Loading...
PC 05-13-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 13, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Chairperson Corr Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy WordelL City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Vera Gil, Senior Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. Chair Corr reported that the Planning Commission and City Council had met in a joint session/special meeting discussing the Villa Serra Apartments on Homestead Road. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 8, 2002 Regular Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the April 8, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as presented Com. Saadati Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Corr noted receipt of a letter from Mayor Lowenthal to Mr. John Schultz, Director of Facilities Operations and Construction Management at Foothill/DeAnza Community College District relative to the facilities master plan at DeAnza College. He also noted receipt of an invitation from Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission to the celebration of National Historic Preservation Week on May 16 in San .lose. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application No.: M-2002-03 Applicant: Kalil Jenab Location: 20269 Stevens Creek Boulevard Modification of a use permit to increase the amount of medical use in an existing retail/medical building. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 13, Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Ms. Vcra Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application modification of a use permit to convert 5,260 square feet of retail/office use to medical use in an existing retail/medical building. Nova Care currently occupies the entire building but is reducing the space to 6,300 square feet. Heart Savers is proposing to occupy the remaining 3,144 square feet of the building. She said there is a use permit on the site for only 4,200 square feet of medical: the remaining square footage to be retail or office. Ms. Gil said there was not enough onsitc parking to meet the parking ordinance which requires one space for every 175 square feet of medical, therefore the use permit needs to be modified to allow for the parking deficiency and thc conversion of the 5,200 square feet. Staff recommends approval of the conversion of the space with conditions. The conditions now restrict the 5,000 square feet; staff has agreed after discussions with the property owner and applicant to restrict only 3,144 square feet. By restricting that area, they must restrict the occupancy and therefore would not be causing the parking to exceed the maximum spaces currently there. The property owner will also record a covenant so that future property owners will be aware of the restriction. Based on those conditions, staff' is recommending approval of the application. Ms. Gil answered commissioners' questions. Mr. Peter Buffa, 4050 Barranca Pkwy., Heart Savers~ lrvine, Ca., introduced hhnsell' and distributed an informational brochure on Heart Savers. He said that they agreed with the conditions of approval as delineated in the staff report with the one modification of the breakdown of square footage. Mr. Ken Rodriguez, Kenneth Rodriguez & Partners, San Jose, California; addressed the parking impact to the two redwood trees that exists in the upper corner, stating that they initially proposed to put in three spaces, but after further inspection with the landscape architect and their ot'fice they felt that three parking stalls could possibly damage the trees. He said there was sufficient clearance from the actual diameter of the trunk and the root area to put in two. With Heart Savers it is a less intensive use and they feel it will actually help in terms of the parking demand. Ilo noted that Nova Care had occupied the building for approximately 19 years. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Corns. Auerbach and Chert said that they had no issues with the parking impacts. Com. Saadati expressed concern regarding possible long term impacts on one of the parking stalls going within the canopy of the redwood trees. Ms. Gil said that the applicant could bc required to provide an arborist report, but was not certain if they would want to bond it lbr a long period. Mr. Piasecki suggested that he be given the discretion of reviewing the report to eliminate the parking space if deemed that it might injure the trees since one space more or less would not be as big an issue as the concern about the tree canopy. Chair Corr concurred with Com. Saadati that they look out for the tree, because it' you get within the drip line of the redwood trees they could be damaged. He said he supported giving the Director of Planning the authority to eliminate the parking spot if it is determined it would damage the tree. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application M-2002-03 with amendments as outlined Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 13, SECOND Com. Chen VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 2. Application No.: U-2002-02 Applicant: Support Systems Homes Location: 10567 Glenview Avenue Use permit to allow a six-bedroom residence to be used as a congregate residence for up to 16 persons where l0 persons are allowed by right. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff nr~entaticm: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, distributed a written communicatiou receiv'ed relative to the application. The video presentation reviewed the application lbr a use permit to allow a congregate residence with 16 occupants where 10 occupants are allowed by right. The subject residence, Glen View Manor, is used as a certified drug tree living environment by men convicted of, or plead guilty to, non-violent drug charges. Potential neighborhood impacts include parking, noise and crime. Other issues include occupancy load and fire codes. Thc City Council adopted a guideline in 1995 that directs the Planning Commission to grant use permits {'or congregate residences exceeding 10 persons so long as specific ordinance requirements arc mcr unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed occupancy would constitute a dircct threat to the health of other individuals or would result in substantial physical damage to thc property of others. Staff recommends approval of the application. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Mr. Gilli stated that it was conditional use permit to allow a congregate residence to exceed thc 10 person limit allowed by right; the applicant is requesting 16 residents, two of whom are resident managers living on the site. It was noted that if the application is denied, it would not remove thc drug free living environment, but would only reduce the occupancy to l0 persons. Mr. Gilli reviewed the state and federal regulations relating to the accommodation o{' drug fmc living environments and the City Council Action of 1995 and City Ordinance No. 1688. Mr. Gilli reviewed the enumerated requirements, including occupancy load, conlbrming with zoning, building and fire codes, "direct threat" and substantial physical damage. He addressed thc issue of noise complaints from the neighbors, noting that the neighbors were advised to notify the code enforcement or sheriff of instances when they occur so that there would be evidence to support the neighbors' claims that there is potential for direct threat. Tbe managers of Support Systems Homes have indicated they will work with the neighborhood to address perceived problems. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions in thc model resolution addressing parking, correction of two zoning code violations, and final written approval from the county fire department; and also that there be a one year review o£ the application. {f thc neighborhood is able to provide more evidence, after the operation has been in elTcct fi)r a {'ull year, then the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to either add further conditions or even discuss lowering the occupancy numbers. Minor changes staff made to three of conditions include: Condition No. 2: one year review wording change; Condition No. 3: a sentence was added relative to residents with cars; Condition No. 6: address County fire approval in two weeks rather than 30 days. Mr. Gilli noted that the applicant was concerned that the lees associated with the application were excessive. Mr. Gilli answered commissioners' questions regarding the application. Relative to thc review period of 6 months vs. one year, he clarified that a six month period would allow the operation less time to be present but allows the neighborhood a quicker opportunity to come back to thc Planning Commission. If noise or behavior disturbances are reported to the sheriff or code enl'orcement and a record is made, then the Planning Commission can review that and rethink its findings on approval, either to reduce the number of occupants if they believe there is a connectkm between the number of occupants and the complaints, or go so far as to revoke the use permit, wbich would require the occupancy go back to 10 persons. The condition relative to the state ol' thc garage was discussed. Mr. Gilli said that the condition could be modified to include wording that thc garage must be maintained free and clear. Mr. Jeffrey Janoff, Attorney for Support Systems Homes, explained the background ol' Support Systems Homes, noting that it has been in existence for about 12 years, with approxilnatcly 21) homes in Santa Clara County. He said the District Attorney's office certifies thc home, which is important for the neighbors to recognize; and the DA has certain guidelines they have passed which are the basis for certification. It is a closely monitored program with access to a phone number for the neighbors to use for any complaints or concerns. He said there was a meeting set up by a neighbor in Cupertino library to discuss the application, and Support Systems attended along with the DA; but no neighbors showed up. lle said the organization has made an effort to meet with neighbors, and want them to understand and be part of the process to alleviate conccms and fears about the process. He said it was a clean and sober environment ot' men working to get back into the community to be well respected members of society; and they are not using controlled substances. If the rules are not followed, they cannot remain in the program. Mr..lanoff said that the city ordinance states that the application for use permit xhall be granted il' thc enumerated requirements are met; and the staff report noted those requirements have been met in this case. Relative to the fee issue, he said as a rule in the City of San Jose, there is no requirement because they operated under reasonable accommodation; for a group o1' disabled persons as defined by law, there is no charge to live in a house as a family. Mr. Janoff and Mr. Kevin Richardson, Director of Support System Homes, auswcrcd commissioners' questions regarding operation of the residence, and program rules. Mr. Richardson explained that the program participants were recovering alcoholics and addicts~ but were not permitted any addiction recovery drugs or mood altering drugs. Mr. Richardson said that the process for notification of neighbors included certification from the District Attorney's office, and the posted 800 phone number and notification to the neighbors once they are settled in. said in this case they were in the midst of the process with San .lose and hadn't had I'ull certification, and had not yet met with the neighbors; and in the meantime, the neighbors bad already had a meeting because a few of the program's residents had attended the ~neeting. They set up another meeting which they felt was a good opportunity to present the program. I Ic said that in the future they were willing to have a neighborhood meeting with the residents. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Jay Preston, 10465 Glenview Avenue, expressed concerns about the traffic impacts from 16 residents and 7 autos at the facility, and the excess congestion and noise that the Ihcility would present to the neighborhood. He said some complaints already had been logged, lie said bis main concern was that the home was a commercial business operating in the neighborhood; and be I'clt the covenants developed when the houses originated 40 years ago, were important. AIthongh thc covenants are not part of municipal law they are important because they define the purpose ol' thc Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 13, 2~][~2 neighborhood and set expectations of people living in the neighborhood, that someone would not operate a wood working factory in their garage or build a shed up against thc neighbor's fence, make excessive noise, etc., which is a framework for the neighborhood, and anyone moving in the neighborhood should respect that. He said Support Systems Homes operating a commercial enterprise in the neighborhood is not within the spirit of those covenants developed over 40 years ago. He pointed out, as mentioned earlier, having a right to house 10 residents is predicated on this being a facility for non transient residents. Mr. Preston said he was not certain that meets thc requirement of non transient residency. Mr. E. Conens, 10480 Pineville Ave., voiced his objection to the situation and how it was handlcd, stating that they did not receive any notice of the operation starting; but,just received notice in the mail that the applicant wanted to increase the residents from 10 to 16. Ite said they were permitted 10 residents, but already had 11 in the home; they were allowed 7 cars, but when he wcnt by last evening, there were no cars in the driveway. He noted the home was in a single family ama, and il' he had wanted