Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2007 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of April 11, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 11, 2007, were adopted with an amendment to page 6. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Cappello and Kundtz abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Jolie Houston: • Identified herself as the attorney for St. Michael’s Church. • Advised that she is here this evening because they have just been informed that City Council has directed a review of St. Michael’s Use Permit by the Planning Commission in May. • Said that she is seeking some kind of clarification on what that review will cover. Is it just a review of the current uses or is it potentially a revocation hearing? • Reminded that they had been under the impression that this review of St. Michael’s was going to occur on June 27th. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Clarified that Council did not take action but rather the City Manager asked that the Planning Commission move forward with this review that had been initially set for June 27th to a date as early as possible, which is May 23rd. • Added that the Commission has a wide range of authority over Use Permits including review, change in conditions or revocation. • Suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to publish a notice that includes all options available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 2 Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission should set this item for accelerated hearing as requested by the City Manager. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the discussion would be on the Use Permit and not on the pending Design Review Approval. Chair Rodgers replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that she had thought that both could have been brought together in June. Chair Rogers pointed out that there has been a great deal of neighborhood emotion brought to us and to Council. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission’s direction should be to agendize this item sooner than originally proposed. Chair Rodgers replied yes, the request is that this Use Permit be considered earlier than June 27th. Commissioner Cappello asked for the impact and/or downside to scheduling this item for May. Is there room on that agenda? Director John Livingstone advised that there is currently just one project penciled in on that agenda, which is a single-family Design Review Approval application. Commissioner Cappello asked if there is sufficient time to notice this item for May. Director John Livingstone replied yes, the ad would need to go into the paper next week. Commissioner Kundtz asked if both sides would have sufficient time to prepare with the earlier date. Chair Rodgers said that either side could ask for an extension. Director John Livingstone pointed out that the neighbors have asked to move this item forward. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is an old Use Permit that apparently needs review. Several neighbors have concerns over the conditions of approval. Commissioner Zhao asked if the church wants this item moved up. Chair Rodgers clarified that it is the neighbors who do. Director John Livingstone suggested asking the church’s representative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Cappello reminded that this request has been forwarded to the Commission by the City Manager. Commissioner Zhao said that the church might not be ready. Jolie Houston, Attorney for St. Michael’s Church: • Stated that they prefer a June hearing. An earlier meeting is difficult for them. • Added that they have had no chance to rebut the letters submitted and were not represented at the Council meeting where this came up. • Reiterated that she is here this evening to obtain clarification on where this is going. Commissioner Kundtz suggested a compromise on the meeting date by going with June 13th. He asked staff if that meeting date would be available for this item. Director John Livingstone said that the June 13th meeting date is clear right now. Commissioner Hlava: • Advised that she would be back from Italy in time for the May 25th meeting. • Pointed out that a lot of Use Permits were issued years ago when conditions were not as specifically outlined as they are today. • Said that she is uncomfortable pulling out this one church’s Use Permit. • Added that she would still like for staff to do a report on what other churches do (activities, etc.) and identify what is different here from what occurs at other churches. • Stated that different religions have different things they do and this process needs to be fair to everybody. • Suggested a survey be prepared by staff on what is actually going on. Chair Rodgers reminded that there is a specific complaint about this specific church. The Use Permit needs to reflect what they actually do on site. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the decision this evening is whether or not this Commission wants to agendize this item sooner. • Added that it is important to make sure that everyone is given enough time to prepare. • Stated that the compromise date of June 13th is a good suggestion. Chair Rodgers agreed that both sides need time to prepare. She added that there might not be the staffing available to do an extensive study of all churches in the City of Saratoga. Director John Livingstone said that staff would try to come up with something to help the Planning Commission on this. Commissioner Kumar said that he liked the compromise date. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 4 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that the Commission take a vote to change the hearing date for the review of the Use Permit for St. Michael’s Church to June 13th. PLANNING COMMISISION DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of June 13, 2007, for the review of the Conditional Use Permit for St. Michael’s Church. (7-0) Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for St. Michael’s Church said that she is willing to help with the preparation of the survey information. Ms. Diane Drewke, Resident on Serra Oaks Court: • Said that there have been problems with the activities at this church. • Advised that the church has recently obtained a restaurant permit. • Pointed out that no other church has that. • Stated that she is simply asking that the Community Development Director enforce the Conditional Use Permit currently in effect for St. Michael’s Church. Director John Livingstone said that the City does not get involved with County Health permits. He added that whenever a kitchen facility is used for the preparation and selling of food, that kitchen be certified as a commercial grade kitchen. Commissioner Cappello said that it is helpful to keep in perspective that most churches have to have a health permit when serving food. Commissioner Kundtz said that in addition to the upcoming review of the existing Use Permit the instant issue is enforcement. He asked if staff would take an enforcement stance. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the enforcement issue is already being discussed between the Community Development Director and the City Attorney’s Office. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 19, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 5 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-182 (517-10-014) McCready, 20430 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - The applicant requests Design Review Approval for an illuminated sign in the CH-1 district. The wooden sign will be painted maroon and will be trimmed in white. Sandblasted white letters will spell out “Saratoga Kitchen and Bath Design Center.” (Suzanne Thomas) Associate Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that Code requires that the Planning Commission review and approve any illuminated signs. • Advised that Saratoga Kitchen & Bath Design Center has relocated from Big Basin Way to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Added that they are requesting signs on both the front and side of their building. • Stated that the sign from their original location is being relocated to this site and a second sign that is the same but slightly smaller is also proposed for the side elevation. • Said that gooseneck lamps will be used to illuminate the signs. • Described one sign as being 12 square feet and the other 10 square feet. Both signs read Saratoga Kitchen & Bath Design Center. • Said that neighbors within 500 feet have been notified. One call was received concerning illumination. Positive feedback was received by others. • Stated that this proposal is compliant with Code and with the Village Guidelines. The findings can be made to support it. • Recommended approval and stated that the applicant is present and available for questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the comment received was verbal or written. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that it was via a phone call. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kumar asked for details on how the light fixture would be situated, as he was concerned about the potential for glare impacts on the second floor tenants in this building. He asked if that had been considered. Planner Suzanne Thomas assured that the Community Development Director would approval final location and placement of the lighting. She added that the light fixtures would be pointed downward. Commissioner Zhao asked the hours of operation for this sign. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 6 Planner Suzanne Tomas advised that the sign would be illuminated during operational hours. She added that this is not an evening type of business. Commissioner Kundtz said that it has a clean look and is consistent with the sign approved recently for Starbucks. Commissioner Hlava reminded that it is the same sign approved for this business 10 years ago. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval for an illuminated wooden sign that will be painted maroon, trimmed in white with sand-blasted white letters reading, “Saratoga Kitchen and Bath Design Center” on property located at 20430 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #06-017 (397-27-030) JSM Enterprises, 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; The applicant requests Design Review/Tentative Map Approval to construct twenty town home units. Each town home unit is a three-bedroom unit with a two-car garage. Some units include basements. The maximum building coverage is 39.3 percent of the site. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 30 feet. The lot size is approximately 2.08 net acres or 90,515 square feet and the site is zoned RM-3000. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Provided two corrections to the Design Review resolution as follows: o Condition 20 should be amended to include the text, “Said fence shall be constructed prior to demolition or construction on site.” o Add Condition 22 to read, “A qualified consultant shall be retained to conduct soil sampling to evaluate the potential presence of pesticides as recommended in the Phase I site assessment. This evaluation shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. All recommended actions of the soil evaluation shall be complied with. • Stated that this applicant is seeking approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review Approval and a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the construction of 20 new townhome units on the site currently developed with the Brookside Glen Apartments. • Described the proposed townhomes of consisting of three bedrooms and two-car garages as well as basements. Unit 20 has a three-car garage. • Said that building coverage consists of 39 percent. Open space consists of 37 percent. As proposed, the density is 10 units per gross acre. The maximum height is 30 feet. The Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 7 homes range in size between 2,700 and 4,800 square feet excluding basements. The architectural style is Craftsman. • Reminded that on September 13, 2006, the Commission held a public hearing on this project. It was continued to a date uncertain so that more surveys and studies could be done. Included in those studies was the evaluation on the potential presence of red- legged frogs on site. Additionally, the potential for direct access to this development from Saratoga-Sunnyvale road was to be studied. Traffic counts and ground water levels were also to be reviewed. • Advised that an Initial Study was done and a Mitigated Negative Declaration drafted as a result. The review period was between March 14 and April 14, 2007. Comments were received and commented on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Review comments include those from the Water Quality Board and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). • Stated that mitigation for the monitoring and reporting of the California Red Legged Frog is to be in place but that this frog is not expected to be found on site. • Informed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be approved before the project can be approved. • Described the site as consisting of two acres that are currently developed with a 20-unit apartment complex, 17 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. The apartments were construction in 1962. The site has three single-story buildings and one two-story building. Access to the site currently is through a driveway through Neal’s Hollow. • Said that this project was originally submitted in July 2005. A Study Session was held on December 14, 2005, for a proposed 25-unit project. The applicant was directed to reduce the number of units and to maximize guest parking as well as evaluate the potential for direct vehicular access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Stated that initially site access from Neal’s Hollow was evaluated as the safest access. However, direct access is more desirable to Neal’s Hollow and to the residents in the existing developments located above this project site. • Said that a revised traffic study was prepared to evaluate the direct access alternative. It was determined that the traffic effect of a direct access would be insignificant. • Said that with the new access three additional trees are affected and need to be removed to accommodate the direct access proposed. • Said that a staggered wall that is four-feet high and fronted by landscaping is proposed. • Said that several studies and ecological consultants reviewed the impacts on any species. • Advised that basements were raised as a concern. Each unit proposes to have one. Sump pumps and drains are designed into the project. The project has received both geotechnical and hyrogeologic clearance. • Said that the project is compatible as far as architecture, bulk and mass. The project is screened from view by the site’s changing elevation and proposed trees. A good neighbor fence will be installed between the project and the adjacent neighbor at Victor Place. • Informed that several letters from residents of Brookside Glen Apartments have been received. • Added that draft resolutions have been provided. • Recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration followed by approval of the Design Review and Tentative Subdivision applications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 8 Chair Rodgers suggested discussion on the Mitigated Negative Declaration first, followed by issues of density, traffic, hydrology, slope, geotechnical, Phase I, biologic and biotech issues. Contract Planner Heather Bradley advised that City Arborist Kate Bear has an added comment this evening. Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist: • Advised that she has one recommended added condition, in the event that the direct access option is chosen, to replace the three trees that must be removed to accommodate the direct access with trees of equal value. Chair Rodgers asked if any Commissioner had a density question for staff. Commissioner Nagpal asked if questions about the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself could be posed at this time as she has a couple. Chair Rodgers asked for any questions about traffic. Commissioner Nagpal: • Pointed to Page 10 of the report that stated that direct access was not a safe solution for a variety of reasons. It was deemed not as safe as access from Neal’s Hollow but is still reasonably safe. Contract Planner Heather Bradley explained that the City’s traffic consultants from Fehr & Peers reviewed the proposal with direct access and concluded that since necessary U-turns required would be beyond peak travel times, this access could be deemed an acceptable alternative. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that reasons why the direct access was initially deemed unsafe was due to limited site distance. She asked if removal of the three trees solves that concern. Chair Rodgers asked if lowering the wall prior to the access point mitigated the pedestrian safety concern. Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. She advised that the applicant has agreed to revise the design of the wall to accommodate that site distance view of pedestrians and traffic. Commissioner Zhao asked if the Fire Department looked at the new proposed U-turn. Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Chair Rodgers asked the Commission if there are comments on the issues of hydrology, slope or geotechnical issues. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the conditions of approval would need to become part of the mitigation-monitoring program too. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 9 Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. She said that it is also a part of the Building plan check process. Chair Rodgers asked for questions on biological/wildlife, neighbor concerns, lights, parking, noise, fire hydrants, mail boxes, the subdivision map and/or design review. There were no such questions. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jim Morley, President of JSM Enterprises: • Thanked the Commission and staff for their time over the last three years, especially Director John Livingstone and Planner Heather Bradley and previously Deborah Ungo- McCormick. • Said he would now turn this over to Colin Gray, Vice Present of Development for JMS Enterprises. Mr. Colin Gray, Vice President of JMS Enterprises: • Said that he thinks this is a top-notch project here. • Expressed appreciation for the interaction with the public. • Said that original arborist who originally reviewed this project for the City was Barrie Coates. • Stated that they are saving the majority of the oaks on site. • Advised that geotechnical analysis, hydrological analysis as well as two traffic studies have been completed for this project. • Said that a direct access option has been developed and that they support either option. If the direct access were selected, direct access from Neal’s Hollow would be shut off. • Said that a consultant is present who can address questions on sub-surface drainage. • Stated his hope that they have done everything they need to have done and said he is ready for any questions. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she wanted to talk about density. • Reported that she understands that 30 units would have been possible on this property. • Pointed out that these proposed units are big units. • Asked Mr. Colin Gray to address the decision to chose to develop 20 large units over 30 smaller units. What where the considerations? Mr. Colin Gray: • Replied that there is a mixture of reasons. • Said one reason is the demographic that they are trying to reach. • Said that these units include three bedrooms with decent sized living areas. • Added that targeted buyers are people who are moving down from larger Saratoga homes but still want similar living spaces but with little to maintain outside. These homes are at a comfortable density with 25 feet between buildings. They offer a very nice design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Hlava asked if one building was moved with the creation of the alternate direct access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Colin Gray replied that two buildings were relocated slightly, a negligible amount. Chair Rodgers asked if there are questions for the applicant on the issue of traffic. Commissioner Kumar asked if traffic volume is somewhat consistent with today’s level. He also asked if parking within the subdivision has met the minimum standards. Mr. Colin Gray advised that while 2.5 spaces per unit are required under Code, they are providing 4.75 spaces per unit. This project is very adequately parked. Planner Heather Bradley added that three additional compact spaces on site were not counted because they did not meet the minimum standard. Commissioner Nagpal asked about parking for guests. Planner Heather Bradley replied that there are 14 guest spaces. Commissioner Nagpal said that it might require valet parking to accommodate a larger party. Commissioner Kumar said that even with the new access there is still parking available at Neal’s Hollow for overflow parking. Mr. Colin Gray said that there is no access and no parking available there for this project. Commissioner Kumar reminded that a portion of this parking belongs to the City and suggested leaving some sort of access open between this project and this parking. Mr. Colin Gray agreed that a walkway might be possible. Commissioner Kumar said that with only 14 guest parking spaces he did not want to see parking end up along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya, TJKM, Project Traffic Consultant, advised that with the alternate access there is no significant impact on level of service on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the potential of vehicular/pedestrian conflict the alternate access may create. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya, TJKM, Project Traffic Consultant, said that there was an initial concern over site distance but with the removal of two trees this concern was resolved. He added that the conflict between vehicular/pedestrian traffic was resolved because of the reduced slope that offers a better view for drivers of oncoming pedestrians. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Zhao asked about the slope reduction from 12 percent to 8 percent. Mr. Pete Carlino, Project Engineer, Lea & Braze: • Said that the initial option that would have linked Neal’s Hollow to the project site equaled a 12 percent slope. • Added that with the direct access that slope could be reduced to 8 percent. A landscape berm will help bring up the grade. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the ground water level. Mr. Ming Lee, TRC Wiley, said that the ground water is at 17 feet and they have designed at 13 feet. Commissioner Nagpal asked if they tested for contaminates while testing the ground water levels. Mr. Ming Lee replied no. Chair Rodgers asked about the 100-year flood plane. Mr. Ming Lee replied that it doesn’t affect this project site. He added that if the City wants them to design around that it could be accommodated. He added that the basement wall has been designed to deal with the conditions. Mr. Colin Gray advised that the 100-year flood plane does not come into this project. He advised that two different waterproofing barriers are being used in the basement design. Commissioner Zhao asked how many different floor plans there are in this project. Mr. Colin Gray replied that most are unique. Mr. Peter Ko, Project Architect: • Said that each of the 20 units has its own unique footprint and has a different character using entries, covers, window trim, colors, etc. Mr. Colin Gray thanked staff for its help and said he looks forward to the Commission’s vote. Commissioner Hlava: • Inquired about the vacancies at the apartments, as it appears several units are now vacant. • Asked if there is some plan in place to help the current tenants find alternate places to live. • Requested a status update on where they are at with that aspect of the project. Mr. Colin Gray said that they have agreed to aid the current tenants in finding similar apartments in the area. He advised that there are some secondary living units coming up that might be potential rental units. He assured that they would help in every way they can. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Kumar asked about the sidewalk along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Colin Gray said that they are rebuilding the sidewalk from the entrance at Neal’s Hollow to Read. They are recreating what is there and making it new. Mr. David Welton, Resident on Glen Brae: • Identified himself as a nearby resident as well as a real estate broker with Alain Pinel. • Stated that this is a nice project that will fill a void in Saratoga, specifically empty nesters that need to downsize their homes but want to stay in Saratoga. • Said that this is a tasteful project that will fill a need for Saratoga. Ms. Jane Elizabeth Linn, Resident on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. • Said that she would defer many of her comments to the 16-page opposition document prepared by Mr. Gupta. • Pointed out that direct access was not part of the original application and opposition comments. • Read aloud from the City’s Mission Statement for the Planning Commission that includes maintaining the unique character of Saratoga. • Suggested that white pasty buildings in a concrete garden are not within the character of Saratoga. • Said that there exists problematic parking and traffic problems in this area. • Stressed the need to preserve beautiful natural environments. • Asked that careful and diligent consideration be given. • Stated that she loves living in Saratoga. • Added that this project is located near the heart of the Village. • Urged the Commission not to set precedent nor ignore the environment or it will go away. Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Jane Elizabeth Linn if she is one of the residents of the apartments. Ms. Jane Elizabeth Linn replied yes and reported that all 20 apartments are currently inhabited. Mr. JR Ellis, Resident on Victor Place: • Said that he is on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce as well as being a neighbor to this project. • Said that he likes to watch wildlife such as deer in his area as well as the historic quaintness of the Village. • Stated that this project will only minimally impact the area. • Added that parking has been addressed here. • Said that this project will be an improvement to the apartments on site now. Mr. Neal Gupta, Resident on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said he is a resident of Brookside Glen Apartments. • Stated that there has been no traffic study that makes sense. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 13 • Stated that there are 23 bedrooms on site now that will increase to 60 with the new development. There are 34 parking spaces that will increase to 95. • Said that they are being told that there are negligible impacts even though there is a 50 percent increase in traffic. • Called that analysis to be a selective use of statistics and gave several quotations on the meaning of statistics. • Passed along a data sheet he had prepared to the Planning Commission. • Said that different stats can be applied here. • Stated that going from 20 apartments to 20 townhomes is being called a negligible difference in traffic. • Suggested that a per-person statistic would be a better one to use and said he believes that 60 persons is a reasonable one to use. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he knows how many bedrooms these units have. Mr. Neal Gupta replied three. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he were assuming that there would be people in each bedroom. Mr. Neal Gupta replied yes. Commissioner Kumar pointed out that he has a four-bedroom house, two kids and two cars. He asked Mr. Neal Gupta to elaborate on his reasoning. Mr. Neal Gupta said that the project would increase the number of people who can live in this area. Far more trips are likely than the applicant is saying. Commissioner Kumar said that the site has 20 units now. He asked if two cars per unit currently is a reasonable assumption. Mr. Neal Gupta said that there are 17 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units currently. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Neal Gupta to take into account the number of cars per unit. Mr. Neal Gupta pointed out that the project proposed four parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation to Mr. Neal Gupta for his response letter. Mr. Neal Gupta stated that there is a requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis if a development increases the net number of trips by 50. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Neal Gupta what the biggest impact or negative factor this project creates for him. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 14 Mr. Neal Gupta replied traffic. He said that with a significant increase in the number of people there are increased vehicles, trips and congestion. Commissioner Kumar pointed out that the traffic consultant has indicated that the impact is negligible. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the applicant could do four 5,000 square foot houses with no traffic impact; however, Mr. Neal Gupta would still be moving out of this apartment. She asked him in terms of impact what is the greatest on him personally as a result of this development. Mr. Neal Gupta said that nobody wants or likes to have to move. He added that other residents would discuss the lack of available rental units and overall lack of housing stock in Saratoga. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Neal Gupta how long he has resided in Saratoga. Was he raised in Saratoga? Mr. Neal Gupta said he moved into this apartment in September 2003. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that Mr. Neal Gupta has concerns about the alternative access than access from Neal’s Hollow. • Asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he has had the opportunity to look at the alternative access proposal. Mr. Neal Gupta: • Replied no. • Advised that he just learned of the direct access alternative two hours prior to this evening’s hearing. It came as a complete surprise and wasn’t expected. • Pointed out that all the information available as of April 13, 2007, stated that direct access was dangerous so he presumed that it wasn’t going to happen. Commissioner Nagpal asked from what has been heard today, what is Mr. Neal Gupta’s perspective now that this project would not be accessed from Neal’s Hollow. Mr. Neal Gupta said he is not sure, as he has not been able to evaluate it. He added that he has not seen the April 18th traffic study. He reminded that as of April 13th this option had been considered too dangerous. Chair Rodgers said that now it is believed that it is a feasible option with only a right turn onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and using subsequent U-turns to turn around and come south. Mr. Neal Gupta said that he has not seen a full Traffic Impact Analysis and he believes one is required. Planner Heather Bradley: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 15 • Said that the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis kicks in once there are 50 vehicular trips added during a.m. or p.m. peak hours. • Advised that this project has an estimate of 10 to 11 additional trips during peak hours. Mr. Neal Gupta disagreed saying that the requirement for the TIA is when there are 50 net trips added by a new development. Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City’s Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers: • Advised that he wrote the City’s Traffic Circulation Element. • Said that this is an arbitrary number. • Said that when there are five single-family homes or more equals the requirement for a traffic study. • Informed that in this case, there are only 8 to 12 additional trips at peak times, which is negligible and not an issue. • Reported that the original study used townhome rates that are less than apartments. Now single-family rates are used. Commissioner Kumar asked about a traffic safety study. Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City’s Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers: • Stated that a traffic safety study was not necessary. • Advised that there are few private driveways accessing Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Usually access comes from intersections. • Added that they usually try not to have new access points. However, with adequate site distances it can be accommodated here. • Reminded that drivers would be competing with non-commute traffic directions when making U-turns. Commissioner Kumar asked why the change in recommendation. Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City’s Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers, replied that site distance, a change in grade and the removal of trees helped improve conditions to support this access alternative. Mr. Martin Lettunich, Attorney for Neal’s Hollow: • Said that most of their concerns have been mitigated by the use of the alternate access. • Expressed his hope that the alternative access would be approved as it offers a reasonable compromise. • Said that cars versus trips are not related. Cars is parking while trips is traffic. Mr. Paul Clarke, Resident on Victor Place: • Advised that he submitted a letter. • Said he lives adjacent to this project site. • Stated that his big concern is the road that runs adjacent to his property that could result in reduced property value. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 16 • Pointed out that this road only serves one building and suggested a rearrangement of the site so that road could be eliminated. • Added that he does not know why that road is even needed. • Stated that he does not think that the streets in this development meet City requirements. • Expressed concern about the possibility of a lighting fixture at the property line, which he does not want to see installed. He said he prefers the elimination of streetlights that might run all night long, as they seem unnecessary. • Said that Tree #40 is his and he saw that tree proposed for removal on one diagram he saw. He added that he is concerned that the proposed road would encroach on the root systems of his trees. • Said that the inclusion of his tree for removal may have been a mistake but it was careless to show it for relocation and he wants an explanation for that error. • Pointed out that he will be looking down on this development and see roofs and 30-foot tall buildings. The view will be buildings, concrete, streets and driveways. • Added that this development seems bulky and not in keeping with Saratoga. • Advised that he moved here from Sunnyvale in September to get away from this kind of development. Mr. Michael Green, Resident on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that he guesses that he will have to get out. • Asked why current residents cannot be guaranteed residency in the new development where there are three times the apartments there. Commissioner Kundtz questioned his believe that there are three times the units when the total number remains the same at 20. Mr. Michael Green corrected himself to say that there is three times the number of bedrooms. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen, Resident on Victor Place: • Explained that she lives above this development and also owns property in downtown Saratoga. • Stated that she is not objecting to this project as the owner has the right to maximize the usage of his property. • Added that she just wants them to understand that we are their neighbors. • Expressed concern over a new driveway and roadway of traffic that is 3.5 feet away from her deck. • Asked for a little modification to this aspect of the project, as she does not want cars driving along her back yard. Commissioner Hlava advised that Fire requirements call for circular access. She added that Fire has never been happy with the available access to the development located above this project site. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen: • Asked if the Commission could support a modification if Fire were supportive of the alternative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 17 • Suggested a preference to have private yards behind her back fence instead of a road. • Assured that she has no problem with having neighbors but she does not want cars in her backyard. Chair Rodgers asked about inclusion of additional trees. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen said she would like to have her privacy too. Ms. Erin Nolan, Resident of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that she is a current resident of the apartments. • Stated that she works as a store manager for a major retailer and makes a decent living but it is substandard for Saratoga housing costs. • Said that she would like to take advantage of the offer of assistance to find comparable housing. • Advised that she is due to give birth in September. • Said that if adequate housing were not located she would have to leave this area, which makes her sad. • Said this situation is scary for them. Ms. Deni Green, Resident on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that she has had a business in Saratoga for 23 years, originally in the Village on Big Basin Way. Due to construction and redevelopment, she had to move her business. • Advised that she has lived at the Brookside Glen Apartments for three years. • Said that quality of life is important to her and it is disheartening to see it go. • Said that there has been no help in finding housing that she can afford although she looks daily. There are many slumlords and few apartments available. • Informed that the new apartments pending in the Village over retail will cost between $3,000 and $5,000, which won’t help her. • Stated that it is important to listen to her side of the story. • Pointed out that townhome traffic includes taking kids to school, etc. • Expressed concern about the entrance and exiting as traffic already backs up in the morning to Neal’s Hollow. Mr. Colin Gray advised that the rents charged for the units at Brookside Glen right now are below-market and range between $975 and $1,000. He added the current rents in San Jose are $1,577 per month. Commissioner Kumar asked about efforts underway to help these tenants relocate. Mr. Colin Gray said that staying in Saratoga may be difficult but there are several thousand apartments in the surrounding areas that his company has an interest in. Commissioner Kumar asked if any discussions have been held with these tenants. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 18 Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, a year ago. He added that it would be more appropriate when a decision on the project is made. He said that the requirement for them to assist these tenants with finding new apartments has been added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Kumar suggested that they work with these tenants even before the transaction is complete. Mr. Colin Gray said without question. He cautioned that they couldn’t guarantee exactly what they like. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Colin Gray how he defines area. Mr. Colin Gray said the South Bay. Commissioner Nagpal asked what condition of approval Mr. Colin Gray is referring to that requires tenant assistance in locating new housing. Commissioner Cappello asked what could be done about the concerns raised about the road access at the back of the property. Mr. Colin Gray explained that this is a fire loop with required turning radius. He added that trees are of importance. He said that the lighting mentioned is one streetlight as there needs to be some constant light in the back area where people walk. Commissioner Hlava said that she saw the wall during the site visit. She said that it seems like the ground level of this project is well below where other homes are located at the top. She asked for the relative heights. Mr. Colin Gray said that the homes are 30 feet only at the peak. Mr. Pete Carlino, Project Engineer, Lea & Braze, said that the site drops down six feet from the development above it. He added that the driveway width requirement is 30 feet for a dead-end street and 20 feet for a loop street. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is per Code. Mr. Pete Carlino replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz asked for the distance of the houses from the property line and if landscaping is proposed. Mr. Colin Gray: • Said that the houses have to be 20 feet from the property line. • Added that several trees would be relocated. • Offered redwood fencing along the property line where chain link fencing is currently in place. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 19 • Reiterated that these homes would be located well below the existing residences and the peak is at 30 feet height not the windows. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the notation for removal of Tree #40 was an error. Planner Heather Bradley said that it is not indicated for removal on the plan. Mr. Peter Ko said that the finished floor of the first floor is 15 feet below grade. Chair Rodgers said that means that it would be less than a story as viewed from the adjacent project. Mr. Paul Clarke asked about the grade level of the road adjacent to his property. He pointed out that his yard slopes down and he plans to use that space. Mr. Peter Carlino said they plan to replace the wall in the same location. Chair Rodgers asked about a taller wall. Mr. Colin Gray said that they are happy to work with landscaping and a fence. Commissioner Zhao asked how many properties are adjacent to the back road. Mr. Colin Gray replied three. Commissioner Zhao asked how far the property line is to the center of the road. Mr. Peter Ko said that it is 15-feet to the property line from the center of the road. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Traffic Engineer could defend the use of his numbers and his thoughts on why those numbers were used. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya, TJKM, Project Traffic Consultant: • Said that it is a case of units versus trips. • Advised that the analysis was based upon as much information as they had. • Added that it is hard to say what number of people will actually occupy these units. • Said that an average rate is commonly used. Commissioner Nagpal asked if an increase in bedrooms equals more people and more trips. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya said that they also counted traffic for a new nearby six-unit townhome development that provided three additional trips during peak or .5 trips per unit. Chair Rodgers asked for verification that direct access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road can accommodate more cars than can access from Neal’s Hollow. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 20 Mr. Neal Gupta advised that he found an error in the raw data provided on traffic. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Neal Gupta for his professional background. Mr. Neal Gupta said he studied statistics in college. He happened to see the analysis and was just interested in this project and did his homework. Commissioner Kumar said that more trees and vegetation are easy solutions. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hlava: • Stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration document is extremely thorough. • Said that lots of public testimony was taken at the first hearing and the applicant responded to the issues raised. • Said that she can make Design Review findings and likes the design and Craftsman architecture. • Said that she has a three-bedroom home and is an empty nester. • Informed that some people have told her that they are interested in a project like this. • Added that she thinks this development will primarily be empty nesters that are downsizing from larger homes. • Said that she was not originally supportive of the alternative direct access but has since come around to view a separate access as better. • Agreed that this situation is difficult for those folks living in the apartments having to move but the owner has property rights. • Said that it is a terrible thing to lose a home and that she asks the developer to offer assistance, saying she thinks they will do so in good faith. • Reminded that this is an old property that is getting run down. It is time to do something with what is there, which equals higher rents. • Stated her support for this project and said it is time to move ahead with it although she feels bad for those living there now. • Said this is a beautiful project that suits a need in Saratoga. Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed with Commissioner Hlava’s comments that this property is going to be developed and having a sensitivity to those being displaced. • Urged the applicant to fulfill his commitment to helping tenants find alternative housing. • Supported screening for those on Victor Lane. • Said he also supports the new road and sealing off access from Neal’s Hollow. He said he does not think a walkway is practical. • Said that the existing sidewalk would be available and more than ample way to reach Neal’s Hollow. • Said that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is fine and the findings can be made for Design Review approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 21 Commissioner Kumar: • Said that concerns came from three directions. The concerns of Neal’s Hollow have been resolved with the new access directly from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The issues from the adjacent neighbors on Victor Lane can be resolved with vegetation. The current residents were the big issue and still are very concerned. • Stressed his hope that the applicant will work to help these residents secure replacement housing. • Said this is a tough situation. • Reminded that lots of concerns were raised in September 2006 but that due diligence on the part of the applicant has addressed most of them. • Added that change is one of the biggest concerns of most residents. • Stated that he likes the new plan with the direct access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He said that a separate access makes a lot of sense over the shared path from Neal’s Hollow. • Suggested that mailboxes not be centralized but rather each unit have its own box. • Reiterated the desire for a sidewalk that is consistent in look and feel. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that the last time the Commission saw this project direct access was not seen as possible. • Added that he is now pleased to see that it was indeed possible. Traffic and safety issues have been assessed and this access will work nicely. • Reported that he was happy with the original project and is happier now with the changes. • Said he can make the findings to support this project. Commissioner Zhao: • Agreed that concerns have been addressed. • Said that two traffic engineers have reviewed this and she feels better about traffic and safety. • Expressed support for the alternate direct access, as it is a better way of access. This is a very grand project that needs its own entrance. • Said that she can make the findings on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and for Design Review Approval. • Wished everyone good luck. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked everyone for his or her participation. • Said that she appreciates the concerns and comments of the neighbors and knows they would prefer not to see this project. • Stated that she is pleased with the level of effort done on the environmental review. • Assured that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a strong document that she is comfortable with and can support. • Stated that the design of the project is good using a Craftsman architecture that is appropriate for the area. • Agreed that it is time to move on with this project. • Said that it is depressing that more can’t be done for the people living there and that she hopes they all find places close by. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 22 Chair Rodgers: • Agreed with all of the Commissioners. • Said that the questions raised at the September 2006 hearing have been answered and concerns resolved. • Said that design issues can be met. • Reminded that one person has privacy issues that can be addressed with fencing and vegetation and will ask that this be done as part of this approval. • Said that other areas of concern have been taken care of. • Agreed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a substantial document that she is happy to support. • Said this is a thoughtfully designed project and that a direct access/separate entrance sets this development apart. Traffic engineers support it as a safe alternative that is practical and aesthetically works. • Said that she feels for the current residents and wants them to continue to be a part of this community. • Added that this is private property and has come to a point where the property needs to be renovated. • Assured that she will remind the applicants of their obligation to current residents and pointed out that these residents have been given a fair amount of notice. Commissioner Nagpal asked if she should provide a list of things to add or amend for the motions. Chair Rodgers suggested doing this document by document, starting with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that Mitigation #1 mentions an arborist report date that needs to be updated as well as the reference to it in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Nagpal asked how the alternative entrance is addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hlava said that she is with Commissioner Kumar on the issue of individual mailboxes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if mailboxes would better fall under Design Review. Commissioner Hlava replied probably. Director John Livingstone cautioned that the Postmaster has the control over that decision. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that is included in the Design Review or Subdivision Approval. Planner Heather Bradley replied the Design Review Approval. Additionally, staff can provide a letter for the applicant to give to the Post Office in support of individual mailboxes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 23 Commissioner Kumar asked about his suggestion for a connection to Neal’s Hollow parking through the use of a gate to allow use of overflow parking. Chair Rodgers said using the existing sidewalk is preferable to an opening between the two sites. Commissioner Cappello said that Neal’s Hollow may have a problem with a connection between the two sites. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there is some public parking on the Neal’s Hollow site. Chair Rodgers said that people can walk over there on the public sidewalk. Commissioner Cappello said this access to Neal’s Hollow creates issues and no one has asked for it. Chair Rodgers said that it appears there are parking issues with the development above this one and that should be taken up with their own development. Commissioner Hlava said that a gate won’t work. Chair Rodgers said that she doesn’t see a gate or path there but prefers landscaping. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. She said that the wall near the access will be lowered and that the sidewalk is already on the plan all the way down to Read. Chair Rodgers said that the access is less of a concern since the slope has been lowered and the wall will be lowered at the access. Commissioner Nagpal suggested leaving this to the discretion of the City’s Traffic Engineer. She asked if this needs to be a part of the Design Review resolution. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it should be a part of all three resolutions. Chair Rodgers asked if the sidewalk and fences need to be part of all three. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied just the subdivision and Design Review resolutions. He recommended a condition to read, “…changes to landscaping or to the wall are subject to approval by the Community Development Director.” Commissioner Nagpal said this should include the additional landscaping between neighbors. Chair Rodgers asked if the monument at the entrance is subject to approval by the Community Development Director. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 24 Commissioner Nagpal said that she would rather see an attractive entrance and not a stone monument. Chair Rodgers said that the address would need to be reflected somewhere. Planner Heather Bradley said that this would need to come back to the Commission as a Consent Item for any signage. Chair Rodgers asked City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer for his amendments to the resolution for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as follows: o Page 2, paragraph 4 – revise to read. “Analysis of changes to the project subsequent to the development must demonstrate that those changes do not raise any new significant effects of the project or require new mitigation measures.” o Paragraph 5 should read, “The Planning Commission was present and has had the opportunity to review all of the information in the administrative record.” o End of the NOW, THEREFORE clause add the text, “attached hereto as Exhibit A for the project.” • Changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself as follows: o To be added in a number of places following the date of June 15, 2006, “as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007.” o Mitigation #6, page 3, add text drafted above “as supplemented…” Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 20-unit townhome development proposed for property located at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers asked about changes and discussion for the Subdivision Map. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the landscaping changes and about the arborist’s added recommendation. Chair Rodgers asked about Exhibit A or B. Page 14 limits the use of aggressive/invasive species within 100 feet of the riparian corridor. She suggested eliminating them altogether. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the existing language was pulled directly from the biotic study and that it is better to leave it as it is. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 25 Chair Rodgers said that she would like to ask that no invasive species be planted in that area. Commissioner Nagpal said she is fine with that. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the approval of the Subdivision as follows: o Page 2, WHERAS CLAUSE, “… because the findings for denial were not supported.” o Item 1, “the proposed parcel map …” o Item 3, “…may hinder the proposed development of the site.” o Page 4, Community Development Department Condition1, “The subdivision and development shall be located…” o Condition 2A, add text after date, “…, as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007.” o Page 4-D, “…red legged frogs, if any, and their habitat shall be protected as follows…” o Page 6-F, add text after date, “…, as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007.” o Page 8, #5, adds text, Conditions 2K and 12 require “all water or runoff to be contained on site. In no event may…” o Page 9, new Condition #19, Direct Access Clause: The landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director with regard to the direct access and also with regard to the screening in the area between the road and Victor Lane properties. Changes to the wall or improvements made in relation to direct access are subject to Community Development Director approval.” • Said that any signage would be placed on the Planning Commission Consent agenda for approval. Commissioner Nagpal said that reference to Exhibit B needs to be added. Planner Heather Bradley clarified the April 1, 2007 update. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Continued with amendments to the Resolution for the Subdivision: o Page 4, Condition 1, …dated September 1, 2006, “as supplemented by Exhibit B presented to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007. The subdivision and development will incorporate a direct access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as shown on Exhibit B.” o Page 9, City Arborist, Paragraph 2 at the end of the page, “…to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of all trees recommended for preservation by the City Arborist.” o Page 6-E, planting planning o Page 13, The He owner Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for the 20-unit townhome development proposed for Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 26 property located at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney and Planning Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers asked the Commissioners for any changes, clarifications for the Design Review Approval Resolution. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the Design Review Approval as follows: o CDD 1, Same changes as Subdivision Resolution. o CDD 3A – as supplemented…. o CDD 3D – same as Subdivision Resolution. o CDD F – as supplemented… o #6 – same water runoff condition as Subdivision Resolution o New Condition 23 – Direct Access … (same as Subdivision Resolution) o Arborist 1 as supplemented… o Arborist 3, same as Subdivision. Commissioner Nagpal asked about a letter of support for individual mailboxes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Added Condition #24 to provide the applicant with a letter to the Post Master in support of individual mailboxes. • Asked Planner Heather Bradley for language for a new Condition #25 that requires the applicant to provide tenants with assistance in relocating. Planner Heather Bradley suggested the following for a new Condition #25, “The applicant would provide assistance to the residents of Brookside Glen to find suitable rental housing in nearby communities.” Commissioner Kundtz said he wants to beef it up to read “…make every effort reasonably possible…” Chair Rodgers said that alternate housing can be in Saratoga or neighboring communities. Commissioner Hlava said that, if possible, these residents should be kept in Saratoga. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval for the 20-unit townhome development proposed for property located at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney and Planning Commission, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 27 AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers said that the Commission has approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Tentative Subdivision and the Design Review Approval. She said that she looks forward to seeing this new project and hopes it is a good asset for the City. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Resolution adopting Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams; - The City of Saratoga Community Development Department is proposing adoption of a resolution that would adopt the “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams” as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative in 2006. The resolution would direct that the Guidelines and Standards be applied to streamside developments in the City of Saratoga to the extent feasible and appropriate and to the extent that the Guidelines and Standards are consistent with Saratoga’s General Plan, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance. (John Livingstone) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that in 2003 the Santa Clara Valley Water District, with the County of Santa Clara, 15 local municipalities, businesses, community members and environmental groups, formed the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. • Stated that this Collaborative developed guidelines to protect the streams and creeks to protect these watershed resources in a consistent manner throughout the County. • Advised that these guidelines build upon the City’s current requirements and serves as an easy reference tool for cities. • Said he is available for questions. Commissioner Hlava asked if these guidelines are to be included in the Land Use Element or simply serve as a checklist for staff. Director John Livingstone said that they serve as a guideline and only pertains to discretionary projects along protected creeks. He said that Saratoga already has a lot of requirements of its own. These would be in addition to the existing City requirements. Commissioner Hlava asked if this creates extra work. Director John Livingstone said a little bit but it is a user-friendly guidebook. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a good approach for now. Chair Rodgers asked about its potential impacts to tonight’s project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 28 Director John Livingstone said that most projects have already gone through Santa Clara Valley Water District approval. SCVWD will still help cities and give conditions. Chair Rodgers said that these guidelines offer a unified approach and suggested that they be placed on line. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hlava said that the Resolution is from Council. Is the action of the Commission this evening to forward a recommendation of approval? Director John Livingstone replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation that Council adopt a Resolution that would adopt the “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams” as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative in 2006, to the extent feasible and appropriate and to the extent that the Guidelines and Standards are consistent with Saratoga’s General Plan, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone provided the following updates: • Council held a Study Session last evening on the General Plan and felt comfortable setting their public hearing for June 6, 2006. • Reported that fee schedule changes will take effect in July. Appeal fees have gone up and flat fees will be used instead of deposits for development applications. It was found that the recordkeeping for the deposit method was labor intensive so the City is going back to its old way of charging a flat fee. • Said that on May 2nd, Council will be considering the concept of a Blight Ordinance to deal with issues such as peeling paint, deteriorating roofs, etc. They have asked staff to bring back an Ordinance draft. Chair Rodgers asked if the Blight Ordinance would come to the Planning Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 29 Director John Livingstone said that it is going to Council for the initial review. It could be brought back to the Planning Commission but this Ordinance does not fall under the Zoning Code. Commissioner Hlava asked how blight is defined. Director John Livingstone said it deals with unkempt landscaping, peeling paint, and general disrepair. Chair Rodgers asked if this too would be complaint driven. Director John Livingstone said that enforcement is currently enforced upon complaint as there is only one Code Enforcement Officer where there used to be two. Commissioner Kundtz asked about fee increases and the issue of waiving appeal fees, which the Council recently declined to do despite the Commissions recommendation. He asked if there is any mechanism for hardship. Director John Livingstone said this has been discussed and the issue is still out there. Chair Rodgers reminded that only Council has the option to waive fees. Commissioner Kundtz said that if there is no option to waive fees it should be clearly stated that the waiver of appeal fees is not an option. Chair Rodgers said that the changes made by Council to the draft updated General Plan were not many, less than one page. Director John Livingstone asked about vacation schedules as not all Commissioners have yet replied to the email seeking the unavailable dates for each Commissioner. Thus far, it appears there are at least six Commissioners available for each meeting this summer. Chair Rodgers suggested that if fewer than four or five Commissioners are present only Design Review issues should be considered and not Use Permits, Ordinance changes, etc. Director John Livingstone: • Advised that staff is filling up the summer PC agendas without a summer break. (After some discussion among the Commission, it became clear that four Commissioners were unavailable for the July 25, 2007, meeting so that meeting date will serve as a summer recess.) • Announced that he would like to conduct training with City Attorneys Richard Taylor and Jonathan Wittwer on the Brown Act and other issues and asked for suggested dates. June 12th was tentatively selected and will be confirmed by email. Commissioner Kundtz said he would prefer such a training session immediately following a site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 30 COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Rodgers announced that she and Commissioner Nagpal have been reappointed for another term on the Planning Commission. She expressed her pleasure at continuing to serve on the Commission. She advised that the new Chair and Vice Chair would be selected at the next meeting in May. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at approximately 12 a.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk