Loading...
PC 01-28-02CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 28, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staff present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Chairperson Corr (Com. Patnoe arrived at 7:38 p.m.) Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordclk City Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney Chair Corr introduced new Planning Commissioner Taghi Saadati replacing Patrick Kwok. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of'the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as presented Com. Chen Com. Patnoe Com. Saaditi Passed 3-0-1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Com. Auerbach noted receipt of a letter from Lynn Faust relative to tree protection in Cupertino. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: 17-R-01 Dennis Norton 10430 Stern Avenue Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,605 square foot two-story residence with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in floor area ratio of 45%. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2002 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Auerbach moved to postpone Application 17-R-01 to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting Com. Chert Flannin C0mmiggi0n Minuteg z .hnuary ABSENT: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 05-GPA-01, 15-EA-01 City of Cupertino Citywide City-initiated General Plan Amendment to determine possible amendments to or deletion ol' Policy 2-80 as it relates to quasi-public uses. Tentative City Council date: February 18, 2002 ~taff proqontafian; Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report. He emphasized that the application was not a hearing on the Canyon Heights Academy application; the City Council did ask that the Planning Commission consider what impact its recommendation may have on an application in process. Staff is suggesting that it be viewed from the standpoint that if an application is received by thc city, and conforms to the current General Plan, under those circumstances would it bc recommended that the amended or deleted version of Policy 2-80 apply to such an application. Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of Policy 2-80, which allows public and quasi-public projects to apply for rezoning and development permits without amending the General Plan designation for the properly. He reviewed the list of projects which have used Policy 2-80, including churches, fire stations and the Quinlan Center. He noted that changes to Policy 2- 80 would not affect the new library or sports center as the uses were already included in the land use designation that allows that use. Mr. Gilli said that some neighborhood concerns related to thc vagueness of the policy and the possible misinterpretation of the intent; also the potential Ibr projects that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, either with impacts or thc intensity of the project. There is also the potential for a project that may not be at a suitable site, such as in the hillside or important areas of the city such as Vallco or the Crossroads area. On thc existing policy, staff believes that the intent is laid out, that at the zoning level the Planning Commission and City Council had the opportunity to review the prqject and insure its compatibility with the neighborhood, streets and utilities. Staff has created two objectives: (1) That the amended text should not make it unnecessarily difficult for a public or quasi public usc to occupy land if it is appropriately scaled and compatible with the neighborhood; and (2) Thc amendment should reword the policy so that any potential misinterpretation or confi~sion is elilninated. Staff believes it is important to state that any project that uses Policy 2-80 must bc consistent with the remainder of the General Plan, including hillside, hillside protection, and neighborhood protection and urban design. Mr. Gilli reviewed the options as outlined in the staff report, including deletion ol' thc policy; strike out quasi public allowing only Policy 2-80 to apply to a public project; make the policy not usable in the hillsides; it is going to be effective in addressing staff and neighbors concerns but only in the hillside. It is staff's opinion that it will also complicate the process in ways that it is l lannin C0mm/m0n inuteg January ~, not necessary and staff believes that the effect of not applying this policy in the hillside can bc accomplished in the compatibility. Another issue is the appropriateness of the quasi public in Vallco or the Crossroads area, which are areas the city is planning on making a vibrant retail and entertainment center; hence there is a concern that if a large quasi public project occupies any of the land in that area, it could hinder the potential of creating a retail entertainment area. In stal'Fs opinion, the market should prevent quasi public from occupying lands in the retail areas because there are other options. The last option considered is adding criteria to the policy to address thc vagueness and also issues of hillside and neighborhood protection. The goal ol' the proposed amendment is to more clearly state the city's intention with the amendment. I Ic said thc conccpt of an interpretation hearing at the City Council was considered through discussions with thc attorney's office, staff is proposing to remove it and alter the amendment slightly since they do not want to create another process if not necessary. Mr. Gilli distributed a revised Exhibit A. Mr. Gilli discussed the issue of pipelining the project which is not applying the amended policy to a project on file. Staff believes that a complete application that conforms to the existing General Plan should be considered as pipelined if the application is accepted prior to thc City Council adoption of the amendment. Staff recommends adoption of the negative declaration; and approval of the General Plan amendment in accordance with the model resolution and the revised I~;xhibit A; and to recommend to the City Council that pipelining only be considered l'or projects that conform to the existing General Plan. Since it needs to be determined by a person or a body, staW is recommending that the issue of conformance to the existing plan of an application be determined by the Community Development Director in order to be pipelined. In response to a question from Com. Chen relative to a clear definition of prqjects and local benefits, Mr. Gilli said that there was nothing in the local policy to analyze what the local benefits will be; it is possible that they can be looked at in the zoning and use permit process. I lc said in the zoning ordinance there is a list of projects that are allowed in the BQ zone; mainly priwttc, often non-profit, possibly large day care center, private school, or churches. It is a list, not a definition, since there are projects that would fit under quasi public that aren't specifically listcd at this time. In response to Com. Auerbach's question, Mr. Gilli said that the intent of the General Plan was to lay out the framework of development and uses in the city. Mr. Gilli explained that the procedures will require that an applicant who wants to request a General Plan amendment go to thc City Council in advance of the application and request initiation in consideration of an amendment to allow the use, with a fee of about $2500, which is considered significant relative to some prqjccts. He clarified the difference between an incomplete and a complete application. In response to Com. Saadati's question about onsite population, Mr. Piasecki said the intent is that there is an underlying land use designation that someone is attempting to exercise 2-80 and put a quasi public use into the underlying land use designation. If the underlying land usc designation is residential, there are known household size factors for residential units times the number ol' maximum units allowed on the property that would equal the maximum potential onsitc population. There may be leeway for the guests, the quasi public activity coming in would also have to demonstrate that they have roughly the same size onsite population. Discussion ensued regarding the role of the Community Development Director in the decision making process. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that the wording could be remastered to claril~ that the Community Development Director makes the initial determination, which is appealable to thc Planning Commission and City Council. Pla ninp Commission k4inute Imray 2g, 2(1(12 Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Lynda Callan, representing Canyon Heights Academy, reported that the academy was a private school, proposed to be built in phases with final buildout in 2020 including a high school with a maximum of 1470 students, with the initial phase to operate in Cupertino. She said thc purpose of her appearance was to request that the application be reviewed in the normal process. She reviewed the application process followed by the school in March 2001 when Policy 2-80 was in effect and said they were led to believe that they did not need a General Plan amendment. She said she felt they were being held hostage as the only incomplete part of their application is that they do not have an EIR, and the planning staff had told them they cannot proceed with tile process. Ms. Callan said that at staff's request, they have submitted different plaus on what might be a better layout and better ideas. She said they feel the existing policy provides thc same protection that you have if you try to move to change it; the existing 2-80 says that you can only have public and quasi public uses when it is along with the zoning and whatever other information needed, such as the environmental review. Referring to the pipeline revisiou, Ms. Callan said that at the June 18th hearing, the Planning Director told the City Council that the project did not need a 2-80 General Plan application change; the application would be permitted to come in under Policy 2-80. She said a decision should be made if the Planning Commission does not want to consider the 2-80 change that the project is outside; regardless of whether the staff is saying the application is complete or not. She said in all fairness, tile rules could not be changed in thc middle of thc game. She requested that they be taken out of the process. Com. Auerbach expressed concern about the meeting becoming a Canyon Ilcights debate since the Planning Commission had not yet seen anything officially on Canyon Heights. I lc emphasized that the focus of the meeting was on Policy 2-80 and its effects on the land use designations generally throughout the city. He said it was possible to consider hypothetical situations, but reiterated his concern about the meeting becoming a debate on the academy. Com. Patnoe arrived at the meeting. Mr. Chris Wendt, 22600 Ricardo Road, representing the Stevens Canyon Residents Association. addressed the Canyon Heights Academy, and said that the parcel of land along Stevens Canyon Road, only accessible by Stevens Canyon Road, peaked their interest. The parcel is bordered by Deep Cliff Golf Course, the neighborhoods of Regnart Canyon, Fremont Older Park and Stevens Canyon, and is currently zoned residential hillside. He said they did not oppose it, and it seemed consistent because it allows building only 12 to 14 homes; and theoretically thc Policy 2-8{) could unintentionally allow a project of large scale in this piece of land because it doesn't have enough of the checks and balances in it. He said the association's position was removal of Policy 2-80, as they felt large projects in quasi public and public area need the scrutiny ora General Plan amendment. He commented