Loading...
PC 08-26-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 777-330g AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 26, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Therese Smith, Parks and Recreation; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 12, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting: Com. Saadati noted minor errors on Pages 3 and 4: "Clom." to read: "Com." Com. Wong noted that the applicant's name on Page 2, "Mai" should read "Mae" MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve the August 12, 2002 minutes as amended Com. Wong Coms. Auerbach and Chen Passed 3 -0-2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Corr noted a written communication from city staff indicating that Item 3 on the agenda, Application DIR-2002-29 has been withdrawn; and receipt of two e-mails relative to Item 1. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: Application No. DIR-2002-29 as noted above. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Chair Corr moved the agenda to Item 2. 2. Application No.: ASA-2002-02 Applicant: Panko Architects Location: 21666-21686 Stevens Creek Boulevard Architectural and Site Approval to renovate an existing commercial building and site. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 26, 2002 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectural and site approval for a fagade remodel and site improvements to a shopping center as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, referred to the aerial site plan, existing site plan and proposed site plan and reviewed the proposed faqade changes to the building. She noted that the project did not involve a change in use or additional square footage, but included site improvements such as parking lot landscaping, converting an area into an outdoor eating area, changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard and Imperial Avenue frontages. She said that the project was consistent with the Monta Vista guidelines as well as the General Plan in terms of interconnected access, traditional storefront appearance in the Monta Vista area, and the architectural style of the building is consistent with what the Monta Vista area is required to look like. The project also provides streetscape improvements along the street. Ms. Shrivastava explained that the roof of the building was raised and building colors changed; staff recommends approval of the architectural changes. Ms. Shrivastava said there were two issues for site circulation, an existing auto entry and exit which Public Works recommended closing since it was not considered a safe exit. The site entry and exit points along Imperial Avenue will be retained. Staff feels with the changes proposed, the neighbors to the west of the project will still be able to access their lot from the subject site and their parking lot. A condition of approval is shared access agreements which are recommended as part of the Monta Vista design guidelines. Relative to parking, Ms. Shrivastava said that the parking required for the project is 38 stalls; the reconfigured site has 35 stalls, and because of the angled parking added on Imperial Avenue, there will be 3 stalls credited towards the pro. ject; which is consistent with the Monta Vista plan where projects can receive credit for onstreet parking. She briefly reviewed the right of way improvements, and noted that the project would provide angled parking. Ms. Shrivastava reviewed Public Works' additional conditions of approval which were included in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution; and also the modifications to the conditions of approval added in the staff report. She answered commissioners' questions regarding the proposal. Mr. Stan Panko, Panko Architects, said he and the owners felt that the project was a major improvement to the street and an asset to the neighborhood. He said he was still unclear about the ordinance, but understood that the city and PG&E would bear the cost of doing the uuderground work. He said he had hoped that it could have been done prior to the improvements to the building and the site work, to prevent it from having to be torn out again; but that it did not appear to be so. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Paula Klein, 1625 Oak Spring Ct., said that she was part owner of the building adjacent to the project, and has used the driveway for 32 years with no problems. She said she did not want to lose her rights to the driveway; and noted that a Chiropractor tenant had his patients park in the back parking lot and enter through the back where there are no stairs. She said it was unfair to take the driveway away to allow the tow truck company to bring cars in the back. Ms. Klein said Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 26, 2002 that there was no ambience in the parking lot, and people would not eat in an area where they could see delivery doors facing them. She said they own two feet of the parking lot. Ms. Shrivastava said that the applicant provided a property survey which indicated the building to the west is on their property line; it tends to be more a parcel; the parking lot is not accessible using its own lot because there isn't any space on either side of the building. The driveway appears to be entirely on the applicant's site; the neighbor has been using it to access their parking lot. Public works indicated that it did not meet the standards for exiting because there wasn't enough visibility because the buildings come up almost to the sidewalk and a person coming out of the driveway would not be able to see, should a pedestrian be walking. She said that staff reviewed the proposed site plan and based on the shared access agreement, it is now a condition of this project. Staff felt that using the Imperial Avenue exit and entry to enter the parking lot would probably be a better situation because the other one would have required them to come in another way. The cars are parked east/west currently. Chair Corr closed the public input portion of the meeting. Coin. Wong said he liked the proposed faq:ade and understood the concern about the driveway. Coin. Saadati said he supported the project and concurred with Coin. Wong. He said the landscaping and wider sidewalks were an improvement. Coin. Chen said she was pleased to see improvements ill the Monta Vista area and that she supported the project. Coin. Auerbach said lie was pleased with the development and said he would have preferred to have housing above the retail. Mr. Piasecki suggested wording to Condition 4 relative to the underground utility condition. At the end of the first sentence it states that "the developer shall comply with the requiremeuts of the underground utilities ordinance ...City of Cupertino and shall coordinate with effected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices ... "add the words "for any new utility installation associated with this remodel", meaning that if they don't need any additional utility