Loading...
Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEP ARTMENTOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Directo~ Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, May 22, 2007 The City Council met on May 15, 2007, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny the proposed bakony on the west side of the rear elevation, 21180 Grenola Avenue: The City Council adopted a resolution to deny the petition. (see attached staff report). 2. Consider options with regard to abandoned shopping carts: The City Council approved staff's recommendation with a full report from staff in 3 months. (see attached staff report). Enclosures: Staff Report Newspaper Articles G: \ Planning \ SteveP \ Director' s Report \ 2007\ pd05-22-07.doc 'f) e ---I City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIUINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda.Item No._ Agenda Date: May 15, 2007 SUBJECT Request for a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision on R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 to eliminate a second-story, master bedroom balcony on the rear elevation of a new two-story, single-family residence to be constructed at 21180 Grenola A venue. The petitioners are the property owners, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani. Note: The petitioner's request for reconsideration relates only to the denial of the master bedroom balcony. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for reconsideration by making required findings outlined by the City Attorney. If the Council finds the applicants' arguments meet the required findings, the City Council may grant the request for reconsideration by making required findings outlined by the City Attorney (reconsideration could either be heard at this time or a future meeting). Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani are requesting the City Council to reconsider the approvals of their two-story residential design review (R-2006-08) and minor residential permit (RM-2006-13) only as they relate to the elimination of the master bedroom balcony on the second floor of their proposed residence. The Mojganis' would like the Council to reconsider allowing the master bedroom balcony. The two-story residential design review and minor residential permit were originally approved by the Director of Community Development in August of 2006. However, Printed on Recycled Paper DrZ/~ R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 3 Mojgani Reconsideration May 15, 2007 DISCUSSION: Applicants' Appeal: Specific grounds for reconsideration are provided in the Cupertino Municipal Code. The petitioners' reasons for the reconsideration request are outlined in the reconsideration request attached to the staff report (Exhibit B). The grounds for reconsideration are discussed in the attached report and matrix as prepared by the City Attorney (See Exhibit A). The City Attorney determined that the arguments submitted by the applicants do not support approval of the reconsideration and recommends that the City Council deny the request for reconsideration, for the reasons stated in Exhibit A. A resolution for denial is enclosed. ENCLOSURES City Council Resolution Exhibit A: City Attorney's Report, including Council Findings in Response to Petition for Reconsideration Petition of Reconsideration City Council minutes of March 20,2007 Exhibit B: Exhibit C: The City Council previously received all of the background material consisting of 161 pages that include the March 20, 2007 City Council report and all previous reports and exhibits that were provided as attachments, when the City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Conunission decision. Staff will have a copy of this Council report with its attachments at the Council meeting, or can make a copy available to any of the Council members upon request. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC\RM-2006-13, Reconsideration.doc D~3 R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 2 Mojgani Reconsideration May 15, 2007 the City received two appeals of the Director's approvals of these applications. The appeals were filed by John Tracy/Jessica Rose and Elena Herrera/Subir Sengupta, and focused on concerns related to the privacy impacts of the balconies, adequacy of the privacy protection landscape plan, the design and color of the residence and the preservation of the existing oak tree on the property. The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings to consider these appeals in October and November of 2006. On November 14, 2006, the Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote, denied the appeals and upheld the approvals of the applications by the Director of Community Developlnent with the additional condition that the property owners submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The same appellants subsequently filed appeals of the Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. The City Council held public hearings to consider these appeals on February 6 and March 20, 2007, providing direction to the property owners to revise their plans after the February 6 meeting to mitigate the privacy impacts of the master bedroom balcony. Additionally within this time period, the appellants and the property owners participated in a mediation process to attempt to resolve the issues; however, the parties still were not able to reach agreement. On March 20, 2007, the City Council reviewed a revised plan submitted by the property owners and determined that they had not followed the Council's direction to properly mitigate the privacy impacts of the master bedroom balcony. Therefore, the Council approved the two applications with additional conditions to eliminate the second-story master bedroom balcony along the west side of the rear elevation and to provide a sufficient privacy protection landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of ,<;;:oinmunity Development. The applicants were asked to meet with their neighbors and come up with an acceptable design for the balcony. This effort failed and the master bedroom balcony was subsequently denied due to its design. The applicants still have the ability to re-apply with a new design that responds to the neighbors' privacy concerns. Since the City Council meeting, the applicant submitted a revised privacy protection landscape plan for staff to review. The privacy protection landscape plan has been reviewed by staff and was approved on May 7, 2007 with modifications to conform to the City Council direction. Hence, the applicant is free to file for a building permit to construct the house with the approved smaller balcony located toward the east side of the rear elevation of the home. On April 2, 2007, the property owners submitted a request for reconsideration (Exhibit B) of their applications pertaining only to the second-story master bedroom balcony that was denied by the City Council. f),e..t..J City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: May 15, 2007 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider options with regard to abandoned shopping carts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: · Direct staff to work with the managers of the stores with carts to seek their input regarding solutions for cart retrieval. The Council may want to consider other options once we have received store manager input. These options are detailed in the discussion section below. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2007, a resident of the Garden Gate neighborhood spoke to the City Council about the large number of shopping carts abandoned in the neighborhood. The City Council asked staff to present options to address the problem of abandoned shopping carts. Shopping carts are removed from owner's premises by patrons who live in close proximity to the establishments and presumably do not have other means to conveniently transport purchased items to their homes. Therefore, neighborhoods located near commercial establishments are more likely to be affected by the problem of abandoned shopping carts than others. DISCUSSION: Work with store managers: Shopping carts are expensive and it is in the interest of the stores to ensure that shopping carts are not removed from the premises. Staff recommends that city council direct staff to work with the store managers to hear their perspective on the problem and to help identify solutions to ensure that the carts stay on their property. This would be a voluntary effort with help from city staff. The other options the council could consider to address the problem are discussed below. i),e r5 Application: Abandoned Shopping Carts Page 2 Cite offenders: Section 22435 of the California Business and Professions Code establishes the provisions regarding removal of shopping carts from the owner's premises. It allows the citation of people who remove shopping carts from the premises. Subsection 22435.2 specifically states that removal, possession or abandonment of a shopping cart by non- owners is unlawful, and any person who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. This is one option that the city council could consider to prevent people from removing shopping carts from the owner's premises. No legislative action needs to be. taken except directing the Sheriff's Office to cite people seen removing carts from the cart owner's premises. This would, however, a considerable amount of the sheriff department's time in patrolling the neighborhood to cite offenders and is only useful if a person is caught in the act of removing a shopping cart. . Incorporate disabling mechanism in conditions of approval: Another way of ensuring that new and existing stores that have a large number of carts install some way of disabling shopping carts from leaving the premises is to require this as a condition of development such as approval of the use permit or building permit applications. This would be administered through Planning Department staff. Enact an ordinance: The council can adopt an ordinance to define abandoned shopping carts and declare them to be nuisances, hazards to vehicles and pedestrians and/ or blight promoters. Such an ordinance will have to be consistent with state law. State Law requires that shopping cart owners be allowed three days from the time they are notified about an abandoned shopping cart for its retrieval without any financial consequences. Any ordinance enacted by the city will have to allow such time. If the owner does not respond within 30 days, the city or the cart retrieval company can dispose of the cart in way that it deems fit. Such an ordinance would include some or all of the following to ensure compliance: · Authority for the Code Enforce~ent Department to cite people seen removing carts from the cart owner's premises · Set up a cart retrieval program: The city can contract with a cart retrieval company and charge the stores for the cost of retrieval. · Penalize the stores: The city can set up an administrative procedure in which stores can be fined if they are not responsive about cart retrieval. · Require stores to install wheel locking or other stopping mechanisms. · Require stores to prepare a plan demonstrating how they will control their carts from being abandoned in the right of way or other private property, including the following: · Notices posted on doors and near parking lot exits prohibiting the removal of shopping carts and notifying people that it is a violation of the law i>rerlo Application: Abandoned Shopping Carts Page 3 · Information about a store administered cart retrieval program, if any · Phone number for retrieval of carts to be displayed prominently on all shopping carts. · Require owners to submit plans demonstrating their plans for controlling the removal of shopping carts from their premises as a condition of approval of the use permit or their building permit. This would only be effective for new construction and would require the above information. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner Approved by: , Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development QsL David W. Knapp City Manager G: \ P fanning \ PDREPOR T\ CC \ 2007\AbandonedShoppingCartsMay CCSR.doc p,e..? Page 1 of 1 Motive for Disney, Anaheim to cooperate over housing EVERYBODY WINS WHEN WORKERS OWN THEIR OWN HOMES By Scott Darrell San Jose Mercury News Article Launched:OS/10/2007 01:35:40 AM PDT National headlines have declared a rift in the 50-year relationship between the Walt Disney Co. and the city of Anaheim. Disney has sued the city - for the first time - to block a mixed-income housing development, and it is leading efforts to get two measures on the ballot that would determine the future development of sites near its Disneyland resort. While most of the coverage and commentary have focused on Disney's heavy-handed response, the underlying story is one of greater significance to many California communities: the lack of affordable housing. More than 200 workers and residents attended the April 24 Anaheim City Council meeting during which the project was approved. Many people shared their stories of raising children in overcrowded and substandard apartments, mobile homes and motel rooms. Their message was clear: If we're good enough to work here, then we should be able to live here in high-quality, affordable homes. Orange County's working-class communities are in stark contrast to the O.C. pbrtrayed in television "reality" shows and dramas. At the meeting, Councilwoman Lorri Galloway captured the reality of Anaheim's resort-area neighborhoods with some startling statistics: 6,000 low- wage jobs (with wages averaging less than $15 an hour) were added in the resort district since 2000, but no new homes affordable to those workers were built. The rental vacancy rate is less than 4 percent, and a worker must earn about $29 an hour to afford the typical two- bedroom apartment. Many workers must double and triple up in overcrowded homes, and about 850 homes near the resort are categorized as "extremely substandard," lacking basic plumbing and kitchen facilities. As a result, Anaheim ranks fifth in the nation among cities with the most overcrowded housing conditions. . More than 35,000 Orange County residents are homeless, according to the latest figures, and more than half of them are members of working families with children. For many of its resort-area workers, Anaheim is clearly not the happiest place on Earth to live. Disney's opposition to the housing proposal may seem simple enough: Disneyland is the city's economic engine, and the resort area is zoned only for projects with compatible commercial uses. "This district pays for police services and fire services and parks and repairs," Disney spokesman Rob Doughty said. 'This is the major funding source for this city, and it perplexes us as to why they would jeopardize it." However, Disney's position points to a major, if not the major, problem California communities face. Proposition 13 limitations on commercial and residential property tax increases have made local governments dependent on sales and hotel "bed" taxes to pay for community services. All too often, elected leaders feel compelled to choose the development of new hotels, shopping centers and auto malls over new homes, regardless of the housing needs. Others in the community have argued that Disney and the city have no role in "subsidizing" housing for low-wage workers. But this "let the market prevail" argument ignores more than 70 years of federal, state and local involvement in the housing market. Generations of families have achieved home ownership through federally subsidized and guaranteed loans. One form of "subsidy" is the more than $70 billion (twice the operating budget of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) devoted to mortgage interest deductions _ a program that helps mostly middle- and high-income home owners. Local and state governments also play important roles. Anaheim has invested millions of dollars in rehabilitation loans for substandard apartments, facilitated the redevelopment of small "in-fill" sites as moderately priced homes and created partnerships with developers to construct new rental communities. This summer, a non-profit developer will open the first rental housing development affordable to low-wage working families to be built in the city in more than 15 years. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been able to keep pace with housing prices and the growing number of low-wage jobs. If the resort area is to be reserved for sales-tax generating uses, then housing development sites in every other neighborhood in the city should be identified, The city should provide incentives to developers to build mixed-income rental and home ownership communities on underused commercial and residential sites. An impact fee to help pay for housing construction should be attached to all large-scale commercial development that generates low-wage jobs. The city should require that a portion of all new housing be affordable to low-wage workers. Most important, Disney and the business community must move beyond their "let them live elsewhere" attitude and instead playa role in identifying solutions and support the city's efforts at increasing housing opportunities for workers at all income levels. CI~se 'J.'{indow Send To f'flnter f)~ ..6 ttp:/ /www.mercurynews.com/portlet/articIe/html/fragments/print_ articIe.j sp ?articIeld=5 860963&siteld=... 5/14/2007