Loading...
PC 03-23-81 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-3s3 Page 1 MIrlUTES MARCrl 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Binneweg Connnissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 9, 1981 were approved after the following corrections: Page 3, third paragraph, "enquired" to read "inquired". Page 4, fifth paragraph, '\.¡uld" to read "would". Page 14, seventh paragraph to read: "Com. Adams observed t~1at there 1;.¡ere large existing trees on the southerly border, and wondered how the solar utilization was planneù.1I Page 21, seventh paragraph to read: "Com. Aùams welcomed public input cover in pro and con on both sides, and observed that other HUD* projects in the east had not turned out very well. However, because of the need for low income nousing, ne would consider approval./f Page 23, fiÎth paragrapn to read: "Com. Aùams felt 24 units to be acceptable as filling the need for lower income rental housing." !10TION: SE COl;D: VOTE: Com. Blaine that the Minutes be approved as corrected. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 Tae Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 10, 1980 were approved as submitted. MOTION: Com. Claudy that the Minutes be approved as submitted. SECOND: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED (Com. Binneweg abstaining, since she was not there). 4-1 The Minutes of ttle Regular Meeting of August 11, 1980 were approved after the following corrections: Page 3, seventh paragrapi1 to read: "Com. Adams questioned how the applicant would ensure that the emergency access was only used for emergency purposes. 11 Page 3, tenth paragraprr to read: the case of a neighbor below who "Com. Adams wondered what was resolved in had been concerned about his privacy rights.11 PC-3s3 Page 2 MINUTES MARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLA.'iNING COMMISSION ì1EETING MOTION: Com. Blaine toat the Minutes be approved as corrected. SECOND: Chr. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED (Com. Binneweg and Com. Claudy abstaining, since they were absent) 3-2 POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS ITEM #2 was to be withdrawn from the calendar permanently at the applicant's request. MOTION: Com. Claudy that Application 4-U-8l of Greenleaf be removed from the calendar. Com. iHaine PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letters from Terrasearch, Inc., Terratech, Inc., Debeor Corp. and ABAG* to be entered as part of the record on Item #1. ORAL COMMffi,ICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM #1, CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider amendment of Ordinance 2l4(a) pertaining to excavations, grading and retaining walls. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan introduced Mr. Kenneth K. May, Legal Consultant for ABAG*, and Ms. Isabel S. Gloege, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, Geology and Water Quality Division, Santa Clara Valley Water District, who were to give a presentation, since their agencies were working on sediment control. This would be followed by Assistant City Engineer Whitten's presentation of the rough draft of the amended Ordinance and discussion. He outlined the geographical scope of the Ordinance, and said though the question had been raised that perhaps there was not enough development left in Cupertino to warrant a change, there was potential for approximately 100 homes involving steep terrain. The Stevens Creek flood plain in some areas had steep slopes also, and there were other areas involving lesser grading. Staff tllerefore felt a change was warranted in the areas of prohibition of vegetation removal and prohibition of grading at certain times of the year. Mr. Moy gave a slide presentation which contained the following information: Nine million cu. yards of soil fell from Bay Area hills each year, affecting storm drains, reservoirs and the Bay, resulting in a $65 million clean up cost annually. Soil erosion meant lost land, natural resources, farmland and recreation facilities, and pollutants carried down killed fish and encouraged algae growth. The heaviest erosion burden came from the instant mud of construction which increased as names were built nighér in the hills. Tons of mud could be washed downstream-in a few·hou~s. * ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments PC- 35 3 ]'.age 3 HINUTES BARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In 1978 counties and cities had begun to look into erosion control under a plan adopted by ABAG* which included grading ordinances, water course protec- tion ordinances, and dumping and litter control practices. The ABAG* program could provide the necessary tools, such as technical assistance, a manual of standards, methods and specifications for builders, and a model erosion and sediment control crdinance for local government, to protect everybody involved from unexpected costs and pollution. . Hr. May said that Cupertino was not the only city in the area selected for this effort. A number of other jurisdictions had adopted control ordinances and had referred to the ABAG* manual of technical standards. Ms. Gloege remarked that run off was one of the major problems in area water quality, and the development of the hillsides in the County made strict controls necessary: It had been determined that $3.7 million was spent annually within Santa Clara County on erosion and sediment reduction and clean-up, with the Water District alone spending $260,000 on storm sewer and catch basin cleaning She spoke of a study that had been conducted on Calabazas Creek, which had determined that 72% of the sediment discharged into it was generated from 6% of-the surrounding area. Sedimentation in the stream reduced capacity, damaged public and private property and led to recreation, fishing and wild life losses. Agricultural damage and losses were less in this particular are&. COM. ADAMS thought it was worth considering an erosion control ordinance, even for 100 homes, but he wondered how much of the $65 million overall clean up cost could be saved if such an ordinance was adopted by the whole area. Ms. Gloege explained that as the area varied widely in geology from the east hills to the west hills, she did not have a figure for that. CHR. KOENITZER requested a rough figure for the amount of sediment being dredged and moved in the County during a year. Mr. May advised that 14% of the total was due to construction, and as this type of sediment was washed down in the short period of 2/3 months during the rainy season, it had a very damaging and clogging effect. COM. CLAUDY wanted to know where the remaining 86% came from. Ms. Gloege answered that part was generated by urban-related activities and the rest from open space and related activities. Mr. May added that he believed the majority was generated by agriculture. COM. ADM~ thought that if the Staff and Commission spent time preparing an ordinance it should benefit the ecology of the whole Bay Area, and he wanted first to establish that it was worthwhile in this respect. Ms. Gloege remarked that the District had spent $650,000 annually cleaning sediment out of streams, and soil conservation services had cost $980,000 in the County alone. While the District was concerned with the Bay, it was also concerned with its costs in the immediate area. * AßAG - Association of Bay Area Governments MINUTES ~1ARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLAWnNG C0/1HISSION MEETING PC-3s3 Page I CHR. KOENITZER estimated that, even if only 75% of erosion was considered background, leaving 25% caused from construction, of the "S3.7 million spent annually, $2.9/3 million would be spent anyway, as the Ordinance would have 'no ~ontrol over that 75%. COM. CLAUDY added that the costs would probably only be cut 10%, and not 25% COM. BLAINE thought there was more than cost to be considered the construc- tion sediment causing otner problems t1l8t had to be alleviated. Hr. Hay gave an example; a culvert in Antimch had completely silted in over a short period of time. Ms. Gloege thought costs would double when the hillside development occurred COM. CLAUDY inquired of Assistant City Engineer Whitten whether the City :,ad assessed developers for removing silt, flushing storm drains and other remedial work in the past. Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied t:,at the City had recovered most of these costs, and many times tile developers had done their own clean1up work. As developments were not accepted by the City until clean up was done and the bills paid, there was good control. COHo ADAMS wondered if costs could be reduced by taking additional measures during the construction phase. Assistant City Engineer Whitten thought there would be a saving, especially since clean up was not inexpensive. CER. J.<.OENITZER inquired whether private property c:2.¿:n ...:.? ·,,"o.s ir.cluàed in th City bill. Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated tètat in one case a developer had cleaned up several tim~s OI~ private property over the winter, and had replaced landscaping in the spring,. tilOUgh it was still an inconve:lience. COM. CLAUDY surmised tHat if developers felt prevention to be cost effective they would use it already. In some winters prevention would be a \Jaste of money for tnem, as tney did not pay the cost of dredging themselves, except in taxes, ,.¡hich was spread over everybody. Hr. May said that ABAG* Üad been working on a program with the Building Trade Association, as most builders were not used to working in the hillside Many builders preferred an ordinance, as it hurt their image if things went wroug because of their inexperience. The Ordinance would have a builder ask all the right questions. COM. BINNEWEG remarked that it did help to have expertise available. Assistant City Engineer whitten explained that the draft 1¡Jas a combination of a technically revised version of Ordinance 2l4(a) and provisions for erosion and sediment control. The primary areas to be addressed by the Commission were penalties, permits to clear pr9perty and prohibition of commencement of grading during the winter months. He and Mr. May were PC-353 Page 5 MINù'TES BARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COHMISSlON HEETING going to take all comments received, technicàl and otherwise, revising the document to be ready for the last April Meeting, and were not looking for a resllJlution at tÙis time. COM. BLAINE questioned wny the City was exempt from a ban on winter grading. COM. CLADDY remembered recent discussions of the City not meetings is obligations in respect to tne Corporation Yard. COM. BLAINE was concerned about í1aving more steps in the process, and >lOndered if it could be streamlined to prevent additional costs. Assistant City Engineer Whitten observed that it did not take long to review a written report. On the other hand, he had spent much time on the telephone trying to get a developer to do something required. Even if a little more time had to be spent in reviewing, he would like to prevent bad winter problems occurring. COM. BLAINE was in favor of alleviating the problems, but wondered if it would be overkill. Assistant City Engineer Whitten thought that it Gould be set up as a cost itenl to the developer, and suggested also that the Water District offer staff people to the City on an hourly cost basis. From the standpoint of plan checking and reading reports, there was no problem, but there could be additional costs somewhere in checking for compliance and enforcing in the field. COM. BINNEWEG thought a distinction should be made between major and minor developers, since it would be a waste of time for a single home builder to have so many experts, and would be a great cost burden. Assistant City E11gineer Hl1Ítten commented that there would not be much change involved for a single 110use in the flatlands. However, the hillSides were dddiferent. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the approval process was ministerial, and there was no public review, so that the time-line for any type of developer would not be extended. In a new subdivision area maybe 5% of work would be added by requiring a grading and erosion plan. Major developments in the hillsides presently had been conditioned to require erosion control plans submitted by a lanùscape architect, and Kathy Scott, the staff member who did plan cllecking nad said it did not take much extra time at all. COM. BLAINE thougl1t that if ti1e interest rate dropped there would be a lot more developmeut, and it might become a burden in this case. COM. CLAUDY wondered if the process Ilad been effective, as the landscape architect was working for the developer who wanted to keep down costs. The plans were probably never sent out to an expert. Assistant City Engineer ~'¡hitten trlought there was some confusion, since the existing Ordinance did not include a section on erosion control, and there had never been a formal requirement for it, thougb some types of erosion control had been recommended 0Y soil engineers on individual developments. The only exception was if there was a danger to life, limb or property. MINUTES MARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING eO~lliISSION MEETING PC-353 page COM. BLAINE wanted to know what the problems had been on the development at Rainbow and Bubb, and why it had taken so long to clean up. Were there things that should have been done, she wondered, and were there steps in the amended Ordinance to keep it from happening again. Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained that the problem had been caused because a storm line to be extended down Bubb Road from CaIabazas Creek, though started in sufficient time 'nad not been completed when expected because of problems with other utilities. Coupled "ith the timing of the grading, all areas being stripped, and the weather, there had been a mess. He felt tnat, in this particular case, I1.any problems on site could have been eliminated witn the use of sediment ponds and slope protection, though nothing could nave been done about the storm line, since it was an unknown factor. However, with proper slope protection 3/4 of the problems might have been alleviated, with problems to neighbors eliminated completely. COHo BLAINE inquired T,..,¡'nether the storm drain vlOuld have had to be in before grading took place under the revised Ordinance. Assistant City Engineer Wnitten said the Ordinance could be used to do that, and Staff would be very cautious in the future about relying on a storm line extension as part of a grading plan. Assistant Planning Director Cowan was bothered by the question of hydro- mulcning and relying on the first rain to germinate the seed, as if the first rain was a heavy one all was lost. He wondered if a sprinkler truck could be required to germinate the seeds before the first heavy rain. Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained there was a section in the Ordina ce w~ereby a sprin~ler line could 'be required. Some developers in the area had nydroseeded three times this season, and he did not know what was cÜeaperfalso most water trucks did not throw water very far. Hr. Hay referred to a study AßAG* had made of the rains in the area, and said that September 15 Üad been found to be the optimum date for hydro- seeding or mulcning a slope, as there was over 90% chance of getting a germinating rain at that time, with over 90% possibility that the germinati g rain would occur sufficiently far ahead of other rains. COH.. ADAMS wanted the AßAG* representative's opinion of plastic covering on banks that he had seen used in San Diego and Los Angeles area. Hr. Hay felt it was expensive, but could be effective when used correctly. COM. BLAINE said that if it was not long enough to cover the whole slope it caused slippage and landslides. em!. ADAl'IS thougilt that if it was used temporarily while grading driveways or pads it mi£ht ~e worth considering. Us. Gloege stated that emergens::y measures were relatively inexpensive to take, and tflat the most economical was vegetative cover, ~.vith straw mulch also being very effective and a more permanent measure than plastic. It retained moisture also, and was biodegradeable. She explained that one cause of erosion was the magnitude of water drip, and straw had been shown * ADAG - Association of Bay Area Govern~ents PC-3s3 page 7 L",," ~~RCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLili~NING CO~lliISSION MEETING ore efficient because it nad more fibre. She mentioned an ABAG* training course being offered in Santa Clara County where erosion measures were discussed and followed up by field trips. ssistant City Engineer Whitten said he had sent someone on this course. He auld like to have the ~AG* set of standards used as guidelines, as there were 'ifferent ways to accomplish the same things, and he would like developers to have flexibility in economics. OM. CLAUDY saw a problem in the review of the erosion control measures; ho was going to do it. The idea of theWatet District making experts available to tile City seemed a good one, and \vould be less expensive to the developer and tÌ1e City in the long run. ssistant Planning Director Cowan observed that it was much easier to work ith a private individual than 'another agency. 011 BINiŒHEG added that a private individual realized his name and licence as on the line. COM. CLADDY was thinking more in terms of cost, as it was going to cost more to hire a private consultant than for the City to share Qne through a central gency. s. Gloege advised that the ~ater District had received a federal grant, and nad been reviewing plans with private developers. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that several small area cities would be having the same problem, and it had been suggested that they share one person, but some cities had not been receptive. Hr. Hay felt tney could be approached again when they "ad a need for the program. CHR. KOENITZER referred to page 10,paragraph 16.08.110 of the draft Ordinance, and wondered wnat magnitude of rainfall, storm or flood the calculations were to be made for, as it was not spelled out. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said it ¡,,¡ould be a ten-year event, as the storm drains were designed for that. It was determine.d tüat the cities in t~le area using erosion control presently were Saratog?-, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and Palo Alto. San Jose had an ordinance in tne printing stage. COM. ADPJ1S wondered if copies of the ordinances already in existence would l1elp in comple ting this one. Mr. May explained that part of tlle Cupertino Ordinance was inherent in those, but partly it was based on how the City administered its ordinances. He said he would bring a flow chart to toe next Meeting to clarify. ~Œ. Richard Childress, Developer, 22025 Regnart Road said he had reviewed the draft Ordinance in some detail, and realized there was a lot of work still to ÎJe done. tie felt tÙe biggest problem was keeping the bureaucracy and cost factors down to a practical level. He,like the Commissioners, questiorled the HldUTiOS MARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLAN;UNG COHHlSSION HEETING PC-3s3 Page 8 real magnitude of the problem, particularly in Cupertino. He wondered now mucll of tÜe sediment came from current development work, as in the last 100 year rain mudnad been washed down that had oeen standing on the hills for 10/15 years, and this Ordinance would not have helped. He pointed out that erosion was not necessarily a man-made process that had to be stopped, and that much of it was natural. He gave the example of a rancil he owned out of state that had three times the rainfall and much natural