installation, they would not have an obligation to provide any undergroundiug in conjunction with that ordinance. He suggested further change in the last sentence "the applicant is not required to underground the existing utilities on Imperial Avenue or Stevens Creek Boulevard as part of this project." It clarifies that only if they are putting in any new would they potentially have to underground the utility connections. Relative to release of the bond, Mr. Piasecki said the $18,000 bond was for street improvements along Imperial Avenue that would go toward putting in the street improvements, not necessarily the undergrounding of the utilities. If that was specifically for underground utilities and if it can be held longer until the city can get all the other parties together, perhaps they will continue to nse it for that purpose. He said he was not certain if the bond would be released. Ms. Shrivastava said that Condition 5 addresses that; and said that the bond was tbr the sidewalk and drainage improvements on Imperial Avenue and that is something Public Works recognized. Relative to Chair Corr's question about the towing company storing cars in the lot, Ms. Shrivastava said when the business license for Cupertino Towing was approved, cars were not Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 26, 2002 supposed to be stored in the parking lot, and staff would make certain it does not occur. She said if the trucks don't meet the parking lot dimensions, they would have to be stored elsewhere. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of ASA-2002-02 with the amendments to Section 4, part 4, as suggested by Mr. Piasekci. Com. Chen Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision of the Planning Commission was final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days in writing to the City Clerk's office. Chair Corr moved the agenda back to Item 1. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2002-03 (EA-2002-07) City of Cupertino (Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study) From Rancho San Antonio County Park area through Blackberry Farm, McClellan Ranch, Linda Vista Park and Stevens Creek Park Planning Commission recommendation regarding a mitigated negative declaration for the Stevens Creek Trail Study Area A and General Plan consistency for the entire Stevens Creek Trail Study Area. Staff presentation: A video presentation prepared by Parks and Recreation was shown. Chair Corr summarized the opening remarks relative to the application. He explained that the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the mitigated negative declaration for Study Area A only, and to make a finding that the proposed trail network is consistent witl~ the Cupertino General Plan. Chapter 19.68 of the Cupertino Municipal Code requires that the Parks and Recreation Commission submit park development plans for Park and Recreation Zones to tile Planning Commission for an environmental assessment of the plans and a finding that tile proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission for presentation to the City Council. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is limited to Study Area A, the Rancho San Antonio Area, as it is the only one of the four study areas that begins implementation at this time. Environmental analysis for Study Area B will occur in conjunction with proposed development on the tbrmer quarry site. Environmental analysis of Study Areas C and D will occur with tl~e preparation of the McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm master plans. The model resolution under consideration finds that the trail network along Stevens Creek and in Oak Valley is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. When the design details Study Areas B, C and D are prepared, they will be returned to the Planning Commission tbr environmental review and consistency with ail the General Plan policies. Several Planning Commissioners indicated an interest in commenting on aspects of the proposed trail that are outside of the Commission's charge. Staff recommended that these comments be expressed as non-public hearing items, since they do not relate to the two actions belbre the Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 26, 2002 Commission. Therefore, the procedure will be to hear the staff reports ou General Plan consistency and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Study Area A, and the Plmming Commission will entertain Planning Commission questions on consisteucy and the negative declaration, and then open the public bearing. Chair Corr encouraged members of the public to address the two matters before the Commission, since they are the public hearing items. Comments on the feasibility study may be addressed to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Following the public input period, the public hearing will be closed. The Planning Commission will make its recommendation on the two public hearing items; the Commission may then choose to make additional comments to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed Study Areas A, B, C and D. Ms. Jana Sokale, consultant, presented an overview of the physical features within Study Area A. A copy of her presentation materials is attached in the staff report. She explained that Study Area A encompasses approximately 130 acres of land within and adjacent to the Rancho San Antonio Park, bordered by Cristo Rey Drive, Union Pacific railroad tracks, the County Park and part of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The 130 acres will soon be transferred to County Parks under the Oak Valley development agreement which was for the residential development that took place in that area, and a subsequent agreement between the city and the County Parks and the diocese San Jose, who are the current site owners. She illustrated the features within the 130 acre site including wetlands, drainages, ponding area and the DeAnza Knoll and the Hammond-Snyder Home which are historical features. She also presented an overview of the trail featnres, points of interest, facilities, hiking and equestrian trails, and access points within the study area. Ms. Christine Schneider, Thomas Reid & Associates, discussed the impacts aud mitigations in Study Area A. She reported that the findings indicated that the proposed project will provide enhanced recreational opportunities in Study Area A and the projects negative effects can be avoided or reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures. Therelbre, the appropriate vehicle under CEQA is a mitigated negative declaration. She reviewed the environmental factors potentially affected by tbe project and the mitigation measures implemented. The factors included biological resources, public services, cultural, hydrology/water quality, noise and air quality. The details of the impacts and the mitigation measures are outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Schneider discussed the transportation/traffic evaluation