Loading...
PC 04-22-98CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 22, 1998 SALUTE TO TIlE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris, Stevens, Chairwoman Austin Commissioners absent: Mahoney Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Austin noted letters received from Barkley Simons, Garold Pugh, Marsha Simons, T. Pham, and Clair Delmar regarding zoning changes. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-Z-98 and 1-GPA-98 City of Cupertino Territory bounded by Miller Ave., Stevens Creek Blvd., Lawrence Expressway, Bollinger Road, and Tantau Ave. Pre-zoning of approximately 317 acres of developed land from the County to pre-Rl (single- family re~iOential) with maximum lot sizes ranging from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet as shown on the pre-zoning map or whatever residential pre-zoning deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission or City Council, and pre-zoning of an existing community center to pre-BQ (quasi-public/institutional). General Plan Amendment to the land use map and general plan text, Policy No. 2-42 to allow the expansion of the City's Urban Service Area/Sphere of Influence to include 3.64 acres of residentially developed land situated between Saratoga Creek, Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COLrNCIL HEARING DATE: May 18, 1998 Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that the purpose of the Public Hearing was to discuss the city initiated application to prezone properties Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 22, 1998 within the Loree Estates and Rancho Rinconada area. The concept of prezoning is the idea that a city would designate the appropriate zoning districts for property that is not yet within the city. He said that several county pockets have been prezoned in the past, the largest being Monta Vista; the only areas that have not been prezoned by the city are the Creston area, Rancho Rinconada and Garden Gate. He stressed that the meeting is not a hearing to discuss annexation per se, but a hearing to discuss prezoning; the City Council conducts a hearing on annexation. He said that the purpose of the hearing is to discuss what the appropriate land use is for the area, should annexation proceed. The City Council will discuss pros and cons with the neighbors and future residents. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reported that on February 2, 1998 the City Council considered the overall annexation strategy for three of the four county pockets in Cupertino: Garden Gate, Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada, based on a staff proposed annexation strategy for these pockets, and upon hearing public testimony about the proposed annexation strategy, primarily the Rancho Rinconada residents, the City Council authorized staff to move forward with the annexation strategy, which says ~hat the first priority is to consider the prezoning and annexation of Rancho Rinconada which is a large unincorporated pocket about 317 acres on the eastern boundary of Cupertino. He said the primary land uses are single family residential, with the exception ora private community facility, which staff is recommending be prezoned pre BQ. Mr. Jung said that Cupertino cannot prezone property unless it is within its urban service area. Referring to a land use map, he illustrated the urban service area boundary. He illustrated the 1988 urban service area boundary between the City of San Jose and the City of Cupertino, which boundary said that San Jose will provide services up to a certain point shown on the map. In 1988 there was a proposal to redevelop the Doyle elementary school site along with a surplus piece of property previously owned by Santa Clara County, surplus property used by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. The school district had offered to buy and redevelop it as the present Barrington Bridge housing development. In 1988 San Jose agreed to deed annex this parcel from their boundaries because they could not service the parcel because there was no point of access offBollinger Road, so they deed annexed it to the county and this property developed in the county. Mr. Jung said it occurred through public hearing process through the county, through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) but never went through Cupertino to get the boundary amended. He illustrated on the map the 11 or 12 single family homes between Saratoga Creek and Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger Road. At a staff level it is considered a very minor adjustment in the boundary and consider it a deminimus change in the boundary itself and not signifi, c_ant to warrant any formal General Plan amendment or official action by the city other than an interpretation to bring this boundary along, since it has already been approved by LAFCO. He explained the reason why it is not only a map amendment to bring the line around this parcel, but it is also a tax amendment because the General Plan prohibits urban service area expansions. The intent of this policy is to limit development to land within the existing urban service area. Staff believes that the action is miniscule, and is really a boundary adjustment already approved by LAFCO and its language which intent says "no urban service expansions," but because of its location and the context of the General Plan hearings held in 1993, the intent was to limit the expansions in the hillside areas. If not considered a deminimus action, staff suggests that the General Plan text be modified to read as follows: "The current urban service area shah not be expanded except for minor revisions to the boundary between Cupertino and adjacent cities and involving only urbanized valley floor locations." The intent of the language would be to recognize that from time to time there may be opportunities not only for this small parcel, but also for other pamels where boundary adjustments may be done, between San Jose and Cupertino, or Sunnyvale and Cupertino. He summarized that the extent of the project staff was Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 22, 1998 proposing was either a deminimus action or a more significant General Plan amendment, or changes in the map and language. Relative to prezoning, Mr. Jung said that staff is proposing an R1 designation for all the residentially zoned properties, noting there are already close to 1,500 parcels and the residents of the area are familiar with the concept of R1 zoning. He illustrated the parcels ranging from 5,000 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft., the community center with a BQ zoning, and lots ranging from 7,500 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. Staff is recommending a prezoning of pre RI-6 to match all of the RI-6, with the exception of one home. In the area of Loree Estates, the lots range from 9,300 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. for the cul de sac lots. Mr. Jung referred to a chart in the staff report which compared Santa Clara County and Cupertino residential development standards for Rancho Rinconada, including building height, lot coverage, FAR, and building setbacks. He said the county's setbacks are similar to Cupertino's, depending on the lot size, with the exception of Cupertino's second story setbacks. He said that Cupertino will be more flexible on the second story setbacks because there is a surcharge of 15 feet added to its second story setbacks. The setback sumharge allows homeowners and builders an opportunity with the understanding that they will be building smaller second stories on. their houses, allow them the flexibility to decide how that will be placed on it while being more protective of their neighbors in a sense of building heights and property lines. The other issue when a city rezones and prezones property is the issue of legal nonconforming uses. He said most Cupertino homes have legal nonconforming aspects to them; nonconforming structures would be something that was built to a certain standard, city or county, and because of a change in the zoning regulation that changes the development standard, it renders that structure nonconforming with respect to the change in that regulation. He said there are homes in Rancho Rinconada that have been named nonconforming as a result of the county's zoning change and will happen again if these properties are prezoned and annexed by the City of Cupertino. Rebuilding activity still continues with those properties irrespective of nonconformity as long as that nonconformity is not increased with respect to Cupertino's ordinances. Mr. Jung said that when the project was begun, there was apparent confusion over the boundary between Cupertino and San Jose with respect to the urban service area. He illustrated the large block of property known as the Bay Apartment community project (Stern Ave.) The urban service area boundary sphere of influence line that is shown on Cupertino's maps was illustrated in red; he.noted that they were not the same red lines that are shown on San Jose's maps. He illustrated property owners that were annexed with the City of San 'Jose, and properties in the county. He said that exhibits, displayed show properties as being part of the prezoning on R1-5, and he would confer with the Deputy City Attorney regarding the properties. Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney, said it was her recollection that the properties not be prezoned until there was clarification from LAFCO, perhaps a minute order at the City Council level that the prezoning would go into effect at that time. She said that clarification should be obtained from LAFCO before prezoning the parcels. She said that you cannot prezone property that is in another urban service area. Mr. Jung said that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend prezoning as shown on the map for all areas shown; also that the Planning Commission consider the change in the urban service area boundary merely an adjustment in the boundaries previously approved by LAFCO in a deminimus action; not meriting a General Plan amendment to the text as well as to Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 22, 1998 the map. He said if the Planning Commission felt otherwise, approval of 1-GPA-98 according to the model resolution could be recommended. Com. Harris referred to the drawing of the different lot sizes, and noted that some of the cul de sac lots were double the prevailing lot size, and if they were prezoned R1-5, it appeared that some could be split in half which isn't the real intent. She asked if there was any thought given to prezoning them to something higher or would they be permitted to split them in half. Mr. Jung said that staff has considered that but recognized there were other zoning standards in the R1 zoning ordinance. He said that some of the lots are not excessively deep and even if they had the area, it would be difficult to build on them and still meet the front and rear setbacks. Mr. Cowan said that if the Commission felt strongly about fighting the future battle with an exception or variance, staffwas trying to avoid that. In response to Com. Doyle's question about the financial impact, Mr. Jung said that it was a wash for the property owners; the~e would be some slight decreases in the special assessments which are special charges attached to property tax bill. There is a utility tax that would be applied to the properties that is currently not there; and an exemption for seniors that live in the Rancho area who apply for the utility tax exemption. For non seniors the utility tax rate is about 2.4%, and applies to PG&E bills, local and long distance phone bills. For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Jung explained that LAFCO was the Local Agency Formation Committee, an appointed body, consisting of County Board of Supervisor members, Commissioners from local cities; and is a county level commission that makes decisions on changes in boundaries between cities as well as having the authority to consider proposals for creating new cities or disincorporating cities. Chair Austin opened the public hearing. She clarified that the public hearing was only for prezoning. Mr. Gary