that Planning Commissioners from the late 70s never intended this kind of intensity for a quasi public or public use. He reiterated the association's position was to delete Policy 2-80 and make it a cleaner process, though more difficult. Mr. Wcndt said that they were comfortable with staff's proposal since it addressed most of their concerns yet accommodated child care centers, that legitimately need a more friendly process. In addition, the reworded Policy 2-80 is similar to what neighboring communities have; most of which arc more stringent than Cupertino. Relative to the pipelining option, they felt if a proposal has not been approved, there is nothing to pipeline. Plannin Commission inute hnu ry Mr. Paul Roberts, St. Andrews Avenue, spoke in favor of deleting Policy 2-80 from the General Plan. He noted during his tenure as a Planning Commissioner in the 1990s during the time of thc last General Plan revision, there was confusion about Policy 2-80 then and he felt it had not changed. He said Policy 2-80 was loosely formulated and posed a threat of undermining thc intent of the General Plan, the zoning ordinance and especially the hard won hillside protection policy. He said that his remarks focused on the public safety aspect, particularly with respect to thc hazards in the hillside region. Mr. Roberts said he felt Policy 2-80 does not adequately heed thc danger of catastrophic events that can occur in the foothills such as earthquake, flood, slope failure, debris flow, and fire. The risks are exacerbated by limited road capacity for rapid emergency response and evacuation, and the amendments proposed by staff do not adequately address those concerns. He noted that the Stevens Canyon area is prone to all catastrophic events, and although they need not preclude all development, it does caution that building shonld bc restricted to sparse residential development of the kind sanctioned by the existing General Plan and zoning ordinance. In this way occupancy is restricted to individuals who have consciously considered the threats and waived the risks and have decided for themselves that the amenities of hillside living outweigh the risks over their lifetimes. He said it is another matter to encourage people to believe that the hills are safe for quasi public use; and said that the General Plan specifically categorizes quasi public facilities including schools as involuntary occupancy facilities for which acceptable exposure to risk is extremely Iow. In facilitating conversion of residential to quasi public zoning, Policy 2-80 opens the door to uses that may bring substantial numbers of thc unsuspecting and uninformed public in the high risk areas. In principle, the quasi public usc continues in perpetuity which allows ample time for a catastrophic event of the kinds listed above to befall the residents. He pointed out that the scenario is anything but Iht fetched, considering the fact that an applicant recently approached the city with a plan to construct a private school complex at the bottom of Stevens Canyon. Mr. Roberts asked if the city could accept thc responsibility of the results of a potential earthquake related catastrophe harming hundreds of unsuspecting students. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend deletion o1' Policy 2-80 from the General Plan, which could assure that any proposed change of land use is suhjectcd to thc close scrutiny required for a General Plan amendment, including a formal cnviromnental impact report. Regarding the hillside areas, public safety considerations mandate this change. Mr. Roberts suggested rewording of the policy to exempt the hillside zoning areas from its coverage il' deletion of the policy seemed too drastic. Ms. Kelly Crowley, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, said that focus should be on the concept of keeping things appropriately scaled. She said they are presently doing a lot of work in the South County and trying to keep things like large group assembly facilities and other large scale urban uses out of inappropriate areas, closer to public transportation and more easily accessible to thc populations using the facility. She said amending Policy 2-80 so that projects have to bc appropriately scaled for the neighborhood and the area they are located in makes sense. Ms. Crowley said they were also spending significant resources on developing strong hillside protection in the county, focusing on San Jose, Milpitas, Gilroy, and the southern part of thc county, but work also applies to the northern part of the county. She said because of their serious concerns for the hillside, the compatibility criteria should be that any development should bc consistent with the hillside protection and not impact sensitive habitat. She noted that thc steelhead trout habitat should be protected as well as the wetlands in Cupertino. Ms. Sharon Blaine, Cupertino resident and former planning commissioner, said that Policy 2-8(I until now has been used as intended, for Iow intensity uses that would be providing services in thc neighborhoods they were located in. Now most of the vacant land is in the hillsides and there is Planning Commkgion Minutes 6 January 28, 2002 pressure to use Policy 2-80 as a loophole to get around the land use designations in the General Plan. Ms. Blaine recommended the policy be deleted or at least deleted from the hmsidcs since the hillsides present some significant concerns. She said research indicated that other cities allow quasi public and public uses without a General Plan amendment but are very restrictive. She saki staff's recommendations are a good attempt to tighten up Policy 2-80; however, she recommended as Mr. Roberts pointed out, that a specific statement about public safety be added in Item 2, il' it is decided to amend the policy rather than delete it. She said that the City Council is seeking advice from the Planning Commission