Loading...
PC 03-26-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 26, 1979, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PG-302 Pa 1;e 1 SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman Blaine called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL COIDIn. present: Comm. absent: Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Blaine None Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Assistant Planner Kramer Assistant City Engineer Whitten Assistant City Attorney Kilian Deputy Assistant City Attorney Aikens APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 12, 1979: Page 6, 1st paragraph, 7th sentence, start with units vary from l,l50 sq. ft. etc., change entire sentence to read "The BMR units have 900 sq. ft. exclùding terrace and stairwell." Page 9, 8th paragraph, starting with COIDIn. Koenitzer, change endin~ to read "criteria from which to select those who draw for the units." Page 9, insert before Agenda Item 2, material method on calculating bonus and BMR units. This should include !l) determine reasonable number of units for property involved and for the surrounding area. (2) subtract 20% of that number of units and (3) then calculate the ·BMR requirements on that reduced number of units. Page 10, 3rd paragraph, strike the word BMR in the first sentence, in 2nd sentence change the word working to employment. Moved by COIDIn. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Adams to approve the Minutes of March l2, 1979 as corrected. Motion carried 4-0 COIDIn. Claudy Abstaining PC-302 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING POSTPONEMENTS AND NEW AGENDA ITEMS: Assistant Planning Director Bob Cowan requested Item Number 3 to be moved to the first of the Agenda before public hearings. Motion carried 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continued Discussion of Below Market Rate Housing Program Assistant Planner, Toby Kramer began discussion by reviewing the recommendations and changes the Commission made on the March l2, 1979 meeting, as well as changes made by the staff and the City Attorney. The biggest discussion item was the method for determining the number of BMR units. Four alternative methods were discussed. '~thodologies discussed: 1. Use the General Plan maximum yield and multiply by 10%. 2. General Plan maximum plus any density bonus units and multiply by lO%. 3. Final yield proposed by the developer depending upon the site and what the Commission felt appropriate and subtract 20% from that and then multiply by the 10%. 4. Final yield minus any density bonus units over GP maximum. Staff feels the density bonus units is to help defray the developer's costs. concurred with Method 4 as recommended a part of the City's contribution After some discussion the Commission by staff. Staff continued discussion on the Commission's concerns about fairness in determining the size of the units. The BMR units should closely reflect the number of bedrooms in the rest of the project. Size of units should not be reduced more than 20-30%. Commissioner Koenitzer was concerned about the size of the BMR unit. He would prefer the BMR unit be no more than 10-20% less in size than the other units in the project. Staff explained that this would apply to the square footage of a unit with comparable bedrooms. Commissioner Koenitzer felt that we should not allow the BMR units to be so much smaller than the rest of the units in the development. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-302 Page 3 Commissioner Blaine asked if two units would cover the cost of one BMR unit? Assistant Planner with developers. of helping reduce Kramer said this wasn't talked about specifically Reducing the size of the unit was a significant way the cost. Commissioner Blaine expressed concerns about who was going to qualify for these units and the number of people in the families. She felt that we are crowding a large number of people in the size unit which· normally would be purchased by one or two people. Discussion continued about square footage reduction of 20-30% in relation to cost reduction. It was generally agreed that no more than 20% square footage reduction of comparable number of bed-rooms unit Assistant Planner Kramer said the primary concern of the City Attorney was the priority system to be used. To use a priority system in the BMR Program it should relate to findings made in the Housing Element. Commissioner Blaine expressed concern about providing housing for people who work in other cities. It was felt that persons who work in Cupertino's Sphere of Influence shall be given priority. The City Attorney felt that there should be an expiration date for which the BMR Program applies. It was determined that the deed restrictions imposed on each unit pursuant to the program shall remain in effect for a period of 50 years from the date of original sale of that unit. The restrictions could then be re-imposed prior to the end of the 50 year period. Assistant Planner Kramer had concerns about the amount of time it might take to sell a unit. Four months was found to be a reasonable amount of time. Chairman Blaine asked about the FHA, VA and CHFA loans and how the pricing of a unit was affected. Assistant Planner Kramer said there are new types of loans available which enable persons in the target incomes to qualify for higher priced homes compared to conventional loans. A higher price will further help defray developers costs. Commissioner Claudy expressed concern about the possibilities of arson or insurance fraud which would destroy a BMR unit and remove it from the City's housing stock. The City Attorney