Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1976 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~BtISSI ., MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 1976 - 7:30 p.m. jPLACE: Saratoga City Council Chkmbers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga~ CA. 95070 ~TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Callon, Laden, Marshall, Martin and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Belanger and Lustig B. MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 22, 1976 be waived, and that they'be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously. II. TENTATIVE BUILDING SITES/SUBDIVISIONS /A. SDR-1250 - Security Pacific National Bank, Big Basin Way, Request for Appeal of ': Conditions VI-A and VI-B of Tentative Site Ap~rpya!; .Continued f~o~ ......... ~e~t~mbe~ 2'2~"19~6 ....... = ....... It was e~plained that this matter had been continued from the last meeting in order to give the applicant an opportunity to separate the 2 appeal items. The Secretary noted, however, that no response from the applicant had been received. Additionally, he made note of the letter to the City Council dated September 24, 1976 from Mr. Alexander Passovoy (Assistant Vice President, Planning and Construction, SPNB) re- garding this issue, as well as Staff's memorandum dated September 30, 1976 in response to this letter. He explained that both items of correspondence had been addressed by the City Council at its meeting of October 6, 1976. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE jMr. Passovoy, Bank's representative, was present and stated that the Bank d~d inot wish to separate these 2 items. He explained that a drive-up facility would. reduce the number of parking stalls needed by the Bank by 14-18 places, adding: "I think the reason is rather obvious." :Additionally, Mr. Passovoy made the following comments: "We have gone on record as stating that we favor the formation of a parking district. We will contribute approximately $47,000 ~o the formation of that district which represents over :52% of the lands. :'We will also contribute some 26% of the construction funds for the formation of that district which is larger than our pro-rata share. We have indicated to both the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is ~our intent to act as a catalyst for the formation of that parking district. We favor that parking district because we feel that it is not only good for our facility, it is good for Saratoga. But it is unfair to remove the available land that we have purchased for our facility and deny us the parking for our own customers if that drive-up facility is removed. And the position of our Bank is that if we do not have that drive-up facility, we Will then sdrap our present plans and redesign our Bank to make the necessary adjustments." Mr. Passovoy went on record as stating that the Bank's position had always been one of entering into the community as a facility that contributes to the growth -and the property development of Saratoga. He added that when the issue of the drive-up facility came before the Bank, "we have repeatedly indicated both to -Staff, to the subcommittee, and to this Commission our willingness to negotiate our differences." He contended that they had never received a phone call from either Staff or members of the Commission expressing a willingness to negotiate.- He stated that Security Pacific National Bank had approximately 500 drive-up .facilities state-wide, and emphasized the point that he had offered the Bank's datJ..~o the City on severa~ occas~qns_Uto _prove.that we are not about to either -1- ~.I .- CO~IISSION MINUTES OF -OCTOB~ 13, 1976 II. A. SDR-12S0 - Security Pacific N~ignal .B~n~ - ~ppeal; Cont'd destroy or alter the lifestyle of Saratoga; nor are we prepared or are we willing to create congestion, smog or any of the other unpleasantties that have been claimed to drive-up facilities. We rather resent being placed in the same category with Jack- in-the-Box, Photomat or any of the other tacky drive-up fast-food facilities." He stated that the resolution passed by the Commission regarding the prohibi~on""0f drive-up facilities was philosophical in nature and "extremely noble." He stated that the resolution goals were ideal, and stated that he thought they were something jwhich "we would all like to live by." He added: "But there are realities in life. 'Y6d a~'~'~Fe~n~'~Fkl~"a£s~i~'~ "~o~'a~'~'~ ~ the attraction of an automobile to that area, by the same token saying you can't use your automobile, you have to walk. There are inconsistencies." ~M~.' Passovoy stated that the Bank had made a substantial investment in this iin terms of land, architectural fees, soils reports and analyses. He stated: "'W~at we are attempting to do here in Saratoga is come before you and say that ! · we are not going to disrupt the lifestyle of Saratoga. We are willing to put our money on the line. I would like to set forth a series of ground rules. We would like to erect this drive-up facility which is an integral part of our bank, and the investment in that facility (including the canopy with the pneumatic facilities) will be approximately $60,000-$70,000. We say that we will not cadse · any disruption to the lifestyle of Saratoga. People will not die of carbon monoxide .fumes; little children will not be hit by automobiles coming home from school; you will not have the screeching of rubber or the honking of horns. It will be :totally hidden from the street. The amount of cars 10 years from now will be :approximately 13 cars per window per hour based on statistical averages. We are :willing to make this investment, and then have at any time if we were going to 'disrupt the lifestyle of Saratoga Village, have it removed. That amounts to a conditional use permit. I might also add that if a drive-up facility did in fact cause disruption to the local community,'-or to our customers, or there was a danger to either health or well-being, we would not require the City of Saratoga or any other agency to come and tell us to remove it. We would remove it long before you came to us. That is our position. We would like to engage in a .dia~osFe with .t~. ~t_.y ...of _~F~tpga alo~ .tno~? lines." Additionally, Mr, Passov0y"contended that neither the Planning Commission nor the Staff thoroughly understood the mechanics of financial drive-up facilities. He stated that the Bank would be installing the latest equipment, which essentially was a high-speed pneumatid window with a high-speed pneumatic kiosk. He added: "We have repeatedly requested the opportunity to either sit down with Staff or the members of the Commission and discuss the mechanics of how this operates." Rela- tive to the question raised' on the possibility of gas fumes entering the Bank building, Mr. Passovoy assured the Commission that the facilities were air condi- rioned with positive pressure inside, and emphatically stated that there would never be any fumes that could enter from the outside. CO~.IISSION RESPONSE 1. Relative to the Bank's letter to the City Council, Commissioner Marshall asked whether the 3 possible courses of action proposed in the letter were nego- '~ tiable positions or statements of fact. Mr. Passovoy responded that Item #1 was negotiable, but that Item #2 was not. He added that the Bank would like to keep its options open. 2. Commissioner Callon asked Staff to comment on Mr. Passovoy's allegation that the Staff and the Commission have been unwilling to work with the Bank. The Secretary noted that the Design Review Committee had met 4-5 times with representatives of the Bank, with Mr. Passovoy, Mr. Foug, Mr. Dole and/or Mr. Hendricks. Additionally, there were 2 meetings with representatives of the Bank before the Land Development Committee "at which time this issue was brought up at length and which we heard about the l~-minute pneumatic tube and advanced operation of the Bank;" Further, the Secretary pointed out that there had been a City Council Committee-of-the-Wl~ole meeting at which the Commission members attended, and the October 6th City Council meeting. Also note was made that this was the second meeting before the Planning Commission, -2- C0~BIISSION MINUTES OF OCT0~ 1S, 1976 II. A. SDR-12S0 - Security Pacific National Bank - Appeal; Cont'd and that there had been a meeting between the representatives of the Bank and the Downtown Merchants Association to discuss this matter. The Secretary also pointed out that he personally discussed the mechanics of this advanced system over the telephone with Mr. Passovoy. The Secretary added that he had asked Mr. Passovoy if there were any banks within the area he could visit, and that Mr. Passovoy had told him there we=e none of the same design and scope they were proposing for the Sara- toga facility. The Secretary noted, however, that he did suggest some drive-through · facilities ip the area to visit, and pointed out that Staff did visi'~'ihe Bank facilities in the B1Paseo Shopping Center, in Los Gatos and one on Saratoga-Sunny- -__ vale Road in Cupertino. The Secretary-added at this time that Mr. Passovoy had made an offer at the City Council Committee-of-the-~%~ole meeting to provide Staff with data relevant to some of the statistical material he referred to earlier. He added that Staff had not received this material as of yet. 3. Commissioner Callon stated that she was sorry the Bank was involved in this issue because "the~d'i~c~ions we had earlier'O~'~'rive-up facilities had nothing to do with any o~e applicant." She maintained her earlier position of disallowing drive-up facilities in the City on environmental bases, adding "I am not in favor of cars idling anywhere for any length of time." 4. Conunissioner Marshall asserted that Mr. Passovoy misstated the situation relative to the Village. He pointed out that there was a traffic problem presently existing in the Village, and noted that the City was trying to resolve some of'these problems by the use of the Parking Assessment District. He added: "Anything which detracts from our intentions of the past to develop the Village, whether it be Security Pacific National Bank or any other concern,'willfully attempting to negotiate their way away from the Parking District, I will vote against." In the spirit of fairness to the applicaDt, Commissioner. MarShall suggested that a motion be made to deny~ ........ "~h'iY'appea%'r'equest ~Uch that the applicant w6~fd'~'A~e an o~ortunity ~o"~eapply ~i'f'~ec~ry, ~fte~'i'6~'ha~'b~'~k~b~he~'i~'~'C~ncfl~h'~'p~op~d ordinance regarding drive-up facilities. 5. Commissioner Laden stated that at the Design Review Committee meeting, the members had made it clear tb the applicant's representatives that the pos- sibility of a drive-up window not being allowed was Very probable. She ex- plained that as a result of this statement, the Committee had suggested many alternatives such as additional walk-up facilities, co~red walkways, and / ~atio b~n~fng. s~k~d' what ~ofi~ ~f'b~'~ a~a the-~ ~ '~t'~o~ld '--- ~ lose without the drive-up facility. Mr. Passovoy stated that the Bank esti- mated it would lose 50% of its business. He explained: "l~ere we have had .-' the absence of a drive-up facility and the site permitted a drive-up facility, the volume has increased approximately 26-30%. We have enough historical data ....... to'Show what will happen'tO a new branhh with afiH without a drive-u~ Wind6~'."" Vice-Chairman Martin pointed out that ~r. Passovoy had on earlier occasions made the statement that a drive-up window would be opened 80% longer than the normal banking hours. He pointed out that the possible reason the Bank would lose 30% of its business was because the drive-up facility would lengthen the open hours of the Bank by 80%. At this time Mr. Passovoy added that the Bank's data must be submitted to \ the Controller of Currency and be substantiated without question before a charter could be issued to a banking institution. He stated: "The average= population that is served by the financial institutions here in Santa Clara. County are approxima.tely 6600 people.. The. num~er q.f. residents in Saratoga that are served by each financial institution is approximately ~600 individuals. Now we have to prove to the controller that the establishment of a branch bank will not cause any adverse reaction to an existing 'financial institution. We cannot cause a hardship on any branch bank or savings and loan in the"" area. That is mandatory. So we have to rely on several things. We have to rely on the'number of people in the area, the number of banks, etc., and all of this data is submitted to the Controller in Washington. It has been thoroughly analyzed and a permit has been issued." 6. Conunissioner Laden made note that the Report the Bank submitted earlier on ........ ~rjy~i~p_.f~_~i~j.~~ .~ed~_~he ..9~D~.l~sion_. that as' .ap .a._!te~na. tiv_e to drive- -3- /~ CO~IISSION MINUTES OF OCTO 1S, 1976 II. A. SDR-12$0 - Security Pacific National Bank - Appeal; Cont'd through facilities, imprQl~j_lunctions inside the bank and other walkway facilities would have an~effeCt on the need for a drive-up facility. Additionally she concurrdd'with Commissioner Marshall's suggestion that this matter be denied,-but that it could be reopened once the City Council made its decision on the proposed ordinance. COmmISSION ACTION: Commissioner Marshall mo~ed, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the request for appeal of Conditions VI-A and VI-B in the matter of application SDR-1250 be denied with the stipulation that the appeal period be extended to 15 days?after the notification date of the Ci~'y Council action relative to the proposed drive- U? facilities ordinance. The motion was carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-S14 - Spaich Corporation, 20401Miljevich Drive, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 15 of Ordinance NS-S (Zoning Ordinance) to Allow for the Continuation of a Non-Conforming Commercial Use in a Residential District; Continued from September'22, 1976 Vice-Chairman Martin reopened the public hearing on UP-S14 at 8:20 p.m. Note was made ~ the applicant was not able to attend this meeting, but that he was aware of the Staff Report. It was explained that this matter had been continued pending further review of alternative locations for the placement of the fruit stand.on site. It was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval based on Exhibit B which showed the entrance to the stand being on Miljevich Drive with an exit onto Saratoga-Sunn)rvale Road. Staff explained, however, that the applicant had submitted an alternative plan, which Staff had reviewed and had found'_equally acceptable. Consequentl~'S~'~f recommended approY--il"6~'~his'~'~ permit per Exhibit C. It was explained that Exhibit C showed ingress from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and egress onto Miljevich Drive. The applicant had felt that Exhibit B's proposal placed the fruit stand within an active area of the fruit stand operation. Staff pointed out that the applicant did not want any turning__.