Loading...
PC 05-27-03CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 27, 2003 Commissioners present: Corr, Miller, Wong, Chairperson Chen Commissioners absent: Com Saadati Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, Ralph Qualls, Public Works SALUTE TO THE FLAG APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 28, 2003 Planning Commission Study Session: Chair Chen noted that on Page 4 of the minutes, last line of second paragraph: "is" should read "its". MOTION: Com. Wong moved approval of the Apri128, 2003 study session minutes as amended SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Minutes of the May 12, 2003 Regular Planning Commission meeting.• Com. Corr made the following revisions: Page 4, second paragraph, third line: "they" should read "we" Page 4, second paragraph, fourth line: "they" should read "we" Page 5, second paragraph, last line: " 30" should read " 3". Page 12, middle of page, reference to Dennis Whitaker: change to read: "Dennis Whitaker, who had submitted a speaker card earlier, did not speak as he had left the meeting due to a commitment." Com. Miller noted that on Page 14, last paragraph, change fourth line to read: "dividing the district up, hopefully the elementary school and the high school will not be issues. He said" Chair Chen noted that on Page 7, middle of page, "or public" should read "for public". Planning Commission Minutes 2 MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the May 12, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended SECOND: Com. Miller ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: May 27, 2003 Application No.: TR-2003-04 Applicant: Bill Jauch (Park Villas HOA) Location: Park Villas Circle -common area in front of clubhouse Director's minor modification to remove two pine trees in a planned residential development. Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003 Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2003 7. Application No.: TR-2003-OS Applicant: Luke Bolinger Location: 10275 N. DeAnza Boulevard Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2003 MOTION: Com. Wong moved approval of postponement of Applications TR-2003-04 and TR-2003-OS to the June 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None 2. Application No.: TR-2003-06 Applicant: Dick Fang (Yang Property) Location: 10660 Santa Lucia Road Tree removal request (related to R-2001-16) to remove a 20" Diameter Blue Atlas Cedar and replace it with a 36" box Deodor Cedar 3. Selection of trees to be planted at Cupertino DeOro Club, 20441 Homestead Road MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the Consent Calendar Applications TR-2003-06 and Item 3. SECOND: Com. Miller ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 27, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING Chair Chen moved the agenda to Item 5. Application Nos.: CP-2003-01, EA-2003-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino (Capital Improvement Plan) Location: Citywide Capital Improvement Plan, consistency with the General Plan Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Ralph Qualls, Public Works Director, said that the capital improvement plan for 2003-04 consists mostly of projects under construction, such as the library, civic center and completing the modifications of the sports center and civic park at the corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards. He reported that the capital improvement is about $3 million of which $1.2 million is general fund money, the remainder being grants or special funds. Of the $1.2 million, approximately $1 million is payment management program which is listed under 9400 streets which is the annual overlays and slurry seals done on city streets each year. It has been maintained because it covers what is needed during the year, and more importantly it is a maintenance of effort that qualifies the city to apply for T21 funds and other types of payment management funds that would give the city essentially 1.5 times their ability to do that work. He answered questions why there were no line item numbers. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: Com. Corr moved that Applications CP-2003-01 and EA 2003-02 were in conformity with the General Plan for five year Capital Improvement Program FY 2003-04 to 2007-08 SECOND: Com. Wong ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Chair Chen moved the agenda back to Item 4. 4. Application Nos.: TM-2003-01, U-2003-02, Z-2003-01, EA-2003-03 Applicant: Saron Gardens, LLC Location: 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E Tentative Map to subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel. Use Permit to construct 55 single family residences and site improvements on a 4.03 acre parcel Zoning to rezone a 4.03 parcel from (PR3) to P(Res) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003 Tentative City Council date.• June 16, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application and said that relative to the relocation program, staff received a letter and a revised relocation plan from the Saron Gardens resident association, stating that the residents did not support the relocation program presented to them at the residents' meeting on May 22"d. Mr. Chao reviewed Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 27, 2003 the major changes in the revised relocation plan which was distributed. He reported that Prometheus will now provide a garbage dumpster to facilitate the disposal of residents' debris from their property; and the relocation allowance has been increased to a lump sum for each resident equal to three times the monthly rent being paid at the time of relocation. Staff has reviewed the revised relocation plan and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the revised relocation plan dated May 22°d as part of the project. Relative to the concerns about the setbacks, the applicant has revised the site plan to allow two of the end units to have 20 feet side yard setbacks instead of 10 feet originally proposed. Mr. Chao reviewed the revised site plan; school impacts and meetings with the school districts; and pedestrian path