Loading...
PC 04-29-85 LI ^-0. CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PC-465 10300 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,Ca. 95014 • Page 1 +. TelephoneL (408) 262-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 29, 1985 SALUTE TO THE FLAG : 7 : 30 P .M. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present : Com. Mackenzie Com. Adams Com. Szabo Com. Sorensen Chr. Claudy Staff Present : Dir. of Ping. g Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Planner II Binnendyk APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Adams, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 8, 1985 as presented SECOND : Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 4-0 (Com. Mackenzie abstaining, since he had been absent ) MOTION: Com. Sorensen, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of April 10, 1985 as presented SECOND : Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS : 1. Application 8-Z-85 of CITY OF CUPERTINO : REZONING all properties currently zoned General Commercial (CG) to a P (Planned Development ) zoning district . The rooposed zoning action also involves some properties already zoned Planned Development . The purpose of adding these properties is to ensure consistent design standards for similarly situated properties . The Planned Development zoning district provide additional design and land use flexibility for the City and property owners consistent with the General Plan. ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommend . the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reported the prorosed 411 zoning change had been initiated by City Council and gave the locations of the affected areas, noting the largest was on South De Anza Boulevard, which Staff suggested shouldlbe a separate planning area, and noting that the Sears Store had been inadvertently excluded from the Vallco Shopping Cen er. PC-465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, A= r:IL 29, 1985 Page 2 He relayed Staff ' s sug gestions,ggestions, that all should be zoned P. , and that the CG zone would henceforth be used as a set of guidelines only . He listed the effects of the P zoning 410 which, he said, might mean more delays for property owners but would benefit them in enabling them to better take advantage of F.A.R. rules . �.A.R. _. .. He described the situation on Blossom Lane where four residential units would be affected. Com. Szabo wondered what had happened to the Commission ' s recent prposal to streamline the use permit process . Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised this was still awaiting City Council ' s evaluation, since other priorities had come up. On the issue of street-scape, he described the City plan to widen South De Anza Boulevard to provide another southbound traffic lane, which would be initially effected by cutting the present sidewalk and reducing it to a 5 ft . width, to give an additional 5 ft . of travel lane width, with the utility easement being under the sidewalk and 5 ft . to the west of it , resulting in no street trees, except those on private property. He showed an unmarked exhibit, indicating that the upper diagram sketch illustrated this idea. Mr. Cowan then outlined an alternative sidewalk design of a 10 ft . parkway, with utility easement underneath, next to the travel lane, with a 5 ft . sidewalk and street .trees adjacent to it, as in the lower diagram sketch on the unmarked exhibit . He noted that Staff would like to see the lower diagram plan • adopted, even though it would not be possible in every instance, because of the proximity of buildings to the street . He noted the reluctance of City Council to ear-mark funds for the plan. Questioned by Com. Adams, Mr. Cowan pointed out that in the upper diagram situation, the sidewalk right next to a travel lane would be uncomfortable and there was little likelihood of a tree canopy. He confirmed that most utilities were in the 10 ft . easement behind the present curb . Com. Sorensen established that if the easement was covered by a parkway, it would be planted with shrubs or sod. Assistant Planning Director Cowan discussed with the Commission the larger setback area that would be required to effect the lower diagram, and advised that the redesigning of inefficient parking lots would help. Com. Mackenzie suggested the upper diagram might be improved by putting 5 ft . of turf on the traffic lane side, with 5 ft . of sidewalk adjacent, but was told by Assistant Planning Director Cowan that City Council would not approve the expense. Chr. Claudy established that Staff ' s preference was to accomplish the top diagram, eventually converting to the lower when redevelopment occurred to pay for it, and that the whole project might take twenty years . 