Loading...
PC 07-27-92 .. C��� CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA � 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 KINUTLS OF THE REGULAR lsEETING OF THE PLANNING COIYII�ISSION HELD ON JULY 27, 1992 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Fazekas Vice Chairperson Mann Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Marilyn Norling, Housing Coordinator 1�iPPROV2iL OF IrIII�itl'PBS : MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 1992, as presented SECOND: Com. Mann VOTE: Passed 3-0 ABSTAIN: Coms. Mahoney, Fazekas POSTPONEMSI�ITS OR NEW AGENDA ITElsS : 3. Annlication 4-V-92 - Continued to Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1992. 4. A,�glication 5-U-92 - Continued to Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1992. I MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue items 3& 4 to the � meeting of August 10, 1992. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 5-0 WRITTEN CO1�II�JNIC1�iTIONS : � No discussion ORAL COI�II�i(JZiIC1�iTIONS : - None CONSENT CA.LENDAR: - None PLANNING COM�IISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HF�RINGS : 1. Application No(s): 2-Z-92 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: City of Cupertino Project Location: East side of Franco Court, approximately 150 ft. south of Homestead Road. REZONING of .23 acres from undetermined designation to (BA) Public Building Zoning. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting that the property involved was never zoned and should be zoned Public Building Zoning. The public hearing was opened. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to recommend approval of 2-Z-92 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 5-0 2. APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan. SUBJECT: Housing, Implementation Measures, Minor Modification of Preliminary Planning Commission Recommendation, Land Use Map Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff • report noting that additional discussion was requested at the last hearing on two housing issues: The trip credit system for providing housing near job centers, and examples of housing densities. Mr. Cowan noted the Council has not made a commitment regarding the jobs/housing ratio recommended by the Affordable Housing Committee. He noted the Council wants to see community identity before making any decisions. Mr. Cowan noted that new housing over and above the trip allocation will not balance the jobs/housing. The other issue is the Level of Service. The Commissioners discussed the options to mitigate the number of housing units that would result from additional development. The chart was outlined in the staff report. PI�ANNING COMlSISSION KINU'PES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Cowan explained State requirements for providing housing. He pointed out that if the 1.48 jobs/housing ratio is to be maintained, level of service D will be exceeded. Com . Austin noted that traf f ic wi 11 increase no matter what and feels that providing housing will relieve some of the traffic concerns. Com. Mahoney stated that the additional 2 million square feet will only be developed if traffic is mitigated. Com. Mackenzie stated it is difficult to get people out of their cars. He noted the 1000 extra units should replace something. He suggested restricting the number of acres dedicated to retail. Chr. Fazekas suggested not transferring trips from one office building to another, but give credit toward housing. Mr. Cowan noted that the City has a policy for transferring trips. He also noted that if the 1.48 jobs/housing ratio is to be maintained this will effect the level of service. Com. Mann stated that traffic and jobs/housing will drive the General Plan and the Commission will have to prioritize. In response to Com. Fazekas' question, Ms. Norling stated the 1.48 ratio is realistic because they have the available sites. The Commissioners discussed the 1.48 ratio. Com. Mackenzie stated the jobs/housing ratio should not get any worse that the 1.48 ratio. There was a consensus of the Commission to maintain the 1.48 ratio and keep the level of service at D and E at the crossroads. The additional 2 million square feet is contingent on the above two � polices. Ms. Wordell outlined policy 11 of the Housing Mitigation policies. She noted the Commissioners had questions regarding higher density and design. Ms. Norling presented a slide presentation outlining different densities and designs within the City as well as surrounding cities. Ms. Wordell reviewed the site plan map and identified the different residential and commercial areas. She also presented a map outlining the allocation of housing units above the existing General Plan by neighborhood. PI�NNING COMKISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Cowan noted the intent of Policy 11 is to give the land owner incentive to build more housing in conjunction with job producers. He feels this will give the job producers some leverage. He noted the Affordable Housing Committee did recommend option 2 on the chart presented earlier. The Commissioners discussed the in-lieu fee. Ms. Norling stated the Affordable Housing Committee recommend an in-lieu fee, but it should be high enough to give incentives to build housing. She noted the Committee is not recommending a figure at this time. The Commissioners discussed the two tier approach as suggested by Com. Mackenzie at a previous hearing. Com. Mahoney stated he does not support the two tier approach and noted the additional growth will be driven by traffic. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, questioned if the numbers used by ABAG are the most recent numbers. He noted the lay-offs in Cupertino has changed the numbers. Planning Director Cowan noted the numbers used are up-to-date. Mr. Sobrato stated the average square foot per person has increased, therefore there are fewer persons per office space and staff need to look at this. He noted the Congestion Management Agency has determined that LOS E is acceptable in the region . With regard to housing on site , Mr . Sobrato stated it would be dif f icult to have employees only, living on-site. Mr. Sobrato stated the zoning of 4-8 units per acre will affect property values. He also noted it is necessary to have reasonable in-lieu fees. He stated that $17,000 per unit should be considered. He noted the major � companies could endorse the 15� nexus and believe that the low income need is unfulfilled in the community. Ms. Norling stated the Affordable Housing Committee requested a 30� nexus, but employers requested a 15� nexus. She noted the Affordable Housing Committee agreed to the 15�, but stated that the companies must produce the same number of housing units to be affordable as market rate. Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, expressed concern about the 30� nexus. He spok� in support of the 20� affordable and 80� market rate. He feels the 15� nexus is really a 30$ nexus. He noted Tandem does not support the 2 tier approach because of the effect it will have on the property they purchased two years ago. Regarding the 4-8 units per acre, Mr. Hailey stated this is a PLANNING COMl�IISSION I�ZNUTES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 5 timing issue. He stated that Companies may grow more rapidly than property owners are willing to develop and Tandem does not support this policy. Mr. Hailey commented on the Natural Resources Mitigation Plan which will give credit to employees living near the work place. He noted that Tandem has been running a van pool for commuters taking Cal-Train and the number has increased. Mr. Hailey commented on the affordability for 20 years. He stated this sends a message to the buyer that his home value will not increase. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Norling stated that the moderate level does require a subsidy. Mr. Dick Rosemeyer, Hewlett Packard, noted the members of the Affordable Housing Sub-Committee. He noted it was staff's recommendation regarding the 4-8 units per acre. Mr. Rosemeyer stated the 1.48 ratio, which is in the existing General Plan, has changed over the years and he would support the 1.48 ratio with a plus or minus, as suggested by Com. Mann earlier. He noted Hewlett Packard supports the 15� nexus. He noted that all the major companies have different interests and it is difficult to ask the companies to come up with one common position. He noted he supports the mitigation fee and would encourage the Affordable Housing Committee to form a panel of experts to come up with the right figure. He noted the Regional Nature of Mitigation issue, as addressed by Mr. Hailey, needs to be looked at. In response to Chr. Fazekas' question regarding the two tier approach, Mr. Rosemeyer stated that Hewlett Packard supports the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Committee. He noted they °support the 15$ nexus and are willing to accept a higher number of affordable housing units. Mr. Mark Kroll, City Center Associates, stated the issue of providing housing is a very complex issue and encouraged the Commission to look at it as an allocation of scarce resources. He noted depending on who buys the units makes them affordable. He • stated higher density is more affordable. He stated the issue of employee housing needs to be looked at further. The resale of affordable units was discussed and Ms. Norling explained how the City handles this. Fr. Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, stated that mitigation measures will be difficult to apply. He questioned what the single family home developers will have to contribute and expressed concern about discrimination. Mr. Cowan noted that the Affordable Housing Committee will be meeting to discuss mitigation for retail and residential developers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 6 The public hearing was closed. The Commissioners went through the Housing Mitigation Polices, as outlined in the staff report, and made the following comments: Policy 1: Apply affordable housing mitigation to new office/industrial development, considering different mitigation requirements for existing and proposed General Plan entitlement. Chr. Fazekas and Com. Mann spoke in favor of the two tier approach. There was a 3-2 vote to reinstate the original wording, as recommended by the Af f ordable Hous ing Committee .( Mann , Fa zekas No ) Policy 2: Require new office/ industrial development to mitigate at least 15� of housing demand by creating 29 units of "employee-affordable housing" for every 100,000 s.f. of office/industrial development, comprised of 23 median/moderate income units, at lease 5 low income units, and 1 market rate unit. Com. Mahoney spoke in support of the 15$ nexus. He supports the 15 market rate units, 1 very low, 1 low income, 5 median income, 6 moderate income. 