The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 12-11-00 _ _- _ _ __ ___ .. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 �l�]E��]E]�I�7[][l�.T'IC]E� �]E'�IDI[]E II��JIL�I�l[]EIE�'��G �lF�'�33[lE ��L'111V1V1L1�1�14 �1..�1V'JL��1V JL1L�� 1V ��1.�1V'll�1CI� ��y 6�� I ��U.1 JL� JL� ll��ll`�� Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris (Com. Doyle arrived during Oral Communication). Staff present: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; , Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Aarti ', Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney � �l�ll��IL �lE I�1[�J'�']E�: November 27, 2000 Regular Meeting: Chair Harris noted changes to the minutes: Page 15,No. 8,Application No. should read: 01-MCA-00 Page 16, (first motion), Application 19-AA-00 should read: 19-EA-00 Page 5, second paragraph, last sentence should read ...."in the beginning" MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the November 27, 2000 as amended SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 1VIOTION: Com. Kwok moved to postpone the November 1, 2000 special meeting minutes to the December 18, 2000 meeting SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Coin. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 �ll�l[��lEl�t cC�l�l[I�I[�JI��'IC��l�T�: Chair Harris noted written communication from Rolph Meyer, relative to the CCS application, and a petition opposing the neighborhood alternative plan for the subdivision of the Wallen property, and supporting the original plan as submitted by the developer. 1��]��1VIEI�]EI��/IE�]ElD�[��7�1I.IF'][2�1D�[�A]L]EI��: Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 11, 2000 8. Application Nos.: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise Postponed from meeting of November 13, 2000 Request postponement to January 8, 2001 meeting � Com. Doyle arrived during Oral Communication. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Donald Burnett, City Councilman, expressed his appreciation to Coms. Harris and Doyle for their eight years of service to the community. He said as a member of the City Council, he was in a better position than anyone else in the community to appreciate what the Planning Commission does because their work lessens the work the City Council has to do and it is important that a lot of the details be taken care of before they get to the Council. He thanked Com. Doyle and Chair Harris for their work Com. Doyle thanked Councilmember Burnett for his support over the years. Chair Harris clarified that the item on the consent calendar related to trees should have been the public hearing item and the public hearing item related to trees should have been a consent calendar item, since staff was supporting one and mitigating the other. She requested Item 2 be removed from the consent calendar to allow it to be part of the agenda as originally intended; and stated that Item 3 cannot be now put on the consent calendar because it was not published as such. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Application No.: 08-DIR-00 Applicant: Mingshiang Wang Location: 10300 Phar Lap Drive Tree removal ermit to allow the removal of one 62 inch circumference (20 inch diameter) oak P tree from a single family residential property. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove the oak tree from the single family lot. Staff supports the removal of the tree because the orientation of the primary trunk over the residence puts the safety of the occupants at risk. Staff does not recommend a replacement tree in this location but recommends planting a 24 inch box oak tree in the front yard. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, illustrated the location of the tree and said that staff was supportive of the tree removal with a replacement tree in the front yard. Mr. Gilli answered questions regarding the tree in question and the proposed replacement tree. He clarified that the new homeowner was not able to secure insurance because of the safety risk of the tree. Chair Harris questioned if staff followed up on the arborist's remark that removal of the tree is only one option. Mr. Gilli said that staff had not contacted the arborist. Chair Harris noted that it ' Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 11,2000 � � � �� J states that the tree probably will not complete full compartmentalization, meaning that they do not 'i j feel it would fall over, and removal is probably one option. ' Com. Corr commented that it would be interesting to see what took place at the time the house was built because of the concern the city has had for oak trees over the years, since it is a grove of oaks along Phar Lap; what were the conditions, what happened at that time; (although it may be a i i i llin r the tr e moot pomt since there is the issue of the cavity and the possib 1 ty of t fa g ove ) e existed first,the house was nestled in with the tree, and now the tree is recommended for removal. Mr. Gilli indicated that the Cupertino arborist had not yet examined the tree. Com. I�oyle recommended continuing the application since the applicant was not present; to evaluate the risk and see if there is an ability to insure it. Chair Harris said there were many unanswered questions, the issue of insurance, a letter from an insurance company, and the arborist providing the other options. Com. Kwok also requested that staff check to see if there have been any modifications to the building since it appeared the tree was very close to the building. Chair Harris also requested that staff look up the original development approval of the house to see if the tree was required to be kept at that time � Chair Harris opened the meeting for Chair poyle opened the meeting for public input. �j �� MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 08-DIR-00 to the January 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 The applicant, Mr. Mingshiang Wang, appeared after a decision was rendered to continue the ' application. Chair Harris explained that the application had been continued and said he should ' work with staff to help answer questions on the application. il 2. Application No.: 08-I�IR-00 Applicant: 1Vlichael Heckrotte(Ridgecerst�Iomeowners Association) Location:. 10300 Phar Lap Drive Tree removal permit to allow the removal of nine redwood trees from a single family cluster I development Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove nine redwood trees from a single family cluster development. Staff recommends removal of six of the nine trees, the remaining three trees are not close to any structure and are in good health. Further growth could be maintained by root pruning and use of biobarrier. ' Mr. Gilli illustrated the location of the trees recommended for removal and those recommended for retention. F Ms. Phyllis Matheson, 21989 1VIcClellan Road, landscape chairman of the Ridgecrest Homeowners Association, said that the complex was constructed about 27 years ago, and they � planted redwood and maple trees two feet from the homes or fences. The trees have grown large over the years and pose maintenance problems. She said of the three trees not approved for ; removal, the tree by the pool was not a good tree because it had two trunks, has been root pruned ' Planning Commission Minutes 4 December I 1,2000 and lifted the deck of the pool on the other side of the fence by the tree, and the deck had to be replaced. She said they were concerned that the tree will affect the pool structure itself. She said they have cut the root and it still continues to grow. Ms. Matheson said they recommended removing two other trees because a similar tree uplifted the patio of a resident's home and they had to replace the patio which was very costly, and they fear a similar incident would happen with these two trees. She said the complex had 28 units, and they were constantly in debt because of landscaping and other things, and expenses were divided by 28 units. The owners are seeking ways of not increasing their expenses by poor management and for that reason wanted to remove the specific trees. She said it will be a financial hardship to remove all the trees recommended, but they feel it is important overall and various arborists agree. She said that redwood trees were planted by the builder for fast growth, without any consideration given to their rapid growth. She said there would still be approximately 10-12 redwoods remaining on the property. Chair Harris questioned how the request went from removal of 2 trees to a request to remove 9 trees. Mr. Gilli said that the applicant originally requested a handful of trees to be removed for purposes of expediting the process. There was strong disagreement between the applicant's arborist and the city arborist over tree No. 5 which was one of the original two trees to be removed; and at that time the applicant realized that it would be better to request all of the trees that they were concerned about, and discuss it with the Planning Commission. Mr. Gilli said the original two trees that they requested were trees No. 1 and 5; and he explained the rationale for staff's recommendation for removal of trees No. 1, 4, 7, 8, and some that were close to structures. The city arborist looked at tree No. 1, 5, 6, and 7, and felt that No. 5 was fine and was a prime candidate for the biobarrier root control system used in the public right-of-way to prevent root damage to improvements. The arborist recommended that the tree close to the garage, No. 7, be removed and that one of the other two be removed also. Staff and the applicant recommend No. 6 because it is close to a fence. Staff is not recommending approval for removal of No. 2 and 3 because the only damage is to sidewalks. Mr. Gilli summarized: No. 1 appears not to be healthy; No. 4 too close to the structure and rather thinned out at the top; No. 6 has some canopy damage; No. 7 is healthy but too close to the garage; No. 8 appears to be healthy but is pushing on the retaining wall;No. 9 is healthy but is close to a residence. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Matheson referred to the picture showing the retaining wall being pushed away, No. 8, and explained they had just replaced the retaining wall last year, which indicated how much it had moved in that period. Referring to No. 4 as well as No. 8; she illustrated the retaining wall and said that last year it cost $10,000 to replace the stone wall when a car damaged the wall, and they , feel the tree will affect the retaining wall also and it would have to be replaced. She said that because of the limited budget, there is not a regular schedule for root pruning, She said they did not expect to do all the trees at once because of the cost, which is why there are more trees than the original two in addition to the need for them. Com. Stevens said that there would be a lot of similar comments in the future relative to Cupertino becoming a mature neighborhood relative to the trees. He said he felt the Planning Commission should wait for the revised landscaping plan for the entire relative to trees l, 4, 7 and 8, if staff and the city arborist feel that they should be removed. Com. Stevens said that they have had several requests for removal of trees, many of them on an overall plan, and he wished to convey to the community that a well thought out plan of what can occur and when, is much easier if Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 11,2000 for the Planning Commission, than listening to individual requests, especially with trees of this . maturity. i Com. Kwok added that there should be a regular root pruning schedule, not just topping the trees because it is too expensive to do any root pruning, but it should be done on a regular basis to ensure that every step is taken to prevent the roots from hitting the retaining walls. Com. Kwok said he supported removing unhealthy Tree 1 and the tree that is close to the garage, but for those � that are still healthy, which could tolerate root pruning,he recommended trying that before killing the trees,because a full grown redwood tree takes such a long time to grow. Com. Doyle said that in the information provided, it is difficult to say how much forestation there is on the property or how many trees there are; and removing one out of four trees is not � significant, but removing all of them is a big impact. He said he supported staff recommendation; however,more information would have made the decision easier. Com. Corr said he also supported staff's recommendation, but concurred with Com. Stevens relative to an overall landscaping plan for the area. He said knowing that redwood trees have a very shallow but wide root ball, they will tear up concrete slabs and walkways close to redwood trees. He noted that the State and National parks have gone to raised walkways to protect tree's i root system. He said he would prefer an overall landscape plan, but would support staff's � recommendation. Chair Harris said that she felt the trees add character to the community. The trees on McClellan Road in particular are very prominent and benefit everyone in the community, and have more of � an impact on removal; staff is recommending that two remain,IVos. 2 and 3, and two.be removed, � Nos. 4 and 8. She said she agreed with Com. Kwok that the first step should not be to remove healthy trees; the ones that are sparse, 1 and 4 could be removed, and the health ones should not be removed until another tactic has been tried first, and only removed it if does not work. She said as pointed out earlier, people tend to prune the tops of trees because they see the tops of trees, � but redwoods have a spreading root and the cost of pruning those roots is probably similar to the cost of pruning the canopy; therefore it needs to be part of the regular maintenance instead of `throwing the baby out with the bath water' and destroying the character of the community. Chair ', j Harris said she supported Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8 that staff feels need to be removed at this time. ' 1VIOTION: Com. Kwok moved to remove trees No. l,4, 7, and 8; and retain the others. SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision was final, unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. 4. Application Nos.: 10-EXC-00, 14-U-OOm 1�-EA-00 Applicant: Mary Ellen Chell(Cupertino Community Services) '�i Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire station) I Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between onsite �I buildings. Use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 6,089 square foot Cupertino Community services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot. Continued f�om Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 1 l,2000 Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed that the application had been heard twice before, the most recent in October when the Planning Commission gave direction to the applicant to make changes relative to concerns they had. The first concern was that the office space was too large and the applicant was requested to reduce it by approximately 1,000 to 1,500 sq. ft. to accommodate additional parking. By reducing the square footage of the office they were able to reduce the parking demand, and would meet the shared parking requirement the Planning Commission had requested they meet. Responding to concerns about the architecture of the CCS office building; the architect trimmed some office space and made architectural changes to the building. She noted that the applicant changed the building materials on the CCS building to match the proposed materials for the residential, instead of stucco; changed to siding. She reviewed the changes to the carports and the office building, and noted the second story space was reduced. Five additional parking spaces were added by making some site changes. Ms. Gil showed the various elevations from different viewing angles, reviewed briefly the matrix of concerns from the previous meeting; and discussed details such as the trellis work and some other minor architectural details that the Planning Commission agreed by consensus would go to the Design Review Committee (DRC). The model resolution needs to be amended to reflect the reference to the DRC with final review to the Planning Commission. IMr. Tom Early, Bridge Housing Corp., said that they followed the Plannmg Commission direct�on and reduced the overall square footage of the project and spent considerable time with CCS and the architect to review the removal of program space as well as examine some new efficiencies in the overall design of the floor plan. Those changes yielded in a reduction of overall square footage of the project of 1266 square feet in the services building alone which yields a net reduction in the parking demand of 5 parking spaces. In addition they reviewed and took direction of the Planning Commission with regard to the massing of the building and the impact of the front and the additional elevations in conjunction with the changes in the volume of the building of the building. He said they also adjusted the building materials to be more cohesive with the overall residential project and the reductions in the volume and the square footage space allowed them to reduce the impact of the building and the overall massing. Mr. Rick Williams, Architect, Van Meter Williams Pollack, emphasized that they worked closely with staff and took into consideration all the Planning Commission comments and consideration throughout modifying some of the design pieces. He referred to the site plan, and reviewed changes to site plan, including relocation of the carport; reduction in size of the overall footprint of the CCS building; and by stepping back in a few small areas, we were able to provide the landscaped area in the front to set it back far enough to add some trees in the front of that building. Also discussed at the last meeting was due to the size of the footprint there was approximately 18-1/2 feet from the property line to the face of the building and there is now 20 feet, gaining an additional 1.5 feet separation on the other side between the residential, with an overall modified footprint. The reduction in square footage of the building allowed an additional equivalent of 5 parking spaces discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Referring to the model of the facility, Mr. Williams indicated the changes in building height, building style, treatment of overhangs, building materials, brackets and details. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 11,2000 � Com. Stevens noted at the last meeting that the public made several comments about an island or � divider against Stevens Creek for a one way turn only, and questioned if staff had addressed the issue. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, responded that staff has looked at the possibility of removing the median island off of Randy Lane. Although the process has not been finalized, staff will ask City Council to endorse the removal of the island. Com. Kwok said that the report indicated that at the discretion of the city, if the office space proves to be too intense or has an impact on the neighborhood, the applicant may be required to curtail activities or submit a revised final parking management plan. He questioned what the elements of the revised management plan would be if there was a need to curtail activities. Ms. Gil explained that if evening board meetings or events at the location created an adverse impact for the residents relative to parking, the evening activities would have to be curtailed after a certain hour. She said they could specify that after 5 p.m. they are not allowed to have meetings in the office, or they could discuss the number of employees that would be allowed to be onsite in the office space. 1VIr. Piasecki said it would also apply to daytime activities, although they did not expect to have problems in the daytime. He said if they found that there was an overuse of the parking facilities during the day, CCS would be asked to curtail or schedule things in such a way ; that that the neighborhood would not be affected in a negative manner. Mr. Piasecki said that potentially there is are a lot of things occurring that need to be managed, and if well managed, there will not be a problem with parking. For any reason it gets beyond the available onsite or immediately in front of the building on the street, it is felt the neighborhood has an expectation � that staff will review it and curtail the activities if necessary. ; Chair Harris referred to the letter received from R. Meyer, relative to the delivery of pallets of food. She questioned if the design accommodated a place to park trucks delivering pallets. Also, the residents are concerned about people coming out of Quinlan Center with shopping carts, and leaving the carts in the neighborhood. ; Ms. Gil said that she was not aware that there were large trucks making deliveries, only smaller ' trucks making food deliveries. 1VIs. Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director, Cupertino Community Services, said that the food was delivered in small vans, not large trucks, and were mostly in boxes because women are unloading the food from the vans. She said that shopping carts were not provided to the clients for picking up their food, and were likely brought onto the premises by the clients. It is the client's responsibility to remove the carts. She said that the only carts were cafeteria-type racks that were used to move the food, and the CCS had only two of those. Mr. Dan Safier, 350 Bridge Pkwy., Redwood City, Promethius Real Estate Group, said he was fortunate to be involved during the latter stages of the design alterations and minor modifications that took place, to sit work with the architect who has done a lot of design work in Cupertino. He said he was pleased with the direction of the project, and said that it would be an excellent addition to the city. He said they were happy with the changes that took place in the CCS facility and said it now speaks with one architectural vocabulary for the entire site, and will now be a much more inviting building for the community members and clients who are utilizing that facility. i ; i � � Planning Commission Minutes g December 11,2000 Ms. Shehnaz Khan, Vista Drive, asked for clarification on the parking changes. Chair Harris explained that five spaces were previously added and the Planning Commission felt there was a need for ten if they kept the office building the same size. The applicant reduced the office building by 1250 square feet, which removed the need for five parking spaces from the previous requirement. Ms. Khan said if the activity in the building is not affected by the building becoming smaller, then it does not address the problem that there would be as many number of clients coming in and as much parking being required and as many people being catered to, but in fact there would not be any additional parking, and they would probably be parking on Vista Drive. Chair Harris clarified that when the Planning Commission approves an office building, a city standard is used for space, when there is an assumption of a certain number of people and a certain number of square feet because the building is approved for all time, not just approved for the particular application. She said they were good standards that have worked throughout the city for all kinds of office use. Mr. Piasecki said they also added another condition that said should there be a problem they can revisit the uses and activities both during the day and in the evening; therefore there is a safety mechanism built into the conditions as well as the parking. I Ms. Khan expressed concern about the excessive parking on Vista Drive recently as a result of recent development in downtown. She said that her neighbors are also concerned about the parking issue, however, were unable to attend the meeting. Chair Harris said that staff seriously considered the issue and that is why there is a specific condition about a restriction on activities problems come up. She said that the apartment was 24 feet tall, and CCS building was 29 feet tall. � Chair Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 18-EA-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris clarified that in the staff report it discusses bringing the details back to the DRC, but in the condition it discusses bringing it back to staf£ The recommendation at the last meeting was to go to DRC and then have final approval with the Planning Commission, which would require a change in condition No. 5. The change would be to remove the word "staf£" The sentence should be just as written without the word `staff and the heading without `staff and it should say ... "be approved by the Planning Commission subsequent to review by the DRC". Com. Doyle clarified the parking requirements. There were four actions taken in an attempt to reduce the impacts: Increased 5 parking spaces in a previous meeting; reduced the size of the building which resulted in 5 less required parking spaces; there is a shared parking requirement that will handle the overflow so that there is additional information and staff has come back with a history of other similar developments that are currently 2 parking spaces per unit, which has shown to be somewhat excessive. If the parking is not successful, there is a fallback mechanism, with some assurances from the people there to be able to do that. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition No. 5 as modified SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 �, I Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 11,2000 , , � Chair Harris noted that the resolution should include Application No. 10-EXC-00 in the heading 1VIOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 10-EXC-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 AMENDED MOTIOIV: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition IVo. 5 as modified, and 10-EXC-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 The application will be forwarded to City Council on January 16, 2001. 5. Application Nos.: 02-T1VI-00, 22-EA-00 Applicant: Kelly Gordon I�evelopment Corporation Location: . 7�25 & 7851 Orion Lane Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8 single family parcels with an average lot of 7,�00 square feet in an R1-6 zoning district. Continued,fi^om meeting of Novembe� 13, 2000 �� Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide two parcels into 8 single family parcels on Orion Lane. The application was presented at the November 13, 2000 meeting where residents expressed concerns over the proposal. The item was continued to address traffic and road location, creek restoration, and an existing 14 inch oak tree, and to allow for a neighborhood meeting regarding the application. Staff recommends approval of the application; and the item is scheduled for City Council presentation on January , 16, 2001. Chair Harris noted that a petition signed by 15 people against the neighborhood alternative and for the original plans submitted by the developer. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the vicinity map and illustrated the modifications made, including the redesign of the entrance of Wallin Court onto the existing cul de sac bulb; also the trail becomes a sidewalk and extends all the way out to the cul de sac. She referred to the issues tfiat were addressed since the last meeting: Most of the issues were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. '�'�-�ffffn� �ssau�: The primary issue was traffic and road configuration. The residents had various points of view on what their preferred option was and they are included in the staff report. One of the items from the discussion was that the traffic safety committee normally does review the possibility of adding stop signs; therefore there is a condition of approval for that issue to be discussed by them, and the neighbors will be invited to attend. They will discuss the possibility of adding a three way stop or some other possible configuration to make that intersection safer. Ms. Wordell stated that another proposed change was that the existing cul de sac eould be changed into more of a regular T intersection; by paring down the bulb more,which would require wording change for Condition 12, Page 5-5, to make it Intersection Improvements, to include that staff would be able to possibly modify the intersection to create a T intersection for safety reasons; and Planning Commission Minutes l0 December 11,2000 the second part of the condition to include that staff would be looking into the possibility of stop signs with the traffic safety committee. Staff does prefer this configuration with some of the slight modifications. She said that staff proposed it be done at staff level and the property owners who might be affected by the direct changes would be contacted prior to making minor amendments. . Issue of creek restoration: Ms. Wordell said that the Planning Commission asked that the water district have a chance to review their improvement plans and restoration plans prior to this meeting so that staff would know their stand since there was some concern from adjacent property owners. She reported that the water district was supportive of the creek restoration plan as presented to them by the developer; however, since that time because of concerns by the neighbors, the water district did have concerns about one of the areas across from the creek on the north side. There were some improvements proposed here and it was not clear cut that what was proposed really was going to be acceptable. Ms. Wordell said that in any case, a condition of approval has been added to the resolution which says that all the creek restoration plans must be approved by the water district prior to final recordation of the map, so rather than the city being in the middle or second guess what the water district is or is not going to require in the way of creek improvements, it will be their decision and they must make that prior to recordation of the final map. Issue of retaining wall: The Planning Commission requested that the retaining wall material be specified;the sample has been provided and a condition states what the material will be. Initial Study: There was a request to look at it again to be certain that all the environmental impacts were addressed. There were two areas which needed further modification. One was that I the project was near a proposed trail and secondly that it did change the drainage pattern. None of those impacts were found to be significant. Trees: The applicant had asked staff to look at a tree in front that they had shown to be saved and staff recommended retention and planted in another location. Ms. Wordell said that it was not a good structure in terms of replanting, and should be replaced with something else. A condition has been added that says that the tree can be removed and replaced with a 48 inch box tree somewhere else along the frontage of the properiy. Relative to the trees, staff conducted a site visit and recommends adding a condition relative to having the trees in the creek on the north side, evaluated to see if something more needs to be done for those. Presently the condition states that the trees will be protected; however, staff is recommending that language be added specifically regarding the trees with exposed roots potentially being a hazard or if they need to go. She said that it would be a water district jurisdiction; however, staff would like the developer's arborist specifically look at the trees prior to recordation of the map to see if something special needs to be done. She noted that the rivo new conditions would be added to Condition No. 2 relative to trees with exposed roots in the creek, and Condition No. 12, relative to the intersection improvements. Responding to a concern from Com. Doyle, Ms. Wordell said that a condition of approval could be added relative to parking restriction at night related to security concerns. Chair Harris asked staff to create the language for Item 2, and that it have a conclusion, not that it just be review, but that it be reviewed and what the result would be that they are seeking from the review. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Planning Commission Minutes 11 December 1 l,2000 I 1VIs. Wordell read a fax from the water district stating that conceptually the creekbank stabilization measures proposed are acceptable to the water district. Adjustments will likely be needed as final I construction drawings are prepared. She read the contents of the fax outlining the water district's I request to review various documents. Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development, distributed a drawing showing how the street relates to Orion and Milky Way with the modifications made, making the intersection more predominant and for easier access. He reported on the neighborhood meeting and said that the modified design was based on the concerns voiced by the neighbors. Stop signs have also been discussed and are open for further discussion. He said that they have had a number of conversations with Sue Tippets at the water district and at this point, she has the final package in hand and is on board with the creek improvements. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Barry Spieler, 1087 November Drive, said that he had problems with his fence and part of the back yard falling in due to the erosion caused by the creek. He said that he felt at the last meeting he did not feel that the magnitude of the problem was understood, and he provided photos relative to his concerns. He said he was in favor of the tentative map, but would like his concerns addressed, such as moving his fence back on his property line and the section of the back yard , repaired. He said that he has talked to Mr. Kelly Sr., and he indicated that he would talk to his soil expert. Mr. Spieler noted that ten years ago he had 10 feet of land on the creekside on the other side of the fence and it has gone. Relative to mitigation of the issue through the project, Ms. Wordell explained that the water district previously agreed at the time the subdivision was put in, that they would require the erosion control measures at that time. There was a history of a lawsuit and the water district said �i they would require this remediation, but that it was not specified. She said that the remediation is being proposed through this tentative map, the dedication is required through the tentative map as well as the condition that the improvement plan or erosion plan has to be approved prior to map recordation, hence it is getting locked in to the subdivision. The exact plan will be up to the water district. Ms. Wordell said that it was in the erosion plan to deal with this particular property, but the property owner affected does not feel it is what he would like to see. Mr. Alan Stocklmeir, co-owner of 1087 November Drive, said that it was their understanding with the water district that a remediation would be accomplished on the property line at the time the subdivision was done and it would need to be done before they accepted the dedication. He said �I that the water district would require remediation of the bank area before they accept any dedication from any developer. He stated that the water district was putting a retaining wall in across the creek from his residence, that will enable the bank to be moved out six feel and have a slope down to the creek, because they need the support for the roadway being put in. He said he could utilize something similar where the water district does the improvements on their side of the property, create a situation where the fence can be put back in a straight line along with the other neighbors and move the repairs out a small distance. He said it appears that they have addressed a lot of the problems there other than the portion of the property, 2 x 15 feet, that was lost on the top, and they wanted to restore their fence line so that it is straight with the fence line with all the other neighbors in the area. He asked that the developer work with the homeowners and perhaps make some accommodations relative to fixing the problem, and if they can meet his concerns about getting the fence back, it would be fine. He said he was not concerned with what happens on the other side of the fence as long as it meets the water district requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 12 December 1 l,2000 Ms. Wordell distributed a drawing of the proposed district plans. Mr. Piasecki clarified that Condition No. 3 requires that a creek restoration plan be prepared and that the water district approve it. Nothing in this condition precludes all the affected parties coming together and having a discussion, and staff would encourage it to occur. I Mr. Lou Gilpen, engineering geologist, said that he prepared the documents distributed and the creek restoration program. He said that relative to creek restoration and creek remediation in the last six to nine months, a lot of the creek bank restoration projects have come into the limelight in the Bay Area because people want to preserve the riparian corridors, plants and restore some of the creeks to their original habitat. He said in undertaking this project, they tried to reduce the impact on the natural environment to stabilize the banks and that is both good for the people owning the property adjoining it as well as the creeks; it reduces the sediment input, reduces the clarity of the water, and helps the water as well as stabilizing the banks for the trees. Relative to the repair, they tried to stabilize the toe of the creekbanks for the 25 and 100 year floods so it will reduce the undermining, it will protect the banks and the property of the people who live along it. He reviewed the mitigation measures to be taken. In order to replace the two feet so the fence can be straight, the repair would have to encroach further into the creek. What ps shown is their ideal alignment to allow the creek to go back to its natural course. There is a characteristic curvature to the creek that got pushed off into the property by a tree. He said he felt they took a conservative approach and made a permanent repair on this one part of the project that is encroaching offsite at the present time. He answered questions about the materials used in creek restoration and mitigation. Mr. Russell Blalack, 1081 Milky Way, said that he felt the plan had many good features, but one bad feature, the siting of Wallin Court, as it creates a traffic hazard and violates the subdivision � street design. He said a cul de sac off a cul de sac is referred to a knucklehead by traffic engineers and with good reason. He presented a signed petition from two-thirds of the homeowners on the affected cul de sac, objecting to the siting of Wallin Court as it stands because it is unsafe and unsightly. He urged good sense and good planning lines to prevail and that the Planning Commission listen to and read the report of the city's traffic engineer. Mr. Bruce Eckstein, 1091 November Drive, distributed photos of the other area on the north side being addressed. He said the proposed fixes were for five foot high rip rap rock along the bottom edge, with a vertical distance between 15 and 17 feet, and also undercut. He said he did not feel it was sufficient since in the 13 years he resided there, he has seen the water come up higher than five feet. He showed a photo of a three foot diameter oak tree with exposed roots. He said he did not know what the city's jurisdiction was with respect to the water district, and who takes care of the trees once someone gains control of the property. Ms. Wordell said that staff was suggesting they receive a recommendation from an arborist of what needs to be done, with a schedule of what needs to be done. Relative to the safety issue, Ms. Wordell said that there were steep banks along the frontage and as it becomes accessible to the public, the city wants fencing on the city side, not accessible from the other side. The trail is on the south side and staff would like to have some fencing and will work with the water district on a compromise relative to fencing because the water district does not want the creek walled off from pedestrians. She read the language from Condition 21 relative to the issue and indicated that wording could be added stating that the city will work with the water district regarding safety protection fencing. Planning Commission Minutes 13 December 11,2000 Mr. Dave Cracknell, 7818 Orion Lane, said that he was speaking on behalf of the petition sent to the city earlier, representing the series of neighbors that will be impacted if there is any change in the layout to Wallin Court, since a street would exit directly onto Orion Lane. He said one of the main issues would be the lights from cars exiting out of Wallin Court shining directly into the bedrooms of the neighbors affected by the road coming out. He said the intersection has been reviewed by the traffic department and has been viewed as safe. Mr. Pat Flavin, 7834 Orion Lane, said that the residents of Orion Lane are the people most directly affected. He said the traffic lights will.shine on the properties, whereas if it is coming out where the planner illustrated, the headlights will shine on Milky Way. Another development which includes Orion Place, goes in and makes the same type of diagram and that also comes out onto Derbyshire Place so the traffic lights from those people shine right up Derbyshire, they do . not shine directly onto any houses. Chair Harris questioned if the T intersection would require a taking of properties not part of the discussion, 41, 42, l, at the bulb. Ms. Wordell said that it would involve abandoning some of the right-of-way to square things off. Chair Harris said that it would then cost the people in some fashion, and if there was a cost involved, it should be discussed at a public hearing where they could speak on the issue. Mr. Piasecki noted that Condition 12 states that the developer shall pay for any Wallin Court, Milky Way, Orion Lane intersection improvements. Staff intended that if the traffic engineer feels that T-ing the intersection off and abandoning some right-of-way makes sense, the property owners will be contacted. He said staff was concerned about leaving the knuckle of an old cul de sac as a leftover one which should be straightened out. Ms. Wordell read the language for Condition 2: "An internationally certified_ arborist shall provide an evaluation of the oak trees on the north side of the bank and any special protection needed for the exposed roots as well as a schedule for implementation of any special protection measures if needed prior to recordation of the final map." Condition 12: The last sentence of Condition 12 will state that the developer will have to pay for the intersection or private or frontage improvements, including any modifications occurring to equate a T intersection for safety reasons as determined by the Director of Public Works. Ms. Wordell said that it was the intent to include private property. Condition 21: Insert in 4t�' line, before "This final design ..." "The city will work with the water district regarding safety fencing." Relative to the narrow appearance of Wallin Court, Mr. Chong said that with proposed intersection modification and frontage improvements, staff will be looking at more of a traditional T-intersection, which would create the appearance of a normal intersection. Mr. Piasecki said that , it was considered a frontage road and parking was permitted on one side only. Ms. Wordell said that the fire department had reviewed the street and determined it safe. She said that a condition could be added that the sheriff will review the tentative map for security and safety issues prior to recordation. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 22-EA-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 1 Planning Commission Minutes 14 December 11,2000 MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 02-TM-00 with modifications to Condition 2, 12, 21 and the addition the security notation as appropriate. SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Ms. Wordell noted that the application will be presented to the City Council on January 15, 2001. Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:10 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. 6. Application Nos.: 08-EXC-00, 17-EA-00 Applicant: Daryl Fazekas Location: 22350 Regnart Road Hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%, and for an exception to the required second story offset. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Staff�resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square foot home on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30% and for an exception to the required second story offset. Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Wordell answered questions about the visibility of the residence, the proposed landscaping, and house color and materials. She reviewed the information in the staff report relative to the two landslides on the property and the mitigation for both; one to be re-engineered with fill and the other will require a setback. Coms. Doyle and Kwok expressed concern about approving a hillside exception to allow a home to be built on an existing slide area. Chair Harris said that she felt the environmental document should be amended to show that there is a significant but mitigated issue, rather than indicate that it was not significant, which would later hold the city liable for not having considered if as the document is what is approved. She said she would be more comfortable saying that it was significant mitigation proposed, taking into account the best advice of the seismic experts stating that with this mitigation it would be safe to build, but at least it has been acknowledged that it was considered, Ms. Wordell said that it was acknowledged in the comments on the report that the mitigation was occurring, hence the Planning Commission could choose to change the impact to significant. Mr. Martin Kasik, 11496 Lindy Place, representing the applicant, said that the colors have to be approved by the homeowners association as well as the city. Mr. Richard Rowland, engineering geologist, clarified that the home would not be built on a landslide, but built at the edge of what presently is a small slump or landslide, that is mitigated by taking the whole landslide out and replacing it with engineered fill which is a common procedure. Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Road, representing the Regnart Road Homeowners Association, said the plans and design are in keeping with the neighborhood; the house has minimal visibility from the valley floor and the association is fully supportive of the home. He said that the architectural committee is very stringent about the colors and materials of the house. Planning Commission Minutes 15 December 11,2000 1VIs. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, commented on the landslide issue. She said that on r i rees and landsca in over the slide area• in the recommendation of the the landsca e lan the e s t , P P P g geologist, it says that the drainage system has to be designed by the project civil engineer and maintained by the property owner at all times. Over periods of time the maintenance program usually degrades and when you start putting irrigation of landscaping into the slide that is when you undermine that slide area; it is water that causes a landslide, not just loose earth. The water • creates a cushion, therefore there has to be some eonsideration in the conditions about the maintenance of the drainage on the property to avoid that area where they are going to be irrigating and having landscaping right on the slide. Ms. 1Vlurray said that there should be a check system that the drainage system is being maintained. Ms. Wordell said there was a condition in the A exception that said any irrigation plans in the slope area had to be reviewed by the engineer � that would get at it at the beginning, and ongoing reports were another matter. Ms. Wordell said ' that a solution could be that the additional shrubs could easily be pulled back to be out of the landslide area, and suggested a condition that said that there shouldn't be any planting in the landslide area, which would eliminate the need for monitoring, as monitoring is difficult to do. Mr. Randall said that many years ago he built a barn down the hill, and was confronted with the same issue. The same issue was addressed with the lot above the barn and they conducted an analysis and the engineer designed a series of drains within the wall because the water drains 'i down and gets underneath. A series of rock drains were put in the hill that then drain ' underground, and is something that does not need to be monitored because it is designed in the fill ', when it was put in place and there is a row of rock compacted into the ground, and the water ' comes down the rock and is picked up by piping and taken further down to the creek. The same design could be incorporated into this fill without any trouble. He said he concurred with it, and was certain the contractor would too, that this side needs to be controlled and the water drainage needs to be controlled. Mr. Rowland said that he did not think it should be called slide area because after they do the mitigation which is the repair, it would no longer be a slide area and there would be permanent i improvements underground. He said there would be subdrains which are permanent drainage ways that carry off water so you can have landscaping over a repaired landslide, hence a repaired �, landslide technically is not a landslide. Relative. to the other area, about 14 years ago and ', examination was taken and a proposal to do a soldier beam wall at the top part of that, which was not made; but