Loading...
PC 06-14-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 14, 1997 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Chairperson Harris Roberts Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Project Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. The Planning Commission convened to closed session involving significant exposure to litigation involving the O'Brien Group, Application No.(s): 6zU-97, 4-TM-97, 5-Z-97 and 15-EA-97, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1 ). Upon reconvening into open session, City Attorney Charles Kilian reported that the Planning Commission met in dosed session to discuss the various nmmces of potential litigation involving the O'Brien Group, and no action was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 9, 1997 regular meeting: Chair Harris requested that the following explanation be added, following line 2 of Page 4: "By consensus, Corns. Mahoney and Austin were excused, and Com. Doyle remained to constitute the needed quorum". MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the June 9, 1997 minutes as amended. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the June 12, 1997 adjourned meeting: Chair Harris requested the following addition be made to the last line of Page 11 of the minutes: "and that the packet be labeled as to location and what issue they referred to in terms of angles, landscaping, etc., and that the document be given to all commissioners." Page 11, Paragraph 5: "different" should read "differently" Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 14, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the June 12, 1997 minutes as amended. Chair Harris Com. Roberts Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 2-0-2 Later in the meeting, the motion was made to continue the approval of the June 12 minutes because there was not a quorum of commissioners present at that meeting for voting purposes. Chair Harris requested written clarification on the voting issue. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: It was moved by Com. Austin to continue approval of the June 12, 1997 minutes to the July 23, 1997 meeting. Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the June 18, 1997 adjourned meeting: It was noted that Com. Mahoney should be listed as present. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes as amended. Com. Mahoney Chair Roberts Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted for the record letters fi-om Bob Schwencke and Luella Phelps, relative to Item 6. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-EXC-97 and 20-EA-97 Brian Peters Michael & Darlene Billig 22040 Regnart Road Hillside Exception for a new residence and accessory structures to exceed the maximum floor area ratio to be built on slopes greater than 30% and in the 100 ti. riparian corridor setback in accordance with Chapter 19.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DE flglLMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1997 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-U-97 and 21-EA-97 James Liang, T Square Consulting Group Golden Park, L.L.C. Southwest comer of Lomita and Imperial Avenues Use Permit to conslract a new 3,453 sq. t~. mixed-use building with an automobile lire repair shop on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 14, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 28, 1997 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to postpone Application Nos. 9-EXC-97 and 20-EA-97 (Item 3), and Application Nos. 8-U-97 and 21-EA-97 (Item 4) to the July 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Com. Austin noted for the record that she felt it was poor planning for an item such as Item 6 to be agendized so late in the meeting. She said that in the future, something that important should be scheduled earlier in the meeting. Chair Hams stated that discussion of Item 5 would be limited to 2 hours, at which time the item would be continued so that Item 6 could be discussed. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR Request fi.om John Way residents to initiate a hearing to consider rezoning properties on their street to limit construction to single story. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the Consent Calendar Com. Mahoney Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 6-ASA-97 and 25-EA-97 Berg & Berg Developers 10460 Bubb Road Architecture and site approval to construct a 14,952 sq. ft. addition to an existing light industrial building. EN¥1RONMENTAL Di~ l Iztq/VIIN ATION: Negalive Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a 14,952 sq. ft. addition to a light industrial single story building occupied by GSI as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application; the decision if reached, will be considered the City's final action on the item. Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Project Planner, reported that the application was reviewed by staff and conforms to all requirements of the West Valley Park Plan. She said that the issues were to ensure that in maintaining the existing parking configuration, there should also be included an efficient circulation layout for the parking lot. Staffhas worked with the architect on the project and Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 14, 1997 staff feels that all conditions have been met. She noted for the record that there is an existing 15 foot landscape buffer along McClellan Road heavily landscaped with evergreen trees which currently provides a screening to the reapportion of the property and staff feels it will sufficiently continue to screen the addition as proposed. Ms. Ungo-McCormick referred to the location map and illustrated the site location, and said that the reason for the proposed configuration is that currently there is a PG&E power easement traversing the property, and in order to avoid the easement they needed to configure the building as such. In response to Com. Doyle's question relative to replanting of trees, she explained that existing trees were not being removed, but replacement of trees that had previously died or removed and they will be existing those in tree wells. She noted that there was a requirement for wheel stops for tree protection. Chair Harris recommended that the words ", to be approved by staff." be inserted after "Cupertino Munictpal Code" on Page 2-5, No. 5, line 5. Mr. Clyde Beck, Berg & Berg, architects, reported that he had worked closely with staff, and had no additional comments. Chair Harris opened the heating for public input. As there was none, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Ungo-McCormick noted that the area was zoned General Plan Industrial/Residential. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to grant the Negative Declaration for Application No. 25-EA-97 Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 6-ASA-97, according to the model resolution, with modifications discussed. Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 6-U-97, 4-TM-97, 5-Z-97 and 15-EA-97 Steve Zales/O'Brien Group Diocese of San Jose South ofl-280, west of Foothill Blvd. and Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek Blvd. AFN No.(s): 342-05-054, 056, 059, 060 and 342-52-003 Use Permit to construct 177 residential units and ancillmy improvements on approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property. Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property into 168 lots. (Previously advertised as a Vesting Tentative Map.) Zoning to rezone approximately 67 acres of the 212 acre property from Agriculture (A), Quasi-Public (BQ) to Planned Development/Residential (P/RES). Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 14, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL Dial iaKMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended ~ taNTATI'VE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reported that the issues to be discussed were grading, landscaping and architectural design. As outlined in the staff report, the concerns relative to grading and landscaping were the edges of the development. The applicant has prepared additional graphics to discuss some issues and solutions. In terms of grading, staff pointed out that the fundamental grading for the lots was gradual slope and conformed to the natural land form as required by the General Plan. The edges are significantly different; the applicant prepared a color grading plan in the packet which illustrates the differences; the edges are important in terms of fencing. The edges present another issue which is the maintenance of the private open space areas, two types of private open space areas; one type of open space area are the linear parks along the roadways, illustrated in green; another are around the edges that abut the public open space. Staff is suggesting that the linear park areas which are in private ownership, would be maintained by each property owner and that there is a proposed condition of approval addressing other property owners having the ability to maintain those if the individual property owner does not. As far as the private open space abutting the public areas, this is to be a transition area and to be kept in a natural state and the major concern was that the fire aspect of it be maintained and staffbelieves it can be done through weed abatement enforcement. Between those two approaches, staff feels that the private open space areas, the enfomement of those can be addressed. Ms. Wordell stated that the staff report contained responses to questions raised by the Planning Commission and public, as well as draft conditions to help get started about what are the final requirements of the project. Mr. Steve Zales, O'Brien Group, introduced the presenters: Mr. Max Keech, Brian Kangas Foulk; Mr. Peter Callender, Callender Associates, landscape architect; and Mr. Jude Kerrick, Pacific Peninsula Architects. Mr. Max Keech, Brian Kangas Foulk, said that his finn had been responsible for the land planning and civil engineering on the site for 18 months; and he had spent a lot of time on the front end of the project meeting with various concerned groups, agencies, city staff, commissioners, council members, to understand the history of the site and what the concerns were regarding future development of the development portion of the site. He said it was a team effort between his firm, the developer, the landscape architect and the arbofist to try to conform to the natural land forms. He said that the slide presentation would provide a sense of the land plan, and the grading on the site; and the justification for the work done. He said it was an important consideration how the project would be viewed fi.om a distance as people were concemed with the bulk and mass of the project, especially in light of what they considered as an overly massive project in the Forum which was adjacent the site. Following the meetings, three major goals for the land plan of the project were set: the post development visual which was the most important consideration; how does the bulk and mass of the project look; how does the screening look from a distance. The second goal was to conform to the natural land form, try to recognize and understand what that is and make the project conform to it. Third, that the quality of the finished product was as important, or more important than the absolute grading quantities. Mr. Keech reviewed the self imposed grading standards: (1) Contour grading with 3:1 maximum slopes; (2) Avoid use of retaining walls and benches; (3) Avoid use of architectural skirts and Planning Commission Mh~utes ~ ]u~¥ ~, 199~/ sloped pads; (4) Conform to natural slopes at all boundaries; (5) Preserve maximum number of healthy trees within the development area; (6) Restore or screen existing unnatural features; and (7) Fully explore opportunities to improve EIR concept plan. Mr. Keech showed an example of what contour grading is not: a slope in Brisbane, created by Caltxans. He continued the slide presentation showing slides illustrating 2:1 slopes, benches & retaining walls which is less expensive because there is less grading involved. Mr. Keech showed slides illustrating one story home on a flat pad, one story split level home, and a one story home on sloped ground surface, and explained why the flat pad approach was selected; both showed the same existing ground surface; going to 3:1 slope existing at the perimeter. He illustrated a computer image of the Forum at level pad and an illustration of the Forum one story with skirt which illustrated the difference in mass. He said that the Forum development appears to be massive, although the vast majority of the structures are one story structures. He showed a slide of the Heney Creek project which is an uphill unit, step pad approach, which is a two story unit, but appears as a three story element from the street side. He said it was a good project in that it saved existing trees. Mr. Keech reviewed the cut and fill areas exhibit, for Area 1; showed slides including the Saint Joseph's Seminary building numerous out buildings, which will be removed, and the area restored to its nannal condition; and the heavily forested area He explained grading in the various neighborhoods. He reviewed the Areas 2, 3 and 4 cut and t511 diagram, which illustrated farm yard restoration, service road restoration, overland release, sedimentation area restoration, cemetery screening, PG&E screening, and access areas. Other slides illustrated the cemetery sediment basin, Area 3; view of Lot 2-12 which illustrated minimization of architectural exposure; roadway in Neighborhood 3 and 4, restoration of steep embankment while saving trees; and Area 4 repair areas. Mr. Keech summarized that he felt the plan was well thought out, and effort was put into it to match the land form, minimize grading under the context of contour grading and said it meets or exceeds the spirit of the General Plan in the RHS. He said they worked to reduce the visual bulk and mass of the structures and provide natural transitions to the undeveloped area. He added that in his history with the firm, he felt the project was the most sensitive, conforming project he had experience with. Mr. Keech illustrated the wildlife corridor on the map and pointed out that they would not grade the area. He noted that in the tot lot area, there would be culverts provided under the roadway to allow migration. He reported that the PG&E bem~ averaged 10-13 feet high, was 3:1 to 6:1 side slope, and would be accessible for walking. He said that in the area of the DeAnza Knoll, it was a 3:1 slope, and a roadway surface was needed. Mr. Keech stated that in the area of the seminary building, the cut was a large cut in its horizontal extent; and that the mound behind it would be lowered. He explained that the pad elevation where the seminmy building is remains at its same elevation, but would be two story in height. Mr. Peter Callender, landscape architect, said that working on the project was a unique experience where the natural topography, the buildings, existing trees, have all come together to provide four distinct neighborhoods. He reviewed the landscape proposal in the PG&E berm area. He explained than an earthen berm was created to visually separate the development from the PG&E substation, but also provide a good linear park with a 4-1/2 foot walkway, and introduced native txees to the site; and allows to continue the earth form around the side neighborhood 4 to meld into the berm and screen it from the Heney Creek neighborhood. He illustrated that at the top of the berm there was a solid wood fence that would not be visible from Area 4. P~unning £onm~xssi~n ~mxxes ~ 3x~ ~4, ~x99~ Mr. Callender reviewed the overall landscape concept plan for Area 1; the private open space planting for Area 1; and the private open apace planting for Areas, 2, 3 and 4. He noted that the overall landscape plan Area I included the northern edge which paralleled the existing walking path through the riparian corridor illustrated on the landscape plan. An attempt has been made to duplicate the natural tree massings around the perimeter of the site, including shrubs, solid wood fence, redwoods, and oaks which provided a broadleaf evergreen screening all year. He indicated that over 145 existing trees have been retained. Mr. Calleader illustrated the various oak and pine tree plantings in Areas 2, 3 and 4, as well as the native tree plantings. He ilhistrated the linear parks throughout the project. He said that the interior of the project represented an outstanding effort to embellish the typical street tree plan 4000%, with an informal planting of drought resistant shrubs, trees and ground covers; and the developer will landscape all front yards. He referred to a planting bar chart which illustrated the existing trees, native oaks, native-like trees and shrub series prevalent throughout the development. Mr. Callender discussed the proposed fencing options. He reviewed slides illustrating the proposed wire fencing, which was woven wire, 6 feet high, translucent, 4 inches square, which creates a rural feel and allows vegetation growth and wildlife access; and non-access for household pets. Mr. Callender rev/ewed the various fencing options, noting that the recommended option was Option 3. Copies of the presentation materials were requested to be made a part of the record. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Callender said that the property owners across the street from the project would be responsible for the maintenance of the PG&E berm. The Planning Commissioners requested that the issue of maintenance of the linear park and the private open space be discussed. Chair Harris requested that Mr. Callender indicate what is planted in the linear park area, and what the plan was for maintenance. Mr. Callender said that in a typical subdivision there was a curb, parkway strip, sidewalk and front yard. Referring to the overhead of the landscape and in-igafion plan, he illustrated the 20 foot wide strip from the back curb toward the front yard, with a meandering 4-1/2 foot wide walkway, trees, shrubs, groundcover planted on both sides of the walkway, and the placement of trees. He said that the property owner would be responsible for maintaining the from yard and the parkway strip in front of the residence. He pointed out that there was linear park on both sides, with a walkway on one side; and was narrower on the cul de sacs. He also noted that because of the fire department requirement for access, the walkway cul de sac would carry one-third into the cul de sac. Relative to the maintenance of the PG&E berm, Mr. Callender pointed out that the homes that fronted the PG&E berm were responsible for maintenance of the berm. He said thru the property owners across the sweet from the berm would be responsible for payment of the water bill for maintenance of the Mr. Callender reviewed in detail the fencing Options 1 through 4. He apologized for not providing a sample of the fencing material. He explained that the fencing material was a woven wire mesh, with 4x4 openings, or 6x6 openings. He said that the intent was that the material be translucent and weathered to blend into the landscape; and noted it was not climbable. Mr. Callender said that Option I had solid board fencing on side property lines with a wire fence at the rear of the developed area; no fencing on individual property lines. People in the pubhc open space would not be able to access the private open space. He indicated the area where it would be accessible from one yard to another. He said that native trees would be put in the public open areas and in some areas shrubs. He noted that annual fire control maintenance would be necessary for the public open space. Mr. Callender pointed out that Option I was not selected because the developer did not like Planning Commission Minutes g July 14, 1997 a double row of fences in the rear yard as it was trying to maintain the feeling of a large lot, and maintain views out into the open space. Option 2 represents a fully enclosed section where the solid board treatment is the same in ail alternatives; and is a woven wire fence around all four sides of the private open space. In Option 3 he illnstrated where pieces were eliminated and less was seen on the site. He said the steel fence gives the lot owner control over his property; such as keeping out a neighbor's dog or preventing a child from getting into a swim pool. Ms. Wordell explained the tradeoffs. She said that staff had supported Opt/on I because of the visual benefits as far as it being a continuous strip vs. having the cross fences coming down. The tmdeoff from their point of view is that with their Option 3 the property owner has more access to it, more usability, more benefit to them; which is a tradeoffbetween what the values are. Mr. Callender said that Option 4 was all solid fencing. Ms. Wordell indicated on the overhead the area of open area and solid fencing. Ms. Wordell explained that it was open space because there were smaetures, no pools, no recreational equipment, only grass and t~ees. Mr. Zales clarified that there was no private open space between the Forum and Area 1. He illustrated that on the edges of the noah and south, there was a 20 foot strip, 5 feet on the 20 feet is on the far side of the fence; 5 feet of the strip. He said stuff was concerned about a solid fence that was visible from the park. The fence was put 5 feet inside the property line with native landscaping on the outside of the fence; irrigation ronning under the fence and would be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain. The other 15 feet is a transition area and has native planting. The big open space, 100 foot strip going down to the creek is all open and has the type of fencing described. He said it was not critical that this be private or public; as it was a small percentage. He explained the reason for not having the open weave on both sides because both sides have a pedestrian path from Los Altos; there are one stery houses, with downstaim master bedrooms and the back of the houses with French doom which is a privacy concern and security concern if there was a wire fence there. He said that they were not tt3ring not to impose a requirement on the park district to have to disc the edges of their park with the project, therefore the native areas would be natural grasses, and the homeowner would have the responsibility to disc. Chair Hams questioned why the applicant was not suggesting the vinyl clad fencing used at Vintage Oaks that disappeared but was slxong and stable; a child could climb on it and it wouldn't rust, etc. Mr. Zales said they were open to discussing the makeup of the fence, and explained that the proposed fence is illustrated in the packet. He said that they felt a vinyl chain link fence is a more urban type fence, not conducive to a rural area; and they also felt that with less ma_~s, there is less visibility. In terms of climbability, they didn't want to encourage people to climb the fence into the park and he felt the park shared that goal of t~ing to restrict park access to the main trail points into the park entry; not over these people's back yards. He added that the fences were going up and down hills and pointed out that where there was a welded fence, a post was needed each time there was a steepness of the slope; an unwelded fence would follow the contour of the ground more evenly and posts are not needed each time the slope changes. In response to Chair Harris' question about what makes the subdivision rurai, Mr. Zales said that they were attempting to provide a transition with landscapIng and open space, and the architecture which is more informal. He said it was a mix of suburban density, not in the hillside, but adjacent to hillside, and adjacent to some very urban areas, but also adjacent to some very natural areas. Planning Commission Minutes Chair Harris asked for clarification on the implementation of the condition that if a homeowner neglects to maintain their private open space, someone else can maintain it and receive ~rnuneration for doing it. M~. Zales explained that the condition was suggested for the linear park, not for the private open space; although one of their concerns with Alternative l, where essentially the private open space without side yard fences becomes a common open space, they agree that the maintenance becomes more problematic if it is a shared area. He said that for the linear park, it was his understanding of the origin of that condition, that the city has used that elsewhere as a hammer; but practically speaking, the homes are nice houses with full landscaping and full irrigation put in by the developer, and it is expected that with/n the price range of homes, property owners would have a strong vested interest and financial capability to maintain their homes better than the average community which wouldn't be planted the same time or have good inigation, etc. Relative to having a central body administering the maintenance of the open space, Mr. Zales said that they had discussed options with the city staff and one acceptable option to them but not by staff, was to have a lighting and landscape district where it would be commonly maintained. Recently, Prop 218 challenged the ability to do that. He said that a homeowners association was not appropriate for the type of community. Com. Austin questioned liability on the linear park. Mr. Zales said that the linear park was the same situation as most city streets with sidewalks. He said that it did not differ fi.om a city street except that it was enhanced with a wider meandering path and more landscaping. He said that the property owner maintained and owned the linear parks; the city is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Mr. Bert Viskovich, Director of Public works, clarified that most of the street section was city right- of-way; liability goes to .the city because it maintains the sidewalk. He said it was a question as to the landscape portion being in the right-of-way; there is always the ability to file a claim with the city. If it is totally private, the city has no obligation. Mr. Zales clarified that the linear park is part of the private lot, but was essentially un increased front yard with restrictive landscaping. There is right-of-way to the benefit of the city and pedestrians over that are. o_ Mr. Viskovich said that what was being discussed was normal in all the other subdivisions in that the whole right-of- way where you have the curb and gutter, the sidewalks and the park strips and the street tree, are all within the city's right-of-way. He said that in this case, there is a linear park because of the meandering sidewalk and adding some additional landscaping, and is within the city's right-of- way. Com. Mahoney questioned private open space and the conditions, and asked if no gates were permitted between the private and public open space, which was at the request of County Parks. Ms. Wordell and Mr. Zales indicated the solid fenced areas on the overhead map. Com. Maboney questioned the meaning of no penned animals being kept in the private open space. Ms. Wordell said that the buffered area would be unimpeded and there would be no change to it; it would be natural landscaping, grasses; no su'ucmres. She said that no corals would be permitted. Mr. Zales said that the original application had open fencing on all three sides, and four sides of the private open space. Mr. Zales said he felt maintenance would not be an issue, given the drought tolerant nature of the planting, the irrigation being installed and the area would be the best maintained slxeets in Cupertino. Com. Mahoney asked that, given that the areas 2, 3 and 4 are phased development, how does the linear park work there; does it go in up front; how does it get maintained while the lots are being implemented over a period of time? Ms. Wordell responded that when the custom homes were built, they would have to conform to the plan then. Com. Austin questioned the difference between the private open space and the linear park private open space relative to taxes and ownership. Mr. Zales responded that the ownership was the same, that the property owner would pay the taxes; the difference between the linear park is that there is an easement, and access benefiting the public, and the private open space is for the properly owner. Mr. Jude Kerdck, Pacific Peninsula Architecture, said he would respond to questions regarding the individual architectural designs of the homes in Areas 1 and 4 of the subdivision. He said that the O'Brien Group and Pacific Peninsula Architecture had worked to create a community of homes whose designs have understated architectural essence which would be stylistically identifiable. The goal was not to be pretentious or ~'aet-like; diversity was the key in order to minimize repetition of designs and avoid a tract-like development, and to allow individual homeowners to have choice and exhibit some personal preference regarding their homes. They are semi-custom homes, with the base floor plan being designed by the architect with flexible interior options, and selection of the exterior elevation. He reviewed the booklet illustrating the different architectural styles of homes in the development. He reported that there were 7 market rate plans, varying in size from 2700 sq. fr. to 3700 sq. fr., and one BMR plan. Mr. Kerdck said that he would address topics of concern from the prior Planning Commission meeting. (1) Massing and overall roofllnes of the individuals homes: He said that Mr. Keech had discussed stepping and flat pads earlier in the meeting. Architecturally what has been done to minimize and reduce the visual mass of each home from any vantage point, was to keep the overall building heights below 30 feet. He said that the proposed designs cull for homes from 24 to 28 feet height. He added that the main body of the roof has been maintained at a low roof pitch, at 4 and 12 or 5 and 12 as shown in the handout; and that the varied roof pitches allow for the design of a cottage, prairie, or spanish villa style. Mr. Kerdck added that many of the homes had one story portion which abut the two story portions, meaning that the homes step down in the front or in the back or through a variety of other elements. (2) The garages: ha order to reduce the impact of the garage, all garages have been set back from the main line of the front oftbe building except for the one story plan. He said that stylistic garage doors have been used which match the remainder of the house; all the garages are less than 50% of the width of the house; some less than 30% of the width of the house; and there is no development such as a bonus room above the garage. The number of 3 car garages is limited because of the lot widths. He said that side approaches to garages was not considered because of the amount of paving and development in front of the homes. (3) The step building vs. the flat pad approach. He said the flat pad approach had the most minimal visual impact when viewed from a distance. {4) Materials and colors: He said an attempt was made to have appropriate materials to match the styles of home presented. Roofing will be composition shingle, concrete file roof and shake. Mr. Kerdck displayed the color board which illustrated the 24 different colors to be used throughout the development. In response to Com. Austin's question about the chimneys, MI'. Kerrick clarified that the Building Code states that the chimney flue must extend two feet further up of any roof within 10 feet. Mr. Kerrick referred to the color board and explained which colors were used for the body of the house, the trim, and the accent colors. Relative to the roofing material, Mr. Zales stated that wood shake qhingles would not be used because they do not comply with city standards; but concrete file or asphalt composition would be used. Chair Harris addressed the issue of only one garage for the BMR unit and expressed concern that there may be 3 cars associated with the BMR unit, in addition to guest parking. Mr. Kemck indicated that in order for the BMR unit to have a 2 car garage, it would add another 20 feet to the depth of the unit, and they were already the deepest units in terms of front to back setbacks. He said that the units could not accommodate 2 garages and there was room for one car in the driveway, and guests would have to park on the street. Planning Commission Minutes II ~uiy 14, 1997 (5) In response to Chair Harris' question about the minimum setbacks, Mr. Kerrick said that in Areas 1 and 4, the side yard setbacks for two story homes would be 10 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other; the RHS would have 15 feet and 15 feet. The one story unit would have 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other; which is the R1 setback, and 10 feet and 10 feet in the RHS. Relative to second stow setbacks, he said that architectural features of porches in the rear address the concern about having enough break in the rear elevations of the homes. He said that all the plans shown do not literally meet the concept of having 75% of the rear of the house with a minimum 5 foot, average 8 foot fa-st story unit. He said the only way they could have met that standard other than building porches, which is what they did on some houses, was to increase the size of the houses. He said that if anyone felt any of the rear elevations does not meet the goal of having architectural elements of interest, they would discuss it. Chair Harris asked if they would have the appropriate RHS offset in any houses built in the Areas 2 and 3. Mr. Kemck said that staff has asked them to do that, and they were agreeable to it. He said that the proposed minimum rear setback for R1 is 30 feet minimum, as well as 30 feet in front. Com. Doyle questioned which document defines what the private open space depth or dimension is on a given lot. Ms. Wordell responded that the overall site plan had the private open space. Ms. Wordell referred to the vesting tentative map, and ill,hated the locations of the single and second story lots. Chair Harris requested that staff address the issue for the next meeting. Ms. Wordeil pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended no development in Area 2, but City Council approved one story or split level homes for Area 2. Mr. Zales noted that lot 1-65 had 20 inch and 21 inch redwood trees on the lot and they requested that a two story home be pcL't~fitted behind the trees in order to save the trees. He also illustrated the location of another lot with a 100 foot private open space that he was requesting the one stow restriction be removed to permit a two story home. Ms. Wordell stated that it did not require a General Plan change to change the one story restriction, and staff would present a recommendation at the next meeting. Chair Harris declared a recess from 10:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Ruth Shriber, County Parks Department, said that they had met and had productive discussions with City staff, the O'Brien Group and the Diocese to discuss various issues relative to the dedication of the public open space to the County. She said she would highlight issues for discussion and areas of concern. Ms. Shriber said that they recently reviewed the conditions of approval, and felt that Item 15, the public open space parking issue, should be deleted fxom the conditions of approval. She said they consistently indicated since the process for the master EIR begun, that they felt the parking impacts fxom construction and addifiounl dwelling units adjacent to the facility of the county park would be a growth inducing.impact to the park and would create a need for additional parking. They perceive the impact to be an impact on the County Parks and in the past have suggested the impact be mitigated by the project. She said they understand that the master EIR and the subsequent CEQA and other documents indicate that the increased park land resulting from the open space dedication will in itself ereate a need for additional parking within the park,and that the city believes this should be mitigated by the Parks Department, not the project. The mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program indicate the County will be addressing the issue of the parking when Planning Commission Minutes the master plan is resumed for the open space lands. While the Parks Department is not in accordance with the environmental consultant and the City staff interpretation of this issue, they said they could agree to address the parking impacts and any furore master plan for the park. However, they do not agree that the developer's conditions of approval should reference impacts that cannot be addressed by the developer. Therefore, County Parks respectfully request that Item 15 be deleted ~om the conditions of approval. Ms. Shriber said that the second item of concern is that they would reiterate the County's preference that the lands to be dedicated as public open space be ~'ansferred all at once, following completion of the project construction to enable the County to address issues pertaining to liability, public access, maintenance, operation, safely and security at the same time, rather than a piecemeal approach. Thirdly, with regard to the Suyder House, if the Snyder House is removed off the site, the County would be willing to receive that separate parcel after the removal has occurred. Fourth, it is the County's understanding and preference that the maintenance of the emergency access roads and detention ponds, both of which serve the project, but are to be located on County lands, be maintained by the City, since the County does not have the resources to provide maintenance of these facilities. The County supports the tot lots as proposed; and support the private open space areas as shown. She said they understand that there are some CC&Rs pertaining to residents' use for private open space which borders the park. Cdven the fact that no homeowners association is proposed, it will be important to identify an enforcing agent for the CC&Rs. She reiterated that in the discussions, it has been unclear who the enforcing agent for the CC&Rs will be and given the fact that there are the CC&Rs and there will be no homeowners association, they believe it is important to identify the enforcing agent for the CC&Rs. Com. Maboney asked Ms. Shriber if there were discussions on what completion meant to the County Parks, relative to the point about transferring the property, given that parts of the project could be a long time coming; someone could buy the lot and not build for a number of years. Ms. Shriber said that previous discussions indicated that the majority of conslxuetion would be completed within a couple of years. She said that as a result of this evening's meeting, Areas 1 and 4 are proposed for initial construction and subsequent developraents could occur piecemeal. She said that it should be addressed among stall but the major concerns pertained to the need to accommodate the public in a safe way to prepare the lands public use, to have the opportunity to address the new lands. She said they were concerned that they would be pressured to provide access to these lands and have concerns that if they did so during consU'uction, there may be some potential liabilities associated with that. Ms. Shriber said that given the fact that the second two areas may be developed over the long term, it is something they would like to continue in their discussions with the City and the developer. Chair Hawis suggested that Ms. Skfiber consider what would work for the County in that respect. She said she felt it was the developer's intention to develop the stxeets, and they may be interested in putting in the fencing. Ms. Shriber said that it was possible the infrastructure has been installed and lots would sit vacant and only when the actual home is constructed that they would be able to discuss that. Com. Austin said that the issue of increased parking demand would probably continue even though there was no project up there; and asked if she was advocating the city have parking permits for residents to enforce this? Ms. Sluiber said her comments pertained to the fact that the County Parks believes that requirements for the County to work with the city to provide parking do not belong in the conditions of approval for the development. She said they did not believe that it is the appropriate location for that. She said that they supported enforcement by the City of parking for the benefit both of the park and the new residents. They discussed it with City staff over the last several months and she understood that the City would be doing that. Chair Hams questioned relative to the emergency access roads, was it her thought that the County would have the land and Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 14, 1997 the City would have the maintenance responsibility and liability. Ms. ShHber said she understood that the project was rff~ining easements for emergency access on the lands to be dedicated and those emergency access roads in their discussions were requested to be maintained by the projects since they would be serving the project. Ms. Wordell said they would be maintained by the city as dedicated easements. In response to Com. Doyle's question about whether or not she was proposing that the County pick up additional parking, Ms. Shriber said that County Parks was not making any proposals at this time for the lands to be dedicated in terms of their improvements; but once the lands are dedicated they would need to take a comprehensive approach to plan and provide for services for the park lands. Ms. Shfiber said that they did not have a master plan for the park, bat that when they master planned Rancho San Antonio in 1989-90, they took a look at the carrying capacity of the site and although there is a substantial, heavy demand for parking at Rancho San Antonio, they had to look at how much parking could be installed on the 160 existing acres of County park lands. She said that there were an additional approximate 1,000 acres of open space lands owned by Mid Peninsula Open Space District which does not provide parking on that site, so the parking within the county parks serves a rather large area. She said they had to acknowledge the fact that it was not posaible to meet the demands and therefore were able to increase the parking to accommodate the use there, but had to balance that with protection for the natural environment there, and it was felt during the planning phase that there were limits as to the amount of additional parking that could be installed at the existing site, and at present are at capacity there. Com. Austin asked Ms. Slm'ber if they were not interested in the Snyder House at all although it has historical significance; or was there a possibility of it staying in the same place and the city maintaining it? Ms. Shriber said that from the County Parks perspective, they were not in the businass of historic preservation. They looked at the house, and although it had some cultural significance, architecturally she questioned the significance. She said they felt that it would be difficult for the county to assume the properly with the house on it, given the extensive architectural upgrade that would be required; and generally speaking are not in the business of maintaining historical stractm'es; and for that reason engaged in discussions with the city and the developer to come up with creative solutions so that it would not be part of the dedication to the county. Mr. Richard Sclmmacher, 11331 Bubb Road, representing FAIR, commented that following the detailed work, a consensus was reached in 1995 on a carefully defined development plan and open space dedication that existed before the present meetings began. Since then the O'Brien Group has worked on behalf of the Diocese to maintain it, and it is possible to exceed the public benefits of the original consensus. He said he felt they had been successful in woiking toward the goal, as the proposed project meets all of the original required mitigations and has included additional significant benefits, hi numbers the original agreement has 159 acres to be maintained in mostly public open space, of which 136 acres would be dedicated to Rancho San Antonio Park, and that nearly doubles in size; and that walking, jogging, equestrian and bike access to the park will be significantly improved. Slope grading would be natural; lot sizes in all areas of the development are substantially larger than the minimum; and the home sizes are smaller than the maximum allowed; and home design has emphasized quality and not quantity. He said concerns for visual impact have been addressed, and them will be 18 BMR units, and 159 attractive market rate, executive homes will be provided to help address the jobs and housing balance in Cupertino and the South Bay. He summarized there were many examples of good faith that the original consensus has been contained in the application, and he urged the Planning Commission to approve the application so that the private and public benefits could be realized promptly. Ptanning Commission Minutes 14 July 14, 1997 Mr. Jack Birkholz, 21381 Milford Drive, said that he had followed the project for many years, and said that fxom the beginning it was a compromise where everyone gives a little and takes a little. He said that a result of the compromise was written into the city laws and into city policies, and he said he hoped as there was more detailed discussion they did not lose site of what that compromise was and that the spirit of the compromise would not be breached. He said it was particularly true because the developer has done as much or more than could reasonably be expected; the dedication of the open space; the caring for the environmental matters and dealing with the many questions raised by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In closing, he expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission and staff for the time and effort taken; and thanked them for their endurance. Ms. Mavis Smith, 22374 Majestic Oak Way, said that she was speaking on behalf of the creatures inhabiting the area that would be forced to seek other homes. She said that the project looked better than it had before, because of the change in numbers of proposed homes fi.om 177 fi.om 292. She said that it was not likely that she would enjoy seeing what is being developed, because the continuous building distressed her. She said we need wildlife habitat, not just a space between buildings and linear parks and little pieces here and there, and concerns about where we are going to put trails and who will be responsible for the upkeep, e~c. She said places are needed where wildlife can be observed without being constrained by the presence of people. Unfortunately those places are few and far between and as we loose them she becomes more distressed; but she said she was happy to see a lower profile againqt the skyline and on the hills, and hoped that the former residents will all move over into the county park and in the open space reserve. Ms. Smith thanked the Planning Commissioners, staff, and television studio. She said that long ago the poets and philosophers talked about the loss of what she was speaking of now, but we paid very little attanfion and she said she realized that she would remind people that we are losing something and we should keep as much as possible. She concluded by saying "don't mess it up any more than you have to." She said she sometimes feels foolish standing at the podium and then she hears the voice of Wallace Stegner, when he said "we hold the land forever, but do we ever take time to think of its future? and that it really what she is talking about; we can't put it back the way it used to be; every time we txy that our results are not very good. She said to think about it, be cautious about any minor changes that might mm out to be larger than we hoped. She said that there will be more traffic, so when we drive in through that area, we are going to have to watch; we cannot exactly avert our eyes us I have offered as a solution to the people who don't like the looks of the Forum! Chair Harris dosed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Chair Harris noted that the item would be continued to July 28 to discuss additional EIR mitigations to be discussed before dealing with the environmental aspects; and she recommended that the Planning Commissioners look through the questions and answers in the packets for those that required more focus; review conditions recommended by staff; is there agreement on language and issues and unresolved items on Page 5-5 and Page 5-6 of the staff report (Exhibit A); review fencing options; consider which of the RI-IS regulations should be applied to which sections of the community, if any; geology issue listed on Page 5-6; other issues where the status is substantially consistent (staffto clarify what that means; what part is not consistent). MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: It was moved by Com. Mahoney to continue Application Nos. 6-U-97, 4-TM-97, 5-Z-97 and 15-EA-97 to the July 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Austin Com. Roberts Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97 and 22-EA-97 Phillipe end Anne Dot Stevens Cenyon Road/Balboa Hillside Exception to construct a new 4,547 sq. ft. residence on 2.56 acres on a legal, substandard lot, prominent ridgeline, slopes greater then 30% and to exceed 2,500 cubic yards of grading, in conformance with Chapter 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Com. Austin reiterated her concern about discussing such en important issue at such a late hour. Staff presentation: Ms. Veto Gil, Planner II, reviewed the application for hillside exception to conslxuct a 4,547 sq. fr. home as outlined in the attached staff report. She summarized die primary concerns: geology, visual impacts, design issues, public improvements, and grading as outl'med in the attached staff report. Ms. Gil reported that the applicant's geoteclmical consultant felt the prominent ridgeline is the safest place to construct ahome end is in the process of providing information to the City's geologist. She said there were some things that could be done to make the home appear less ma-qsive; reduce it fxom three levels to two levels by moving the third floor down into the southeast portion of the lot. If the lot line adjustment is not allowed, the home will have to be shifred off the prominent ridgeline in order to meet the setback requirements. Staff recommends lowering the home tSom three levels to two levels. Referring to the overhead map, Ms. CA1 illustrated the undeveloped lots and indicaled the lots that have been merged. She said that there was potential for 5 lots to gain access off Balboa Road. She noted that the Public Works standard states that at 5 parcels or less, it will remain a private road; anything above that will become public. Ms. Gil stated that the Dors would be making improvements up to their lot; the road would be 12 feet wide and in the future when widened to 24 feet no retaining walls will have to be removed. The retaining walls along Balboa Road reach the maximum height of 7.5 feet; on the driveway the retaining walls reach a maximum of 10.5 feet. She said that other minor design issues could be addressed by the architect relative to the offsets required in the second story end addressed in the ordinence, to make the home appear less massive. Relative to grading, the applicant is seeking an exception for 3,950 cubic yards of cut and fill. She pointed out that most of it occmxed on Balboa Road; the RHS ordinance does allow that in the case of private driveways, the cut end fill can be split among other lots which share the driveway. In this case, a total of 5 parcels would develop along that area end if split among the 5 parcels, the applicant would not exceed the required 2,500 cut and fill. Staff feels the applicant need not seek the exception for that as it is mostly in the roadway. Staff is not recommending approval of the application at this time; however, if the Planning Commission chooses to, they may do so. Staff recommends considering the visual impacts of the development. The applicant will present a videotape to show that they feel the project will not be visually obmasive. Staffis not confident that the building will not be viewed fi.om the valley floor end if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with recommending approval, it is recommended that a field ~p be scheduled at a later date when the story poles cen be erected end visit some of the Plan~n~ Commission Mmtes ~8 I~, 1997 valley floor vantage points so that all concerns relative to visual impacts are addressed. Staff is requesting input from the Planning Commission relative to reducing the house size from three levels to two levels; and whether or not the applicant should explore different design options and remm at a later date. In response to Com. Austin's question relative to thc lot linc adjustment, Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordinator, clarified that city staff approves the lot line adjustment if the adjustment results in two legal lots, and both property owners are in agreement. However, in this case, because it is tied to an exception, the Planning Commission would take the lead in the issue. He said that the letter from Ms. Phelps related to her inability to look at landmarks in thc property and understand where the property lines are located. Mr. Cowan said that the application should be viewed from thc point of view of thc location of thc building and if not appropriate, deny the application or request that they shifl the location. Chair Harris said that when the Planning Commission made the determination of 2500 cu. yds. of cut and fill, she did not recall saying that if this was a combination of lots over a period of years, they would allow 2500 for each previous lot; and questioned if that was the intent? Ms. Gil clarified that if there was a potential for 5 lots in the area that will all share the improvements for Balboa Road, the RHS ordinance allows for that driveway cut and flu to be shared equally among the 5 lots gaining access from it. Discussion continued regarding the merging of the lots in 1983 as shown in the lot pattern, Mr. Cowan stated that the lot was non-conforming. Chair Hams said that if the project is not consistent with the General Plan, it should be noted as a remark under project data. In response to Com. Mahoney's questions about staffs recommandation to lower the height of the house, Ms. Gill referred to the floor plan and the overhead of the south and west elevation, and clarified staffs recommendation to lower it by moving it to another area. She said it was staffs recommendation m comply with the offset requirement in the RHS. Ms. Ann Dor, applicant, explained that there would be a video tape presentation for a better understanding of the site; a presentation by the soils geologist; the designer would address thc group, followed by the landscape architect and a ~rmmary from the applicant. Ms. Dor expressed her appreciation for allowing thc discussion at such a late hour. She presented a summary of Excaption Criteria for Approving Application 10-EXC-97. Mr. Mike Cleary, Cleary Consultants, Los Altos, reported that a gcotechaical study had been performed for the Dor property, in particular the homesite, the driveway and Balboa Road. He said that thc results indicated that the ridgclinc portion of thc property was underlain by a dense, sandy material of the Santa Clara formation, gravelly in places, resistant, strong for support of the structure. On thc slopes immediately to thc west were clays, silts, claystongs, weather silstone materials, with caluvial deposits over thc top which tend to creep and experience debris flows or erosion during thc winter. Based on the investigation it was concluded that thc best and safest location for the homesite is on the flatter portion oftbe ridgeline, at a 30-35% slope. He said where thc northwest portion of thc property widens out on thc ridgclinc directly above thc homesitc is another flatter area which is a previously g~aded site. Other portions of the property to thc west and to the south have slopes of about 50%, flattening locally to about 30-35%, but most of the slopes arc much deeper. As part of the recommendation for the project, for thc driveway, the retaining walls on the uphill and downhill sides, the driveway south will be fully retained with no exposed cuts so that any excavations on the slope would be retained. Mr. Cleary said thc house would be supposed Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 14, 1997 on a well reinforced grill pier foundation which is resistant to earthquakes. He said he was not aware of requests for further information fi.om Cotton & Associates. Mr. Cleary illustrated the areas of the property Where the slope was 35%. He noted that the "X' indicated the location of the borings. He reported that at the 30-35%, there were about 2-3 feet of caluvial materials and a sandy claystone material at that location. He said that a house could be engineered to be placed on various portions on the site. The concerns for placing a house at this particular location is the slope up above the drainage toward the house; the potential for mud, debris flows toward the house. The idea place is to be on the ridgeline portion with the least amount of drainage toward the structure. Ms. Dor showed a narrated video presentation of the proposed homesite fi-om different vantage points, using a king-sized white bedsheet on poles to depict the roofline of the proposed building. Following the viewing of the video, Ms. Dot answered questions. Ms. Dor stated that the first view was from Stevens Creek Park, upper level parhng lot. She said that the sheet used to depict the roofline of the proposed building, was 16 feet above the ground on two poles. Mr. Mmv Kirkeby, consulting engineer, said that although not the engineer on the project, he did the bouncla~y and survey work on the property and is in the process of filing a map, as well as in the process of working on the boundary survey on the Northcutt property adjacent to the applicant's property. Refening to the overhead map, he discussed the grading of the slopes. He responded to Ms. Phelps' concerns in her letter by stating that it was prevalent in the Inspiration Heights area that roads end property lines do not coincide; the streets were never built; and have not been accepted by anybody; and are not public roads. He said that there was a graded roadway where Balboa Road is, and his survey indicated some evidence of past surveyors in the same general area. Mr. Kirkeby said that he saw the video presentation and he did not agree with the applicant's findings. Mr. Bob Schwenke, architect, said that he presented a letter earlier and asked that the planning Commissioners lake the time to read its contents. Refening to the overhead map, he illustrated the red line which referenced the ridgeline created by the city end follows the contours of the property. He said that the proposal for the lot line adjustment was brought about by the fact that there is a ridgeline created or defined by the city at one time; and in order to reduce the impact of the home on that particular point, he suggested the idea of the lot line adjustment to pull the house around into the hillside. It also tucks the house into the hill and under the oaks trees shown on the video, and avoids the removal of the oak trees down at the lower pordon below the driveway. He said the proposal to take offthe third floor to reduce the mass of the house does not work in the sense that the backside of the third floor is actually at grade and each floor level is at grade at the backside or below. He said that section A in the packet would indicate the reduction or the fact that the garage starts off approximately two feet under grade end is completely submerged under the existing grade lines; which also puts the second floor down a couple of feet al the backside and the third floor comes out at grade line. He said that the offsets were also taken into effect which is required by the hillside ordinences and the areas in question with the cantilevers or bay windows that are cantilevered out over the lower portion of the structure are set back hi the lower portions of the carport areas, etc. and are away from the downhill slope area. For instance, the bay window that extends over the garage is set back fi.om the carport 12 fl. where the ordinance is asking for 7-I/2, we are actually 12 feet back, so that effect does not create en adverse situation that might be perceived on a downhill slope. The bay area oak around the living area at the 650 level is a situation where it een be kept or taken away and modify the room accordingly. That portion is an extremely steep area of the hillside and they would create enough separate types of plains around the house to lower that impact of creating more shadows by doing something. He said they were considering a deck around there for access into the back portion of the grade also. He said the idea of moving the master bedroom wing down to beneath the bedroom wing on the south side of the house would increase the impact of that side of the house dramatically, where it is only sticking 5 feet off the grade at this point; you would be looking at a situation where that would have to be raised; you now start creating these 10 foot or 11 foot walls to accomplish; it also then increases the need for grading and excavating in that particular area which now at Balboa becomes a new point. He said they would be using all of that 1800 yards trying to accomplish that goal in that particular area. He said that the third floor appearance continues the slope of the house along with the slope of the hillside; it does step back 20 feet from the lower floor; the second floor is sitting back another 14 feet so evexything is standing back and is flying in with the dope. Mr. Schwencke said that if they were to take that third floor off, now the house would be sitting like a hat on top of that ridge; where the third floor actually blends and ties the house to the hillside. Mr. Paul Reed, Reed Associates, landscape architect, referred to the preliminary landscape plan and explained how the trees were being wrapped around the house to soften it with the existing trees. He said that the house was in a position where it could be softened with trees easily. He said it was their goal to show some trees that would soften the house from a distance and also to have some trees that would block the views from points closer to the house. He pointed out that native trees and drought tolerant plants were being used. Referring to the landscape plan, Mr. Reed illustrated the oak trees, and smaller flowering trees. Ms. Dor highlighted some areas of the exception criteria point-for-point summary which had not been previously discussed: No. 10 - The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves or parks, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other more negative environmental impacts. The mass of the house siting has been on the other side of the ridgeline from the open space and park areas. Clearly there is still some house visible but the mass of the house is on the other side of the ridgeline; and if the house mass is redistributed to be more equally balanced, it will make the site more x4s~le from the park area and will also cause the house to stick up higher on the fidgeline. She said she felt strongly that there would be more negative environmental impact by moving the house off the fidgeline. No. 9 - The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend into the nataral hillside environment and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including building height, as much as possible, without creating other negative environmental impacts. She said that the rules of the city do state in RHS developments of less than 30 feet height of the home; the house is actually 25 feet high; each floor is at grade or below grade. She said that originally the request was for a one story home with the minimal impact. However, the requirements for the fire truck turnaround and city parking requirements prevented the architects from meeting the original design request. She illustrated the property that they were doing a lot line adjustment with, noting that it caused a more natural low profile implementation for both homes; therefore she said she felt that there was a significant environmental negative impact by not doing the lot line adjustment of her home for the future development site, which point has not yet been raised. She said that the intention is to lower the profile of the future home as much as possible. She said the reason for the current design is the architect's understanding that the applicant wanted to have the most minimum profile possible, to push off the house and make it more of a rap around house on the natural hillside, as opposed to stepping the house up and down, which was another choice. Plamfing Commission Minutes t9 J~fi~ 14, 1997 No. 8 - The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the valley floor. Ms. Dot stated that she felt the marking of the prominent ridgeline went too far; and that the video presentation showed that the site was not visible from the valley floor and the impact from the valley floor is in fact mitigated by a number of points such as: the site's low elevation - below most homes on San Juan Road; the two sets of multiple trees below and above the proposed site, the higher set of trees is 35 feet tall or more; the dwelling will in fact extend the visual impact of the tree line as a continuous whole rather than the current brown gap between the two sets of trees today; the existing heavy vegetation in the canyon under the site also mitigates the visual impact of the site; the proposed design is set into the grade of the land and colored to blend in with the landscape and the mass of the house is located off the ridgeline. No. ga - The location of a structure on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impact: Ms. Dor said that in addition to the issues mentioned as mitigation for the visual impact points, in the event of an earthquake, fire, or massive rainfall, the ridgeline site is the safest. As people most affected if such an occurrence were to happen on the land, she said they would feel it imperative to chose the safest location possible, which is the ddgeline. She said that there has not been a fire for 125 years in the particular area of town, but there are many charcoal deposits easily found from past wildfires west of the building site. She said again the ridgnline is safest as the least vegetation naturally occurs on the steep areas of the slope, whereas the alternate site is lower down and much nearer to the adjacent property line where their control to clear that heavy and dense vegetation is limited. In the case of an earthquake, the best engineering design possible is being used and the land at the top is strongest to hold the house in place. She said that in the opening paragraph of Ordinance 19.40.140, one of the primary goals is to "protect life and property from natural hazards." and this goal must override the "minimum ridgeline visual impact goal ". No. 7 - The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans. Ms. Dor said that she has lived in hillside homes in the past and below grade construction which might have to happen if the third floor is pushed down into the other bedroom, does increase mold, mildew and humidity, even with the best construction techniques; and since this is a prime living area, it is not desirable. No. 6 - the proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological or environmental hazards. Ms. Dot said that two reports were done and there is no fault under the land etc. No. 5 - All alternative locations for development of the parcel have been considered and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development. Ms. Dot said that the lower hillside location was considered; however, when found fi:om the title search that the four lots had been merged into one, the primary concern was to find the safest location which was the ridgeline location. No. 4 - The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modifications deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. Ms. Dot said the site qualified as "difficult" and there were few choices on how to develop the plan. No. 2 - The proposed development will not crate a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Ms. Dot said she felt this was the most important point. Staffhad not highlighted the fact that there was also a public works improvement on Stevens Canyon Road in addition to Balboa, and Planning Commission Ivlinutes 7.0 lul¥ 14, 199/ the width of Stevens Canyon Road was going to be increased by 38%. She said that presently it is dangerous to walk or ride a bike on Stevens Canyon Road next to her property. The initial engineering drawings show that the line-of-site will be dramatically improved with this new road width. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety will be terrifically enhanced by having the site developed. Ms. Dor referred to the overhead of Figure 2D of the General Plan, Planned Development for Inspiration Heights, which illuslxated the city's estimation of potential density of the area (1983). She summarized that all 13 points of the exception criteria needed to be met for the exception to be granted and she felt that the proposal met each criteria. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Luella Phelps, 397 Curmer, said that the letter submitted addressed her concern about the property line. She said that relative to Ms. Dot's remark that they were in the process of getting it recorded, she felt it should also be marked on the soil itself. She reiterated her concern that the property line be clearly defined, as well as on the ground itself. Chair Harris noted that when staff surveys the property for the lot line adjustment, marldngs will be put to designate the lot line. Ms. Phelps said that the road put in was Mr. Cardoza's private driveway, which he put in to the top where he was going to build a house. Com. Austin questioned if the road to the property was going to be Balboa Road, and if so, would it conform to the lines? Mr. Cowan responded that it did up to and including Ms. Dot's property; but beyond that he said that he did not know if future roadway improvements could exist within the 1917 right-of-way. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Cowan stated that the excerpt shown from an earlier General Plan illuslxated a road pattern that did not resemble the 1917 road pattern because the engineer drawing the plan was attempting to make the road work with 15% grades and a few areas of 20% grades for fire trucks. He said he did not know if Balboa Road would be built in the 1917 aliEnment; there may have to be an agreement among owners to shift the location to have a location that makes more sense. He said that they could be assured that the road being built for the project would match the 1917 Balboa right-of-way. Mr. Cowan recalled that in the 70s and 80s Planning Commissions pushed for a master plan involving all the owners to agree on a road plan with no avail. Com. Austin reiterated her concern that the lot line adjustment be defined. Mr. William Peters, P. O. Box 956, Soquel, representing Rich Northcutt, referred to the assessor's map and illustrated the parcels which were owned by one entity, and pointed out the five parcels being discussed. Referring to Com. Austin's earlier comment, Mr. Peters illustrated the area where the road was surveyed to. He said that in reality the ridgeline starts with Mr. Northcutt's property. He said that Mr. Northcutt had signed an agreement with the Dots for the lot tine adjustment and was in favor of the proposal. He said he felt approval of the Dors' request to build the house of the size requested should be granted, and that the request maximized the ridgeline standard. Because it is not known how to allocate the roadway area, he said it was not clear whether it should be done, because if it were a public road, it wouldn't be done; but because you don't know what is being allocated later, the exception might be granted as part of the approval as it resolves the matter either way. He said the project is consistent with the policies that deal with lots that do not conform and he said he felt the staff's indication of consistency is correct because it conforms to those policies rather than another set of policies to which they don't conform. Chair Harris said that it did not conform to the General Plan. Mr. Cris Wendt, 22600 Ricardo Road, said that he was opposed to the application because of appearance. He recommended that a visit be made to the site. Relative to the video presentation, he Planning Commission Minutes el July 14, 1997 said that the use of the white sheet to depict the roofline of the proposed house was not an accurate picture, as the proposed home was 4,547 sq. ff. and the white sheet was 16 feet and the 4,547 sq. ff. on a hillside was a larger profile than a sheet tucked behind two trees. He said that he visited the site later in the at~emoon and fxom the site there was a wide sweeping view of the valley. Relative to what defines a ridgeline, Mr. Wendt said the ridgeline was in the eye of the beholder; and from Stevens Creek Park area or Stevens Canyon, the proposed home is indeed on a ridgdin¢. Mr. Wendt said that he felt the site was chosen because it was clearly the best view, the highest value, and with a spectacular view of the valley. He said he agreed with Chair Harris' comment to build the house lower down the h/il. He said there appeared to be excavation down there already, as well as the retaining wall in order to build the road; he felt the trees would never be high enough to block the view of the house, because the reason for the house being on the hill is for the view. Mr. Wendt said the issue was to protect the ridgeline and the hills of Cupertino, and he felt it would be a domino effect with more houses similar to the Ronnie Lott kind of house. He urged the Planning Commission to visit the site. ]Mr. James Gaidotfi, Ricardo Road, said that Mr. Wendt's presentation covered most of the issues. He clarified that there were 18 acres adjoining the property which on Monta Vista shows 18 buildable lots, which the city considers one block of land because it is not buildable. He said that the only buildable places on the hillside because of the steepness, is the ridgeline; and to go up the road and back across a 50 foot slope on a lot, with retaining wall above the driveway, will be a huge cut and devastating to the hill. He said there was a great deal of soil erosion and rtmoffon the hill. Chair Harris dosed the public hearing at 12:47 a.m. Chair Harris summva-ized the issues: Lot line adjustment; ridgeline development; driveway/retaining wall; building height; slope issue; building size; grading; staff recommendation to direct applicant to pursue design modifications reducing the building mass, or explore alternative building locations away fi:om the prominent fidgeline; other. The Planning Commissioners saammarized their comments: Com. Doyle: Lot line adjustment: appropriate. Ridgeline development: is an issue and still of concern. Driveway/retaining wall: visual impact based on that was an issue. Building height: visible mass is appropriate; it is all hidden and out of ridgelines, it is fine; He said that he was not concerned if it was 28 feet or 32 feet if it can be hidden. Slope issue: the house is w/thin the guidelines; it is an issue, but appears to be part of the development, therefore appropriate. Building size: appropriate Grading: appears to be a tradeoff Staff recommenclation: appropriate Mr. Cowan commented on the driveway issue, noting that a driveway will be built, and it is probably the best design available; whether this proposed house or a future house, there w/il be some access needed. Com. Austin: Com. Austin said that she was not in favor of the application, and that she felt the General Plan states clearly that building should not be approved on slopes greater than 30%. She said that it appears to be greater than 30%. She said even with Planning Commission Minutes Il July 14, 199'~ that, the massing, grading to put in the house, range should have a minimum and maximum. She said that if the remainder of the Planning Commissioners were in favor of the application, she would advocate the minimum if the house is in that position. She said that her biggest concern was the view fi.om the open space and parks and recreation areas below. She agreed with Mr. Wendt if they built the home the size of the sheet used to depict the house size, she would approve the project. However, she was not in favor of the 4,547 sq. fi. home. Grading: It would be visually intrusive with the grading for the roads. She said there was slidage in the area on San Juan. Colors: She said she was concerned with the colors, which should be earthtones and conform to reflectivity. Lot line adjustment: She said she was concerned with approval of the lot line adjustment, because of the domino effect of approval; if one is approved, it is the approval of 5, which would all have to be defined. Building size: she said that she felt the house did not have to be so large. She agreed with the geologist that it was the safest place to put the house, with the best view. However, if the house is going to remain in that place, the size should be reduced. Staffrecotnrnendation and others: Com. Austin said that the other categories were moot if the house size was not reduced. Com. Mahoney: Slope: Com. Mahoney stated that the General Plan says that if the trigger points are exceeded, it will be reviewed; it does not state do not do it relative to slope. It is a trigger point and that it why it is being reviewed. Lot line adjustment: Makes sense fi.om both sides Ridgeline development: Com. Mahoney said he had been there and walked it. Following video presentation, would like to see it fi.om the park. From the valley floor and the points outlined in the General Plan, he said he felt it was not an issue Driveway/retaining ~vall: It can be seen from Stevens Canyon, but anything can be seen fi.om there Building height: Building design is good for the area; tucked in well Building size: Appropriate Grading: Given it is most of the road, appropriate Com. Mahoney said that the plan is the best plan for that particular lot; some fine tuning could be done; if it is not approved tiffs evening, would like to see what it looks like fi.om the park Chair Hams said that she felt people should be entitled to develop their property and it should not be designated as a non-bufldable site because of roles of ridgelines and slopes. She said however, that she was opposed to the biggest possible size, height, and mass on the ridgeline. She said that the reason for the PHS ordinance was to prevent further development such as the Ronnie Lott home on the hillside that people did not want to took at. She said homes should be placed where people can enjoy the view and privacy and others can enjoy the hillsides. Staff recommendation: She said that she was in favor of the staff recommendation to look for other alternatives to reduce the height and mass. Lot line adjustment: Not in favor of the lot line adjustment; if that is what requires putting it on the ridgeline, it doesn't make sense; wouldn't approve the adjustment to force putting it on Planning Commission Minutes 23 July 14, 1997 Building size: The sheet 16 feet above the ground does not adequately reflect the house size; felt it worked counter to the propose; said that the video showed txees on other properties that shielded it. She suggested that story poles be used to indicate the parameters of the house and the height, to look at it from different vantage points. Com. Doyle proposed that the applicant work with staffto Wy to minimize the impacts from a visual standpoint, and the Planning Commission visit the site. Com. Doyle expressed concern that there be a condition relative to the timing of the grading and the runoff controls that happen during the process. The applicant indicated that they were willing to work with staff further. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Application 10-EXC-97 and 22-EA-97 to the August 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Austin Passed 3 - 1-0 A discussion ensued regarding schedafling upcoming agenda topics. There was consensus that the Planning Commission will meet for its second August meeting on Tuesday, August 26. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:20 mm. on July 15, 1997, to the adjourned meeting of the Plarming Commission on July 23, 1997, at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino City Hall Council Chambers. Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved as Presented: July 28, 1997