Loading...
PC 07-13-92 - �.��� CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA - 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINIITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JIILY 13, 1992 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Austin Commissioners Absent: Chair Fazekas Commissioner Mahoney ( Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of , Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner r Michele Bjurman, Planner II Tom Robillard, Planner II � Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator � APPROVAL OF MINIITEB: MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 1992, as presented SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 3-0 ABSENT: Fazekas, Mahoney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONB: No discussion POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMB: '� Item 2: At�plication 3-TM-92: Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of August 10, 1992. Item 3: ApAlication 2-Z-92: Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 1992. � Item 4: Apt�lication 5-U-90: Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 1992. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue item 2 to August 10, 1992 and Items 3& 4 to July 27, 1992. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 3-0 ABSENT: Coms. Fazekas, Mahoney PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONB: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): 4-U-92 Applicant: Bill & Amalia lnc. Property Owner: Cali-Financial Management Project Location: 10385 S. DeAnza Blvd. USE PERMIT for an existing restaurant with full service bar. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report { noting the proposal is for a separate bar facility within an existing restaurant. She stated the site was evaluated for parking and noted there has been a parking deficiency since the center's f irst Use Permit . Ms . Bj urman noted a condition has been placed in the Model Resolution requiring re-evaluation of the Use Permit should parking become a concern. She stated the applicant is proposing 13 of the 128 seats within the existing restaurant to be � applied to the bar activity. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. She noted staff is recommending approval. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Bjurman stated if landscaping was put in place it would eliminate approximately 20 to 30 parking spaces on site. She noted the curb cuts were revie�wed by the Traffic Engineer and no comments were made. Com. Austin recommended condition 2 be changed to reflect 25� as opposed to 49�. In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Cowan stated the Use Permit will apply to the building itself. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Demitre Rizos stated there are no plans to expand the bar service. Vice Chair Mann closed the public hearing. Com. Mackenzie concurred with Com. Austin regarding condition 2. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of application 4- U-92 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with a modification to Cond. 2, change to 25 percent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -' Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 3 SECOND: Com. Mackenzie VOTE: Passed 3-0 ABSENT: Fazekas, Mahoney 5. APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC � HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan. SUBJECTS: Mineral Resources, Housing, Implementation Measures, Minor Modification of Preliminary Planning Commission Recommendation, Land Use Map. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell outlined the process of the hearing. Mineral Resources � Ms. Wordell noted that Stevens Creek Quarry did submit comments in writing, a copy of which was submitted to the Commissioners. Ms. Wordell presented a site plan map outlining the mineral resource sites within the City and the sphere of influence. She noted there are MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 designations within City limits. She noted the policies staff suggest reflect the Mineral Resources within the City limits, as well as the urban service area. As these areas are not compatible with urban uses staff does not recommend the City � direct policies to the conservation and extraction in these areas. She noted the policies reflect that areas outside the City limits would be more appropriate for conservation and extraction. Ms. Wordell explained that if extraction did occur within the City limits it should not exceed existing noise and traffic levels. Ms. Wordell reviewed the new policies and strategies as outlined in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Beth Hamilton, representing Kaiser Cement, noted she did submit � written comments outlining the concerns of Kaiser Cement regarding the proposed policies. She feels the policies will not be approved by SMRA and there are significant impacts associated with the proposed policies. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Hamilton stated they did submit proposed policies to staff. She stated the proposal submitted suggested that the City refer to the particular jurisdictions for traffic and noise problems as opposed to having an established standard. She stated the City is prohibiting extraction as opposed to protecting extraction. She feels this is not consistent with SMRA policies. Ms. Wordell stated there has been a history from the citizens and elected official of the City to the County to not intensify the use in the quarries. She noted the City has acknowledged that the mineral resources are valuable, but do not want the impacts to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 4 become more severe. She stated if the City does not adopt policies of SMRA there is no recourse. Ms. Hamilton stated they have concerns about what State Law requires in terms of the General Plan Resources Management Policies. She noted Kaiser has no present intent to mine Bryan Canyon. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question regarding preservation, Ms. Hamilton stated the issue is preserving the availability of the resources. Ms. Wordell outlined areas which could be identified as new areas for Mineral extraction. She stated it is staff's recommendation that it is more appropriate for mineral extraction to take place outside the city limits. Vice Chair Mann closed the public hearing. Com. Austin noted she would support the revised policies as written in the staff report.. Hous inct Planning Director Cowan stated there are two general topics for discussion, one is the concept of the Jobs/Housing balance. He noted the Council looked at the 1.48 ratio recommended by the Planning Commission and felt it is more important to look at the built form of the Community rather than a number. He noted the Council has not agreed on a final growth limit for the major companies. The other topic of discussion is housing mitigation needs. He noted this has been reviewed by the Affordable Housing Committee . Ms. Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator, explained the number of housing units the State is requiring. Ms. Norling outlined charts explaining the demand for housing with the different types of development. In response to Com. Mackenzie's concerns, Mr. Cowan stated the formula ABAG use is different from the formula used in the nexus study and this explains the difference in the number of units required. Ms. Norling presented a chart outlining the Affordable Housing Committee Consensus Points. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Norling stated the City is looking at ways of writing down the cost of affordable units, waiving fees is a way of doing this. Ms. Norling went through the Affordable Housing Committee recommendations and the Council's comments as outlined in the staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 5 report. Comments on Recommendation #1: Com. Austin expressed concern about the number of housing units � required and the City receiving no credit for the Junior College. Mr. Cowan noted the City has no authority over the school district or the Junior College. Comments on Recommendation #2: Ms. Norling stated staff recommends a 15� nexus. She noted the City will also be looking at other issues to meet affordable � housing needs. Comments on Recommendation #3: Ms. Norling noted the Council would like to see mixed incomes within the one project. Regarding the affordability to be maintained for at least 50 years, Ms. Norling stated the Council expressed concern about livable conditions after 30 or 40 years. Ms. Norling stated she wou�d not be concerned about this if the units were maintained. She noted the land would be in ownership of a non-prof it agency who will maintain the units long term. She noted the City may become involved in subsidizing these affordable units, by waiving fees. Comments on Recommendation #4: In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Norling stated the conversion is to take an existing apartment complex and make some of the units af f ordable . Comments on Recommendation #5: Ms. Norling stated the in-lieu fee would be an option and used instead of providing housing. Comments on Recommendation #6: Ms. Norling noted the park fee is the largest fee the developers have to pay and this would be waived. She noted the Affordable Housing Committee did not look at the ancillary issues. Mr. Cowan noted the Planning Commission did address these issues. Comments on Recommendation #7: Ms. Norling noted that development of office/R&D projects should require a concurrent application for housing. She noted the people PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 6 who will qualify for the affordable housing units will be discussed further. Comments on Recommendation #8: Ms. Norling stated the goal is to encouraqe housing to be built close to job sites and credit given the closer the units are to the jobs. She noted Council suggested that this be studied. Com. Austin stated recommendation #8 will be difficult to legislate. Comments on Recommendation #9: Ms. Norling stated it is important to involve the public when discussing affordable housing. She noted priority process will be given to applications developing affordable units. Comments on Recommendation #10: Ms. Norling stated the goal is to locate housing on site or in areas which could be designated for higher density housing. Comments on Recommendation #11: Ms. Norling stated industrial areas which are not zoned residential at present could be zoned to allow 4-8 units per acre. Mr. Cowan stated the optimum density may be 22-28 units per acre, but the reason for the 4-8 units per acre is not to create a windfall for the land owner. He noted the companies will be given credit which can be transferred to other sites. Comments on Recommendation #12: Com. Mann stated that higher density zoning would make the units more affordable. Mr. Cowan explained the zoning noting that each area zoned would have a cap and this would be reviewed annually. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Lois Warburton, 11001 Lucky Oak St., representing League of Women Voters, addressed the League's commitment to affordable housing within the City. She noted low and moderate housing should be planned as part of all planned development. Ms. Warburton outlined the League of Women Voters recommendations regarding residential development and the jobs/housing balance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES � Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 7 Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, noted many Business, City and Community representatives have worked together to represent the interest of the Community. He noted Tandem has never had to produce housing. He stated Cupertino is pursuing an unprecedented agreement. He stated other Communities require fees as opposed to � housing. He stated there is a need for affordable housing within the City, but Tandem has reservations about recommendations raised by the Affordable Housing Committee. He expressed concern about existing, as well as future development credits being conditioned to provide housing. He feels in reality there is a 30 percent nexus requirement of the major companies. He expressed concern regarding the number of affordable units required in a project. Regarding density, Mr. Hailey stated there does need to be density ranges. He feels an in-lieu fee should be set and spoke in support of the $5 cap if the 15� nexus is actually proposed. He expressed ' concern about the 20� affordability and noted Tandem would have to subsidize the affordable housing to attract buyers. Mr. Hailey feels that the credits given for location of units should be encouraged. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Hailey stated the requirement is 15�, but they are all affordable units. He stated Tandem cannot support this recommendation at this time. Mr. Glenn Barber, 10257 Vista Knoll, Apple Computer, stated providing housing has never been the responsibility of corporations and he still believes they should not have to provide the housing. He noted Apple does recognize the jobs/housing imbalance, and Apple along with the City will attempt to provide housing. He stated Apple would like to have an alternative when this cannot be done, such as an in-lieu fee to be used in combination of providing housing. Mr. Barber stated the requirements should be geared toward the 15� nexus and there should be significant limitations on the ratio between affordable and market rate housing. He stated Apple Computer does not want to get into developing housing. With regards to units built by the companies, he feels being housed by employees is not a reality. Com. Mann stated there are many ways in which to provide housing. In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Barber stated there needs to be an alternative if housing cannot be provided. Mr. Phil Zeitman, CURB, acknowledged the Apple Computer Executive Management for their willingness to work with the City regarding housing. He noted that CURB sees a need for affordable housing units in the City. He noted all the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Committee are tied in with the additional growth required of the maj or Companies . He stated CURB does not feel that this should be the case. He noted housing should not be the only criteria in the growth factor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 8 Ms. Kendal Blau, OAKS, stated that it is important that there should be housing in which employees can live. She also noted it is important that the City and Community recognize and reward the Companies in the City for their participation in this process. She feels it is in the best interest of businesses to supply the housing needed. She noted she would like to see a wish list from the major companies on what they could provide. Dr. Beverley Bryant, Executive Director, Silicon Valley NAIOP, stated they have many concerns regarding the affordable housing issue. She noted they are concerned about the state of the economy of the State and the County and addressed SB434. She stated the City would be wise to follow the progress of S8434 and look at this in particular relationship to the affordable housing requirements. She stated the number of affordable housing units required needs to be addressed as well as other types of fees. She stated NAIOP are concerned about linking particular fees to past promises from the City regarding growth. Mr. John Sobrato, 10600 De Anza Blvd., stated the City must have realistic affordable housing requirements and noted the requirement of 96 percent below market rate is not a realistic number. He noted any affordable housing projects in process in other cities are subsidized by the City. He addressed the tax credits and State bond financing. He stated the Planning Commission should consider a range of densities as well as a range of financial solutions. Mr. Sobrato stated the park fee waivers will be essential. He noted a high density project will have recreational facilities. Mr. Sobrato presented copies of the State Density Bonus Laws to the Commissioners. He noted it is important to note, that if a density bonus is handed out in an effort of create affordable housing the target of affordability is a minimum period of 10 years. If the City provides financial assistance the time period is 30 years. He feels the 50 years, as suggested by the Affordable Housing Committee, is not realistic. He suggested 10 years. Mr. Sobrato presented a chart outlining the proposed in-lieu fee cap noting Cupertino's is very high. He stated the in-lieu fee requirement for housing should only apply to square footage over and above the General Plan build out. Ms. Susan Mirch-Kretschmann, 20568 Blossom Lane, explained how the 15� nexus was arrived at. She noted that the major companies in the City own much of the vacant land and the compromise was the 15� as suggested by the Affordable Housing Committee. She explained projects built by non-profit organizations. She stated units need to be provided for low income families. She noted SB434, as addressed by Dr. Bryant, will probably not make it. Ms. Kretschmann noted most groups do support the concept of affordable housing. She feels the units need to be permanently affordable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 9 The Commissioners went through the Affordable Housing Committee recommendations and made the following comments: Comments on #1. i Com. Austin stated that mitigation should be for all new development as recommended by staff. Planning Director Cowan asked if the Committed square footage should be mitigated? He noted this will be discussed further with the Affordable Housing Committee. Com. Mackenzie suggested a two tier system, charging the additional 2 million square feet at a higher rate. He stated he would like to maintain the jobs/housing ratio established by the Planning Commission. There was a consensus of the Commission that there should be housing mitigation on any growth. Com. Mackenzie stated once what is allowed in the existing General Plan is used up, then they should look at the jobs/housing balance at that time. Ms. Norling stated the programs for implementing the mitigation will be reviewed and if they are not successful the mitigation will have to be changed. Consensus to support #2. Comments on #3: Ms. Norling stated she would like to see the time period to maintain affordability for 50 years. Com. Austin and Vice Chair Mann spoke in support of the 50 year time period. Com. Mackenzie suggested, regarding the windfall, let the developer keep title to the land. ' Consensus on #4. Comments on #5: Com. Austin stated she would like to see a range for the in-lieu fees . The Commissioners discussed the in-lieu fees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 10 Comments on #6: Com. Austin stated park fees should be waived for low and very low only. Mr. Cowan stated this recommendation is an existing General Plan policy. Consensus to waive fees from the moderate income level. Consensus on #7. Comments on #8: In response to Com. Mann's concerns, Mr. Cowan stated they will bring back examples on how the formula works. Com. Mackenzie suggested looking at walking distance. Consensus on #9 and #10. Comments on #11: Com. Austin stated she would like a tour of the BMR projects or pictures to see the types of zones and densities. Mr. Cowan stated staff will provide more information. Comments on #12: Com. Austin stated the 3600 units are too many. Com. Mackenzie stated the additional square footage requested is based on the corporations being able to control traffic. This hearing was continued to July 27, 1992. OLD BIISINE88: 6. Application No(s): 1-U-92 and 1-EA-92 Applicant: Jack In The Box Property Owner: Richard and Anita Messina Property Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Blvd. USE PERMIT to demolish an existing building and construct a new 2,600 s.f. fast-food restaurant. Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report. He noted City Council granted the applicant's request that a redesign of the project be returned to the Planning Commission and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page li ASAC. Mr. Robillard reviewed ASAC's comments as outlined in the staff report. He noted staff had concerns regarding General Plan Policy 2-52 and traffic. He noted no further traffic study reports were submitted to staff. He noted staff does not recommend approval subject to the heavy traffic it will produce and � incompatibility to General Plan policy 2-52. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Robillard outlined the color and design of the building. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing Jack In The Box, noted the seating has been reduced to bring into conformance with the required parking. Ms. Fanelli outlined the modif ications to the design and landscaping and presented a drawing of the streetscape. She noted traffic studies were conducted and � requirements were met. Ms. Fanelli submitted the results of additional traffic studies. She pointed out that the visions and goals report allows for additional traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Fanelli addressed Policy 2-52 noting goals of the City have changed since this policy was adopted. Ms. Fanelli outlined what the proposed Jack In The Box will provide for the City and feels it will be an asset to the City. ' Mr. Joe LeBianco, Regional Manager, Jack In The Box, stated they have worked hard on the design of this building. He noted they are confident that these type of facilities will enhance communities and provide affordable eating facilities. He feels they are conforming to General Plan Policy 2-52 because they are encouraging sit-down eating as opposed to take out. He stated they request approval. Mr. Maury Horton, Good Earth Restaurant, stated that placing the Jack In The Box in this location will prohibit further development in the area. He stated the property owner of the adjacent office � building and Good Earth would like to combine with the property in question in the future. He noted in the past three years the number of seats for lower cost restaurants in the area has � increased significantly. He feels the proposal is not working towards the long term goal of the General Plan. Mr. Horton � expressed concern about traffic impacts and the overflow parking which may occur. He noted the traffic circulation also needs to be ( addressed. He stated the design of the building has not improved. Owner of 7-il, 10033 Saich Way, expressed concern about the parking at this site. He addressed a petition which was signed by business owners on Stevens Creek. Vice Chair Mann closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Robillard stated staff's concerns about the design is that the design is trendy and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 12 will go out of style quickly. Mr. Cowan stated if there was a decision made in the future to reconfigure Stevens Creek, this building maybe a problem? Com. Austin stated this is the same building which was rejected by the Planning Commission in the past. She has concerns that this will not fit in with the Stevens Creek Parkway concept and does not fit in with the surround buildings. She stated she would not support this application at this time. Com. Mann noted she would need to see traffic reports before making a decision of approval. Mr. Cowan noted the Use Permit is for a fast food restaurant and the traffic count will be high. Com. Mann expressed concern about the lack of parking and the traffic circulation. She noted she is not in support of the architecture and the design does not fit in with General Plan. Com. Mackenzie expressed concern about traffic congestion at Saich Way. He noted parking is also a concern. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question, Ms. Wordell noted that this site would be considered for mixed-use/residential when the new General Plan is implemented. Com. Mackenzie stated no fast food restaurant would be appropriate for this site because of traffic circulation. Ms. Fanelli stated they have been opened to any style of architecture and it would be helpful to know what the Planning Commission want. She noted the Planning Commission can control traffic through the Use Permit process and feels the proposed Jack In The Box does belong on this site and does not think anything better will come along. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to send a minute order to the City Council recommending denial of application 1-U-92 subject to the findings and conclusion of the hearing with the following modification: Finding 1 to be deleted; add an additional finding that parking is inadequate. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 3-0 ABSENT: Coms, Fazekas, Mahoney City Planner Wordell noted that the Planning Commission may wish to review General Plan Policy 2-52. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 13, 1992 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS 7. Zoning Ordinance Codification: Priorities for Stage II Implementation. � Planning Director Cowan outlined the changes. It was a consensus of the Commission to reverse numbers 2 and 3 and send to the Council REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONt - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT: - None 1 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGB: � — None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 at 6:45 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, % � � /' Cat erine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary i Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 �s/ Darvl Fazekas � Daryl Fazekas, Chairman I Attest: /s/ Dorothy Cornelius Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk