Al Savay, Community Development Director presented the item.He introduced Steve Noack and Ben Noble of DC&E, Consultants working with the City on preparation of the General Plan Update and EIR.He also introduced Karen Hong, Contract Planner to the Department for the General Plan Update project.
Community Development Director Savay noted that tonight’s meeting is one of a number times in the process that the Planning Commission will be asked for input.The Planning Commission is being asked to provide any comment or guidance on the three General Plan Alternatives developed by the General Plan Review Committee (GPAC).He noted that these alternatives would also be reviewed by the City Council on May 27, 2008.He noted that the Planning Commission would also have another opportunity to review alternatives after the City Council review and a public input review period.Community Development Director Savay presented a schedule of Alternatives review through September, when GPAC will select a Preferred Alternative and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Ben Noble, DC&E presented the three Alternatives being considered by the GPAC, and presented illustrative maps.
Alternative #1 – is the existing General Plan
Alternative #2 - is a mixed use approach with a jobs/housing balance on the east and west side of the El Camino/Railroad corridor.
Alternative #3 – is a mixed use with all the additional residential focused on the west side and the job growth on the east side
He described a process to evaluate “buildout” under these alternatives and indicated that there would be a qualitative as well as quantitative analysis prior to a public workshop.He noted that under all scenarios there are adequate sites available to meet the City obligation for housing needs in the next five years, as required in the Housing Element.He also spoke to the issues of open space and the GPAC interest in looking for sites for neighborhood serving retail in the western areas of the City.
Chair Phillips opened the floor to Planning Commission questions.
Chair Phillips asked why Study Area 10, outside the City limits, is included.He also asked why Study Area 12, the site of existing churches is included.
Ben Noble responded regarding Area 10, that it is County area in the City Sphere of Influence and the City could choose to pre-zone the area.The sites in Area 12 where chosen to be studied to address the GPAC interest in finding sites for neighborhood serving commercial noting the sites are large parcels.
Chair Phillips asked for public comment.
Robert Stafford, 1536 Cherry congratulated the GPAC on a collaborative process.He spoke to three issues. 1)Regarding the Below Market Rate (BMR) policy, he noted that it is good policy but that the economics of the policy should be reviewed.He suggested looking at in lieu fees, lack of incentive for building more units, and mechanisms to provide subsidies to future residents for the homeowners’ association (HOA) dues.2)Regarding Transit Oriented Development, he questioned whether the City might consider a lesser requirement for open space and parking.3)Regarding circulation within the City, he suggested pedestrian friendly connections to the east side and mentioned the Industrial Road improvements as having been installed with foresight on the part of the Public Works Director.
Pat Bell, speaking a s member of the public, not GPAC, suggested that GPAC has not had sufficient time to develop either the Vision or the Alternatives.She suggested that GPAC has not talked about the pros and cons of Regional Retail.She mentioned GPAC has not talked about Global Warming, an aging population or where we want to end up.She described the approach as piecemeal.She described that there is a need to know what we are getting and not getting.
Bonnie McClure –resident, noted that she has attended the GPAC meetings as an interested member of the public.In defense of staff she noted that a lot of time has been spent in the General Plan process.
Ben Noble, DC&E offered clarifying comments.He said that some GPAC members have shown a preference for an alternative, but that no selection by the GPAC as a whole has been recommended.He said that after selection of a preferred Land Use Map, GPAC will work on the Goals, Policies and Actions of the Land Use Element.
Chair Phillips commented that the Planning Commission will not select an alternative at this juncture, just add input.He commented that it is excellent work so far and thanked participants for their hard work.
Commissioner Iwasa, also a member of GPAC, stated that she agrees with the speakers.GPAC feels rushed and needs more time.She can see both sides. They are trying the best they can. With 14 members, it is hard to find available additional meeting times.She commented that for Study Area 12, she would like to see neighborhood retail near Hwy 280.
