PC 01-09-85 • ' * CITY OF CT'P:hT .C) nI -r E IA r
--t
"4t 1C?00 0_�l e Lveru.e, Cu,_ ._ �ino,i'r . 1'1C,11} . Ps -e 1
-. i Telephone : (408) 2.2-4'.:,0G
110 1J Un S O7 := ��ECU n _. ^PJOU l: i�_l ET:TIED 071 TEE PLANNING,'11"' Till 1-_ 1-: i L 1JIli� %T- 1 i_ (_� �'1 p _1'
rO:i Is IOti NE1 L O-; ' n • UARY 9 , 1 9E5
N � J.� 1C �1i'C L AL.1
SALUTE TO
THE FLAG G 7 _
.m.
BOLL CALL
Co...N:issioners Present : Co=issioner iackenzie
Cor-imissioner Adams
Con issioner Szabo
Cor.missioner Sorensen 1
Chairperson Claudy
Jtaf1. ?resent : Dir. of FlanninU R. Level . Sisk
Assistant Flannin,': Director Cowan
Tr%._lic F,nr.rineer UrJ
City Attorney 'Kilian
APPROVAL 0'_' 1,1IiJ:"TES
The ''=inutes of the He,;ular Adjourned ;eetinr; of December 12,
198,4 were approved alter the followin7 corrections :
Pare 2, 3rd rare._;Jr••r.h, 2nd line, "been previously deter tined
that it vas i.:'-,oss ible" to be deleted and 'not been determine.,:
how" to he substituted.
411
:'a' E I-,, 9th .are. 'a 1'h, 1st line "not strictly necessary,
s' nce: there 1%'ati al_ Proxl:natelu 20., surplus office sr ace in
the City currently " to be deleted and "ina prorriate due
to the loss of the two housinr- units" to be substituted.
Farce C, 7th nary:_-rar.h, 1st line, to be added after the 5th
word "there was ' sip;nil'ic=ar!t ptarkinr problem that was not
addressed b,y the aprlicaticn. Also, ".
i !CTIO:. • Con. Adams, that the Minutes be accepted as
corrected .
:;_7Ct,' `L': Co.:.. 1',,uckenzie
VOi : Passed 4-0
(Chr. Claudy abstaininU;, since he was absent
for the '`;eetin ) .
1,,RITr1-31\ CO':; :.TJw.IC ATIGES
ORAL CUT :-.15.11ICATIONS
CONS -NT CPT E TD,n-
T I
r U L.L l L 11 1_,l'.=V
II
_ II
2
1!, l r 2 F,� E. n-T•- r C PT- •m '[ -iP Tr+ - q-- ,3
1 . rn _C,.,.1._.� ! L-(11�:�-C_ t of CI TT: .11h J ._-.-L�.L1.�J 1,V4. TJ_.l _.it ,.�.,..
to consider an smencb en;; to the City of Cupertino General Plan
inclucdinr , but not limiter'. to, thd auend.nents described below:
I'
1 . ::ew 1'e emulations re,"'ardinr' Coame_rcial land use in the
Old "ionta Vista _ lannin:C Ai ea (properties 7enerally
located on either side of Stevens Creek Douleva rd
between Pubb Road. and Oran 1;e Avenue/ ann Drive
intersections) .
II
u
C
2 . ACh c�n^'E in land use :nixT aT'iOrtion i of the
Town
II
CenterPlanninj: Area locat Id to the east of the
proposed Torre Avenue extension.
II
C-? J Staff T p t it ii r-.r r, ' p theOld the :-_e_:or;, for J. er:. 1 , _ re, .aa ain,; ''lonta
II Vista Plann_np Area, Assistant Pl a ninC Director Cowan described
I',
the proposed ChanEc which had 'oeenIl initiated by the Conl::u ssiop
to encourar':e commercial c evelonment in the area. lie exhibited
a dia7ram showin ; the properties basically constrained by the
present policy; hatched in blue, and existing; commercial space
with an existing 1arCe potential fO1' commercial expansion,
- II
hatched in red. :re suMr;ested the Commission could stipulate
that the blue-hatched properties must develop a certain ptercen-
ta.r-e of their sr ace comercially,, or be allowed to develon
coa..: erci ally under the same 7. A .R. P rules as for office space .
:e slmowea calculations that the net increase per acre would be
only 1, 000 sc . ft . i f the incenti plan was allowed, with a
fairly small Increase in traffic ir!tensity ..
D,uestioned by the Commission, he a; ecd that, at present , the
area minh.t not be a commercially viable one, and since there
was little present or potential residential r;rowth there, the
office space in the area mloht have to nenerate future increases in
commercial customers .
Ann A n;per, Ponta Vista resident, thOu=;ht that developers should
be required to build in such a way hat office space could
later be converted to commercial space, when the market was
there for it . -
Richard Childress, 11701 ReCna rt Cknyon Drive, developer,
11
thoul_ht that if it could be made worthwhile for developers to
put in comlr,mercia.l and office space;, on an equal basis, some
commercial space would be built . He . noted that he had just
constructed a buildin-, in the area. with 40 ; commercial snare,
and advised that there had been inerest in leasing, it as such .
He advised the Co„mission that off iice space commanded a one-
thirU. hieher rent and cost less toil operate than commercial .
Asked by Chr. Claude whether it was viable to build "store
II
front" office space to rive a feeling of neighborhood
commercial, ;:r. Childress said it I: s, and noted that this
had already been encoura:.ned pr
esent resent policy, and would
EVen�
tuG.l l,' result�:t in a " fC. aO�°:'I.�G •:n"
*F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio
II
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 9, 1985 PC-1+56
Norm Hulberg, developer, advising that he had recently Page 3
110 received approval for development of two office buildings on
approximately two-thirds of the area 'hatched blue on the
diagram, wondered if he would now be required to develop it
as commercial space if the change was approved. He related
that the demand in Monta Vista presently was to build office
space, not only because of the F.A.R. * discrepancies between
office and commercial space, but because of demand, and he
wanted to see commercial demand grow naturally from the
demand from office populations such as his . He advised that
his buildings would not be suitable for retail tenants
because of the parking aspect, but thought that doctors,
insurance services, etc . , could locate there .
Questioned by the Commission about the type of tenants
creating the demand in IIionta Vista, Mr. Hulberg advised they
were mostly small businesses, since buildings were small.
Questioned by Com. Szabo on the parking situation, Assistant '
Planning Director Cowan explained that in the Old Monta
Vista Plan, some credit for on-street parking was allowed,
and that there was a potential parking area behind the
market, and tenants could also make shared parking arrange-
ments; all of which added up to a tremendous potential for
commercial use .
•
411 Dave McLeroy, Monta Vista resident and businessman, agreed
with previous speakers that the market place should decide
• whether office or commercial space should be constructed, he
'said. He felt that property owners should be considered,
since they were affected by governmental changes, that
residents of the area should be polled for their wishes,
and that incentives, rather than edicts, should be used to
achieve goals. Asked if he was not concerned about traffic,
Mr. McLeroy thought that theplanned construction of Highway
85 would help, and he did not think that area growth should
be held back.
Jason Chartier, developer, 21060 Homestead Road, stated
there was definitely a need for smaller office space, that
rent and access were important factors, and that doctors,
chiropractors, etc . , and small businesses needed semi-retail
and office space .
Alyene Daggett, President of the Monta Vista Homeowners
. Association, stated that traffic was a major concern of
area residents, who wanted to see good planning and some •
provisions that could protect against future possible parking
congestion. She questioned statement's previously made that
there was no present demand for retail in the area.
410 There was a short discussion amongst the Commission on failed
retail projects in the surrounding area.