5-0 vote. Policy 3: Provide ownership units for median/moderate income families at $150,000-$200,000 in 1992 dollars, to be indexed to changes in State Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Federal Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) income guidelines , to remain af fordable for 20 years. Provide rental units for low-income families, which should be sold to an affordable housing management firm and � affordability maintained for at least 50 years. 5-0 vote. PoliCy 4: Allow office/industrial developers to meet a portion of their affordable housing mitigation requirements by buying and convertinq market rate units to affordable units within the City. The converted market rate units shall be replaced with new market rate units. If converted or new units are developed outside the City, the units would count as mitigation only if credit is given by the State Housing and Community Development Department. The City will give the same consideration to companies developing in adjacent cities. PLANNING COM�IISSION MINUTES _ Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 7 Ms. Norling explained that Companies who are located on the border of the City may go into other cities to provide the housing, but should get credit for this. She noted that existing apartment buildings could be purchased and converted to affordable units, and market rate could be developed elsewhere in the City. There was a consensus to add the words "the City limits or a two mile radius of their projects". There was a 5-0 vote in support of the policy with the word changes. Policy 5: Create an in-lieu fee high enough to encourage the building of housing rather than payment of a fee. 5-0 vote. Policy 6: Waive park fees for affordable units. 5-0 vote. Policy 7: Build housing concurrent with office and industrial development, unless there is sufficient housing development within the City to maintain the then-current jobs/housing balance. If sufficient housing projects are underway in the City, companies may request the City to defer a concurrent application for housing, but in no case should such deferral be longer than 18 months. This measure would act as a leveling device to avoid creating periods of excess housing availability, which would negatively affect housing � producers and discourage company participation in housing creation. Ms. Norling stated this gives the City the option to defer development of housing for 18 months. 5-0 vote. Policy 8: Give traffic reduction credits for housing built in close proximity to the employment center. Com. Mahoney stated this policy belongs in the tier system. 5-0 vote to omit policy 8. PLANNING CO1rII�ISSION KINi7TES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 8 Policy 9: Involve the public at the outset when affordable housing projects are proposed. Development projects with affordable units will receive priority processing to streamline the process but must still meet legal noticing requirements. 5-0 vote. Policy 10: Locate housing units on employment center sites or in areas that could be designated for higher density housing, such as: Bubb Road, Bandley Drive, City Center Area, and with 1/4 mile of employment centers. 5-0 vote. Policy 11: Rezone industrial areas at a density of 25-30 dwelling units/acre. Give density credits above that range to job producers with housing mitigation requirements. There was a consensus to add staff recommendation as second paragraph. 5-0 vote. Policy 12: Allow approximately 3,600 units through rezoning, on-site housing and mixed-use development. 5-0 vote to omit policy 12. ,�lementation Measures City Planner Wordell presented the staff report. She noted the implementation section has not been used in the past and now staff is proposing ways to use this section. Ms. Wordell reviewed staff's recommendations, as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Wordell noted the presentation is a combination of existing and new policies. The Commissioners reviewed the high priorities for implementation in 1993 and 1994, made several changes as noted by staff. PLANNING COl�ISSION KINLITSS Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 9 Minor Modifications City Planner Wordell outlined the additional policy on solid waste disposal, proposed by staff, as outlined in the staff report. Consensus to support the additional policy as proposed by staff. Land Use MaR There was a consensus to change Fremont Older School from Public Facilities to Parks. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie moved to continue General Plan discussion to the meeting of August 10, 1992. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 5-0 NEfT BUSINESS: 5. Association of Bay Area Governments Proiect�ons 1992 City Planner Wordell noted that this is an information item for the Planning Commissioners and does not require discussion. Ms. Wordell reviewed the trends as outlined in the staff report. REPORT OF THE PL�iNING COI�ISSION: - None RSPORT OF DIREC'!.'OR OF CO�IIKUNITY DEV$LOPI�ENT : - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSP1�iPSR CLIPPINGS: - None PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 27, 1992 Page 10 ADJOURNHEN'P: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of August 10, 1992 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C`L�s�:.C2�:� 1�l � � r Q;,,(�' C�rine M. Ro�i�Iard, Recordinq Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of August 10, 1992 /s/ Daryl Fazekas Dary Faze as, Chairman Attest: /s/ Doroth Cornelius Doro hy Corne ius, City C erk