table and the impacts and mitigation measures relative to transportation and traffic, as outlined in the staff report. She reported that the impacts identified were less than significant with mitigations incorporated; and implementation of mitigation measures included in the Initial Study will ensure that all significant impacts t¥om the project will be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels, and that vegetation and wildlife will uot be impacted by the project. Ms. Wordell summarized that the mitigated negative declaration is for Study Area A, the design options for the other study areas will be developed when the master plans for Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch come forward, which will afford the Planning Commission another opportunity to hear those impacts and make a finding regarding tbe euvironmental impacts on those areas. The consistency is for the trail network for all the study areas and staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find those consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 26, 2002 Com. Chert had no questions. Relative to the environmental set of mitigations, Com. Auerbach asked about the County's capacity to be onsite and if there was a likelihood that like other areas, they would delegate this responsibility to Mid Peninsula Open Space Authority (Mid Pen). Ms. Sokole, said in the county's review of the feasibility report and the environmental impact, the environmental assessment, and in their agreement with Mid Pen and their agreement to accept these lands that date back to the time of the development agreement, they assumed responsibility for the 125 acres. There are three small areas within Rancho now that total about 5 acres that are in the maintenance agreement between Mid Pen and the County; those areas are part of the existing trail in front of the upper parking lot and the lower parking lot; but the county will assume operations and maintenance for the other 125 acres, with a full operations staff. She said in the past, they have not taken care of their parking area, but delegated it to Mid Pen because their closest center for responsibility is Stevens Creek County Park; but due to the new addition they will be assuming that and using the rangers from Stevens Creek County park to maintain the area. Com. Auerbach questioned how the city delegates the responsibility and what supervisory role does the city have in enforcing that the mitigations actually take place? Ms. Sokole said that the mitigations are assigned to one responsible party for the portions where the city is developing the trail which is Cristo Rey Drive, and the access across Union Pacific to the staging area, the city would be responsible for constructing those and following tbose mitigations. For example, extending the trail along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the Foothill/Stevens Creek Boulevard exit intersection is the city's responsibility; but the development within the 125 acres is the cotmty's responsibility; and they are specifically assigned as such. She said that in the county's maintenance agreement with Mid Pen, Mid Pen has the opportunity to review and comment on all construction document sets and that is one of their requests and is in their written agreement. Ms. Schneider and Ms. Sokale answered Planning Commissioners' questions regarding traffic, parking, language relative to mitigating measures, impact on deer habitat, and size and materials of the trails. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Tom Bornheimer, Vice President of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, commended the city on their efforts in disseminating the information on the trail proposal. He also commended the task force for a fine job, and the city for moving forward on this particular A site and not waiting fbr the rest of the sites to come into play. He reminded the audience of free speech and asked that no beckling take place; those in opposition can speak on the issue but not heckle the other speakers. Ms. Pam Fury, owner of Whispering Creeks Stables, said she supported the proposal. She said tbe stables holds 64 head of horses and has been at that location for 23 years; and she noted tbat the access will provide an easy straight forward road to Rancho and will be a safe environment for the riders. She said she was not opposed to sharing the road witb cyclists and that she supported the trail. Ms. Joan Meehan, 20182 Northgate Square, said she was speaking on a self interested position on Study Area A as she boards a horse at Whispering Creeks Stables and would use the trail ahnost daily. She said she supported Pam Fury's comments and said that the trail would be easy to construct; easy improvement and that it was carved out from a more complicated development in Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 26, 2002 Study Area B, C and D, although she said she supported them also. She referred to the Community Congress Report and said that 97% of the persons involved in the process supported evaluation of facilities to use for a determination if more residents can get access to open space. She said it was what the city wants, and thanked the Planning Commission for expediting Study Area A. Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, said that he felt it was a good idea, but poorly documented. He said he was concerned with the area along the railroad tracks and along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said a week and a half ago when they toured the area with Therese Smith seeing the Stevens Creek Trail area, her comment was that the county had decided that these areas were not ideal, they didn't like the intersections with Stevens Creek Boulevard and he was not certain if the mitigation suggestions solved those county problems. He said he felt the intersection with the access road to the Hammond-Snyder House to Stevens Creek Boulevard is a very hazardous one, and nothing could be done to improve it enough to be truly safe for cars exiting the area. He said the vehicles travel around the curve at a high speed and there are signs indicating the speed traveled. Changing it to bring it up to grade and putting pavement on it will improve the safety of people exiting, but it won't help if there is a truck coming at the same time they are exiting. He said he felt the crossing has also been turned down, that there will be a Stevens Creek Trail across the railroad tracks and down along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard all the way down to Foothill Boulevard, and there will be a 10 foot wide pair of trails or shared bike and pedestrian trails, with a 3 foot separation between that and the pavement. He concluded by stating that he felt past history and all past actions of all committees who worked on the area and Stevens Creek trail and on the properly that it is going through was ruthlessly abandoued. Ms. Lauren Lockwood, said she was a newer resident to Cupertino, and she felt the trail was