PC 11-13-00CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2000
SALUTE TO TI-W~ FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Staff present:
Corr. Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris
Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City
Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic
Engineer; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City
Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting:
MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve the October 23, 2000 minutes as
presented
SECOND: Com. Corr
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
5. Application Nos.: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise.
Request continuance to meeting of December 1 I, 2000
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to postpone Application Nos. 04-SP-00 and 14-EA-00
to the December 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
Planning Commission M/nutes 2 November
CONSENT CALENDAR
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
02-U-72(M)
Northpoint Homeowners Association
10880 Northpoint Way
Removal and replacement of 26 trees at an existing planned residential development.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Chair Harris requested that the application be removed from the Consent Calendar for a brief
discussion.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that the inquiry was related to whether or not a tree or
shrub should replace the tree being removed. The arborist recommended that since the area was
very small, either a small tree or pitispomm shrub should be planted in the area.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
C om. Corr moved to approve Application No. 02-U-72(M) of the
Consent Calendar, to include the planting of the tree
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
06-Z-00
Dennis Wang
21103 Lavina Court
Pre-zoning of a .26 acre parcel to Pre-RI-10
Tentative City Council Date: December 4, 2000
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell briefly reviewed the application for pre-zoning of the existing single-
family residential property to Pre-R1-10.
Chair Harris opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to speak on the.
application, Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application No. 06-Z-00
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
15-U-00, 11-EXC-00, 21-EA-00
Peter Ko (Evershine)
19620-19770 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Use permit to demolish a 9,464 square foot restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to the Orchard
Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one story retail building at the comer of Portal Avenue
and Stevens Creek Blvd. and a new two story retail/office building at the comer of Perimeter Road
and Stevens Creek Blvd. and other minor site and architectural changes.
Planning Commission Minutes ~ November 1~, ~00/)
Exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to exceed the
maximum height of 36 feet.
Tentative City Council Date: December 4, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish
an existing restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to the marketplace, including a one story retail
building and a new two story retail/office building, as well as other minor site and architectural
changes.
Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the
attached staff report.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis, Vacant Restaurant
Traffic Impact Trip Distribution, and Daily Traffic Volumes relative to the proposed application
and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He said that the development would generate
2,500 daily trips; with anticipated 87 a.m. peak hour trips and 237 p.m. peak hour trips. Relative
to mitigation measures, he said the application proposed to put at the perimeter at Stevens Creek,
the northbound driveway access, and a third lane would be dedicated to a right turnout from north
to east. At the same time they would include appropriate signage and striping in the parking lot to
provide safe movement of the cars. Staff concludes that there will be no significant traffic or
parking impacts.
Mr. David Deodori, Multi Trans, reported that the results of the traffic studies indicated that the
project would not have a significant major impact on the adjacent roadway and the majority of
intersections evaluated would have the same level of service as the background conditions;
therefore the project would not change the level of service of traffic operation on the study
intersection. Also traffic operations were evaluated on Stevens Creek and the operations on
Stevens Creek would not change substantially and there would not be a significant impact.
Mr. Gilli discussed the height exception and building orientation exception, and noted that staff
recommended approval of the Heart of the City exception. He said the unresolved issues included
the pedestrian pathways and the bus duckout and were outlined in the staff report. The onsite
circulation issue was addressed and is not included in the staff report. He then reviewed the traffic
pattern for the center and staWs suggested changes for the minor landscaping changes in the
parking lot. Mr. Gilli noted that a modified resolution for Application 15-U-00 included
architectural and site changes to Condition 3, and what will be done at the design review stage.
He reviewed the architectural design of the center, and noted that staff recommended that the
applicant redesign some elements, resulting in a design which was more sensitive to the building
and has less visual bulk.
