Loading...
PC 08-26-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupemno, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Staffpresent: Corns. Austin, Doyle, Harris, Mahoney and Chairman Roberts Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murra~v, Deputy Counsel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Augnst 12, 1996 Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the August 12, 1996 regular meeting minutes and August 12, 1996 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting minutes as presented. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 W~ITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted a letter from Symantec relative to Item 3 and a letter from Charles Hansen. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENt'CALENDAR Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner Location: l -lNT-96 Alan & Joy Dina Alan & Joy Dina 10479 Heney Creek Place Interpretation to allow a residential addition to exceed an approved building envelope. ENVII~ONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Planning Commission ~nutes 2 August 26, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Corn Austin moved to approve Application No 1-INT-96 Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 STUDY SESSION 2. Application No: Historic Preservation Ordinance (4-EA-96) Study Session of the Planning Commission, interested parties and special interest groups regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and report to the City Council on recommended ordinance. _Staff presentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, reviewed the General Plan policies on the historic preservation ordinance. She said that page I is a listing of the community landmarks and the historic sites and two policies directed for staff to implement. The first policy relates to trees, with the requirement for creating a heritage tree fist, which was accomplished two years ago. The second public policy wes relative to the arts. She said that there are conditions of approval that can be implemented on larger projects to institute public arts, which staffhes accomplished. The third policy is relative to landmark rehabilitation, essentially the policy which triggered staff writing the Historic Preservation Ordinance along with the current planning application, relative to undertaking an active partnership with private owners to rehabilitate properties to retain their historic character. Two strategies were underlined under that policy; one was for restoration of historic properties and the other was to institute a zoning category for historic properties. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the attached staffreport outlining the two study sessions held. Ms. Bjurrnan stated that staff was prepared to re~iew the designation process outlined in the ordinance, the approval authority outlined in the ordinance, or review the ordinance itself, or the City of Palo Alto process that many of the homeowners were interested in pursuing- She esked for direetion from the Planning Commission- Com. Harris suggested outlining the areas of contention and addressing the subjects where there is disagreement from the original ordinance or where there was specific direction from the City Council to change the original ordinance; and then act along those lines. Ms. Wordeli said that the City Council direction wes to make sure that historically designated properties were in fact usable but were not overly regulated. She said that Council was in favor of the formation of a Historic Preservation Committee. Com. Maboney said that he felt they should start with a high level philosophy and work down rather than get the details of one element that might be something not of utmost significance. Com. Austin-said she was interested in the comparison of other cities and how successful they were. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that it wes difficult to compare Cupertino resources to Palo Alto or Los Gatos because of the number of resources available in those communities, and because many of theirs are in districts are different from Cupertino which may have one potential district and all of the others are scattered and individualized. She said that Cupertino wes more comparable to Sunnyvale in its current draft because Cupertino does not have exempted land uses. Ms. Bjurman said that the main arees of controversy are deed restricting the properties, that owner's consent must be required, and that there will be a negative economic impact from designation and over-regulation should not occur. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Sharon Blane, member of the Board of Directors of the Historical Society, thanked Ms. Bjurman for her hard work. She said the Historical Society feels very strongly in favor of an ordinance, and that the ordinance should spell out a process by which properties of historical importance in the city would be designated. They do ?lannio~ Commission Minutes 3 August 26, 1996 not feel they should have to have the owner's agreement to be designated because if that was a requirement it negates the purpose of the ordinance because there would probably not be any properties to be placed in the ordinance. She said the Society feels there should be a ranldng system to determine the significance for designation and to determine which body of decision makers should review proposed alterations. The members do not feel that everything needs to go before the City Council or Planning Commission. There should be some place for properties that are not very significant and that could be determined by a ranking system and the proposed changes or alterations could be handled by staff There should be a system by which the Society deiermines who is going to look at these items and decide what will be done. Ms. Blanc said they feel there should be a Historic Preservation Committee to identify and re-dew the properties; however, the Historical Society does not wish to be that committee. They feel that the committee should be composed of people v,-ho are interested in historical preservation and in these properties and have knowledge about the city and its history. Ms. Blanc said the Society provided the City with a list of properties that could be looked at, but stated that they hoped it was understood that the long list of properties did not mean that that they felt all of the properties should be designated and all of them are of equal significance. She said it was something for the city to start with. She said that the Society felt there should be incentives to owners to participate; they felt there should be some carrots. They should not have to bring the buildings up to current code if they are doing renovations, there could be setback exceptions. She said that if all exceptions were listed, problems may be encountered; that if saying landscaping is going to be accepted, you may find that landscaping is a very important part of the historical significance; therefore, there should not be a blanket landscaping clause, but there should be exceptions and flexibility in that for the property owners. Ms. Bjurman explained that originally staff thought that the Historical Society would be the Historical Preservation Committee, but it has been clarified that is not the case, therefore a separate committee is to be created via the City Council, and it would be a separate body fi'om the Planning Commission. The way the ordinance is