to move in by a jail or hospital, he would have bought a house elsewhere, not in thc Cupertino neighborhood. Mr. Conens pointed out that the group home was 3/10 of a milc l'rom a grammar school and two parks, which was not appropriate. He voiced his anger that other speakers had 17 minutes to address the commission and he was permitted only three minutes. I lc said the home was for a single family and the group home was inappropriate in the neighborhood. Ms. Sun-Hwa Klm, 10575 Glenview Avenue, said she only became aware o1' the gronp home when her house was burglarized in February. She said they were already misusing the house, with more than 10 people residing in it. She expressed concern for her family and home safcty; and said that if the traffic increases, their safety will decrease. She said she worked Ibr the .jail system and was familiar with drug users and DUI persons and how they will sacrifice anything Ibr drags. She questioned how three cars could be parked in the driveway when the driveway was wide enough for only two cars. She said that she feared for her family's safety. Ms. JoAnn Olah, 879 Brent Dr., said she had lived in the neighborhood ibr 33 years and word passes throughout the neighborhood quickly. She said that when she received notice ol' the meeting, she was out in her neighborhood informing everyone and also those across the street out of the chosen circle of notification. She said she objected to the way it was handled, and was amazed at how suddenly they were informed about their application to increase thc number residents, because they were not even aware that the group home was in the neighborhood until thc recently burglary and the sheriff's department inquired about their permit. Ms. Olah said that thc neighborhood was a residential neighborhood, not one for commercial business. She pointed out that the square footage available for each person sharing a room in the home was smaller than a jail cell. She said she did not feel the residents were bad people, but the living situation would create tension along with their other problems they were confronted with. She concluded by stating that she felt it was handled in an irresponsible, unprofessional way and was poorly approved by the City Council. Mr. Victor Johansen, 6657 Clifford Dr., said the Planning staff recommended the approval ol'a usc permit allowing a congregate residence to increase its occupancy t¥om 10 to 16. Thc stalT report identified the following neighborhood issues: parking, noise and crime, lie said looking at thc neighborhood norms and comparing them to the congregate residence, the allowance of 7 cars would be 2 to 3 times the neighborhood norm for parking and traffic. The eni'orcement ol' thc 7 car limit would be left to the corporation managing the facility; and he said he felt it was a community risk to have a corporation policing anything that could have an adverse affect on the profitability o1' Planning Commission Minutes Stall states the organization. He said occupancy is also a factor affecting both noise and crime. · "' there is no evidence that either the crime rate nor the noise rate would increase with the addition 6 occupants, which is counter-intuitive; there have already been community complaints ol' noise; there has been an unresolved burglary in the area; the occupants of the residence in question have or have had problems with drug or alcohol or both. He questioned if they were to believe that thc crime rate among the selected population is going to be the same as in the neighborhood as a whole? He said he wished the recovery rate could be 100%, but it was stated to be about 55%. Mr. Johansen said that 6 additional clients in the facility could only increase the risk ol' parking problems, noise and crime in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood risk was already high at 10 residents. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the staff's proposal, limit the occupancy to 10, and the number of permitted autos to 5. He said he felt the only person that would be hnrt by that would be the profitability of the corporation running the site. Mr. Shirish Neike, 10559 Glenview Ave., urged the City Council to use common sense in making a judgment and look at the recommendations from a common sense point of view. lie discussed four issues raised in a meeting with Mr. Gilli of the Planning Department staff, lie said that thcrc was an incident of drug use in the neighborhood that was not included in the report nor acknowledged. Staff said it was not reported to the police, but it is not included in thc report. There has been a report of excessive noise and loud profanity going on as long 40 minutes in thc neighborhood; that has not been reported. This was dismissed by saying that arguments arc common within the city, however, he said they don't feel that addresses the issue. If there has been an incident of loud noise and profanity, that is not showing up in the report. Mr. Ncikc referred to the clause which staff says there is no evidence that allowing six additional residents results in significantly more noise than 10 residents. He questioned what evidence was ncedcd to show that 16 people will make more noise than 10, and said they would gladly provide that evidence. He said there have been reports that the residents have been violating not .just thc spirit of the law, but the courts. They have also been parking their cars in a different area just to makc sure they abide by the restrictions. Mr. Yudon Sun, 10580 Glenview Ave., emphasized that the location of the house was ouly 2 or 3 minutes on foot from Ethan Elementary, and that four streets converge on Glenview Avenue, with the children from these 4 streets passing in front of the house each morning, lie said thc cxtra traffic caused by the extra 6 people will exacerbate the already precarious situation. I Ic pointed out that he felt were errors in the staff report. He questioned how to move the cars aronnd on a daily basis. He noted that the report stated the facility does not provide treatment or counseling, yet the Support Systems Homes website in their mission statement says they effectively treat individuals and also provide counseling. Also in terms of non transient occupancy mentioned in the report, in the municipal code there is no definition of transient. An average stay of 6 months is clearly transient, therefore the location of the house, extra traffic, hygiene problems, would pose a series of threats to the children walking to school daily. The report also states there is no cvidcncc linking specific residents in the house to a particular crime; however, he said he felt statistics would indicate that extra people with certain backgrounds do increase the crime rate. Mr. Robert Harrison, 10536 Davison Avenue, asked if they were non profit or profit organization; the response was both. He said he found it interesting they wanted to have the I'ee waived when