~ movements within the property, but rafhii wa~dYff~z-'line movement. Addition- ally, the signage required with Exhibit C would be one directional sign at the drive-way entrance off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, with internal small exit directional signs inside the site. Staff also pointed out that the applicant requested Condition (3) be modified to lengthen the closing hourzfrom 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. It was explained that many of the applicant's customers, es- pecially during the summer, frequently visited the stand during these hours. Discussion followed on this request. Commissioner Marshall pointed out'.that entering.the property from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would require a U-turn for those customers traveling north. The Secretary concurred, but stated that in either alternative the driveway would be unobstructed, and that people who were habit customers were going to enter off Saratoga-Sunnyvale in any event. Vice-Chairman Martin asked if there would be a problem of people entering the site from Miljevich Drive. The Secretary pointed out that there would be appropriate signage, and added that Miljevich Drive itself was difficult to notice for someone who had not entered the site from that direction before. Commissioner Callon stated that she felt the applicant's proposal was better in 'fhl~"w'ig"less dangerous for customers to enter the site from Saratoga-Sunny- vale R6~d wh~re they could properly signal their turns. Commissioner Laden suggested that a limitation be placed on Condition 4(a) regarding the size of the directional signs permitted on site. It was sug- gested that said condition be amended by placing a maximum sign limitation of 8 square feet, as per City Ordinances. -4- CO~ISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 1976 III. A. UP-S14 - Spaich Corporation - Cont'd As there were no further comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on UP-S14 be closed. The motion was~a~'i~'d-unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:S2 p.m. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission approve in principal the conditions of the Staff Report dated October ?, 1976 relative to application UP-S14, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution on same for adoption at the Planning Com- mission meeting of October 27, 1976, subject to the following amendments to the Staff Report: 1. change all Exhibit references from Exhibit B to Exhibit C which depicts ingress from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and egress~onto Miljevich Drive; 2. modify the verbage of Condition A-1 to reflect the changed ingress/egress; S. amend Condition (S) to extend the business hours to 7:S0 p.m. modify eondition 4[a) by specifying a size limitation of 8 square feet for signs The motion was carried unanimously. B. V-460 - Lawrence Guy, 21427 Saratoga Hills Road, Request for Variance from the Requirements of Section 22.1 of Zoning Ordinance NS-S to Allow for the Installation of One New Power P~le for Purposes of Relocating Existing Overhead Electrical Transmission Lines Note was made that the Variance Committee made an on-site inspection October 8th, and ~hat a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Staff further noted that no correspondence had been received on this matter. Staff explained that a year ago a swimming pool was constructed on this site, with the consent of the Building Department and PG~E. on the basis of a letter fro~ ~PG~E specifying that the lines crossing a portion of the pool were=to be relocated ~ placed underground. PG~E's concern- was that the pool not be placed'u~der- /neath their lines for servicing purposes. Staff noted that PG~E had:YiWf6'~d'Staff that this pool was approximately 20-feet underneath the PG~E lines, Which was a ~ violation of Public Utilities Code, General Order #9S, which requires a 2S-foot Staff noted that the reason for which one additional pole was required was a pror nounced slope break occurring adjacent to Saratoga Hills Road. The pole was tended to provide sufficient clearance between the power lines and a driveway_~t__- tiBg_ across the.prQp_~_rtM_. S~_aff_also_not~d_that_i%_.was_i%s_~eeling_-this-7~W powe~ pole location would not have a significant impact in that it would barely be notice- able from any residences or public observation:- points. Staff added that it viewed .this as an improvement of the existing situation, but pointed out that the Staff Report failed to make the necessary findings required in the Zoning Ordinance. Vice-Chairman Martin opened the public hearing on V-460 at 8:S7 p.m. Lawrence Guy, applicant, stated that he had requested PG~E to begin work on reloCation of the PG~E lines. He added, however, that whenithe determination was made that a new power pole was needed, the variance matter arose. Mr. Guy stated that he was in conversation with Mr. Stephens of PG~E who confirmed that ~r. Guy was in violation of GO-9S. Mr. Guy disagreed with this statement, pointing out that he had constructed a 2S-foot pole with which he tried to touch the lines. He stated that he could not touch the lines with the pole, and contended that the power lines were at least 40-feet high. He added that per his wife's observations, the PG~E man sent to measure the distance, measured the distance between the pool and the telephone lines; not between the pool and the PG~E lines. Vice-Chairman Martin, as chairman of the Variance Committee, concurred