a positive addition to the city and county, and she was satisfied with the mitigation measures that the feasibility study committee arrived at. She said relative to the Site A iii and around Rancho San Antonio, she felt it pointed out the importance of the trail as a means to have local reside,its have pedestrian and bike access to minimize the number of cars with the growing population. She urged the implementation of the trail, which would benefit all multi users throughout the community and add value to the properties and community as a whole. Ms. Theresa Shaw, 20373 Porto Fino, thanked the members of the committee lbr serving on the committee and performing the important public service, and the Planning staff for doing fine work on the trail. She said she supported the Stevens Creek Trail, specifically Sectiou A, but also Sections B, C and D and any recreational trail and open space access in Cupertino. She said she felt it would bring the community together and give the community more of an identity to put Cupertino on the map. Relative to the parking lots and the overflow, she commented that people will respond intelligently when they see full parking lots and will likely plan to carpool or take their bikes. She said she would like to promote the accessibility to bicycles if as much of the trail can be made available to bicycles within reason. She said she visited Rancho San Antonio frequently and thanked everyone for having the vision and tenacity to make it happen. Mr. Jim Luther, Cupertino resident, said that he lived close to the intersection of Homestead and DeAnza Boulevard and used the parks frequently. He said improving the trails will bring more people into the park; and bike racks would attract bike riders to the park. Ms. Debra Jamison, Rumford Drive, said while she felt it was a good idea that the additional trail system in Study Area A is being developed, although she did not see the physical relationship with Stevens Creek as it was far removed from Stevens Creek. She said it was a good trail system, but Planning Commission Minutes s August 26, 2002 it was not the Stevens Creek trail. She pointed out that there were separate paved and multi use trail alignments from hiking and pedestrian/equestrian trail alignments in Study Area A; which is what some are proposing for Study Area C and D; separate alignments for pedestrians vs. fast moving wheeled vehicles. She expressed concern about funding for the trail maintenance, and said she felt the city's track record in maintaining its current natural and historical resources was poor, such as the further deterioration of some of the physical facilities at McClellan Ranch Preserve. She said there has been no money for those facilities and programs through econotnic good times and bad, and she could not be assured that the new trail system will be properly maintained. Ms. Jamison echoed the concern about the bike and pedestrian path running on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and asked whether the neighbors along Stevens Creek Boulevard have been fully noticed about the new trail alignment along Stevens Creek that will be impacting their neighborhood to some extent. She said relative to General Plan compliance, to the extent that compliance with the General Plan requires compliance with existing city ordinances and other city approved documents regulating the purposes and uses of McClellan Ranch, tire feasibility report in her opinion violates the city ordinances and therefore by inference violates the General Plan. Ms. Jamison said she felt the McClellan Ranch Master Plan had been ignored, and said that it was a well documented and detailed blueprint for maintaining and improving the educational programming and enjoyment for the residents in terms of learning about nature and historical past. Many proposals are in the master plan and almost none of them have been implemented in the nitre years since the master plan was approved by the city. She said she felt no members of the Master Plan committee envisioned a hard surface trail. She explained that the McClellan Ranch Preserve is dedicated to nature and history, and no improvements or developments should occur that are not in accordance with that; hence if a hard surface 10 foot wide trail did not exist at the time of the Ohlone Indians, or the time of Alicia Stevens or the operating farm there, it should not exist today. Relative to Com. Auerbach's comment that some might think it is inconsistent with having paved parking or a bus turnaround; Ms. Jamison said that the parking was put in for the convenience of residents being able to get to McClellan Ranch, and there have been in the past some modern conveniences, plumbing, electricity; such things to meet code and the requirements of residents to be able to implement the other aspects of the park, such as learning about nature and history. From the point of the rules and regulations for McClellan Ranch onward passed in 1976 or 1977, from that point onward, no more new development should occur on that preserve. After the task force that wrote the plan was disbanded, she said the city appointed citizens to be on an implementation committee which met four times a year since then; yet she said she did not see any results of their work. She said for the master plan to be amended it would have to go to the same level as it was approved, namely the City Council. Ms. Jamison defined a trail as a soft surface, narrower interpretive trail, nature trail, quiet, tranquil more passive nsage trails. Mr. Stewart Chessam, 10571 Portal Avenue, thanked the consultants and task force on the fine.job at arriving at a workable plan for people to walk, ride their bikes and ride horses. He noted that the Kaiser trucks will not be loaded or unloaded if the drivers exceed the speed limit. The parking lots are getting full because people really want open space and access and they should be encouraged to go on the trails and not off the trails. He said ire felt it would fit with the countywide system going from the Bay to the hills, and give people in other cities ways to ride their bikes and have a place that they can go to; and return home, not always driving a car. Ms. Jessica Greene, 22624 Voss Avenue, said she boarded her horse at Whispering Creek Stables~ and supported the Study Area A trail. She said she did not like to ride at Rancho any longer since she felt unsafe with the traffic and the possibility of her horse being hit by a car or spoofed by the Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 26, 2002 traffic. She said she supported the new trail to enjoy the park with safety; and people from the resideuces would be able to walk through and get to Rancho quicker or easier than having to drive or ride their bikes on the sidewalk. Mr. David Scionti asked if the other areas had to be consistent with Study Area A. Chair Corr explained that the city had a General Plan which speaks to having trails created in the city. The question is, then is creating these