Loading...
PC 04-26-99 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 26, 1999 SALUTETO THEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Hams, Kwok, Stevens; Chaixperson Doyle Staff present: Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MI'NUTES: Minutes of the April 12, 1999 regular Planning Commission meeting The following corrections were noted for the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission minutes: Page 5, 3~a line of last paragraph: "thick" should read "wide" Page 7, last paragraph, ]st line: "accept the Review" should read "continue the Review" last line: delete "the next phase" and replace with "the amendments." Page 13, 4tn paragraph, last line: "sinc" should read "sync" 3~a motion: change to read: "COW' MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as amended Com. Corr Com. Hams Passed 4-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance City of Cupertino Citywide Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Discussion of design guidelines for unique neighborhoods. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 1999 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 4-U-99, 7-EA-99 Roman Catholic Bishop/Gate of Heaven Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Planfflng Commission Minutes 2 April 26, 1999 Use Permit to construct a new'mausoleum consisting of 942 c~pts. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1999 Application No. (s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-98, 43-EA-98 Adzich Properties 1-216 Pasadena Use Permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family (approximately 2,220 to 2,500 square feet) on a 12,480 square foot (net) lot. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request removal.from calendar residences MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Halxis moved to continue Item 3 to May 10, 1999; Item 7 moved to May 24, 1999; and Item 8 removed from the calendar Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Don Peterson, Santa Clara County Planning Commission, extended an invitation to the Plarming Commissioners to attend the Santa Clara County Planning Commission Second Annual Workshop. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 10-EXC-97(M) Terry Brown (Dor Ref~dence) 22525 Balboa Avenue Modification to an approved hillside exception for a new residence to remove and replace six trees due to grading damage and ten small trees due to interference with larger trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, briefly reviewed the application for tree removal as outlined in the attached staff report. She referred to the landscape plan and answered questions. Staff recommends approval of the application. Com. Kwok suggested that the arborist's recommendations on Page 2-9 relating to the installation of a soaker hose ~,~:::e and installation of a hemp net when hydro-mulching, be included in the conditions. In response to Chair Doyle's question about why it happened, Mr. Tgrry Brown, contractor, explained that when they graded for the retaining wall, they originally calculated where the cut would be behind the excavation, and in order to comply with OSHA for building the wall, they cut the bank differently, which was a miscalculation on their part; coupled with a miscalculation from the civil engineers of the trees' actual location. He said the removal of the trees would actually Planning Cornmission Minutes 3 April 26, 1999 improve and enhance the quality and health of the remaining trees, since the area should only have 6 to 8 trees, and there are presently 15 to 18 trees there, i Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Kwok said he felt the arbofist provided an appropriate suggestion. Com. Harris said that she concurred with Com. Kwok on the suggestion from the arbofist, and that they should be pan of the conditions as a, b and c under landscaping tree protection. She said that she felt the property would benefit from the addition of the six trees, and she supported the bond not being forfeited because they are replacing what is being lost. Corns. Corr, Kwok and Stevens said they supported the application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 10-EXC-97 modified according to the model resolution with the addition of Items 1 and 2 mediating the effect of the trees added to Condition 3. of the Community Development Department conditions Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 2-TM-99 Allen & Cindy Hsu 22360 Santa Paula Avenue Tentative map to subdivide a 30,060 (gross) square foot parcel into two lots of 14,280 sq. fi. each. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide the existing lot into two separate lots, with two options to subdivide. Option 1 would subdivide the lots so that the homes would be configured side by side; Option 2 would subdivide the parcels so that one home would be built behind the other in a flag lot configuration. At the April 12 meeting, the Planning Commissioners asked the applicant to consider subdividing the lots in the flag lot configuration since the lot pattern on Santa Paula Avenue included several flag lots. Both the applicant and severa~ neighbors prefer that the lots be configured side by side, and some neighbors prefer that the parcel not be subdivided. Staffreeommends approval of a side by side configuration. A decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to City Council unless an appeal is filed within 1.4 calendar days. Mr. Jung referred to the flag lot redesign of the subdivision requested at the April 12 meeting and a plan showing the side by side configuration. He discussed both designs and noted that most of the neighbors who signed petitions preferred the side by side configuration. Mr. Allen Hsu, applicant, said that he preferred the side by side configuration since he felt it was easier to divide it into two lots, and provide similar opportunity for the other owner to buy the other parcel. He expressed concern about safety for the occupants of the rear home in a flag lot configuration, and said he felt safer in a side by side configuration. He said that in a recent survey conducted of the neighborhood, most of the neighbors preferred the side by side configuration and noted that it would be less likely to block their view. planmng Commission Minutes 4 April 26, 1999 Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. ? Com. Hams said that she visited the site and felt that the side by side configuration was more appropriate for a number of reasons. She said that a city policy existed, discouraging flag lots in the area. Secondly, she agreed that the privacy of the neighbor was less violated with the side by side configuration. She said she felt the security issue was valid, in terms of police and fire, it is better to have front access to the two parcels. She said that a 75 foot frontage on each lot was adequate, end wonld provide ample back yards. She noted that most of the houses on the street fronted the street. Relative to property value, Com. Hams said that the property in the rear of a flag lot configuration would be of lesser value than the front lot. She said that she did not agree with the earlier consensus of a flag lot configuration, and preferred the side by side configuration for the parcel. Com. Stevens said that his earlier response of flag lot configuration was based on the response from the neighborhood. Since then, the public has changed their preference after discussing it with various neighbors, end prefer the side by side configuration. He said that he felt the side by side configuration was appropriate. He said the only thing remaining was the curb end sidewalk issue. Com. Kwok said that he supported the side by side configuration and was pleased with the neighborhood consensus for the side by side option. Relative to the curb and gutter concern, as indicated previously, it is a requirement of the public works end the ordinance. He said there were safety factors involved with the curb and gutters, and he left the decision about their requirement with the public works department. Com. Corr pointed out that originally the side by side configuration was the preferred option, and the flag lot option was the consensus at the last meeting as a result of the neighborhood input and the desire to make it workable with the neighborhood. However, since the neighbors now feel the side by side configuration is workable, he said he supported the side by side configuration. Chair Doyle said that the side by side configuration was appropriate if agreeable with the neighbors. He said he felt the sidewalks should not be forced upon the neighborhood; curbs and gutters are appropriate. He said he would prefer that the two homes constructed not be mirror images of each other. Com. Harris said that the sidewalks was a difficult issue, but she felt they were necess~y for safety proposes, to allow the residents to walk safely in the area. Mr. Jung noted that the issues of sidewalks, curbs and gutters were City Council issues, which were adopted as part of an ordinence. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 2-TM-99 according to the model resolution Com. Corr Chair Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Chair Doyle said that he felt the sidewalk issue should be addressed, and that they should not be forced on the neighborhoods. Planning Coramission Minmes 5 April 26, 1999 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 1 -U-99, 3-EA~99 (construction of 7 townhouses) Judy Chen ; 7359 Rainbow Drive (easterly most aparnnent lot on north side of Rainbow Drive - next to freeway Use Permit to demolish an existing apadment building and construct a seven-unit townhouse development on a .34 acre parcel Planning commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the oat~pplication to demolish the existing apartment building and construct townhouses: At the March 8 Planning Commission meeting, the architect was directed to lower the height of the proposed building by at least two feet and increase the length of the eaves; and he has complied with the requirements. It was noted that the applicant will submit a tentative map for the project in the near future. Staff recommends approval of the project; a decision on the application will be regarded as final, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. CAI reviewed the Planning Commission's prior discussion and areas agreed upon as outlined in the attached staff report. She referred to the previous proposed elevations and the modified elevations of the proposed project for comparison purposes. In response to Com. CorPs question, Ms. Gil defined open space as the landscaped areas in the front and along the sides of the units. She illustrated on the plan where the common spaces were located. Relative to the loss of rental units, Ms. Cfil reported that the Planning Commission had previously decided that the applicant would be required to pay a mitigation fee rather than provide rental units. She said that the mitigation fee requirement could be added as a condition of approval. Com. Corr pointed out that No. 23 of the conditions was a duplicate of No. 17 and should be deleted. Ms. Gil said that she would refer to the standard set of conditions to ensure that no items were omitted. Ms. Judy Chen, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help over the years that she has worked on her application. She said that she has complied with all the city's requirements, as well as met with her neighbors who are satisfied with the project design. She said that she felt the development would be an am'active addition to the neighborhood. She said that she was looking forward to receiving approval of the application. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Stevens said that his concern about the height was alleviated by the lowering of the buildings, and he supported the project. Mr. Kwok said he supported the project, and was pleased with the revised plan. Com. Corr said that he supported the project. Com. Harris said she concurred and supported the project. She said she felt they needed to specify that the standard housing mitigation fees will be required. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve the negative declaration on Application 3-EA-99 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 26, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 1-U-99 with the addition of the standard fees for housing mitigation fees Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-U-99, 6-EA-99 Integrated Operations 10115 Saich Way Use perrmt to demolish a car wash facility and construct a 6,434 square foot day care center. Tentative City Council hearing date of May 3, 1999 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the car wash facility and construct a day care center for 120 preschool age children. Staff feels the positive points to the proposal are: (1) The area of Saich Way and Alves Drive is a good location for the daycare facility because of its close proximity to the Northwest YMCA and the afterschool day care program it offers; (2) The neighborhood gets a relatively small amount of vehicle txaffic throughout the day; and (3) The one story day care facility will also be a welcome replacement to the car wash stmeture. Staff feels the negative points of the proposal are: (1) The proposed size of the building results in setbacks as short as 10 feet along Saich Way, and the proposed landscaping is limited; (2) Staff feels the site will be overufilized for the size of the day care operation, but the applicant is not willing to reduce the size of the building. Staff recommends denial of the application; a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. Mr. Jung said that staff felt the location was ideal for a day care facility, not only because of its proximity to major employers, but also its easy access to the thoroughfares. He referred to a drawing of the project and illustrated that the access to the classrooms was through exterior access opening to a covered play area. Mr. Jung discussed Exhibit A, the Preschool Daycare Center Facility Parking Survey, and noted that the proposed facility would have a ratio of 6.3 children/parking stalls. Staff feels the site is ovemtilized for the size of the daycare operation, which is reflected in the marginal landscape strips and small 10 foot building setback on Salch Way. They have recommended a smaller building footprint to the applicant; however, it would reduce the enrollment capacity of the center, which was unacceptable to the applicant. Because of the ox;erufilization factor, staff is recommending denial of the negative declaration and the proposal. Mr. Jung answered questions relative to the setbacks, floor area ratio, noise level and parking. Relative to the approval of the use permit, Mr. Jung clarified that the permit was a single use permit, and if converted to a use other than the day care facility, the new applicant would have to amend the use permit. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the state licensing agency handles permits and issues relative to schools located next to bars. It was noted that the hours of operation of the bar were about 4 p.m. to late evening. Mr. T. Basch, owner of the Happy Days Child Development Center, explained the dilemma of locating child care centers, since residential, retail, light industrial and industrial areas were not ideal for various reasons. He said that some day care centers were located in churches, and former school facilities. He reported that because of the class size reduction program introduced by planmng Commission [Minutes 7 April 26, 1999 Governor Wilson a few years ago, some of the currently closed elementary schools would reopen to accommodate the new classes, whicff would necessitate some day care centers finding new locations, which would also affect the number of facilities available to parents. He said that the Saich property is zoned commercial; is located across from the YMCA which would be advantageous to parents seeking preschool and school-age children care; location on Saich Way is not a major street, and is easily accessible, centrally located in the heart of Cupertino; and close to the business parks along DeAnza Boulevard. Mr. Basch reported that the U-shaped design of the building with the covered play area in the center section is unique in that it allows the children to play in a covered area, out of the direct sun, in the hot weather, and also during the winter in the rainy seasou, they can play outdoors. He said that the facility was designed with the city ordinance and design guidelines in nfind, with regulations from the state, and with the needs and s~ety of the children in m/nd. He passed around an architectural drawing of the facility. Mr. Basch said that he has been workdng with the Planning Department for over four months to arrive at various ideas on how to structure the facility. He said the Planning Department staff suggested that the building be moved up front, and suggested the five foot iron fencing in the front, softening the comer by creating a ten foot entrance. He said that the recommendation from the city was puzzling because he felt he was led to believe that some of the issues were coming from the Planning Comm/ssioners, and it was his feeling that the Planning Commissioners wanted him to present the project as it was to receive direction in a public quorum. Mr. Basch said that the noise impact from the children's play yard was not significant. He pointed out that the ground level of the building next to the 8 foot masoray wall was 2 feet higher. He said that the masomy wall was for design purposes, to create a continuation of the building. He said that there was a 184 foot parking lot in Target, and noted that Target was building a 25 foot wall in the rear. Mr. Basch said that the play area would include grass area, and play structures not exceeding 6 feet in height. He said that he did not foresee any problems being close the bar as the facility faced Alves Drive with no visibility or accessibility to the bar. In response to Com. Kwok's question, Mr. Basch indicated that he was not opposed to extending the masonry wall right angle to the one proposed. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the close proximity to the bar. He suggested extending the wall and Mr. Basch said he was not opposed to that suggestion. Mr. Basch clarified the parking ratio. He said that parents drop their children offbetween 7 and 9 a.m. and pick them up between 4 and 6 p.m. and pointed out that usually not more than 2 or 3 parents pick up their children at the same time. Mr. Basch said that he was faced with a timeline relative to the purchase of the property, as the seller has been already waiting 5 months for approval of the plans. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle summarized the issues: building size, setback (Saich Way), wall height, trash enclosure, project, and noise level. Com. Harris said that there was a desperate need for child care in Cupertino, and as a parent she experienced difficulty over the years txying to find quality, safe child care. She said that the location was ideal, across from YMCA, and it would not adversely impact anybody, and supported approval of the project as proposed. She said the .26 FAR was appropriate, and she was not concerned about the noise level from the children; she was not opposed to the setback on the Saich side at 20 feet because of the plate height and the distance from Target which already exists. She Planning Commission Minutes ~ April 26, 1999 said the door on the lxash enclosme should be metal. Relative to the wail in the back, she said she felt tha~ the wall adjacent to the commercial building should be a minimum of 7 foot high masonry and should run the whole length of that end of the property. Com. Corr said that the proposal was an improvement over the existing facility, and he was not concerned with the building size. He said the height of the wall on the back should be 7 feet, but was not certain if it should reach the street, fi.om the standpoint of how things look as you are going up and down the street. He said if the licensing agency was concerned with it, it could be put in. Trash enclosure with a metal door, is not an issue. He said he was not concerned about the noise level fi.om the children. The school district has never had a complaint fi.om neighbors about noise tSom any of the child care centers housed in the vacant schools. It is an excellent project, an excellent location and would certainly be a beautification to that neighborhood. Com. Kwok said that he supported the building size; noting that it would be more suitable if there were more setbacks, but said the size of the building would be sacrificed for more setbacks. He said that be supported the proposed setbacks; wall height of 7 feet is suitable; trash enclosure not a concern. Relative to the overall project, he said he was pleased to see another child care center for Cupertino, because there is a huge demand for child care. He said he felt noise was not a concern because it was the happy sound of children. Com. Stevens said that the building size was a concern until he realized that the center area was open, and even though the lot coverage on setbacks is narrow, the utilization is done in grand style. He said he understood the setback on Saich Way and was not concerned. Relative to wail height, he said that Com. Hams' suggestion about the 7 foot fence was appropriate. He said he was not opposed to dropping the wall