Hearing no other comments, Chair Phillips moved to the next item on the Agenda.
b) Consideration of RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW pursuant to Condition #23 of the Oakview Knolls Project in the R-1 (Single Family) Residential District at 304 Oakview Drive, San Carlos (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 051-272-220 and 051-272-210) and associated View Impact Assessment for the new single family residence on Lot #20 and proposed new redesigned single family residence of 3,370 square feet on Lot #24.
Planning Manager Deborah Nelson presented the item.
Commissioners asked questions and were provided responses by Planning Manager Nelson and Deputy City Attorney Rubens.
Chair Phillips opened the meeting to public comment.
Rick Tipton, a partner in Columbiana Development spoke about the history of purchase and development proposal for the project at 304 Oakview.He represented the Company’s interest in providing quality housing opportunities on a site with views.He noted that the price of the land reflected the value of the views.
Jeff Potts, SDG Architects, presented a visual summary of the written “Response to 4/18/08 Pesce Submittal to the Planning Commission,” included in the packet.He explained discussions with the Pesces and their attorney and further rebutted the information presented by the Pesces on May 14 and by Mr. Neubert at the meeting
James Neubert, Architect, presented recommendation for changes to the design of the home on Lot #20, including removal of second floor square footage, lowering first floor roof height and some suggestions for reconfiguration of interior spaces.He explained the point about an 8 foot height difference in elevation of the house at 324 Oakview as represented on the original view impact study.He explained that the Pesces thought the new house on Lot 20 would be the same height as the house at 324 Oakview.He said the Pesces had never dismissed the offer of removal of the fireplace.He explained that the changes he proposes do not require additional grading.Mr. Nuebert also suggested changes to the home proposed for Lot 24.He noted that the change would require additional dirt removal.He suggested his recommendations would bring down the overall height of the structure to be more in line with the adjoining house at 240 Oakview and appear at a one story height from the Pesce rear yard. He illustrated additional reduction to the second story elevation gable which would restore an additional 2 feet to a view corridor.Mr. Nuebert presented his suggestions for change as what might have been considered had they happened in the right sequence of events, including extensive redesign and demolition of portions of the house on Lot 20 which entailed removal of an upstairs bedroom and lowering the ceiling plate to 7’ 6” to preserve views.The redesign also relocated the laundry to the upstairs in a closet, with a stacking laundry.He indicated that the home as proposed was more in line with Los Altos or Menlo Park and that his smaller redesign was more attuned to a community like San Carlos.
Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Nuebert what he meant by the right sequence of events.
Mr. Neubert responded he meant, if the Pesces had the opportunity to voice their concerns.
Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Nuebert, do you mean to the view study?
Mr. Neubert responded yes.It was not conducted after design review.
Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Nuebert, did you get a packet showing eaves?
Mr. Neubert responded, he was not talking about that he was talking about how the first view study was conducted.
Chair Phillips called for a 10 minute recess.
Dana Pesce, 328 Oakview, talked about the reason she filed the lawsuit.She indicated that the City has never acknowledged the out of sequence events, that the view study should have been performed before grading and design review approval.She thanked staff for the Saturday delivery of the packet submitted by SDG Architects.She noted her opinion that Condition #13 of the Grading and Dirt Haul certificate allows for grading to be reconsidered.She talked about incorrect representation of the height of the house at 324 Oakview relative to the new house on Lot #20.She said she was not looking for preservation of the views of the Oracle buildings, but wanted to preserve views of the sky. If the two houses were actually the same height, she could live with that situation.She asked that the home on Lot 24 be lowered by 4 feet.
Greg Pesce, 328 Oakview, talked about his expectations for being informed of the process.He explained that the Pesces had not agreed with the majority of the neighborhood in their desire to reduce the amount of grading, but went along to accommodate the neighbors’ concerns on grading.As the neighbors to the rear of the new houses, their issues are different.He detailed the events that occurred by the developer, the City and the Pesces as construction commenced in the summer of 2007.He said he was not allowed to have the discussion about better design of the house.He stated he does not feel there has been an opportunity to look at the issue from the perspective of preconstruction of the house.