as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Chao clarified that the school districts could only accommodate students that live in Saron Gardens past December 2003, and only applies to elementary students and high school seniors; not Kennedy Jr. High students because it is over capacity at present. He said that the tenants will receive a refund of their deposit and the three months rent at the time they check their keys out. Com. Corr suggested that the residents be given the names of contact persons in both school districts to contact relative to the school attendance issues. Mr. John Moss, Prometheus, said that they revised the relocation plan in response to the residents' input. He reviewed the changes in the relocation plan. One change was the removal of the condition that the tenant would have to relocate within the County of Santa Clara; now the tenant can move anywhere and still have the benefit. Prometheus also removed the condition that the tenant could only receive the assistance if they moved to another rental property where the rent was greater than the present rent; the tenant can now move to a lower rent and still get relocation assistance. The monetary assistance was originally going to be spread over several months; that has been changed to one lump sum at the time the tenant moves out of the apartment. The 60 day notice provision has also been eliminated; as soon as Prometheus becomes the owner of the property, the residents would be entitled to the benefits at any time they would move out. Relative to the school issue, Mr. Moss said that the applicants had been proactive to set up a meeting with both school districts, their preference was to be able to grandfather in the schools that the residents' children are attending now throughout their tenure; however, the school districts clearly communicated their position on the subject. Mr. Moss said that was understandable from his viewpoint, given the fact that they have people coming to them on a daily basis with the same type of request. He said they provided a list of available apartments with a list of schools associated with each rental property. He reiterated that all the schools in Cupertino were excellent schools. He said relative to the parking issue, they looked at trying to create as much parking as possible, resulting in a net increase of 2 parking stalls by eliminating the road shown before; noting that the only reason the road was there before was the assumption it was needed for fire access; and after meeting with the fire department, it is not an absolute requirement of the fire department. Relative to the setback issue, Mr. Moss said they met with the neighbor most impacted, and the change was favorably received by the neighbor. The pedestrian path was discussed before, and given the concerns stated in the staff report, the pedestrian path is an acceptable part of the application. Mr. Moss said he felt they had reasonably addressed all of the issues. The neighbors they met with over the last 8 months have created a number of changes shared previously, and he said he still felt the majority of the neighbors were either neutral regarding the project or were in favor of the project. Mr. Moss said that the new tenants would be informed what the plans for the redevelopment are, and would not be eligible for the relocation program. The prospective tenant would make the decision as to whether they would want to move in under those circumstances. Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 27, 2003 Com. Wong referred to Page 4-7, stoop height of unit type D, and asked for feedback on the concern of the design issue. Mr. Chao said that Unit Type D, as it appears, is higher than other unit types, and if one is standing at grade level, it is at head level; therefore staff is suggesting a condition that the applicant revisit the design of those units and in particular all the Unit Type Ds to see if they can lower it to a more pedestrian friendly height, so that the first thing seen is not like the top of the landing on the entry landing. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant believes they can accommodate that. Mr. David Johnson, Christiani Johnson Architects, said that the height was set at 6 feet for some internal planning reasons, but there is no practical obstruction to lowering the height to be more in keeping with the other units and they would work with staff to find a height they are comfortable with. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, asked if the heights were still 36 feet from the base, and what the per-acre density was. Mr. Piasecki said the density was 13.6. Mr. Whitaker said the biggest concern he had was not with the developers and the plans, but with the Planning Commission and City Council and their quest to retain as much BMR as possible. He said he felt that the primary reason for the families with children living in that area is to stay within the specific school system they selected. He said he hoped that the city government would show the concerns and consistencies with all the developments and the BMRs by giving decent considerations prior to displacing the families and make certain that those families desiring to stay in the specific elementary middle school and high schools would be able to. He said those not concerning themselves with staying in the specific areas should not face financial burdens now or in the future for being forced to relocate. He said he felt the developers had done a good job in offering the financial assistance. Relative to the BMR program, he questioned if people in the future are forced to relocate from a development, would they be able to become a top priority on the waiting list for BMR housing, to specifically stay in the school districts where they are at. He reiterated that all five schools in the high school district were top schools, but noted that some had a higher ratio of students going on to college. He urged the efforts to continue toward allowing the students to stay in the school they are attending. Ms. Trudy Wallick, 7390 Rainbow Dr., #1, reiterated Mr. Whitaker's remarks. She questioned the grading as she resided behind the apartments, so that the people behind won't get swamped with more water. She encouraged more dialogue with the school districts about displacing the children since the residents were being forced to move out of their apartments. Mr. Piasecki said that the speaker could talk with the applicant's architect regarding the grading. He said they would have to meet all the normal standards, and would not be able to drain across the neighbor's property. Mr. Tom Dragosavac, 7308 Rainbow Drive, #A, said he was speaking on behalf of the resident association, and thanked Prometheus for responding to the residents' revised relocation plan they submitted for consideration. He commented that since there was no letterhead or signature on the printout from Prometheus, the residents questioned what guarantee they had. He said he has assured those concerned that he would make certain that the version of the plan included as a condition of the permits is identical to the version the residents had in their possession. Mr. Dragosavac said there was also concern about the date that the property would change hands; Mr. Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 27, 2003 Moss indicated that the property would change hands 30 days after City Council approval. Regarding the schools, he said he was hopeful that the Planning Commission and City Council level of concern would be strong on the residents' behalf with the school districts, since the school districts would respond to high levels of concern expressed by their fellow institutions. He said on his own behalf he was expressing concern about a comment made weeks earlier about the Planning Commission's remarks that they were grateful to Prometheus for providing owner occupied housing in order to displace rental housing. He said all the people living in rental housing in Cupertino should be informed if it is a policy to eliminate their residences in the long term and invite developers to eliminate rental housing in favor of owner occupied. He said it becomes a political question, and when the demolition of owner occupied housing is used as an excuse to no longer build the BMRs that someone said should be built, it compounds the problem of affordable housing. He said it did not make sense that affordable housing is being eliminated and less affordable housing is being provided, because the affordable housing is being eliminated. Ms. Rae Stevenson Norris, 7314 Rainbow Dr., #C, requested assurance as a condition of issuing building permits to Prometheus that the City Council certify that Prometheus has fulfilled all of the conditions listed in their relocation plan. She said that relative to the district agreements for Regnart and Kennedy students, during the next school year the Saron Gardens complex in Cupertino in the Regnart and Kennedy school area is being torn down to make way for construction of houses on the property. The residents of Saron Gardens are being forced to move out. She said it is very difficult to find a new apartment in the Regnart/Kennedy area; not many complexes exist and these have very low vacancy rates. There are 13 children in this apartment complex attending Regnart Elementary School, ranging from the first to the fifth grade, and three children that attend Kennedy middle school and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year. She said they are asking that their families be given passes and continue to attend those schools; as well as the four children in the complex who attend Monta Vista and three children who attend currently Kennedy Middle School and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year if they rent an apartment anywhere in the two districts. She asked for the support of the city officials for this request and said she hoped to meet on this matter with the city and the district officials in the very near future. Ms. Tatiana Azarenok, 7310 Rainbow Dr., #D, said that many concerns had been discussed at the city hall meeting two weeks ago about new relocation plans, school problems, etc. She said she had planned to stay in the complex because of the excellent schools. She said the complex was well maintained and well managed, and 16 units have garages which are hard to find. She said she felt the property was not a good location for 55 new homes because of the high density, and she felt that destroying the buildings and forcing 40 families to move out was not a well thought out plan. She said Cupertino had a lot of empty spaces that remain undeveloped for many years. She invited those present to find time to visit Saron Gardens and then consider if it is a good idea, and is it really necessary for the city or for adjacent neighborhoods. Ms. Khushroo Shaikh, 11640 Wildflower Ct., said she lived next to the development and said she was most impacted by the development. She said she discussed her privacy concerns with Prometheus and she was pleased with their approach and that they were willing to work with her on the problems. They have revised the plans to allow privacy in her bedroom and not have the house so close to hers. She said the plan was a good plan and would be an asset to the neighborhood and to Cupertino. She said she had a concern about allowing a pathway through the property and said if it was necessary to have a gate at the pathway so that people are not lingering in the area. Planning Commission Minutes ~ May 27, 2003 Chair Chen asked staff for clarification on the request for the relocation plan being part of the permit. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has to demonstrate that they met the conditions of approval that must be met prior to the issuance of building permits, and the relocation plan would be one of those conditions staff would evaluate. He said it is possible that they may be in a situation where they are requesting permits and they have one or two remaining tenants who have set dates when they will be relocating, and staff would hold those permits until they have successfully relocated those tenants or paid the three times rent that has been discussed. The city will follow through on the conditions of approval. He said the building permit process is a public process and the public can review the records. In response to Com. Corr's and Com. Wong's questions, Mr. Piasecki noted that the date referred to in Condition 14 should be changed to May 22 and would be reflected in the model resolution. He said that the names of the contact persons at the school districts would be made available to the residents. Mr. Piasecki said that the pathway would be lighted. Mr. Chao noted that the lighting of the pathway issue is part of the condition of approval. Mr. Moss clarified that the contract with the owner of the property allows the applicant to close 30 days after the approval should there be approval by the City Council. Mr. Piasecki clarified that there was a rezoning action taking place which calls for a second reading by the City Council and then the rezoning doesn't become effective for 30 days after that. Depending on how their contract is worded or what level of assurance they have from the first reading, second reading and the 30 days, they want to start that clock at a different time period. Mr. Moss said that the relocation plan would become effective when Prometheus takes possession and ownership of the property, potentially 30 days and 2 weeks (for second reading) after the City Council meeting of June 16`". In response to Com. Miller's request for clarification on the BMR program, Mr. Piasecki said there was no provision currently in the BMR program manual that would make an exception for the case. He said they could pass the comment to the Housing Commission the next time they address the BMR program and can relay it to the City Council when this item comes up to them. Should the Council wish to consider such a change, there is a waiting list for the BMR housing and that would have to be considered. Relative to the school district issue, Com. Miller said that there would be a time lag between when the residents move out and when units are available for new residents and new children to move in and replace them in the school district, and it would be up to a year or 18 months. Perhaps the school district might have some flexibility given the fact that they are not going to be overburdened by additional children by allowing the present children to continue to stay for some period of time, until the new units at a minimum are filled. Com. Miller referred to the earlier comment from a speaker that the Planning Commission had stated a preference for units for sale vs. rental units. He said that he did not make such a comment, and felt that the city needs a good combination of rental units and for sale units and he said he felt there was not an intent to get rid of rental units and add for sale units. He said it was important that the city has an appropriate mix of both rental and for sale units. Com. Miller said he was pleased and impressed with the level of community outreach that the applicant has accomplished. The community and the stakeholders have participated at a professional level and come to a reasonable solution given circumstances and everyone's position. Planning Commission Minutes s May 27, 2003 He said he felt the project was a good project and would be an asset to the city; and said the loss of some rental units was unfortunate, but those issues happen as a function of the marketplace more than a function of direction by the City Council, Planning Commission or staff. Mr. Chao referred to Condition 4, relative to decorative pavers. He said that the applicant was concerned with the interlocking paver requirement for economic impact reasons. The interlocking pavers are more environmentally friendly, and it is the city's objective to maximize onsite storm drainage retention. If appropriate and approved by the Planning Commission, the condition could be revised to state that either interlocking pavers or other special pavement materials that looks like or feels like pavers with water permeability shall be used and to be approved by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Piasecki said that the issues were the aesthetic issue, wherein the interlocking pavers have texture not available with stamped concrete; what the staff is interested in is the aesthetic issue and the permeability issue. It is problematic to put pavers on sand on driveways because the first heavy truck that goes over it impacts it and it cannot be compacted enough. Staff feels that stamped concrete could be utilized, but some level of water permeability is needed, such as drains or holes drilled into the structure. Staff suggests the wording in the last line "...interlocking pavers, or other material that looks like interlocking pavers, with water permeability." Com. Wong said that he supported the project. Relative to the comment about rental vs. for sale units, he said in his nearly one year on the Planning Commission the project has been one of the hardest decisions he has made, since it will displace 39 residents. Regarding rental units, being a property manager, he said it was private properly and they own the piece of property which the residents are renting. He said he has been to Saron Gardens many times and feels that it is a rough jewel in Cupertino that needs a lot of work; and said for the age of the building the tenants are paying market rate rent for that type of building; and it is located in a nice neighborhood. Com. Wong said he felt that the applicant worked hard with the residents to provide a good relocation package; and did a fine job in removing many of the clauses and also working with the letter given two weeks ago. He said Prometheus gave a lot and satisfied many of his concerns. Relative to the school issue, he said he requested the grandfathering of the children and the applicant made a good effort with staff to talk with both CUSD and FUHSD. He reiterated that all of the city's schools were excellent 'and it is the parent's choice that they want a particular school; if the tenants are relocated the applicant with do their best to see if the children can be relocated in the schools as well. Regarding the parking issue, he said he appreciated staff and the applicant trying to get two more spaces. He said his previous comments regarding the pathway remained the