written, the committee would act on several different things for architectural and site approval changes; they would make recommendations to Planning Commission who would be the final authority and would also make a recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Council for designation of historical properties. She said that is the way the ordinance is currently dratted. Mu-. Patrick Alien, 1019l Vista I)rive, owner of the historic Wills home, said that he was present to discuss some of the homeowners' highlights. He said that the original ordinance as presented was too vague and contained one sticky point about how it would be administered and how it would be graded. He said that the homeowners did not believe the ordinance was necessary and are fearful that if an ordinance is passed they would experience a significant economic loss of the people who haven't sold out to development akeady. The homeowners are fearful of deed restrictions that would possibly make their property less attractive to prospective buyers. He said they do not want a deed resUiction. There does not seem to be any ordinance or any review of incidents of tearing houses down; there were and there still are some historical homes left He commented that there was a · - ' Court. [t historic home near his that was ravaged overnight vath caty staff approval and now there is St. Joseph was an original founder's home. He said the homeowners would like to review what gets tom down. Mr. Allen discussed concerns of homeowners: There is no Appendix A; if you review the original ordinance, Appendix A gets very nit picky and very hard to administer. The Paio Alto plan seems to be more generalistic; they have trained staff in Palo Alto and Los Gatos who can advise the homeowners. He said if there was a ordinance passed, it doesn't seem like the City of Cupertino has the staffing or funding to assist people to make the right decisions other than added costs. He said it was noted in the final chart that the impacts can be quiet high when one has to go and ask for an addition to the rear of one's property; what it can cost a homeowner as a historically registered home vs. a neighbor who is not designated historical. He said he would suggest staff put forth their efforts on something that is more within the realm of City Council and current staff to administer and not burden the homeowners who are let~ with the historic sites to contend witk Mr. Allen discussed the summary comments of the preferences to the least intrusive drat~ ordinance Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 26, 1996 Rev Michael Mitchell, 10110 No DeAnza Bird, explained that the City of Los Angeles has been embroiled in a difficult situation relative to one of its cathedrals. The cathedral was rendered inoperable because of the Notthridge earthquake and consultants submitted evidence to that effect. The City of Los Angeles delisted the facility from its list of historical sites, the Planning Commission, the City, and City Council all agreed, but the owner is still embroiled in a court case about the matter. He referred to the incident to illustrate how the subject ordinance does not deal appropriately with non-profits. He said that there is no incentive listed that would apply to a non-profit. He illustrated the point that there is a list in the General Plan of historic sites that is very general; it merely states St. Joseph's Church. He questioned if it involved the rectory, the church building, and/or the school? He said the listing is very indistinct as it stands now; one does not know what criteria was used to list it in the General Plan, but it is clear now that the owner will have to make a notable argument it' it wants to have it delisted. Rev. I~tchell referred to Section 19.32.100, citing an example of the church indicating that it is not meeting its physical needs because of its structural ability and its finds it has to retrofit to suit the insurers' requirements, which would include every building build prior to 1950, and St. Joseph's Church was built in 1952 and may soon be outside the envelope of insurability unless it is retrofitted. There would be a cost involved and the owner would have to indicate the church interior does not function and was not designed for modem catholic liturgy, therefore they may wish to change the inside but we can't because of constraints relative to the external structure, and the dilemma for the owner would be that the property is of less practical use because the exterior cannot be changed. The argument would be made on this economic hardship to the church and the City would be in the process of enmeshing in Fkst Amendment discussions about the suitability of the building, which is what happened is Los Angeles. Rev. Mitchell recommended that the two religious structures on this ordinance on the General Plan be delisted. Chair Roberts asked City Attorney Kilian to comment. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, said that anyone has the ability to sue; but just because there is litigation does not mean that there is ultimately going to be a negative result either for the city or anyone else. Generally speaking, churches have the same obligations and are subject to the same restrictions particularly when it deals with buildings as other private buildings, and therefore you could legally attach a historical ordinance to churches as well as any other type of building, He said what Rev. Iv~tcheil discussed was a good example of what co~d be done when weighing the economic hardship; that is precisely why the provision is in there and he said the city could avoid the problem of the First Amendment simply by applying standards to the decision making with respect to functionality of the building. Com. Austin cited an example of a San lose Unified District school that was no longer usable because of earthquake damage and was a beautiful historical building. Mr. Kllian pointed out that everyone has a right to the use of their land subject to reasonable restrictions by the general jurisdintion. He said he could not comment on the other lawsuits because he did not know whether those cities had exception procedures as this ordinance does. He' ~,ald in his view it did not matter whether something is non-profit, a religious organization or charitable organization; what matters is the function of the building and ks historical context and whether an economic hardship can be shown to grant an exception, and that seems to be something that is pervasive throughout the ordinance. He said from a legal point of view it is not any more dangerous to apply that standard to a church as it is to a residence. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, said she has lived hi Cupertino since 1960 and noted that there have been a lot of changes. She said that the historical significance of the two churches in Cupertino is more evident than some things that are listed. She noted that following the 1989 earthquake, Santa Cruz moved so fast that they tore down some of their most historic buildings that could have been retrofitted; Watsonviile managed to raise money to retrofit and restore their church. She said that some things are done too hastily and Cupertino has since 1960 hastily torn down some of its most historic buildings; there are 15 cited in this document and of those several are merely sites. She emphasized that Cupertino needs to preserve what little there is left. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 26, 1996 Ms. Lyon asked if the City had considered the possibility of some staff training, and stated there were various training sessions available through the state and the national preservation organizations. She said that she had an extensive background is history, and stressed the importance of celebrating the history of Cupertino. She said that we are in the midst now of the state celebrating 150 years of a variety of things, culminating in the year 2000. She pointed out that in the future, the R&D Mac Building in Cupertino might be considered a historical landmark. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, owner of the Lazaneo Tank House, referred to the charts displayed. He reiterated points made in previous City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings He said a group of homeowners joined together to try and address what they believe is the right thing to do; it is a group not against preservation; but who feel the ordinance does not get the results needed Referring to the charts, he said that the No. I comment listed reflects the group's strong preference for no ordinance. He said that the group has seen the weight the city puts on what is and is not in the General Plan. He said it was their understanding that compliance with the General Plan does not require or even suggest an ordinance; it addresses collaboration with homeowners, which has yet to be seen. He said that they believe the ordinance is pushing the envelope of what could have been conceived in the General Plan. He said that the City does not have the resources to manage an ordinance of the scope presented either internally full time or externally part time. He said there is a list of structures to work with. He said his home is on the list, but he is not planning to develop his property. He said realistically there is 81% that are not significantly threatened which leaves 19%. He cited the Tracy House, stating that it is almost in derelict condition, and the tragedy of the ordinance is that it is not going to address the problem. Mr. Monk posed the questions to staff: What is the purpose of the ordinance? What are we going to get out of this ordinance? Are we trying to stop demolition or trying to control changes in historical structures? He said that the Planning Commission and City Council have already demonstrated the power to stop demolition if it is brought to their attention., It was done with the l'vfiller House and the Differ Tack House; and whereas there may still be some debate about whether the DeOro Club was saved, there has been significant debate about it. He said it is not an ordinance that is needed, but a trigger that allows individual properties that may or may not be of significance to come in fi-ont of the City for review for discussion of their merits. He suggested codifying the rules for historical structures; are we trying to set rules by which they should be renovated or not? He said that the DeOro Club decision would have been easier if it as put through the screens presented in the draft ordinance. It will not replace difficult case-by-case decisions. He asked if heritage is being preserved? Cupertino has to be realistically compared to local cities; its modest offerings compare very poorly to some surrounding cities. Homeowners cherish their homes but they are not historical showpieces. He said if Cupertino is h~ing to generate interest in its history, if it is 'aying to generate tourism, it is in reality alienating the owners. He said he felt the ordinance was not needed. Mr. Don Westwood, 10090 I-fillcrest Road, owner of Arch Wilson home, referred to an overhead and stated that it was apparent that the people who are pushing the historic aspect of the ordinance would like to capture it with as much vigor as possible. He noted that there was considerable discussion about whether the homeowners were interested in rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or reconstruction. He said it was apparent that the reason for the focus on rehabilitation is that the most onerous of those would probably get in the evening news; something that would force homeowners to gear down their house and build it according to the theme is something that is blatantly onerous. He said it steps down slightly until rehabilitation which makes a theoretical acknowledgment that we get to live there, but places some of the most vigorous requirements that some of the neighboring communities have which is why the issue on Comment No. 3 captured his passion. He said Palo Alto makes their homeowners as property owners under this sort of scheme go through and look at some of the issues, but whether they comply or not is voluntary. He said that Palo Alto and Cupertino are not in the same league as far as historical preservation is concerned. He said as a homeowner he resented the fact that where his house may not come up on the radar in Palo Alto, it would be protected with as much vigor as could be mustered, which bothers him a great deal. He said he would like to see some regional leveling and some assessment of the properties. He said it was regretful and tragic that some historic homes were gone or destroyed, but that he did not think his house should be protected any more in Cupertino than it would be in any other community. Planning Commission M~nutes 6 August ~6, ~c~96 Mr. Westwood said that Palo Alto grades their properties and have basically an assessment made by experts as to whether these properties should be protected or not, and they discuss some of the metrics talked about in the past He said if you look at some of the metrics that have been proposed and intrigued a lot of Cupertino people, one or two of them have been easily defined in terms o the age of the house, the remainder is open to interpretation based on the desire to protect the properties. He expressed concern for homes that are not considered precious in a city that has a lot of well known properties; and stated that in Cupertino many homes have g~van way to development, and those homes remaining may not be as attractive, but are saved because it is the best of what remains in Cupertino. Mr. Westwood said it seemed an unfair comparison to regulate those properties with the same suingent requirement that Palo Alto would impose on only their most precious properties. He defined reg/onal leveling as something that is at the top of the list in Palo Alto, should be at the top of the list in Cupertino; something that is not going to be open for review should be up to the property owner to decide what he thinks is best to do for the property. He said it should be the same in Cupertino, not to open the floodgates and say all of them should be regulated based on the fact that they are the best of what remains in Cupertino Chair Roberts asked staffto restate the ma.in features of the Palo Alto ordinance. Ms. Bjurman explained the main features of the Palo Alto ordinance. She said one feature is similar to Cupertino's Appendix & which is used or would be used by the historical resources committee to rank structures and/or sites for designation to help hone in on what in the structure is so significant. She pointed out that Paio Alto was hiring a consultant to revamp thek ordinance, because it feels it does not adequately protect their historical resources. Their ranking system fails into 4 categories. Categories 1 and 2 are considered exceptional and have to go through a much higher level of review; categories 