Watts, said he lived in the area to the right of the Pre BQ, and encouraged the Council to consider the minor boundary adjustment. He said there are 11 homes in the cul de sacs that are part of a larger community of 65, and were in the CC&Rs; and they would appreciate having the boundary moved so that they could remain in tact as a whole community. He said it was their understan.d!ng when they moved into the community that they would be part of Cupertino, and all 65 homes have a Cupertino address. Mr. Marc Auerbach, said he represented the Rancho pocket annexation committee, and asked those in favor to raise their hands. He said that they saw Cupertino struggling with the same issues that are motivating many of the Rancho owners' own interests; and felt the bylaw changes being considered to adjust zoning would be beneficial for the residents as well, if Rancho annexed into Cupertino; and at this time did not have any specific recommendations on changes. He said they would like to move as quickly as possible toward annexation using the staff recommendations set forth tonight; and hoped that the proceedings would result in a positive outcome toward annexation. He added that the property owners in favor of annexation have been communicating regularly with city staff. Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive, said that the Rancho community had worked with the county in the last 18 months to arrive at annexation, and were looking forward to working with city staff. Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 22, 1998 She said she felt the zoning that the city had approached the residents with was a positive approach to the Rancho problems, and hoped it would expedite them toward annexation. She said she hoped that in the future they could work with the city on particular zoning issues since they have currently 150 current building sites and 50 pending permits, with 5 to 10 demolitions this weekend. She pointed out that there were a lot of changes going on in the neighborhood and she felt at this point they would like to have Cupertino be as sensitive to the problems and changes that are going on in Rancho and Lome Estates. She concluded that she appreciated the city's efforts and hoped to reach a positive conclusion. Ms. Catherine Thaler, Stem Avenue, said that her house was in San Jose, and she suspected that LAFCO changed the service area when she attempted to get trash collection when the city of San Jose changed their garbage contract about 8 years ago, and being in the city of San Jose, they said they would have to service her home and even though her house was the only house within miles. She said she has been through many groups over time regarding a number of matters such as building and getting fire protection. Ms. Thaler said she was in favor of annexation. She said that relative to the cost, it amounted to about $35 per house for the homes in Rancho, Loree Estates and Barrington Bridge, which they felt was an excellent investment. Mr. Jung said that relative to LAFCO's involvement, he was working with them; the boundaries are confusing and they were not aware there was a problem until staffbrought it to their attention. He said he was working with San Jose and they agreed that the three houses should be in the Cupertino spirit, and has been in touch with the City Council members. Mr. Carl (name not audible), resident, said that he had been in Cupertino 54 years and had seen a lot of changes in the town, and felt the meeting was geared to the developer who wants Rancho so they can get another $100,000 for their fancy homes. He said he wanted the city to notify all property owners of Rancho itself, not the new developers who tried the same thing when they took the school over. He said they wanted to be in there to get more money for their homes; they have the same sanitation district, same fire department and police department that is in Cupertino. He pointed out that one cannot do business out of their own home in Cupertino, but in the county, there are a lot of people doing business out of their homes. He said he was an electrical contractor for many years. He concluded that he felt the proposed action was for the benefit of the big developers. Chair Austin closed the public hearing. In response to Chairwoman Austin's question, Mr. Jung said that the notice was sent to all the property owners on the regular assessment rolls of Santa Clara County including all property owners within 300 feet of these boundaries. Relative to home business regulations, Mr. Cowan clarified that Cupertino had very flexible home business regulations, and that a resident could have a home occupation, but cannot store trucks on their property. Chair Austin complemented staff on the excellent presentation and report. In response to Com. Doyle's question about the percentage of Rancho in support of the proposed annexation, Mr. Jung said that the ratio of those in favor of the annexation, who had expressed a written or oral opinion, ran 2:1. Mr. Cowan said that the City Council's attitude is if the Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 22, 1998 property owners in the various neighborhoods want to pursue annexation, they would be more than happy to welcome them into the community; but that there would have to be some level of support for it; they would not force people into it. Com. Harris referred to the General Plan language and questioned if the Director of Community Development uses the minor modification procedures that exist, could it be subject to a challenge that the action was inappropriate. Ms. Murray said that it could be subject to challenge. Mr. Jung clarified that the map was not changed; but LAFCO adjusted the boundary between San Jose and Cupertino to include this in Cupertino's urban service area. Mr. Cowan said that, in his opinion, the intent of the policy was to state that the real place for urban growth to occur would be in the hillside; that is why it is in the hillside section, and the idea was not to promote or encourage development in undeveloped lands in the hillside; therefore the idea of adjusting the