Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2001 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Kurasch Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001. As there was not a quorum available this evening of those Commissioners that were also in attendance at the August 8, 2001, meeting, approval of the minutes of that meeting was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that there were two copies of page 8 in the Draft Housing Element. CONSENT CALENDAR • RESOLUTION FOR V-01-007 (386-18-003) – NGUYEN, 1821 Kosich Drive: Request for Variance approval to construct a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single-story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12 feet 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Staff has prepared a resolution with findings approving this variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 2 • Request for Variance approval to construct an addition into the required exterior side yard setback. The proposed side yard setback addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25-foot exterior side yard setback facing Kosich Drive. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Staff has prepared a resolution with findings denying this variance Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Consent Calendar was approved. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 UP-01-007 – SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos road and Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicant is seeking a Use Permit approval to allow the installation of four antennas. Three of the antennas would become a part of a newly installed light pole and the fourth a small GPS on the exterior. The new antennas would be inside the top of this pole at 23 feet in height and will look like an extension of the light pole and be painted to match. An equipment cabinet will be placed underground. • Stated that as a part of this installation, the applicant will install a new bus stop with two benches. The light fixture will serve two functions, providing a place to install the antennas as well as providing security lighting for the bus stop. • Added that the applicants will landscape the bus stop area in a manner similar to other bus stops located along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. A built up mound area will be planted with materials including rosemary, California fuscia and other drought tolerant and flowering plants. • Said that this project will help contribute to the aesthetics of the area and will create a deterrent for the illegal dumping that current occurs on this site. • Advised that staff is recommending approval. Chair Barry asked why previous applications have not incorporated underground placement of the equipment cabinets. Mr. John Livingstone answered that the applicant is proposing such an installation because of aesthetics and the fact that it looks better. Chair Barry stated that the Commission was not aware that it was possible and again asked why such a proposal has not been brought forward in the past. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 3 Director Tom Sullivan advised that the current new staff couldn’t answer that question. Commissioner Hunter questioned whether the proposed landscaping mound might be too small. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the landscaping mound would actually be 60 feet wide. Commissioner Jackman asked if there would be a pedestrian walkway. Associate Planner Livingstone replied that the existing path would be retained. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this proposal would establish a precedent. • Added that while he is strongly in favor of beautifying the area, this proposal will be the first to include benches and lighting at a bus stop. • Continued to state that street lighting may not necessarily be a positive thing and may actually be counter to what the City has done in the past. • Cautioned that the Commission must consider long-term ramifications. • Said that the Commission has traditionally encouraged placement of antennas on existing facilities such as power poles. • Inquired why this applicant is not following the previous practice requiring innocuous installation of these antennas. Chair Barry expressed her agreement with Commission Roupe’s comments. Director Sullivan suggested that the proposed findings could be amended to narrow the action, stating that the installation is approved in this manner only because the area is in need of beautification and not to establish a precedent City wide. Commissioner Jackman asked whether there are buses at night on this route. Director Sullivan replied that he was not certain of the specific bus schedule. Commissioner Jackman said that if the bus runs at night, she would support having a light there. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there are 15 other bus stops along this road, none of which is lighted. Added that he would hate to make lighting of bus stops a determining factor. Associate Planner Livingstone suggested that the light itself could be removed. Commissioner Hunter said that the light could serve as a safety feature. Mr. Ivan T. Young, Sprint Representative: • Clarified that the proposal to underground the equipment cabinet is for the aesthetics since this site is on a scenic corridor. • Responded that he cannot say why other providers do not incorporate underground equipment cabinets but said that such installations are more expensive. • Said that they would be landscaping an area 22 by 60 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 4 • Agreed that there are no lights at the other bus stops but that having one would serve a functional benefit in providing safety at night. Commissioner Roupe asked for verification that there is no radiation impact with a traditional installation. Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that Commissioner Roupe is correct. Added that the main objective of this installation is to provide reliable coverage along this route. Commissioner Roupe expressed doubt that coverage would be adversely impacted if the antenna were placed about 30 feet or higher. Mr. Mark Neuman, Sprint’s Consulting Engineer, stated that there are functional benefits to lower the antenna placement and locating them closer to the road. Mr. Rakesh Sethi, 14930 Farville Avenue, Saratoga: • Pointed out that he just learned of this proposed antenna installation near his home two weeks ago. • Declared his concern over the safety of his family, including two children, as they live within 50 to 75 feet of this project site. Specifically he is concerned with cancer risks from both farfield and nearfield effects. • Identified himself as an engineer and said that he has begun researching the hazards. • Advised that there is data in the scientific community that evaluates the impacts of powerful antennas. • Added that the need for placement of the equipment underground is simply because the equipment generates 96 decibels of sound. • Asked what happens if there is equipment failure or about the potentials of property value impacts since this structure will be an eyesore. • Added his concerns over the impacts on groundwater. • Questioned the placement of the antennas at 23 feet instead of 100. • Asked for the time to build a case against this proposal and declared that he needs access to documents. • Said that he himself sells high technology. • Opined that the only reason so few of his neighbors are present is because they probably just threw the meeting notification letter into the trash. Chair Barry: • Stated that she is serving her second year on the Commission and that on a number of occasions Commissioners have been concerned about the unknowns over antennas. • Advised that per the counsel of the City Attorney the City has no jurisdiction to prevent the installation of antennas solely on concerns for potential health hazards. Such concerns cannot be a basis for denial. • Suggested that Mr. Sethi provide his research information to the City Attorney. • Pointed out that data will be taken from this site each month after installation. • Opined that this is the wrong location and the antennas are too close. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Roupe reiterated that Federal law precludes the Commission from denying an antenna application based solely on health concerns as long as the application meets the standards set for electromagnetic safety. Mr. Sethi countered that the lowered height is an aesthetic issue. Commissioner Jackman told Mr. Sethi that she would be interested in reviewing the studies he finds. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sethi what his recommendation might be for an alternate placement. Mr. Sethi replied that he had ideas. Pointed out that the danger zone is a 8.5 radius. Added that there is 50 feet more space available further from residences. Commissioner Roupe restated that the antenna placements have typically been made on power poles and are not intrusive. Mr. Sethi concurred that above 50 to 60 foot level is better but that the proposed 23-foot height is not safe. Commissioner Roupe countered by saying that the existing power poles are not that high but that this height generally suffices. Chair Barry asked the applicant why the 23 foot height was chosen. Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that the placement was made to provide optimal coverage in the Farwell, Fruitvale and Glen Una area. Added that they looked carefully for a good location that offers some setback from the nearest home. Chair Barry again asked for explanation for the 23 foot height. Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that the height was selected to best cover Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and besides they thought that a higher placement would be found to be less aesthetically pleasing. Disagreed with Mr. Sethi’s comment that the sound level of the equipment will be 98 decibels. Pointed out that per the report, the sound will be 61 decibels and the equipment is being placed 12 feet below grade within a concrete enclosure so that no sound will be heard. Commissioner Zutshi asked if this is an ideal location or would another location further from residences work just as well. Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that this location is the furthest from any residences. Commissioner Roupe again stated that the City typically opposes lighting on streets except for major intersection areas. This proposal is a precedent setting in installing this streetlight. Pointed out that the City guidelines support retention of a rural atmosphere. Director Sullivan reminded that this streetlight would be situated on a State highway where passengers are getting on and off buses on Highway 9. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this is not an excessively used bus stop. Chair Barry pointed out that the General Plan calls out for rural areas without sidewalks and streetlights. Said that there are contradictory reasons why lights are not wanted. Director Sullivan said that without a light, this installation would simply become a monopole. Chair Barry suggested that the applicant be asked to come back with an installation that does not include a light feature. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the applicants find a way to place their antennas on an existing utility pole instead as there are lots of them in the area. Director Sullivan suggested a continuance to September 12th with the request that the applicant look at existing poles in the area for an alternative installation to that proposed. Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is his general inclination although he hates to lose the beautification of the proposed added landscaping. However, he said it was not necessary to solve both issues at one time. The need for the beautification of this area can be brought to the City in another forum. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that local residents beautifully landscaped another local area. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission continued consideration of UP-01-007 for a Use Permit to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road near Farwell Avenue to its meeting on September 12, 2001, with the instructions that the applicant: 1. Look at alternate sites using an existing structure for the placement of its antennas, 2. Explain alternatives to the lowered height and/or 3. Offer creative solutions to a pole without a light. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Hunter expressed her appreciation for the leadership of the more experienced Commissioners in leading this complicated discussion. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 V-01-010 (517-20-034) – TIMMONS, 20200 Mendolsohn Lane: Request for a Variance approval to construct an approximate eight foot tall sound wall in the front yard setback across the front of the property, where three feet in height is normally required. The site is located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 7 Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a 6 to 8-foot high fence within the required 30-foot front yard setback area. • Said that the Commissioners are required to make three findings in order to approve this variance. • Pointed out that staff could not make these findings. There are no special circumstances since the applicant has the option to locate a fence elsewhere on this property without need of a variance. Added that should this variance be approved, it would be difficult not to approve the same variance for the neighbors. Approval would set a precedent. Staff finds that approval would be the granting of a special privilege. • Advised that staff is recommending denial. Mr. John Lien, Applicant: • Said that he has processed several variance applications and believes that the three required findings can be made in this case. • Pointed out that he searched for a similar road configuration situation and didn’t find one and that this property faces onto a highway, which has negative impacts so that sound walls are warranted. • Said that the sound wall they propose is unobtrusive and that existing four-foot high landscaping will obscure most of it with only about two feet being visible behind the landscaping. The wall will go from eight feet to six feet in height and all existing landscaping will be retained. • Advised that there is already a seven-foot high sound wall directly across Highway 9 from this property. • Said that the issue of street geometry exists that is specific to this property and occurs nowhere else in the City of Saratoga. • Said that this wall will actually improve the safety of the area and that an off-street area will be provided so that cars are off the street when in the drive before the gate. Commissioner Roupe sought assurance that proper pier and beam foundations will be used to protect mature trees that might be impacted by the construction of this wall. Mr. John Lien said that such protection would occur. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:05 p.m. Ms. Azar Lohrasbpour, 20160 Mendelsohn, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a neighbor two doors down. • Said that she sympathizes with the neighbor and that the other properties on this street are smaller and closer to Highway 9. • Expressed concern with drainage and the fact that this wall will separate the owners from this problem and therefore reduce their willingness to address it. • Added that such a wall will change the look of this neighborhood, where a number of owners have lately been spending $100,000’s to improve their homes. • Said that this home is further from Highway 9 than is the home across Highway 9. • Expressed opposition for this variance and requested denial, suggesting that the applicants install more landscaping to buffer against noise. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 8 Mr. John Lien said that the basis of the variance is orientation toward Highway 9 and reminded that 2/3 of the wall would be hidden by existing landscaping. Pointed out that the ditch and drainage problem is a City problem not this property owners. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi expressed concern that allowing this variance will require a similar variance to be granted to everyone on this street. Commissioner Roupe said that he agreed with Mr. Lien that a special circumstance in geometry exists and therefore this approval would not represent a precedent. Pointed out that the property has frontage onto a major thoroughfare that qualifies as a special circumstance. Commissioner Hunter said that she visited the site yesterday and found that no special circumstance exists. Pointed out that the house on Montalvo with an eight-foot wall is right on the road while this home is on a hill with a large front area. Said that she supports staff recommendation for denial. Commissioner Roupe disagreed and said that about one-third of the frontage is along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road so the required finding can be made. Reminded that only about 1/3 of the wall will be visible from the street due to existing mature landscaping. Chair Barry asked what the impact is if there are other options available to the applicant. Director Sullivan replied that this is the crux of the matter. There are other options available. Chair Barry said that it seems that there are real and good alternatives and that staff has identified the issues pretty strongly. Commissioner Roupe asked what staff means by alternatives. Director Sullivan said that consideration must be made if there is some other option available that would not require issuance of a variance. The stated need from the applicant is to buffer noise from Highway 9. Other solutions are possible including the placement of the wall further into the property beyond the required setback. Commissioner Roupe said that this would result in an obstruction in the middle of the lawn and loss of enjoyment of a larger portion of the property. Commissioner Jackman cautioned that there is potential for quite a few more such variance applications in the future in nearby areas such as Pepper Lane. Expressed her concern about hiding houses behind eight-foot sound walls. Chair Barry said that it appears that there are varied opinions amongst the Commission and asked for a motion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Commissioner Roupe motioned for approval of a Variance to allow the installation of a six to eight-foot high sound wall on property located at 20200 Mendelsohn Lane. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied a Variance request (V-01-010) to allow construction of an approximately eight-foot tall sound wall in the front yard setback on property located at 20200 Mendelsohn Lane. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 GPA-01-001 (CITYWIDE) – GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT: The 2000 Housing Element update is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Directed the Commissioners attention to the memo provided by Commissioner Kurasch, which highlights her suggestions. Commissioner Kurasch specifically addresses two programs. For Program 1.2, regarding Mixed Uses, she suggests that particular zones or locations be identified. For Program 2.1, regarding Density Bonuses, a State mandated program, she suggests that Inclusionary Housing be incorporated whereby a certain percentage of BMR units are required. • Added that other cities within the West Valley Area do have such Inclusionary Zoning. Typically used is an In-Lieu Fee. • Said that it is the real desire of the Council not to point at a particular property for low-income housing but rather to spread such housing stock through all parts of the community. • Added that development standards will have to be created. • Said that one possibility is the creation of mixed-use projects with a ratio between commercial and residential that keeps a commercial look. • Advised that it is proposed that Quasi/Public Facilities zoning also be available for mixed-use projects and it is suggested that an additional table similar to Table A be developed for the Housing Element as well as an additional map that shows potential housing areas. Mr. Jeff Goldman, Consultant, Parsons: • Said that upon review, they have found that there is a decreasing level of affordability since the last Housing Element was prepared. Included in that group that cannot afford housing are seniors. The Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 10 goals in the current Housing Element were examined and found to be still valid although the magnitude of the problems has increased. • The five areas of concentration include sharing in the region’s future housing needs (ABAG); construction of affordable housing; assisting low income households with housing availability; preservation of existing affordable housing; and promoting Fair Housing opportunities. • Pointed out that key programs to achieve those goals include: • Creating a Mixed-Use Overlay zone as a key strategy; • Adopting several changes to the Zoning Ordinance to permit more second units; • Implementing a Density Bonus program; • Working with the Saratoga Retirement Community (formerly Oddfellows); • Implementing stronger First Time Homebuyers Program; • Continuing the Rehab Assistance Program; and • Amending the Zoning Code to designate for emergency shelter and transitional housing (also a State requirement) to identify where such services are permitted. Staff is recommending that the Mixed-Use Overlay Zones be so identified. Chair Barry said that increased property assessments for second units may be a roadblock to constructing those units. Director Sullivan said that this issue has been raised at a recent West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting. It was suggested that perhaps this is something the State can help with. Additionally, it was suggested that cities contact the County Assessor to discuss this detail. Commissioner Roupe advised that he had a number of typographical and editorial corrections and comments but nothing substantive. Chair Barry: • Said that the preservation of existing housing is an important goal. • Pointed out that there have been a large number of requests to demolish adequate to lovely homes to allow for the construction of newer and larger ones. • Asked if there is a precedent to set conditions for such action such as requiring the owner to live for some period of time within a house before permitting its demolition. • Added that this could help to preserve some of the moderate housing stock. Director Sullivan said that a number of cities have sound Housing Preservation Programs. While the City cannot prohibit demolition, it can establish findings necessary to allow demolition. Commissioner Zutshi asked for criteria for the First Time Homebuyers Assistance Programs. Mr. Jeff Goldman: • Said that the criteria are income. • Identified the Income Level categories: • Low to Very Low Income equals no more than 80 percent of the Median County income. • Moderate Income allows up to 120 percent of Median County income. • Mid-Income allows up to 150 percent of the Median County income. • Added that there are limits on the prices and types of homes based on the median housing price in the County. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 11 • Suggested that ways of providing such assistance includes: • Silent Second Loans that help bolster the down payment. No repayment is required until the home is sold. • Below Market Rate interest rates. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a limit to the percentage of house cost. Mr. Jeff Goldman cautioned that details on such criteria are not included in the Housing Element and that the City would probably work within existing programs. Director Sullivan agreed that the City’s best means of providing such assistance is to help support existing programs. Commissioner Zutshi asked how one qualifies for Rehab funds. Mr. Jeff Goldman replied that the criteria is much the same as for the First Time Homebuyers Program he previously outlined. The applicants are typically of low income. The types of repairs eligible are for health and safety rather than aesthetic remodeling. There is a cap on the amount available per unit. Commissioner Zutshi asked how residents learn about the availability of Rehab funds. Director Sullivan replied through advertising. Cautioned that there is more demand than money available. Gave the example that current Block Grant Funds are being used to hook homes up to sewer. Mr. Jeff Goldman informed that there is no one specific area or concentration within Saratoga requiring rehab. The need is interspersed within the community. Commissioner Jackman expressed concern about the high cost of assisting with moderate-income housing. Questioned how such assistance can be handled. Director Sullivan pointed out that this is why the Mixed-Use Zoning is proposed so that smaller lot projects can be developed providing more housing units. Said that the Housing Element is as broad and all encompassing as possible. Mr. Jeff Goldman said that with a Mixed-Use designation, it would be possible to find a for-profit or non-profit developer to construct these projects. Director Sullivan said that neighboring communities have some mixed-use projects that could become a model. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it would be possible to obtain sketches of the Cupertino mixed- use project. Mr. Jeff Goldman said that there are a number of good examples of mixed-use developments and it would not be difficult to obtain information. Director Sullivan pointed out that the City of Campbell has some mixed-use projects too. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 12 Chair Barry said that there is lots of interest within the community and it would be helpful to see what such projects can look like. Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that the Commissioners look at a web site (bridgehousing.com) to see some positive examples of mixed-use projects. Commissioner Jackman said that a good sales job would have to be done to obtain support for affordable housing. Residents will have to be convinced that such housing stock will not turn their neighborhood into a slum. Pointed out that she could not afford to buy her own house in today’s market. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Muriel Marr: • Said that she herself obtained some CDBG money a number of years ago. • Advised that she has resided in Saratoga since 1955, living in her third Saratoga home today. • Asked if existing second units will be counted as new housing although they are already occupied • Added that this housing is not new stock. • Suggested that only new second units be counted toward the State goal. • Questioned the definition of remodel versus new construction. It appears that oftentimes only a small wall is retained and that project is still considered a remodel versus a new home. • Supported the retention and preservation of existing housing. • Encouraged the placement of housing above and behind retail. Director Sullivan: • Informed that there will be amnesty for existing second units. Of the 539 units assigned by ABAG, 20 units will come from amnesty for existing second units that will be legalized. • Said that a streamlined permit process, perhaps using an Administrative Hearing will govern new secondary living units. Mr. Jeff Goldman clarified that of the existing second units, the only ones that can be counted against the 539 ABAG allotment are those that were illegal that were legalized. Ms. Muriel Marr cautioned that some of these units are awfully substandard. Director Sullivan clarified that the standard for a remodel versus new construction is that if over 50 percent of the home is demolished, the project is considered to be new construction. Ms. Marge Bunyard: • Declared that the League of Women Voters has urged mixed-use housing for years. • Suggested that the Planning Commission should try to educate the public about low-income housing. • Expressed appreciation for the hard work done by the Planning Commission. Mr. John Marjory, 12258 Kirkwood Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he has resided in Saratoga since 1967. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 13 • Said that while he likes some of the ideas, he is opposed to the Housing Element. • Said that the Housing Element is a series of requirements rather than guidelines. The goals are unreasonable and unrealistic. • Said that the real issue is density and not low-cost housing. • Cautioned that jobs and overpopulation are creating problems and must be controlled as they add to congestion and pollution. • Said that many areas of concentration in the Housing Element do not apply including use of Housing Fairs and the issue of the homeless. • Questioned what represents “fair share.” Director Sullivan replied that fair share is determined by two State agencies, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development. These agencies project growth. ABAG has the State mandate to take the regions and divide the future housing needs into regional shares or allotments. The income groups include very low, low, moderate and above moderate. Commissioner Jackman advised that the methodology is outlined in page 53. Mr. Jeff Goldman pointed out that State Law considers a number of criteria including market demand, employment trends, etc. There is a mathematical formula that is intended over time to adjust the differences between income groups in each community so that they are more even dispersed. Chair Barry advised Mr. Marjory that he is not the only one who is unhappy with the ABAG allotment. Added that the City fought the assigned number but lost that fight with the State. Mr. John Marjory: • Suggested that social engineering is the least democratic thing he has heard, calling it “screwy.” • Expressed concern that additional housing will create a need for City services. Director Sullivan advised that Commission that he and Mr. Marjory had met on two occasions to discuss the Housing Element Update. Ms. Marge Bunyard said that she did not find the density to be so high. Director Sullivan pointed out that the units constructed since January 1, 1999, are being counted against this 539 allotment. Therefore, 177 units have already been built. There are 10 permits for artist housing and one caretaker’s unit at Villa Montalvo. Chair Barry expressed strong support for senior housing, most of it low-cost. Ms. Marge Ottenberg: • Advised that in 1961, her family constructed her 1,750 square foot house at a cost of $28,000. Today that same house could sell for $2 million. • Added that today she is living on Social Security. • Questioned whether her home is counted as low-income or moderate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 14 Director Sullivan clarified that Ms. Ottenberg’s home is considered existing housing. The focus is on new housing stock not existing. Commissioner Roupe asked if an existing home that is demolished and rebuilt is counted as new. Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that there is a formula that takes into consideration the replacement of existing stock as well as vacancies. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that four of five applications do not result in net housing additions but rather are teardowns and rebuilds. Director Sullivan said that there might be exceptions available. Commissioner Roupe asked if a house remodeling less than 50 percent is counted as new housing stock. Director Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Roupe asked if just one stub was left and the house rebuilt would this house count. Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that the City has no problem meeting the above-moderate income units. Mr. Jeff Goldman said that the distinction is how the City can accommodate ABAG’s allotment. That means availability of sites. It is not the City’s responsibility to guarantee these units get built but just that the possibility exists that the units can be accommodated through zoning. Director Sullivan added that the City prepares an annual report to the State outlining how each Housing Element goal is being implemented. Ms. Sharon Kelkenberg: • Supported the ABAG allotment. • Added that the provision of affordable housing within a community enhances the quality of everyone’s life. • Said that creative planning will be needed and that mixed use is the way to achieve this goal. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Roupe reminded that he has redlined typographical and format errors on his draft. Said that he would have no problem providing this information to staff following the meeting. Asked for more information about Inclusionary Housing, specifically page five, item 29, last paragraph, whereas projects with more than five units are required to provide affordable housing units. Director Sullivan pointed out that this is a density bonus program. If the developer wants 25 percent density, they must provide some percentage of low cost housing. Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that this section have some clarifying language added that defines the density bonus provisions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Jackman: • Said that she will accept the Housing Element as it is although it bothers her to have ABAG telling the City what to do and finds the goals not to be realistic. • Said that the artists’ units do not represent real housing and that these units will not improve the low-income housing stock. Director Sullivan pointed out that the artists’ units and caretaker’s unit are indeed counted as low- income units. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Muriel Marr suggested that a percentage of new construction costs be charged and allocated to an affordable housing fund. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Director Sullivan said that this provision is part of the Inclusionary Housing Program in that in-lieu fees can be charged. Mr. Jeff Goldman added that the Inclusionary Housing Program specifies that a percentage of units must be affordable to very low or low-income. An in-lieu fee can be paid instead as an escape clause to support such housing elsewhere. The actual provisions will depend upon the specific Ordinance adopted. Chair Barry asked how such in-lieu fees would be used. Director Sullivan said that the Inclusionary Housing Program will simply be a statement in the Housing Element. The City will have until July 1, 2001, to develop a specific Ordinance. This Ordinance will be developed between January and July using public hearing process prior to the July deadline. Chair Barry asked why the Inclusionary Housing Program is not in the document. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if there is any reason the City might not want to include it. Mr. Jeff Goldman said that it is not specifically included because no direction, nor specific need, was provided to do so. It was not thought to be a direct necessity to meet the established goals. Commissioner Roupe asked if it is put into the Housing Element, would the City be obligated to pass an Ordinance. Director Sullivan replied no. Said that in the Annual Report to the State, the City would simply provide a reason why it was not accomplished. Mr. Jeff Goldman said that he would further study an Inclusionary Housing Program. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support an Inclusionary Housing Program. Suggested that this is a big step and the City should move more slowly on this issue. Chair Barry said that Commissioner Hunter has made a reasonable point. Added that there will be concern in the community. Commissioner Hunter stated that the Housing Element seems to be thorough and spelled out and the City should proceed with it as it is. Director Sullivan clarified that the additions of a map and Quasi-Public Facility zoning for mixed-use projects had already been agreed upon earlier in the hearing. Chair Barry asked if the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will be sound if not included in the Housing Element. Director Sullivan said that it would not have to be in the Housing Element at the present time but should be added in the future. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of GPA-01-001 to support the General Plan Housing Element Update with the addition of mixed-use projects within Quasi Public zoning districts and a supporting map depicting such zoning areas in the City of Saratoga. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry thanked staff, the consultant and the audience and advised that this item will be considered by Council. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Sullivan: • Advised that the City has ordered new microphones for the Commissioners. • Informed that SB910 is now a two-year bill. • Said that he will be absent for the next meeting on September 12th and that John Livingstone and Allison Knapp will be assisting the Commission. Chair Barry advised that she too will miss the meeting on September 12th as her son is getting married. She asked Commissioner Jackman to chair that meeting in her place. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Roupe asked staff to conduct some investigation on setbacks for second story additions. Asked that staff return with a recommendation on what is appropriate and objective and whether an Ordinance amendment or policy might be required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 17 Chair Barry advised that Committee assignments will be made as soon as all Planning staff hiring is done. Director Sullivan advised the Commission that with tonight’s action on the Housing Element, the Commission has made a big step toward easing the Department’s workload. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, September 12, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk