Loading...
PC 06-18-97CITY OF CUPERTiNO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 18, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: arrived Doyle, Austin, Mahoney, Chairperson Harris (Com. Roberts at 7:10 p. m. Com. Doyle at 7:15 p.m.) Staffpresent: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 9, 1997 regular meeting: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to postpone approval of the minutes to the July 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Mahoney Corns. Doyle and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 WRITTEN COMMIJNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a letter from the City of Los Altos relative to the Diocese application; letter from the Regional Open Space District; and letter from Jackson & Abdalah relative to Item 1. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): 10-U-89 (Minor Modification): Request from Portofino Villas to modify landscaping plans for Homestead Road street frontage. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REMOVE FROM AGENDA MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to remove Item 3 from the agenda per applicants request. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 3-0~0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 18, 1997 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-U-66 (Mod.) Church Assembly in Cupertino 20075 Bollinger Road Director's approval of a minor modification of a use permit with a referral to tile Planning Commission for parking lot lighting in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of The Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION F1NAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the application for a parking lot lighting plan as outlined in the attached staff memorandum. He noted the letter dated September 9, 1996, received June 18, 1997 regarding Mr. and Mrs. Cramb's concern relative to privacy intrusion because of the property improvements. He said he felt the letter was not directly related to the issue of the lighting improvements. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the adjacent residential properties would not be impacted by the installation of the light fixtures; and that staff recommended approval of the application. Referring to the overhead of the parking lot lighting plan, Mr. Cowan illustrated future building, parking lot and contour lines for the lighting. He said it was possible that when the parking lot was expanded into the rear yard, the lighting may be more sensitive. Mr. Joseph Jeng, Church Assembly in Cupertino, said that when the Church moved to the property in 1995, it applied for and received permission to expand the parking lot. At that time, the requirements for the parking lot lighting was not included, but it later became apparent for the safety of the church members that lighting would be required. He said that the church sought the input from the neighbors when lighting was considered, and when installed, would provide security for the church members as well as the neighboring residents. Com. Roberts questioned if the applicant had evaluated lights that were not 17 feet above ground. Mr. Jeng explained that following the community input, the proposed lighting was lowered to the same height as that of the neighboring Seventh Day Adventist Church. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Billie Cramb, 20090 LaRoda Ct., expressed concern about the grading of the church property which impacted the Cramb's privacy and caused concern about future flooding, and also referred to the September 1996 letter from attorney James Jackson that was sent to the church and Planning Department. She said that if the lighting was approved at this time, the only way to modify or to remove it would result in costly litigation. She said that there was correspondence on file between the City Manager and the Church back to 1987, stating that the church must remove the fill. Ms. Cramb said that because so much fill had been added, a car in the back parking lot is visible from her kitchen, and she questioned if lighting is installed on the higher grade, would the landfill be legitimized? She asked that the Planning Commission take the matter under consideration tbr further study before approving the application. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 18, 1997 Mr. Dave Hinders, resident, whose property also backed up to the back of the church property~ said that he was also concerned with the landfill and potential for flooding. He expressed concern that approval of the lighting application may establish a precedent that would not be able to be corrected later. He said he was not as concerned about the lighting as the environment it is placed in. Mr. Cowan said that grading issues related to the parking lot had been resolved, but if some still remained he was willing to work with the Public Works Department and Building Department regarding the issue. He said he felt it did not relate to the site, 200 ft. back from the property line as the grade had been well established with buildings, and parking lots. He said he would research the issue and meet with the owners. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 3-U-66 Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos: Applicant: Location: 6-U-97, 4-TM-97, 5-Z-97 and 15-EA-97 Steve Zales/O'Brien Group South of 1-280, west of Foothill Blvd. and Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek Blvd. APN No.(s): 342-05-054, 056, 059, 060 and 342-52-003 Use Permit to construct 177 residential units and ancillary improvements on approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property. Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property into 168 lots. Zoning to rezone approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property from Agriculture (A), Quasi-Public (BQ) to Planned DevelopmenffResidential (P/RES). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COLrNCIL HEARING DATE: July 21, 1997 Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that discussion on the Tentative Map would not be held, as applicant would be submitting a non-vesting Tentative Map at the next meeting and not suffer any losses, as issues would remain the same. Ms. Wordell said that the purposes of the meeting were to review the environmental documents, introduce the project. identify the key issues, determine if any additional information is needed, and provide direction for any modifications desired. She noted that because all Commissioners would not be present at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting, the goal would be to accomplish everything in two meetings. Ms. Wordell distributed a presentation outline for the Diocese application to be discussed. She said the outline contained all the elements discussed in the staff report, and the bold faced items on the outline indicated the items to be discussed with the Planning Commission, and the other items would be responded to, but not actually brought forward as part of the staff report. She noted that discussion of the tot lot item on page 2 would be deferred to the next meeting. P~ann~ng Commlss~on M~nu~es 4 JBBC ~g, Iqq~ Ms. Wordell suggested that the format of the meeting be that the staff present their comments; followed by the applicant's presentation, and comments held until both presentations are complete which would prevent overlap of comments from both groups. Referring to the overhead of the Vesting Tentative Map: Site Plan, Ms. Wordell discussed tbe 4 proposed areas for residential units, as outlined in the staff report. She illustrated the other important aspects of the project, including the emergency access to St. Joseph's Avenue; emergency access to Stevens Creek through the cemetery; the cemetery; and the major access route, Cristo Rey. She also illustrated the public open space areas on the map, depicted in green. Ms. Wordell discussed the chart for the Diocese property, land use summary, wbich included the categories of private open space and lands dedicated to public open space. Ms. Wordell introduced Mr. Don Woolfe, from Planning Resource Associates to discuss the items on the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). Mr. Woolfe explained that the role of Planning Resource Associates was to evaluate the application against the previous MEIR, to which they checked the project against the applicable mitigation measures contained in the MEIR. He said that the preparation of the appropriate environmental documents were also their responsibility. He explained the background of the MEIR and said that the City was also required to prepare an Initial Study as required by the CEQA to identify any potential environmental consequences which were not analyzed in the previous MEIR. Mr. Woolfe reported the 6 additional environmental impacts: (1) Request from the applicants to deviate from the areas in the General Plan map which required one story houses in areas of visual sensitivity. (Ms. Wordell illustrated the single story areas identified on the map, and noted where the applicant was proposing two story homes . (2) A proposed new water tank location which is more environmentally sensitive in terms of grading and in terms of visual impact than the former site. (3) Increased parking demand at San Antonio County Park as a result of building 171+ new units adjacent to the park. (4) The project is located in areas of seasonal fire danger. (5) The original submittal at the time the Initial Study was prepared, contained design proposals which were at variance with the applicable design guidelines as identified in the General Plan. That since has been ameliorated through the development of specific guidelines which are found in Appendix 2 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (6) Glare from artificial light which could present a problem when viewing the project from the adjacent hillside, was not covered in the original EIR and has been identified as a new impact. Mr. Wooife then presented the mitigation measures to ameliorate the significant effects: (MI): Don't approve 2 story buildings in visually sensitive areas. (M2) Provide landscaping and earthtone finish for the water tank because even though it is a more environmentally sensitive location, it still needs some visual mitigation. (M3) The City should work with the County to plan for additional parking for the park. (M4) The City should be enforcing No Parking regulations on the new streets of this proposed development. (MS) In order to rectify fire concerns and concerns of the fire agency, provide adequate street widths and turn around designs which have been done. (M6) The residential design should conform to the design guidelines recommended in Appendix 2. (M7) All outdoor light sources should have the luminaries or the light source sbielded (referring to allowing only uplighting and downlighting and no viewing of light sources in light fixtures). Mr. Woolfe said that the applicant agreed to accept all the mitigation measures and incorporate them in the subsequent design. Therefore, because these mitigation measures were incorporated in the Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 18, 1997 designs before the public review process begins, the project is eligible for preparation of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Woolfe identified the key issues which arose from the preparation of the mitigated Negative Declaration. (1) Architectural design: the architect is proposing thirty, I, 2, and I-1/2 story architectural styles, in order to achieve diversity and avoid monotony in design. The size range is from 2,800 sq. ft. to 3,600 sq. ft., ranging from traditional, historic, carpenter, gothic, prairie, and cottage styles. He said that the General Plan calls for the incorporation of elements of historic Cupertino into design, which was difficult to identify in Cupertino because the historic housing in Cupertino was built on flat, not hillside sides. As a mitigation measure, staff prepared the design guidelines referred to earlier and appear in Appendix 2. (2) Grading: He said in a like project, 3 generic grading approaches are dealt with; the fiat pad approach where flat or gently sloping building pads are created; the stepped fiat pad approach, with the fiat pads stepping on the hillside, separated from each other by retaining walls. (3) Natural gradient method: Where there is little difference between the natural or finished grades at the end of the project. He said that the applicant's design lends itself to the fiat pad approach which does not require stepping down building foundations and building profiles. He said that the total grading quantity for the project is 240,000 cu. yards of balanced onsite cut and fill, which is not considered massive grading for the size project. He noted that staffwas previously concerned with the appearance of the proposed fill slopes; however, the applicant has decreased the visual impact of the perimeter slopes by lengthening the fill prisms on the perimeter of the residential areas, thus they produce the steepness of the fill slopes. Mr. Woolfe said that the General Plan policy regarding grading is that buildings and grading should conform and be subordinate to the existing land forms. Staff feels that the proposed grading plan meets these requirements for the type of residential designs proposed by the applicant. Ms. Wordell reviewed the proposed changes in the General Plan Land Use Diagram, as outlined on Page 3 of the staffreport. Mr. Woolfe added that another task in preparing the mitigated Negative Declaration was to assess the degree of compliance of the proposed project with the general plan amendment, illustrated in a chart in Appendix I. Returning to the outline format, Ms. Wordell referred to the architectural design/visual analysis, and said that General Plan policy, RI-IS and more information about the visual analysis would be discussed. She said that information was provided about the hillside protection measures in the General Plan and how they relate to the Diocese policies, and she added that there are some things about the general hillside protection policies that are superseded by the Diocese policies, especially the clustering. She said that looking at all the other hillside protection policies, many of them conform, some of them are the issues being discussed tonight, such as maintaining rural standards, reducing visible mass, the amount of land disturbance. The question being discussed, are they conforming to these policies which are being discussed? She noted that it was somewhat moot as to whether the general hillside protection policies are in conflict or not, because in some areas they are obviously superseded related to clustering and others being discussed. Ms. Wordell reviewed Exhibit F, relative to what lots comply and what did not. She then reviewed the side yard setbacks, and the architectural design/visual impacts outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 18, 1997 Mr. Don Skinner, Planning Resoume Associates, reviewed the extent to which the proposed project would conform to the analysis done in the MEIR, stating that it was determined that there would be no increase in the visual impacts, and decreased impacts from many of the views. Mr. Skinner illustrated various views, which included location of one story homes; view from the water tank northeast of seminary parcel and the FORUM; view from the water tank to the Cristo Rey pamel; and view from the FORUM west to the seminary parcel. Relative to the historic house, Ms. Wordell said that the General Plan requires that there be an investigation of the possible historic preservation of the historic house on the southeast portion of the property. The County Parks has indicated they are not interested in owning or maintaining the house, and wish to have it demolished, removed, or created as a separate parcel should it be retained, prior to dedication of the public lands to the County. Staff feels that the pamel could be separated from the County dedication and over a period of time, it could be explored whether preservation is possible or not. Mr. Steve Zales, O'Brien Group, thanked the City staffand Planning Resource Associates for their work in understanding and reviewing the complicated project. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present the project and get its input. He said that he felt the applicant has met all the mitigation measures and requirements and were committed to exceed and meet the spirit of the process which was to have a process which was environmentally sensitive and one that the City of Cupertino could be proud of. He said that the mitigated Negative Declaration largely agrees with their goal that they have met the mitigation measures and have additionally set other self-imposed requirements to meet the spirit of the direction that was set by the review. Mr. Zales said that there is a great amount of confusion and uncertainty among the community and with people familiar with the 212 acre property as to what open space is and what is developed. He showed a slide presentation illustrating the open space areas which included trails, tree lined areas, and the DeAnza Knoll, among others. He referred to the colored wall map as a reference point also. Throughout the slide presentation, Mr. Zales reviewed the planting and landscape plan for various areas of the property. Mr. Zales discussed grading. He said that the first criteria on grading is that there has been a careful selection of the areas designated for development as part of the EIR. He noted that the predominant slopes across the development areas is approximately 3%, and a number of rules were set that go beyond the mitigation measures or what were specified in the grading ordinances~ that he said shows their commitment to grading sensitively, and adhering to the natural environment. The maximum grade allowed has been 3:1 slope. Mr. Zales explained the language in the General Plan addressing "stepping homes." Referring to a slide presentation, he illustrated a one story building landscaped around it and not stepped down to slope because the land was able to accommodate that building without skirts seen on the remaining buildings. Mr. Zales continued with the slide presentation which showed a variety of examples of grading, such as that by the FORUM, the PG&E substation, Cristo Rey area, and the seminary area. He illustrated the proposed landscaping plan for screening the PG&E substation, and discussed proposed landscaping plans for the seminary area as well. He pointed out that in the Cristo Rey area, there were about 70 acres of open space which would be returned to its natural environment, cattle removed, and allowed it to regenerate back to the natural state. Mr. Zales continued the slide presentation, illustrating different areas of tree preservation and removal. He pointed out that it was their mission to work around the trees, not have the trees work around the homes. He then Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 18, 1997 referred to a chart View Window Analysis, which indicated the differences in the high point to the Iow point elevation in neighborhood areas 1-4. Mr. Zales apologized that the architectural drawings of the homes were not in the same order as the renderings presented. He reiterated that their mission relative to the architecture was to have diversity and compatible traditional styles, and to be understated with a rural feel, and have quality vs. quantity. He described the different architectural styles and floor plans ranging from 2,800 sq. ft to 3,600 sq. ft. , pointing out that there were 31 different home styles, 8 floor plans, 3 to 5 different elevations. He also illustrated the BMR units which are duet homes with the appearance of single family homes. He noted that the homes were darker colors conforming to the hillside guidelines. Mr. Zales said that since the field trip, two more designs of one story homes were developed so that there would not be a repeat of architectural designs on one street. He pointed out that building 31 different home styles was complicated, costly, time consuming and management intensive but created a diverse neighborhood for the area. Chair Harris called a recess from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. Chair Harris explained that there would be a question and answer period and the item would be continued to another meeting. She requested that at that meeting, staff respond to the letters from the City of Los Altos, Mid-Peninsula Open Space District and Kaiser Cement which each mention specific topics. She also asked that the Vesting Tentative Map not be mentioned as part of the questions because it was not an issue presented and will be discussed at a later meeting. Mr. Zales said that he would collect the architectural renderings and put them in the correct order and return them to the Planning Commissioners in the next meeting packet, with the model number and style indicated. Com. Roberts said that at the last meeting a question was raised on compliance with the General Plan policy 2-41 in the Residential Hillside Ordinance. At that time, it was asserted by staff that the General Plan policy 2-41 states that the hillside protection policies apply to this application, and it was questionable whether the policy should be considered valid. He questioned whether or not it had been resolved. He said it was his interpretation that the policy would apply since it was not rescinded at the time of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Cowan said that in terms of precedence, the 1995 General Plan Amendment would take precedence if there is a conflict. For example, in the other part of the General Plan, there is a reference to residential 5-20 that should be applied to the Diocese. He said that there was consistency between the general statements and the hillside part of the General Plan and the section that deals specifically with the Diocese, but if there is a conflict, it should be drawn out and discussed. He said that in general, the rule should be that the more recent General Plan Amendment would take precedence. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, said that he was under the impression that there was a specific General Plan Amendment that removed from the land use map the Diocese property from the hillside designation. Mr. Cowan said that the Diocese property was not designated for a hillside zone. Mr. Kilian said that absent specific language, it was subject to interpretation, namely that one interpretation could be that it remains planned development but to the extent possible that hillside Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 18, 1997 standards would be applied. However, he said that if it was interpreted that the hillside ordinance applied, then it would appear that the planned development ordinance would be superfluous, if that were the case. He said that there is probably a true conflict that is subject to interpretation because you cannot reconcile both of those ideas strictly speaking. He said it is the duty of both the Planning Commission and the City Council to interpret the General Plan as one of their functions, and to clarify wherever possible. If the Planning Commission interprets that the RHS zone should apply by its terms, specifically, then the planned development zone has to be dealt with and how it would be applicable. He said that it would appear superfluous to have the planned development zone in that case. Chair Harris said that the clustering previously determined by the Council violates the RHS. Mr. Kilian responded that it would indicate that the Council had an interpretation which said that the RI-IS would not specifically apply. Chair Harris said that there had not been any discussion of architecture. She said that relative to building heights, the RHS regulations are referred to; whereas the clustering and layout were things decided which is why it is specified planned development. Mr. Kilian that it would militate toward an interpretation that it not specifically apply in the RHS zone but would apply to those standards that are relevant to this development and other standards that have been deviated from. He said that without knowing for sure that it was the intent of the Council when they did that, they did not intend that all the RHS standards go away and not be used. Com. Roberts said that it might be fair to interpret the Council's action since policy 2-41 was not modified and that those provisions of the hillside policies and ordinance that are not contradicted by the higher density of development should be. Mr. Kilian questioned if they should be applied literally, those that are not inconsistent; or should they simply be guidelines or can be deviated at a different manner than the RHS would have it. He said that it was up to the Planning Commission to make the interpretation. This is a planned development zone, so that would say you could deviate where unimportant to deviate, but it is also a reasonable interpretation to say no, and you apply the RHS zone literally if that is the desire. Com. Roberts said that it appeared implicit since the MEIR stressed that the document and all the ancillary documents that were approved at that time are part of this record except insofar as we approve or recommend approval of exceptions to them. Mr. Kilian said that the MEIR is merety a tool, it is not a decision making document, but a tool to use to analyze a project. If it tums out there are !mpacts that a mitigation plan wouldn't fully mitigate, you would not be free to deviate from that unless other findings are made. Com. Roberts said that if the MEIR asks for a specific analysis, it would be appropriate to insist they be made. Mr. Kilian said that the project is predicated on the fact that the EIR was approved, and unless you are able to make findings that a particular study is not necessary to analyze the environmental impact, those requirements of the EIR should be followed, unless there is a specific issue at hand. In response to Com. Roberts' question if there was a cohesive set of documents that one could refer to and say this is the MEIR we are evaluating compliance with, this collection of documents, Ms. Wordell said that there were final documents, the final EIR, the final motions, resolutions, and maps. Com. Roberts said that he felt it was important to have the documents to refer to. Com. Roberts said that at the next meeting, he would like to have the opportunity to address the amhitectural designs, appropriately set up in order, titled and numbered for discussion. Planning Commission Minut. es 9 June [ 8, [ 997 Relative to the visual analysis, Com. Roberts said he recalled that at the EIR stage, the visual impact on the adjacent open spaces lands was a major consideration. The General Plan Amendment did not conform to any of the specific visual perspectives that were given, in particular not to alternative 5 which had 50 more, almost 30% greater number of units. He said that he found it non-responsive to the needs for visual impact analysis of the project. He said he believed that "assured" was too strong a word since this was a different developer than at that time, but recalled receiving assurance that they would seek a similar visual perspective analysis of the actual level of development proposed to the extent possible, the kinds of buildings because of what was told was that they were generic buildings, and the actual buildings would come out much better. He said he questioned whether that level analysis is expected. Chair Harris said that it was tile visual analysis that was done for the mitigated EIR. Mr. Kilian said that in order to approve the project, it should be indirectly found that the project information is consistent with the EIR and the mitigating plans associated with that. He said that the Planning Commission was entitled to request that information before making a final decision; and could also decide that what was given is sufficient to meet the mitigation plans and the El R. Com. Roberts said that he questioned whether it was adequately defined what natural land form was; grading to natural land forms implies whether you have the evidence to judge that. He said he had no major concerns about the historic house, but questioned the amount of information received on trees, land protection, landscaping, although it wasn't included on the list of issues to be addressed tonight. He questioned the endangered species question, and whether justice was done to that topic. He said at the time of the MEIR, notice was given that the red legged frog was under consideration for listing; however, since that document, it has been listed as a threatened species and he questioned whether additional documentation in terms of environmental impact was needed and whether we can do justice to the environmental quality provisions without that consideration. Mr. Woolfe said that the EIR mitigation negative declaration did not include any comments with regard to the red legged frog. The red legged frog was treated as those it was an endangered species; and it was assumed that it would be listed and treated as such; all of the mitigation measures have sought to ameliorate any adverse impacts on the species. He said the applicant's biologists are present, and that Dr. Hopkins had made some presentations on the frog habitat, reviewed, and worked with the applicant's biologist with the mitigation measures. He said that the biologist wondered why the applicant was taking such heroic measures to preserve the frog habitat when they did not feel the frog was present; they felt it was marginal habitat as stated in the presentation to the Planning Commission; and correspondence with Dr. Hopkins reflects his view that these are heroic measures taken on a possible habitat. Com. Roberts questioned the issue of drainage and detention ponds and said he recalled from the time of the MEIR that we recognized it as an important issue and were assured details would be forthcoming. He said he did not see a response, and noted the letter from Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and also noted the absence of details or general considerations of that issue. Chair Harris said that the Planning Commission was in a bind on the issue; in the Vesting Tentative Map package where were part of these ponds, but it was not part of the presentation. Ms. Wordell reported that the Use Permit is using the same site plan as the map. Mr. Zales noted that there were several storm detention requirements noted in tile mitigation measures and as referenced in the mitigated Negative Declaration, they proposed basins in the areas where water would be retained. He reported that a letter was just received from Santa Clara Planning Commission Minutes 10 June IK 1997 Valley Water District and they had to respond to the letter, because they had not received formal indication from them and are prepared to meet any detention requirements the city wishes the applicant to have. He said that the locations have been noted on the map. He said that the mitigated EIR calls for certain things to be established at final design, and when the Planning Commission and City Council's direction is clear with regard to those areas, and the applicant will comply with what the City asks for and design it accordingly. He showed on the site map the two main areas for potential areas for retention of water. Mr. Dan Schaffer, Brian Kangas Foulk, engineers, referred to the overhead map and illustrated their attempt to bypass the seep area with storm drain lines and take them down to the detention basin and take the first flush of the runoff past the seep area and take it across (illustrated on the map). He noted that in a portion of area 4 they were attempting to hold the post-runoff the same as the pre- runoff, so that there is no additional runoff, to eliminate the need for a detention basin; and noted that they had taken that and let it daylight out to its natural swale. He said that in area 2, a portion of that would be taken and daylighted into an energy dissipater and be allowed again to transverse down a gentle slope until it crossed 280 again, which is about 800 feet of overland natural swale. He said that they were attempting to get out all the pollutants associated with the development before they get to the system. He said that it was possible to "daylight" a portion of it and let it go to open ditch and enclose it again, and in that way possibly get rid of some of the urban runoff in some of the gentler areas here without impacting the downstream swale. Chair Harris asked that the term "daylight" be clarified. Mr. Schaffer defined "daylight" as taking the pipe and letting it open up into the natural channel, from a culverted system to an open swale, and lining the open swale to avoid erosion and those types of problems associated with it. Com. Roberts asked if the engineers could assure that the hydraulic bypassing of the seep areas is an integral and amenable part of the design. Mr. Schaffer said that it was. Com. Roberts said that he recalled an issue of the inundation of the natural trees and how many could be preserved. Mr. Schaffer explained the process of water collection that allowed water to go from a culverted system to a blind channel or natural swale, and said that they were trying to ascertain how large the detention basins needed to be; where the location is at the detention basins, etc. He said that the piece of land will become part of the park area and they were negotiating with the Parks District if there may be a better location for the detention basin because there is a lot of existing trees that they would like to avoid. Com. Roberts asked if a reciprocal agreement was being sought with the Open Space District and County Parks? Mr. Zales said that in the application presented 2 years ago, there was a requirement felt by the landowner that all mitigation including the water tank and detentions basins occurred on the Diocese property. He said that he has worked closely with the Park District and the same rationale may apply subject to further definition for the water tank. He said that all the ideas are going to be in the park land in the future, so if the location on the Diocese property is not the ideal environmental location and there is a more ideal location elsewhere in the park district, they would attempt to do the same. Com. Roberts questioned if there was adequate storage capacity on the seminar parcel itself to ensure survival of the natural trees and if there was an issue of whether or not they could tolerate having their roots under water for a period of time. Mr. Zales said that there was probably adequate room in the panhandle to do it, but there are large trees in the vicinity, and oak trees are Planning Commission Minutes I I June 18, 1997 sensitive to grading. He said that if an alternative was available, why subject them to a 5% or 10% risk if a spot could be found where they are completely clear of the oak tree. Mr. Zales said that the seep area is an excellent example of where you see all the trees, a sort of marshy area in the winter; with oak trees, and wet in the summer also. He said the good news was that, like the water tank, we need to work further with the Parks District, and take the most environmentally sensitive approach. If the Park District approves moving it, we hope to resolve that. He explained that they had 'been trying to contact the Santa Clara Valley Water District who regulates the watershed and they are coming to a point where they want retention and no greater flows into that watershed than the existing condition. Chair Harris asked for an updated report at the next meeting. Com. Roberts asked for clarification about the issue of split level homes. He said it was discussed at the last meeting and were assured of an explanation, but had yet to receive one. Mr. Zales said that they had not yet proposed any split level homes for area 2, and in keeping with the General Plan, it would have to be presented for review. He said that 1 and 2 story homes are scheduled for areas 1 and 4. Ms. Wordell explained the history of how the split level evolved. She reported that the Planning Commission sent 2 alternatives to the City Council, one for 116 units and one for 178 units; neither had development areas in area 2, and it was the Council that put development back into area 2 and created that language. Chair Harris asked if the City Council was aware at that time that it was officially sensitive and was recommended for a one story. Ms. Wordell said that split level was another way of addressing the sensitivity of that, that it was being stepped down, rather than have a two story. She said that Mr. Zales said that the area is proposed for amhitectuml review, so there would still be the opportunity to have input. Mr. Zales said that as mentioned during his presentation on the grading, it is difficult to sensitively step buildings down a prominent hillside. He said that if agreement could be reached on the grading plan which allows for single story home, they would be open to a condition to not have stepped homes on those lots, because it makes it more visually prominent, which is the same argument for areas 1 and 4. However, he added that it was not the most sensitive thing to do. Relative to public open space, Com. Roberts said that he believed actual agreements would be in place at this time, and that it would be clear which public agencies would assume the land nnder which conditions. He asked if there were any assurances that it will have taken place by the time of recommendation for approval. Ms. Wordell said that the County was just received, and all the areas designated as public open space have been accepted by the County. Com. Roberts said that he did not understand why the riparian strip is unsuited for public space if the linear parks are considered to be suitable as public open space. Ms. Wordell clarified that the linear parks are green areas that bound the street, are not public parks, but meandering paths, and are part of the lots, and they do not get dedicated to another agency. The landscaping goes in by the developer so that it creates an overall, natural appearance, but is actually private ownership. The General Plan did allow that those linear landscaping strips did count toward the 66%. It is the large public open space areas that are going over to the County, the areas around the cemetery, areas around 2 and 3, and backdrop of the hillsides. She said that individual property owners maintain the linear areas. Mr. Zales said that there was an easement for the benefit of the public in those areas, and there will be restrictions as to what the homeowner has to maintain through CC&Rs, and will be restricted as to what they can do with the property. The area is not included in the base front yard setback. It will be consistent with the intent that it be a public area, be sensitively landscaped, etc. It is an Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 18, 1997 easement for the benefit of the general public and that area is not included in the base front yard setback; 25 ft. front yard setback that is established is in addition to this linear park. Com. Roberts questioned if Cupertino had any experience in such an arrangement. Mr. Kilian clarified that it was similar to general landscaping plans, drainage plans that are intended to last until changed. There is no homeowners association proposed for the area, and each lot owner will be responsible for maintenance with respect to the landscaping on his/her pamel. The City's enforcement mechanism is somewhat limited; the only real enforcement would be a civil action brought by the City to require that the particular landowner maintain according to the plan. The plan or the permit would not revoked as the houses are built; there would be no criminal violation, nor would there be a homeowners; association to enforce them. Ultimately the City's enforeement responsibility like it is for so many things permanent in nature that are not self-enforcing can only be enforced by some sort of legal action against the property owner, should it be appropriate. Com. Roberts requested that it be made clear in the documents forwarded to City Council that this is the nature of the agreement. Mr. Cowan said that the conditions of approval to address the issues would be presented at the next meeting. Ms. Wordell referred to the site plan and illustrated the private open space areas, linear parks, and County Parks dedicated area. In response to Com. Roberts' question if the private open space was adjacent to the creek, Mr. Zales said that it was not riparian. He said if it was public open space there could be provisions for a foot path, but the County Parks would prefer that the area be kept private. Chair Harris announced that the other Planning Commissioners would waive their right to questions at a future meeting. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Brett Melendy, Vice President, Board of Directors, Rancho San Antonio Housing Corporation (The Forum), speaking on behalf of the board, asked that his statement be included in the record. He said he would address the pending application that was distributed. His four comments were: "1. Our primary concern is with the development of Neighborhood Area I (Seminary parcel). The development as presented in this document, we find is well thought out and appears to be in keeping with the amended general plan. 2. One disappointment that we have is that in discussions with the O'Brien Group, we were told there would be 75 individual house lots. We now find that there are 83 house lots, two of which will be duets. The General Plan, as we understand it, provides for 85 units and we will live with this increase. 3. Attached to my statement is a map relative to the new road easement across part of leasehold, that is to be dedicated by the Diocese to the County of Santa Clara. In our very early discussions with Mr. Brunet of the Sobrato Development Company, he indicated that there would be a stacking lane to control left turns into the Seminary Parcel. That area is marked in red on the map provided you. The pending application does not show such a stacking lane. In a conference with Mr. Zales and Father Mitchell on December 20, 1996 regarding a new road easement, it was agreed that there would be a left mm stacking lane so that incoming traffic would not be hindered. It is our recommendation and request that this commission require that a stacking lane be provided. 4. Our last comment has to do with the proposed water tank as outlined on pp. 22-23. The Board learned through this proposal for the first time what was being proposed for The Forum's use. This Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 18, 1997 proposal is in such general terms that we find the presentation unacceptable. The Board learned on January 28, 1997, that there is a total of $1,669,216.86 held by the City of Cupertino tbr reimbursements for prior improvements in the area. The City of Cupertino earlier required the Forum to improve at its own expense the existing concrete tank. The cost of:this improvement is not indicated on the Public Works list of prior improvements made by the Forum. The proposal before you indicates that the Forum needs approximately 730,000 gallons aad that the cost providing this is to be offset by "the reimbursement due the Forum for earlier improvements that they constructed." The statement in this study before you raises several questions. Is the 730,000 gallons an increase over our present tank reserve? What is the estimated cost of constructing the new tank? Who made the decision as to how the Forum's reimbursement money is to be used? The Board questions how the Forum's reimbursement funds are to be utilized and requests that this issue be resolved before this proposal advances to the City Council. The Board further requests that it be made a party in the resolution of this matter." Mr. Melendy said that he would comment on problems related to a neighborhood park later. Chair Harris asked that staff prepare a response to Mr. Melendy's letter for the next meeting. Ms. Mavis Smith decided not to speak due to the lateness of the hour. Ms. Joan Navone, Cupertino resident, said that she was pleased with Mr. Zale's presentation about not only responding to the rules and regulations, but going onto the spirit of what was intended; the whole idea that there was so much hillside property. She said that she felt the applicant was being responsible environmentally and aesthetically, and that it would not look like tract homes. She commended the applicant for making efforts on behalf of the open space concept, and in working with County Parks they will determine whether is better to have private or public open space. Chair Harris continued the Public Hearing to July 14, 1997. Com. Austin requested that the applicant return with the house plans, floor plans and drawings in a consistent order at the next meeting. She asked that the design review issue be addressed at the next meeting also. She said that the compliance issue was handled; if it is a PD and we are looking at it, and it is removed from the General Plan, a General Plan change will not need to be made for the Diocese because it was removed. Com. Mahoney said that he did not want to reopen the EIR; he said he felt the document indicates what conforms and what does not. He asked that questions about the architecture, such as roofs, trim, architectural design, optional 3 car garages be addressed at the next meeting. He also questioned about how some of the houses, such as tudor, french colonial, etc. would match with the General Plan wording. Com. Doyle said that the General Plan and RHS items discussed by Com. Roberts needed to be addressed and attempt to apply them differently, according to areas 1 and 2, or 3 and 4. He said his questions were grouped into two major groups: the siting issues of the houses and how they are positioned, their location; and to other details such as: is there sidewalks on both sides? Overall the information needed for next meeting is how these sites are viewed as entering the neighborhood; are the houses the same setbacks; are they all 20 feet, 30 feet; will they all have Planning Commission Minutes ~4 June 18, 1997 driveways out front and garages in front, or some in back? He said he would prefer a variety in the siting of the houses on these pamels vs. a whole row of houses next to each other, maybe not cookie cutter in architecture but cookie cutter on the parcels. He said that clarification would be helpful. It was suggested that the Planning Commissioners submit questions to Ms. Wordel[ prior to the meeting so that the applicant could have the responses for the next meeting. In response to Chair Harris's questions about the BMR unit garages, Mr. Zales said that the garages were almost double-deep, approximately 30 feet deep, which would allow parking for I car and ample storage. He said that the BMR units are 3 bedroom units. Chair Harris questioned the corporation yard that the cemetery decided to keep, and asked if it was previously counted as part of the open space area. Mr. Zales said that it was indicated on the original General Plan as a use easement and there were two options, either to be retained by the cemetery with use restrictions, or taken by the park district and leased back at no cost to the cemetery; the Park District preferred that the cemetery retained ownership. He said that it was included in the 55%, and is not dedicated. He said that it could be considered as private open space, but it is counted in the General Plan and in their plan as being consistent with that as public open space because it was calculated as such. He said that their plans call for less private open space than the General Plan allows, and they are dedicating 4 or 5 more acres of public open space. He said that if the Commission prefers, it could be called private and still apply for a General Plan. Chair Harris asked that the information be provided at the next meeting, with some understanding privately held could be considered public open space. Mr. Cowan said that in the General Plan diagram it was listed as a corporate yard use easement. Chair Harris said that it was an issue because it was being counted as public open space dedicated land and it is not. There was a brief discussion regarding the scheduling of agenda items for upcoming meetings. Mr. Kilian reported that there would be a short closed session regarding a Diocese issue. There was consensus to continue the Public Hearing to July 14. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: It wasmoved by Com. Doyle to continue the public hearing to July 14. Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS 3. Removed from agenda NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Tile Report of tile Community Developer was continued to the July 14 Planning Commission meeting.