Loading...
PC 08-14-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. August 14,2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of August 14,2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. . SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Gilbert Wong Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Gary Chien David Kaneda Staff present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Gary Chao Piu Ghosh Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 26,2007 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections noted: Page 1: Com. Wong noted that the June 26,2007 Study Session started at 5:45 p.m. and Com. Kaneda arrived at 5:45 p.m. Page 4: First line: "leaf silver" should read "LEED silver" Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the June 26, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Chien absent, Com. Kaneda absent.) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 14,2007 POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR: 1. V-2007-03, TM-2007-03 Tracy Hsu 218 Dolores Ave. Variance for substandard lot widths on a proposed two-lot subdivision. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels, 8,375 square feet and 11,470 square feet resPectively. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application V-2007-03, TM-2007-03 to the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Chien absent; Com. Kaneda absent.) 2. EXC-2007-09, TR-2007-04 Kathy Yates 22292 Regnart Road Hillside Exception to construct a 5,188 square foot residence, with a 2,625 square foot basement, on slopes greater than 30% slope and to decrease the setback of the second story downhill-facing wall plane. Tree Removal. to remove two oak trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to postpone Application EXC-2007-09 and TR-2007-04 to the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Chien absent, Com. Kaneda absent) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None 3. ASA-2oo7-09, TM-2oo7-10, U-2007-0S, Terry Brown 21717 Pasadena Ave. Architectural Site approval for two single-family residences, 2,838 square feet each, in a planned development zoning district. Tentative Map to subdivide a 12,480 square foot parcel Into two parcels, 6,240 square feet each. Use Permit to construct two single-family residences, 2,838 square feet each, in a planned development zoning district. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for architectural site approval for two single family residences in a planned development zoning district; tentative map to subdivide a 12,480 square foot parcel into two parcels; and use permit to construct two single-family homes in a planned development zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. · She noted that they were proposing to remove one Douglas Fir, which is a non-protected tree; and retaining two large redwood trees at the southwest property. She then reviewed the elevations of the two proposed residences. · Staff recommends approval of the application based on the model resolution. Staff recommends adding a condition of approval to the motion to correct the site plan which incorrectly references residence one as residence two and vice versa. No environmental action is needed as it is categorically exempt from the CEQA. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 14,2007 Staff answered Commissioners questions. Terry Brown, Applicant: · Said they have worked with staff to meet the requirements to create living space up to the street. Chairperson Giefer opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Said that a home on Pasadena Street appeared to be a Victorian home and another house was likely from the early 1900s. · She said she was confused where the planned development area of Monta Vista ends, and she did not understand why there is a unique zoning there. · She pointed out that there was an earlier item in a regular R1 zoning area that was planning to have two lots each 50 feet across and this item is in a planned residential area with two lots 48 feet across. · She said if the item is approved tonight, she hoped that the house would be appropriate for the lot size, whatever lot is created with 48 feet across. It is a planned development area that can have larger homes on smaller lots. If the plan is to have something in this planned development area that mimics an R1 home, make sure there are second story setbacks. The height is held to the height of homes in the Rl area that there are adequate setbacks on each side of the homes. Also ensure there is an adequate backyard, and that garages are not eating up the entire front of the lot, and no rowhouses similar to those in San Francisco. · She said she hoped that the tall trees on the back property could be saved. Piu Ghosh: · Clarified that Monta Vista was not being zoned as Planned Development. Referred to the zoning map and illustrated the various areas of planned residential and Rl-7.5. She said the two houses that are being proposed are at 45% FAR which meets the R1 regulations; and said they are meeting the regular R1 standards. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve ASA-2oo7-09, TM-2oo7-10, U-2OO7-0S and to reverse residences one and two. (Vote: 3-0-0; Vice Chair Chien absent; Com. Kaneda absent) Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Said the item has become 'a very emotional item in the community partly because it is a land use item and partly because there has been a lot of misinformation disseminated. Amending an ordinance is a public event and the reason it is public is to allow the community members to give their input when something affects the land. The Commission wants to hear the input, but cautions that it does not deteriorate into name calling, blaming or harassment of the public officials. The Planning Commission is an advisory group, and will not make a decision on this, but their role is to receive the input that can be incorporated into any advice that they may give to the City Council. She requested that the speakers focus on the issue and not attempt to place blame or fmger point. 4. Report on the Rl Ordinance regarding neighborhood meetings on the Residential Hillside overlay. Tentative City Council date: August 21,2007 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 14,2007 Steve Piasecki presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application summary as outlined in the staff report. In January 2005 the City Council incorporated RHS development rules into the R1 ordinance revisions for properties upslope from the 10% line and with average slopes of 15% of greater. The residents of the affected areas stated they were not aware the City Council might apply the hillside development standards to their properties. As a result, the Council directed staff to revisit the process to provide ample opportunity for resident input. · He explained the differences between valley floor and hillside. Valley floor neighborhoods are special areas; and hillsides are also special areas because they tend to have steeper slopes, more sensitive geology, more wildlife, heavier vegetation, and larger lots. Because they have all those characteristics different from the valley floor you often need to have different standards to deal wjth that; which is why the R1 ordinance is not suitable. It essentially looks at the flat lots, less geologic concerns, less wildlife, less vegetation and trees and smaller lots. With smaller lots if people are not going to get some reasonable use of their property you probably need to be more flexible in terms of the house size and things such as setbacks and relationships to the street, etc. The issue at hand is how to address this; how to protect the hillsides in accordance with standards or this policy. Two study sessions were held working with the neighbors in the area to focus on the common objectives in the area. · Issues discussed included consideration of property values, equity in terms of eco treatment, preserving the hillside, preserving the rural character and the rules for the people who are predominantly zoned Rl-lO. This is an issue since they are more likely valley floor than hillside. He illustrated the Google map of Lindy Lane, which provided a concept of the relationships between various properties. A number of properties are located at the toe of slope that staff does not feel the rules should apply to. · Reviewed Exhibit B of the staff report which contained a chronological summary of prior events to date. · He said that although consensus was not reached with the residents, discussions clarified the areas of agreement and disagreement leading to other suggestions and possible solutions. Staff feels that the R 1 foothill modified, the point in the middle can be amended to provide greater flexibility for property owners while preserving the intent of the sensitive hillside development. · Residents suggested more flexibility on the floor area ratio and the review process if the development is being proposed on a flat pad or conforms to the RHS house size rules that are applicable to the rest of the hills shown in the diagram. Staff came up with a potential ordinance solution to allow up to 45 % floor area ratio, which is the same floor area ratio allowed for the valley floor; if the development or expansion is located on the flat pad portion of the lot, which is less than or equal to 10%. They would apply like anyone else in town for a building permit and if the fmdings are made, they are in. · Also suggested was to allow the property owners to build off the flat pad if they conform to the RHS house size rules. If they get into the slope areas, there is a way to let you just apply for a building permit. It is a simple way in terms of the review process to say if you meet that you can go through a simplified review process; not unlike what can happen either on the hills above or the valley floor below. If you cannot meet either of those standards, you could still apply but you would need to apply for an architecture and site approval which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. · The neighbors also said they would like more flexibility on the second floor size. In the Rl Ordinance there is a fairly restrictive limitation on the second floor that does not apply in the case of the hillsides. In the hillsides a larger second floor is allowed. Staff felt if they were going to treat them like they were in the middle then the second floor should be larger in this case and retain the Rl setbacks in the articulation rules. That is something the valley floor lots do not have the ability to do but the upper hillside lots do not have the Rl setbacks; hence Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 14, 2007 there is a type of hybrid. It provides the incentive to stay on the flatter portion, minimize grading and retaining walls. · Relative to fencing, grading and retaining wall standards, the neighbors said they felt it was more appropriate to the hillsides and would be willing to retain the RHS fencing. It means that you cannot fence your whole yard in with solid board fencing if you have a 20,000 square foot lot. It was also suggested to add that any retaining walls higher than five feet must be screened by landscaping or siding materials. · There was also a concern about tree protection, suggesting that something more stringent was needed other than the current tree ordinance and would have the flexibility for the discretionary review, requiring going before the Planning Commission and informing the neighbors of pending actions if you have to remove more than 2 specimen trees, 15 inches or greater in diameter. Staff is asking the Commission to consider tree size and if that should be a factor or not. · Neighbors also suggested that the standards need to be simplified for the toe of slope lots, which are the R1-1O properties located upslope from the 10% line, some with 15% average slopes; many 10,000 square foot lots and some go up to 13,000 square foot lots. Staff suggests that they be removed from the equation entirely; total number of parcels affected are 124. The reasoning is back to the General Plan Policy statement about preserving the hillsides. · The Planning Commission options are to take public testimony, explore the options to allow flexibility and provide recommendations to the City Council. Com. Wong: · He said that initially they were trying to be holistic and now are zoning onto a different neighborhood. He said he understood the Planning Commission and City Council were trying to look at an overall policy vs. looking at one particular neighborhood. Steve Piasecki: · Said it gets to be a show of what strategically achieves your objective. The reason for focusing down and smaller is because we think this achieves the objective without having it apply unnecessarily to a lot of other people. The Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation they want; if they think it should apply to 124, they can make that recommendation. He said he did not think that it should or could. Com. Wong: · Said his concern was that it should be citywide with a citywide discussion. Steve Piasecki: · Explained that the concept is preserving the hillsides, which is the policy that the Council is attempting to implement. If you take this toe of slope properties, my argument is they do not contribute or detract from, there is nothing we can do for them to help with the co-terminus hillsides areas that are around this area. You may well say there is something. special about the properties along the flood plain but they are probably different than a co-terminus. hillside issue. They are probably larger lots, maybe there are some local views from the neighboring properties. The rules you might want to apply to the co-terminus hillsides are probably different than the rules that might be appropriate for here. It does not mean you could not have rules for the middle area if desired. There is no argument that you might come up with something and you may say there is a process you need to get involved in with the neighbors. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 14,2007 Com. Wong: · Based on staffs recommendation you would not be under a regular R1, they would have to come before a Planning Commission hearing. What is the cost analysis they would need to go through this process. Steve Piasecki: · They would only have to go through that if they could not meet the RHS limits or if they had to get off the flat pad. Otherwise they could apply for up to 45% and go through a regular building permit process like everybody else in town does. · He said the cost for processing development applications on the hillside is $5,000. Gary Chao: · Said that it depended upon the proposal. Under R1, for a two story house there is an application process costing $2,500; the architectural and site approval is about $3,000+. The process is similar except the two story Rl process does not currently have the notification to the neighborhood. It will be just a hearing after the review process, and the notification process when it goes before the Commission. · Said a Planning Commission public hearing cost about $3,000. · Said there were two neighborhood meetings held; one with 15 persons present and the second had less attendance. Chair Giefer: · Asked staff to review the second floor flexibility portion of what was being proposed. Steve Piasecki: · If applying the R1 rules literally, you would be restricted on the second floor to 45% of the fIrst floor area, which is the 'wedding cake look' seen allover town. It results in a larger fIrst floor footprint and a smaller second story. In the hillsides the same wedding cake approach does not apply. The second story can be the same size as the fIrst floor in theory. The suggestion that we heard from some of the residents is not to have a second floor size limit but retain the R1 set backs