trails consistent with the General Plan; while it doesn't say exactly where they go, it is not a design document, it does refer to them and gives some general ideas. He said they were looking to see if the plan was consistent with what was in the General Plan. Relative to the effect for the water, he said the whole area is a watershed coming down from the ridge above Permanente that is going to affect everything down below; and questioned if it had been taken into consideration as far as any of the overflow or whatever fluency was coming out of Permanente. He said parking was a major concern because people will park wherever they can if the parking lot is full. He expressed concern about the safety of the crosswalks, and the deer habitat. Mr. Craig Breon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, said that he did not anticipate many new problems such as parking problems with the proposal, since it serves different purposes, and the equestrians' interests indicated it solved a difficult issue for them. He said staff reported that a big destination was not being created, there is not a large amount of open space being open to the city, the 120 acres is primarily around an existing development and is more a through route to get to the destinations of the county parks and Mid Pen than it is a destination in and of itselfi He said he did not feel it generated a lot of additional traffic in the area. It facilitates tile move~nent of some traffic from one area to another and does it well. Relative to the second aspect of the General Plan, Mr. Breon stated that the conservation committee has taken two meetings to discuss the notion of what kind of trail would be appropriate through McClellan Ranch given its General Plan designation as a nature preserve and local serving park. The committee felt that a fully wide paved trail was not in line with the General Plan designation for McClellan Ranch; and felt that most of the ases woald best be served by something similar to an 8 foot wide trail with an unpaved/semi-paved decomposed granite with a binder which is a rural look. He said he was hopeful that a recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council something more in line of a rural trail which is more appropriate with the McClellan Ranch master plan and the General Plan relative to McClellan Ranch. Mr. David Greenstein submitted a petition for implementation of a trail in Study Area A. He said he was the chair for the Stevens Creek task force and also currently the chair for tile bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. He recommended approval of the mitigated negative declaration. He said the trail was consistent with the plan. Mr. Greenstein said he was honored to serve on the task force, and reported 850 people from the public were on the mailing list. He said it was a huge project and breaking it down to Study Area A and the other areas was logical. He said Study Area A made sense since it is transportation and there is an environmental and recreational component which is in the General Plan. He said the Community Congress was also very favorable. Although the General Plan is old, many of its contents are still true today, and the people want the same things. This trail is actually three different trails; a rural suburban connector which is Study Area A and the challenging hills and the neighborhood connector. There are three different aspects and they are disconnected because of the Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said in the planning stages the kinds of uses have to be considered, since there will be different types or' people wanting the challenging hills, and they will want to use it as a neighborhood connector and Planning Commission Minutes lo August 26, 2002 as a connector to get into Rancho San Antonio. From the bicycle and pedestrian transportation point of view, the transportation aspects are considered and there are transportation components in C and D and for the A study areas. Mr. Paul Koski, 22030 Regnart Road, said his family are avid outdoor users and he was pleased with the proposed trail plan, especially the aspects where bikes could coexist on trails with other uses in order to provide the connector for bicycling with children in safer areas. He said he endorsed the concept of having the bikes on the same trail as the other uses so that one group is not excluded. Mr. Eben Haber, 17450 Stevens Canyon Road, said the design for Study Area A was suitable, especially the equestrian aspects with the soft trail and the harder trail for the bicycles. He commented that the Stevens Creek trail going through Mountain View from downtown Mountain View all the way to the Bay, is a gem and while he felt that Cupertino could not manage to have something that follows the creek the same way, it was a good goal to strive for. He said he was in favor of the trail. Mr. Tim Summers, caretaker of the Hammond-Snyder House, explained that the purpose of the sewage lift station built for the Forum in Rancho San Antonio was to lift sewage up to street level. He said it experienced multiple failures over the years and has since had a generator installed to make sure the pumps don't fail. Relative to a parking lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard, he said there were multiple issues in the area of the road, namely criminal activity at night, minimal sheriff support in the area, and the speed of the trucks coming down the hill, resulting in a potentially fatal area at the end of the driveway. He said it was not feasible to make that particular area a crossroads because of the amount of truck traffic. He said the historical society looks forward to having the different facets coming together. He added that the parking lot would be a 100 space parking lot within five years; the park has been given a large amount of land on the other side of the cemetery to add more parking. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Chen said she supported the trail, and was pleased that the project was moving forward. Issues of concern include the safety issue in crossing Stevens Creek, which is relevant to the future construction of the trail and the issue of the maintenance and safety of the trail. She questioned whether the design of the trail was inconsistent with the McClellan Park master plan, and if so, why it did not surface during the many public meetings held. If the issue did surface, how was it addressed? Ms. Sokale explained that the McClellan Ranch master plan was reviewed and it does support the Stevens Creek trail through the park which is in Area C. She pointed out that the viewpoints differed as to the definition ora trail within McClellan Ranch and at the time trails were proposed, several routes were taken back to the McClellan Ranch task force and they supported a paved trail; and the task force therefore recommended a hard surface multi use trail in the area. She said the recommendation was not supported by all the public. When