down to a 4 foot brick wall where the wrought h-on is. He said he was concerned about the cars coming in the parking lot with the children on the other side, and the possibility of rocks being thrown; and although he concurred with the aesthetics of making it look attractive, he was aiso concerned with the mutual safety aspect, and would require the wall in that particular location. He said he was in favor of fencing off the trash enclosure, but not using plywood. Com. Stevens said that the project was direly needed and the applicant did an excellent anaiysis and an excellent presentation. He said that he wanted his concern about the bar noted for the record; and said that if the YMCA could be that dose to the bar and not be concerned, it alleviated his concern. He said that he was aiso concerned about the potential backup of cars because it is a left hand mm for the people coming down Saich Way, but not to hold the project up. Mr. Jung said he felt it was an excellent idea to extend the wall down but actually taper the height fi.om a taller wall near the back, if the primary issue is safety and not aesthetics. He said he indicated a wail extension as a potentiai additionai noise mitigation, but could not recail the noise level of small children. Chair Doyle said that .26 FAR was reasonable; the layout is close to the street and the sides. Relative to the setbacks, the role of thumb to use is if it starts getting beyond the one to one, or 10 feet high or 10 feet back, problems may occur. The project meets this, therefore there should be an attempt to go beyond that, but if it gets any closer than one to one, he said he would be opposed to it. He said the 7 foot wall height was a good compromise, and the idea of leaving it open on one end and making it 7 foot wrought iron is probably a good idea, ttying to limit access into the site. He said he felt the likelihood of rocks flying through the fence was minimal. He said the trash enclosure should have the metal front; and said that there was a dire need for the child care project. Relative to the bar issue, he said the state rules would govern that. plarmmg Commission Minutes 9 April 26, 1999 Com. Corr commented relative to the fence between the bar and the school, that a 6 foot or 7 foot wrought iron fence would be m~re suitable to keep people off the property and children from getting out. Chair Doyle said that the limiting of visibility along the back wail with the wrought iron being turned into a solid fence, is probably something the state licensing committee will address. Mr. Basch said that they would spare no expense on the project, and could put in a combination fence with masom-y on the bottom and wrought iron on the top, or any other combination. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the fence be a 7 foot fence, solid on the bottom, and wrought iron on the top. Mr. Basch said that he did not think noise would be an issue, as there was a solid 8 foot wood fence. He proposed to go without the proposed wood and wrought iron fence, and if there were any complaints, he would put it in, as he felt it would make the project less attractive. He suggested that it be added as a condition. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of the negative declaration on Application 16-EA-99 Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 3-U-99 according to the model resolution, with the addition of the 7 foot wall on the south side of the property; and the extension of that being the 7 foot wrought kon, or as dictated by state licensing Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 Chair Doyle requested that the city do a parking study on day care centers as there was no data or basis on which to follow. He said the schools have lots of parking spaces for reasons and there are traffic concerns that show up. Com. Hams said that some schools have day care centers and most of them are in thek own section; therefore the parking could be looked at with the help of the school district in addition to the few city approved spaces Chair Doyle declared a recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Application No.: Applicant: Location: Housing Mitigation Manual City of Cupertino Citywide Consideration of amendments to the Housing Mitigation Manual, including extending the term of affordability from 30 to 99 years, and including public service employees as a high preference in the buyer selection process. Tentative City Council hearing date: May 3, 1999 Staff presentation: Ms. Cfil explained the reasons for the proposed changes to the Housing Mitigation Manual by the Housing Committee. In December 1998, the City Council directed the Housing Committee to make some changes to the BMR program. The changes include: renew the term of affordability at the change of rifle; add public service employees to the priority hst; and Planning Commission Minutes 1o April 26, 1999 also to look at changing or increasing the term of affordability from 30 to 99 years. The Housing Cormmttee made some changes on their own, including eliminating the DeAnza College students fxom the priority list, and incorporating a priority rating system (Exhibit C). Some items have been clarified by creating definitions in the manual; first time homebuyers, public semce employee, and immediate family of a Cupertino resident. Also, minimum lengths of residency and employment were added to assist