3 and have a less stringent review for changes to the building. Single family homes and duplexes are exempt fi-om review once they have been designated. Staff has authority for approval on certain types of review. It allows minor alterations on any type of a designated structure as long as the planning director defines minor. They do not requke deed restriction nor do they require property owner's consent because they feel k would degrade the ordinance. Cupertino's ordinance differs with respect to the deed reslxiction. She said that a historical designation in Palo Alto can be put on a property without the owner's consent, but they do not require a deed restriction to support that, nor do they zone properties historical; nor are there any true restrictions if it is single fafiul' y or duplex. They have historic districts. Mr. Kilian questioned is approval was needed fi-om the City Council or Planning Commission if someone wanted to redevelop their property and it was designated a historical site? Ms. Bjurman responded that if was a single family home or duplex, they would have to go before a historical resources board for a recommendation and it would be voluntary whether or not they implemented it. If it was anything other than that, they are required to go to City Council. She said that in Cupertino's ordinance, it is proposed to stop at the Planning Commission. Ms. Sharon Blane, resident, stated that the City of Palo Alto has experienced problems because there is a house they feel has historical significance and it is going to be demolished because the ordinance does not cover the particular situation; therefore they are revamping their ordinance. She said that the properties listed in the General Plan have not been designated, but are merely a list and would go through the process of being designated under this ordinance. She pointed out that there is nothing significant in the ordinance and she felt protecting designated buildings should be addressed. She cited an example of a property on M31er Avenue that was to be saved, but it was not protected because the owner did not want to protect it. In the long run it cost more to fix because it had to be saved. She said there is nothing in the ordinance that indicates you have a property that has been designated as having significant historical value to the city and it then becomes derelict property. There is something in the Pain Alto ordinance Section 1649.080 to look at for guidance on wording on maintenance of properties. Ms. Blane said that the composition of the Flistorical Preservation Committee should not be limited, because there are many experts in town and if they are not on the Planning Commission or not a property owner, that Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 26, 1996 gives them one seat to apply for, as proposed; two seats would be held for Planning Commissioners; two for property owners; and one would be from the citizens at large. She said she felt citizen participation should not be limited. She said to remember that what is considered historical today as well as what would be considered historical in the future, should be contemplated because it is an ordinance for the future and the need to rewrite the ordinance in the future should be addressed as it is an ongoing process; therefore adopting something that will be useful in the future should be considered. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Mahoney requested clarification about the rating system in the draft ordinance. He cited an example of a I0 on the architectural style type for convention, and a zero on every other subcategnry Ms Bjurman explained that what would be determined from that was that the most important aspect of the building was its architecture and you would look at each subcategory and find out which had the highest ranking within the subcatagory to indicate what category within architecture was most important, such as the year it was built; therefore if the proposal was for a significant addition to the property and what was most important about it was its age. then perhaps you wouldn't want them to do an exterior remodel or an interior remodel. It would help to focus more on what is significant about the building and what should be preserved. Following discussion, there was consensus to remain with the General Plan without the explicit backup of an ordinance. Com. Doyle said he would define the Planning Commission's role as being different than that. Chair Roberts said that of the other items discussed: deed restrictions, owners consent, economic impact, etc., all were covered in the spectrum of positions presented in the staff report. He suggested addressing the proposed ordinance with those in mind, giving special attention to churches and non-profits. Com. Harris said in restoration vs. preservation discussion, that was evident in the Council's response as each gave thew opinion on preservation vs. restoration. She said she felt restoration was favored as opposed to preservation. The Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the ordinance. There was consensus that an ordinance was needed; that restoration vs. preservation was preferred. Com. Austin expressed concern about who would be making the decision on historic preservation sites. 19.32. 050 Historic Preservation Advisory Committee - Functions Com. Harris said that if there is a strict designation system, it indicates the desire to have the owner's consent and no deed restriction. If there is a freer, looser, ordering and determination, it would indicate to forego the owner's consent or forego the deed restriction; it depends on how these get designated. There would be one Planning Commissioner, one historic property owner, one historic preservationist, one community member at large and one architect or design professional. Com. Mahoney said that it should include 5 members, at least one Planning Commissioner, a historic preservafionist, and an architect. Com. Doyle said he favored less restrictive government, and that all members should be appointed by City Council. Com. Austin concurred, stating that whoever is really interested and is qualified, will pick the best qualified people. Com. Mahoney said he felt there should be one Planning Commissioner, and at least one preservationist. Chair Roberts said he favored the idea of a design architect or design professional. Com. Harris said that if you are going to designate one of the factions property owner and historic preservationist, there seems to be a major division between them and those should be represented. Chair Roberts concurred with Com. Harris suggestion of one Planning Commissioner, one historic property owner, one historic preservatioinst, one architect or design professional and one at large member, all appointed by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 26, 1996 19. 32.060 ( 'riteria for Designation Chak Roberts said that it was decided not to distinguish between different kinds of properties but have not yet decided whether there would be gradations according to the rating scales. With that decision in the offing in mind, is there support for inserting after "a_qer approval by the property owner"? Com. Austin answered no for designation. Com. Doyle said that as far as designation or listing, the property owner does not need to be on a list to do that. Com. Ma_honey said he accepted it at this stage. Com. Harris said that it did not indicate that the City Council will make this designation upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee or of the Planning Commission. Ms. Bjurman responded that the location is to be under 19.32.070 Designation Process. Com Mahoney pointed out that it indicated the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on proposed designations based on such information documentation in 19.32.070 (a). There was consensus to accept "The City Council may designate" as is. 19.32.060(c) Com. Harris recommended that the tom be filled out by the I-fistoric Preservation Advisory Committee. Com. Mahoney recommended that the comment in (c) be deleted. Ms. Bjurman summarized that (S): draft is appropriate. In response to Com. Mahoney's questions, Ms. Bjurman clarified that in the Palo Alto ordinance, there were 4 categories and this would be adopting those 4 categories in place of Appendix A. She said that if (c) was adopted per staff recommendations, Appendix A could become what the creator chooses, and perhaps Palo Alto's and Cupertino's model could be used together. 19.32.070 Dexignatmn Process Chair Roberts pointed out that in this section it would have to be addressed whether or not eve~.hing would be treated the same or whether it would be differentiated according to a ranking system. If done, it would put a lot more weight on the imnking system. Com. Mahoney questioned the possibility of having 4 categories as shown on Page 11. Chair Roberts said it was appropriate, but questioned if other actions should be attached to it such as deed restrictions and owner's consent. Com. Mahoney said that if it is one of the first two categudes where there is no requirement for anything happening, he could not see putting a deed restriction on that. Com. Mahoney reiterated that if there were two categories that were basically advisory or less, no review means there is no advisory, and said it should be 3 designated categories. Ii'something fits in category A, that says there is no review, should it even be listed? If there are 4 categories, 2 are advisory, and 2 are not; the 2 non-advisory just depend upon what level of review they are gni~lg to have. Mn-. Kilian clarified that a deed restriction was merely a way of implementing something that is not voluntary. He said these kinds of restrictions are restrictions on property that ordinarily do not happen. If some of the designations axe going to be non-voluntary, without the owner's consent, then the deed restriction is merely a way of enforcing it. If something is not consentual, there should be a deed restriction to enfome it; if there is something consentual; he said he was not certain it would be needed because it is unlikely that anyone will apply or allow that to happen to their property. If it is decided the whole ordinance should be with the consent of the owner, it makes no sense to have such an ordinance. If it is restricted, mandatory, or done by consent or action by the City Council, a deed restriction would be a good idea. Mr. Kilian said it was not legally necessary to have a deed restriction; people are obligated to find out what city restrictions are on their property before they purchase the property; however it avoids problems if there is something in the deed. Com. Harris said she was in favor of a deed notation on all designated properties. Corns. Austin and Mahoney disagreed. Com. Doyle said that the four levels were appropriate, but questioned whether it had to be approved Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 26, 1996 by the owner Com. Mahoney summarized that there was a designation process which defined which of the 4 categories things go into; the two advisory means that the recommendations either made by Planning Commission staff or City Council, voluntarily can comply; whereas the two restrictive means they must comply. Ms. Bjurman summarized that the two advisory means that the recommendations either made by Planning Commission staff, City Council, or whoever, voluntarily can comply; whereas the two restrictive means they must comply. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that Paragraph (e) should be changed and only apply to (c) and (d) 19.32.070 (a) Com. Doyle said he felt the property owner should be given some form of an incentive. He said that relative to the regional leveling concept, if he had property in Cupertino and wanted to utilize the California Heritage Fund or other qualifications, he would have to meet some minimum criteria that is regionally specific. He said there should be some way to say this qualifies for some outside funding or tax relief that can be supported as an incentive for those people and then they would have the ability to sign up for the program. Com. Harris said there could be a recommendation to the City Council to do something local, such as if it was agreed that it would be more costly to work on these restricted properties to bring them up to date on changes; it could be suggested to City Council that they waive the building permit fees, which is something that can be done locally that would recognize the extra cost burden that is put on the owners by these requirements. Com. Doyle concurred with Com. Harris. He said they are not trying to define what the incentive is, but that there is a need to have an incentive as a tradeoff to thek voluntary sign-up for the program. In response to Com. Austin's question, Com. Doyle said that it would apply to the restricted ones. Com. Austin questioned if a property owner's signature was necessary to list the property. Com. Doyle responded that by the time it is put as a mandatory requirement, the property owner should sign or agree to it. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the staff recommending wording remain for (a). 19.32.070 (_lO There was consensus to move reference of cost-benefit analysis to the section relative to economic hardship. 19.32.070 (g) Following a brief discussion, it was recommended that staff revise the language to reflect that the guidelines be reviewed but not require following them. 19.32.070 (h) There was consensus that it apply to levels (c) and (d). 19.$2.080Applica~on There was consensus to accept staff report relative to Para. (1). Relative to Para. (2), Ms. Bjurman explained that the City of Palo Alto ordinance states that demolition to designated properties must go before the Planning Commission. The property owners wanted to adopt the Palo Alto model which was if you are designated, but a lower priority category, you can just demolish. If a higher priority category, then it needs to go before a review body. There was consensus that the staff recommendation was appropriate. It was agreed that Para. (3) was a carrot. Com. Harris recommended adding a Para. (4) local incentive, and recommended that the permit fees be waived. Com. Doyle said he would like some designation at state or federal level. planmng Comm/ssion Minutes lO August 26, 1996 In response to Corn Harris' question about the Mills Act tax break, Ms. Bjurman explained that there are differem methods that tax breaks can be given, depending on the process followed. She said that her staff report included about five different types of processes that the city can jointly participate in along with the county to give tax breaks. She said there would be more staff involvement in negotiating contracts, overseeing contracts, and making certain the incentives that are built into the tax break is actually implemented. She said that relative to Com. Harris' recommendation for 19.32.080 (3), there should be more incentives and consider waiving fees. tax breaks and getting staff involved in state and federal level designations. Com. Harris suggested that staff return with an appropriate recommendation as Item 4 which would not be too burdensome. Com. Doyle questioned what the threshold was to get on the list if the levels of designation are created. He said that if it was a level that would qualify them for some national or other designation, t would be advantageous. It is important to make sure that the correct information has been gathered to understand where that carrot threshold is. Com. Harris suggested that it was the two restrictive ones where they will have restrictions on development, therefore they are the ones entitled to an incentive. Com. Doyle concurred, but stated that as part of the staff report, they need to make sure they have the right information collected that cladtles where the tradeoffis. 19. 32. 090 Stata~ards of Review for Changes to Historically Designated Properties Ms. Bjurman explained that the proposal is to have a hierarchy where staffwould approve some types of changes and other changes would go to the Planning Commission. A brief discussion followed wherein it was agreed that the committee would review and the Planning Commission would create the ranking. Com. Harris recommended that the rating scale on Page 11 be a cumulative rating. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the 4 categories be included in the Definitions Section 19.82.020. In response to a properly owner's request to speak, Chair Roberts informed him that the public input portion of the meeting was closed, and stated that the item was being continued to September 23, at which time more public input was welcome. He encouraged the property owner to contact staff prior to the meeting if it was a clarification matter. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue the item to September 23, 1996 for further discussion Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Chair Roberts declared a recess at 9:30 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m. the same Commissioners and staff were present. PUBLIC I~ARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 11-U-96, 2-Z-83 {Mod.)and 18-EA-96 Symantec Cupertino City Center Apartment II, by Sunset Ridge Development Lot 5 of Tract 7953 Cupertino City Center Use Permit/Planned Development Rezoning/Amendment to Heart of City Specific Plan to allow construction of 141,000 sq. ~. corporate headquarters office building plus 4 levels of underground parking for Symantec Corp. on 1.29 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996 planning Commission Minutes 11 August 26, 1996 Staff nresentatign: Mr. Cowan explained that the application was cominued from the August 12 meeting because of the need to address the design issues and the need for historical perspective on the Cupertino Town Center Plan. Referring to the 1964 architectural development plan, he illustrated the proposed General Plan for Cupertino, which included a multiple story complex series of residential properties on the eastern edge, some high rise offices and some commercial properties. He noted that the only property developed according to the 1964 General Plan was the Blltmore Apartments in the vicinity of Rodrignez and Blaney Avenues. He noted that in the 1960s federal fi~nds were used to develop 20 year General Plans, and they were typically long term plans. Mr. Cowan presented a chronology describing how the Master Plan has evolved since 1983. He referred to an overhead of the 1983 Phase II Plan and reviewed the background of the Master Plan as outlined in the attached staffreport. He noted that PD Ordinance 19.48.040 illustrated what was needed at various planning stages. Mr. Cowan explained that the conceptual plan is intended to describe land use types and the general cimulation system was never meant to show buildings. He said there have been some Planned Developments in residential zones that are quite detailed because it is a small piece of property but the Master Plan for Vallco Park shows only uses for various areas of the community. Mr. Cowan noted that some Planning Commissioners were concerned about how the Symantec building would fit into the overall Master Plan, and said he would attempt to address the concerns. Chair Roberts questioned how a decision could be made involving the property without knowing the consequences of the development on the site. He asked that the applicant identify the potential uses of this property using the City's General Plan, and describe how it would relate to the proposed Symantec building as well as the 8 story buildings. Mr. Cowan explained that the General Plan as presently drafted only allows one additional use. All the space for office in this quadrant of land in the Crossroads area is taken by this building. He said there has not been a complete detailed site plan for this property; it is not owned totally by one sole owner and the land uses have fluctuated over the years. Based on the present General Plan, it would be a retail activity. He said that the Sirens property would probably be used as a restaurant site for the next 3 to 4 years, and there may be some opportunity for redevelopment at that site. He commented that a multi story retail would not likely be successful at the location. He said that it might be appropriate to consider housing on the site in the future and suggested that perhaps the plan being adopted should delete the reference to a large scale apartment on that site. Mr. Cowan said the purpose of tonight's presentation with the applicant is to discuss how the site will relate to the other sites. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Cowan stated that the designated square footage was approximately 640,000 sq. ftc. in the 1983 plan which included taking the 50,000 sq. ft. designated for retail. He noted that there was an actual zoning amendment to delete the requirement for 50,000 sq. ft. retail. Mr. Cowan pointed out the relevancy of the 1983 zoning plan which was conceptual to the successive changes in the use permits that have evolved- over time, and said it might be helpful in understanding the level of detail being discussed with the 1983 Plan as compared to the individual use permits. He said that the existing General Plan has various pools of retail space that are allocated to various areas of town and there is still a small allocation for the Crossroads area, therefore the particular owners would have to make application for some of that pool space, about 250,000 sq. ft up and down Stevens Creek, plus some additional categories. He said there was ample retail available; and it is the only use available unless they purchase credits from other people. The big issue has been "what k/nd of place is City Center going to be? Is it going to be suietly aa office development or will it have a large component of retail to attract customers and daytime activity? Mr. Cowan said that when the decision was made to have a regional shopping center at Valhio in 1973 the dye wis cast because the previous owner had sought retail development. It has evolved into a s'mgle dimensional office use. In 1987 it was fairly easy for the Council to say they would no loager require 50,000 sq. ft. of retail, the entire 640,000 sq. ~. could be had as office/industrial. He said it was a painful decision as everyone was anticipating this would