erosion. He was glad the Water District was now interested in more natural protection, since some people he had worked with there suggested tue answer of paving creek bottoms and putting them into pipes. In answer to tne comment that the run-off and sediment from development w 5 different as it occurred in the rainy season, all erosion occurred in the rainy season and everything came down when it rained, natural or not, and much rain meant much trash, clogging~ sediment, etc. This would occur regardless of wnat man did. He remarked, regarding open space and agricultural erosion, that there was not much agriculture in our area, thougù there was a lot of open space, and a study had been done on the Fremont Older Preserve regarding sedimen tation· He understood it had been found to be not too serious a probl Regarding background erosion, he felt development often improved this, si ce the water was concentrated into underground storm drains or hydro- mulcl1ing or seeding was provided, both of which improved tÌle sedimentatio problem. However, tnere was no question that a large mess could be made beforehand if care was not taken. His opinion on the problem of the ship cì:lannel was that it would have Deen prone to wave action anyway, as it was nothing more than a ditch dug underwater, and in the case of the culvert that llad silted in, he thought no Ordinance could stop that, as it was a problem of continued maintenance wnen property went into private ownership, caused by people letting their rainleaders wash mud into creeks and also putting trasi1 in creeks, and he did not see limy that kind of thing could be stapp d. He acknowledged that there had been problems on Lindy Lane in that the creek had overflowed and put mud on the streets, but this condition had been corrected as part of trre development, as a 20 inch pipe feeding into a 30 inch storm drain had been upgraded and trash racks had been added, making the City's job easier. His opinion on mulching was that hydromulching was very effective, though there was a problem if germination started and constant water was not maintained. Tlle staN' mulch that had been used on freeways had not been too effective uecause of winù. He said ;Ie was not opposed to seeing some controls, but felt Cupertino was !leading into blanket overkill, with no grading for six months out of the year, etc. With the remaining land in Cupertino, if a message was put out to developers to consider erosion controls they would respond, he trrought, as they knew that otnerwise they would not be allowed to develop the hillsides. T~le majority of developers ""QuId request infor- mation if there was sometning they did not know, since nobody wanted land slippage proulems. PC-353 J~...ge 9 MINUTES MARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COM} ISSION MEETING He felt that to legislate and regulate by law would be very difficult. Developers would hire someone to write some plans and hand them in, but the real test was in implementation. In the case of retaining a registered land- scape architect, tiley did not nave much training in terms of erosion and sediment control, he felt. Wheri the developer knew he would be in trouble if he made a mess he would find the right kind of expert, such as one in soils. he expressed a "illingness to work with Staff if they really thought they needed something so elaborate, but he was trying, through his comments, to change the context, maybe to examining the remaining projects, rather than blanketing the City with an ordinance. By 11is analysis, it would be expensive and would take expertise the City did not have, adding to project times and the cost of houses. CON. BLAINE asked t1r. Childress if he had any suggestions on how winter grading should be handled. Mr. Childress felt tnat grading could be allowed in areas where the water was going into a natural water course, and that to keep an individual from grading during the ...inter could be a great hardship. It also meant that tractor operators were out of business for 65% of the time when added to no Saturday or Sunday work. For big projects, the winter could be planned for and controls put in, and for small projects,the impact would be so small toar it would far overshadow the cost benefit of controls. He favored confining controls to significant projects requiring significant things, such as Regnart and Lindy. Assistant City Engineer Whitten wondered how the Commission wanted to approach the prohibition or non- prohibition of grading. COM. BLAINE felt there snould be flexibility. COM. ADAJ.IS suggested that if a developer could show he had a grading plan that would work under certain conditions he should be allowed to go ahead, and that something could be written into tne Ordinance to allow this. If there was a dispute, the developer could have the option of coming before the Commission or tHe Council. Assistant City Engineer Whitten thougilt maybe he and Hr. May could do t:,is. His primary concern was damage to the adjacent properties or inconvenience to the public, so language could be added that erosion and damage should be confined to the development site only. CHR. KOENITZER felt tnat this would imply problems with the developers erosion control measures, and if tnere was a bad storm these problems would be moved downhill. COM. CLAUDY thougilt that proiÜbiting grading in the winter was not a solution t·o the problem, since grading work sLarted in the spring was often ~.