Mr. Gilli addressed the two exceptions. The first one, height; the wall or eave line of the tower is
at 34 feet which is under the 36 maximum height requirements; the roof element goes up to 44
feet, 2 inches, which is under the 45 foot height limit. Height over 36 feet requires an exception
and Planning Commission approval. Staff believes that the architectural element, because it is a
roof feature, will not have as much bulk as if it were a continuation of the wall. Staff also believes
that the roof element helps the design and the balance ofthetwo story structure. Staff supports the
height exception. Mr. Gilli said the Heart of the City exception requires buildings to front and
provide entrances facing the street. The area will also be used for outdoor dining, with activity in
Planning Comm/ssion M/nutes 4 November 13, 2DDO
the area. Mr. Gilli said that the architect and applicant had done a excellent job in making it
appear to be an active front-like elevation.
A discussion ensued regarding landscaping and the possible relocation of oak trees, wherein Mr.
Gilli answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He noted that a condition could be added
relating to the relocation of the oak trees. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration;
approval of the use permit based on the new model ordinance; and approval of the exception and
request to provide direction to staff and the applicant for the architectural site approval.
Mr. Wayne Okudo, Evershine Group, said they had worked on the redevelopment of the center for
many years and had worked with city staff on acceptable changes. Relative to elevations, he said
they incorporated a more walkway-conducive area. He said they were working to bring
everything together as quickly as possible, and have been working with tenants for the center.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, stated that the applicant designed the
center to the existing center and is compatible with the existing center, which played a part in how
much to emphasize a different element that does not show up in the existing center.
Mr. Okudo said that he had worked with the architect on the first story of the two story building
relative to extending the roof across, which could possibly be accomplished, and working some
signage underneath the building, similar to what is currently in the center now. Relative to the
lighting, he said that they tried to create even lighting to prevent liability issues pertaining to the
dark spots; and is looking at redoing the lighting in the entire center.
Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Tony Holland, 10318 Cold Harbor Avenue, expressed concern about the cumulative traffic
impact associated with the various projects in the area. He said the peoplewill bypass the main
roads such as Miller and Blaney and blend into the residential areas. He said he felt the analysis
about traffic patterns was incorrect and questioned whether there would be more time to study it
further. He also asked if there were ways to mitigate traffic going through the Vicksburg/Cold
Harbor area to protect the residents from the traffic cutting through.
Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, questioned the traffic study done on Blaney at the request
of Councilmember Lowenthal. He said a traffic study was done, yet the people doing the study do
not believe it is correct and will be redoing it. He questioned that if it was a requirement that had
not been fulfilled, why was the project proceeding.
Mr. Piasecki said that a resident had requested of City Council that a baseline study be conducted.
He said it was accomplished and the numbers were quite high; and if they were the real numbers
they would be the baseline, which is why they are assuming in terms of the development for now.
Relative to the request made, the purpose of the baseline was that they coulddoublecheck later on
with the progress to see if corrective measures need to be taken. It is not necessarily that the
project should or should not proceed, but that there be a baseline established for the future.
Mr. Bierman said that when the shopping center was put in, and with major requests in the past,
the original requirements on what could be built was determined by trip-ins, which is a term he
had not heard at this evening's meeting. He questioned if it was still a requirement, how could the
square footage be quadrupled and not affect the trip-ins if it is still existing.
Plann/ng Coman/sslon M/nutes g November
Ms, Wordell reported that trip-ins were deleted as part of the General Plan in 1993 and now the
trip allocations and level of service are considered, drawing down from allocations for retail and
office and housing, The traffic study is done at the time of the project to ascertain if certain
intersections are affected and in what way. She said the way development has occurred has
changed since the trip-ins were proposed.
Mr. Bierman asked that relative to environmental determination, the Planning Commission and
staff put themselves in thc place of the people affected the most for projects such as this, noting
that the people living in Portal Plaza and those who live on thc north side of Bixby are impacted
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Hc addressed parking briefly, noting that they wanted to add
parking, and there was not adequate parking permitted on South Portal. Hc said that there was a
dead area behind the center; when the project was initially built, thc gates were put in, and one of
thc requirements was for a pedestrian access gate at thc east end of thc dead area which was to bc
locked 24 hours per day and used for emergencies only. He said the gate has remained unlocked
and everyone uses the gate and ends up in his back yard. He said hc and some neighbors have
been victims of burglaries, and when they approached thc City Council they were laughed at. Mr.