they were also a profit organization. He said that as a resident of the neighborhood he went through the Planning Commission and had to pay the fee for a house addition. They claim to bca sophisticated organization, yet suddenly appeared in the neighborhood, did not contact thc residents, and it wasn't until after the robbery incident in the neighborhood, that thc neighbors Planning Commission Minutes 7 May I ~, 2~ found out the home was a drug/alcohol rehab center. He said he considered himscll' a compassionate person and v/anted the people to get help. He questioned why a vote had to bc taken on increasing the residents to 16 when they had not contacted the neighbors bclbrc, and they already had more than the limit living in the home. He suggested leaving thc number el' residents at 10 and reviewing it in a year. He asked for clarification whether the issue was to allow a rchab center or to increase the number of residents to 16. Chair Corr clarified that thc issue was increasing the number of residents to 16. Mr. Harrison urged the decision to be to leave thc number of residents at 10 and let the organization prove themselves first it' they wanted to increase the number of residents to 16. Mr. Michael Cox, 10341 Glenview Ave., said that Cupertino is a diverse community with cultural differences, and he believed it was a wonderful place to live and raise a l'amily. Cupertino has long since established itself as being a cultural melting pot; it is the union of different bclicl's, attitudes and cultures that has enriched the community. He said the residents o1' 10567 GIcnvicw arc recovering from substance abuse, trying to improve their lives by living in a clean and supportive environment, and trying to reclaim their humanity and working hard to become productive members of the society. They are trying to improve their situation just like the thousands el' other people representing the many cultures, customs, religions, and beliefs who have come to Cupertino before them. He said when driving by 10567 Glenview almost daily, the yard is always neat and tidy, there are no abandoned cars or eyesores to complain about. Mr. Cox said that he wanted to reside in a community of good neighbors, a community that acts with a conscience, and that reaches out to help those in need, especially those who are trying to change their lives Ibr the better. He said they needed a community that doesn't tolerate unjustified accusations or allow I'cars about particular groups to evolve into discrimination. Cupertino is a community built on diversity and acceptance and the country has grown to what it is today because of this open mindcdncss. I Ic said he felt the small number of Cupertino residents opposed the proposal not out o1' I'acts, but out of fear. He said the residents of 10567 should be held accountable to the same laws as everyone. He said if the only question is whether or not to permit the number o1' residents be increased to 16, that they vote with their actions that Cupertino really is a great place to live. IIc concluded by stating that he was in favor of allowing 16 residents in the home. Ms. Linda Sanders, Cupertino resident, said she was not opposed to having the house in thc neighborhood, but was opposed to increasing the number of residents beyond 10. She questkmcd if the 10 persons included staff, who sponsored the home, who owns the home, how do thc residents get to their jobs if there are only 7 cars for 10 people? She also questioned the program relative to counseling. Ms. Sanders said she had concerns for the neighborhood and did not I'ecl one evening of discussion would address all the concerns. She said there was also discussion about a one year inspection. Mr. Jerrold Keating, 10370 Lindsay Ave., expressed concern about the previous item which involved a business and the current item which also involved a business. He said in thc previous item, the firm operating out of a commercial location is being requested to limit to II) patients per hour, and the group home application is a business in a residence in the city of Cupertino with a limited occupancy of 10 persons. He said that according to ADA a reasonable accommodation is the effort that should be made and allowing be in the home and operate it as a business in a residential area is a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Robert 11o, 10620 E. Estates Dr., said he had not heard about the "hotel" down the street and was concerned that no one informed him. He expressed concern about the tral'fic and reported to Planning Commission Minutes 8 May/3, the sheriffs department about people running red lights, and the sheriffs department in turn caught offenders. He said he was also concerned about the small children living in the area of thc corner, and playing on the street. He said he was also concerned about people making mistakes at thc cost of children's lives, and didn't want the mistakes happening in his town. Ms. Vaughn Marie Rodriguez, resident, said that because of the close proximity of the residence to schools and parks and the number of small children in the neighborhood, she wanted assurance that the residents were also screened for non violent sexual crimes and notification provided under Megan's Law. She wanted assurance also that the police department was keeping close watch on the transient residents. She said the home is on a T-intersection and is also a two story homc within binoculars' view of 3 day care homes. She said she was supportive of the group homc, bnt not in her neighborhood. She said she felt the owner/management did not understand thc naturc of the community when they brought in this type of program. She said previously an adult care homc occupied the residence, but the program was for disabled persons and the neighboring rcsidcnts did not complain about them. 8.he said the present residents of the home were disabled by choice with drugs and alcohol, and it was not revealed that there were also recovering addicts living in thc home until a member of the Planning Commission asked, which is another exmnple ol' omission of information on the part of the applicant. Ms. Litai Weng, 10599 Glenview Ave., said that she owns a rental home in the neighborhood and the tenants of the home were upset about the situation as they were not aware of the rcsidcncc prior to moving in. She said she was concerned about young girls in the neighborhood and thc small children. She questioned if a full disclosure of the presence of the group home was required when renting or selling the property, and questioned the potential loss of property value. Ms. Wcng said that having additional residents in the home with only 2 restrooms may create potential problems. She expressed concern about a smoking area for the residents either in the front or back of thc home after the garage was not available for the smoking area; and also questioned the issue of number of cars and the home residents