same; he said he was in favor of lighting on the pathway to address the safety and security issues. Relative to design, he said for a tight space they had a lower density compared to what they could have proposed. They could have also put in for rent and for sale apartments and increased the density. He said he would like to see the ,~ relocation plan letter as a condition of approval to guarantee it. Com. Miller said he supported the project as his previous comments indicated. Com. Corr said that there were four issues remaining from previous meetings: the relocation plan, the setbacks, the school impacts and the pedestrian path. He said he was pleased that the issues were resolved and the application was presented back to the Commission within the two week time period. He said he wished there was a better resolution to the school issue; everybody really gets involved in the schools their children attend, and they want to stay there which is understandable; however, it is not in the purview of the city to make that decision. By working Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 27, 2003 with Prometheus and getting the names of the people in the districts to talk to, hopefully it may help with the issue. Relative to the issue of the for sale and rental units, he said a number of rental properties have come through lately, and the Planning Commission is then questioned about approving all the rental units, and asked why not have more for sale units. From that standpoint, the Planning Commission is pleased to see one come through, but it was not from the standpoint of saying they do not want to have rental housing in Cupertino, as it is crucial to Cupertino. Chair Chen said she concurred with the other commissioners that the project was a very well planned project; and was pleased that all the issues were resolved in such a short period. She said she concurred with the change staff proposed to give flexibility to the applicants when it is time to build the project. Chair Chen said she strongly supported Com. Corr's suggestion to provide the school contact persons to the tenants; and also to change the date to May 22°d on Condition 14 for the tenant relocation program. MOTION: Com. Miller moved approval of Application U-2003-02, Z-2003-01, EA-2003-03 and TM-2003-01 in accordance with the model resolution and the suggested changes. SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 6. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 4-0-0 EXC-2003-01, EA-2003-04 Li-Sheng Fu APN 342-22-045 Mercedes Road Hillside exception to construct a 4,245 square foot residence on slopes greater than 30% and a parking exception for tandem parking Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003 Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application for the hillside exception to allow construction of a 3,210 square foot residence on an existing vacant lot, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the following project issues: (1) Preservation of the rural character of the area; (2) Design of the project, including setbacks, simple building and roof forms, colors; retaining wall heights; (3) Privacy landscaping needs; (4) Geologic conditions; (5) Parking; (6) Tree protection; (7) Storm drainage; and (8) Construction activities on a narrow road. He reviewed the site plan, second floor plan, elevations and landscape plan. Staff recommends approval of the mitigated negative declaration and the hillside exception. Com. Corr noted that the condition relative to no blockage of Mercedes Road during construction was not included. He also noted that drainage was not covered. Mr. Jung said that there was a condition about not impeding Mercedes Road. Relative to the drainage issue, he said that a possible solution was to install a french drain at the base of the driveway, which captures the flows and would lead to a drainage inlet that could convey it out to the designated drainage swale. He noted that Page 6-10, Condition 10, contained verbiage stating that emergency access along Mercedes Road shall not be impeded. Com. Miller referred to the drainage, and said it was his understanding that drainage before construction was the same as after construction. Ms. Wordell said that it was not yet a legal requirement. Planning Commission Minutes io May 27, 2003 Mr. Piasecki referred to the nonpoint source program where the desire is to retain as much of the water onsite without dumping it in the storm drain system as possible. With a site such as this, natural condition dumps much of it into the street, across the street and into the small creek on the other side. He said the concept of collecting it and taking it under the street was consistent with that and also had the requirement that 40% of the site be relatively undisturbed, which would help with the permeability of the soil as best it can under current conditions. Ms. Wordell said that cities are tightening their requirements so that smaller projects have to comply with the requirement of 100% retention. Com. Miller said that a solution to the runoff down the driveway might be the inclusion of a drywell at the base of the driveway, where if the runoff was sloped in such a manner, the water could go into the drywell and that would ameliorate the problem. Mr. Jung said that one of the problems with that is that a drywell at the base of the driveway itself would also serve to collect the drainage from the properties uphill of this one as well; the entire road slopes downhill from that; and the drywell would likely fill up rather quickly during the storm. In response to Chair Chen's question, Mr. Jung said it was possible to have two construction projects side by side, especially since they limited construction between October 15 and April 15 of each year. He said they had not received building plans for the adjacent house yet. He said if there were two simultaneous projects, the construction plans would have to be coordinated, and require driveways and offstreet parking to be put in first to serve as a construction area. The property owners could also coordinate their own construction activities to take advantage of combining their own resources to prevent doubling the load. Mr. Li Sheng Fu, architect, addressed the drainage issue and privacy issue. Relative to the drainage issue, he said they could put a temporary drain similar to the drywell, and also have a drain under the driveway. For privacy, he said they could plant more trees between the two properties. He said the house would be surrounded by large trees and more trees could be planted along the property line; the new trees would be 24" box trees, with at least one or two more 24" box trees along the property line. Relative to the location of the house, he said they studied the site and attempted to preserve most of the existing large oak trees and also the house located at the flat portion in the middle of the lot. He said they attempted to break down the building itself so the bulk of the building was not so big and they followed the slope of the lot so it is staggered back and split level, and fits into the lot. The total excavation for the grading will be 680 cubic yards which he said was a small amount of excavation. Com. Miller questioned when installing the drain under Mercedes Road, if it would be done by burrowing under the road. Mr. Fu said yes, not to disturb the street itself. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Mr. David Russell, 22790 Mercedes Road, said he resided next to the potential homesite being discussed. He thanked the Planning Commission for being open to his comments in the past. He read the following letter into the record: "Summary: As owners/residents of one of the few properties on Mercedes Road, we have a couple of concerns about the application and house plans. Planning Commission Minutes ~ 1 May 27, 2003 The proposed house is inconsistent with rural nature of the neighborhood, and with the size and designs of the other houses on Mercedes Road. The proposed housing plans call for a house that is more than 50% greater in square footage than the existing house next to it. The house plans call for effectively, athree-story house of over 30 feet in height, although the architect has creatively drawn his plans to make it appear as less than 30 feet in height. 2. The house plans call for a two overflow parking spaces - 10 feet wide by 42 feet long - to be developed on the edge of Mercedes Creek across the road from the property. We oppose this idea, as it will require the removal and paving over of the vegetation and trees along that part of Mercedes Road, and making it look like a parking lot. The housing plans should accommodate overflow parking on premises, as do all of the other houses on Mercedes Road. Conditions If the applicant is granted an exception to build, we require that the owner, general contractor, and City of Cupertino will ensure the following conditions will be met in order to preserve the aesthetic quality of the Mercedes Road neighborhood. Dust abatement. Active measures must be taken to control dust created by the construction with the intent of keeping airborne dust to a minimum. Someone onsite must regularly and frequently water the grounds of the construction site to reduce dust and airborne matter to a minimum. 2. Trees - To replace the native vegetation that was removed from the property, we request that between four and six trees, of significant size, height, and maturity as to normally be contained in 24 inch boxes, must be planted on the northeast side of the lot, prior to the initiation of the construction." (He noted his opposition to the planting of olive trees) "Infrastructure -Water drainage (including rain and irrigation runoff) from the property must be sent via underground pipe into Mercedes Creek, and not drained onto Mercedes Road. 4. Sanitary facilities -Any portable toilet placed on the construction site property must be positioned out of view from the other residences and from road, and shall not be located on the street. Signed: David M. Russell and Melissa M. Russell" Com. Miller questioned whether Mr. Russell was concerned about the size or design of the home relative to the comment that it was inconsistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Russell said he had only seen the paper design of the home, but he felt the size was an abhorrence in the neighborhood. He said his house was approximately 1900 square feet and the proposed house is 3200 square feet, 1-1/2 times the size, and no neighborhood homes were near that size as well. It is also a very tall, three story house. Mr. Charles Williams, 22770 Mercedes Road, thanked the staff and Planning Commission for listening to his previous comments. He read the following letter into the record: Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 27, 2003 " Dear Commissioners: This letter is in response to applications EA-2003-O1 and EA-2003-04. Our family have lived on Mercedes Road for the last 18 years. During that time we have seen the addition of two new houses and expansion of the Marianist retirement home. Mercedes Road currently supports seven residences and the retirement home. Before moving into our home we carefully considered the condition of Mercedes Road. We concluded that the road was acceptable, since there were few houses and little traffic. Since then the traffic has increased and the road has deteriorated. Mercedes is clearly a substandard road. In some places it is narrower than atwo-car garage. It has neither curbs nor sidewalks. The intersection of Mercedes and Cordova is an accident waiting to happen. We submit that Mercedes cannot safely carry the traffic resulting from full development of the available lots. The addition of two new houses will produce housing density on the south side of Mercedes typically found in suburban development; yet the infrastructure is clearly rural. We were active participants in the development of the Hillside Protection Rules. It is our recollection that rules were designed to protect the rural qualities of the hillside neighborhoods as well as the visual qualities of the hillside from the valley. We submit that additional development is inconsistent with the rural tone of the Mercedes neighborhood. We oppose any development that will increase the traffic on Mercedes and Cordova Roads