Tasha Levinson, daughter of Ruth Johnson, 240 Oakview, expressed concern about the lack of retaining walls next to her property, a 2 foot drop, if the pool was buried appropriately, differential in grade between Lot 24 and the Pesce property from the perspective of stability and that plants have already moved due to lack of supporting ground.She asked that the house on Lot #24 be lowered 4 feet.
Jeff Potts, SDG Architects, asked the Commissioners to decide the issues as to what they would have done had they seen the view study which showed that views would be lost.He said it is a benefit that the house is built rear yard to the Pesce side yard rather than the usual side yard to side yard.He noted that the construction of a house on Lot 20 would not preserve landmark and long distance views. He asked the Commission, would you have made changes to the house? He detailed that the requested changes to the house on Lot 20 would require tearing off the first floor roof, all interior drywall, all exterior stucco, a rebuild of the first floor and then work on the second floor to achieve the requested changes.
Dennis Zell, attorney for the developer, explained that the original view study was correct in its representation of the Pesce view relative to the house on Lot 20. It was correct except to the pre-existing house at 324 Oakview.There was no feasible mitigation.He said the changes suggested by Mr. Nueberg offer limited benefit at a great expense to the developer.San Carlos is conducive to nice houses.There is no right to a view.Developer has attempted to mitigate.Have had many meetings.Lot 24 changes are a major concession.Lot 20 offer to remove chimney and change windows were taken off the table when Pesces would not agree to drop the lawsuit.Code focuses on scenic vistas, not the sky.City Planner concluded that there was no feasible mitigation to the loss of view.
Sally Mellinger, 249 Oakview, was not present when called to speak.
Robert Hayden, 329 Oakview, stated that Finding #1 has no standard against which it is measured.He asked what is the basis to find compatibility?The finding suggests will overlook compatibility of size relative to a neighborhood.Code does not say there is a right to a profit.
R. Chad Hales, attorney for the Pesces, stated two points. 1)This is not a case of reasonable reliance.The Pesces asked the developer and the City to stop the project.The original view study was a quick do over.Planning Commission wanted a process not just a drawing.2)Grading is on the table.There is no vested right when developer did not follow the code.Certificate of Compliance #13 means that if the plans change, the whole thing needs to be reapproved, allows re-opening.Plans have changed, no vested right.Not asking for grading on Lot 20.The issues for consideration by the Planning Commission were not just the views, but include bulk and mass.Had process been followed, had the view impact been considered before grading, the Planning Commission might have lowered the house to reduce the impact on the Pesce’s views.
Commissioner Shugart asked Mr. Hale, do you feel the Planning Commission has provided the process the Pesces have asked for?
Mr. Hales responded yes, but that not sure the staff has taken a good look and been objective in its recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Shugart asked if Mr. Hales thinks the Planning Commission has enough information for a decision.
Mr. Hales responded that he is not comfortable with the recommendation of the staff report.He asked if the Planning Commission has enough information to make changes.
Commissioner Shugart asked the Pesces if they think the Planning Commission has all the information they wanted to be provided to enable the Commission to make a decision.
Greg Pesce responded that if the question had been asked early, could be a better product on the street.He noted they never had that conversation because our issue was to be resolved in design review.The only other information for the Planning Commission is that our Dining Room window is largest and most central window in the house.He said there was never an open dialogue about why the house could not be built more forward on the lot.
Commissioner Iwasa asked why the Pesces had not appealed.
Greg Pesce stated that they thought the grading was approved but that they would have a chance to look at the design.
Dana Pesce stated that they relied on Condition #23.In answer to Commissioner Shugart’s question, we have more information than we wanted but there is a caveat that the house is built.
Commissioner Shugart indicated that the Commission is looking to be fair to everyone.
Dana Pesce said that if this process was done earlier grading would have been set differently.Dana and Greg Pesce agreed that at this point the Planning Commission has all the information they wanted to be considered.
Ian Carney, contractor for the developer stated that the ground is fractured rock 2 feet below the grade.He indicated that it is not easily graded further.This information is in the soils report.