Bicrman said that thc only good thing about Portal Plaza was thc traffic chokers. When they were
built it was required that they be put there and be landscaped and the trees had to be on the middle
of each side and be well landscaped and maintained. He said over the years, the landscape
maintenance at the center has bccn atrocious, and would like the issue addressed and something
done to improve the situation.
Chair Hams pointed out relative to the environmental issue, that it is required by the state that
every project be reviewed for about 100 different items, with a check sheet. Meetings occur with
the Community Development staff, mayor and community members. She questioned if some of
the issues raised by speakers could be taken care of. Mr. Gilli said he would work with the
applicant on the locked gate issue. He said that some of Mr. Bierman's comments were reflected
in the modified model resolution, one of which is in Condition 3, second page, a bullet that spells
out that maintenance of onsite and right-of-way landscaping is the responsibility of the property
owner. If not done, it is a code enforcement violation; staff will keep an eye on this area if this
continues to be a problem. Mr. Piasecki said it was also added that staff recommended installing a
neighborhood sign identifying the neighborhood which is a different process than what has been
done in the past. Mr. Gilli said that the fire department was not concerned about access to the rear
with the proposed parking; relative to loading, there is a proposal to eliminate one loading bay and
replace with parking; circulation-wise, it does not appear that the loading trucks will be inhibited;
and the parking location is not expected to be used very often.
Ms. Deborah Jones, 19801 Portal Plaza, said that the noise level was intolerable from cars and
trucks entering and leaving the plaza, there was unsafe pedestrian crossing to the plaza, the traffic
would have an unsafe impact on the children's park at Wilson's park; the plaza this summer had
music playing all night, and street sweepers and leaf blowers in the plaza at night. She said she
was opposed to any further development in the plaza, especially the one story unit across the road
from the townhouses. She also expressed opposition to the single story because it is so close to
the residential units, with very little space between the unit; parking is a problem on the street and
overflow traffic is going to come into Portal Plaza.
Planning Cornrrdssion M'~nutes ~ ~ovember 1 }, ;~000
Chair Harris said that there was a noise ordinance regulating noise levels in Cupertino, and said
that if there is a specific issue with noise, to contact the Planning Department and they will send a
code enforcement officer.
Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, expressed concern about the traffic impacts as many of
the patrons of the development use Price Avenue and Portal to avoid Stevens Creek as has been
eluded to before. He said the development would add more traffic to the nearby residential streets.
To mitigate the impact, he suggested that the traffic entrance be changed to a pedestrian only
entrance and a raised pedestrian walkway be put in on Portal to try and slow traffic down and
facilitate a more pedestrian friendly environment. It might also result in less people cutting
through Portal and into Longs Drags and use Stevens Creek as it was intended as an entranceway
to the development. Mr. Monk addressed the chokers on Portal, which were intended to divide the
commercial area from the residential area. He asked for a commitment from the development that
they would make it work this time and not just be lip service. Lastly, he said an application on the
property to reconfigure, change some trees, came before the Planning Commission and City
Council three years ago; it now looks suspiciously like a precursor to this request which raises the
question what next? Rather than an incremental approval of things which cannot be argued
strongly against, he requested some comprehensive vision of where the development is going over
the next 5 or 10 years, so we can understand the context of this request. Mr. Monk expressed
concern about the proposal to replace the restaurant building with a higher square footage
building. Mr. Gilli clarified that the site was underdeveloped according to Cupertino's FAR
standards for retail, and said that the proposal would fully utilize the FAR set forth for the center.
Chair Harris closed the public heating.