boundary in an already build urban environment would have no environmental consequences. Com. Harris said she did nffe understand why staff is not recommending the second language which states that it is not subject to interpretation, not subject to challenge, and would deal with any future situation. Mr. Cowan clarified that he did not want everything put on hold just to take care of one nuance, and did not want to have two annexation hearings and two prezoning hearings because of one issue as it is so deminimus. He said to date no General Plan hearings have been held, and four are permitted. He said it was also appropriate to do both, make the deminimus finding and still proceed with the language clarification. Relative to subdividing on cul de sac lots, Mr. Jung clarified his earlier comments. He said that the cul de sac lots are narrow in the front and wide in the back (pie shaped). He said that it is difficult, not impossible, to subdivide a cul de sac lot, and in order to do it, a flag lot design is needed. In Cupertino a fee title access for the flag lot is required, and that fee title access has to be at least 15 to 20 feet wide. He said that when done on a cul de sac lot, the lot is narrowed to such an extraordinary degree that it actually increases the nonconformity of that lot. Com. Harris pointed out that it needs to be assured that the intent would be met, because once you set the rules, they are not subject to intent, they are subject to the rules set. MOTIONi- SECOND: Com. Doyle moved to approve the negative declaration for the prezoning in the General Plan amendment project Chair Austin Mr. Cowan commented that it would be beneficial to have some findings relative to the concerns about the cul de sac lots so that in the future if someone were to make application for a subdivision, the General Plan could be relied upon. ABSENT: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 22, 1998 property owners in the various neighborhoods want to pursue annexation, they would be more than happy to welcome them into the community; but that there would have to be some level of support for it; they would not force people into it. Com. Harris referred to the General Plan language and questioned if the Director of Community Development uses the minor modification procedures that exist, could it be subject to a challenge that the action was inappropriate. Ms. Murray said that it could be subject to challenge. Mr. Jung clarified that the map was not changed; but LAFCO adjusted the boundary between San Jose and Cupertino to include this in Cupertino's urban service area. Mr. Cowan said that, in his opinion, the intent of the policy was to state that the real place for urban growth to occur would be in the hillside; that is why it is in the hillside section, and the idea was not to promote or encourage development in undeveloped lands in the hillside; therefore the idea of adjusting the boundary in an already build urban environment would have no environmental consequences. Com. Harris said she did not understand why staff is not recommending the second language which states that it is not subject to interpretation, not subject to challenge, and would deal with any future situation. Mr. Cowan clarified that he did not want everything put on hold just to take care of one nuance, and did not want to have two annexation hearings and two prezoning hearings because of one issue as it is so deminimus. He said to date no General Plan hearings have been held, and four are permitted. He said it was also appropriate to do both, make the deminimus finding and still proceed with the language clarification. Relative to subdividing on cul de sac lots, Mr. Jung clarified his earlier comments. He said that the cul de sac lots are narrow in the front and wide in the back (pie shaped). He said that it is difficult, not impossible, to subdivide a cul de sac lot, and in order to do it, a flag lot design is needed. In Cupertino a fee title access for the flag lot is required, and that fee title access has to be at least 15 to 20 feet wide. He said that when done on a cul de sac lot, the lot is narrowed to such an extraordinary degree that it actually increases the nonconformity of that lot. Com. Harris pointed out that it needs to be assured that the intent would be met, because once you set the rules, they are not subject to intent, they are subject to the roles set. MOTION': SECOND: Com. Doyle moved to approve the negative declaration for the prezoning in the General Plan amendment project Chair Austin Mr. Cowan commented that it would be beneficial to have some findings relative to the concerns about the cul de sac lots so that in the future if someone were to make application for a subdivision, the General Plan could be relied upon. ABSENT: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 22, 1998 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve prezoning 5-Z-98 in the General Plan amendment 1-GPA-98 according to the model resolution with wording added to the findings that the lot size combined with other constraints would preclude the subdivision of lots to the exclusion of the city lots. Com. Harris Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved that the urban service area boundary be adjusted as a deminimus action in this particular case for the Barrington Bridge, 3.64 acres, on the east side of Saratoga Creek Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Maho~ey moved that the Planning Commission entertain a General Plan amendment to clarify the language regarding the urban service area, relative to boundary Com. Doyle Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0-0 Chair Austin thanked everyone for their participation and said that the application will go before the City Council on May 18. She encouraged the audience and residents to verify the newspapers and city channel relative to the item being agendized. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNfI'¥ DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 1998 at 6:46 p.m. Approved as presented: May 26, 1998 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary 3)