suggested some wording to protect the City's interest in case of such an event. Commissioner Claudy expressed an overall concern for the program. The middle income families buying condominiums are absorbing more of the burden than the higher income families still able to purchase single- family homes. He was interested in a way of distributing impacts more evenly throughout the development. PC-302 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The other members of the Commission felt that this was an issue that could be discussed later after the program was in operation. Moved by Commissioner Gatto to recommend. to the City Council approval with the recommended changes discussed by the Commission which will be incorporated into the BMR Program, seconded by Commissioner Koenitzer. Motion carried 5-0 AYES: NOES: Comm. Adams, Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Blaine None Chairman Blaine said this item will go to the City Council April 2, 1979. Chairman Blaine called a recess at 9:45 PM. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 PM. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Applications 3-Z-79 and 4-U-79 of STATE MUTUAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION: Rezoning approximately two acres from CG (General Commercial) to P(Planned Development with residential and commercial intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Use Permit to allow construction of a lO,OOO sq. ft. commercial/office building and 24 residential townhouse/ condominium units; and Environmental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Sáid property is located on the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. First Hearin~ continued. The Associate Planner reviewed a series of revised maps on the bulletin board. He pointed out the changes the applicant had made on the revised plan. He said the staff feels more comfortable with this new parking arrangement. He said the 24 units represents a 20% increase over the General Plan including the 20% bonus of the BMR Program. To justify an increase of this nature he pointed out ~o policies of the Housing Element which he reviewed with the Commission. He encouraged this form of development in the Core Area. The developers indicated ~o units in line with the Commission's direction a C (three bedroom) and D (two bedrooms) for the Below Market Rate units. As a condition of the approval he expressed concerns on whether or not the residential should be allowed to park in the commercial parking area. If so a easement should be required. Concerns were raised on how much parking the bank building would require based on the City Ordinance. The Associate Planner pointed out that there are conflicts in terms of the specific angle of the parking stall which would have to be adjusted at the architectural level. One parkin~ space for every 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area will be provided. If there becomes a major problem with their customer parking, as a condition of this approval the use permit can be recalled or they would have to find off-site parking spaces. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-302 Page 5 Ch. Blaine wanted to know what the staff's feeling is with the parking situation proposed and the already existing parking problem. The Associate Planner said that if there was a significant parking problem from this development that preferential treatment would be given to the residents of this development. Comm. Koenitzer expressed concerns about the guest parking spaces. It was felt that these spaces are mainly in the driveways and are taking away from the very small amount of greenery. The Associate Planner feels that a parking ratio of 2:1 has worked quite well in similar developments. Ted Brown, 950 Battery Street, San Francisco, spoke in relation to the amenities of the BMR units. l~ expressed that these amenities are not just inside of the building but also includes tile roofs, stucco exteriors, paving in courtyards, and balconies. Realistically speaking he felt that 5 units would pay for 2 BMR units. He felt that if the developer were to have BMR units only he would have to do as cheap a development as possible. He fèels driveways breaking into the sidewalk takes away from the attractiveness of the landscaping but allows the the land to be more efficient to meet the parking requirements. The 26 ft. long garage is quite large enough for car and storage. He feels if more on-site parking is required it would be at the expense of the design. Ch. Blaine requested comments from the audience; there were none forthcoming. It was discussed whether they want to start in granting extra units for design excellence and if so what criteria is going to be used to determine design excellence. On this basis more would be allowed for design excellence than for providing BMR units. Ch. Blaine wondered if the land here could hold the 24 units and function adequately. The patterns of traffic are already established in this area. It was felt that concessions could be made and the building could be moved forward for better parking access. If units are added over the maximum in the General Plan those units should represent additional BMR units. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that if the Commission felt that parking was a problem, the pattern of development and higher density projects should be discussed in a General Plan amendment. He feels four to one parking is no longer feasible. A change in lifestyle is happening very rapidly. The Commission had concerns about where guests would park when all parking spaces were taken by the residents of this development. PC-302 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE MARC!i 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Associate Planner Piasecki feels that if the residents don't use the parking spaces for parking but storage then a parking problem will exist. He feels that preferential parking is a concession the City has to make to encourage higher intensity in our Core Area. Joel King, Vice-President of State Mutual Savings & Loan, brought up the Commission's concerns about people using other than their parking stalls to park their cars on the street and using the parking space for storage. Maybe it should be added in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the property as a requirement that residents park their cars in their garages. It was felt that the real parking problem exists on Finch Avenue and Craft Drive. Ch. Blaine said if there was no community room in the bank building the residents of the development could use the parking space in the evenings. Commission felt added parking in the commercial would really result in more parking for the residential. '. Ch. Blaine requested comments from the audience; there were none forthcoming. Comm. Gatto felt one additional BMR unit would justify the units over the General Plan maximum. Ch. Blaine said the problem with the number of units really depends on how much parking is available. It was asked if the applicant could supply a 2.5 to I parking ratio. The applicant feels a 2.5 parking ratio would be difficult to achieve. He would rather try to do it with constrictions to the design. Ch.Blaine told the applicant of his right to appeal to the City Council. Associate Planner Piasecki recommended restricted easements with restricted hours for guest parking on the commercial portion of this development. Ch. Blaine expressed to the applicant that the Commission liked the design of the development but if the parkin~ ratio of 2.5 is not met that it would be compounding the already existing parking problem. The Commission set guidelines of 22 units with a 2.5 parking ratio to compensate for units above the 20% density bonus for putting in the BMR units. In addition have another unit at l20% or two units dropped to 80%. The applicant asked if the 2.5 parking ratio included the joint use with the commercial. Commission agreed with pedestrian linkage. The applicant was asked if he wanted a continuation of these applications or to go on to City Council. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-302 Page 7 The applicant requested a continuation to work out the guidelines set by the Commission. It was moved and seconded for continuance of these applications. Motion carried 5-0 Ch. Blaine said these applications would be heard at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1979. 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public hearing to consider the adoption of a Comprehensive General Plan including the following elements: Land Use, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Seismic Safety, Public Safety, Noise, Circulation and Scenic Highways. ~e meeting will concentrate on: A. Consideration of Working Paper No. 7 for Seismic Safety Element of General Plan. B. Consideration of Working Paper No. 6 for Noise Element of General Plan. First Hearing continued. The Assistant Planning Director Cowan reiterated that this is a Working Paper not a draft Element. The final Element will be much more concise. He displayed transparencies of charts and tables on the bulletin board and explained them briefly. He said the San Andreas and Sargent Berrocal Faults are the main faults in Cupertino. One of the key policies of consideration done by the City in seismic safety work is to analyze the acceptable level of _risk for the community.-.Eousing activity should be designed to-remain structurally sta~ding but not necessarily functional in a maximum probable earthquake. He feels the Uniform Building Code should coincide with the Seismic Safety Element. Ch. Blaine felt Cupertino residents should be informed where these faults are for insurance and safety purposes. She feels an inexpensive way of informing residents would be in the Cupertino Scene with maps showing fault lines and street names. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the Monta Vista Fault is not classified as an active fault, it is classified as potentially active. He said the cost of earthquake insurance has gone down considerably. In addition there are now a number of engineering methods to make landslide areas' stable. The Assistant Planning Director was asked to look into notification of residents. PC-302 Page 8 M1NUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1979 PLANNING CUHMlSSlON MEETING Moved by Comrn. Claudy, secondèd by Conun. Adams to continue the public hearing on the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan. Motion carried.5-0 b. Consideration of Working Paper No. 6 for Noise Element of General Plan. The Associate Planner reviewed the recommended changes made. by the Commåssion. He said a more condensed version of this Working Paper will be done in the final Element. Movedby Gomm. Claudy, seconded by Conun. Adams to continue the public hearing on the Noise Element of the General Plan. Motion carried 5-0 The Assistant Planning Director reviewed with the Commission the next draft Element coming up for their review. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: None REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR: None ADJOURNMENT: Ch. Blaine adjourned this meeting at 11:40 PM. APPROVED: ATTEST: r---]. ~ ~. t'ß! JA /I)" CHy Clerk (vepuT'i)