with Mr. Guy's estimate that the power lines were approximately ~0-feet high. He -S- : CO~IISSION MINqjTES OF OCTO iS, 1976 III. B. V-460 - Lawrence Guy - Cont'd added, however, that insomuch as the lines crossed the property, there would be a visual obstruction which he felt could be greatly lessened by the place- ment of this proposed new pole. He added that the only neighbor who could see this new pole was the adjacent property o~mer, and he asked whether any communication with this individual had been made. Mr. Guy stated that he had discussed this matter with his neighbor and that there had been no objections raised. Staff added that they had not been able to contact this individual, but noted that he had received a public hearing notice and had not responded. Commissioner Marshall requested that a condition of the Staff Report be that the telephone company lines also run across the property following the same route as the PG&E lines. The Staff Report was amended under Recommended Action as follows: 1. The existing overhead telephone lines/which also presently.'crosses over the applicant's swimming pool is to be relocated to the proposed PG&E line route as sho~m on Exhibit A. Completion of this condition would bed-required within ten (10) days of relocation of subject PG&E lines. As there were no additional comments, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the public hearing on V-460 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Callon endorsed this application stating that she felt relocating the wiring would improve the existing situation both from visual and safety . points of view. With this statement, Commissioner Cal~on moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application V-460 per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated October 8, 1976, as amended. .Th~ mot%gp ~s carried unanimously. C. C-18S - Larsen & BlaCkSeli, Pierce and Ashley Way, Request for Change of Zoning for Two Parcels Located between Pierce Road and Ashley Way from "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Low Density), t-0 "R-i-20,000" (Single- Family Residential, Low Density) Vice-Chairman Martin opened the public hearing on C-18S at 8:48 p.m. Staff noted that one letter of correspondence dated October 8, 1976.from Dr. and Mrs. B. Ichikawa, 128S0 Foothills Lane, protesting this change of zoning, had been received. Staff.explained that a Staff Report had been prepared ~ated October 7, 19.76. Dadi Noeggerath, 129S0 Pierce Road, favored the approval of this rezonihg. She stated that this area was one of the few areas in the City which was suitable for smaller lot size than one acre, and this rezoning would create a buffer. She pointed out that many people would like to enjoy a rural living but could not afford to buy an acre lot. She stated that she thought this property was suited for the requested rezoning. Commissioner Marshall, as chairman of the gubdivision Committee, explained that the applicants had requested this item be continued. He pointed out that the Subdivision Committee would be making an on-site inspection of this property, and that Staff would be reviewing the entire area in light of all legal non- conforming parcels in this area. At this point Vice-Chairman Martin closed the public hearing on C-18S at 8:S8 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of-October 2~, 1976, and re- ferred this matter to the Subdivision Committee fS~ ~n. ~Site .~n~p~ct~on. D. E-3 - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Garcia/Kirkorian Conunercial Project, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road, 12.22~ Acres (Tentative Building Site Applications SDR-1242 and SDR-1243) Staff pointed out that this EIR was being reviewed for iIs adequacy as an environ- mental document for 2 commercial projects presently before the Land Development -6- CO:~BIISSION MINHJTES OF OCTO~. 13, 1976 III. D. E-3 - Draft Environmental Impact Report - Cont'd Committee. It was explained that comments received from the public and the Planning Commission would be referred to the EIR consultants for response at a subsequent Commission meeting. Staff explained that no written response-had been received from the Department of Transportat~on,_~lthough Staff had discussed this matter with Cal-Trans via a telephone conversation where an indication had been made that Cal-Trans had no omm problem with the EIR. Additionally, no c en~ responses were received from the Cupertino Sanitation District, the Health Department, the San Jose Water Works Company, the City of Cupertino, the County Sheriff's Department and the City Building Department. It was noted that a comment that the EIR was adequate had been received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Vice-Chairman Martin opened the public hearing on E-3 at 9:00 p.m. Doug Donaldson, representative of Envir'onmental Impact Planning Consultants, ex- plained that this EIR was for a single shopping center on 2 different parcels under separate o~mership. He stated that they had identified 5 major areas in which there would be adverse impacts from theC~r0p'6~e"d project: 1. In the seismic area, problems in ground shaking primarily due to liqui- faction, given that the site was adjacent to the creek area with fairly high ground water levels. 