and the articulation rules, the offsets. Chair Giefer: · The piece that is missing for me, is that assuming that the lots are larger, you build a larger house and therefore you can meet the setbacks on the second floor? You are still proposing to meet the R1 setbacks Steve Piasecki: · This went back and forth. Folks that we talked to preferred the Rl setbacks to the RHS setbacks. The Planning Commission can decide after hearing public testimony what they think is the most reasonable. He said he supported going with all the RHS rules and setbacks. Chair Giefer: · Part of what you are proposing, there is not a maximum home size. It is still whatever the appropriate FAR is. Steve Piasecki: · You can go up to 45 % of your lot area. If you can get it all on the flat area you can apply at the building department for a building permit. If you get off the flat area then you have to demonstrate that it meets the RHS standards, and that means it will have a signifIcant reduction in that home size if you have a steep lot. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 August 14,2007 Com. Miller: · How many of the 22 lots have not been fully developed at this point? Steve Piasecki: · Th~ issue is not that they are not developed, but the house sizes under the Rl rules the sizes can double or triple; it is the additions that will be affected. There is potential that some lots could subdivide; we are not suggesting any limitation on subdivision. You would have an R- 20 designation; with the exception that if you were to rezone the Al properties, it has been suggested that you should go to whatever their lot size is. Com. Miller: · It seems like since the overlay was put in place there has been a flurry of subdivisions that had not occurred before the overlay. It would appear that overlay has increased the amount of development in that hillside area rather than the reverse which it was intended to do. What happens with moving forward with these recommendations; do the same subdivision rules apply regardless of what we do here or there, more or less subdivision? Steve Piasecki: · . The future will be identical to what has been in the past; any of those subdivisions that have occurred recently could have occurred next year, or five or ten years from now. No one is talking about taking away the subdivision right. The overlay may have spurred some people to subdivide, feeling that the subdivision potential may have been removed. It makes no difference from my perspective because they had the right; whether they subdivide today or tomorrow is inconsequential. Chairperson Giefer opened the public hearing. Shabbir Nomanbhoy, Mount Crest Place: · Said the issue has been ongoing for several years and it is time to do the right thing by removing C1 and C2 on all R1 properties. He said the A lots should not be affected as proposed; it goes against everything about retaining the rural nature of the area, and how can rezoning A lots improve it. Also, double zoning any property is ridiculous and erroneous, and likely not legal. Do not pick and choose properties to apply arbitrary rules at this point; all rules that are adopted need to be citywide. All properties that are zoned agriculture should not be rezoned. Rok Sosic, Linda Vista Drive: · Said that the current RHS overlay does not make sense and should be removed from the R1 Ordinance. He said he supported the goals of this ordinance. · We all want to have a safe environment, and see hillside protection. The reality is that this is a terrible ordinance and it does not make sense and it is a huge mismatch of the goals of the ordinance. It somewhat arbitrarily applies to the properties and I think that has been recognized by the Director who said initially there were 400-500 properties affected in 2005. Today there are 120 and in the last proposal there are only 22 properties affected. It seems that there are more complex rules being applied to fewer and fewer properties, creating more work for everyone. We are just wasting time discussing all the rules that don't make sense. My property has been fully developed 40 years ago. It is about 10,000 square foot lot. It is really hard to understand how applying additional rules to the property will protect the hillsides because it has been developed. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 August 14, 2007 · Another indication that the ordinance is bad is because it is mixing RHS and Rl rules together which does not make sense. Those two ordinances were not meant to work together as one set of rules to build properties. The result is that there is inconsistent set of rules that makes it hard to remodel properties; there is no clear guidance. · He recommended that the overlay be removed and the original goals be reapplied by expanding the original ordinances. Moti Mizrahi, Santa Lucia Road: · Said he did not understand the definition of a flat pad. He said if his home burned down and he had to comply with the new rules, he would not be able to build in his present location; he would have to build a small train wagon standing up. · Relative to five foot fencing, it is not high enough to prevent even a deer from jumping around the property. He asked for clarification on the fencing. · People residing in homes built back in the 50s, 60s or 70s would be at a disadvantage when selling if a buyer wanted to move in and extensively remodel. He said some places in his neighborhood could not get somebody to build a house because of those rules applied so far. Steve Piasecki: · Said that Mr. Mizrahi's property would be excluded from the rules. There is a non- conforming clause in the ordinance; if you cannot build exactly to what it is, you can come very close. The five feet is referring to a retaining wall not a fence. Eileen Murray: . Said it could not be made more non-conforming. Com. Wong: · One of the changes is that if we follow staff's recommendation is that these 21 properties currently can have solid fence. If we want to retain the rural hillside and allow the wildlife to go around there would be a little restriction. Steve Piasecki: · They could still have some solid board fencing close to the house. He said the neighbors were concerned that if everything was a solid board fence, they might want to consider adopting something different, a foothill standard or some kind of limitation. Eric Carlson, Santa Lucia Road: · He said under the current recommendations they wouldn't be affected by the ordinance; many of the properties are not a very large area. There are places in the ordinances were you would be even more restricted. · Said they may want to look at the different setbacks and second floor rules on both ordinances. He said fairness and applying consistent rules should be looked at overall when looking at these types of things. Viranjit Madan, Santa Lucia Road: · Said that he was pleasantly surprised that the proposal excluded his home from the RHS. He said that larger lots on paper don't necessarily allow for building; his lot is 10,000 square feet but the house is 1200 square feet and barely fits on the flat area. · The consequences of a well meaning ordinance; in our neighborhood there has been lots of building and the lot next to us has been subdivided. I heard it is because of the new ordinance, and big houses are being placed not even ten feet from each other. I don't think Cupertino Planning Commission 9 August 14,2007 that was the original intent of the Planning Commission. I think that this ordinance is being applied somewhat arbitrarily because the places where it is applied are not citywide; there are hillsides allover the place. · While he agreed with the original intent of what they wanted to do, applying it to fewer and fewer specialized properties in certain areas with exemptions probably does not make sense. Now that the proposal limits it to 22 parcels, he said in his opinion they should just declare that this ordinance does not make sense any longer. If we want to restore the original intent of this ordinance we should have another citywide ordinance with public input. Barry Pangrkem, Lindy Lane: · Said a sign of progress is that even the Director of Community Development has realized that there is something better than R1 with a RHS overlay on it. It has been difficult on people who live in the neighborhood and are affected by it. He questioned why they haven't worked to protect the hillsides across the city. · In the past the Commission has voted twice to recommend removing this overlay and I am hopeful that this will happen again tonight. I do agree that there probably is a better solution but I don't see that happening in a timeframe where the Council could vote on it next week, which leaves the neighborhood in limbo for an extended period of time. During that time we are going to see people who are trying to do remodeling and trying to upgrade and make sure the houses in the neighborhood stay current. While I would like to see a unanimous vote tonight, it would be great if we could get it. If I really felt that this was protecting the hillside, I would be all for it. I live in a neighborhood on a hillside and I would like to see a nice neighborhood with nice houses and a lot of trees. What has happened during this time that the ordinance has been in place, lots were carved up. People could have subdivided without this but for 40 years they did not. Suddenly if someone had a large lot that they could put a larger house on it and you tell them you can only put a smaller house on it or divide the lot up into three smaller lots and put three smaller houses on it. In order to get their value out of it that is what happened; whether it was intended or not. Pulling in the Allots is not fair. You cannot take somebody who has a 43,000 square foot lot surrounded by Rl-20 zoning and tell them they are going to be changed to Rl-43 and everybody else is RI-20. What is likely is lawsuits and more houses on the hillside. · I would like to encourage you all to do what is truly best for the hillside even though it may be difficult politically. Please do the right thing and remove the overlay. Irene He, Cupertino resident: · Recommended that Section 19.28.05OC be removed, as it appeared that the rule did not benefit either the people whose houses are included or their neighbors. · She said she believed that the issue would be resolved by a fair and just government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ahmed Dwidar, Santa Lucia Road: · Said he had not participated in the process and discussions as he only heard limited information about the issue three or four days ago and felt he could not make a fair judgment. He said it appeared the compromised solution was the most attractive solution at this time. Huimin Song, Boss Avenue: · I think the section C affects my property more importantly section C is unfair. I think people live on hillside in Cupertino so we can be treated equally. Simply, I just want this to be removed. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 August 14, 2007 Mark Santoro, neighborhood group representative: · Presented a petition signed by 113 neighbors who are impacted by the ordinance. · Commended staff for their hard work; they are trying to do the. right thing and are headed in the right direction. I wish that would have been the original proposal that applied to all the sloped R1lots in the city; it has commendable points. He asked that Section 19.28.50.C1 and C2 be removed and treat the neighborhood the same as the rest of tbe city. · This ordinance was passed in January 2005 without input from the Planning Commission or the public. This Planning Commission has been consistent and voted twice to remove it; we hope you do the same this evening. City Council voted 5-0 to leave it zoned R1, it is the second or third time to leave it Rl. They also voted 5-0 to remove the overlay from the rest of the city except for 113 properties currently. There was a neighborhood meeting held and 48 residents were present and all were against the overlay; I think staff is against it now. 45 of the 48 residents voted to remove both C1 and C2 sections. It is not about safety; builders have come in and testified that safe homes can be built on slopes. Civil engineers have said that hills can be even more stable with new homes on them versus old homes. It is not about watershed; most of the watershed area is a long way from the creek, the water is diverted to the city storm drains and not the creeks. On the other hand, Lindy Lane has Lindy Creek, and the creek is still there and part of it. Regnart has Regnart Creek, I don't know how we separate this by watershed areas. · This ordinance is hurting our area. For 40 years we were zoned R 1 and we were fine without the overlay. The overlay has caused property owners to subdivide. Over a dozen specimen trees were cut down on some of those lots. It is not what about the neighborhood wants, if you look at the petition, the neighborhood overwhelming wants to remove the overlay; probably about 95% of the people want to go back to Rl. We have had realtors testify that property values have lowered. We would like to know what we are getting for taking money out of our pockets. We do want the hills to be protected. We want protection we just don't think this is the right way. · Relative to fairness, over 500 properties were removed from this overlay while 113 were not and many of the houses removed from the overlay have steeper elevations. The RHS lots were designed for larger lots; only two of their lots are over an acre. He said he liked staff s proposal but was unsure about the RI-lO separation. · Said he was also concerned that it applies to too few properties, generally hurting the citizens. Homeowners are not able to remodel; several have tried and failed. No remodel permits have been granted to any home under the overlay since it has existed. One citizen who has lived in the area for 34 years broke his leg and could not add an elevator, his home has been sold and he is leaving the city. · Said they felt their area was protected, it has been for 40 years, why change it? The Planning Commission passed a new Rl rule; if there is a second story you need to notify the neighbors, nobody is going to build a single story house on the side of the hill therefore the neighborhood will be notified and be able to scrutinize the house and if they do not like it, it would go before the Planning Commission. It is a good rule change that protects the people. Staff could elect to notify a larger area than the 300 feet. · Finally there is a more restrictive tree ordinance. He said they felt it was fair to everyone in the city and that is to make all the Rllots and remove 19.28.5OC including C1 and C2; there would be no overlay and everyone is treated the same. · Urged the Planning Commission to repeat their vote for the third time and remove the section. Bob Rodert, Lindy Lane: · Said he designed and built his house in 1970-71 and has been enjoying the rural atmosphere not only on his side of the street, but particularly across the street; and preferred that it not be Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 14, 2007 changed. It is unfortunate that some of the construction has not been in the spirit of the hillside but it does not have to continue that way. · Said he would prefer if no more large homes were built, and had no preference whether RHS was maintained or not; staff s two to four items made sense. They amounted to restricting the square footage. He said it was more important how the home is built and integrated into the area rather than just square footage. · He commented that the some of the architecture to date has not been superior; they are homes that would be acceptable in a flat area but are not architectural wonders at nesting into the hillsides, and do not add to the community. He stressed the importance of having more architectural input. John James, Lindy Lane: · Asked if they all agreed that the subject area was a hill. Rl is flat land zoning; now the north side Lindy Lane hillside is zoned R1 with an overlay; the north Lindy Lane owners want this restriction removed. As a compromise he said he would support an R1 zoning in North Lindy hills with some type of restrictions on homeside and other things, but there needs to be a planning process. He said he would support either the hybrid ordinance, retaining the current Rl hillside development standards, (2005 RC or rezone the Rl hillside to RHS. Shan Zhu, Lindy Lane: · Requested that Section C 1 and C2 be removed; the new ordinance is not a fair regulation and all citizens should have the right and the responsibility to preserve and protect our nature and the hillside and the green, and why should only 23 families have the responsibility. What is the difference between us and the other part of the hills in Cupertino. The law should have the clarity and the fairness. · Said the law was passed without public input and the chance of repealing of the law was taken away from the neighborhood by misinformation. · Previous speakers mentioned that many residents are missing and many more will be missing because it puts confusion and financial burden to the people, and the hard workers are not able to remodel and have to spend money to comply with the regulation. This is not what the government wants to do for their citizens. · In 2005, two dozen households signed the petition to remove the new ordinance and the Planning Commission recommended the removal and City Council favored the removal. Two years later they are here again and have 130 petition signatures. Shan Zhu asked for good judgment to remove the Cl and C2 sections and restore the integrity of the law making. Sherry Fang, Lindy Lane: . Opposes the application. · Contrary to belief, those of us who oppose the harsh ordinance, want to protect the hills also because as stakeholders we were never consulted on the ordinance and it was passed without public input in January 2005. More than 2-112 years later, we are still fighting to get rid of it. For many of us, it is no longer a fight to repeal an unjust ordinance, it has become a fight for fair government. We know the ordinance is not about building safety because if it was, it would also include hilly properties on Scenic Heights, Miramonte, and a few other areas. · This ordinance is not about protecting the hills and the trees because we now have 5,000 square foot houses slated on the Knopp property, when there could have been just one bigger home on the one-acre lot. Common sense tells us that building one house is less disturbing to the hills than trees, than building two large houses. We know this ordinance is not about protecting the views from the valley floor because the majority of the affected properties cannot be seen from the valley floor. The Planning Commission has said it is not the city's Cupertino Planning Commission 12 August 14, 2007 responsibility to protect people's views when neighbor's trees grow too tall; so why is this different? · Our country's constitution specifically protects private property rights, and it is silent on rights of hillside views. If you were to risk your life and fight for your country, what would you be fighting for -- our constitutional rights or rights to views? You ask who is hurt by this ordinance; since this ordinance went into effect, there has been no remodeling permits issued in this affected area. Those who have tried to remodel have given up. · Recommended that the overlay ordinance be removed in its entirety. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Said that the process began two years ago when it fIrst came up as a public process as they were reviewing the R1 ordinance. Zoning is an important issue, and other cities have fought long and hard battles over zoning and this type of thing in Cupertino is not that unusual in other communities around Santa Clara County. · She said she was optimistic that with the number of public hearings, staff input and City Council and Planning Commission input, they would arrive at a type of hybrid zoning that would address everyone's issues. They want to protect the hillsides as much as possible; there has been public testimony for many of these meetings about how slides can occur in areas due to earthquake, excessive rainfall, and soil erosion. They need to make sure that their views are protected, trees are protected, and there is a lush hillside which is the hallmark of Cupertino. · Said she was hopeful that they would always be able to retain the views, and everyone is able to protect the trees as much as possible; as trees stabilize the hillsides, they allow large homes to be hidden on hillsides from views of neighbors and for privacy of the homeowners; and trees also allow the hillsides to retain their rural appearance which is what everyone wants. · She stressed the importance of ensuring that the second story size of some of the homes adhere to the R1 ordinance that everyone else on the valley floor in smaller lots has to adhere to. She said she was opposed to the cracker boxes on the hillsides similar to San Francisco. Candan Taysi, Lindy Lane: · Said that it would be ideal to have a compromise, which has not yet been established. She said that in her opinion an R1 was not a hillside issue, because a hillside is not flat land. There has to be some type of protection put into this, either the 15 overlay or something else that can be decided, but some type of protection is needed to preserve the hillside, and the R1 alone does not accomplish it. Barry Chang, Canyon View Circle: · Said that in the past two to three years, there has been a subdivision with more houses. The maximum house size in Cupertino is 6,500 square feet; the property owner is now allowed to build three houses and it is 5,000 square feet times three, which is 15,000 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 square feet. What is the rationale; you are not protecting the hillside; the RHS overlay is not fair. Steve Piasecki: · Said that the maximum house size of 6,500 square feet applies to the RHS hillside areas, not the R1 zone. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: · Said he was disappointed, as he was an advocate for the Rl to make the rules more flexible, transparent and a more open process. Somehow this section of the area somehow got included, Cupertino Planning Commission 13 August 14, 2007 and it is turning neighbors against neighbors. It is not about the north vs. the south side, but how to come together. · Protecting the hillside should be done citywide, not just for one particular area. He reiterated that he felt strongly about protecting the hillside. · Said that tonight's decision is what are the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council and asked staff how to arrive at them. He recapped that it started as a citywide plan to look at slopes throughout the entire city; then it was reduced to Stevens Creek Park area, the Blackberry Farm trail, some parts of Lindy Lane, some parts of Anita, and Linda Vista. Tonight it was further reduced to about 22 properties on Lindy Lane and Mount Crest, which was troubling. · Staff suggested the idea of having the neighborhood meetings held by the Planning Commission or a Committee. · Said he felt strongly that if it was reduced from 124 properties to 21, this is not the correct way, and C1 and C2 should be removed. Com. Miller: · Said he agreed with some of Com. Wong's comments. Some unintended consequences have resulted; he said he felt the overlay resulted in more development rather than less, and as some pointed out, more cutting of trees, rather than less. The rules are complex and clearly there is an issue of fairness in deciding who is in and who is out. · He said it was not clear whether the overlay resulted in more protection, but appears to have resulted in less protection. To be consistent with his prior two votes, he said he did not see any difference in the arguments presented previously, and he supported removing the C1 and C2 sections of the Code. Chair Giefer: · Stated her comments for the record since she felt she was in the minority and said one can assume how the majority is going to vote on the issue. · Relative to the toe slip slope, she said she supported staffs recommendation to remove those layers of homes in the neighborhood around Lindy Lane, Linda Vista as well as Terra Bella. · Said that her comments pert~ned to fairness. Tonight the discussion relates to homes zoned Rl that are in the hillside and there are agricultural in the hillside. What we are not talking about is all of the rest of Cupertino that is zoned RHS, and on the hillside lots above the 10% line. There is a significant portion of homes like Barry's that are zoned RHS and if we start moving forward and zoning the hills like the flats, what is to keep S8IItstlti"g someone in the RHS from coming to us later and say their slope is the same as theirs, and they want their property rezoned as R 1. · Expressed concern about the fairness or unfairness that is created for people who are on a slope and in the hills above the 10% line. · Said another positive aspect of staff s recommendation is that the property owners still retain their subdivision rights, which is a key attribute of the R1 lots in hillsides that helps retain the value of those parcels. She said she also thought it was a good recommendation to eliminate all properties that were 10,000 square feet and 7,500 square feet from the overlay. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to remove Section 19.28.050, Cl and C2. (Vote: 2-1-0; Chair Giefer voted No.) NEW BUSINESS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 14 August 14, 2007 REPORTOFTDEPL~GCO~SmON The Environmental Review Committee: The committee did not meet in July. Dousinl! Commission: No report available due to Com. Kaneda's absence. Mayors Monthly Meetinl! With Commissioners: No report due to Vice Chair Chien's absence. Economic DeyeloDment Committee: . Com. Miller reported that the new Economic Development Manager presented a review of what was occurring in Cupertino, and some of the plans he has to bring new business into the area. . Com. Wong reported that the City Council has asked the Planning Department to address the issue of shopping carts. A plan has been suggested regarding shopping cart abatement. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . No additional report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary ~ SUBMITTED BY: Approved as Amended: August 28, 2007