Loading...
PC 04-22-92 ., ���'I�CJ-�� CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 22, 1992 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROI.L CALL : Commissioners Present: Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Coinmissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin Commissioners Absent: Chair Fazekas Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Associate Planner Bert Viskovich, Directar of Public Works Blaine Snyder, Director of Finance Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney ORAI� COI�IUNICATION: - None APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan. Subjects: Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Public Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources, Public Health and Safety. LAND USE - Height Restrictions Associate Planner Jung presented a map outlining preliminary � Planning Commission recommendations of the General Plan building heights. He noted the height of the mechanical equipment on the roof is not regulated by height restrictions. He noted the height is allowed to exceed limits with ASAC approval, as written in the existing ordinance. Mr. Jung presented a slide presentation showing heights of buildings within the City. He noted that the Planning Commission may want to consider flexibility in height when considering architectural design. Vice Chair Mann opened the hearing for public input. Mr. Bill Valentine, Architect, HOK, gave a slide presentation outlining building forms and heights. He stated height should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 2 14 ft. floor to floor, noting that there is equipment in the ceilings. Mr. Valentine spoke in favor of a sand pile effect and presented slides outlining this. He explained that the mechanical equipment on the roof can be integrated with the building. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Valentine stated the setback between floors varies as it depends on lighting conditions. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Ln., stated that presentations can be misleading. She stated that a proposed height of 70 ft. at the Tandem site is too high because of the nearby residential neighborhood. Mr. Glen Barbar, Apple Computer Inc., stated critical mass can be achieved when allowing additional height. He stated there are areas in the City that warrant more height and hope the Planning Commission consider these. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, requested that the Planning Commission consider two different height limits in the Apple/Sobrato project as well as the Bandley and Valley Green areas. He stated it is costly to put mechanical equipment in the basement and suggested allowing an additional story if this was required. He requested that the Planning Commission consider 75 ft. for a landrnark building. Mr. Jahn Hailey, Tandem Computer, stated an eight story building can be integrated into the large scale development and urban design. Vice Chair Mann closed the public hearing. Com. Mahoney stated he would support maximum building heights of 60, 75 and 105 feet for the areas defined at a previous hearing. Com. Austin stated the west side of Bandley Dr. should be 3 stories ' maximum and the east side should be four stories maximum. She stated 60 and 75 feet are acceptable in the Tandem area. Com. Mackenzie concurred with Com. Mahoney regarding maximum heights, but feels that maximum stories need to be discussed to avoid putting in as rnany stories as possible. Mr. Cowan stated the Planning Commission needs to consider the reference point for measurement. He noted staff recommends the point of reference should be the finished curb height. The Commissioners discussed a landmark building and agreed that the De Anza Study area would be appropriate for a landmark building �aith a height of 75 ft. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 3 75 feet and 105 feet maximum at the 280 freeway by Tandem area. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) West of Bandley Dr. 3 story maximum, east of Bandley Dr. 4 story maximum, De Anza Blvd. 4 story expect for the landmark building in the study area. 4-Q (Fazekas absent) Com. Mackenzie stated office height should meet both heiqht and story restrictions. Residential and retail should meet height restrictions only. The Comrnissioners discussed the criteria for landrnark buildings and placinq the mechanical equipment underground. Com. Mann suggested encouraging that the mechanical equipment be placed in the basement. Mr. Jung stated there are ways to screen the roof top equipment from view. Com. Austin stated she would support staff recommendations. Com. Mahoney concurred. Mr. Cowan stated the screening material on the roof top can become part of the architectural detail. Com. Mackenzie suggested a step back of 10 ft for each floor over three stories. He stated this effect reduces the perceived height. Mr. Cowan stated the angles of enclosure will res�lve the issue of perceived height. He suggested encouraging step back for over three stories. Com. Mackenzie stated the goal is to reduce the perceived height. Mr. Jung stated the perceived height issue will be addressed under � building form and height. , Com. Mahoney stated the criteria for a Landmark building should be left as is. Coms. Mann and Austin concurred. The Commissioners addressed the eight story building which Tandern Computer has approval for. Com. Mahoney stated if the area is redesigned, it should be seven stories maximum. Mr. Cowan stated there could be an exception to the Use Permit for the eight story building which is approved. The Commissioners addressed height limits at the heart of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meetinq of April 22, 1992 Page 4 The height limit alonq Stevens Creek is to be 40 ft. maximum. TIERS Mr. Bert Viskovich presented a chart "Tier Evaluation". He stated this chart is an example of how the tier system would work using the existing General Plan as well as above the General Plan request. Mr. Viskovich addressed the peak hour. He stated the issue is the Peak Hour versus the Peak Period. He noted the Planning Commission indicated they did not want to expand the peak period and this needs to be reinforced. In response to Com. Austin's question, regarding flex hours, Mr. Viskovich stated the peak hour will grow, but the question is at what rate should it grow? The Commissioners addressed strategy 5 of the Transportation Policy Recommendations. Mr. Viskovich suggested the rewording of strategy 5. Com. Mackenzie stated the peak hour should not be expanded. He stated strategy 5 should be reworded and promoted to a policy. Mr. Cowan stated staff will work on this and it will be reviewed at the next hearing. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Blaine Snyder, Finance Director, answered questions previously asked of the Commissioners. He stated that 2 or 3 million additional square feet of office in the City is an econornic benefit to the City. He stated the utility tax is not a long term benefit. Mr. Snyder stated the intermediate scenario would generate approximately 21� more revenue than the existing. The increased scenario would generate approximately 117%. The decreased scenario would decrease approximately 160. Mr. Snyder stated that non-residential development generates more revenue, but also costs more. Mr. Snyder stated a"power center" would have economic benefit to the City by providing the sales tax, but the City must have the land to develop such a center. He noted there are no capital expenditures factored into the numbers. He stated as far as site improvements, these are passed on to the developer. Com. Mahoney asked if residential development paid its own way. In response, Mr. Snyder stated it is close. Com. Mahoney requested a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 5 copy of the City's economic statement and Sedqway's statement to compare. Mr. Snyder stated his figures are conservative. Mr. Cowan stated staff will provide updated material for the preferred plan. PP,RKS City Planner Wordell reiterated the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendations regarding parks in existing non-residential areas, a copy of which was submitted to the Commissioners. Mr. Cowan stated the City does give 50� credit for private open space as there is still a need to provide public open space for the residents. He noted that certain elements have to be met to receive the credit. He stated if the developer does provide public open space, they do not have to dedicate the 50�. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern regarding the trail linkages, as written in criteria 3 of the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendations. He stated the last sentence should read "Providing public trail connections may be credited toward park dedication." This was acceptable to the other Commissioners. Ms. Wordell showed a proposed site plan for both Tandem and Hewlett Packard outlining the green areas. She stated the Parks & Recreation Commission were concerned that the property owners will seek credit for these areas, but the Parks & Recreation Commission would like to see trail linkages instead. Mr. Cowan stated the major companies could develop trail linkages. The meeting was opened for public input. Mr. Mark Krvll, City Center Associates, stated that parks are costly to maintain and does not see why the City would want to take , on more parks. He stated private parks should be encouraged. Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, asked why would this policy be different from the current park policy that applies to the other residential areas within the City. He stated security is an issue if public parks are required. He stated the existing park dedication policy should be implemented. Mr. Dick Rosemier, Hewlett Packard, expressed concern about too many requirements that developers will not want a Development Agreement. He outlined the public and private open space areas on the conceptual site plan map of Hewlett Packard. He also noted that security is the rnain issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 6 Mr. John sobrato, Sobrato Development, stated that Cupertino has the highest park dedication fee in Northern California. He expressed concern about developers being able to meet the park requirement as well as the housing requirement. Mr. Phil Zeitman stated he attended the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting regarding this issue and it was clear that open public space is required. He noted the Parks & Recreation Commission were concerned about private open space and still see the need for public open space. The Comrnissioners discussed the difference from the existing policy and the proposed policy. In response to Com. Mahoney's guestion, Ms. Wordell stated the policy proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission is more explicit in wanting public open space as opposed to private open space. Com Mackenzie stated the Commissioners need to look at the currant policy and the Parks & Recreation Commission's proposed policy to see the difference. Mr. Cowan stated staff will supply this. PUBLIC SERVICE Vice Chair Mann stated she has a conflict of interest with Policy 6 and will abstain as she lives within 350 ft. of the fire zone. She handed the meetinq over to Com. Austin. The Commissioners agreed that policy 6 is acceptable. 