2. Flooding could be a problem, although it could be solved in the future with an additional box culvert installed along Calabazas Creek. In the interim period, flood plain insurance through HUD would be available to compensate for any loss of property should a flood occur. 3. Approximately 12 homes adjacent to the proposed project would be adversely affected relative to visual impacts, and would lose their views of the hills. These views would be replaced by views of the shopping center unless new~vegetat_ion was ~l~Rted. 4.The general adverse affects of air quality would not be very significant with the' exception~of dust particularly during the construction period. 5. There would be increased energy consumption due to the project, although conservation measures could be 'instituted to some extent. He drew the Commission's attention to the Mitigation Section of the EIR which focused primarily on. mitigating impacts in the Noise and Traffic sections, and the Alternative Section which focused on a number of alternatives. CO~]ISSION RESPONSE; ® Vice-Chairman Martin requested that the "Revenue" section on page 21 be further clarified. He noted that one paragraph estimated that con~nercial areaS_proZ ._ ~ vided S-7% of revenues, whereas in another paragraph under this section the Report stated that taxes other than property taxes provided 21.6% of the City revenues. He pointed out that this was an inconsistency. Mr. Donaldson stated they would investigate this. ®. Regarding Appendix A-7, questions were raised by Vice-Chairman Martin and Commissioner Marshall.on the seemf~d"~p~ity between the calculations of noise intensity compared to l'SUdn~ss. Mr7. S~eve Krenzelok, also representing EIP, explained that there were 2 t)~es of addition being used in the Report: energy being calculated on an arithmetic scale and loudness being calculated on a logrithmic..~6F"db~" scale. Commissioner Marshall noted that by definition a 3db increase'Wa's'a doubling of intensity, and he asked whether the amount of time that the noise was above a norm had been added into the equation. Mr. Krenzelok stated that they would ask the noise consultant to address this question. · Vice-Chairman Martin noted that~Fighre IS on page'6~'reflected traffic going in and out of the shopping center and'food store;-but pointed out that this -7- = ~ CO~IISSION MINUTES OF OCTO~13, 1976 -. III. 'D. E-3 - Draff EIR on SDR~1242 and SDR-1243 - Cont'd Figure neglected to include traffic going back and forth between the shopping center and the food store. Mr. Donaldson stated that traffic calculations had been made on this, but did not know why this data had not been included in the Report. He stated that they would address this matter. · Commissioner Marshall requested that Staff provide the consultant with a copy of the proposed improvement plans for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road so that they could be reviewed in light of the Director of Public Works' comments and the design of the facility. Staff explained that the developer had investigated this plan for the frontage road and noted that the original concept was incorporated into the proposed plan. He added that this plan did integrate with the properties to the south of this project. Commissioner Marshall reiterated his request that the consultant be provided with a copy of this plan with special considera- tion given to the widening of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the proposed improve- ments to the City Gateway. · Commissioner Marshall also requested Staff to verify with the Santa Clara Valley Water District that they had no comments. He noted the EIR's mitigating measure regarding the Water District, and asked whether this was correct in light of the no-comment response. Mr. Donaldson explained that this information came directly from the District's plans for the future. Commissioner Marshall requested Staff verify this information. · Commissioner Laden requested the consultants address the possibility of a traffic light on the Prospect Road exit across from the Alpha Beta shopping center. She expressed concern that people would be entering and leaving both shopping centers onto Prospect Road, and she stated that she felt this would create congestion. She noted that the Report did not address the possibility of a light at this corner intersection, and requested a response on this matter. PUBLIC RESPONSE 1. Frank Ziegel explained that he had'been a resident at 20254 Kirkmont Drive for 12 years, and noted that he was a representative of the Northwest Saratoga Home O~ers Association. He stated that this site had been a controversy for .... 8-10 years, and that as such, a considerable amount of pressure had been put on the developer, the City and the adjacent property ~ers. He explained that the Homeowners Association had met with the developer and Staff representatives to.discuss this p~oject, and he added..that they had also reviewed this EIR. He stated that! they found the report to be biased, with many opinions rather than facts. He sta{ed that'the h6m_e~s_~ad expertise of the consultants, and as such, had'to depend on the information contained in the EIR as giving "a true picture of the impacts" this project would have on the community. He submitted a letter from the Home O~mers Association dated October 13, 1976 outlining some of their concerns, and he requested that the consultants respond. Additionally he offered the Associa- tion's services to the consultants in clarifying the contents of the letter. 2. Dick Hathaway, 20385 Knollwood Drive, stated that he felt more homes than 12 would be affected by this project.. He contended that lighting, traffic, hours and congestion would affect a wider amount of residences than' just the 12 immediately-adjacent homes. Relative to the lighting, he stated that they had contacted individuals living next to similar commercial areas who indicated that the "impacts cannot be quantitized." He contended that when one could only see a white glow at night fromj~h'~ng center lights, "this is an impact that the report does not refer to but is a very real impact, not only to those people adjacent, but houses within a reasonable distance." He requested that the Report be expanded to address this issue. He requested also that the consultants address the potential occurrence of the super market being open 24 hours or until midnight. Additionally he stated that they did not feel the Report took a realistic view of the internal traffic in the adjacent areas. 3. John Mallory stated that he had lived at 12258 Kirkdale Drive since 1967, adding that he was an active member of the Home O~mers Association. He stated that he felt more specific attention should be given to the feeder streets in COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOI 13, 1976 III. D. E-3 - Draft EIR on SDR-1242 and SDR-1243 - Cont'd the EIR. He stated that he was concerned with the direction of approach items on page 64, and on the neighborhood impacts section on page 67. He stated that these items were not specific, adding: "We live there. We play on the streets. We have many activities. We have Memorial Day activities and 4th of July activities." Additionally, he noted that Kirkmont Drive was a narrow street, and that residents currently had difficulty making right or left turns onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from Kirkmont. He also stated that he felt the traffic study was made during the summer months, "which is probably the/ligh~est_ period.'! 4. Byron Hornet, 20399 Metida Avenue, .noted thatr he was ~ mpmb~!_of ~e homeowDe~._. association. He requested that the EIR evaluate the affect of the development being constructed in such a way that no variances from the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance would be required. Commissioner Callon concurred with this ~equest. CO~ISSION ACTION As there were no additional comments, Vice-Chairman Martin closed the public hearing on EjS'~t '9:50 p.m., continued same to 'the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1976, and referred the.'CbTam~t~'to the consultants fSFf~fher response. Commissioner Callon requested that-when ~he'Cofi~Ultants meet Wi~h""the Home O~mers Association, Staff notify the Commissioners. Staff stated that they would notify the Commissioners, but advised that only 3 Commissioners could attend this meeting. RECESS: 9:50 - 10:10 p.m. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. Status Report: West Valley College Proposed Stadium and Ski Lights; Continued from September 22, 1976 ........ S~ff pointed out that a Subdivision Subcommittee Report had been prepared on defining the City's intent of Condition 7 of the 1967 use permit in accordance with the Commission's request at its last meeting. Condition ? 9f the 1967 use permit states: "The campus Shall not include an outdoor sports stadium designed for large-scale public attendance at intercollegiate games or events." He added that although the Commission had requested a joint Committee-of-the-Whole meeting be held with the City Council to discuss this matter, Staff was recommending the Commission make its recommendation and transmit same to the City Council as a .regular agendized :Council item. Chairman Marshall, as chairman of the Subdivision Committee, noted that= the_Report ~ was a composite of the Committee members' dialogue on October 12th. "He recommended that the last sentence of paragraph 3 on page 1 be deleted in that it did not/~a'd'- to the clarification of the use permit. Further, he suggested that the title of Subdivision Subcommittee Report be changed to Planning Comission Report. Commissioner Marshall stated that the report basically addressed the terms "stadium" and "large-scale." He noted that Webster's definition of stadium was "a meeting place outdoors for games or other activities with seats either partially or totally tiered surrounding the playing area and is spectator oriented." Additionally, he noted that the terms "public.~' and "audience'; described the same thing, and added that the City was concerned in 1967 ab6ut a spectator-, public- or audience-oriented event which was not condusive to the welfare of the citizens adjacent to that facility, or that would constitute such a size that it became a traffic burden to the City. Jeff Oderman, attorney representing the West Valley Taxpayers and Environment Association, stated that although they had submitted to the Commission at its last meeting_ a resolution that-they requested be endorsed by the Commission against the-'propos~d s~adium, he felt that the :Subdivision Sub6ommittee Report was sufficient. He suggested, however, that the last sentence be deleted of paragraph 3 and that the second ~e~.enc~ in ~his paragraph be changed as follows: "Further, it is the Planning -9- = _- ~ CO~IISSION MINIITES OF OCTO~ 13, 1976 IV. A. Status Report: West Valley College Proposed Stadium - Cont'd Commission's determination that an outdoor stadiuJn specifically designed to attract and accommodate members or spectators or members of the public and including such facilities as bleachers, lights,~ticket b~ths, press boxes and similar accessory structures is a large-scale stadium for public attendance and therefore violatire of the use permit." He stated that he felt this was more in line with what the original intent of the use permit was, instead of emphasizing the number of seats in the stadium. He explained that at~qssib~e problem in defining large scale in terms of number of people using the facility would be that the College's Governing Board may simply reduce the number of seats and argue that consequently this was not large scale. Commissioner Callon stated that she preferred to define large scale because her concern with large scale attendance was with ~raffic, lighting and noise problems. She stated that the uae permit states that the college could hot have a stadium for large-scale attendance, but that it did not state that the college could not have a stadium. Jim Isaac, 13685 Calle Tacuba, suggested that the Commission also clarify at this time Condition 1 of the 1967 use permit regarding the City's authority t6 review and make recommendations on West Valley construction projects. The Secretary explained that~n'.?~ dse permit was granted in 1967, the Staff Report was an exhibit attached to the Official use permit which stated that the Commission and the City retained continuing control based on the provisions of the City Code ?iF affect at the time of issuance. He explained that those provisions referred to the Zoning Ordinance which gives the Conunission continuing jurisdiction on any use permit, including the ability to modify, delete, add or revoke use permit conditions at any time. At this time several Commissioners requested that this matter be continued pending review of the Report by the City Attorney. This matter was referred to the Sub- division Committee for further review at its meeting on October 19th, and continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1976. B. Referral from City Council: Trails & Pathways Report from Task Force Note was made that the City's Trails & Pathways.?Commf~tee had prepared its Report, and Staff pointed out that there would be Commission meetings and stud)' sessions scheduled at future dates to discuss this Report. V. WRITTEN COmmUNICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Determinations The following Negative Declaration was filed between the period of September 15 and October 8, 1976: e'SDR-1267 - Danforth Apker, Quarry Road,~Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 Lots B. Other 1. Letter dated October 1, 1976 from Emory Chow, Boething Treeland Nursery Company, requesting permission to increase the amount of acreage for its nursery. Staff explained that-a letter would be. prepared advising Mr. Chow that they would have to:have to make application for said expansion. 2. Letter dated September 20, 1976 from the American Association of University Women introducing Eleanor Mann as the observer to Commission meetings. VI. ORAL CO~B1UNICATIONS A. City'Council Report The Secretary gave a brief report of the City Council meeting held on October 6, 1976. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City's Administration office. -10- CO~[MISSION MINUTES OF OCTO~_13, 1976 VI. ORAL COmmUNICATIONS - Cont'd B. Other 1. PPC Re~prt: Commissioner Callon gave a brief report of the PPC meetings. She informed the Commission that she would be serving on a PeC yco'nuWiYt'~=-to review the individual Santa Clara County cities' general plans. 2. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission meeting of November 24th be rescheduled for Monday, November 22, 1976 in the City Council Chambers. It ~was further suggested that the second December Commission meeting of December 22, 1976 be cancelled. Staff was directed to public notice these changes. 3. Appreciation was expressed to the Good Government Groupffor serving coffee; ;and Vi~-Chairman Martin welcomed Councilwoman Corr and Bill Brightenbach of the GGGTto the meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissi6ner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commis- sion meeting of October 13, 1976 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, M~;-~~~ ~uyn, ~ecretary sko/ -11-