Com. Corr said that a mid block crosswalk in the area would not be very safe. Mr. Chong
concurred that it would not be a safe practice to have a mid-block crosswalk.
Chair Harris commended staff on their excellent efforts detailing the issues and providing
guidance to expected actions when presenting the complicated issue, in a very thorough and clear
fashion. She summarized the issues: Development Approval, Item 2 in Condition 3 to add the
words from the city's retail pool so that it is clear that the allocation of 25,618 is from the pool.
She said they were not mandating that amount of retail space at the center since they may be using
some of that for office based on the 25% allowance. The consensus to relocate some of the oak
trees would appear as a bullet in the Landscaping section in the referral to the Design Review
Committee. She said that the two story tower element and height exception had to be addressed.
Com. Doyle said he felt the need for a long term plan for the Price/Portal cutoffs, because of the
creation of a flow around process. He stressed the need for independent action because of the
traffic on the street, and the first numbers on traffic counts are not correct for that area. He
questioned whether they should go back and rebalance the intersections based upon those loads to
see the true service level. He said they also needed an answer for the Wolfe Road issue. He said
that the first floor should be addressed, whether or not the way they were breaking it up or the
design element was sufficient; it reflects the existing development, and perhaps that development
needs to be updated. He questioned whether there was a solution to the overall problem with the
sewer line.
Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, reported that Cupertino Sanitary District was taking care of
the additional impact on the sewer line, and are working on finishing up the study to present to
Plannhag Cormuission Minutes ? November 13, 2000
their board with recommendations for upgrades on Wolfe Road. Mr. Gilli said that Condition 11
in the conditions addresses the issue, and the applicant would likely have to contribute to the study
and any improvements needed.
Com. Corr said that relative to goals, the report refers to development intensity and commercial
development being limited to 25% office space in a commercial development; and in looking
forward at more mixed use situations, is it fight or does it have to be adjusted. Also, parking
regulations for mixed use because they are different from commercial and typical residential.
Com. Stevens said he wanted specifics on the relocation of the trees, such as where and when they
will be relocated because of the problems encountered in the first go around. He also recalled the
palm tree lined entrance to the Victorian house which was a historical point, although he was not
certain it was a condition of approval. Com. Stevens said that he felt the two new buildings as
proposed were too close to Stevens Creek and should be set further back, with a parking lot in
front of both buildings, allowing restaurant patrons to park around it rather than just behind it. He
said he was opposed to the trash enclosures in the middle of the parking lot and recommended
they be located elsewhere.
Below is a summary of the issues with Planning Commissioners' comments:
Issue Doyle Kwok Corr Stevens Harris
Tower element; Fine; similar at Agree with Appropriate Concur Opposed to
height exception apt in City Center Doyle Tower element;
Too massive;
Offset 2nd
Story
Building Ensure activity; More activity Appropriate; Ok, if it is Fine, if
orientation keep barriers low in front make certain Attractive "front"
exception there is activity looks like a
there front
Distinctive Stone veneer Add more More important Further Base element
difference at base features at it looks like the setbacks to Needed; put
element base remainder of Allow views On existing
center Into center
Portal element Improve More base Yes Fill in Yes,
More integrated integration into Functions improve; don't Smaller;
building leave open Better integrate
Building setbacks Opposed Would like See how it Further set- Meet Heart
more setbacks; works Backs to allow of the City
more uniform on Portal views into ctr
Location of trash Opposed Opposed Fine, away Opposed Opposed; put
enclosure from neighbors Adjacent to bldgs
Traffic patterns Ok as Ok with Agree with Problematic; Ok as
Behind two story Revised Revision Stevens goes w/addtl Revised
Section setback
Control Pathway Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
Planning Commission Minutes g November 13, 2000
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to approve Application 21-EA-00
Com. Stevens
Passed 5 -0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to approve Application 1 !-EXC-00
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to adopt all of the conditions outlined and modified in
the revised model resolution; and once the Design Review Committee has
reviewed everything, it be brought back to the Planning Commission for
approval (includes modifications to Page 2, No. 2, Development
Approval, that it is from the City's retail pool; No. 3., Architectural and
Site Approval, that the following design issues shall be addressed by the
Design Review Committee and the final design approved by the Planning
Commission; No. 28, Landscaping, that the existing oaks be relocated
and there be a timeline and locations as a definite plan
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Hams announced that because of the time constraints, Items 6 and 8 would be continued.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
01-EXC-00, 03-EA-00
Chung Yeh
11837 Upland Way
Hillside exception to build a 4,533 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes
greater than 30%.
Continued from meeting of October 23, 2000
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 01-EXC-00 and
03-EA-00 to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Kwok
Com. Corr
Passed 4-1-0
o
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
21-ASA-00
Pinn Brothers (Adobe Inn)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Appeal of architectural and site approval for design details of an approved 77-room hotel.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 21-ASA-00 to the November
27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Stevens
Com. Corr
Passed 4-1-0
Planning Commission Minutes 0 November 13, :2000
Chair Harris declared a recess from 10:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 7.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
02-TM-00, 22-EA-00
Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
7825 & 7851 Orion Lane
Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8 single family parcels with an average
lot size of 7,800 square feet in an R1-6 zoning district.
Tentative City Council Date: November 20, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a tentative map to
subdivide two parcels into 8 single family parcels in an RI-6 zoning district. A newcul de sac is
proposed for access by four of the new lots, with the remaining four lots having access on Orion
Lane. Each lot will have an average of 7,800 square feet. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval to the City Council.
Ms. Wordell referred to the tentative map and provided a brief review of the application, as
outlined in the staff report. She noted that retaining walls were proposed for Lots 1 through 4 to
help direct the drainage for those lots to Orion Lane; and a retaining wall along theeast side of the
property to help direct the drainage toward Wallin Court. A condition of approval stating that the
bubble box the Santa Clara Valley Water District is concerned about causing erosion will have to
be addressed to meet their needs. A number of oak trees in the Regnart Creek area and trees in the
subdivision area will be saved or relocated. One of the major elements of the subdivision is the
Regnart Creek area; it will be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and erosion
control measures will be enforced and approved by the water district. As noted in the staff report,
there is at least one property owner across the creek who is concerned that erosion control be
addressed on their property, which will occur through the water district review. There is also a
proposed trail which is also subject to water district approval. Staff recommends approval of the
application
Mr. Brian Kelly Jr., Kelly Gordon Development Co., reviewed the proposal to construct 8 single
family homes. He noted that the final proposal accommodated the desires of the Planning
Commission, and water district so that the water district could have access to the creek, and also
addressed the water district's concern that a number of the homes not back up to the creek. He
explained the proposed work to be done on the retrofit of the creek to stabilize the creek banks so
that the past problems will be solved and further erosion would not occur. He noted that meetings
have occurred with the water district, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish
and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers relative to the proposal and critical issues relative to
the creek.
Mr. Marv Kirkeby, Civil Engineer, explained the mitigation measures to be used relative to
drainage of Lots 7 and 8, including a taller retaining wall at the rear of the lots, which may be
objectionable; alternative of piping out the water from the back yards of Lots 7 and 8 to the
drainage system in the street; the street water does have two catch basins with a normaloutfall to
the creek; and Lots 7 and 8 would have to be connected to that system. He also reviewed the
utilization of retaining walls.
Planning ~omrn~ss~on Mlnutes 10 November I~, ~000
Mr. Barry Spieler, co-owner of a November Drive property, discussed erosion problems on the
property. He said he lost part of the back fence on the property and was hoping for a resolution to
repair the erosion in the back yard. He said he was not opposed to the project if their side of the
creek was stabilized and the portion of his property gets replaced so that the fence can be replaced.
He said he spoke to Ms. Tippets at the water district and the plans were not acceptable to the water
district for stabilizing the north side.
Ms. Wordell reported that the water district had seen some preliminary plans and the applicant is
aware that he has to submit approved plans; Ms. Tippets from the water district assured her that
the repairs would be made on both sides of the creek and it will be part of the plans that they will
require of the developer and will approve and oversee the construction of.
Mrs. Jennifer Blalack, 1081 Milky Way, said that she would be impacted by the proposed project,
and noted that she did not receive notification from the developers. She said that reference to
"some" oak trees was nebulous and questioned whether it was the appropriate time in the process
to specifically address which oak trees. Ms. Wordell indicated that the oak trees to be saved or
relocated were shown on the tentative map, and a condition of approval indicates that all specimen
oak trees will be retained.
Mr. Russell Blalack, 1081 Milky Way, said since the project did not have neighborhood input, he
went out to the neighborhood to canvas for input. Of the 12 residents he talked to, none of them
were in favor of the project. He said that a loss of the orchard would be felt, because of the
wildlife, deer, birds and plant life that frequent the area. He suggested that a small memorial
orchard remain and seven units be constructed. Placement of the access road was also brought up
by the neighbors, since many of the neighbors' homes had bedrooms in the front of the homes.
He illustrated proposed drawings with suggested alternate plans for the placement of the homes.
He said he felt the traffic impacts had not been considered, nor the impact on the neighbors and
polling of the neighbors who are actually in the path of the proposed project. He reiterated that
part of the land should be left as a memorial orchard. He said that the existingrip rap has never
been planted with willows and suggested that it be made a condition, and to make dealings are
directly with the water district.
Mr. Paul March, 7842 and 7850 Orion Lane, said he concurred with the previous speaker and he
felt the best design would be to have the road along the church property, taking up less road. The
best layout would be to have the entrance road along the church, since the other side of the church
is the road for the Orion Place subdivision.
Ms. Janet Van Zoeren, Chairman of Milky Way Emergency Response Unit, said that she did not
receive notification of the meeting. She said she concurred with many of Russell Blalack's points.
She expressed concern with the road as Wallin Court comes into the cul de sac at the end of Orion
which is where Milky Way begins, and said that there may be a blind entrance of the people
coming in from Wallin Court and it could be a dangerous spot. She said she was pleased to hear
that attempts would be made to make the creek improvements as natural looking as possible and
would like to encourage making sure that they are that way. She said she would miss the orchard
and the wildlife and questioned their future. She expressed concern about the style of the homes
in the proposed project as they would be facing the existing homes. Ms. Van Zoeren questioned
where the trail started and ended; was it only a trail of this section of the creek on the Wallin
property, or did it connect to the railroad tracks and out to other areas; would people be coming in
Planning (~omrn~ss;on Minutes I1 November 13, 9000
the area to park on Wallin Road to gain access to the trail, and if Wallin Road would be wide
enough for parking on both sides which is not the case with the Orion Court put in.
Ms. Wordell said that the path would connect to Arroyo Grande through a small section of the
creek to the northeast section of the property; it would connect to a cul de sac, the concept being
more for local foot use.
Mr. Don Williamson, Milky Way, expressed concern about the traffic patterns and potential for
accidents with the addition of the new cul de sac. He said he was in favor of a plan that brought
the street in from below rather than up above, from a safety point. He said he hoped there was
some way to keep the deer in the area, and said he liked the concept of a memorial orchard.
Mr. Bob Hayes, 1093 November Drive, said he was not opposed to the project, but understood
some of the concerns expressed. He said he had not heard a specific answer whether the oak trees
along the creek would be preserved, not relocated. Ms. Wordell responded that all the oak trees
along the creek would remain where they were. He said the wildlife and deer seen in the area was
very diverse. He expressed concern with the erosion control in the area. Mr. Hayes said that at a
neighborhood meeting, a representative from the water district discussed what he considered
improvements to the creek, namely to cut the creek down at a 45 degree angle on each side,
cement each side of the creek and put a 12 foot easement on each side to drive the trucks back on
forth. He said he was opposed to that occurring and wanted to ensure that the creek would be
preserved and the wildlife and trees remained there.
