Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 05-12-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 12, 2003 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 28, 2003 Regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting as presented Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: CP-2003 -01; EA-2003 -02 City of Cupertino (Capital Improvement Plan) Citywide Capital Improvement Plan, consistency with the General Plan Request postponement to meeting of May 27, 2003 Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-04 Bill Jauch (Park Villas HOA) Park Villas Circle - common area in front of clubhouse Director's minor modification to remove two pine trees in a planned residential development. Request postponement to meeting of May 27, 2003. Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2003-01; EA-2003-04 Li-Sheng Fu APN 342-22-043 Mercedes Road Planning Commission Minutes ~ May 12, 2003 Hillside exception to construct a 4,245 square foot residence on slopes greater than 30% and a parking exception for tandem parking Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to meeting of May 27, 2003. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to postpone Applications CP-2003-01; EA-2003-02; TR-2003-04; EXC-2003-01; EA-2003-04 to the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: U-2003-01, EA-2003-01 Thomas Brutting, HKIT Architects 23500 Cristo Rey Drive (The Forum at Rancho San Antonio)' Use permit to construct a 21,000 square foot expansion of the Health Care Center and a new 3,500 square foot Fitness/Wellness Center .Tentative City Council date: May 19, 2003 Staff presentation: Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the application for a use permit to construct a 24 bed expansion of the skilled nursing facility and a new 3,500 square foot fitness/wellness center at the Forum senior living facility. She reviewed the background of the previous applications, current proposal, General Plan, site plan, architectural design, traffic analysis, geological analysis, neighborhood meetings held, and tree removal as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the negative declaration'and use permit application in accordance with the model resolution, with change to Condition 6b. In response to Com. Corr's question about the number of trees being replaced, Ms. Shrivastava said that they were removing 22 trees, with a total of 52 being added. Relative to the NPDES permit, Ms. Shrivastava explained that the applicant had been given it earlier as well, and the Public Works Department administers the NPDES general permit. She said there is currently landscaping on the site which will be replaced by the building. She said they would try to have enough pavers in the courtyard and other requirements, grassy swills to filter the water and try to reduce the amount of runoff. The NPDES tries to eliminate as much surface runoff into the stormwater system and in addition they try to filter it, so that it is filtered when it reaches the system. She said the Public Works representative indicated that the project could accommodate all the current requirements. After July 15 the requirements become more stringent and this project would not be required to have those stringent requirements because it would be complete before July 15. Com. Saadati inquired about the benefits of proceeding with the project prior to the General Plan amendment. Ms. Shrivastava said that the project will be conditioned upon that, and would not be considered approved until the General Plan amendment is approved. Com. Corr said that if policy 2-80 had not been eliminated, there would not be a General Plan amendment. Ms. Shrivastava said that at the time this project was approved, it had not required one; therefore by deleting the policy it made a number of sites inconsistent. Planning Commission M~nutes 3 May 1:2, 2003 In response to Com. Miller's question if they would be required to construct underground tanks for filtering, Ms. Shrivastava said that it was not expected at this point. The requirements are less stringent for this project because it is prior to July 15; after July 15, they become more stringent. Responding to Com. Wong's questions, Ms. Shrivastava said that there are two and three story buildings in the project; she illustrated the one story and noted that it was consistent with the height of the rest of the site. She said that height was not a concern of the neighbors. Relative to the existence of the HVAC in the main building and its close proximity to Rancho San Antonio, she said that there was a condition of approval for noise that they comply with the ordinance relative to the HVAC equipment and any other mechanical equipment since the project is close to a sensitive land use. In response to Chair CheWs questions about the removal of the trees, Ms. Shrivastava said that none of the trees proposed for removal were specimen trees. Mr. G. Arcello, HKIT Architects, clarified that the skilled nursing facilities was one component of the center; and there is an assisted living component which is the one being expanded as the assisted living, and within assisted living, a portion of that will be dedicated to Alzheimer's dementia care. The difference is that the skilled nursing has to be licensed until it is under the jurisdiction of the State Health Department. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input; there was no one who wished to speak. Com. Corr said that it was an excellent project, that it would be an asset to the community, and he supported the application. Com. Saadati said he supported the project. Com. Miller said he liked the project, traffic was not an issue; the current exemise room is inadequate and would be an appropriate addition to the project. He said he supported the project. Com. Wong said he concurred with fellow commissioners. He said he visited the facility and felt the design was excellent and the Alzheimer's unit was needed. He said he supported the project. Chair Chen said she supported the project. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved approval of negative declaration EA-2003-01 Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved approval of the use permit Application U-2003-01 in accordance with model resolution and changes incorporated. Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: TM-2003-01; U-2003 -02; Z-2003-01; EA-2003~03 Jeff White (Prometheus) 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E Tentative Map to subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel. Use Permit to construct 55 single family residences and site improvements on a 4.03 acre parcel Zoning to rezone a 4.03 acre parcel from PR3 to R(Res) Tentative City Council date: June 2, 2003 Planning Commiss~on Minutes t May 12, 2003 Staff presentation: Chair Chen noted receipt of several e-mails relative to the conflict in schedules with the City Council study session. She said the Planning Commission does not make the final decision; they are making recommendation to City Council and there is still time for public input, and discussion would move forward on the item. Com. Corr said from a process standpoint he was concerned with proceeding with the discussion of the application while interested parties were attending a conflicting meeting in the council chambers. He said ~ we are often criticized for doing things that the public cannot comment on, and when there is a conflict in a schedule like this, *~'~" .... ., we get criticism also. Mr. Piasecki noted for the record that because the City Council meeting was being held at the same time, an announcement would be made in the City Council meeting when the item was commencing so that those attending the City Council meeting could join the others in the Planning Commission meeting. He commented that the City Council meeting would likely go on for some time. Mr. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, noted corrections to the staff report. The applicant is Saron Gardens LLC not Prometheus; Page 1 of staff report, project data should be corrected to read 7 - 2 story units and 48 - 3 story units. There is a memo containing a condition relating to the BMR units, staff is recommended that it be added to the use permit resolution and there are two correspondences received today from adjacent residents ~d one from a member of the Housing Commission. Mr. Chao reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the General Plan, zoning, site analysis, architecture, tree removal, traffic, parking, school impacts, BMR units, resident relocation assistance program and comments from the neighborhood meetings as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration, use permit application, tentative map application and the rezoning application. Com. Wong inquired about the possibility of grandfathering the students into the CUSD or Fremont Union High School District if they were displaced to another school other than the one . which they were presently attending. Mr. Chao indicated that staff would check with the school district, but if the Planning Commission felt it necessary or appropriate, a condition could be added for staff to communicate with the school district to see if they would be flexible in their policy to allow those children to be grandfathered into certain schools in the district. Relative to the issue of tenant relocation, Mr. Chao said that the applicant had a meeting with the tenants last week and since staff was not present at the meeting, the question would be deferred to the applicant. Com. Wong questioned if it was possible to push the BMR units up as they were virtually tearing down the entire building complex. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant's input may be requested; if the Planning Commission feels that it is necessary to offset the policy in the General Plan that covers mitigating the loss of multi-family units, it is the Planning Commission's discretion to make a recommendation to increase that number. Relative to emergency vehicle access, Mr. Piasecki clarified that there is no vehicular access directly off Poppy Way to the project. He said emergency vehicles can go into the project from either side and get out either side. Com. Miller questioned if the drainage requirements were the same as the last application reviewed. Mr. Chao said he was not certain of the drainage requirements for the last project, but the drainage study at this point was fairly conceptual and the Public Works Department will evaluate the more detailed drainage plan before the final map is approved. Planning Commiggion Minuteg 5 May 1~, Com. Saadati said he was also concerned about the children having to change schools. Mr. Chao said that the applicant has a list of alternate apartment complexes that the tenants could chose to relocate to, but was not certain if they were in the same school district. Com. Corr said that relative to BMR units, the development would have to generate 8 BMR units; what is being discussed is 8 plus an additional number of units because of the number of the added number of units on the site. He questioned what the total number of BMR units would be. Mr. Chao said that credits are given to the existing number of units, hence on the project site there are 39 apartment units and one single family home, which is 40 units total; so the entire project is increasing the total amount of number of units by 15 and the way BMR is calculated is based on the difference; 20% of the 15 additional units proposed by the project will go towards the required number of BMR units, in this case 30 3. Mr. John Moss, Prometheus, said he concurred with the information in the staff report and he would focus on three main issues, including the results of meetings with stakeholders of the proposed development; tenant relocation plan and parking.. He clarified that they as the applicant were not the owners of Saron Gardens Apartments. The first issue of stakeholder was defining them as the neighbors of this project, city of Cupertino, as well as the residents of Saron Gardens. He said relative to the neighborhood, they felt they were proactive in soliciting neighborhood input in the early stages of the conception.of the development, with formal notices to surrounding neighborhood, and neighborhood meetings. He said in general the reaction after adjustments were made to the plans, were fairly neutral or positive; and although they did not have 100% neighborhood support, they either supported or had people that were neutral as far as the project was concerned. In response to the concerns about building heights expressed at the meetings, the architects revised the plans and brought those homes down to two stories, resulting in a total of five homes that were reduced relative to height and all of the homes planned on the site immediately adjacent to a single family homeowner are two story in height. Ones that back up to the multi-family units on Rainbow were internal to the project and are three story. Other issues raised were the construction noise, dust, and timing of construction, which are issues within the city ordinances and will be conformed with. He said they would have water trucks for the dust and will work within the timeframes permitted by the city. Other issues were privacy issues and related to landscape planting at the perimeter of the property and also fencing. Relative to the landscaping planting, Mr. Moss said that they planned on maintaining most of the mature landscape material presently on the site and planned to plant where there isn't adequate plant material now. Reconstruction of fences is also planned between the project and the neighbors at heights of 7 to 8 feet as requested by the neighbors. Relative to the pedestrian access to the