Commissioner Divney asked if the same condition occurs on Lot 24.
Ian Carney indicated, yes.
Chair Phillips asked if anyone else wishes to speak.
Greg Pesce said if the site can not be graded further, we have asked for the report, haven’t seen it.The grade at 324 Oakview is lower so maybe it is not impossible.
Chair Phillips asked for Planning Commission Discussion.
Commissioner Thompson.I see myself as the proponent of Condition #23.I have no problem turning back the clock.The question is, what would I do, also regarding condition #13.We have been given lots of information.There is no entitlement to a view.The Pesces came to us and got us to put in Condition #23.Current proposal by the developer and view assessment shows there is a corridor remaining for Lot 20.Regarding Lot 24, eliminate the gable on the roof as Mr. Nuebert suggests.Regarding condition #13, the building is not exactly as shown on design.The 1’1” taller as a review of substantial deviation does not necessarily mean a change.I am comfortable turning the clock back.I would recommend approval with Mr. Nueberg’s suggestion #3.
Commissioner Divney asked if the pool was buried.
Ian Carney responded that the soils engineer checked out the demolition and fill at the pool site.
Commissioner Divney asked if the house is really 1 foot higher.
Jeff Potts responded that their records show heights as originally proposed.
Commissioner Divney commented to Mr. Pesce that he brought up the issue of trade-offs.Grading and parking was a concern raised at the March 20, 2006 hearing.This made the house on Lot 20 closer to your house.I hope you do not confuse an outcome you don’t like with a bad process.I agree with Commissioner Thompson’s analysis of house on Lot 20 and changes to house on Lot 24.
Commissioner Iwasa commented about an inconsistency she sees in the staff report which states that a reduction in the height of the house on Lot 20 does not provide mitigation for views and another statement which refers to the view corridor between the house on Lot 20 and the house at 324 Oakview.
Commissioner Thompson said that he read the conclusion regarding the view corridor as addressing mitigation for bulk and provides more view of the sky.It is a presence issue.
Deputy City Attorney, Greg Rubens indicated that “sky” is not a protected view.
Commissioner Iwasa indicated that she could not approve the View Impact Assessment because it includes as a figure 2B, the inaccurate previous view impact study.
Jeff Potts, Architect indicated that the figure was included in the View Impact Assessment, as a reference only, and they performed a new assessment, they did not build on the old one.Lot 20 and the Pesce window are the correct height on the previous study. The adjacent existing house seems to be reflected higher in the original view impact study, which if anything reflects a greater impact on views than the actual conditions.
James Neubert commented that the discussion relative to the original View Impact Study was missing from the View Impact Assessment.
Commissioner Shugart stated that she has a lot of sympathy for the Pesces.This is not a joint venture of the Pesces and the developer.The developer is not “we.”I looked at Lot 20 as if nothing was built.I am in favor of approval.I think this is what we would have approved had we seen the original view impact study.She suggested it offensive to suggest San Carlos can not be like Menlo Park and Los Altos.Regarding Lot 24, fine with what approved. Suggestions for change, including the lowering of the house on Lot 24, are unreasonable.
Commissioner Iwasa expressed thanks for the clarifications.She stated having a real problem with this house.The building permit issued before the view impact study, the grading in December.Mistakes were made.Also, the Pesces thought they would have an opportunity to influence the design.I take this as lesson that the Planning Commission should be more clear.Will not approve View Impact Study.Figure 2b, Elevation A shows house on Lot #20 to be the same height and maybe a little lower, than 324 Oakview Drive. The study did not state that this elevation was not accurate.
Commissioner Divney asked of Commissioner Iwasa, is the Pesce contention about the original assessment, the issue.
Commissioner Shugart inquired if the View Impact Assessment did not reference the original assessment if it would be adequate.
Commissioner Iwasa indicated 2B is in the report.
Commissioner Shugart asked if Commissioner Iwasa wants the new assessment to take out the picture of the old assessment.
Commissioner Iwasa, no the opposite.It is my understanding that the original was incomplete but not inaccurate. Can’t take out what I have now seen.
