Loading...
PC 08-26-91 CITY, OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 26, 1991 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL tl.LL: Commi6sion~rs Present: vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin commissioners Absent: Chairman Mackenzie staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development ciddy Wordell, City Planner Bert viskovich, Director of Public Works Cheryl Kershner, Deputy city Attorney vice Chair Fazekas informed the Commission, as Chr. Mackenzie was absent, he would be Acting Chr. for this hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of August 12, 1991, as presented Com. Mahoney Passed 4-0 Chr. Mackenzie MOTION: POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: -None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Vice Chr. Fazekas informed the Commission of letters received regarding items 1 and 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSEN1Þ"~ENDAR : - None P~NING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION 3-GPA-90 - CITY OF CUPERTINO: ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING to continue discussion of the General Plan, including goals and technical analysis. staff Presentation: city Planner Wordell presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. She reiterated where the planning commission is at this time regarding goals for the General Plan. She noted this hearing would cover traffic and the seminary property. Mr. Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works, gave a brief overview of the traffic and how traffic plays an important role in the land use element of the General Plan. He noted a traffic computer model will be used to determine traffic as well as having to work with a regional system. He presented the County's adopted regional system which is before Congestion Management Agency for final adoption. Mr. Viskovich reiterated the Congestion Management's elements as outlined in the staff report. He noted the same methodology would be used throughout the County to determine the level of service of traffic. He noted that CMA will not have any approval powers but will assist the Cities, giving out guidelines. He stated the computer Model is a regional model which incorporates nine bay area counties, ABAG and MTC criteria and standards. Mr. Viskovich explained the water theory. He stated traffic is constantly going through a change. The sponge theory was explained, noting that building an additional roadway will generate more traffic over the peak hour. A map indicating the levels of service at intersections throughout the city was presented to the Commissioners. He noted the existing General Plan with the Computer Model, was used to determine the levels of service. He stated any development above the existing General Plan will create a lower level of service and ways to mitigate this is necessary. Staff is working with large Companies in looking at some aggressive TDM programs. He noted the TDM programs should be locked in with the development. congestion Management will aid the City in this process. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. viskovich stated staff is working with Companies at present on TDM programs. He noted if a company implements a TDM program it will be capacity to build in the future. He noted the overall incentive for TDM programs is if the city does not comply with CMP subventions are cut by the state. In response to Com. Mahoney's question Mr. Viskovich stated it is a build out model of the zoning. He noted the model will be using ABAG projections. Mr. viskovich stated it is difficult to designate certain intersections as C level as traffic will overflow from other intersections. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regúlar Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 3 In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. viskovich explained how the delay is determined at intersections. He stated the determination is over a one hour period. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding traffic management. Com. Mahoney questioned the matrix used. Mr. Viskovich explained the matrix and stated the Grand Blvd, based on the Friedman Report, will be reduced by two lanes, reducing the traffic capacity. In response to Com. Mahoney's question regarding the length of the peak period, Mr. viskovich stated the General Plan will address this issue. He stated the peak period rather than peak hour must be addressed. Corn. Fazekas stated one component of the TDM was to spread the peak hour by flex hours for employees. In response to Com. Fazekas' question Mr. Viskovich stated they had not addressed site specific locations. He noted staff will look at the development proposals submitted to date and determine what levels of service this would create. If there is too much impact on current levels this will be addressed. He noted the plan is to test each developer's request and see how their particular development impacts the level of service. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Burnett, 729 Stendal Ln., with regards to trips and the new growth, he questioned what kind of assumption is made to where people are living. In response, Mr. Viskovich stated the model, because it is a regional model, takes into consideration, salary, home prices etc. In response to Com. Fazekas' question regarding Imbalance, Mr. Viskovich stated there is no guarantee who lives in Cupertino will work in Cupertino. Jobs/Housing that everyone Discussion was then held on the Seminary property. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell explained that discussion guidelines are listed in the staff report. Ms. Wordell presented a General Plan Land Use Designation map explaining the existing zoning designations. She stated text in the General Plan indicates the maximum units allowed on the property is 293. The General Plan also includes a section to consider open space use for the purpose of linkages along the western foothills and also San Antonio Park. Ms. Wordell indicated there is background information Williamson Act in the staff report. She noted there al ternati ves for the property owner: 1) File a notice renewal or 2) Cancellation, city must make findings to on the are two of non- do this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 4 which are included in the staff report. Ms. Wordell commented on the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations. She noted the Commission defined open space based on State Law which is outlined in the staff report. She went on to explain the environmental conditions of the property including slopes and tree and vegetation coverage. Ridgelines were also identified as well as the fault line. The Parks and Recreation Commission adopted a map of sensitive areas on this property. The Parks and Recreation commission recommend emphasis on the open space aspect of this property, every available option should be pursued to maintain the open space; the Williamson Act contract should be retained; constraint areas should be retained as open space. The Parks and Recreation Commission also recommended that areas not constrained should have development guidelines. city Planner Wordell presented slides to the Commission showing the property and surrounding areas in discussion. Fr. Boyle, Diocese of San Jose, explained when the diocese bought this property it involved more land. He stated it was bought to build a Seminary and also for an investment. Fr. Boyle explained how the property is divided out, 400 acres were sold to the County, which is now Rancho San Antonio Park. He noted much of the property has been kept as open space. The piece of property in question is a major asset to the Diocese, he stated it is essential to convert this property into working endowments as expressed by the Bishop, noting the environment will be taken into consideration. He noted the Diocese will sell this property for open space for a fair market price. Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, expressed concern regarding the Parks and Recs. Commission to keep the property as open space. He stated the church has property rights and it is appropriate to look at developing this property. He feels the sensitive areas, as pointed out, should not be precluded entirely from development. Mr. Sobrato presented slides to the Commission explaining the existing use of the sensi ti ve areas and showed developments in other cities compatible to what is planned for this property. He feels the property is being dealt with unfairly with regards to the sensitive areas. He noted the type of development planned is single family detached homes with open space. They will work around the trees and fences will be restricted to perimeter of the home. He stated the City needs to provide for a reasonable amount of growth. The property will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Mr. Joe Tembrock, 20791 Scofield Dr., stated he is for open space in cupertino, but stated the Church should receive fair value for their property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Melvin Caldwell, ~0300 E. Estates Dr., stated the City's growth is not all bad. He noted the City needs development to supply the amenities the residents want. Upgrading of existing parks is needed. He stated the church needs funding to provide services to the community. He supports the General Plan for low density housing and open space. Mr. C.L. Heppler, 2022 Sunnyview Ln., Mountain View, noted he is a member of st. Joesph's church. He stated although he is in favor of open space it costs money and brings in no tax. He noted the funds of this property are needed for the services the church provides. Ms. Nadine Grant, spokesperson for OAKS, noted OAKS has a joint statement from both Fr. Boyle and OAKS. She said OAKS is working with the church to identify sources of funding. She noted OAKS is looking at a graduated type of plan in which the property can be purchased. OAKS is in support of the continuing sales plan the Diocese has put together, but would request time to find the different sources possible to make this a retail purchase. She feels opens space is a source of revenue to the City. Mr. Phil zeitman, 22907 Cricket Hill, stated the Parks and Recreation Commission held extensive hearings before they came up with their recommendations. He noted the guidelines are decisions from the public as well as the Recreation Commission. He feels the Commission is addressing all foothill property, but is concerned about the Seminary property. He feels the Planning commission should address the Williamson Act. Regarding taxes, Mr. zeitman stated the City only receive a one time development tax. Mr. Andy Smith, 854 Lily Ave., noted parks in Cupertino need upgraded. He stated it is unfair to disallow development on the church property and feels it will not significantly encroach on the open space. Mr. Cas Slodki, 7515 Kirwin Ln., stated the rights of individual property owners in cupertino should also go to the church. Mr. Jack Birkholz, 21381 Milford Dr., questioned why the church property should be treated differently from any other property owner in cupertino. Ms. Ann Anger, 10185 Empire Ave., commented on the amount of open space in Cupertino. She stated there are 4 acres per 1000 people. Cupertino has 140-150 acres of parks. She spoke in favor of the development as it will provide needed housing. She stated the Church property is private property. Ms. Diane Ikeda, 10411 Byrne Ave., stated the Diocese of San Jose need funds from the property to serve the community. She spoke in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 6 favor of development on the property. Fr. Kimm, st. Joseph's Church, stated the church consists of people and the property should be sold at fair market value. Mr. steven Haze, 22681 San Juan Rd., Chairperson for OAKS, noted there have been several meetings with the Diocese, Sobrato and OAKS. He noted OAKS is sensi ti ve to the church having a fair return for their property. He stated OAKS has been working with the State Assembly and State Senate to obtain sources of funding, noting this is a regional issue. He feels with working with state and County groups they will be successful in offering money as a fair return to the church. Mr. Darwin Throne, Chairman, Parks & Recreation commission, noted the Parks & Recs. Commission did not advocate the City buy this property. The Commission would encourage acquisition of the property for a fair market value. He noted the recommendations are made to preserve natural areas in this property, if developed. He noted the Church property has not been singled out, the recommendations cover all foothill areas. Mr. Jerrold Keating, 10370 Lindsay Ave, stated the church should get a fair return for their property. Ms. Eleanor Field, 867 Deershire Way, Sunnyvale, noted she is a member of OAKS. She commented on the discussion directed towards cost. She expressed concern about the forum development diminishing the value of open space. Mr. Dave Bauer, 21597 Flintshire, stated that open space contributes to the quality of life and development will reduce this. He stated Rancho San Antonio and Mid Peninsula provide recreation and health benefits to the community and this should be reserved. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see an overlay comparison from Sobrato and Parks and Recreation Department. ci ty Planner Wordell reiterated the goals, implementations as outlined in the staff report. policies and The Commissioners gave direction to staff as to the information they request for the next hearing. - More detailed drawing of trails - Breakdown on the usable land and compare with other large developments - See in context with other open space - Alternate proposals for the sensitive areas - More housing types (affordable) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 7 - Aggressive TDM plan Corn. Fazekas stated he would like to look at private open space vs. City parks vs. private parks. He questioned if it is a good idea to have a park next to the open space. Mr. Cowan stated this is an issue for the Parks and Recreation and they are working on this at this time. It was agreed by the Commission to have a site visit of the Seminary Property and the Forum Development on September 25, 1991. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Mann moved to continue application 3-GPA-90 to the meeting of September 9, 1991 Corn. Austin Passed 4-0 Chr. Mackenzie MOTION: OLD BUSINESS: 2. APPLICATION 6-U-90 - CHARLES REYNOLDS: a minor modification to a use permit increase house size. Requesting approval of to revise setbacks and staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan stated he had received a fax from Mr. Reynolds informing staff he would not change the original plans submitted. The applicant was not present. Com. Mahoney stated the plan was approved as a 1300 s.f. house on a corner lot and would not support anything different. Com. Mann stated she was willing to go up to 50% FAR with a smaller garage. Com. Austin stated and has not done application. the applicant was requested to reduce the FAR so, therefore she would not support this Com. Fazekas concurred with the Commissioners. The public hearing was opened. Acting Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to deny application 6-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Chr. Mackenzie SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 8 3. APPLICATION 32-U-85 - THE FORUM AT RANCHO SAN ANTONIO: Review and acceptance of proposed van pooling program. staff Presentation: city Planner Wordell stated a condition of approval for this application was the Planning Commission's approval of a van pooling program. She noted the applicant is proposing one 20 passenger van and two 9-15 passenger vans for the residents. The passenger vans will be provided Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. and on special request. For employees they will provide rides to and from bus stops, they will help coordinate carpooling and provide financial reimbursement upon evidence that people are car pool ing . Staff recommends approval of the plan with the following conditions: A Commute Coordinator should be appointed; an annual report of the progress of the program should be submitted. Com. Mahoney questioned the fee for medical emergencies. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ron covert, Executive Director, stated that all vehicles are not handicap accessible. In response to Com. Mahoney's question Mr. Covert stated there is no fee for medical emergencies. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Mahoney moved to approve application 32-U-85 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Corn. Mann Passed 4-0 Chr. Mackenzie MOTION: 4. APPLICATION ll-U-90 Minor Amendment of proposed two-story approximately 50 ft. changes. - SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO. Requesting a the Use Permit site plan to shift a building toward the northeast by and to provide other minor architectural staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan reiterated comments from the last hearing and staff report. He noted there is no penthouse. He showed a side by side comparison showing the approved plan vs. the proposed plan. The staircase is now inside and on the opposite side of the building. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bob McEntire, Apple Computer, stated the project has proceeded. Three of the Motorola buildings have been demolished and construction is underway. He noted building one will be completed in November '92 and building 6 completed November '93. Mr. Bill Valentine, Architect, showed a model of building four pointing out the changes. He noted there is no penthouse and the .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 26, 1991 Page 9 stairway is now inside~ Acting Chr. Fazekas closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 11-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Mann Passed 4-0 Chr. Mackenzie SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Deputy city Attorney noted there was not an open and closed public hearing for item 3, but at the public hearing for item 4 there were no public present. NEW BUSINESS: 5. Discussion of possible Revocation Hearing for Application 36- U-86 John Vidovich, pertaining to Non-Compliance with Conditions of Approval for a 106 unit Apartment Building at 10100 stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report. He stated Mr. vidovich will comply with the conditions of approval to install the parking spaces on the first level. The applicant will then submit an application to try and get the 15 parking spaces deleted. Mr. Cowan stated the change in the parking was requested from the residents who felt parking was not adequate and wanted the 15 parking spaces. The Planning commission agreed by consensus not to continue revocation proceedings due to Mr. vidovich's willingness to comply with the conditions of approval. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Austin noted newspaper articles she distributed to the Commissioners regarding Silicon Valley Com. Fazekas reported on the Grand Blvd. Committee. He noted land use and traffic options were discussed. The Committee feels the Grand Blvd. is not possible without the grade crossing at De Ànza and Stevens Creek Blvd. Retail or Residential units on the Grand Blvd. was discussed. city Planner Wordell stated there was a strong consensus from the Committee to have housing on the Grand Blvd. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None