property, Mr. Moss said that Prometheus supports the city's philosophy relative to walkability and pedestrian connectivity; however, only in sites they feel are appropriate. They do not feel that this site is an appropriate site for creating a pedestrian connection out from Rainbow Drive onto DeAnza, whereas it would be at other locations within the city. He said a concern was related to the safety of the residents purchasing the homes and having a pedestrian path going by their front doors, their back doors and down the alleyways where they drive. That access presumably of course is allowed during the day and also during the middle of the night as well when it does not seem appropriate for that use. He said he would appreciate the Planning Commission commenting on the issue and not having it as a requirement. He said favorable comments from the neighborhood meetings in included the fact that for sale units were being developed at the site; positive comments on the architectural style incorporated; the site plan layout; the landscape plan and overall the quality of the architecture. Planning Commlss;on M'mutes /; May 19, Mr. Moss reported on the meetings with the city's design consultant and staff regarding the architectural style for the project, resulting in changes made by the architect at the suggestion of Larry Cannon. Meetings were also held with the other stakeholders, the residents of Saron Gardens apartments; and they were informed that it would be a minimum of 6 months before they would be in a position to break ground on the project and begin construction. He said the relocation plan was reviewed and the listing of available apartments was distributed and discussed at the meetings. Mr. Moss reviewed the relocation plan which is a result of the input of the planning staff and Housing Commission. He reviewed parking, stating that the city does not have a parking ordinance for this type of development. A parking consultant was asked to put together a study to review the subject in more detail, and looked at it in two ways; they looked at other studies in the Bay Area and at more than a dozen cities in the Bay Area, concluding that in average the requirements were 2.4 parking stalls per unit. The proposed development is 2.8 stalls per unit. In addition they looked at it from the standpoint of what is the actual demand for parking for these types of developments in Silicon Valley; they looked at other developments similar in characteristics relating to the onstreet parking and lack thereof; they looked at 6 properties and concluded that the average demand was 2.47 stalls per unit which was in line with the zoning requirements for the greater Bay Area based on the cities reviewed. He reiterated that they were providing 2.8 stalls per unit. Relative to the BMR issue, he said it has been less than a year since Cupertino has revisited their BMR program; last year the City Council adopted the revised BMR program and within that program increased the BMR from 10% to 15%; they also reviewed the issue about existing residences that are rebuilt will be exempt from the BMR requirement and that was done consciously as well. He said their stance on that is there is a 15% requirement for the differential in units which translates to 2 units being at the BMR level; staff is recommending going from 2 units to 3 units which he said they were not comfortable with and have limited means to be able to provide an additional unit given the tradeoffs as far as the impact to the viability of the development like this. He said to go into some level beyond that clearly is not consistent with what the city recently approved nor consistent with the viability of the project. Mr. Moss addressed the school relocation issue, stating that their plan and hope is to clearly not have any resident that has to be relocated from their school. He said to the best of their ability, they would help to ensure that the students can remain in their current schools. He said the other schools in the school district are also top quality, and although they may not have the test scores as shown from Monta Vista, they are clearly top quality schools not only in the Bay Area and California, but also in Cupertino, and certainly would hope that it would be an unlikely scenario that somebody needs to move to an apartment that is not in that school area; but that it would not be considered a compromise as far as the quality of the school although it may be disruptive as far as relocation is concerned. He expressed confidence that there is an ample supply of apartments within Cupertino School District for residents to relocate at comparable rents. Relative to the coverage ratio question, Mr. Moss said he did not know what the existing coverages were; the fire department has the emergency vehicular access coming off Poppy Way as a requirement which he said he was agreeable to. He said the turf block alternative shown in the photo was acceptable as a solution to providing adequate access to emergency vehicles. In response to Com. Wong's questions regarding the pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access, Mr. Moss said that he supported the emergency vehicle access; but said that the pedestrian access did not appear to be of significant value and would be a concern for the residents of th~ property to have the public walking in front of their doorsteps. He said the topic having a gate which the fire department would need a key for to access in the event of emergency would have to Planning Commiss[on Minutes ~ May 1:2, 2003 be reviewed with the fire department. In the event there was a requirement to leave it open and not gate it, he said they would not be opposed to that; but would not want to have a formal easement coming through the property, because of the liability issues associated with that. Mr. Moss also answered questions about building height. Mr. Dave Johnson, architect, stressed that the project was a collaborative process, working with staff, fire district, building officials, and the city's consultant. He said they had several meetings with all of the above and responded to neighbors' concerns, and felt they went a long way to meet what the city was requiring. He said the prototype for the community was a 19~ century style of town such as Mendocino, Carmel, Pacific Grove or Nantucket; houses that are close together and pedestrian oriented. He said it was captured not only in the site plan, but also with preserving existing trees and creating a small outdoor park for the residents, and also for the architecture designed to be more of cottage style in appearance. Responding to specific questions, he said they were willing to add trellises to the houses facing Poppy Way, and would lower the height of Unit D. He added that townhouses and single family houses are not subject to the Fair Housing Act or ADA because multi-story units are exempted, hence there is no requirement for that in the project. Relative to the density or total number of dwelling units permitted on this property if built out to its ultimate, 70 dwelling units would be allowed on the parcel, at a density of over 17 units per acre, when in fact the proposal is for 55, at a density of 13-1/2 per acre. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Rae Stevenson Norris, 7314 Rainbow Drive, No. C, read the following document into the record: "Two weeks ago we received notice from Prometheus Real Estate Group of their intention to acquire our homes, evict us, and build 55 throe story densely packed single family houses. Many of us met with John Moss and Jeff White a few days ago on the evening of Wednesday, May 7. At this meeting they handed out the attached "Resident Relocation Program" and we all discussed it. The plan was fairly self-explanatory except for a provision conveyed verbally that "rental assistance" would only be available to those who rented a new place at higher rent that they're presently paying. After discussion many of us feel that the features of the plan offered are designed to induce smooth compliance with all Prometheus requirements. We further feel that the many conditions on receiving any assistance at all will predictably eliminate many of our forty families from the program, thus saving money for Prometheus. It is proposed that forty Cupertino families be evicted from their homes so that a great deal of money can be made off the property, under permits and approvals from city government. We believe it is the city government's responsibility to see that a relocation program designed for the good of the displaced families is included as a required part of the permitting process. We all live here because, for a great variety of reasons, Saron Gardens has been the best place for us. To be forced to find somewhere else to live brings up all manner of issues in our lives. It is a great stress for us. For all of us it involves costs, hard choices, and compromises in our lives that are not compensated or addressed by the proposed relocation program. The resulting disruption may lead people to choices that do not involve immediate leasing of another more expensive rental in Santa Clara county, thus rendering them ineligible for the biggest part of the assistance. Also the opportune moment to make the move may not be in the final sixty days which will begin when Prometheus decides. The prudent residents will begin seeking a new situation as soon as permits are approved and the property changes hands, or even before. Planning Commission Minutes ~ May 12, ~2003 Another issue for residents is the spreading out of relocation compensation payments over the following year. The Prometheus method requires that we submit copies of our new rental agreements and wait patiently and hopefully for our promised checks. We would have no clear legal recourse should they not come. It puts us in a position comparable to that of welfare recipients. At a later time we will be living separately and each have all the power of a single person faced with a multi-million dollar corporation and its own house lawyers. At that point all we would be able to do is come to the door with hat in hand and say "please". For these reasons we ask that you write into the permitting process a new relocation program, mandatory to Prometheus with the following provisions: Relocation assistance will be provided in a per unit lump sum payment, the amount which is based solely on present rent paid. Payment is to be due upon presentation of keys in accordance with the tenant's present rental agreement with Saron Gardens. All tenants presently renting at Saron Gardens are eligible and can move out at any time beginning now without sacrificing eligibility. Along with this payment will come payment of all outstanding tenant deposits made to Saron Gardens. Tenants with existing leases can end their lease early if they so desire. There are t be no conditions on how the relocation assistance money is used. Completion of these payments will then end the relationship between the resident and Prometheus with no further worries or mediations required. Residents may not be rendered ineligible for assistance based on a small technical violation of any of a multitude of conditions. In particular conditions of removal of personal belongings, having unit free from debris, and all fixtures intact provisions are susceptible to abuse and must be eliminated. Tardiness in move out due to hardship may reduce the allocated assistance as mediated by a third party without automatically ending all eligibility. The issue of removing personal belongings an debris from premises about to b e bulldozed should be handled by Prometheus through the provision of all the free debris box service residents need to facilitate their move. Hitherto with one family moving out at a time this problem has been handled by existing dumpster service. This will not be adequate in the last sixty days. Requiring 40 families to get all discards to the dump themselves imposes an unreasonable burden. One major concern for many of us is the continuity of our children's education at Regnart, Kennedy and Monta Vista. We ask the city, in cooperation with the Fremont Union High School District and the Cupertino Union School District to guarantee the right of our children currently in these schools or scheduled to begin this fall to continue in their present schools and system until high school graduation. The obvious item missing thus far is the amount of assistance to be offered. The plan offered by Prometheus, for those they consider completely eligible, would be $500 for moving and up to $2,700 in rental assistance, for a total of $3,200. This amount must be viewed as a ceiling rather than a straight-on offer because many residents would end up not qualifying in whole or in part due to the structure of conditions in which the offer is framed. Predictably, this will greatly reduce the total payout Prometheus will make. We proposed for the lump sum relocation assistance payment described in point number one above a sum in the mount of three times the Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 12, 2003 existing Saron Gardens rent for the unit. Based on the average of $1,500 rent per unit, this would mean an average of $4,500 per unit for a total of about $180,000. This may seem like a lot of money. However, this is a large project in which a lot of money will be made. We are the people to be put out and distressed so that this can happen. A decent and respectful compensation plan for us is a normal and proper expense. At the May 7 meeting, Mr. Moss told us that the new units across Rainbow Drive from us have successfully sold for $650,000 each. He characterized the project they have in mind here would be higher quality and of a nicer, less dense layout. Also these units would not be practically hanging over the freeway as those are. So for round purposes, we guess a price tag of $800,000 per unit. This would produce a gross income for the project of 44 million dollars. The compensation plan we propose constitutes about four tenths of a percent (.41%) of this figure. We ask the city of Cupertino to act on our behalf to ensure that this plan be made a condition required for Prometheus to receive permission to pursue this project. We ask that it b e done in a way that enforcement will not be a problem for us. We will be happy to meet to discuss this further. We thank you for representing us as our lawmakers." John Guarino, 7308 Rainbow Drive, said he was opposed to the project, and agreed with the content of the letter. He said he was concerned that his two children would not be able to continue in the same school with the same friends and would be difficult for them. An unidentified male speaker said he concurred with the previous speakers. Sayyeda Rizvi, 7308 Rainbow, said she was opposed to the project and supported the document. She said she had two teenage daughters and they were at a critical age and did not want to leave the area and their friends. She said she wanted her daughters to be able to complete their education at Monta Vista High School; and requested that the tenants have more time, and stay at least until the end of the year. Anju Garg, 7308 Rainbow, No. 2, indicate she was opposed to the project, and said that her son attended Kennedy Jr. High, and did not want to move the children from their schools. She said she agreed with the previous speakers, and that they all were experiencing the same problems. Nam Sook Lee, 7316 Rainbow, No. A, said she had children in Regnart school and wanted to have them remain there with their friends. She said she felt the developers were interested in making money and not concerned with the children's education. Xuedong Wang, 7318 Rainbow, No. C, said that her daughter did not want to leave her friends, and wanted a guarantee that the children could remain in their current schools until they graduated. She noted she was opposed to the project. David Wang, 7308 Rainbow, No. 5, said he has resided in the complex since 1992 and the children were happy there because of the environment. He asked that the children remain in their same schools until graduation. Ying Yu, 7318 Rainbow, No. A, said she was opposed to the project, and agreed with the document read and hoped the new project would be affordable. She said she was also concerned Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 1~, ~OOg about her two daughters and that they stay in their present schools. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed relocation plan. Michael Krein, 7308 Rainbow, #10, unit 10, said their units had garages, which the proposed project does not have. He said the garages are between the units and provide more privacy. He said it would not be easy to find a replacement unit within 60 days, and asked the Planning Commission to consider expanding the timeframe to 120 days or more. He said the cost impact is going to be about $3000 to $4000 to move; Prometheus has offered $500 and a 60-day timeframe. He said he was opposed to contributing a $3500 tax-like amount to Prometheus; and said he felt Prometheus should bear the financial burden of relocating the tenants. He indicated he was opposed to the project. Peter Azarenok, 7310 Rainbow, No. D, said he attends Kennedy Jr. High and does not want to leave the school because he has friends there. He said his family has moved three times and he worries that he will not be able to remain at Kennedy and then Monta Vista. He said if he moved he would not be able to ride his bike to school and having a bike would be useless. He indicated he was opposed to the project.' Tom Dragosavac, 7308 Rainbow, No. A said the document is supported by 34 signatures and would have had more, but the document was drafted only the nigbt before, and time was a factor. He said the enthusiasm and support for the alternate relocation program from the residents is strong enough that people are on board with it; they want it and need it, and he urged the Planning Commission to consider it. He said he learned that three months rent is state required when people are relocated because of the living conditions in substandard housing and they can no longer live there. He said the residents feel that amount is more in line with what they need, which could be a standard for comparison other than the standard followed in Campbell. Relative to the footprint of the project, he suggested that the Planning Commissioners visit the site and look at the one across the street; it may help flush out some of the data that has been passing through people's ears. Ying Yu, 7318 Rainbow, No. A, was opposed to the project, and spoke on behalf of Judy Wu, who is concerned about providing a stable environment for her young children. She asked that the city let the children remain at Regnart school so they wouldn't have to be relocated. Trudi Wallick, 7390 Rainbow, No. 1, said she was opposed to the project, and said her home was behind the proposed project and would be impacted by the construction, and the noise and the dust. She said the apartment residents stayed in the complex for a long time and it was important the children go to the same schools. She said she did not hear anything about meetings or the local neighbors; and would like to remain involved. She asked that she be contacted about the meetings. Vera Scott, 1320 Flower Court, said she has talked to the representatives of Prometheus repeatedly, and has maintained that the density of the project is too overwhelming. She expressed concern that the setbacks behind her property will only be 10 feet. She said Prometheus raps said they were planning to plant trees such as fern pine which should be fast growing, but with a 10 foot setback it was questionable that the future owners would be able to maintain large trees in their minimal backyards. She said she hoped the setback would be changed to 20 feet. She said they also discussed the windows in the two story houses and was told that the master bedroom would overlook her property; and she was asking that mitigation be required for the second story windows and also require a 20 foot setback along her property line. Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 19., Michael Savage, '~308 Rainbow Drive, #12, said he was opposed to the project, and expressed support for the document read earlier and also with some of what Michael Kline said regarding the garage units. He said they were difficult to find especially in the configuration of the garages between the units which provides privacy; the single story unit has no neighbors above or below to disturb residents. He said he felt the move out compensation package was inadequate and urged the Planning Commission to consider the proposed compensation package Ms. Norri~ presented earlier. Ned Britt, 20850 Peppertree Lane, said he was in favor of the project; and sent an email asking that the hearing be postponed since it was a controversial project, and everyone has spoken against some aspect of it. Since it was not postponed, he asked that the Planning Commission defer action on it to consider some of the proposals submitted and get more public input before action is taken. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson presented an encyclopedia to illustrate that the issue has been a common event in history; history books reference the enclosure acts in England, where property was enclosed and all tenants were moved out so that the landowner could make a greater profit; which he said is the present situation. He said as far as the development itself, if they were tearing down 18 buildings in the Town Center and putting this development in there so there weren't people being relocated in the process, he might be interested in looking at one of the units, since being able to live close enough to shopping, city hall and the library would be desirable. Mr. Levy said that after looking at the plans he had questions such as where the furnaces were located, the emergency access from Poppy has big trees planted in it and was there enough room around the trees for emergency vehicle to get through. He questioned the BMR calculations; that if all tenants moved out tomorrow, and the developers came through and leveled everything, and left it for three years, before they had people moving in, would that then be considered 55 new units being built and consequently 15% of them would have to be BMR? Does the fact they are rebuilding them but not doing it in a cyclic fashion so the present tenants would move into the new ones, mean they are rebuilding at the existing 39 units; which he said did not appear to be the case. Relative to parking, he said it appeared that with single family units, normally the parking requirement is 4 spaces per unit. He said his impression was that there were 2.8 parking spaces per unit, and be wanted to see the place where the City Council said there was no change for BMR in resident units if rebuilding; but he felt it implied an insensitivity of the city and of the developer; and he said for the present tenants, it looks dreadful. He indicated he was neutral on the project. Siu Kung, 1319 Poppy Way, indicated she was opposed to the project, and said she was concerned about the project since they proposed to build 55 units, and that she felt it would be very congested. She illustrated an area that would protrude out; and she also questioned the emergency driveway and whether in the future it would become a regular driveway. She said there would be many children living in the complex, and her children were now on the waiting list for Kennedy Jr. High, and questioned how the city would accommodate that. She said the three story building would also impact her privacy as it would have a view into her house. Mr. Piasecki clarified that it was an emergency access easement which there are no improvements to make for a driveway coming out with this plan; and there would be no incentive on the developer's part to do that; the portion sticking out is because staff is insisting that the applicant preserve those trees. He said he was not certain where the alignment would be, but it will have to be far enough out to save the trees. Relative to the view from Poppy he said the speaker was correct that one would be able to look over the two story single family homes and see the three Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 12, ~60~ story home silhouetted. The street will be remain as it presently is, except that the curb will come back in. In response to Com. Wong's question ifa wait list existed for Kennedy Jr. High, Mr. Piasecki said that the city could talk with the school district and communicate the residents' concerns about school attendance for their children, and stress the importance of keeping the children in whatever school they are presently in, to find out if the school district can accommodate those requests; but the city has no control over the issue. Yalan Mao, Whiteflower Court, said she was concerned about privacy issues and agreed with the speaker's view, and would like to have those borderline houses be 20 feet away and also consider the window placement changed for privacy. She said she expressed her concerns at the last meeting and hoped the city would support the residents. Alla Khodorkovsky, 7308 Rainbow, No. 7, said she had daughters in school and did not want to disturb the children by changing schools. She said that she felt $500 in moving costs was not enough, and that the residents did not have a lot of money to absorb the moving costs themselves. Maksim Likharev, 7316 Rainbow, No. B, said he agreed with the concern expressed about changing schools. Barbara Johns, 1272 Poppy Way, spoke in favor of the project, noting that she felt something would go in the lot next door, and hoped for a project similar to the proposed one. She said she felt it was an ideal layout, although she would prefer to have a park included. She said she liked the project and the developers had worked with her to listen to her concerns about the three story buildings, and reduced them to two story, and eliminated the side windows. Dennis Whitaker didmot--s~ who had submitted a speaker card earlier, did not speak as he had left the meeting due to a commitment. An unidentified female speaker referred to the relocation package and asked what authority the city had relative to the proposal. Mr. Piasecki said he felt the city, ultimately the City Council, would have the authority to establish the reasonable requirements for helping tenants find comparable housing in the area, and relocation assistance; or to send them back to the Housing Commission to figure out what is a reasonable number. He said options for the Planning Commission include asking the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance to answer the first fundamental question if the school district is willing and able to accommodate those students through high school; if they are outside the district, it would be harder, but within the CUSD or FUHSD if the district is able to accommodate that, that seems to answer one fundamental question. Mr. Piasecki emphasized that the city does not have any authority with the school districts, they can only ask them. The applicant can address the issue if they would be willing to sit down and go through these points that were presented to them as well as the city. Some of the other issues were fundamental issues related to the project from surrounding property owners; the impacts are known, the visibilities are known, and they probably present some additional information on setbacks, how much trees are going to be retained, screen out these buildings, there are things they can do to demonstrate whether that is positive or negative. Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 1~, ~66~ In response to Com. Saadati's request for clarification on the BMR, Mr. Piasecki said the BMR program is very definitive; it states a credit is given for existing units since the impacts have presumably already been created; the net impact of the development is the net increase in the number of units. If the 15% was applied to the entire project, there would be a disincentive to do any redevelopment of any sites because of the high cost; each BMR unit in this category is probably a subsidy of $.5 million each, hence it is not inexpensive to provide BMR housing units, which are the current rules. He said the applicant has been working under that number; and staff has asked they increase it to 20% in deference to the policy in the current General Plan; that goes from 2 to 3 units, which amounts to $.5 million to provide that additional unit. Relative to the question if the existing project was demolished entirely and lay fallow for a couple of years, he said he would refer to the BMR manual to see how it is handled. He said there may be a certain amount of time given for credit for existing units. In response to Com. Saadati's question if it had been applied to other development, Mr. Piasecki recalled the small project on Rodriguez with two existing houses that received credit for both from the BMR and also from the standpoint of the park dedication fees, another fee that is credited based on the existing units. He said it was not a frequent occurrence. He noted that there was another possibility of the Villa Serra apartments doing something similar, the owner has withdrawn that request temporarily, and that would be treated the same. Mr. Piasecki said that a previous speaker's reference to the state requirements for three months of rent subsidy, was applicable to when low income tenants are forced to require to leave a deficient unit in terms of livability standards. He said he was not familiar with that standard, and would investigate it further. Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Saadati said he understood the concerns raised about the schools and noted the school session is ending in approximately a month. He said he felt it would be appropriate to continue the item and address some other issues and find a middle ground. He said he also had two children and said the impact on the children is the important thing to consider when considering moving. The community has stressed a lot of emphasis on the impacts, yet the developer has rights also. Com. Saadati said the development is pleasing, denser, has for sale and for rent housing which is consistent with what the developers are encouraged to provide. He said he was hopeful that continuing the item would allow time to resolve many of the issues. Com. Corr said that staffwas correct that the Planning Commission and city does not have control over the school districts; there are two different school districts to deal with and operate independently from one another. He encouraged communication with the school districts to see the project goes forward, and if some consideration could be given to those parents of the students to continue to attend the schools they would like to attend. He said he also felt that depending on where a family ends up living, it will have a greater impact on what school they want to go to than just the particular channel they are in right now. Because if you move far away; it isn't convenient to go to school clear across town; you would rather go to school in the neighborhood where you are and where your friends and neighbors are going; which is what they are doing today, so it would be wonderful if all these families would be able to relocate within the attendance area they are in. There are not a lot of apartment units in the Regnart attendance area but the people in this community in that area tend to want to get into that channel taking them through Kennedy to Monta Vista High School and there are a number of options that would allow them to do that. He said the comments heard related to the tenants, the existing conditions and the relocation problem, Plannlng Comm[sslon Minutes 11 May 12, 2003 not to the project itself. Some people spoke against the project in terms of the 10 foot setbacks, but otherwise felt the project was an attractive looking project. However, there appears to be a perceived problem regarding communication with the residents and their just being brought into the discussion. He noted that there have been meetings with the Housing Commission and a number of discussions about how to work out a relocation plan, but they didn't involve the people who were involved, but involved those at other levels. Com. Corr said he supported the notion to take more time to work with the community of people to talk about what the provisions of the relocation plan would be. The BMR discussion was accurate; those are the rules, and although he would like to see more units, he would support it. Relative to the parking issue, there has been discussion that when there is planned development or mixed use development, there is no particular updated parking ordinance for that. There is a need for one and he said they should move in that direction. Com. Corr addressed the issue of the pedestrian access, stating that the street could logically go through the development and would be like any other neighborhood in the city with a street passing through, with people walking up and down the street. He said there is a problem if it is considered an enclave and does not go in there. He said he supported the plan as proposed. In terms of the comment about the village green, he said the .61 acres is open space and not large enough to consider a park. Com. Corr said that in conclusion he supported what was happening, but felt more time was needed to work with the community and work out some of the issues. Com. Wong said he was in favor of continuing the item; and expressed his appreciation to the applicant and the public for providing their input. He said it was clear there is a concern about the schools and relocation plan. He said the project itself is well designed, and he felt that they could work with CUSD and FUHSD and see if they could accommodate the 24 elementary school students and the 6 high school students. He said he understood the residents' feelings as he had a daughter who would eventually attend Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High. Relative to the parking, he said he concurred with Com. Corr that there should be a policy regarding parking in planned developments and mixed use developments. He said he felt that for three and four bedroom units there would be at least two or