wandering around the neighborhood. Ms. Janis Henry, 6728 Clifford Drive, concurred with the other speakers who were opposed to thc group home and said they would have put a stop to it before it occurred, it' it was in thcir hands. She said when the home opened in January they did not tell the city they were operating a busincss at that time; it was not until a burglary occurred in the neighborhood that the police invcstigatcd and asked for the permit. She said while applying for the permit, they asked lbr an incrcasc ol' 6 people. Ms. Henry said she was concerned about petty crime in the area and noted situations occurring. She said it was not a free and open establishment, but a controlled establishment providing the neighbors complain. Mr. Sudhakar Patibandla, 10461 Glenview Ave., said if the organization running the home was honest and willing to provide needed support to the recorded process, they would not have asked for more than 10 people in the first place; more than 10 people will create more problems and increase problems. He questioned their honesty in going through the process with other cities, and why they did not check with the city of Cupertino about their limit or need ['or a permit. I Ic questioned how they would provide evidence a year later; random drug checks are conductcd by the organization itself; and what would happen when the home is no Iongcr a drug free environment, will they close the business or remove the resident from the home? recommended not to sanction the use permit for more than 10 residents and also put random checks from either the city or county more regularly, not just trusting the organization itself, since it is not a non-profit organization. Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Thomas Ma, 10607 Glcnview Ave., said he felt the neighbors' reaction was not f~ar, but reality. He said recently there was a driver driving fast and making a u-turn in the neighborhood which was not the norm for the neighborhood and an indication of something happening in thc neighborhood. He referred to the language in the staff report "direcl physical ~k~mage" and said he felt that the existence of the home could not cause direct physical damage to another home, but that it had a negative impact on the rental and resale value of the homes in the area. Itc suggested that staff clarify the definition of direct physical damage. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Mr. Janoff answered questions raised during the public input period. He said that thc participants in the program are screened by Support Systems Homes, the DA, and the court system, and there are no sex offenders in the program. He said that financial support is from a variety of areas including private paying individuals, Santa Clara County contracts, and DADS. lie said thc financial aspect of the program was an operational issue and did not have any bearing on thc application. He said that the disclosure of the existence of the group home was not a legal requirement when renting property or selling property in the neighborhood. Itc pointed out that it was illegal to ask about the existence of such a program in such transactions. I lc noted that thc group home residents were all adult age. Mr. Gilli noted that the city permitted home occupations in residential neighborhoods; however, the Support Systems Home is not considered a home occupation. He clarified that it was a house being subleased by the Support Systems Homes and they are collecting rents from the occupants. Com. Auerbach noted that there was not a definition of transient and questioned il' staff had made a ruling using the term where some sort of time period of occupancy was implied. Mr. Piasccki said he was not aware of any, and there might be a reverse situation where we might approve a hotel and want to ensure that they are not staying there as an apartment house. Mr. Gilli noted that there was not a requirement of how many cars can be parked on the street per residence, bnt there was a restriction on how many cars parked on the property without a development approval, four unless there is a larger lot or the development review process is used. Com. Auerbach said that it was a difficult decision; and that it was important to understand that there has to be findings of fact, in some cases that may contradict common sense, but they arc required. He said it was important to note that the ordinance states that the city "shal£' permit this kind of use. Having gone through the General Plan page by page, with all the things said that arc in the city that are listed as may, the ordinance states "you .¥hall, unless you.find a~o~ o. flhese other findings against this" and he concurred with staffthat it is not possible to find against this. I Ic said that he did have concerns; including questioning the ordinance that provides 16 people with only 2 bathrooms, which is not impossible, but seems like a particular burden and 16 people in gcncral versus 10 seems like essentially not in character with the neighborhood, lie said he felt thc ordinance was clear and without any findings, that is in and of itself deleterious, especially by contrast to 10 people; is 16 going to be any different; he said he did not feel they could lind that it is significantly different. Com. Auerbach said there were many points brought tip by various people, and he felt if it was a different facility, these complaints would not be brought forward. I lc said it was his opinion that the complaints are related to the fact that it is a rehab facility and not some other kind of facility like a large extended family, or preschool. I lc said there has to bca certain presumption of innocence and as Chair Corr mentioned, if alter a period o|' a year, there is substantive evidence in the form of reports that say that this has turned out to be a real problem and Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 13, a threat to the neighborhood, then there may be other grounds for different findings, but in this case most of these are simply things that would exist in neighborhoods. He noted that recently a window in his home was broken in the early morning hours and he considered it a random act; it is easy to want to assign the acts to some facility in the neighborhood but without hard evidence it is impossible to make that determination. Noise and profanity, certainly barking dogs and domestic quarrels are part of most neighborhoods. He said he also felt it relates to the backyard .mist issue; why is using metal weights in the backyard any more objectionable than someone using a circular saw or somebody using a leaf blower or some other noise in the back yard. Com. Aucrbach said that the public street is exactly that, a public street where people can park; there are limitations to that but they can certainly park on the public street, it is not a private driveway. I le said he felt it was true that the operation has made