the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed it, they recommended a multi use trail with a 4:0:1 vote with a caveat stating that there is no paving on the trail but that it would be made out of some type of a hard surface that would support bicycling, strollers and walking. She said the multi use trail with some type of binder will go forward to the City Council. She noted that everything in Areas B, C and D is still open for design comment. Ms. Sokale showed photos of trail surface options. She said Planning Commission Minutes II August 26, 2002 ultimately the surface of the trail and the width of the trail needs to be dictated by the intensity of the use and the types of use. In response to Com. Auerbach's request for clarification on what is meant by feasibility, Ms. Sokale said that when the feasibility report began, they were given the objective of evaluating whether a multi use trail was feasible along Stevens Creek corridor on property owned by the city of Cupertino or under the development approval of the city of Cupertino as well as the county parklands. In areas where it was determined that a trail would not be feasible, they were asked to evaluate on-street connections to make an interconnected system for people to walk, bike and ride horses to. That is the reason the closed quarry site was looked at because it will be trader the city's development approval in the future if the project comes forward; and is also why they looked at the land between Linda Vista to Stevens Creek Boulevard which is mostly held by the city. Another piece in Area C, the Hall Road, is also owned by the owner of the closed quarry. Ms. Sokale said that when a variety of guidelines were applied, the Stevens Creek trail is a subregional route, there are three types of routes identified by the Santa Clara County; there are regional routes which cross county borders; subregional routes that provide connections through cities and between major parks, and connector routes that feed into those systems. The county has guidelines for what a subregional trail route is; and the county also suggests that routes shonld be developed consistent with intensity of use and type of use. She said the idea was to evaluate based on a subregional trail route, the highest level of potential use that you could have at the site. Ms. Sokole summarized the changes to the document. She said that the draft feasibility report is the document out in the public, which covers the four study areas. Since its release in May, comments have been accepted through the task forces; they have reviewed it and made recommendations and changes; Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed it, made recommendations and changes; in addition the environmental document is out and comments are still being accepted from the public. As soon as all the comments are completed, a pre print final draft will be released and the excerpt in the staff report is of Study Area D and some of the changes that have been incorporated. The pre print will go forward to the County Board of Supervisors as well as to the City Council and will be revised once more. Relative to Study Area D, the plan has changed so that the elements in Study Area D that are feasible are listed under trail alignment; those areas where the limit was pushed of feasibility but were rejected by the task tbrce and the Parks and Recreation Commission have been put in the rejected alternatives as were other elements, i.e., the west bank, a bridge crossing over to one of the other neighborhoods and the more definitive engineered trail solution proposed as were others in the area of the entrance to Blackberry Farm, have been moved to the rejected alternative section. Some other minor changes were made that were also comments made by the task force and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Com. Auerbach commented on audience remarks. He said he agreed with Ms. Jamison's comments regarding funding and said he would like to see the environmental assessment mitigations for funding of those be converted from "shoulc?' to "shall". He also agreed that Study A was a good plan, but it is not Stevens Creek trail. Relative to the comment that the area was a watershed, he noted that all areas are essentially watersheds, they just have to be defined. Safety is a concern, although people Will still cross at the shortest distance. He said the type of trail that goes into an individual area is dependent on its use. Com. Saadati said he supported the negative declaration for Study Area A; and said that the users should be encouraged to walk or bike to the area rather than drive cars, and providing bike racks would help to encourage people to do so. He agreed that the safety issues relative to crossing Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 26, 2002 Stevens Creek needed to be addressed and suggested the use of signage. Com. Saadati said that the McClellan Ranch master plan design also needed to be looked at further because of the inconsistencies with the General Plan. Com. Wong thanked the Parks and Recreation Department, consultants aud community participating and providing input in the decision making. He said relative to the Stevens Creek Study Area being consistent with the General Plan, the Cupertino General Plan has two policies~ Policy 5 49! 5-41 calling for continuous open space, and 5-42 stating that open space and trails linkages with particular maps shown already saying that they should have these trails. What is lacking is the interpretation of a trail, which is the purpose of the committee to work it out with the public. He said that he felt there could be consistency with having the horses, bicycles and pedestrians together. He expressed concern about the McClellan Park master plan as well as Blackberry Farm. Once a master plan is seen for Blackberry Farm, there will be more options open. He said he supported the trail for Study Area A, and the negative declaration, but that more input was needed for Study Areas B, C and D. Chair Corr said that he had a number of concerns with Study Areas B, C and D, but finds that the notion of the trail system in Study Area A is consistent with the General Plan. He said he felt the maintenance issue was important, and in looking at areas B, C and D as well as A because of the unresolved railroad issues or access issues, without abundant funds, it will not get solved or built easily. Chair Corr said he supported the mitigated negative declaration and find it is consistent with the General Plan. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Ccrr Wong moved approval of Application EA-2002-07 Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Chen moved approval of Application CP-2002-03 Com. Saadati Com. Auerbach Passed 4-1-0 Com. Auerbach explained that he agreed with Mr. Levy that it was a good idea, but not well enough documented. He added that he was hesitant to vote in favor of a feasibility study that has a lot of extraneous detail and looks too much like a bonafide plan document. He said he wished the effort had been different and detailed the reasons things should have been improved to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Department staff and hoped that future eftbrts would yield better results. Chair Corr discussed the possibility of a minute order responsive to discussion that occurred from several planning commissioners to staff independently. Com. Saadati had no comment. Mr. Piasecki said the purpose of the minute order was to send a qualified ~nessage and communicate more detailed issues and concerns voiced from various commissioners. Com. Wong said he felt the proposed boardwalk would be too costly for the short portion and did not seem practical. He added that the trail alignment between McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm between the property from the Santa Clara Valley Water District is too far away from the Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 2& 2002 creek, and would be more ideal if it was closer to the creek. He said he would like to see the Blackberry Farm master plan administered in a better way with more public input and have knowledge of a more complete history of the committee. He said he felt the residents t¥om Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch were not well represented. Coin. Wong said the interpretation of a trail should be brought forward to the City Council. He noted for the record his concern regarding north of 280, that the creek continues north of highway 280 at Homestead Road and on one side is private homes and the other side is townhomes and a planned unit development, and since there are no parks in north Cupertino, perhaps there could be a short trail; and discuss in the General Plan. Com. Chen concurred with issues discussed, specifically the maintenance funding issue which needs to be addressed and the wording revised. She also said the definition of trails needed to be addressed and McClellan Ranch to be developed not too much into a contemporary park area, but preserved as much as possible and that everything done in the area complies with the master plan. As stated earlier, the safety issues need to be addressed with options such as fencing, to ensure the safety of the crossing of Stevens Creek. She said she did not feel the tunnel was appropriate and she would like to see other alternatives proposed. Com. Auerbach said that the minute order follows points raised earlier, and is an addendum to actions to say that although the mitigated negative declaration and resolution are approved, there are other concerns and it should not go forward. Com. Auerbach read into the record the contents of the proposed Model Resolution (Minute Order) from Pages 1-6 and I-7 of the staff report. Com. Wong added the following to the proposed Minute Order: "The Boardwalk may be too costly and should be reconsidered; trail alignment between McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm is not close enough to the creek and should be closer to the creek; Blackberry Farm master plan needs to be addressed and modified accordingly for more opportunities for trail alignment; interpretation of trails to be defined, and also width and material of the use; and the feasibility of having a trail at Stevens Creek north of 280 at Homestead Road." Com. Auerbach proposed alternative language for No. 3: "That the specificity of the language should be improved with careful attention to the meanings of such words as trail, urban trail, open space and preserve, and especially to any changes in their meaning or usage over time." Coin. Wong requested a copy of Measure T and a copy of the McClellan Ranch Plan. Mr. Piasecki commented on Com. Wong's suggestion relating to the segment of potential trail north of 280. He said the charge before the Planning Commission was the focus on two things and the feasibility study. He said that it was not appropriate to bring it up in conjunction with the General Plan with the present trail issue, since it may add confusion rather than help things. Com. Wong withdrew his suggestion relative to the potential trail north of 280. Chair Corr suggested that relative to Item 8, the wording "the recreational value lo the resMents (?/'Cupertino .... "should read "may be of greater value" MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of the Minute Order regarding Application CP-2002-02 and EA-2002-07 with the change to Item 3; the change to Item 8 wording; with the addition of Com. Wong's statements on the boardwalk, on the alignment between McClellan and Blackberry Farm; and on the inclusiveness of participants in Blackberry Farm master planning. Planning Commission Minutes 14 August 26, 2002 SECOND: Com. Wong VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Corr declared a short recess at 10:10 p.m. The agenda was moved to Item 4. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2001-04, EA-2002-10 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.84 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and other sections of the code, if needed, related to changes to Second Dwelling Unit regulations. Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the proposed amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code related to changes to Secoud Dwelling Unit regulations, as outlined in the staff report. She said the proposed changes to the ordinance would change the maximum size of the dwelling unit as a second dwelling unit. Ms. Gil reviewed the suggested amendments to the ordinance at outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application to the City Council, and request that the City Council grant a negative declaration. Ms. Gil answered commissioners' questions relative to parking, screening of the second dwelling unit, code enforcement for illegal second dwelling units, and accessory structures. Relative to R1 zoning for single family homes, Com. Wong asked if the second dwelling would be included or not in the percentage ratio. Ms. Gil said it would depend on the zone, but in the RI zone, the maximum is 35% for a two story home and 45% for a single story. Com. Woug asked if the second dwelling unit was added, would that be included in the 40%; Ms. Gil said that all accessory structures count toward that. He questioned the intent of the second dwelling unit, whether it be for extended family or in-law quarters. Ms. Gil said the intent is to provide additional affordable units, either small rental units possibly to reut out to a college student, or it could provide in-law quarters as well. She said the requirement that the properly owner live iu one of the units was removed from the ordinance. Com. Wong said that he brought a concern to Ms. Wordell about San Francisco having a lot of illegal in-law units which caused more parking problems, especially in the Sunset District. He asked staff if they perceived a problem in Cupertino regarding the parking and the tranquillity of the neighborhoods. Ms. Gil said she did not foresee a problem, and had not received any complaint about parking problems in neighborhoods with a lot of second dwelling units. Com. Wong noted that the California Government Code states that it can be applied to both single family units and multi family traits use, and questioned how it would apply for a duplex if there is room on the parcel to have a third unit. Ms. Gil said that presently they only allow them in the R1-RHS, A1 and A zones. Com. Saadati asked for clarification on the statement that all access to the second unit must be screened; does that mean it should be in the back, or should it be covered? Ms. Gil said that it could be screened either by landscaping or access could be at the rear of the home so that it is not seen from the street. Relative to parking, Ms. Gil said that in the R1 neighborhood, you must have a two car garage, two covered spaces, as well as two open spaces which is usually the garage and the two driveway spaces. In the current ordinance, with a second dwelling unit, you would have to have an additional off street parking space. With the proposed amendments, you wonld not need to have that additional space; if you are not meeting that requirement, then of course you would have to have an additional space, but you would only add one space. Planning Commission Minutes 15 August 26, 2002 Com. Chen referred to a portion of Page A2 regarding the illegal second dwelling unit and noted it appeared to provide a process to legalize the second dwelling units. She questioned if they were specifically addressing a situation, or merely providing a process to whoever might decide to come forward and already have a second dwelling unit, but without a permit on their site. Ms. Gil said it has allowed a process for non-conforming or illegal second dwelling units to apply to the City of Cupertino through a conditional use permit which is a more expensive process and longer process. The proposal is to not have a conditional use permit, but that it go to the DRC which would is less expensive and easier. There always has been this area in the ordinance that wonld allow for those units to apply for that. She said she was not aware of a great many existing illegal units. Coin. Chen questioned what authority they had to enforce compliance if they did find out if there was all illegal second dwelling unit. Ms. Gil said that if there is a unit, often conversion of garages into rooms, the property owner a letter by the city when the complaint is received, citing the section of the code that they are violating. The homeowner in most cases will make tile repairs at that time and staff visits the home and makes sure they have reconverted the area back to its original state. If they do not do that, it is sent to code enforcement who can issue a citation and it could go to court. Com. Auerbach questioned lot coverage; if a detached second dwelling unit if built, where does the lot coverage and setbacks for the second unit come from? Ms. Gil said they are covered tbr a detached structure, it is part of the accessory structure ordinance, so they would conform to the setbacks in the accessory structure ordinance; if it is attached, it belongs in the RI ordinance with the setbacks. Regardless if it is detached or attached, the FAR is covered in the RI ordinance or whatever zoning district that the home is in. Ms. Gil said that on the larger lots, a larger second dwelling unit could be accommodated and would be reasonable; and on the smaller lots the 640 square feet was adequate. Mr. Piasecki said that it was set at 800 square feet envisioning that on some of the larger lots, there may be a two bedroom unit which could be accommodated because of its size. For the smaller lots, it is restricted to 640 square feet so that they don't become larger and have larger family sizes with them. Chair Corr questioned the issue of screening from the street, and asked what they were trying to prevent, and questioned if a door could not just exit onto a public street? Ms. Gil said tile object was to have it look like a regular single family neighborhood, with one home facing the street and having a presence on the street. The door could be screened with landscaping, which probably isn't tile safest route, but generally what people have done is have the entrance to tile second dwelling unit to the rear of the home so its not seen from the public street or even on the side. Com. Auerbach questioned if the applicant simply put the door to the secondary dwelling oil a wall perpendicular to the street in general, would it be sufficient without any other screening? Ms. Gil said that it would depend on how visible the door is. Mr. Piasecki said that part of the intent is to avoid altering the character of single family neighborhoods, yet still allow the particular use. Com. Wong asked if others felt that on illegal units, when the owner comes forward, should they be charged a nominal charge such as $250 or $500; or recommend comiug forward to them and Planning Commission Minutes 16 August 26, 2002 get it properly zoned and checked properly, because they did something they are not supposed to do. Ms. Gil said they do pay a fee for the DRC application. She said she would prefer to handle it by attempting to get the unit legalized, since some homeowners purchase the home with the unit already part of the home. Mr. Piasecki said they do not want to appear as judge and.jury, applying a fine for an action where all the circumstances are not known, and the main object is getting them organized and designed well. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application EA-2002-l0 Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application MCA-2001-04 Com. Saadati Passed 5-0-0 Com. Wong commended the concept for extended families. Com. Auerbach said that the strategy is recommended to relieve some of the housing burden to provide Iow cost housing, and also recommended by the AARP as a way for retired homeowners to generate additional income or move into a second unit and remain in the neighborhood. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the meeting included discussion of the trail application. Housing Committee: Com. Chen reported that the below market rate housing program and program manual was discussed. Mayor's Breakfast: None held since last Planning Commission meeting; next schednled Mayor's breakfast is September 9th. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki highlighted the first of the annual reports; and reminded the commissioners of the Hewlett Packard Study Session with the City Council on September 9th; Sports Center Study Session on September 3rd; and Town Center Master Plan joint study session with City Council on September 16"' and the study session for the downtown village plan on September 23'd. He said a construction summary was also included. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Mr. Piasecki noted the article on housing issues. OTHER: The receipt of two letters from residents relative to story poles was briefly discussed.