three cars, and 2.8 was not practical, and would be pleased if more spaces were added. Relative to tenant relocation, it is a difficult situation and he said he understood why the applicant waited until the last minute because having to be relocated is a very touchy subject. Now that the residents are aware, he said it would be beneficial to have them provide their input to the Housing Commission because their lives are being affected and they disagree with the current relocation plan. He said he hoped they would send e-mails and send more suggestions to city staff and suggest ways to improve it. Relative to the BMR, the plans are already set, and although he wished it could be changed, an entire complex is being demolished and building a brand new one, and even though the applicant bumped it up to three, he said he still found it difficult. He said he differed from staff relative to emergency vehicle access; if emergency access is needed, that is fine. Pedestrian access should be closed off at it is private property. Com. Wong urged the applicant to work with the residents on Wildflower and Poppy as well to address their concerns. He said he was moved by the public input and understood their concerns, especially the student Peter from Kennedy Middle School. Com. Miller said he supported a continuance of the item, since there were many unresolved issues that need to be resolved before moving forward. He said the overriding issue is what happens with the relocation plan and where people go. Kennedy Middle is a problem, which is why they are dividing the district up, hopefully re!at~;': t: the elementary school and the high school will not be ixsues. He said he concurred with other Planning Commissioners' comments; it is unfortunate that the meetings did not take place sooner with the residents since it is clear that these issues might have been solved sooner. He said the project was a well designed project and he liked the Planning Commlss;on Minutes 15 May 1~,, ~,00~} architecture; the circulation flows very well, and given that it is tight space, it still has lots of landscaping and open space and the design of the buildings are such that you don't feel closed in. Relative to the pedestrian access, he said he was unsure since he understood the walkability issue, but felt it would not be a major effort to go around the project to get from one side to the other and it is ~ot clear why people would want to walk though the project in the first place. Com. Miller said he was also sensitive to Com. Wong's comment that it is private property, which was not the same as a single family neighborhood where the streets are not private property, but are public property. He said he was in favor of the project, and relative to the concept, would like the applicants to work with the residents more and with staff in terms of resolving some of the issues. Chair Chen said she liked the project, which was well designed, and also provides the BMR units the community needs and also increases the number of houses. She said she welcomed the project to Cupertino. She expressed concern about the pedestrian path being open to the public, noting that it was private property and there would be a liability issue. She said she was also concerned about the school issue and the setbacks which should be addressed as well. Chair Chen said she supported continuing the item to allow the applicant time to work on outreach solutions. Com. Corr said that following up on Com. Miller's comments about the involvement of the community, he felt the developer should be commended. Some issues have come up where the residents said they didn't know what was going on, and Com. Miller made the comment that this is an incomplete process and the last group has just been involved and more time is needed for that. He said the applicant has been a good job in involving the greater community, but that it is just not finished yet. Com. Miller said he was not implying that the applicants had not done a adequate job on outreach to the community at large, but he was aware that it took place, and he concurred with Com. Corr relative to the issue. He said it was unfortunate that for whatever reasons, the residents weren't involved sooner. Mr. Moss said he was agreeable to continuing the item to address the issues further. Relative to the school issues, he said the relocation plan could be revisited as well. He said he preferred if possible to segregate those two issues from the issue of the project relative to the site plan, architecture, density and other typical issues and have them reviewed at another meeting, and vote on the other issues this evening. The school and relocation issues could be discussed at another meeting. Mr. Piasecki said the fundamental other issue is the setback issue, which needs further study. The suggestion discussed is a radical change to the plan and requires certain removal of the driveway and the concurrence of the fire department, lfthe applicant also wishes to remove the pedestrian connection, it should be taken out and staff would recommend denial of the whole project on that basis. He said he had a problem with developments like this, if pedestrian access through there can be provided, if it is intended to create enclaves, staff would rather put public streets in these situations so that people feel more comfortable with the conventional public street access arrangement. He said staff is flexible and tries to accommodate the project and then they want to be turned into an enclave and he said he felt it is not good for integrated projects with the surrounding fabric of the neighborhood. Mr. Piasecki said he felt strongly about it but was not opposed to putting hours through which one can walk through there, such as daylight hours only wlfich is what is done for parks in some cases; but to completely eliminate it would be the wrong Plannlng Commlsslon Minutes I~ May 12, 2003 thing to do. He said staff would recommend denial of the project in that case. He said he would like the opportunity to go back and restudy the setback issue. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Wong moved to continue the application to May 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Com. Corr Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSI/~ESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held since the last report. Housing Committee: No meeting held since the last report. Mayor's Breakfast:. Chair Chen said she would attend the May 20th meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COM34UNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reminded those present of the joint study session with the City Council on Monday, May 19~h at 5:00 p.m. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the joint study session with City Council on Monday, May 19th at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: May 27, 2003