*F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio
Pc-456 PLANNING COMMISSION YIINUTES, JANUARY 9, 1985
Page 4
John Repetti, 21800 Almaden Avenue;, was pleased with the
development so far in Monta Vista,, but was concerned that
streets were not always put back in their prior condition,
both by developers and the City, and he also mentioned area
drainage problems.
In discussion, the Commission explo -ed making office and
commercial space interchangeable, ,with the same F.A.R*
applied to both and a 40% commercial/60% office parking mix
required in all cases, and with a provision that, if all
office space was built, 40% could be converted to commercial
at a later date. Architectural requirements were to be such
as to encourage later commercial conversion, especially along
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Mr. Hulberg and Mr. McLeroy opposed the idea that extra
parking be mandated, and felt developers should have the
option to provide it and be able to convert to commercial
in the future, or, not providing it, be unable to do so, and
the choice should be theirs.
The Commission explored the possibility of providing
extra parking by using on-street parking spaces or shared parking,
leaving Use Permit Hearings to determine if buildings could
be constructed with more than 40%, commercial space in this
manner, so that there would be a control on too many public
spaces being used for one building.' •
Assistant Planning Director Cowan, drew attention to an existing
policy in the Old Nonta Vista Plan 'which allocated a certain
amount of public parking spaces toibuildings fronting on Imperial
and Pasadena. He suggested the Con'.mission might want to change
that policy so that all could share in those spaces, situated
in a fairly large lot .
The Commission agreed with the suggestion, and further felt
that publicly held parking spaces, should be reserved for
augmentation of commercial space only.
The consensus of the Commission, to be passed on to the
Environmental Review Committee, was that development in the
area could take place at . 33% F.A .R. *, that 40% of such space
would be allowed as commercial space, with parking to be
provided by the developer or by using the public lot, in
which case the developer would have to request permission from
the City. If feasible, 100% of space could be built commercially.
BREAK 9 : 00 . - 9 : 10 p.m.
Giving the Staff Report for Item ,11. 2 pertaining to the Town
Center Planning Area, Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained
the reason for the requested General Plan amendment in this
case was to allow office development to increase from 45, 000
square feet to 160, 000 square fe
et . He pointed out that there
was much flexibility in the General Plan regarding residential
*F.A.R. - Floor •Area Ratio
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 9, 1985 PC-456
Page 5
mix, and advised that the purpose of the elderly component
111 proposed was to off-set the traffic impacts associated with
the proposed office expansion. He used a diagram to show
the traffic characteristics for the present General Plan,
the approved Use Permit and the requested plan, that showed
the revised plan would use the same number of trips . However
he qualified the statement by advising that the Traffic
Engineer was still having difficulty obtaining appropriate
figures for the elderly housing, since such projects varied
so much. He advised that the change would slightly exacerbate
the jobs/housing imbalance, but suggested the 250 elderly
units might free-up other housing in the City. He indicated
that all-day traffic tended to increase, so that there would
be a traffic difference, but, to prevent delay, suggested
a range of permitted office uses could be developed in con-
junction with the Use Permit .
Com. Mackenzie wondered if the extra trips would be signific-
ant .
Assistant Planning Director Cowan answered that Staff would
be more concerned if plans to prevent that type of traffic
entering the Town Center neighborhood were not in place,
though it could adversely affect a portion of the community
during peak hour.
The Commission determined that because the elderly units
would be rented, not sold, the age rule would be more easily
enforced.
City Attorney Kilian felt this still could present a problem.
John Vidovich, 1307 S. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale, the applicant,
gave reasons why the units would be unsuitable for younger
tenants. He emphasized that there would be no extra square
footage or traffic, and that the property would only be
built up to the trips allocated to it . Though some condo-
miniums would be eliminated, he said, many more elderly units
were being built in their place, which would not normally be
built in Cupertino, because of cost . He pointed out the
desirability of elderly residences being located in the
particular area because of nearby amenities. He asked per-
mission to discuss the Use Permit at this time.
Chr. Claudy stated that the land use and community character
issues had to be discussed before the Use Permit .
In discussion with the applicant, the Commission established
that the rent for one person in the elderly units would be
approximately $1200, which included some amenities and all
meals. The applicant clarified that, at that figure, the
410 units would be being subsidized by themselves, in exchange
for the office space requested.
PC-456 PLANNING COMA iISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 9, 1985
Page 6
Tony Scott, 20230 John Drive, said the neighborhood traffic
commitee, of which he was a member, was having difficulty in
110
understanding the impacts of different developments, near or
far, on their neighborhood streets, and City arterials, making
evaluation and study difficult for them. They needed a better
view of what was going on to understand what the traffic impacts
or various land uses were, he added. He established that the
elderly units would be situated in the middle of the project
and thought this unsatisfactory, since public transportation
was not adjacent . Iie also disagreed that there would be
employment in the area for seniors who would occupy the
dwellings, and thought that though the concept was valid, the
proposed units would attract only a; very limited segment of
the market .
Marty Miller, 20348 Clay Street, noted that much office space
nationwide was vacant, and a lot of such space was presently
being built in Cupertino, where in !the past a diversity of
construction had tended to reduce risk. He felt the need for
elderly units was valid, but secondary to the need to provide
housing for the office space that ' was being built . Since
the proposed elderly housing was so special purpose, it would
remain vacant if noted rented by the elderly, he conjectured.
He also felt that development should be taking place more slowly
in the area of Town Center, in order for traffic improvements
to catch up with the development that had already taken place .
Pat Napolis, Sunnyvale resident, said her mother, an eighty-
one year-old former Cupertino resident, had to live in
Sunnyvale because of the unavailability of suitable housing
in Cupertino . She herself volunteered with seniors, and she
knew there was a need for such housing, since units she was
involved with had a one to three ;year waiting list, she added,
advising that the costs quoted were not unreasonably high,
since apartments cost $900 or more per month to rent, with
no amenitles. .
Corn. Sorensen established with Staff that a recent report
by the Rental Housing Committee to City Council, though it
had encouraged elderly housing, had encouraged new units of
general rental housing primarily.
In discussion, Corns . Adams, Sorensen and Szabo observed that
the current office building vacancy in the County was 17%,
and that there was a very large potential increase of such
construction in the City, which might result in a vacancy
rate of 40/50% eventually, with a dearth of housing space .
They were in favor of more senior housing, but not in favor
of constructing more office space to obtain it .
Com. Szabo pointed out that the proposed office traffic
would have a different impact on, the peak hour traffic than
would condominium traffic, since, the office traffic would go
south through residential neighborhoods, he surmised,
whereas the condominium traffic would go north using main
arterials.
r,1:17--PLANNING COPS MISSION MINUTES, JANUARY 9, 1985 PC-456
Page 7
Com. Mackenzie, though in theory he did not disagree with
the proposed plan, was unconvinced that the data used to
arrive at the trip ends would work, and di not think there
would be enough trip ends left to support the office space,
so could not support the change .
Chr. Claudy felt that the initially approved dwelling units
had now been whittled down to an unacceptable level. He
pointed out that if the developer did not build the elderly
housing, he would not have to underwrite anything, and could
build the condominiums that were already approved.
He suggested that Item 1. 2 be separated from Item 1.1 and
sent on to City Council, to prevent further delays.
Jason Chartier described problems in building housing over
the past four years, due to fluctuating mortgage and interest
rates.
Chr. Claudy noted that the present inflation rate was the
lowest in years, and also that interest rates were down, and
wondered if it was now feasible to build the type of housing
approved for the site . 0
Mr. Chartier felt the consumer was not ready to buy the ideal
type of housing for the area, which involved parking struc-
410 tures and some height and density; they still wanted garages
and space, he said. Also, financing was a problem, and
apartments could not be built in the area, because of the
cost of the land and location, making financing impossible.
He emphasized that the elderly housing, for which there was
a need, would free-up other existing housing. Concluding, he
said there were reasons for the change and attitude and plans
on the property, or it would have been built long ago .
Com. Sorensen, noting that Mr. Chartier had conducted a market
study on elderly housing, wondered if it had been shown
that $1200 per month was a viable rent .
Mr. Chartier assured that it had, and that there were
waiting lists for more expensive projects.
Com. Szabo observed that when the last change had been
authorized on the property, approximately a year-and-a-half
ago, the market conditions had been much less favorable than
today, and felt that if it was feasible at that time to
build the approved housing, it was feasible now.
Mr. Chartier advised that the project had been completely
redesigned, so that if the market turned it could be rented
in the meantime; the units designed were not suitable for
ilk selling, he said, and were not what he wanted to -build, but
what he had to build because of the unpredictability of the
market .
M- m-gNgg—A"
�'e'�,IFvP q�/'° t'Q@ cv �"' cC � ��fsfi ]t J� 5 e » 3 1.
�"6:ti��&• - / Y
Pc-4 56 PLANNING COMMISSION n:I N`JTES, JANUARY 9, 1985
Page,18
t MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing
for Section 2 of Application 2-3PA-84 (Item 1.2) �
SECOND: Com. Sorensen 5-0
VOTE: :'as:�ed :.
rt.
MOTION: Com. Adams, to recommend denial of �.
Section 2 of Application 2-GPA-84 (Item l.2) ',gip:
SECOND: Com. Szabo 540
VOTE: Passed m
The question of an Environmelahal Impact Report was briefly
discussed, but no action was taken.
POTION: Com. Adams, to continue Section 1 of Application
2-GPA-84 (Item 1.1) until the Meeting of January
28, 1985.
t SECOND: Com. Mackenzie
VOTE: Passed 5-0
u
MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to recommend denial of Applications .....<
27-Z-81 and 23-U-84 for nonconformance with the
General Plan.
,y.
SECOND: Corr, Szabo 5-0
VOTE: Passed ^
PA
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
40
NE�J UUSINESSS
IREPORT OF PLANNING coMicISSION
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR �a'.`•
ADJOURNMENT: 10: 55 P•m-
ATTEST:
APPROVED: »;
1
City lark
-- -
ga, C .
C�airvcrson
s.
7
R
��t[.a�� a /'•• ��.
v.
,�se��y--���s
�•. 9` _ ¢:" t. sr �:?,; a,'�t "t,a.,,x�'s"� '1n""�',., . pr�t7;{..v"v}
s S. r4'Ij, s_., 'zy•' 'r a ,h, '' ..r -.�.
g
2, rt.( , C ^tr'i.ry_ °lia ��• tv+. } t:"`+-.,,f [c'.'4 :',� s„ �*tc:
;4 t aAr,.`. ' f°r<S*-.t•. 1 '`aJ [S`vd ;
S At ."dew ,t,, t.n;'�t[y d ,y-�c t ,;ri�5 r t a s-sa s"� ,' fir,/ •su'" tRi;; t,`�'tM s� i'j$;;.�.uC s7,71..t�,, ,. rx y, it''%
.�;h;.,,;�g•'h�"�,p" + s i a,q;"„''�.b�h�. r + a �Y- �''c h� vJ-..yx �4..X;.M,F�r h:�'�:k�•.r�&;_ yk` �?.
�.,i, x_ v. . +�.5@���`,�S-;�:3rt.,�YJ�.i+•R+'E...> .w,,.�d"a,,:tns.t.�..32.v_.§�2.�+.F_,..�-i'�t�.,taa.__�..,.a.i.":s}:�'S.:`�•a.l�••.......�.`r���x;,. ,:rd.r,-.y,..,.�.r-._f�...s�z-..,�.�..�.d5.(,.,..�;�" :��.tr�.#,�t°`.� :,r. . ::,s. a3^"+�.t:.ri