be mixed use, public place with retail. Mr. Cowan noted that the operation is the Specific Plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard which contains written guidelines on development and shows the site can be used for Apple as 140,000 sq. ~. He explained that one of the proposals presented is to change the designation from Apple to Symantec There is no Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 26, 1996 graphic depiction of how that particular Sirens site can be used He noted that the other issue to be addressed is the design of the site. Mr. Cowan stated that the 98~ Plan was fairly detailed for a conceptual zoning plan. Responding to questions, Mr Cowan stated that the Planning Commission could require a more explicit Master Plan at buildup. He said that presently there is only the Skens site and the housing, which is a question the Planning Commission might want to address. He noted that it was the c'ty's initiative, not the property owner's, to have more opportunity fbr housing, and pointed out it was staff's recommendation two years ago to maintain the hotel site even though it was not economically viable at the present time. Presently, the zoning plan and the Stevens Creek Boulevard Plan says hotel, therefore the Planning Commission would have to initiate it. Chair Roberts referred to the Cupertino City Center correspondence dating back to 1994, noting that Exhibit Diagram lC indicates the applicant's preference, and the applicant's preference is for housing where housing is shown and for office in that part of the Siren's site. The applicant's preference would require a General Plan amendment. Mr. Cowan explained that it was an industrial plan submitted at staff's request to respond to changes to the apartment design end how it would mesh with the existing proposed uses. However, it did not convey any of the design issues to be addressed at the present meeting; it only dealt with land use intensity. Mr. Gordon Ciohon, Worldwide Operations, Symantec, stated that following the August 12 meeting Symantec submitted a letter for review addressing the concerns raised at the meeting. He noted that a revised scale model of the proposed facility was available for examination. The Planning Commissioners examined the revised scale model provided. Mr. Bill Ballantine, HOK Axchitects, explained that HOK was the author of the original plan, and said that although HOK could not represent the owner of the one piece, they envisioned a block plan for the entire scheme. He said that it was hoped that it would be primarily retail on the site, and illustrated the location of the housing and the proposed hotel site. Referring to the August 21 Symantec letter, Mr. Ballantine explained the modifications made to the building design responding to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commissioners at the August 12 meeting: An attempt was made to reduce the mass of the building as seen from DeAnza Blvd. By adding an additional step ' ' to the building, the mass has been reduced and the building now appears as a series of one-story elements. The main mass of the building is now shift:ed back an additional 12-1/2 feet from DeAnza Blvd. The setback of the steps has been increased from 10 feet to 12-I/2 feet, the maximum depth without disrupting the planning module. To increase the depth beyond that would have caused the loss of an entire row of offices or work stations. The new design responds to the issue orS0 feet to 100 feet variations along DeAnza Blvd. The windows have been change to evoke a more horizontal and streamlined appearance which will sot~en the building considerably. The height of the penthouse has been lowered approximately 2 feet and changed its shape to blend with the overall character &the building and the horkontal nature of the facade. Mr. Ballantine illustrated the relocation of the loading dock closer to the comer where it only would affect half as many residential units as it did in the past. He explained that positioning the loading dock at the north elevation of the project would have impeded the traffic flow along the main circulation street. He noted that the property management company was contacted and they were satisfied with the relocation of the loading dock and said there were in fact delighted with the garden-like appearance that most of the aparUnents would experience. The otiginai scale model of the facility complex was displayed for comparison purposes. In response to Com. Hah'is' ' ' - quesUon about landseapmg, Mr. BallanUnn stated that the landscaping has not been completely developed, but there is room to have the landscaping developed and the intent will be to have it appear soft:er with minimum paving. He pointed out that there would be a pedestrian connection to the other Symantec building and noted that it was illustrated on the scale model shown. Mr. Ballantine referred to the architectural drawings of the south and west elevations and answered Commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 26, 1996 Responding to Com. Doyle's question about the sign wall, Mr. Ballantine stated that a si~n program would be developed for Symantec to identify the building. He said that a stone wall sign, approximately 4 feet, was being considered to enhance Symantec's logo. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There wes no one present who wished to speak. Mr. Cowan summarized the actions to be considered: (I) the Specific Plan change from Apple to Symantec; (2) the actual zoning plan change; and (3) the use permit. He noted that the use permit could be approved with the condition to return with the landscaping and signs at a future date He explained that the zoning change was needed because the Mester Plan indicates the area in question es a surface parking lot. Mr. Cowan said that Freeman, Tung & Bottomley commented on segmentation, the loading dock and the streetscape along the private road in the east/west direction fi-om DeAnza Blvd. east back to the 8 story building. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the 4 story building wherein Com. Doyle expressed concern about the 70 foot height of the 4 story building. Mr. Ballantine explained that some factors contributing to the floor to floor height of 13-1/2 feet included wiring for PCs and indirect lighting. Mr. B. Viskovich, Director of Public Works, reported that es requested at the previous meeting, the consultant included the DeAnza Blvd/Bollinger Road traffic analysis, which indicated there would be no change because it did not meet the criteria of ten vehicles per lane approach. He noted that the consultant has been requested to make some minor changes in the report that would reflect the restrictions at Rodriquez/Torre and Vista/Stevens Creek Blvd. He stated that there has been no change at the D level. Com. Mahoney stated that the issues have been addressed and the appearance from DeAnza Blvd. has been improved. He said that he wes in favor of all three elements, with the exception of returning with the landscaping elements. Com. Doyle said that his concerns about building height were addressed; he noted that four floors of parking were part of the plan. He said he felt the entrance was appropriate; location of the loading dock wes still questionable, however should not delay the project; setbacks were improved. Cora. Doyle said he felt the building did resemble a headquarters building, but still appeared "blocky" on the south end. He questioned if there wes support for a Master Plan for the entire block, and if so, what would be the timeline? Responding to the concern relative to the parking issue, Mr. Cowan said that by having the landscaping go across to the surface parking lot fur the Lincoln properties building next door, they may want to go deeper to meet the parking that would be replaced by the landscaping, therefore the condition should slate that 657 parking spaces plus whatever spaces that are dele'ted by the landscaping on the Lincoln property site. He commented that the Planning Commission might want to modify the zoning and use permit, Section 3, No. 2, Parking. He said that it should be assured that the parking supply meets the need not only the on-site that is referenced by the 657 parking' gpaces but also any parking that would be replaced by virtue of the landscaping on the Lincoln property site (epprofimateiy 40 spaces). A discussion ensued regarding the modification of the Master Plan wherein Mr. Cowan answered Commissioners' questions. Com. Austin said that she wes in favor of the zoning change to reflect discussions; she said she felt the revised plan addressed ail the issues except for the loading dock, however, the tracks backing into the loading dock may be sufficient. She recommended that the landscaping be returned to staff for an architectural site application; the underground parking reflecting the spaces wes appropriate. Corn Austin said she was in favor of the revised plan. Com. Harris said that the changes were significant and effective; the window U'eatment changes the quality look of the building; the roof equipment changes were much more suitable to the rounded section; the additional step and the cut at the end were appropriate. She said she felt more landscaping was needed in the front with an eye Planning Commission I~nutes 14 August 26, 1996 to the view from DeAnza Blvd. for passers-by with the use of color or berms to make it more attractive. She said that she planned to vote against the proposal because it was the Master Plan enacted in 1983 with many components, one of which was the novel idea of pui~ing massive towers, recessed from the road; and in exchange for that other properties were left as surfaced parking lots that were landscaped; an area that was open space is now houses; a small area that was to be apartments with parking is now fully developed. Com. Hams said that 50,000 sq. ft. of low rise retail was shifted into those towers to get 640,000 SCl. ft. and that was the commitment at the time for the development; now adding another 141,000 sq. ft as well as what the retail would be, more multi story apartments. She noted that the building is 70 feet tall, and she said she did not feel it was appropriate for the site; buildings such as tins block the light and the view, create traffic, pollution and is too dense. She said she grew up in Philadelphia and New York and did not want to see the same thing in Cupertino. Com. Harris said she was not opposed to giving Symantec 50,000 sq. fir.; but did not feel this was the place to do it and could not approve the application. Chair Roberts concurred with Com. Harris in proposing the zoning change. He said he felt that the building, while the design is attractive and improvements have been made, was too massive for the site and that overall the conceptualization of the City Center is not leading to a cohesive development for this important and crucial area in the Heart of the City, and felt if there had been a coherent concept from the beginning perhaps something much better would have come about; and as it is there is a hodgepodge of big bulky buildings that will obscure the view from the park which is an important feature. The City has e gone to a lot of trouble to create a park at the Crossroads and one appealing feature of the park. the view of the hills, will be obscured by the 70 foot building. He said that he would vote no on the application. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration Com. Austin Com. Harris and Chair Roberts Passed 3 -2-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the amendment to the Heart of the City Plan to allow development of a 141,000 sq. ff. office building in the City Center area for Symantec Corporation Com. Austin Com. Harris and Chair Roberts Passed 3-2-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approval Application 2-Z-83 with the changes to the parking to accommodate lost space; Site Exhibit No.1, change "second rews~on' ' 'is modified" to read "third revision is approved"; and to designate "the parcel located immediately to the north of the Symantec site may be used for retail and/or residential subject to the allocation of retail space and housing fi'om the commercial pool". Com. Au~n Com. Harris and Chak Roberts Passed 3 -2-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the use permit for Application I 1-U-96, including changes to parking and landscaping to return as architectural site application Com. Austin Com. Harris and Chair Roberts Passed 3 -2-0 Mr. Cowan reported that the application would be presented to the City Council on September 3, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes 15 August 26, 1996 OLD BUSINESS Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-96 (Mod.) Paul Weiss Paul Weiss 20955 B Stevens Creek Boulevard Modification to a sign permit exception for a car dealership to allow two ground signs for a two-month period. (Director's minor modification and referral to Plann/ng Commission). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categoricaliy Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff ~: Mr. Cowan reviewed the attached staff report and noted that Mr. Davidson was experiencing a delay with the Chevrolet people to move the GEO sign so that the Chrysler Plymouth sign can be installed. Staffis recommending approval of the amendment to allow a 30-60 day delay in moving the GEO sign. It is recommended that a $2,000 letter of deposit be provided by applicant to ensure removal of the sign within the prescribed period. In response to Commissioners' comments, Mr. Cowan stated that he would look into the issue of the banner signs. Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Gerry Davidson, dealership owner, said that he was experiencing difficulty in dealing with General Motors Company relative to the removal of the GEO sign and installation of the Cl~sler Plymouth sign. He pointed out that operating without a brand sign was affecting his business negatively and likely causing a loss of money to the City. Mr. Davidson explained the sign agreement with General Motom Company. Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Austin said she was in favor of the amendment to the application. Com. Doyle said he was also in favor of the application. Com. Mahoney said he was in favor of the application. Com. Haxris said she was in favor of installing the new Chwsler sign, with the GEO sign being removed. Mr. Davidson said that he has attempted to be cooperative in every way and felt he was a contributing factor to the City of Cupertino. MOTION: - - SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 9-ASA-96 (Mod.) according to the model resolution. Com. Austin Com. Hams Passed 4-1-0 Mr. Cowan noted that the action was final, unless appealed within 14 days. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Cowan announced that - the meeting of the Economic Development Cormmttee was scheduled for September 18.