on pipelining of the Canyon Heights Academy. She said that Canyon Heights Academy does not have a completed application, as their proposal has not been approved; no hearings have been held, nor has agreement or approval been reached with the city. Final approval from the city should be the determining thctor as fhr as pipelining is concerned: without city approval, it should not be pipelined. Whatever work they have done or will do between now and then will still be usable in order for them to conlbrm to the amended policy. If the policy were deleted, any work that they would have done would still apply to whatever they would need to do for General Plan amendment. She said that a proposal that st) radically chungcs and impacts part of the city such as the Canyon Heights Academy should certainly be required to meet all the goals, objectives and standards of the General Plan including an amended 2-80; otherwise they should request a change of the General Plan for their project. She said she li21t they should definitely not be pipelined. Mr. Jay Glicksman, 11052 Canyon Vista Drive, said he understood that the history of Policy 2-81) came from a era when there was more development going on and more land was available particularly on the valley floor. That was when it became necessary to simplil~/the processing of applications for necessary local, public and quasi public infrastructure which support indivkhml neighborhoods. It made sense at the time because there were a large number of new homes being built and the people living in those homes would need schools, churches, etc. Now in 2002 land is scarce; there are no significant numbers of new homes being built and Policy 2-80 has outlived its usefulness. Developers lust after the land remaining regardless of the designated land usc. To them Policy 2-80 is a large loophole in the General Plan; they see it as a way to get their development approved, not as a way to provide necessary local infrastructure [bt the newly established communities. He said Policy 2-80 appears to be a way for developers to get around some of the safeguards of the city's development approval process, a way to avoid the protcctkm that Cupertino's General Plan is supposed to provide its citizens, which is a responsibility that hc said should not be taken out of the hands of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Thc problem is not unique to Cupertino; significantly other Bay Area citizen group~' in Matin und Alameda Counties and Woodside are vigorously opposing proposals which are not in keeping with either the policies or the specific land use designations of their local General Plan. Thc developments are being challenged that are out of scale and too intense [br the neighborhoods they claim to serve. For the most part these projects provide little if any necessary support to the local neighborhoods in which they propose to locate. The results of thoughtful planning by citizens, city staff and city officials in the preparation of the General Plan should not be permitted to bc misinterpreted or misused. Mr. Glicksman said he concurred with previous speakers tbat deleting Policy 2-80 would benefit the city and would be clearly compatible with the existing goals and policies of the current General Plan. He said if the Planning Commission decides that some aspects of 2-80 are worth keeping, he would ask that the Planning Commission recommend to thc City Council that the hillside areas designated as worthy of preserving be removed from 2-80 so any developments in those areas beyond the current zoning would have to go through thc City Council for a General Plan amendment to provide as many safeguards as possible to protect them. Relative to the pipelining issue, he said if Canyon Heights Academy has a complete application, it Planning Commission Minutes 7 .lanuary should be considered to be grandfathered for pipelining for that application; but if their application is rejected, they only get that one try under the current plan; and if a new policy is enacted, they would have to conform to that and show their plan fits within the local requirements. Mr. Paul Pentock, 11012 Canyon Vista Ct., said he supported the deletion o1' Policy 2-80; and agreed with others that it appears it has become a loophole and developers are pushing things through that the originators never considered. He said it was inconceivable that adults would build a school in an area that is so hazardous. He reminded the Planning Commission that two years ago a bicyclist was crushed at that curb; and he noted that trucks travel up and down there every day. He said he could envision in the future after the builder/developer has gone, a newspaper headline stating "children killed at City Council approved site." Mr. Ignatius Ding, 10397 Avenida Lane, said that in the last year the city has evolved and thc policy should evolve accordingly. He said he felt Policy 2-80 should be eliminated and he supported all previous speakers. He said in his experience as a member of the Bay Area Quality Management District Advisory Council, he has heard a lot of issues related to land usc and tral'fic problems; and it is obvious to him that when a policy exists like this, with loopholes, there is a fuzzy definition with no clear legal definition about what is a quasi public. I lc said it should bc clearly defined if they are going to keep the policy, otherwise remove it. The loopholes exist which defeat the purpose ora clear and thorough General Plan. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Auerbach said he felt Policy 2-80 should not be included in the revision ol'the General Plan; the entire section labeled General Policies in the General Plan should be deleted because it is vague and leaves a lot of loopholes in many areas. He said the General Plan is trying to specil~ the land use, not give a lot of wild cards as to where things can occur within the city. I Ic said hc was a strong advocate for the protection of the hillsides including development ol~ rural road standards and creating some sort of foothills development area that would even extend some ol'thc hillside protections further down the slope as densities increase there. Policy 2-80 possibly undermines that. He said he was in favor of removing Policy 2-80 entirely. I'le commented that they receive very few of these applications, and do about 3 or 4 General Plan amendments a ycar, and for a quasi public structure which is ill defined, a General Plan amendment would seem appropriate. He said he disagreed with Mr. Piasecki's comment that it was harder to predict schools and places of worship requirements. He said it was their job to build communities, and communities have those elements and if it cannot be anticipated where those land uses will be Ibc those elements in the General Plan, there should not be a wild card that enables them to go anywhere. The real approach is to say an area needs a place of worship and a daycare center, etc. and there should be the appropriate land use for that. Just as in the residential areas, il'quasi public uses can be in certain areas such as the Heart of the City, they could be part of overlays, as part ill' a specific residential or other zoning areas, but to have a wild card to put them anywhere, docs not seem appropriate. Com. Auerbach said on that basis, he was in favor of deleting thc policy, and requiring a General Plan amendment. He said he felt it should be deleted as part of thc General Plan update process, and not just go through the wording change now and delete it later. Com. Chen said she concurred with Com. Auerbach; and supported deletion ol' Policy 2-80. She said there is a process provided to any type of zoning change and use permit change that would intend to provide local benefit to the neighborhood and she did not feel there was a reason to keep Planning Commission Minutes g January 28, 2002 another policy and make a special case, which is public and quasi public type of project development. - Com. Patnoe said that Policy 2-80 served its purpose 20 years ago; and since land is now more scarce, it has outlived its usefulness; and he supported the deletion of Policy 2-80. Com. Saadati said that in response to some comments, the General Plan and planning process docs protect the properties from earthquake and protects sensitive habitat. He said he was not certain Policy 2-80 had a bearing on that area. He said he concurred with other commissioners to put verbiage in the General Plan that applications be reviewed and follow the proper proccss, a full EIR or negative declaration and be evaluated, and if the proposed applications lbr buildings arc compatible with the surroundings, then they should move forward. Chair Corr said he was torn because of the philosophy that the more elbow room and choices you can give people the better; and although he liked the flexibility and being able to say there is an opportunity to go for a General Plan amendment, because of the loophole that docs crcatc problems, he would support deletion of Policy 2-80. Relative to pipelining, Com. Auerbach said he was on record that it is important to provide a consistent environment for developers or applicants and the Planning Commission so they arc aware what the rules are. It is unfair to try to use the change to retroactively prohibit projects that may be in the pipeline. Applicants with completed applications at the time of enactment of thc legislation should be permitted to continue. If the application fails on any count, thc language should state that it must be reconsidered under the new rules and not be allowed to be endlessly amended to fit into the old rules. He said he supported pipelining with prejudicc. Com. Chen said that pipeline should be defined as a complete application. Presently, il' it is an incomplete application it should not be considered as a pipeline project and therefore it shouldn't be required to comply to the old rule and they should all comply to the new rule based on the zoning requirement or General Plan requirement or any other requirement or process that might be there to provide an avenue for this type of project to go through. She said she supported pipelining with prejudice. Cored. Saadati, Patnoe and Chair Corr said they supported completed applications for pipclining with prejudice. Chair Corr read the contents of the amended resolution deleting Policy 2-80. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 15-EA-01 negative declaration SECOND: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 05-GPA-01 Com. Chert Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 28, 2002 NEW BUSINESS: Discussion ensued regarding the appointments of Planning Cmnmissioners to serve on various committees. The assignments for 2002 are as follows: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr and Com. Auerbach; Design Review Committee: Com. Auerbach (Chair of Committee); Coln. Saadati/Alternate Com.Cben; Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe; Mayor's Breakfast: Rotating between commissioners. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that no meeting was held siucc thc last Planning Commission meeting. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that no meeting was held since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Breakfast: None held; Com. Chert will attend the Feb. t2 breakfast meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasccki reported on the Vallco Redevelopment Settlement agreement with Bay Area Legal Aid; City Council authorization for the Heart of the City downtown village concept; his attendance at a three week program at Harvard University in February. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 11, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: February 25, 2002