410 Com. Adams felt the plan was a satisfactory one. *F.A.R. - Floor Area Ratio PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 PC-465 • Assistant Planning Director Cowan, introducing the issue of Page 3 land use, said the area was general-planned for commercial use, which Staff favored maintaining, tightening up on the rules so that the traditional shopping area would not be converted to office use . Com. Sorensen wanted to preserve the two residential lots at the Shell Station site at the corner of Bollinger and De Anza. Mr. Cowan thought this was feasible. Questioned by Com. Adams on methods of controlling the use, ?ir. Cowan noted that in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area, there were statements on land use which seemed to be effective, and suggested the same in this instance . Chr. Claudy felt there should be an outright prohibition of office development . Assistant Planning Director Cowan cautioned 'that there was a continuous demand for office use in the area, and care should be taken not to stifle redevelopment of sites that were not suitable for commercial use. Com. Mackenzie noted that with P zoning, the merits of each individual application could be scrutinized. Addressing the issue of reciprocal access, Mr. Cowan recalled that City residents had recently been opposing this but that Staff suggested the Commission retain the policy. He mentioned an alley on Sunrise and Scofield that had been so used for forty years, with no complaints . He suggested the issues be discussed and the Hearing continued for one moth. Clara Waltrip, 20532 Blossom Lane read a petition from the subdivision to leave the zoning of the four houses on • Blossom Lane as residential. Her concerns were taxes and what would happen to her property when the highway was widened, she said. The Commissioners explained that, because of Proposition 13 the zoning would make no difference to property taxes, and that there would be no change to the property until it redeveloped, since the current sidewalk plan was to cut off 5 ft . of the existing sidewalk only . Joan Culver, 20520 Blossom Lane, stated that their property had been moved back 25 ft . in the past for the widening of the highway. She reported that the alleyway on Sunrise Drive had been there for thirty-five years and was imperativ- to the neighborhood there for access to De Anza Boulevard. Joe Waltrip, 20532 Blossom Lane, did not think a line should be drawn through the residential tract designating future zoning and favored the four houses retaining R. 1 zoning, and . also felt that a fence should be constructed to separate the : from commercial uses . Chr. Claudy established that none of the homes in question gained access directly from De Anza Boulevard. PC-465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 Page 4 Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that the four lots ` would be hard to redevelop, and Staff had always recommended they do so concurrently. III Chr. Claudy was concerned that this policy would give one owner eto power over the other three. There was more discussion on the matter of taxation and the psychological effects of the zoning for the homeowners. Com. Szabo established Staff ' s concern, that if the four properties were left, it would constitute a contradiction of he General Plan, which would therefore have to be amended. ann Anger, Monta Vista resident , explained taxation under rroposition 13, since she had worked on it, and also advised hat the residents would get a better price for their properties if they were zoned commercially. oarlene Thorne, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce felt that the osts of the sidewalk plan would act as a deterrent to some of he older areas being upgraded, since the costs would have to se borne by the redeveloper. rat Hansch, Real Estate Agent, San Jose, representing the owner •f one of the four units on Blossom Lane, established that , in he Commission ' s opinion they could not redevelop separately . he reported that her client was open to what they were doing, sut might have a problem that professional buildings were to be isallowed. hr. Claudy advised that the Commission could not guarantee 111 'profits for investors who had speculated. eborah MacNamara, 20544 Blossom Lane, stated that residents had of received notices and had become suspicious, especially in the 1 ight of the Frangadakis redevelopment . She mentioned buyers rying to purchase properties in the area at low prices, and hat residents felt harrassed and were concerned why the four 'properties should be rezoned, since they were not being sold. GIs . Hansch advised that her client , who lived in Carmel, had • eceived a notice . s . Culver had had to specifically request a letter and a map rom the City, and felt "pushed out " . s . Thorne questioned the mailing procedure. lity procedure for noticing and the mail service were discussed; , hr. Claudy noting that though this always seemed to happen, taff' s records always indicated that notification had been sent . Jir. Waltrip received an undertaking from Chr. Claudy that in he Minutes and the continuation Hearing, the four properties in "uestion would be referred to as residential, and not commercial. ^s far as possible . om. Mackenzie did not have a problem with leaving the four esidential properties out of the rezoning, he said, or including 411 hem and adding a statement that would indicate to developers hey should replace the residences somewhere else, which should lso apply to the Shell Station site . PLANNING COMI'IISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 PC-465 Com. Szabo pointed out that the residential land would not be Page 5 411 replaced under such a scheme . He saw the only reason for rezoning the homes was to be in legal conformance with the General Plan, and wanted City Attorney Kilian' s advice on whether it could beexpressed that the Commission had decided the four parcels could redevelop only as a unit, to put purchasers on notice. Com. Adams suggested leaving the four properties alone for the time being, so that none would have veto power; thus preven- ting litigation and giving time for matters to work them- selves out . He suggested the City Attorney be consulted on what was a "reasonable period of time" in regard to conforming with the General Plan. Chr. Claudy suggested moving the boundary around the houses, leaving them as residential, or maybe Planned Development with residential intent . He noted the whole neighborhood was affected here, and cited problems where different uses backed up closely to each other. Discussing the sidewalk issue, Chr. Claudy established that the lower diagram would require a 10 ft . easement from the adjacent property owner, and saw that in the case of some properties this would cause problems . Director of Planning and Development Sisk confirmed that in some cases it could not be done, because of lack of space . 41) The Commissioners felt that, even though it would be many years before completion, good planning ought to be observed to isolate the sidewalk from the curb, and favored using the solution shown in the upper diagram currently, progressing to the lower as permitted. Discussing the commercial stipulation, the Commission felt a clause,or a suggestion made by Com. Mackenzie, that office use should be limited to the present proportions, would serve as a control . The Commission was in favor of reciprocal access being retained. Other sites involved were discussed briefly, and it was felt they should remain commercial, since they served neighborhood needs . Com. Mackenzie raised the question of the empty site on Bubb Road that would be created when the 7-11 Store moved to a second site there, and relayed residents ' concerns . Chr. Claudy felt the site was more appropriate for residential. or small or medical office use, and this should be stipulated , since it was a sensitive' site. Darlene Thorne believed one affected site would be the All American Center, and did not want to see such older areas 411 precluded from redeveloping because of the costs of the improvements . Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that even under present zoning, the City had the power to demand alterations . lie cited the Gemco site as an example . PC-465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 Page 6 Com. Sorensen mentioned the Arco Station on Foothill, which, like the Bubb Road site, was surrounded by housing, and felt it should have some restrictions if redeveloped. Chr. Claudy confirmed that the Sears Store should be made part 110 of the Valco Shopping Center. MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to continue Application 8-Z-85 until the Re lar meeting of May 28, 1985. SECOND: om. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO: MODIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURAL MANUAL FOR THE BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM to permit residential developers to pay fees in lieu of providing units priced at below-market sales prices. First Hearing. Planner II Binnendykroutlined the reasons for paying an in lieu fee as hardship, where construction costs would far exceed the sales price under the BMR } program, or inconsis- tency with the intent of the program, such as .the case of a luxury project . She pointed out that both conditions existed at Woodspring Condomin iums. P g Chr. Claudy established with Ms . Binnendyk that the current selling price of. a BMR*unit was salary times two and a half; and was not meant to be a tremendous subsidy, which would discourage building, especially of luxury units. He observed that the intent of the program was to promote middle-class occupancy, and to prevent the developer segregating the units or making them substandard, and was concerned that if a fee system was used this might happen. He asked how the fee system would work. Planner II Binnendyk referred to landbanking, low interest loans and a variety of legal options. Com. Szabo suggested that some units might be bought else- where and sold to participants in the BMR* program. Chr. Claudy feared residents would look unfavorably on the City getting involved in the real estate market . Com. Mackenzie agreed, and observed the City might have to buy and sell up to three residences to roll over the in lieu fee for one unit . Com. Szabo and Ms . Binnendyk observed that the City was already " in the business, since BMR* units could not be sold on the open market and the City had alrady bought back one unit . Com. Adams expressed his preference that an appraiser of the City ' s choosing should provide appraisals, rather than someone connected with the developer. Chr. Claudy established with Ms. Binnendyk that there were fourteen BMR* units in the City, and that if the rules being discussed had applied, they would still have been provided, since they would not have fitted the criteria. He also established that a one bedroom condominium costing $70 per sq. ft . to build would yield approximately a $40,000 profit on the open market . Com. Adams established that the 70 per sq. ft . construction cost figure used was based on information from Jason Chartier, 1111 a developer and member of the BMB* Committee, developed by using figures from his own and other projects . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APHIL 29, 1985 Planner II Binnendyk explained it was very difficult to obtain construction cost data for high density projects, and that the Bank of America figure of $50 per sq. ft . was based on single FC-465 family construction, which was less expensive. She advised Page 7 that one inaependent source, the City of Palo Alto, identi- fied between $75 and $90 per sq . ft . for this type of construction and between $90 and $100 per sq. ft . for projects with underground parking. Beverley Lawrence, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, asked what had happened to the density bonus and the fast tracking plan, which were supposed to be inducements for the developer to build BMR* units. To illustrate her point, she exhibited a clipping from the San Jose Mercury regarding "costly permit delays" . Planner II Binnendyk advised that fast tracking was happening, but was not enough of an incentive, and that the formula proposed for the in lieu fee took the density bonus into account . Ms. Lawrence wondered if ownership was a necessary part of the program. Planner II Binnendyk advised that City funds could not be legally used to construct rental housing. Com. Szabo added that this would take a vote of the electorate. Ms. Lawrence thought the money might be transferred from the City ' s name under Article 34 . She stressed it was becoming more difficult to find BMR* buyers in Cupertino, using 2. 5 times income, whereas some places were using 1 . 7, and she suggested putting money into rental housing instead. She described Palo Alto ' s non-profit corporation set up to 410 handle the BMR program for that City, including resales and rentals. She wondered who the Cupertino program was designed for, and also wanted to see some elasticity. Com. *Szabo advised her that the first priority of the BMR* program was people working in Cupertino. Chr. Claudy stated that apartments were being built in the City and there was a BMR* program for them also . , Following up on Ms. Lawrence ' s suggestion, he felt the possibility of having developers pay funds to a private housing corporation to handle needed to be explored. Com. Adams, further questioning the $70 construction cost, established that it covered hallways, recreation, etc . Planner I Binnendyk advised that all construction costs would be included in that cost, excluding land and profit, but including recreational facilities landscaping and common areas . Com. Szabo observed the $70 figure looked better in that light . Planner II Binnendyk offered to do some research to come up with a better figure, observing that she had tried in the past and had found it difficult . She suggested the Palo Alto figures might be used, observing that in the case of Woodspring, the costs had been $96 per sq. ft . Com. Szabo established that the $50 per sq . ft . Bank of America figure was based on construction costs only, and not financing, etc . 410 *BMR : Below Market Rate Housing PC-465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 . Page 8 Chr. Claudy interpreted Exhibit A, number 4 as including the land cost, making $70 per sq. ft .the entire cost including loans, etc . , so that. with no densit bonus, the total cost had to be $70 per sq. ft . or less. 411 Planner II Binnendyk reiterated that land costs would be an additional cost on top of the construction costs . She suggested adding the words "specifically excluding land costs" to the second sentence of number 4 to clarify the matter. Chr. Claudy established that when a developer ' s costs exceeded $70 per sq. ft . he could apply for hardship, and whether or not he would be allowed to apply was a function of hard costs excluding land and financing, but that the in lieu fee was calculated by including those. Com. Mackenzie suggested that if an in lieu fee was found to be acceptable, a developer should have to give up the profit of one-tenth of his units, to prevent exploitation of possible loopholes . The Commission agreed. Com. Mackenzie suggested simplifying the first formula in number 3 of Exhibit A. Planner II Binnendyk agreed, and added that after consulting with Com. Szabo she had discovered that the second formula of number 3, Exhibit A should be modified to work as intended mathematically . The Commission agreed to the modifications and simplifications. 411 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to close the Public Hearing SECOND : Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Mackenzie, to forward Exhibit A .to the City Council with a recommendation for approval, after the following amendments : Section B, paragraph B. 3, first formula, delete "the number of units in the project" and where the formula shows "sales price per unit " substitute "total sales price for all units" and where the formula shows "the construction costs per unit" substitute "the construction costs for the project" ; the last sentence of paragraph B. 3 to read, "The minimum payment per unit shall equal the total fee divided by the number of non-BMR* units in the project . " ; paragraph B. 4, second sentence to read, "Gen:erally, the total of "hard" costs, financing and on/off site improvements, specifically excluding land costs, shall be assumed to be equal to or less than $70 per sq. ft . as adjusted per Policy Bi . " SECOND : Com. Szabo VOTE: Passed 5-0 Com. Sorensen proposed a vote of thanks to the BMR* Committee . UNFINISHED BUSINESS *BMR - Below Market Rate Housing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 PC-46 NEW BUSINESS: Page 410 3 . Application 18-U-84 of Cupertino City Center (Prometheus Development Company) - Request for Minor Modification. Director of Planning and Development Sisk described the location and the nature of the minor modifications and the issue with regard to the amphitheater that the first amendment Staff and ASAC* had seen seemed to block the intent of a quasi-public open space area. He went on to advise the applicant had now proposed an alternative that satisfied both Staff and ASAC* . Mark Kroll, representing the applicant, advised he had brought along the landscape architect to address the major change of the amphitheater, all others being minor. He explained that the change had come about because a better amenity area was needed to make a better mixed use project . Com. Adams enquired about the expansion of the structure on the roof, and asked whether it had been moved. Mr. Kroll conceded it might be in a slightly different position, thatc. uld not be discerneed from the ground, and advised the expansion was necessary to accommodate a satellite dish needed by a tenant . Com. Sorensen appreciated the dish being hidden on the roof. Chr. Claudy established the garage structure had been dropped a level, at the request of City Council . Paul Lettieri, A.M. Guzzardo & Associates, San Francisco, land- scape architect, described the amphitheater changes, stating that they had tried to keep the Torre Avenue visual and physical access intact while developing the recreational amenities they needed, which they had been able to accomplish because of the grade change of 9 ft . on the site . He explained that the upper level of paving would be the roof of the shower and changing facilities below, that they were making a non-building out of the building part of the site by pushing it down 9 ft . , and that public and private areas were zoned mainly by grade. He described stairs going down to the pool and tennis court which, because of the grade change, would only require low walls, he said, and he submitted a cross-section of the pool area, showing walls, landscaping and steps, noting that from a car the pool would not be visible, but would be appropriately visible from inside the amphitheater. Chr. Claudy established that the plaza would be lit and could be used as a stage, and that the amphitheater could hold 2500 to 2700 people. Also, there would be some type of control for residents to enter the pool or tennis court from the public area. Com. Sorensen established that the slope was less than 5% and would therefore be wheelchair accessible. 411 Com. Mackenzie noted there would still be a Jacuzzi on the garage roof, but was advised by Mr. Kroll that this would not provide an adequate recreation area for the mixed use of office and residential, who would both use the pool, which was half olympic size, the tennis court, showers, etc . , and a par course thatItuld eventually be built . Site A roval Committee *ASAC - ARchitectural and pp '-465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 29, 1985 . ` ge 10 Com. Adams was concerned that the area was originally purely for community use and now seemed to be eaten up by a pool and tennis court for private use . Mr. Kroll explained that the amphitheater was now larger with a smaller landscaping buffer, so that the area was not eaten up at all, but was put to better use, as the previously approved 60 to 70 ft . of groundcover was not something that could be walked on. • Com. Mackenzie established that the amphitheater would be directly accessible from the sidewalk around the entire perimeter. • Com. Adams, exploring the change in the truck loading dock, discovered that there were now two doors instead of one, but that the landscaping was appropriate and the design was not changed. Mary Jayne Moffatt, 20954 Pepper Tree Lane, enquired about public parking and whether the 200 units were residential. She also asked about use of the area by scout groups, etc . and about restroom facilities . Chr. Claudy described the 200 residential units plus approxi, _ mately 600,000 sq . ft . of office space, for Ms . Moffatt, and stated that the office parking would be available at weekends for the public . Director of Planning and Development Sisk advised that the Conditions of Approval reflected that for any City sponsored 410 event., the amphitheater would be provided at no cost to the City. Mr. Kroll added that they were building the amphitheater for community use and would favor scout group use; they wanted to hold sponsored events there also and get the community there. he said. He advised that therewould be some restroom facilities, but for a crowd of 2500 people, this would have to be augmented by portables . MOTION : Com. Mackenzie, to approve the Minute Order pro- _ posed by Staff, with paragraph 3 modified to reflect that the Commission approves the changes to the amphitheater space as shown in the Exhibit and further adding a new Exhibit number to the Exhibits listed in the last paragraph. SECOND : Com. Sorensen VOTE: Passed 5-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT • 11 : 20 P .M. ATTEST: APPROVED: 411 . /s/ Dorothy Cornelius /s/John Claudy City Clerk Chairperson