¡ashed away in. the winter when it was not finished. The steps taken to reduce and eliminate the erosion and run off 'Were the key. CHR. KOENITZER suggested that with a good erosion control plan grading could be implemented in the rainy season. MINUTES MARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-3s3 Page 10 Assistant City Engineer Whitten saw problems if mass grading was to take place in October. T;Üs had caused problems in the past. COM: CLAUDY suggested different controls for starting at different times of year. Assistant City Engineer Whitten observed that when a mass grading ope ratio was started in October and a week later there was a IS-year storm there was no way to avoid a mess. CHR. KOENITZER suggested that in wintertime erosion control measures would have to be put in as the grading was commencing~ whereas in summer mass grading could be done and if not finished by September 14, erosion control measures could then be added. Mr. May suggested that sediment basins could be used in that case. Assistant City Engineer Wi:litten stated that this tvould not prevent damage to the property, but just retain mud and silt on it. COM. CLAUDY suggested the Ordinance could simply say that every grading application be accompanied by a plan to control erosion,suitable for the time of year. Applications could be reviewed and refused if there were no adequate procedures that could be taken. Assistant City Engineer Wnitten said they 'ffiuld add some language if pass Ie so tàat it would work tilat way. There was a discussion on the fact that houses in the eastern United Sta es had landscaping when sold, and .it was thought to be due to differences in regulations, requirements of FHA*and VA*~ínancing and, mainly, that it rained all year. Mr. ~illy pointed out that some local areas required final erosion control before subdivisions were released. Hs. Gloege gave an example of Parker Ranch in Saratoga, which had a land- scape plan for every lot. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that signing things off "ithout landscaping was a problem, especially since landscapers often changed the drainage patterns. Tnere was discussion about using rye grass for erosion control, since it was inexpensive, but Ms. Gloege advised that some types of rye grass and also wild oats caused problems. HaTTON: Com. Claudy to April 27, 1981 Com. ßlaine PASSED continue the draft of Ordinance 2l4(a) to the Meeting. SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 * FdA - Federal Housing Authority **VA - Veterans Administration PC-3S3 Page 11 MINUTES HARCH 23, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COHMISSION HEETING ITEM 112, Application 4-U-8l of GREENLEAF: USE PERHIT to install a mobile trailer, for security purposes, behind an existing commercial building. The subject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 200 ft. westerly of the Southern Pacific right of "ay in the Manta Vista neigh- borhood. Tile property is zoned P (Planned Development with commercial/industrial intent). First Hearing. (WITHDRAWN PER APPLICfu~T5 REQUEST), NFINISHED BUSINESS om. Adams passed his Minutes corrections to Staff. EI'¡ BUSINESS HR. KOENITZER announced that ABAG* and the Northern California Association for Jon-Profit Housing were having a workshop on energy efficiency and affordable lousing on March 25th, PORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION om. CLAUDY asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten what had finally transpired 'n regard to Silver Oaks West. ssistant City Engineer Whitten said that the City had received a copy of a awsuit from the homeowners association against Silver Oaks Development Company. he City had been meeting with the developers to try to rectify some of the roblems, but nothing had been done so far. However, the commercial was being egotiated for, and that might ~olve all the problems. OM. CLAUDY nad noticed an orange tree on the Hayco Development on Scenic oulevard that was full of fruit that had been left on. PORT OF PLfu~NING DIRECTOR ssistant Planning Director Cowan said he would spend time at the next Meeting, pril 13th, to give a status report on the General Plan. O~I. ßINNEWEG wanted to know when the Goals Committee would be dissolved. ssistant Planning Director Cowan advised that it would be in April. 'ETING ADJOUfu,ED 9:45 P.H. ATTEST: APPROVED: ~~ ~~ R. D. Koenitzer, Chair an J. AßAG _ Association of Bay Area Governments