CCS in administrating the program; elimination of the applicant's fight of refusal of a unit; and addition of details on the annual requalification process. Com. Corr said that the committee was trying to work with the direction given by the City Council, and work with CCS who is administering the program, and look at what real problems they have mn into in the administration, and how can they make changes to make it work the way it was intended to work. In response to Com. Kwok's questions about definition of full time public employees, Ms. CA1 said that it was 35 hours per week, and defines them as employees of the Cupertino Union and Fremont Union High School District employees, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, and the City of Cupertino. She said that it did not include DeAnza College insn'uctors. Com. Harris questioned if there was any provision that disc~minated against a single parent in favor of two working parents in Cupertino. She pointed out that a single parent would not accumulate as many points as two working parents, and the two parents would receive a priority over someone who may be having more difficulty making it. Ms. Gil said that two working parents would have the opportunity to accumulate more points than one single parent. She said that employees of Hewlett Packard, Apple and Tandem also received priority over the children and parents of long time residents of Cupertino. She confirmed that residents had three chances to mm down the opportunity to take a house when offered and first time homebuyers were given first priority. She said that the three year provision applied to persons who owned properties before, namely that if they lost their house or were divorced, they would have to wait tbxee years from the date their name appeared on the title before they could apply for the program. Com. Con' questioned when the in lieu fees were paid. Ms. Gil said that the in lieu fees were paid to the city prior to the issuance of the building permit and said that the language could be included as a condition. Com. Kwok asked what happens if the owner of the house moves out of the area. Ms. Gil said that the home is sold to the next eligible applicant. She said that in the rare case that there are no names on the eligibility list, the city has the first right of refusal to purchase the home from the owner, and it would be resold at a below market price when another applicant comes in. Com. Stevens questioned why "off site" was removed fi'om Section 2.02.03. Ms. CA1 reported that the term was removed about two years ago; however, the wording was inadvertently not removed, therefore it is just cleanup language. Relative to Section 2.05.01, purging of the walt/ag list, he said it was not clear and wished to discuss further. Relative to the 99 year time period, he said he was not sure of that; he had a different number in mind. Com. Harris, said that Section 2.04.01 stated "units are designed" and suggested the wording be changed to "the BMR program is designed". Chair Doyle questioned why the program assisted the first time homebuyers with incomes 80% and 120% of the median rather than 0% to 50% or the very low incomes. Ms. Gil explained that it was very difficult to assist the very low income levels Planning Commission Minutes I 1 April 26, 1999 without the city providing a much higher subsidy. The income levels are so Iow that they are not able to qualify for the:home mortgages. She said that the very low income levels are often supported with the rental units. Com. Hams stressed the importance of treating the participants in the program with the same respect that any one would expect, so that they did not feel the process was in any way demearfing. Com. Hams said her issues were: (1) Is there priority given to a dual family wage earner over a single parent; (2) Other than public service employees, is the next priority to employees working in Cupertino or family members which was defined as children or parents of Cupertino residents; (3) Will there be a restriction on the right of having 3 opportunities once at the top of the waiting list, to say that they cannot move right now or they do not like that particular unit; (4) The purging of the list after a year instead of having an annual requalificafion; (5) Allow a home buyer to apply before the three year waiting period if there is a change in circumstances such as bankruptcy or divorce. Ms. Gil said that special priority was not given to disabled persons, but that they would be evaluated on the same level. Below is a summary of the planning Commissioner's comments relative to the proposed amendments. Com. Harris: HousehoM size: Make the last category 4 to 8 instead of 4 to 6. Right of refusal of unit/development: In favor of the three opportuniries to choose what unit to purchase. Priority - Single parent vs. 2 parent family: She said that she felt it was more difficult to be a single parent, and therefore would not give priority to the 2 parent family over a single parent. Priorities - are they in the right order:. She said she felt priority should be given to family members over people employed in Cupertino. Purging of list~annual requalification: She said it was demeaning to purge the list when the year is up. The contractor could send out an annual letter. Definition offirst time homebuyer: Mitigating circumstances should be defined, such as newly single people, and people who have had a loss of their home. They should be able to apply before the three year waiting period that their name appeared on rifle, but not be eligible until the expiration of the three year period. Com. Corr: Household size: He said he was not opposed to the 4 to 8 category. Right of refusal of unit~development He said that allowing three oppommiries to choose a unit has caused a lot of difficulties, and respecting a person's right of refusal, allowing one refusal would be more appropriate. Priority - Single parent vs. 2 parent family: He said he was uncertain about the issue, and said that in some instances there may be three people not otherwise considered a family, who would pool their resources in order to purchase a home in Cupertino. Priorities - are they in the right order: He said he had concerns about the list of priorities, and above comments applied also. Purging of list/annual requalification: Require annual updating of the information to make certain the person is still in Cupertino and still interested in the program. Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 26, 1999 Definition of first time homebuyer: In order to make the program work, a clear definition of first time homebuyer is needed; allow a person to go on waiting list before the three year waiting period for mitigating circumstances. Later in the meeting, Com. Corr change his vote to the present definiton. Com. Kwok: Household size: 4 to 8 is appropriate Right of refusal of unit/development: Supported the three opportunities to choose a unit for purchase. Priority - Single parent vs. 2 parent family: Concerned about giving any group a priority rating. Priorities - are they in the right order: He said that the concept of giving priority to the public safety employees was appropriate. Purging of list/annual requalification: He said that purging the list after one year was appropriate. Definition offirst time homebuyer: He said this was appropriate also. Com. Stevens: HousehoM size: 4 to 8 is appropriate. Right of refusal of uniFdevelopment: Supported one opportunity only. Priority - Single parent vs. 2 parent family: He said that although he agreed that it was more difficult for a sIngle parent, no priority should be given for either. Priorities - are they in the right order: He said he felt teachers, fire and city employees should have priority. Purging of list~annual requalification: He expressed concern about the work load such a process would entail for the people and owner to do. He said he did not know what advantages it would offer. Definition of first time homebuyer: He said he did not want priority to be given to first time homebuyer; it should be on financial need only. Chair Doyle: HousehoM size: He said he supported staffand Housing Committee recommendation. Right of refusal of unit/development: He said he felt the one opportunity only is appropriate. Priority - Single parent vs. 2 parent family: Leave as is. Priorities - are they in the right order: Appropriate as proposed by Housing Committee. Purging of list~annual requafffication: Was in favor of the process, because the committee saw a need for it. Definition offirst time homebuyer: He said he would support the Housing Committee's policy and not modify it with other ways of tracking. Discussion ensued regarding the purging of the list/annual requalification. There was consensus that seniority should be considered for persons on the waiting list. A letter would be sent to the people on the waiting list asking for an update on their application. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve the amendments to the Housing Mitigation Manual, subject to the modifications as stated Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 I0. Consideration to set a public heating to amend Chapter 19.80 Accessory - Buildings/Stxuctures ordinance related to privacy protection measures. Planning Commission Minutes ~3 April 26, 1999 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Hams moved to set a public heating to amend Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/S~a'uctures ordinance related to privacy protection measures. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 ll. Finding of conformity with General Plan for acquisition of Stocklmeir property (22120 Stevens Creek Boulevard) and expansion of Senior Center Staff presentation: Mr. Jung reported that that the General Plan indicates that the city was interested in purchasing the Stocklmeir property when it comes up for sale. It is now for sale and City Council is ready to allocate money for it in the near future, and there is a need to establish General Plan conformance which exists that the city can purchase it. Mr. Jung referred to the site plan which illustrated the location of the senior center and said that the plans include the construction of a new senior center of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. in the same location. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved that the Planning Commission find that the Stock/meier property acquisition and the expansion of the Cupertino Senior Center are in conformance with the General Plan Com. Harris Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPI/NGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on May I0, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary-- 0 Approved as amended: May 10, 1999