Mr. Bruce Eckstein, 1091 November Drive, said the creek problems existed since 1995 and he
was concerned that the water district would not follow through, although they were acting on good
faith and he wanted to ensure follow through. He said he experienced the same problems in his
yard with a two foot strip and a 15 foot drop off as well as neighbors with limbs hanging out into
what used to be a dirt barrier. Mr. Eckstein said he wanted to be certain that the creek was
preserved.
Chair Harris pointed out that relative to the environmental impact report, there was no reference to
the loss of habitat for the deer, issues with erosion, or the potential loss of thecreeksite to two 12
foot wide concrete roadways. She expressed concern that the document was being approved that
may not be accurate. Ms. Wordell said that the erosion problems happened in the past and they
are now addressing the past problem. Relative to the retaining walls, those were fairly typical.
changes, as many subdivisions had two foot retaining walls that direct drainage to the storm drain
system and did not pose a significant impact. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the Planning Commission
in hearing testimony and information may arrive at different conclusions than the Environmental
Review Committee did with simply the applicant's proposal in front of them. He said it was
viewed in many ways as being positive, including the drainage issue because it was handled
minimally; starting with a three foot retaining wall at the north end of the property and lowered so
that the house would not be sitting on a high pad. The report did not address the loss of the area to
the deer and the wildlife; nor the mention of another road which was not part of the applicant's
proposal.
Mr. Kelly offered his apologies to the neighbors who did not get written notification, stating that
only neighbors in the surrounding homes within the radius received notices, although others were
close to the area. He said they were committed to fixing the creek erosion problem, had already
hired hydrologists, geologists and civil engineers and had been working with them for the past 7
Plannhag Comm;ss~on Mhutes 12 November 13, ~000
months. He estimated that the cost of several hundred thousand dollars would go into the creek
repair, and when completed, the erosion problems would not exist. He said they had met with the
agencies and once the work is done, they will be accepting the creek and there will be no concrete
barriers; it will be an all natural rip rap rock fix with plantings. Mr. Kelly said they were also
looking at options relative to the road issue and had not reached a compromise yet on the roads.
Chair Harris questioned if the applicant was willing to meet with the community.
Mr. Brian Kelly, Sr., Kelly Gordon Development Co., said he heard the comments from the people
on Milky way who are close but not contiguous to the property, and the comments made relative
to traffic and other issues. He said in his opinion getting further input from the community would
not make any dramatic change to the plan submitted, as many alternatives had already been
considered and they are addressing the major problems. He explained that the creek situation is a
major expense, and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the preliminary plans to
correct the flow of the creek and to put these fixes in the six primary areas where erosion from E1
Nino has taken place. He said it was not a small undertaking on their part; and that it was a
condition of approval; and they were aware that the water district wants direct access to the creek
and does not want the homes to back up to the creek because of potential future liability. Mr.
Kelly said they met with the water district, the Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Game on the site
and at the water district offices with preliminary conceptual plans. They have received direction
on the water district requirements relative to rip rap, where it should be located, how high it should
be; where the willow trees should be planted, and the hydrologists and engineers are in the process
of finalizing those plans for submittal to the water district. Extensive studies have been done and
the water district knows the essence of the concept, plans have to be finalized for the issuance of
the permit. The work will not be done until the spring or early summer because of the winter
water situations.
Ms. Wordell suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition related to creek restoration;
since the water district is going to require the restoration as part of accepting dedication. The
condition could state that creek restoration on both sides of the creek shall be submitted to and
approved by the water district prior to recordation of the final map, since similar wording is for the
walkway and the trail.