Commissioner Phillips expressed that this is the most difficult decision in my 8 years on the Commission.It is a tragedy for the view. Laws are such that the view is not protected.
M/S Thompson/Divney that the Planning Commission, approve the Architectural Review Permit pursuant to Condition #23 of the Oakview Knolls Project in the R-1 (Single Family) Residential District at 304 Oakview Drive, San Carlos (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 051-272-220 and 051-272-210) and associated View Impact Assessment for the new single family residence on Lot #20 and proposed new redesigned single family residence of 3,370 square feet on Lot #24 based on the findings and for the reasons incorporated in the Staff Report. With the following amendment to finding #B Accept the View Impact Analysis as adequate and approve anArchitectural Review Permit for the home built on Lot # 20, according to Condition #23, without alteration, based on the reasons statedin the Staff Report… and including the recommendation by James Neubert that the gable on the lower roof of the south long side of the house on Lot 24, be eliminated.
Motion passed 4-1 (Iwasa.)
Chair Phillips advised all parties of their right to appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Manager Deborah Nelson presented the item noting the changes in design since the Commission last saw the application.The home has been reduced in size, with less dirt haul and grading required.The design has changed from Spanish style to modern ranch.Planning Manager Nelson noted a correctedDraft Grading and Dirt Haul certificate placed on the dais.She noted that there is likely a pre-existing non-conforming sideyard setback for the property at 171 Madera.
Commissioner Thompson asked questions regarding the coordination of grading and dirt haul with other projects.He commented that this issue had been discussed earlier in the evening at RDRC.
Commissioner Iwasa pointed out an inconsistency in the Code Compliance Certificate and the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding construction hours on holidays and stated a preference that no construction occur on holidays.
Commissioner Thompson suggested changes to Code Compliance Certificate #13 for consistency with decisions made at RDRC.
Kent Khorrami, representative for the project, presented the project and indicated his willingness to work out construction phasing and parking.He noted that 27 Madera is their project as well.
Randy Smith, 171 Madera, made a visual presentation and said that most of his issues had been addressed.He stated the new design is more compatible with the neighborhood.He showed 3-D illustration of the relationship of the new house to his side yard and explained the issue with setback and elevation of his ground floor.He expressed he is most concerned with the bumped out portion of the side elevation and the impact it has on the adjacent rooms in his house.He indicated that a 6 foot fence would result in greater loss of light.
Jack Young, 139 Madera, talked of the history of the development of the street in the 38 years he has lived there.He said the house is scaled down from the original design and will fit nicely.
Chair Phillips asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak.
M/S Divney/Shugart to close the Public Hearing.Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Phillips asked for discussion.
Commissioner Shugart stated she is fine with the project and still concerned with coordination for hauling, construction hours and construction worker parking.She indicated no problem with the setback issues.
Commissioner Iwasa stated that staging has always been a problem.Department of Public Works requires a plan to be put in place.She commended the Smiths and the Applicant for working together to resolve issues.She asked other Commissioners their thoughts regarding the right side elevation.Commissioner Iwasa suggested leaving a broader range of construction hours, but none on holidays.
Commissioner Divney noted that some houses have 5 foot sideyard setback.The closeness is not a problem for him.He suggested that a 6 foot fence is not necessary.
Kent Khorrami noted that they don’t really need a fence and could landscape.
Randy Smith said he doesn’t need a fence.
Lisa Costa Sanders, Principal Planner, explained the review process with the Department of Public Works and the Building Division.
Commissioner Thompson noted the good cooperation.
Chair Phillips commented that the previous design was excellent, but not appropriate for the site.
M/S Divney/Shugart to approve the request for the proposed new 3,724 square foot residence and associated Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate allowing 1,100 cubic yards of grading work to accommodate the future construction of a new single-family residence at 167 Madera Avenue and accompanying resolution certifying the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development with amendments to: the Code Compliance Certificate #1,13 and 17, an additional condition #19 regarding site management and #20 regarding construction parking; and the Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate with amendments to the hours of construction.