without bringing these roads up to full Cupertino standards. Best regards, Signed: Charles Williams and Toni Williams" Mr. Williams said he heard stories about plans, conditions, and agreements to go through and make sure the work on Mercedes Road is non-disruptive to the neighborhood. He noted that the last two projects on Mercedes Road closed Mercedes Road for long periods of time. Mr. Russell indicated he had a teenage daughter who required special education busing to and from school, and the bus had been stopped numerous times and was not allowed to continue up Mercedes Road. He said they have experienced problems before, and felt that the city does not make good on the rules and there has been significant disruption of the neighborhood. Before starting on such things, there should be a plan put together that makes sense. Mr. Robert Wulff, 22780 Mercedes Road, asked that those present envision driving down Mercedes Road and being approached by a delivery truck coming up the hill with no place for the truck to go, which is the present condition, and said with trucks delivering cement for two sets of construction, it would create a serious problem. He said he did not feel he could do anything about approval of the application, but questioned if it was possible to get someone to fix the road partially. He said in the past, as weeds grow into the road, the berm is moved in three feet, hence the road has narrowed as time passes. He illustrated on the map where slides occurred; and noted when they cleared the dirt out they did not clear it out to the berm, thus the road became narrower. Mr. Jung said that there were some drains proposed behind the retaining walls. Planning Commission Minutes t3 May 27, 2003 Mr. Wulff said that another problem is with the offstreet parking, with pressure put on the side of the road and people parking incorrectly, which reduces what road there is by the way people park. He said he felt it was a bad idea, and just as others have had to put additional paving on their property, the owners should handle their parking problets on their property where it does not encroach on the area being driven on. Relative to drainage problems, he said a slide occurred behind his house a few years ago and pushed the neighbor's house off the foundation. He said they needed a better insurance policy when building in a slide area. Relative to the offsite parking, Com. Wong questioned why s the property next door worked and this one did not. Mr Piasecki said that they were seeking the least disruptive solution to provide the parking; and in order to provide the onsite parking another driveway has to be cut in or widen the present one, which exposes more asphalt and concrete to view, and exacerbates the buildings mass and height. He said it was a two edge sword; where do you place the parking. One option is to not require it all, which some would not agree with; the number of spaces could be limited; or it could be knocked down to one and tucked in so that it has minimal impact on the road. Relative to comments about the road itself, he reiterated that the desire is to retain the rural character of the area, therefore the widening of the road would take away from the rural character of the area. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the city inherited the lots, which would not exist under their slope density formula, and a part of the legal lots of record are rights of reasonable use of property which must be honored. He said that staff was not particularly pleased with small parcels on steep lots which are difficult to build on, but they are working for the best solution. Comments relative to building size are relative, and the Commission can consider them. He said the option does not exist to prevent building, and they would not do that. Com. Wong asked for a review of the hillside protection rules relative to asking for an exception, and questioned what the intent of the ordinance was. Mr. Piasecki said that when a certain amount of grading is exceeded or there is building on a certain size slope, the exception process has to be followed; which is a different procedure built into the ordinances to give greater scrutiny and review such as what is being done, and is more procedural. Mr. Wulff said he was at the exception hearing for that property in question when discussing offstreet parking. He said his recollection was that the intent was to provide some parking in the area for property but it didn't appear that there was any feasible way to do the kind of construction and digging to put the driveway in. To provide any parking for any period of time, for the construction vehicles and parking them on the street would have been a bad idea since emergency vehicles couldn't get to the Marianist's facility. What was considered was that the parking could be on a temporary basis; and he said he wasn't certain if it was a considered a permanent fix to the overflow parking. Com. Wong recollected that what was approved were two guest parking spaces. Ms. Wordell reaffirmed. Com. Miller said there were some tradeoffs; parking vs. runoff and the rural character of a narrow road vs. widening it because of a safety issue. He said that he would favor the side of safety first rather than the rural character. He questioned if it was an issue from the city's standpoint to widening the road? Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 27, 2003 Mr. Piasecki said that he did not feel it was an issue; the feeling is that it is a very narrow rural road and it is safe to drive at the appropriate speeds; however, when there is a 20 or 22 foot wide travel path, with an oncoming car, one has to be careful and slow down, but that is not unusual in mountainous situations and is part of the character of the area. He. said he would not be in favor of a standard street going through the area with retaining walls and curbs and gutters. Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Corr said that over the years comments have been made about the rural road and then the community says not to touch the road; the city then hears that it is an issue. He said it reverts back to the comment by Mr. Piasecki that the lots are smaller than would normally be approved, but they were historically there and people are entitled to use them; luckily there are only a few. In terms of what has been presented and the existing limitations, he said he supported moving ahead with the project. One concern is the issue of the character of the house and its size. He said he felt it was not out of character but would be interested in hearing input from the other commissioners. Com. Wong concurred with Com. Corr. He said he heard issues about drainage, privacy, and offstreet parking. He said he felt the applicant's suggestion of planting trees for privacy; 4 to 6 trees 24 inch box was a reasonable condition. Relative to the portable toilet, putting it onsite is a reasonable condition; dust abatement would be addressed under the best practices; relative to water drainage, the suggestion of draining it toward Mercedes Creek might address some of those conditions. He said that Mr. Piasecki highlighted the tradeoffs of making the road wider or narrower, and he would support either choice. Com. Wong said he agreed with Com. Miller that for safety purposes perhaps it should be widened, but said he would like to have input from the residents to see what they prefer. He said relative to the size of the house, the applicant had already reduced the square footage by 1,000 square feet, and he was not opposed to it. He said that he supported the project. Com. Miller questioned the square footage, whether it followed the normal R1 ordinance of 45%. Mr. Jung said that it followed a different formula; it is residential hillside and generally lots in the area are more than 10,000 square feet; starting with a base of 4,500 square feet, each additional area above 10,000 square feet is given credit for that and then there is a maximum house size given, and upon that is applied the slope penalty; the steeper the slope the more penalty applies up to a maximum penalty of 30% of the square footage; if the slope exceeds 30% or more. This particular lot is 11,500 square feet with an application of the maximum slope penalty to it, reduced down to 3,212 square feet. If the other residents wanted to add to their house, it would become part of the discretionary permit process, and would be subject to similar rules. Com. Miller said that relative to parking, there are two houses side by side with two spaces added; and he questioned if there was justification for reducing the number of spaces on the road from a staff standpoint. Mr. Piasecki said that in a conventional subdivision there would be two in the garage, two in the driveway apron, and usually a couple of spaces on the street, which is what staff is trying to replicate. He said that perhaps in an urban neighborhood with smaller lots it may get used up; but it is a tradeoff and questionable what is the best solution. Things to consider include what other conditions are being encroached; are they rural conditions, are they more valuable than the parking spaces and the inconvenience those few times during the year when someone needs the extra parking spaces? Would the tradeoff be worth one space and one space deficit in the interest of maintaining the rural mountainous character? It is possible to compromise on one space in this case. Mr. Jung said that an advantage of having the parking spaces off the right of way and not on their property is that they are less of a private space if they were required to put on the property Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 27, 2003 itself; it wouldn't be available to anyone else on the street itself. It would still be incumbent on the owners of the properties to obtain parking easements from the property owner below Mercedes Road to put the spaces in as the property owners don't own the land on the other side of the creek. A case may be made for one if you could get something in there so that it was not considered a private space. Com. Miller said that relative to the size of the house, the ordinance is clear and the ordinance needs to be followed, even though some of the residents may feel it is too large. It then would become an issue of changing the ordinance; but this applicant is meeting the requirements of the ordinance. Relative to the rural character, if the neighbors feel the widening of the road is more important, he said he would support the city looking at that as a solution. He said he supported the project. Chair Chen said she agreed with all comments; and said that given the limitation of the site, the applicant and staff have done their best to address all the issues. She said she supported the project. MOTION: Com. Wong moved approval of Application EA-2003-94, EXC-2003-O1, with condition of approval to add five 24 inch box trees between Russell's and applicant's property; dust abatement covered under best practices; water drainage as outlined in the model resolution, and the portable toilet located on site. SECOND: Com. Miller ABSENT: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision was final, pending appeal filed within 14 calendar days. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr noted because of miscommunication about dates of the meeting, he did not attend the last meeting. Housing Commission: Com. Miller said that no meeting was held since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Monthly Breakfast: Chair Chen noted that the May meeting was canceled. OTHER BUSINESS: Com. Miller asked that the R1 ordinance be put on the next Planning Commission agenda relating to the formation of a subcommittee. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the City council would be discussing the General Plan task force at their June 2nd meeting. He thanked the Planning Commissioners for attending the study session on the Oaks Shopping Center. Com. Wong questioned the timetable on the General Plan after the Chamber's concerns are addressed regarding the interview process and asked if the task force would meet and will it eventually come to the Planning Commission for hearings as well as City Council? Ms. Wordell said that task force sessions are scheduled for July, possibly each Wednesday in July and August.