the landslide has not advanced at all and is not growing on that side. It is a very large feature going down in the canyons and is not feasible to repair. Com. Doyle said that he understood that it was not the issue that it was the vegetation location or the ability to repair the slide, but the issue is making sure that the system of draining that area is well maintained. Ms. Murray concurred, stating that even the geologist recommended maintenance of the drainage system; if they are going to put in a repaired slide, with a drain system and some protection of the toe of the slide perhaps, then you do have a repaired area before it slid and that would probably prevent it, but if you are going to rely on the homeowners to maintain a drainage system to ' prevent a slide,that will degrade over time. Mr. Piasecki suggested wording for Condition 18, landscape plan: "The applicant shall develop a detailed landscape plan with appropriate subdrains to help stabilize the slopes and insure no additional drainage impact on the existing slide areas, subject to review and approval of the city's ', geologist prior to issuance of building permits." He said part of the solution may not be drains at 1 Planning Commission Minutes 16 December 11, 2000 all, it may be native materials that you might even hand water during the winter, let the rains i water them, and they become established and help to hold these slopes; it will be accomplished in the landscape plan. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Kwok questioned whether it was warranted to seek a second opinion about geological studies and the design in a situation where you feel you put a building in an area where there is historical landslides because it is so critical and there is so much liability within the city of Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki said that it was built into the system with the applicant's geologist developing an analysis and the city's geologist double checking that. In this particular case, it is not expected that the house will be impacted. He said there are some existing slide conditions, they are going to have the landscape plan try to assist with that but that is not going to be a guarantee that those slides won't fail and end up coming down the hill, but the message is that with this particular plan, it is not going to be impacted. He said hE felt the system is the best available, and Bill Cotton's reputation is exemplary and staff feels comfortable with that. Com. Doyle said that relative to the comment about changing the EIR to note a significant but ' mitigated impact, he said he felt at least the soils report and the plan for mitigation need to be included also. � Chair Harris said that Ms. Wordell added the language in Condition 17 about following the geologist's recommendation according to the reports; the box on the environmental form will be changed to indicate significant but mitigated; and the mitigation is included in No. 17. Mr. Piasecki said that the colors could be added in a No. 19, that states the building colors are subject to review and approval of staff. The concept is to have it be earthtone and muted, and non- reflective, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 17-EA-00 with the changes on Item 4, (be located in the area of soil instability), and change to "significant, mitigation proposed" SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 8-EXC-00 with the changes to Condition 17, statement about adhere to the geologist's recommendation according to the reports provided; addition of Conditions 18, landscape plan, No. 19 on building color, change to"significant, mitigation proposed" SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 7. Application No.: 14-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. Planning Commission Minutes 17 December 11,2000 Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to adopt the Eichler Design ' Guidelines for the Fairgrove neighborhood, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, said that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission , recommend that the City Council adopt the Eichler design guidelines in the handbook. Over the ' past three years staff has worked with a committee of residents from Fairgrove with an architectural consultant as well to develop design standards for the neighborhood's Eichler style homes. The Fairgrove neighborhood is the area generally bounded by Phil Lane to the north, Miller Avenue to the east, Bollinger to the south and Tantau to the west. The neighborhood consists of a group of 220 Eichler homes built in the early 1960s which has maintained a consistent Eichler style. At the September 11 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Rle single fainily Eichler ordinance which establishes development standards for Eichler homes, the rezoning of Fairgrove from R16 to R16e and also directed staff to prepare Eichler design guidelines. Sabsequently the City Council approved the Rle ordinance as well as the rezoning and both are currently in effect. Staff has prepared the handbook which is the subject of the discussion today. The Eichler design guidelines handbook is a resource of Fairgrove homeowners which provides information on the basic principles of the Eichler styles to guide homeowners towards designs which preserve the identity of Fairgrove. She reviewed the contents of the design guidelines booklet. Discussion ensued regarding the contents of the guidelines and suggestions were made for minor changes before finalization. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. 1VIrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane; said she was proud of the guidelines. She suggested I, changes to Page 6, relative to the size of the vertical grooves; Page 9, remove the ward "mostly" il referring to glazing; Page 11 photo depicting setbacks; and minor changes to the matrix. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. 1VIOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 14-SP-00 with the suggested amended changes SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 �]I.,� l��J��IE��: None l�VIE�l�gT��l�IE��: None ll�1E]��1�� ]E'1�]L�l�l�l[l�� I�I��1�: IHL�IlIlSllIlIl� ��IIIlIlIIIlIlll��< Com. I�wok reported on the November 16th meeting, which included teacher housing; retaining affordability in the redevelopment apartment complexes. PQ[�g��'s l��e�ll��h: Com. Doyle will attend the Mayor's breakfast on December 12�'. Com. Stevens repor�ed that Mayor James will be attending other committee/commission meetings Planning Commission Minutes - 18 December 1 l,2000 to provide guidance. Mr. Piasecki noted that a schedule will be compiled for the Planning Commission representative to attend the City Council meetings, once or twice per year. ��IE]��IE�� ]F ll��]L��]F c��I�l[I�1[�Jl��Y�D]E�IElL�1�l�ll]EI��: None ��J��l��]F l�]E��l��l�]El��]L�I�I�IlI��: None A�.��J1�10�]El�T�: The meeting was adjourned at. 10:55.p. m. to the special Planning Commission meeting at 5:30 p.m. on December 18, 2000, in Conference Room A. l�spectfully Submitted, �� Eliz e Ellis Reco ing Secretary AppNoved as presented: January 8, 2001