some mistakes in judgment in terms of coming into the community and he hoped that they will try to rectify that with more outreach to the cmmnunity. He said he felt they could not make any correlation with density to crime; the crime statistics havc been decreasing since 1992, Cupertino is a safe community. He said it was likely there was quite a percentage of DUI offenders in the neighborhood already and unlike the presence of thc group home, they won't have the dire consequences of being kicked out of a program il' they drive homc inebriated one night. He pointed out that the current President had an alcohol problem, so it is important not to prejudge people on the basis of a home they are in or a program they arc in; as a state we have lead the way in terms of moving drug and alcohol abuse issues from a crimimd act to one that we now regard as ~ disability and it is something we did as a state, and to say that you arc that compassionate view but then not allow the facilities necessary to implement that program in your neighborhood is really tantamount to not really supporting that program. Those arc thc thiugs we as a society have to take under our wing, we can't just have communities of people like ourselves. Coin. Auerbach said he agreed with everything Michael Cox said with regard to supporting diversity of all sorts in our neighborhood, and he saw it as ,just one more I'orm of diversity. He said they should be subject to the same fees for residential use. It is common for organizations doing charitable works in the community to receive exemptions from some fees from the City Council, but he did not feel the Planning Commission should grant that here. Com. Chen there was no clear definition of residential use for non profit or profit organizations, and was uncertain whether the home qualified as residential use with conditions and there wcrc no grounds to make the decision that it is commercial use in a residential neighborhood. Relative to the definition of transient or non-transient, she said it was her opinion ifa resident moved ill with a goal to move out as soon as possible, that should qualify to be non-transient, but again there is no clear definition. She recommended a condition be included for the applicant to prove that it is in compliance with state code to have at least basic standard facilities to house as many pcoplc ill a small area in a single family neighborhood. Relative to traffic issues, she said that thc speeding cars in the neighborhood would be a traffic calming issue different from the usage o1' this particular residential home. She said that the issue was to approve or deny the residential home above and beyond the 10 occupants. She said that 16 was too many, but did not feel tbere were reasons to not support the conditional use permit. She said the fee has to comply with the city code and thc applicant should be required to pay it. Com. Saadati said the fees should be applicable; if it is a purely non profit organization and that funding will go back to help some others to get over drug addiction, it is a cause all thc com,nunity would agree with. As far as 10 or 16 people living in a home, he said he grew up in a large Ihmily of 10; 16 people in a home does not seem to be consistent with any homes in the area or anywhere in Cupertino. He said it was unfortunate that there is an ordinance that permits more than 10. I Ic said he empathized with the neighbors as they had valid concerns. Com. Saadati said hc felt it docs Planning Commission Minutes 11 Hay 13, ~5~]3_ have an affect on the property value and rentals as prospective buyers drive by neighborhoods for the ideal home. He said that he felt all had a responsibility to help those who are not productive in the community to help them become assets to the community and add to the I'uture by going through rehabilitation and becoming productive and at this point he said it was his opinion that they should hold on to the approval beyond 10 residents and wait a certain period of time and come back and reevaluate based on the neighbors' feelings; the neighbors have certain rights. It is a program that benefits everyone and although everyone has the responsibility to help, thc neighbors have certain rights; and they should have been contacted and informed and there needs to bc a good neighbor policy. He said he did not feel the good neighbor policy was pursued by thc organization. Coin. Saadati said he was hesitant to approve the increase to 16 residents at this time, but that it should be reevaluated at a later date. Chair Corr said the ordinance specifies "shall" which specifies more than 10 residents may bc allowed given these situations and there is no evidence other than what might happen or that thc supposition that something could happen; hence there is no basis for denial; and hc Iblt comfortable voting in favor of the application. However, it is important some things occur. One is that the organization work with the neighborhood to help them learn about thc program, and establish contact with them; which will be a more difficult job at this time because it wasn't done in the beginning. Relative to the resolution, Chair Corr said that he felt it should be inclndcd that the garage must be cleared out and maintained free and clear to allow those vehicles to park in there, not just good enough to clear it now and move on. He said he supported thc idea ol' reviewing it in a year to see the progress, and encouraged the neighbors to report incidents to thc sheriff or to code enforcement so that they can be recorded, so that it is not just a case ol' hearsay. He said that he felt the fees are appropriate and should be paid. Mr. Piasecki clarified the wording proposed by Com. Chen, labeled "housing code ... the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the State Housing Code including but not limited to thc adequacy of the bathroom and kitchen facilities to accommodate 16 persons in this residence.'' Mr. Gilli also noted inclusion of the modifications to Condition 2, Condition 3 and Condition 6 ils discussed earlier in the application outline. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the business operations would not bc restricted during the compliance period. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application U-2002-02 with modifications discussed There was a brief discussion about including a condition relative to the applicant holding neighborhood meetings. Mr. Janoff said they were willing work with the neighborhood residents, but felt it should not be a specified condition of approval. Mr. Piasecki clarified that language could be included that the applicant is strongly encouraged to conduct a neighborhood meeting within 30 days. Com. Chen concurred, noting that it would provide the opportunity I'or thc organization to meet the neighbors and better inform them of the organization. Com. Auerbach withdrew his motion and presented a new motion. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application U-2002-02 including a condition that the applicant is strongly encouraged to meet with the neighbors within 30 days. Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 13, 2[)~9_ SECOND: Com. Chen Mr. Gilli clarified that the code enforcement condition was worded so that they have 30 days fi'om the final approval since the project may be appealed which could take another two weeks, so it would be recommended that it be 30 days from the final action. Mr. Piasecki clarified thc action is final on the part of the Planning Commission unless it is appealed within 14 calendar days of their decision. Any person in the audience or applicant if they are not satisfied with the conditions, may appeal it to the City Council; it will be agendized for the first available City Council meeting at that point. NOES: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 3-1-0 4. Application No.: TR-2002-02 Applicant: Lake Biltmore Apartments Location: 10159 So. Blaney Avenue Director's minor modification with referral to the Planning Commission to remove tbur trees and replace with eight trees at an existing apartment complex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of'April 8, 2002 Staff nra~an/atian: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed the application to remove 14 trees and replace with 22 trees at the Biltmore Apartments. She referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the trees to be removed and the areas where the new trees would be planted. Staff recommends approval of the application with specified conditions that the three 48 inch box trees will replace the trees damaged during construction; and future trees damaged by construction will be replaced with larger 12 inch diameter trees. Ms. Gil explained the guidelines for tree protection. She noted that Biltmore has a live year plan for tree removal. John Cahalan, Project Landscape Architect, said that the project is being built in three phases. I lc explained his philosophy about tree removal relative to construction, and said they worked as a project team from the beginning, working with the civil engineer, architect, and Promethius in an effort to save as many trees as possible when the site plan was developed creating new units lbr thc property. Roads were moved, curbs were moved around, units were relocated or even downsized to accommodate a number of the larger trees on the property. He said his philosophy was to take a conservative approach and remove as few trees as possible and that once construction starts, il' a problem surfaces and they feel a tree should have been removed, they deal with it at that time. I Ic said it was probably the case with the three mulberry trees; their roots are shallow and they are heaving the existing sidewalks. He said the other 9 or 10 trees on the property were past their prime and in failing health or diseased, and it was felt that by removing them and replacing them would create a better generation of trees for the next 10 to 20 years. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment.; there was no one present wishing to speak. Planning Commission Minu£es 13 May 13, Com. Chen said she supported the request. Ms. Gil noted that most of the trees being rcmovcd arc in the interior of the project. Com. Auerbach concurred, but said he continued to be concerned previous issues mentioned, in this particular case, it might have been too close. He said he did not want it to happen to a large tree, one of threes being protected on the exterior, lie said thc process should be monitored, and if the present methods used for protecting trees are not sufficient, thc procedures should be strengthened. Com. Saadati said he supported the application. He said that he had dealt with contractors who have damaged trees on projects he was involved in; sometimes it is a ~natter of communicatkm between the contractors and sub contractors and is an effort the city should try to improve in trying to make sure the contractors who take out permits pass the requirements and put more effort into saving existing trees by not damaging them. Chair Corr said he supported the application. He said that part of what has happened goes back many years to when Biltmore was first built, the trees were put in the wrong placc in thc beginning, and oftentimes plans are submitted where the applicant is trying to ~nakc thc placc look good from the beginning and overplants or puts the trees too close to buildings, lie said hc concurred with his colleagaes by stating that when an applicant comes in to do a remodel or something else, and it is required to have the trees protected, a bond should be required, and it' they damage the trees, take their bond, to prevent it from happening over and over again. I Ic recommended more stringent rules for the future. In terms of the Biltmore project, he said hc preferred to see the entire plan up front and see what is proposed for the next several years: rather than having the application come back repeatedly. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application TR-2002-02 SECOND: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Chair Corr declared a brief recess at 9:25 p.m. 5. Application No.: EXC-1993-05(M) Applicant: Mohan Uttarwar Location: 21620 Rainbow Drive Modification to development approval for a previous hillside exception, to allow a new swimming pool, deck, arbors and retaining walls in the rear yard, which has development that exceeds 500 square feet on slopes greater than 30%. Planning Commission decision final unless' appealed Staff nreqentaticm: The video presentation reviewed the application tbr a hillside exception to allow'approximately 1800 square feet of development of slopes of 30% or more at 21620 Rainbow Drive. The applicant is proposing to make some rear yard improvements consisting o1' patio, stcps, deck, arbors, retaining walls and a new pool. No addition is proposed to the existing residence. Staff recommends approval of the application and the Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, reviewed the existing rear yard topography, project site plan and landscape plan; and discussed the hillside exception and geotechnical review relative to thc application as outlined in the staff report. He answered commissioners' questions regarding the application. Mr. Robert Mowat, Robert Mowat & Associates, said it was their goal to bring a tasteful and well thought out planned development that would improve the applicant's property and the neighborhood. He said that an unimproved lot currently existed above the property. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public comment; no one was present wishing to speak. Com. Auerbach said he had no objections to the project. Corns. Chen, Saadati and Chair Corr said they supported the project also. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application No. EXC-1993-051M) Com. Chen Passed 4-0-0 The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 calendar days. Application No.: Applicant: Location: M-2002-02 Ben Shyy 19028 Stevens Creek Boulevard Modification of a Use Permit to increase the amount of allowed medical/dental use in an existing retain/residential building. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff ,nre~entgtion: The video presentation reviewed the application tbr a modification ol' a usc permit to increase the amount of allowed medical/dental use in an existing retail/residential building at 19028 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The original permit allowed 3,500 square l'cct retail use and 5,100 square feet of residential use at the site. The city's general commercial zoning district allows medical office uses provided that such uses shall not comprise more than 25% o1' thc building space in the shopping center. The applicant is proposing to combine two o1' thc existing retail tenant spaces, totaling 1,540 square feet or 45% of the existing center into dental office usc. Staff recommends approval of the modification subject to the conditions set lbrth in thc model resolution, since the building is isolated, set back from sidewalks a good distance, and mtlch ol' thc retail space is vacant or difficult to rent. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed. Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the application as outlined in the staff' rcport. I Ic answered commissioners' questions relative to the isolated location of the building, lie explained the instances where staff would not normally support a conversion or additional dental ol'ficc square footage in an existing shopping center; if it is established retail shopping center with various established commercial components already; thus taking off the proposed dental ol'ficc would take up traffic or parking impact. In this case, the site is fairly isolated and very unique in terms of its location and siting on the lot, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Piasecki clarified that staff would be concerned if it was a larger shopping center relying on some kind of critical mass such as the Marketplace, where if they had 45% dental office, it would Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 13, 2 ) 12 start to undermine the function of that as a retail space or alternatively if it was one of the very flew commercial locations in proximity to the neighborhood, in the interest of walkability we want to try to preserve those few sites that are closer to neighborhoods. In this case there arc other convenient serving neighborhood commercial uses in the area that we don't have to rely exclusively on this particular building to provide that, and as pointed out, it is an awkward building, and site, location and visibility is awkward. Mr. John Ha, architect, said he was available for questions and said he was hopel'ul to receive support for the proposal. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Jody Hansen, CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that she supported thc application. She said the sales tax generating businesses is what the ideal is, but even in good economic times, most small retailers are going to be located in proximity to a larger retail magnet and the concept does not exist in this particular shopping area. It has been mentioned, it is isolated from any kind of magnet that would make it a drawing in a lot of foot traffic; the smallness ol' thc individual units in the building limits its marketability which is probably the main reason it has not attracted a tenant in over a year. She said she felt the dental office would be an appropriatc usc this particular site. The City of Cupertino does want to encourage more mixed use developments and should assist property owners who make a sizable investment in revitalizing our older commercial space. Mixed use developments are not widespread because of the dil'ilculty in financing these types of projects, most banks won't loan on them. She said Dr. Shyy's practice was an established dental practice that would be a long term tenant and his tenancy would definitely ensure the success of this project. She said she hoped the Planning Commission would give the request their favorable consideration. Ms. Azi Pillow, 10100 Bret Avenue, thanked the Planning Commission |bt permitting Dr. Shyy to build the building, which she said has changed the whole neighborhood. She said thc I~orcc Shopping center is depressing and the new one is more attractive. She said the smaller shopping center is ideal for professional offices, and asked that they make it simple Ibr Dr. Shyy to movc to the neighborhood and welcome him to Cupertino. Ms. Blossom Knuth, 19028 Stevens Creek Boulevard, said she had been employed in Cupertino for over 8 years and has desired to live in Cupertino. She said she moved to Cupertino in September and since then the office building downstairs has been empty. She said Dr. Shyy has kept the lines of communication open as to the status of the proposal, and she was excited that thc space would be a dental office. She said she would rather have a professional ol'fice than a rctail store, and said she felt there was not a need for a retail store downstairs. Ms. Knuth said shc also hoped the two units left would someday be considered for professional space rather than rctail. Com. Chen said she supported the project and was encouraged to see the support i¥om thc neighbors as well as staff. Com. Auerbach said that the property was isolated and hard to rent and he felt it was important to realize that it was mixed up use and it is that way largely because ol~ requirements put on the developer in the General Plan at the time. He said he l'elt they owcd thc owner the opportunity for assistance in trying to rent the building. Com. Saadati said hc supported the project. Chair Corr said he concurred. MOTION: Com. Chen moved to approve Application M-2002-02 Planning Commission Minutes 16 May 13, 2002 SECOND: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 The decision is final unless appealed to City Council. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported on the recent ERC meeting. Meeting topics included the five year capital improvement program for the city and other prc~iects. Housing Committee: Com. Chert said that she had not received a meeting notice. Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Corr will attend the May meeting. Design Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the DRC committee meets Wednesday, May 15th and said he would attend the meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasccki reviewed the Community Development Director's report in the staff report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to the Planning Commission mceting at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary ~419proved as amended: May 28, 2002