrected by Enviros. He added: "But the essence is there and a great portion ig" what was an informational report that we clarified through telephone conversations. I did this as my own objectivity allowed me to do. My personal feeling is the geologist that did the original EIR basically did a good 'job. Enviros did not report my report in a biased way." I. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (1) Commissioner Martin asked Mrs. Rennie if a new traffic study had been taken on the Prospect/Stelling Road area. Mrs. Rennie responded that the specific count information had been included in the latest Enviros report, adding that it contained the figures made by the City's Traffic Engineer as well as the most current traffic information of all streets in and around the 'development. Commissioner Martin stated that h:e was confused with the information given pertaining to the proposed traffi'c in the area. He pointed out that the original EIR showed 375 trips perl.hour between the hours of 4-5:00 p.m., while the most recent Enviros report showed ~'00 trips per hour between the hours of 4-6:00 p.m. He stated that his'calculations were such that there would be a total of 875 trips made between the hour of'-:5:-6:00 p.m.,. asking if this was a reasonable figure. :Mrs. Rennie explained that Enviros had not agreed with the technique of survey used in the earlier report insomuch as 4-5:00 p.m. was not the commute~'h~; consequently, the commute hours of 4+6:00 p.m. was used in the lates~ Enviros report. She added that the figures were a result of extrapolations based on the hour of day and on the conditions of the road at that time. Commissioner Martin pointed out that the survey used in the latest report was done on a Friday before a long weekend, adding that he felt the traffic -9- =;~ % ~ ~MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16~Z! :- I. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS Continued~ ~?~'r~ was extremely light. Mrs. Rennie ~xpt. ained that Enviros did not take traffic counts, ibut they had ex~rapolated their figures on existing counts of the days of the week on which !the counts were taken, using the figures ~'< to extrapolate the average-peak commute hour. She noted that the original figures were incorrect/~,nsomuch las the Saratoga Country Club was closed on Monday thus making the traffic count too light. She stated that the latest Enviros figures represented the average commute day from 4-6:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday. Commissioner Martin pointed out that the traffiC!. survey was taken near a stop sign, which would make the Velocity very close to zero. He stated that in reading the report the s.0.un_d~i level increased Wit-h the cube of velocity, adding "I do not think'the report is very complete under those circumstances." Mr. Jeff Swett, Enviros, stated that he had made the calculations on this section of the report, adding that the main source of noise was not on Prospect Road but on the Stelling Road turn. He pointed out that he Used the speed limit of the area, 35 miles per hour, in his computations, as well as using' the standard L-50 method technique. Mr. Swett further stated that HUD "~'tandards showed the standard noise for a residential street to be 65 dBA levels, adding that the noise velocity in this area was far below what was minimun~ accepted standards' for a residenti~l development. Commissioner Martin asked if the increase in traffic from the development would necessite a need to widen the Saratoga portion of Prospect Road. Mr. Swett explained that inso~'ch as .Prospect Road narrowed from 4~.to 2 lanes, the City might want to consider Widening the road for safety reasons. He added, however, that the Parker Ranch 'project would not overburden the street situation as it currently lwas. (2) Chairman Marshall asked Mr. Weir if he was willing to withdraw his letter of December ~16, 1974. Mr. Weir responded that the letter represented facts as he understood..them to be, and..,.suggested the question be put to Mr. Crowther. Mr. Crowther stated that he did .not write the letter, but that he would like the opportunity to explain same. He stated that during the field trip on December 7, Prof. Anderson had indicated that it was his style to write a very complete 'geotechnical report, and that he had done so on this project. Further, Mr. Crowther stated that Prof. Anderson was concerned with the location of the water tank, and was particularly concerned about erosion from the project. Mr. Crowther explained that they did not feel these points had been included in the Enviros ~report; and consequently, when he indicated to Mrs. Rennie in their December .13th telephone conversation that he would like to ask the Commission to request a copy of Prof. Anderson's letter, Mrs. Rennie indicated she would strongly object' to this because it was a report prepared for her company and she considered it to be internal. Mr. Crowther stated that perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, and apologized for same; he added, however, that the letter stated the facts as he:ihad .'under,stood them to be at the time. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission reject the letter. dated December 16, 1974 from John Weir and cause it to not be made =.part of the public' record. The motion was carried unanimously. (3) Chairman Marshall moved seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the letter received December 16, 1974 from Mrs. Cassius L. Miller be added to the Final EIR list as Item 40. The motion .was carried unanimously. (4) Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the minutes of the Special Public Hearing on December 16, 1974 be added to the ~inal EIR list as Item 41. The motion was carried unanimously. -10- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16~' J. ACTION BY COMMISSION Commissioner Matteoni stated his view of the EIR process was that as a project became more specific, the Commission could ask for more specific information. He asked Staff to insure that as more%specific geological information was supplied-.; on this project, the information be made part of the file. The Secretary drew the Commission's attention to page 32.of the Enviros report which detailed recommendations concerning future studies on geology and soils stability.' He stated that Staff would recommend these .future studies as recommended :~y Enviros to Become part of an on-going file on'which the Commission could use to make decisions on future conditions or approvals of use entitlements on the project. He further cited the next to the lastZparagraph on page 33 of the Report as follows: "The City should require that all data developed be included as appen- dices to'the final geotechnical survey. More importantly, checks should be made by the consultant and by the City to ensure that suggestions made in the final report are implemented by the developer and that the final plan is modified as new data is unearthed during the construction phase." The Secretary stated that Staff did not consider the information contained in the Final EIR to be the end of the geologic information to be obtained on this project. He added, however, that Staff felt the project at this point in time had met the intentions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and Staff recommended it be forwarded to the City Council for certification. Commissioner Matteoni indicated acceptance of this answer. He pointed out at this time that insomu~h as he would be serving on the City Council by the time CE-172 reached the Council, he did not feel it proper to vote on the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission recommend approval and transmittal of CE-172 Final EIR, as outlined and containing 41' items plus the Planning Director's memorandum dated December 12, 1974, to the City Council for certification. The motion was carried; Commis- sioner Matteoni abstained. ~It was pointed out that.along with the Commission's recommendation for approval land transmittal to the Council, a second motion relative to the impact determina- /tion was necessary. ~ Commissioner Smith moved.~that the Planning Commission recommend approval and transmittal of the Final EIR to the City Council with a determination that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Martin opposed this motion stating that he felt there was enough evidence in the EIR on three areas where there would be a significant effect, adding that he felt these points should be com idered. The three areas he was referring to were the possibility of seismic or landslide activ~'ty, the visual impact on the residents of Saratoga, and the traffic increase to the degree that the City would consider/wid~'P~ospect Road. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner ~elanger, that the Planning Commission recommend approval and tra~smittal of the Final EIR to the City Council with a determination that the project 'will have a significant effect on the environ- ment. The motion was carried: Commissioner Smith voted no; Co~Lu,. Matteoni abstained. Chairman Marsh'all expressed appreciation on behalf of the Commission to~e public for their input and comments on this matter, and invited continuing input of all matters which come before the Commission in the future. III. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning dommission adjourn the special meeting of 'December 16, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned' at 9:45 p.m. <, Resp~c fully submitted, MVD/skw Marry Van Duyn, Pla~ng Secretary