Mr. Kelly said he was agreeable to the condition as it would allow them to go ahead with their
work on the creek and the improvement plans as well as the final map, and have them all come to
fruition at the same time.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Chair Harris summarized the issues: editing the EIR, the creek plan, the retaining wall material,
setting it up so it does not impact the adjacent properties; traffic; and creek restoration plan. Com.
Corr said he was disappointed that Mr. Kelly did not want to meet with the community members
again who were concerned about the creek. The intent would not to go back to the beginning, but
to share information with the community with the hope that more would be supportive of the
project, since most were not opposed to the project, only some nuances of it.
Com. Kwok said that he concurred with Com. Corr, and that most of the major concern was with
the environmental issues; how to address the creek in terms of restoration, rip rap, and to address
the erosion portion of it. He said if the issue was addressed, it would provide benefits to the
Planning Commission Minutes ! ~ November ! 3, 2000
people to the north of the creek such as the people along November Drive. Relative to the
engineering aspect, he said he felt if the applicant worked closely with the Corps of Engineers, the
flood control people with a satisfactory plan to those people, he was content with how the erosion
issue was being addressed, and all the other measures concerned to protect the creek and also
improve the drainage. Com. Kwok said he felt the traffic issue needed to be addressed by the
applicant meeting with the neighbors, since adding 8 units would create traffic. He said if he was
going to support the project, he would make it a condition that the applicant meet with the
neighbors and address the concern about the traffic and perhaps come up with some compromise
measures to take care of some of the traffic situations such as improving the road along Orion or
Milky Way that would provide a win-win situation. He said the residents have been fortunate in
the past years to enjoy the luxury of having an orchard there with wildlife, but with development,
the orchards may have to go. It is important to work out something with the neighborhood and
address the engineering portion with the flood control district.
Com. Corr remarked that while the concept of the memorial orchard is a good one, who would
take care of it; and by having as much of the creekside open as possible, it does allow a place for
the deer and the animals and for people to enjoy the creek as opposed to walling it up behind
houses.
Com. Stevens said that it was stated that within a month they would be presenting a plan to the
water district, which would solidify what is being accepted. He said a vacuum exists in that the
applicant did not contact all the residents who may be impacted and many people have been
misinformed. He agreed that the concept of a memorial orchard was a good one, but not practical;
perhaps a memorial walkway would be more practical. No matter what is chosen, there will be a
traffic impact, which cannot be avoided. Com. Stevens said that he favored continuing the
application for the presentation to the water district and to allow time for a public meeting. The
applicant was encouraged to meet with the public and the water district.
Chair Hams suggested a 30 day continuance to allow time for a community meeting and the
applicant to complete their creek plan to submit it to the water district, to have a more complete
project to present to the Planning Commission, decide what the retaining wall material should be
and the configuration; report on the community meeting; and perhaps ameliorate some of the
negative feelings and put some of the fears to rest. A continuation would also allow staff to write
the language about the creek restoration, and work on amending the EIR based on the further
information received at tonight's meeting.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 02-TM-00 to the December 1 I, 2000
Planning Commission meeting
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
9. Consideration of cancellation of December 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 13, 2000
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to cancel the December 25, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting
Com. Corr
Passed 5 -0-0
10. Consideration of setting a date for a goal setting meeting.
A brief discussion ensued regarding a suitable date to schedule a goal setting meeting. Monday,
December 18th at 6:00 p.m. was chosen as a suitable meeting date.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to designate Monday, December 18th as the date to discuss
goal setting for the upcoming year.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Stevens will attend the November 14th breakfast, and Com.
Corr will attend the January breakfast.
Design Review Committee: Com. Doyle will attend the January 10th Design Review
Committee meeting. At the January 8th meeting, new representatives will be chosen for the
Design Review Committee.
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported that the Evershine application,
Upland Way project, and the 6,500 sq. ft. residence project at the top of Regnart Road, were
discussed at the recent meeting.
Housing Committee: Com. Kwok reported that the next meeting was November 15th.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at. 12:15 a.m. on November 14th, to the
November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recording Secretary