3-0 (Fazekas absent, Mann abstain). HOUSING City Planner Wordell outlined major housinq recommendations. She stated for the future General Plan, housing would occur in the change areas. She noted 2500 units may be possible in the change areas with redevelopment and other mitigation measures. She stated staff suggest a strong approach in the Housing Element which would state that these areas will be appropriate for residential. She noted this will be irnplemented by arnending the planned ordinance to include standards and guidelines to allow residential uses in the change areas. Ms. Wordell noted that policy 2 relates to an additional 1,000 units beyond the reallocation number. These will be related to mitigation for non-residential development and traffic. Mr. Cowan presented Table 1B and 1C of the Housing General Plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22 1992 Page 7 Policies. He stated the table outlines the result of new developrnent and how rnany new housing units would be required. He stated the existing General Plan Jobs/Housing Ratio is 1.48. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Cowan stated the State requires that the City must provide sites for 2500 housing units of all income levels. Mr. Cowan explained the tables and noted staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the 30 percent mitigation. He noted these fiqures will be used in the EIR. City Planner Wordell went through the Housing General Plan Policies as outlined in the staff report. I. JOBS/HOUSING RATIO Policy: The jobs/housing ratio should be maintained at approximately 1.48 or better. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) II. DENSITY/MIXED USE Policy: Designate the change areas as appropriate for medium to higher density and/or mixed use projects, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units. The Commissioners felt a stronger statement is necessary, for example, "Consider designating change areas to residential only." Ms. Wordell stated staff will work on a policy statement. Com. Mackenzie stated residential should be on Stevens Creek Blvd. between Stelling Road and Saich Way and Torre Ave. to Vallco Parkway. Policy: Consider surplus school and urban church sites for � higher density and mixed use housing. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) B. DENSITY Policies: l. Allow 1,000 new residential units in the change areas and other selected areas through the reallocation of existing General Plan build-out. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) 2. Allow approximately 1,000 additional units if they are provided as housing rnitigation for non-residential development and the traffic level of service is maintained. 3-1 (Austin No, Fazekas absent) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 8 Com. Austin expressed concern about the impact of additional housing units on schools. Ms. Ciddy Wordell stated the School District will provide a demographic study, and also feed back on the impact of residential development in the non-residential areas identified. Mr. Cowan stated the Planning Commission is providing a cap for the EIR. 3. Determine the density in the change areas by requiring the project to conform to development standards and through the specific plan and use permit process. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) 4. Require development of residential properties at the upper limit of the permitted dwelling unit intensity range if the neighborhoods are adequately protected from noise, traffic, light, and visually intrusive effects from the development. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) 5. Encourage higher density housing for affordability. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) 6. Al1ow a density bonus if a transfer of development credit (TDC) program is adopted which allows transfer of potential residential units from one location to another. 4-0 (Fazekas absent) Vice Chair Mann opened the hearing for public input. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, stated the Commission needs to put the jobs/housing balance in perspective, noting it is much better than other surrounding cities. He spoke in favor of usinq the 15 percent rnitigation as opposed to the 30 percent as addressed by Mr. Cowan. He stated the surrounding bedroom communities should be included in the number of housing units required. ' Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, stated housing is the most difficult issue to deal with. He requested that the 3 Million square feet as opposed to the 2 Million be consider as an alternative in the EIR. He stated higher density at specific locations may contribute to overall reduce average vehicle mileaqe. He addressed mass transit noting this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. Mr. Hailey expressed concern about the 30 percent rnitigation as addressed by Mr. Cowan early. Mr. Mark Kroll, City Center Associates, stated if the housinq imbalance is to be solved the City must look at the market when discussing low/moderate housing. He requested that the first word of Policy 4 read "Encourage" as opposed to "Require". He stated if this is required it will result in the development of rental PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting of April 22, 1992 Page 9 housing only. � Fr. Michael Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, expressed concern about policy 2. He-asked if this applies the St. Joseph's of Cupertino Property. City Planner Wordell stated this policy applies to under-utilized surplus sites. Ms. Nancy Burnett, CURB, stated if the City anticipate 2 million square feet of growth this would represent a 48 percent growth overall. She stated this is based on what is on the ground today. She noted if the full amount of housing is met, it means more growth. She stated the Planning Comrnission needs to be careful , when addressing this issue. p,DJpURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 27, 1992 at 6:45 p.rn. Respectfully submitted, _ �o ,� N( �' � Catherine M. Ro i lard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992 ` ,-� . � 'r" �' ' � . .fi� ,� , Dary F ze a, airman Attes : _ GC/ rot y Corne ius, Ci y C er