Loading...
PC 08-08-06 MINUTES CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Tuesday, August8,2006 Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA Regular Meeting Chair Miller called the regular meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Staff Present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner: Deputy City Attorney: Assistant Public Works Director: Code Enforcement Officer: Ciddy Wordell Aki Honda Piu Ghosh Eileen Murphy Glenn Goepfert Alex Wykoff APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to adopt. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR There were no postponements or removals from calendar. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Deborah Hill: . Reported that she attended the last City Council meeting and expressed her concerns about traffic issues in Cupertino, particularly on Bubb, Torre, Stevens Creek, DeAnza and Stelling. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 2 . Stated that most drivers drive during commute hours and talk on cell phones while they do so therefore not paying attention to bicyclists. Drivers are impatient and inconsiderate of bicyclists. . Suggested that Torre be widened and have bike lanes installed so it would be safer and reduce the risk of accident. She also suggested speed bumps be installed in the library parking lot to slow traffic down there. . Recounted that a drunk driver hit her 12 years ago, on July 5, 1994, when she was 30 years old. . Asked that the streets be made safer for everyone. . Left copies of her correspondence for the Commission. Ms. Rhonda Fry: . Stated that she was here as a "prisoner of hope." . Provided a photograph of an oak tree recently removed at Blackberry Farm and expressed regret that it was removed and suggested that they could at least have left the stump. . Said that there is nobody there to speak for trees. . Advised that another tree, a Monterey pine, was also recently removed from Blackberry Farm. . Expressed her concern over the number of trees being taken out, especially those not originally planned for removal. . Stated that she hears chain saws on a regular basis and it is disheartening. . Reported that 10 oaks are slated for removal and asked that it be investigated as to whether alternatives to removal exist. . Suggested that the Planning Commission be called to action and take a look at all trees proposed for removal. Look at all projects, including City projects. . Supported being kind to trees as nobody speaks for them. Chair Marty Miller asked staff if the City follows the same review process as everyone else. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that she did not believe that City removals have been processed in the same manner as typical removals. Chair Marty Miller asked if the City has to apply for removal permits. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said the City hasn't and she was not sure that it had to do so. Chair Marty Miller asked City Planner Ciddy Wordell to look into this matter. City Planner Ciddy Wordell agreed to do so. Commissioner Wong asked City Planner Ciddy Wordell to report back on what she learns about these removals raised by Ms. Fry this evening. City Planner Ciddy Wordell reported that she was aware that there were health and safety concerns and the trees were dead. Ms. Gail: Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 3 . Agreed with Ms. Rhonda Fry that the tree removed was not dead. . Added that she saw a notice posted on the tree that said it had diseases. . Said that she was saddened to see it go as well. . Stated that she was surprised that the Planning Commission was not involved in the CEQA review process for Blackberry Farm and the fact that the Parks and Recreation Commission did it. . Requested that the Planning Commission go back and look at what the Parks and Recreation Commission is proposing for Blackberry Farm. . Said that she is preparing a letter to the City regarding doing more to save our trees. . Asked that the Planning Commission participate more with respect to Blackberry Farm and other such City projects and keep these areas of the community rural. Chair Marty Miller thanked the speaker and advised her that the Planning Commission did have one hearing on the Blackberry Farm project where input from the public was taken and comments passed along to Council. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.1 Application No.(s): TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08) Application: Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Development) Location: 10114 Crescent Court Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4-acre property into five parcels, with parcel sizes greater than 10,000 square feet and an approximately 35,000 square foot parcel for creek dedication. Continued from the July 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: August 15, 2006 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny EA-2006-08 Approve or deny TM-2006-07 Assistant Planner Piu Ghosh presented the staff report as follows: . Explained that this item was continued from the July 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. . Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 2.4-acre property into five residential parcels. . Said that these proposed parcels meet zoning requirements as they range in size between 10,254 and 13,176 square feet. Additionally, a 37,073 square foot parcel will be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). . Stated that the proposal meets General Plan and Zoning requirements. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 4 . Described the property as being located off Stevens Creek Boulevard and off Crescent Court. . Said that the land dedication to SCVWD is contingent on a Joint Use Agreement for recreational purposes. If that agreement were not to be executed, the land would come back to the City. . Said that issues were raised at the last hearing and more information requested. These issues include whether the street should be public versus private. Staff was recommending the use of pavers versus asphalt. Another issue is that some trees in the Arborist's report are in question with the evaluation by the applicant's arborist. Additionally, staff, based upon the geologist's report, proposes the requirement for a slope easement. . Described some alternatives to a private road. One is to widen the right-of-way to meet public street standards of 28-foot width and another is to accept a substandard right-of- way and make this 20-foot wide road public. Mr. Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Public Works Director: . Said that this proposed 20-foot wide street is substandard to be a 'public street. . Added that one of the improvements proposed is a drainage system located below the road, which is not a standard City improvement, and not one that the City should take on for maintenance. Planner Piu Ghosh: . Said that percolation trenches are proposed to better help surface drainage. The Public Works Department has reviewed and supports that recommendation. . Said that there are some trees in the arborist's report for which there are questions. In Lot 1 there are two trees (Trees 4 and 5) that staff believes are worth saving but the arborist has recommended removal and replacement. . Said that the applicant had not shown all existing trees on the map or showed them incorrectly placed on the site. . Suggested that Trees 7 and 8 could be saved subject to the placement of the future home being modified. . Said that Tree 14 on Lot 2 is now in the building pad but the house could be built around the tree. Staff is recommending saving that tree. . Said that on Lot 4 there are two trees, Tree 26 (oak) and Tree 27 (California pepper) that are in question. Staff asked the arborist for recommendations on how best to save those trees. The arborist recommended that Tree 26 (oak) was a good candidate for transplant. Staff is recommending that this tree (Tree 26) be relocated to Lot 5. . Reported that the applicant is concerned about the staff recommendation for a required slope easement, which is being recommended by staff as a result of the geotechnical report. This report suggested that there be a 25-foot setback based on the fact that the land may be unstable. . Advised that staff believes that a slope easement is easy to identify that concern. . Said that staff had a concern about proposed retaining wall height but determined that if located three feet from the curb it may be possible. However, staff believes that an additional Condition of Approval should be incorporated that there be no landscaping in this area but for lawn. . Recommended approval of this application. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Saadati said he was glad to see bio-swales going in but asked what guarantee there is that future property owners would not change it. Planner Piu Ghosh said that it could be recorded in the CC&R's. She added that since this project includes more than an acre, it would be monitored by the Environmental Department. She assured that City staff could monitor this. Commissioner Wong: . Pointed out that there is already a section of roadway that the City has accepted as public right-of-way that is just 20-feet wide rather than the minimum standard of 28-feet required for a public street. . Questioned the feasibility of also accepting this roadway as substandard. . Asked if there is a provision for a City street at 20-foot width. Mr. Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Public Works Director: . Said that the standard street width is 28 feet if street parking is allowed. . Explained that the other substandard street was inadvertently accepted as public. . Stated that the idea of accepting a whole subdivision with a substandard street is a precedent that the Public Works Department would not recommend. . Pointed out the sub-drain system proposed for under the street is not a City standard. . Reiterated that there is precedent in the past to allow substandard roadways to be developed as long as they remain private. Commissioner Wong pointed out that the nearby park is City-owned and mainly orchard there. He suggested using an 8-foot width of that public land to help make this into a correct width public street without losing trees. Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert said that even if the City were to decide to do this the remaining issue is the drainage feature, which he reiterated he would not recommend be accepted as public. He pointed out that the original substandard roadway should not have happened but rather was inadvertently done. Commissioner Wong asked if swales address some of the drainage concerns. Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert said that if the City were to cede the added right-of-way from the park and there not be the drainage under the roadway it might be more acceptable as public. However, there is no desire on the applicant's part for this to be part of the public right-of-way. Commissioner Wong once again asked if staff could accept it as public. Assistant Public Works Director Glen Goepfert said he is still on the record as not recommending that this be accepted as a public street. He added that it would be a conscious decision on the part of the Planning Commission's part to accept these alternatives in a way that sets this project apart from future projects. Planner Piu Ghosh said that staff is not recommending this option. Accepting a 20-foot road as public the idea was raised for consideration at the last hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Wong asked about the cyclone fence in the middle of this nearby park. Planner Piu Ghosh said that the Parks and Recreation Department is currently investigating this fence issue. She advised that the parcel beyond the fence used to be privately owned. Staff is looking into whether a gate could be removed or if the fencing could be removed outright. Commissioner Wong said he would like to see a Minute Order implemented to see that this happens. Mr. Scott Kelly, Project Applicant: . Said he wanted to touch on three main items, the first being trees. . Said that of 12 specimen oaks, nine are proposed for retention. The three being removed are recommended for removal by Barrie Coate & Associates. . Advised that at one point he thought it best to contact a second arborist who took a look at Trees 7, 8 and 26. That review occurred on August 1, 2006. This arborist said that Trees 7 and 26 were poor specimens. Tree 7 has a couple of problems including a wound on one branch. This tree was rated poor and recommended for removal and replacement. Tree 8 could be relocated and he agrees to try and do that. Tree 26 (located on Lot 4) is located 8-feet from the trunk of Tree 27 and is growing directly under Tree 27's canopy. It is recommended that Tree 26 be removed and replaced. . Said that the draft resolution refers to Trees 7, 8, 14 and 26. He would like to gain agreement on the issue of Trees 7, 8 and 26 prior to the Council hearing. . Said that they would remove 15 trees based on Barrie Coate's inventory. There are replacement strategies and recommendations and an appraised monetary value has been established. . Said that Barrie Coate recommends Trees 4 and 5 for removal with a value of $2,530. Barrie Coate is recommending a replacement 54-inch box. . Suggested that three trees, one 36-inch box and two 24-inch box trees replace Tree 5. . Said that for Tree 7 on Lot 1 he proposes two 30-inch box trees as replacement. . Stated that Tree 24, which is a specimen oak, is recommended for removal by Barrie Coate & Associates, who has placed a replacement value of $15,240. . Stated that the main concern they have on the geology issues is the proposal to require recording a slope easement. . Said he would like to have his geologist address this issue further and make clear that it does not have to be recorded as an easement with the County since CC&R's are being recorded. Commissioner Wong asked Mr. Scott Kelly why he takes issue with recording a slope easement. Mr. Scott Kelly said that building could occur off a slope on piers. He said that there is a difference between top of cliff and top of slope. Additionally, there are differences between Lots 4 and 5. Suggested that the language used by the City and provided by his geologist be more on the same page. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 7 Chair Miller asked Mr. Scott Kelly why he feels handling this issue through CC&R's is different that through a recorded easement. Mr. Scott Kelly said that he did not want to present a final product to a buyer with an easement, which can be considered a can of worms. It's a property rights issue. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that there are transparency issues. It is clear that there is the need to pay attention to that area and without a recorded easement, that fact could get lost in the shuffle. Chair Miller asked if establishing a building envelope requiring further approvals to build beyond it might address that concern. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said this might be another way of dealing with the concerns. Chair Miller said it might be better. Mr. Scott Kelly asked Chair Miller if during his years in real estate he has dealt with easements that were a negative issue during a sale. Chair Miller said rarely. He asked Mr. Scott Miller how he feels about an established building envelope. Mr. Scott Miller said that in all likelihood nothing would be going into that portion of the parcels. Chair Miller advised Mr. Scott Miller that CC&R's are a private issue. If there is an established building envelope or easement, it is more of a public issue and more transparent. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that a building envelope is still not quite as clear as it should be as to what the issue is and that a condition of approval could be added to refer to the geotechnical report. Mr. Scott Kelly reminded that CC&R's are recorded. Chair Miller asked Mr. Scott Kelly if staff has seen his proposed list of replacement trees and values. Planner Piu Ghosh said that it was just received by email but she has not yet had a chance to go through it. Mr. Scott Kelly said that they agree to the monetary values established by Barrie Coate and Associates. Chair Miller asked if the health of Trees 7 and 26 are at issue. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 8 City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that the City's arborist gave those trees higher marks than did the applicant's arborist. That is the reason why the City prefers to rely on the City's arborist to prevent conflicting reports. Chair Miller asked Mr. Scott Kelly if he prefers a public versus private road. Mr. Scott Kelly said that he had thought this issue was already agreed upon through a meeting with Planning and Public Works staff. He understands that Public Works wants it to be private and they are fine with Glen Goepfert's recommendation. Commissioner Wong asked whether Trees 7, 8 and 26 could be relocated. Mr. Scott Kelly said that Tree 8 could be relocated. He said that Tree 7 is recommended for removal and replacement. He said that Tree 26 is located below another tree and he does not know how it can successfully be transplanted. Commissioner Wong asked if Tree 26 is located in the building pad. Planner Piu Ghosh said Tree 27 is too. Commissioner Wong suggested shifting the building pad. Planner Piu Ghosh said that this issue could be addressed at the time of Building permit. Mr. Scott Kelly reiterated his desire to have the issues of Tree 7, 8 and 26 settled prior to hearing before Council. Chair Miller clarified that Trees 4 and 5 would be replaced. Mr. Scott Kelly said correct. Staff wants a 60-inch box, which equals $7,000 worth of replacement trees out of the $15,000 total arborist valuation for removed trees. Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Ms. Jennifer Griffin: . Advised that she has followed this project through various meetings and it is interesting to see the evolution of this project. . Said that she is hoping that the City can look at other areas in Cupertino not yet built out so that such issues don't occur again. . Said that this is a substandard street going into a large housing development. . Stated her understanding that development occurs over years but it is important to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again. . Asked that efforts be taken to protect trees, particularly native trees. . Asked for an explanation on the slope easement proposed for recordation. . Discouraged allowing building over a slope. Mr. Jan Stoechenius: . Said that it is difficult to move trees and he is more in favor of replacement trees. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 9 . Pointed out that the two adjoining streets to this proposed private street are also private. . Stated that there is no problem with a 20-foot wide street access for just five houses. Ms. Deborah Hill: . Questioned the wisdom in removing Tree 26 just because it is in the path of a proposed home. . Pointed out that oaks take a long time to grow. . Said that it costs money to cut down and put in more trees. . Suggested widening the street to make it safer. . Stated she did not agree with the proposal to remove 15 trees. Mr. Brian Kelly, Applicant: . Advised that their geologist is here to address the slope and cliff situation so there is no ambiguity in what his report says. . Pointed out that the configuration and size of the street once the cul-de-sac goes in will alleviate an existing problem by offering a way to turn around. . Said he wanted to speak to the issue of Trees 7, 8 and 26. . Explained that the reason they had an arborist come out is that it is almost impossible to put a house in there without affecting the root system of those trees. . Reported that Tree 7 has existing defects. Tree 8 is a good specimen that they are willing to move into the back of one of the other lots. Tree 26 is located in the middle of the lot and is not worth moving. It is located under a pepper tree and should be replaced. . Assured that replacement trees will add quality and visual impact. . Stated that they would like to clarify the tree issue before Council meetings so the tree situation is not raised again. . Stated that their civil engineer is here and available to discuss issues of the street and drainage. . Said that they could work with staff on the issue of a building envelope in lieu of a slope easement. . Added that most people don't understand what a slope easement is and reiterated that if this issue were included in the CC&R's it would be disclosed upon sale and not overlooked. Mr. Marius Nelson, Civil Engineer, stated that most technical issues have been resolved and that he is available for any questions. Mr. Mark Bowman, Civil Engineer: . Said that there is some confusion over setbacks for Lots 4 and 5. . Clarified that the setback is from the cliff and not from the slope for Lot 5. . Stated that a building envelope is a better option than a slope easement. . Described his July 5, 2006, letter to City staff that indicates that there is no need to stabilize the cliff. . Asked that the staff language be modified to reflect this. . Said he is available for questions. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 10 Chair Miller closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Commissioner Wong asked if the July letter mentioned by the Civil Engineer is included in the packet or if staff could summarize it. Planner Piu Ghosh said that staff had asked the civil engineer to clarify his initial report on the slope setback and what it meant exactly with associated improvements. Commissioner Wong said that if the owner wanted to build on these parcels they would have to come to make sure everything is all right. Planner Piu Ghosh said that whatever is proposed would require a geotechnical report. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that the Engineer's wording could also be included on the front page of the tentative map spelling out what could occur as well as the City's review process prior to building in that area. Commissioner Wong asked if this would suffice. Planner Piu Ghosh said for Lot 4 it might but Lot 5 is more complicated and difficult. Chair Miller suggested shortening the building envelope instead of using the setback. Commissioner Wong asked Planner Piu Ghosh for her opinion on the proposal by the applicant for removing and replacing Tree 7, relocating Tree 8 and removing Tree 26. Planner Piu Ghosh: . Said she thinks that Tree 7 can be saved with a modified building pad. . Added that she is not sure if a building has been designed for this lot as she has not seen anything yet and specific homes designs are not a part of this subdivision. . Stated that Tree 7 is not located in the middle of the building pad but more off to one side. . Reported that Tree 26 is in the middle of a building pad and staff is recommending that tree be relocated. Commissioner Wong: . Said he is in support of this project and is open on the issue of a slope easement and could go either way on that issue. . Said that it doesn't make sense to try to save Tree 26 but rather it should be removed and replaced. . Said that Trees 7 and 8 could be evaluated at the time that specific home plans are reviewed. . Asked staff about the recommendation of pavers over asphalt. Planner Piu Ghosh said that asphalt is proposed that offers percolation that channels water into the ground. Commissioner Wong: Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 11 . Reminded that the City has already accepted a 20-foot wide public street. . Suggested that this street either be enlarged to 28-feet width using park land or continue this street at a 20-foot width and accepting it a substandard public street. . Said that he has a hard time accepting this as a private street and believes that it should be a public street at 28-foot width. To do so would have to come from City property as the applicant has given up 20-feet of its property for this street. . Stated concern that having this as a private street could prevent public access. Commissioner Saadati: . Said that in general most issues have been addressed. . Stated he is okay with a slope easement. . Said that buildings can be built close to a slope and the setback could be looked into further with a specific proposal. . Supported the staff recommendations. . Said that Trees 7 and 8 could be discussed when the actual building footprint is defined. . Said that Tree 26 may not be worth relocation per the picture he has seen and it is better to replace it with a couple of more trees, which is his preference. . Said that on the issue of a public versus a private street, if the street is to be public it must meet the public street standard of 28-foot width. If it is to remain at 20-foot width, it should be private. . Reminded that this street is only serving five homes and that there are many private roads in the City. Chair Miller: . Said that regarding the slope easement, the letter from the engineer clarifies the issue that nothing can be constructed in the setback unless measures are incorporated. . Added that if staff is okay with all the verbiage in this letter that issue gets resolved. Planner Piu Ghosh asked if Chair Miller is supportive of the easement or CC&R's. Chair Miller: . Said that this verbiage is separate from CC&R's and asked staff if they are comfortable with this language. . Said that he understands staff's need to have a more public and transparent means than CC&R's using either a slope easement or defined building envelope. . Stated that he is not comfortable relying just on CC&R's given staff's concerns. . Said that Trees 7 and 26 are in poor health and should not be retained or transplanted. . Added that the applicant is willing to replace these trees with trees of greater value. . Suggested that while it might be nice if the street were public, staff says to leave it private and the applicant is willing to do so. Since all parties agree, he is inclined to go along as well with the private roadway. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Wong, seconded by Commissioner Saadati, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA-2006-08) for property Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 12 located at 10114 Crescent Court. (3-0-2; Commissioners Chien and Giefer were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Saadati, seconded by Commissioner Wong, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a Tentative Map (TM-2006-07) to subdivide one parcel (approximately 2.4-acres) into five parcels, with parcel sizes greater than 10,000 square feet, and an approximately 37,000 square foot parcel for creek dedication on property located at 10114 Crescent Court with the amendments requiring Tree 26 to be removed and replaced and leaving the issue of Trees 7 and 8 to be dealt with at time of specific home design proposal and including a requirement for a slope easement (3-0- 2; Commissioners Chien and Giefer were absent) Commissioner Wong proposed that minute action be taken asking Council to get the cyclone fencing removed from center of Varian Park if it is indeed located on City property. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2 Application No.(s): MCA-2005-02 Application: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 17 (Signs). Continued from the June 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: September 5, 2006 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny MCA-2005-02 Senior Planner Aki Honda presented the staff report as follows: . Reminded that this item was continued from the public hearing on June 27,2006. . Explained that amendment to Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code is proposed. . Recounted the focus of the June 2ih discussion as being temporary portable signs, use of the City's "morion" logo, the allowable number and height for ground signs and storage of removed signs. . Said that the Commission had requested additional information and surveys. . Stated that on the issue of portable signs, the draft language proposing a 10-foot setback requirement from driveways or sidewalks for placement of temporary portable signs now is suggested for removal from consideration. . Said that there was concern by the Commission about the effects of Ordinance changes on existing signs within the community and requested a survey by Code Enforcement on existing signs within 10-foot setback. . Reported that Code Enforcement did this survey and will present its results after this presentation. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 13 . Said that maximizing the use of the City's "morion" logo is proposed. Currently this logo is used on city limit signs throughout the city. . Stated that the proposal increasing the height of ground signs from 8 feet to 1 0 feet and the number of allowed signs from two to three per center for sites with street frontage of 150 feet or more resulted in the Commission asking for a survey of ground signs over 8 feet in height located within the city to see how many existing signs would be affected. . Displayed photos of several signs in excess of 8 feet including the Target sign (11 feet), Marketplace sign (8 feet) and Peet's Coffee sign on Homestead (20 feet). . Discussed a survey of past Sign Exceptions by type and number. Most of the 21 applications for Sign Exception were for additional number and/or height of wall signs. . Reminded that in the existing Ordinance there are no provisions for ground signs for centers with less than 100 feet of street frontage. A maximum of one ground sign is allowed for centers with frontage 100 feet or more. There is a maximum of two ground signs for sites with over 500 feet of frontage. . Stated that the Planning Commission brought up the possibility of allowing up to three ground signs on a site with over 150 feet of street frontage. . Asked the Commission for clarification of what it would like to see for those centers with less than 150 feet of street frontage. . Stated that the retrieval time for the pick up of stored signs is proposed to be extended from 30 days to 60 days. . Advised that the recommendations made by the Commission this evening would be incorporated into the draft ordinance. . Recommended approval. City Planner Ciddy Wordell reminded that Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff is here this evening. Mr. Alex Wykoff, Code Enforcement Officer: . Said that two surveys of portable signs were done two weeks apart at the request of the Commission. . Stated that the first survey found 92 portable signs. If the Ordinance adopted a requirement for a 10-foot setback for portable signs, 89 of the 92 signs counted in the survey would be in violation. During the second survey 87 signs were counted. . Said that calculating if the setback were reduced to 5 feet instead of the proposed 10, 68 out of the 87 signs counted for the second survey would be illegal resulting in 78 percent being in violation. . Said that another question was raised about the possibility that these portable signs might have impact on accidents or collisions. No accidents have been noted as having been caused as a result of obstruction caused by a portable sign. That does not mean it hasn't happened just that no notation of such an impact has been documented as a primary factor in traffic reports. Commissioner Saadati asked for clarification as to whether there is less of a violation if the setback for portable signs is limited to five feet instead of 10 feet. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff said that while there is slightly less percentage of violation when reducing the setback requirement to five feet, it is not much less. He Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 14 added that there is already a provision in the Code that allows removal of a sign if it is found to pose a hazard. Commissioner Saadati reiterated that if a sign is located closer to the street in general it does not appear to pose a hazard and if it should pose a hazard there are provisions that allow that sign's removal. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff replied yes. Commissioner Saadati asked if there are creative signs out there. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff said that there are lots of shapes and sizes in signs. As far as content, there are limits to controls on content. He suggested that if these portable signs are located farther from the street drawing a diver's attention from the road they might actually prove to be more of a distraction than signs more easily seen near the street and that can be viewed by a driver's peripheral vision. Commissioner Wong asked if staff is recommending the deletion of the requirement for a 10-foot setback for portable signs. Senior Planner Aki Honda said that staff had originally recommended that language. The Commission request a survey be done and proposed deleting this 10-foot setback requirement. Commissioner Wong asked if this provision applies to real estate signs as well. He said this might become a nightmare for Code Enforcement and would eliminate real estate agents' advertising ability, which is usually in the public right-of-way. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff said that there is a second section in the code pertaining to real estate sign that allows more generous placement within the public right- of-way. There must be a minimum 36-inches of clearance on the sidewalk. Therefore this proposed provision for portable signs would not impact real estate signs. Commissioner Wong asked for the difference between real estate signs and just regular business signs. He said that one shouldn't discriminate between one type of business and another. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, said that a study was done on real estate signs a few years ago when it came into the Ordinance. Real estate signs are allowed in residential areas. That's the distinction. Commissioner Wong said that there is more mixed-use development these days incorporating residential and commercial use. He said that real estate open house signs would be needed here too. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said that commercial zones would follow commercial regulations. Commissioner Wong again asked what about mixed-use zones. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 15 Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said that she would have to review that issue further to see how it is worded but that she does not believe it is differentiated between mixed-use zones regarding signage. Commissioner Wong said he does not see a difference between signs for commercial businesses and real estate signs. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said that there is no difference in the commercial zones but real estate signs are allowed in the public right-of-way only in residential zones. Commissioner Wong asked if the apartments at DeAnza and Stevens Creek are commercial or residentially zoned. City Planner Ciddy Wordell replied the zoning was PD (Planned Development). Commissioner Wong said that this is creating a legal quandary allowing A-frame portable real estate signs in residential areas but not in commercial. He said that he thought this is biased toward businesses and a set up for a lawsuit. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said she is not sure what his conflict is. Commissioner Wong said that since mixed-use developments have housing over retail, how is that differentiated when it comes time for real estate signs to sell these residential units. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said that real estate signs are allowed for homes located in residential zoning. Commercial signs are not allowed in residential zoning. Commercial signs are allowed in industrial or commercial zoning districts. Commissioner Wong asked if the temporary portable sign currently at Shell would be allowed. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray said it would be allowed if moved back 10-feet from the right-of-way. She agreed that the proposed 10-foot setback is excessive as the survey shows that only three of the existing signs identified in the first survey conducted would be in compliance with this revised setback requirement. She said that she thought that it was onerous and very restrictive using a 10-foot setback standard. Chair Miller said that Commissioner Wong asks a good question when applied to mixed- use development. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray reiterated that real estate signs are allowed in commercial areas but would have to meet the established setbacks. However, the rule for the setback has not been adopted yet and is open for discussion now. Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Ms. Jennifer Griffin: Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 16 . Said that she lives in east Cupertino and is glad to see that Cupertino pays attention to its signage. Signs are not intrusive and are complimentary. . Said that Cupertino is primarily suburban with a commercial center. . Stated that businesses have to be able to advertise but the city should not suffer from a proliferation and/or overuse of signs. . Described a very tall sign in her area that was annexed and asked how signage is grandfathered. . Recounted that when she attempts to leave Calvert Drive onto Stevens Creek there is often signs for either Sage Apartments or Shadow Oaks on the island. When trying to turn right one cannot see traffic past those A-frame signs. . Asked how far a business can put its advertising on the street. Ms. Deborah Hill: . Said that she sees signs on the sidewalk that also block bicyclists. . Said that she thinks it is great that signs can advertise businesses but believes that they should be set back 10 feet. Chair Miller closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Commissioner Wong thanked staff for the survey and asked for potential language to deal with grandfathering existing signs that exceed 8-feet in height. City Planner Ciddy Wordell asked if Commissioner Wong is asking for this concept to be more noticeable or to change the wording of the Ordinance. Commissioner Wong said he wants it to be more noticeable. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that this issue could be made clearer. Commissioner Wong: . Thanked staff and the public for their input. . Said that signs make it easier to find locations in Cupertino to shop. . Stated the importance of being business friendly. . Supported the deletion of the proposed requirement for a 10-foot setback for portable signs. . Said that if such signs become a nuisance there is a way to get them removed. . Said he was neutral on the second issue (use of "morion" logo). . Said that with Item 3, he is fine with allowing three monument signs for larger centers instead of the current allowance for two. . Said it would be nice to go to a maximum allowed height of 1 0 feet instead of 8. . Reiterated the importance to note that existing signs over 8 feet are grandfathered. . Reminded that a Sign Exception option is available. . Expressed support for Item 4 allowing additional time from the current 30 to 60 days for retrieval of signs. . Stated his appreciation for the work done. Commissioner Saadati: Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 17 . Supported the elimination of the proposed 10-foot setback for portable signs. . Said he is fine on the issue of use of the City's "morion" logo. . Asked about impacts of major remodel on existing signs over 8-feet in height. When would such a sign have to be brought into compliance? Is it if more than 50 percent of the sign is changed? Senior Planner Aki Honda advised that under the current Ordinance when over 50 percent is changed, the sign must be brought into compliance with the current Ordinance. Commissioner Saadati said that the extension of time for retrieval of signs is fine and thanked staff for their hard work. Chair Miller: . Said he supports deleting the 10-foot setback for portable signs and supports the use of the City's "morion" logo. . Said that for Item 3 he is fine with the existing allowance for two ground signs. . Agreed that some further protection of existing grandfathered signs over 8-feet in height should be included in the Ordinance. . Supported the increase in time for retrieval of signs to 60 days. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Wong, seconded by Commissioner Saadati, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a Municipal Code Amendment (MCA-2005-02) of Chapter 17 (Signs), with the deletion of the requirement for a 10-foot setback for portable signs and including language on the use of the City's "morion" logo, use of prominently display language on the issue of grandfathered existing monument signs in excess of 8-feet in height and the increase of retrieval time to 60 days. (3-0-2; Commissioners Giefer and Chien were absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3 Application No.(s): TR-2006-12 Application: John Knopp Location: 21925 Lindy Lane Tree Removal of two eucalyptus trees protected as part of a tentative map approval (TM- 2005-03). ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny TR-2006-12 City Planner Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report as follows: . Reported that this is a Tree Removal request for two eucalyptus trees that were protected as part of a tentative map approval in 2005. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 18 . Said that one of the conditions of that map approval was that no trees be removed as part of the subdivision of property. . Advised that to date there has not been a final map. . Explained that Code Enforcement was contacted in May regarding the removal of trees from this property. The property owner informed staff that a third party did this removal of trees from his property illegally and without asking him for permission. . Said that the City has required this owner to process a Tree Removal request and he will be asked to replace these trees. . Said that the two eucalyptus trees were depicted on the map for the Tentative Map that created two lots. . Explained that there is a slope easement over that portion of the lot. A possible building pad has been identified and there are limitations on where to replant trees. . Said that one possibility might be to place one tree in the area where these' two eucalyptus trees were removed. A second tree, perhaps an oak, could be placed elsewhere on the property. . Recommended that the specific area for planting these replacement trees be determined at the time that the replacements are installed upon approval of their placement by the Community Development Director. . Proposed installing two field-grown oaks, which have greater monetary value than do eucalyptus trees. Generally, a requirement for replacement trees of greater value is imposed when trees have been removed without benefit of a permit. . Reiterated that the exact placement for the replacement trees can be decided at a later time. . Said that a Tree Covenant against this property should be recorded to ensure that it is known that these are protected trees. Mr. John Knopp, Property Owner and Applicant: . Acknowledged the staff report as fact. . Advised that he had no part in cutting these trees down. . Said that evidently, they were removed to enhance property values for a spec house being constructed next door. . Said he had no interest in taking these eucalyptus trees out as they served as a privacy screen for his property. . Assured that he would be replacing these eucalyptus trees but it may be problematic putting replacement trees in the exact same location. Anything else might not grow as narrow as an eucalyptus tree. . Reported that the removed trees have actually already begun to sprout from the stump and would likely re-grow over time. . Supported the requirement to plant trees with greater value somewhere on his property. . Declared that he was not about chopping down trees as trees enhance a property. . Suggested one solution might be to plant one of the replacement trees onto Lot 1 and he is okay with that idea. . Said that on the issue of replanting with oaks, they are pretty delicate and would have to be secured from a similar climate and slope. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 19 . Advised that he has filed a Police report against the man who had his trees cut down and the charge is felony trespassing and vandalism due to the value of the trees removed. . Added that he also had to pay a $3,000 filing fee for this Tree Removal application to deal with these trees that were cut without a proper permit. . Said that the person who had his trees cut down has admitted to having done so and that it was done without his permission as the property owner. . Said that he has also started civil action against that person in an attempt to recover the cost of these replacement trees, expenses and legal fees but it is possible that he may never recover those financial impacts. . Stated that the result is that he will be punished instead of the perpetrator. . Said he is not opposed to putting in additional trees but suggested perhaps using smaller trees. . Said that 15-foot oaks cast about $10,000 each and he has already paid the $3,000 application fee. . Assured that these eucalyptus trees will be replaced. . Suggested an alternate tree such as a specimen cedar. . Reiterated his agreement with the report and understands Council's concerns about tree protection. . Restated that he was not involved with this tree cutting but rather is a victim here who will have to pursue civil action. . Added that he has no say in the criminal matter. Commissioner Saadati asked if the noise of chain saws was not heard when this removal was underway. Mr. John Knopp: . Advised that he no longer lives in this house and it is vacant. . Said that his neighbors to the west saw the work underway but assumed it was okay. . Added that his neighbors asked him for a referral to the company that removed his trees, as they wanted to contact them to remove trees on their own property since the three-man removal team worked so fast. He warned them not to remove trees without permits as they are protected. . Said that the Code Enforcement Officer called him and he came back here from Southern California. He said he then called the Sheriff's Office to file a report and called his lawyer and City staff including the City's attorney. . Said City staff told him that he would have to file an application for the removal of these trees and come before the Planning Commission. . Reiterated that he was unaware of the removal of his trees until three or four days after it happened. City Planner Ciddy Wordell pointed to before and after photographs to demonstrate the dramatic impact of the removal of these eucalyptus trees that had providing a nice screening between properties. Mr. John Knopp said that he wants the privacy screening back in there. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 20 Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Ms. Jennifer Griffin: . Said it is sad to see trees go down and extended her condolences to Mr. John Knopp. . Added that it takes ones faith away when others do things like this to people. . Commended Mr. John Knopp for his plan to replace his removed trees. . Stated that many people malign eucalyptus trees as problem trees but pointed out that many were planted in the early 1900's. They served as wind breaks and remind us of a time and place now gone. . Said that eucalyptus trees are a phenomenal screening tree and are wonderful for holding ground with their broad root area. . Expressed appreciation for Cupertino's protection and respect for trees. . Stated that all trees are to be protected. Ms. Deborah Hill: . Agreed that Mr. John Knopp did not do this and whoever did made a serious mistake. . Stated that trees should be preserved, as they are beautiful. . Said that the person who did this removal should be in trouble for what they did because cutting someone else's private tree is wrong without permission. . Stressed the importance of saving trees and appreciating them. Chair Miller closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Commissioner Saadati said the property owner has expressed his willingness to replace these trees with perhaps one to be planted on Lot 1. Asked what would be the box size for a 15-foot high tree. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that such a tree is usually field grown and comes in a bag and not a box. Commissioner Saadati asked if it is larger than a 36 or 48-inch box tree. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said a 15-foot tree would be taller than either a 36 or 48-inch box tree. Commissioner Saadati said he would be in favor of smaller trees of about 10 to 12 feet in height and about a 48-inch box. Commissioner Wong said that he would be concerned because of Council's position on tree protection and said he is inclined to support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Saadati asked staff about the growth potential for larger trees and whether they grow as healthy as do smaller trees. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that she has heard that smaller trees grow faster than larger trees when planted. She added that the difference between a 24-inch box tree and a 36-inch box tree is approximately one year's growth. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 21 Commissioner Saadati asked if planting a small tree is healthier. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said she did not know that. Chair Miller: . Said that he sympathizes with Mr. Knopp also. . Explained that the Commission is under direction from Council to be as tough as possible when these tree removal violations occur. . Stressed that whoever did this illegal cutting should not benefit. . Said he is inclined to require some additional screening where these trees have been removed so the person who did that removal does not benefit from his illegal action. . Said it is important to get additional screening in place as quickly as possible. . Asked staff for feedback on the property owner's suggestion to use cedar trees. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that the canopy of a cedar is not much different from the canopy of an oak. Chair Miller reiterated his position that whatever is placed there should ultimately offer the level of screening that was lost. City Planner Ciddy Wordell suggested that goal be stated as part of the motion and that the appropriate tree recommended to accomplish that goal. Chair Wong asked staff to clarify that one of the proposed oaks is slated for the area where these eucalyptus trees were removed while the second could be placed elsewhere on the property. City Planner Ciddy Wordell agreed that planting two oaks is what staff proposes. Commissioner Wong suggested that staff work with the applicant on additional screening. City Planner Ciddy Wordell asked if he means in addition to planting the two replacement oaks. Chair Miller: . Stressed that the goal is replace the screening function to the way it was so the person who improperly cut down these trees does not receive any benefit from his actions. . Said that either additional screening or putting trees there that would work in that slot as opposed to oaks. . Asked staff if there is any objection to planting eucalyptus trees back there. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said none really. They can sometimes be problem trees but perhaps not in this case. Chair Miller said that replacing these eucalyptus trees would mean that nothing is different from what was originally there. Chair Miller re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 22 Mr. John Knopp: . Reminded that this area is a narrow space and there is no room for an oak there. . Said that if replaced by oaks they would have to be planted elsewhere. . Said that while eucalyptus trees have been considered a fire hazard, with proper maintenance and thinning they are not a problem. . Stated his confidence that the removed trees, which have already begun to sprout new growth, will eventually grow quite large and could be as tall as 30 feet in the next six years or so. Allowing those trees to re-grow in place makes sense and he hopes the Commission will allow that to happen. Chair Miller re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Wong, seconded by Commissioner Saadati, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Tree Removal (TR-2006-12) for two already removed eucalyptus trees that had been protected as part of a tentative map approval (TM-2005-03) for property located at 21925 Lindy Lane with the added requirement for additional screening in the area where the two trees were removed. (3- 0-1; Commissioners Giefer and Chien were absent) *** OLD BUSINESS - ITEM NO.4 Review of Revised Plannina Commission Work Proaram. City Planner Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report as follows: . Provided an overview of the update to the Planning Commission Work Program. . Said that it is being brought back to the Commission for review to see the changes made since originally approved. . Said that projects have been added including the North Vallco Master Plan, the Redevelopment Area Five-Year Plan (required to be done and which a consultant is currently working on) and a Department Service Delivery Study. . Said that some projects have been moved back in the schedule including the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Crossroads Streetscape Plan, a review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding RHS Slope Standards, and two private projects for which the applicants are not yet ready (McDonald Dorsa Quarry site and North Tantau Avenue industrial to residential conversion). . Reported that three projects have been eliminated from the Work Program, the Morley Brothers Project that is not going forward, the Proactive Planning and Homestead and North Vallco Areas (which is accomplished by the North Vallco Master Plan), and identification of obsolete R&D (Research and Development) properties citywide (which has been merged with Council's Industrial Conversion Policy). . Said she is available for any questions on this Update. Commissioner Wong asked for clarification on what year the Redevelopment Area Five Year Plan was scheduled for. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 23 City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that it should have been done in 2005 and that this review is one year behind schedule. Commissioner Wong asked when the Redevelopment Agreement expires. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said it doesn't. What is required under State law is an updated five-year implementation plan, which should have been completed last year. Commissioner Wong asked when expansion of the Redevelopment Area is appropriate for discussion and whether the Commission reviews the Department Service Delivery Study. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that this Study goes directly to Council and is used to determine and prioritize the allocation of resources. Commissioner Wong said it would be nice if the Planning Commission could make recommendations and provide input that could be valuable. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said she would make note of that request. Commissioner Wong asked when the Tree Ordinance would be handled. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that it is Item 6 on the Work Plan and might come before the Commission in late September as an attempt is being made to fast track that project. *** OLD BUSINESS - ITEM NO.5 North Valleo Master Plan Update. City Planner Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report as follows: . Explained that this is an information item to review the status of this project. . Reported that a $100,000 budget has been assigned and Friedman, Tung & Bottomley is being recommended as the consultant on the project selected between the two consultants who bid on the contract. . Said that a North Vallco Study Commission comprised of approximately 15 people is being formed. A list of candidates to serve on this Committee is being compiled for endorsement by Council. Commissioner Saadati asked if big box retail would be evaluated. City Planner Ciddy Wordell said that it wasn't mentioned per se but this is a very open process and a lot of things are on the table. Chair Miller said that everything is open for discussion. This will be an open and very transparent process and will include three community workshops. It is hoped that there Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2006 Page 24 will be heavy community participation, as this is a very important area for the City of Cupertino. Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.5. Ms. Jennifer Griffin: . Said that she is very interested in issues of the North Vallco Area, particularly the large holdings by Apple there. . Said that there are a number of issues including the allocation of commercial space. . Expressed concern that a shift of personnel by Apple may result in lots of vacant buildings in the middle of Cupertino. . Said that the North Vallco Area is primarily commercial and she does not see it as developing into residential. . Reported that there are major environmental issues although they are being cleaned up. However, she is not sure she would elect to live on some of that property. . Said that this area is important to the technological future of Cupertino, which is locked into that area. There is a big need to bring high tech back to Cupertino such as seeding start-ups in the North Vallco Area. Why not start up companies? They were here before. While there are big people here, what with HP and Apple, but start-ups are also needed. . Asked that technological areas not be sacrificed for housing. *** NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Environmental Review Committee: Chair Miller reported that no meeting was held. 2. Housing Commission: Commissioner Wong said that the Housing Commission has not met. 3. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: None 4. Economic Development Committee Meeting: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Planner Ciddy Wordell said she had nothing to add. *** ADJOURNMENT Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2006, at 6:45 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk