Loading...
PC 11-21-91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1991 ROLL CALL: commissioners Present: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None 3-GPA-90 Continued Chr. Mackenzie noted this is a continued adjourned meeting on the discussion of the st. Joseph's property. Chr. Mackenzie reiterated the proceedings of the hearing. Mr. steven Haze questioned the discussion on the Parks Commission's recommendations. Mr. Cowan stated the Parks Commission had given a report to the Planning commission and this will be discussed in the context of the whole General Plan and this property. Mr. Tony Guzzardo, representing Sobrato, explained the site plan maps presented. He noted the plan addressed the concerns of both the public and the Commission. They have eliminated housing on the riparian corridor and kept the link to the open space. No vegetation has been removed in the natural habitat. Mr. Guzzardo stated they had created 1 acre lots along the freeway and half acre lots behind that. There would be a village concept of different sizes homes in other areas. They propose higher density in the flat area, condo/apartment adjacent to the Cemetery and PG&E lots. There will be 85 acres of open space. In response to Com. Mann's question Mr. Guzzardo gave a break down of the units in each area: 11 - 1 Acre lots 26 - 1/2 Acre lots 37 - 8,OOD s.f. (village B) 27 - 8,000 s.f. (village C) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 2 100 - 4,975 s.f. (village E) 177 - Condo/apartments. He stated a hilltop park was included in the plan. In response to concerns, Mr. Guzzardo stated that the PG&E lot and Cemetery do not include the 85 acres of open space proposed. Corn. Mahoney arrived at 5:50 p.m. Mr. Phil Zeitman expressed concern regarding the community park and if it would be open to the public. He feels the Commission is getting away from the importance of the open space. He stated high density is against the will of the voters and 500 units would look like a mass product. Mr. steven Haze stated that the 85 acres needs to be identified if public access or not. He also questioned the heights of the buildings. Mr. Jack Berkels stated he is pleased with the development of the City and there is a lot of resentment about development. He stated controlled development is better than no development. Mr. steven Haze asked if this was going to be an exclusive development, privately or publicly maintained? Chr. Mackenzie reiterated comments from the last study session. He noted the site plan at this hearing was requested by the Commission to help the Commissioners visualize the site and development. He stated specific questions about the development at this time are not relevant. Ms. Diane Moreno stated she supports the 85 acres of open space with the development, she stated they City may not have the same opportunity in 10 years to save the 85 acres. Com. Austin stated she is uncomfortable working with a site plan. Planning Director Cowan stated the reason for the site plan is to understand what development means to this property, can residential fit into this property? Can the sensitive areas be preserved etc? Com. Mann felt the Commission is spending too much time on details, but feels the site plan is helpful to see where the development can be placed. Com. Fazekas assured the public that the developer has not filed for a PD application. Chr. Mackenzie noted 500 homes are proposed on the site plan. He noted the conference center is eliminated at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 3 Com. Mahoney stated the issue is, if housing is going to be on this site, where should it go? Com. Austin stated she would rather see large homes on this property, because affordable housing will never occur on this property. She stated she would not support rentals on this property. Chr. Mackenzie stated at the last hearing there was more votes for open space and the second choice was residential. The commissioners discussed financing of the property for open space. Mr. Cowan stated feasibility must be discussed. Com. Austin stated with regards to open space, the Parks Commission recommendations should be discussed. Com. Mahoney stated there is not a consensus to keep all the property as open space, but some. He feels the property beside the PG&E station could be developed. He stated the sensitive areas do need to be protected. City Planner Wordell stated 150 ft. setback was recommended. Chr. Mackenzie stated the size will be determined at the site specific plan stage. Chr. Mackenzie stated the General Plan needs to have policies and at some point the Commission will have to be specific.- Com. Mahoney questioned the policy? It is, keep the property as open space and fall back on development if open space is not possible. Or, to have a compromise, some development with 85 acres guaranteed as open space. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question regarding encouraging opens space, Mr. Cowan stated a growth limit can be considered. Com. Fazekas stated the open space element indicates that as much open space as possible should be acquired. city Planner Wordell read the Park Commission recommendations. The highest priority is to pursue every available option to acquire the property for open space and if not possible set guidelines. Mr. Cowan stated the Commission could adopt the General Plan with similar wording as recommended by the Parks Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 4 Com. Fazekas questioned when is it that every available option stops? Com. Mann stated if a trade-off is necessary, part of the property can be maintained in the Williamson Act and developed the seminary property. Com. Mahoney expressed concern about purchasing the 85 acres and developing the rest as it cannot be purchased. He stated at this time the City could agree to allow development and maintain the 8 acres as open space, therefore it would not have to be purchased. Com. Austin questioned if the property can be bought? Com. Mann stated funds are needed from different organizations and the City should give a time period. When the time runs out the developer at that time can request development of the property. Chr. Mackenzie stated he has listened to public testimony and has heard no figures with regards to purchasing this property. Corn. Fazekas concurred with Com. Mahoney as to preserving the 85- 100 acres. Com. Mann suggested putting a cap on the number of lots. Com. Mahoney stated five acres to the lot does not protect as much open space. Soundwalls were discussed and Chr. Mackenzie stated development can be planned so as to avoid the need for a soundwall. Com. Fazekas agreed that there should be no soundwall. Chr. Mackenzie asked, is protecting the 85 acres enough or do extraordinary policies need to be written into the General Plan? Deputy City Attorney Kershner stated that the Commissioners cannot discuss the Williamson Act. Specific findings must be made under the Williamson Act before findings can be made. The Commissioners agreed with the Parks Recommendation to preserve all or part of the property as open space. The linkages were discussed. The Parks Commission recommendations were discussed regarding this issue. Mr. Cowan stated the recommendations basically say that if the property is not purchased for open space, then the linkages should be protected. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 5 Chr. Mackenzie stated because of the size the property may lend itself to different guidelines. Com. Fazekas stated the guidelines could be more restrictive. It was a consensus that the sensitive areas should be protected. Chr. Mackenzie stated that staff suggested if and when the property owner develops the property they would prepare a specific plan and also fund staff to prepare a specific plan. Ms. Wordell stated the city would prepare a specific plan through City staff or a consultant and be reimbursed. She feels there are more options of development this way. Chr. Mackenzie suggested that a specific plan should be provided at the zoning stage. Ms. Wordell read the law concerning requiring a specific plan. Chr. Mackenzie suggested asking the developer to present two plans. Com. Mann stated that they should be somewhat specific at the zoning stage, but still keep it general. Com. Fazekas feels the applicant should provide a 3-D model to see exactly what the project looks like and to make sure they are considerate to the sensitive areas. Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Fazekas regarding a 3-D model. Mr. Cowan stated it is costly to require the developer to provide a site plan and elevations at zoning stage. It was agreed that the developer should provide certain things (as outlined in number 8). Chr. .Mackenzie expressed concern about having to review too much information at once. Com. Fazekas stated he would like to see a 3-D model with landscaping prior to approving the project. Mr. Cowan stated the idea of the plan being prepared by the City is to establish more precise guidelines for development. Chr. Mackenzie stated it may be the developer cannot propose consultant can aid the City in the site. beneficial what the developing to have a consultant if city wants, then the a site plan which fits PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 6 Com. Fazekas stated the consultant should come up with alternate designs. Ms. Mavis smith stated she is a docent at Deer Hollow Farm and asked the Commission not to give up on the acquisition of the property. She stated many inter-agencies are involved in this property and it may, at some time, be possible to purchase it. Chr. Mackenzie stated if the property gets developed as housing what should some of the parameters be? He suggested looking at what Mr. Guzzardo had proposed and the General Plan. Com. Austin suggested size limitations on the houses. Com. Fazekas suggested the FAR be .40 rather than .45 FAR. Chr. Mackenzie stated his motivation to try to maintain long term affordable housing was to not use FAR but require that so many houses must be below a certain size. Com. Fazekas stated bulk and distance between houses has to be addressed. He suggested putting a greater angle on the second floor setbacks and to go with a smaller FAR. Chr. Mackenzie stated it is possible to put 323 Rl homes and 177 apartments on this site. Com. Mann stated that even the 293 homes are too much and doesn't feel affordable housing is possible on this site. In response to Com. Fazekas' question, Com. Mann stated the site is too dense. She noted there are no open space pockets between the homes. She spoke in favor of a rural atmosphere rather than city block type homes. Com. Fazekas stated he as no problem with the condos. He noted a buffer should be placed between the park and the homes to increase the riparian buffer. He feels a physical green belt is needed between parts of the development. He stated the residents need to be protected from the parking lots. Ms. Wordell stated the County did ask for a buffer between the development and the park. Corn. Fazekas reiterated his comments about a City park to tie in with Rancho San Antonio. He noted with the green belt requested, the number of units will be reduced. Chr. Mackenzie stated if a lower FAR is required, there would be more space between the lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 7 Com. Fazekas stated he would like to keep the condos in the location suggested by the developer. Com. Austin stated she would not go over the 293 figùre stated in the General Plan. She noted she could not choose a number on this at this time. Ms. Wordell suggested placing a number on after the plans are reviewed more. Chr. Mackenzie listed the commissioners requests: Com. Fazekas: 150 ft. from creek 100 ft. from County Park drop units to 293 Rl lots keep apartments with a 25% affordability Com. Mann: No Condos 1 acre lots - 100 homes Apartments, if affordable Com. Mahoney: 150 ft. from creek 100 ft. from County park drop to 293 R1 units keep apartments sensitive to park view between cemetery and park 150 ft. from creek 100 ft. from County park, but roads allowed keep apartments if rental 320 units cap use sight and height limits, be specific in the General Plan Chr. Mackenzie: Com. Mahoney stated there is a need for housing in the City and the more housing allowed the lower the prices. Com. Fazekas suggested that the apartments be inclusionary zoning. He did not agree with the 1 acre limit. Com. Austin stated that the condos will not be affordable housing. Chr. Mackenzie stated that he would rather see $500,000 homes as opposed to $1 Million. Ms. Wordell stated the housing nexus study will be presented to the Commission before they sign off on the organization of the General Plan. She stated it may establish some relationship between creating market rate housing and affordable housing. If the City agrees to the study, this site will be subject to it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 8 Corn. Mann stated the apartments would be acceptable as long as they are affordable. Chr. Mackenzie stated it would be more appropriate to look at the nexus study before discussing affordability. Com. Austin stated if the property should be developed she would prefer houses in the price ranges of $500,000 to $1 million, but 293 homes are too many. Corn. Mann stated she would like to keep a rural atmosphere, and does not want much grading. The commissioner agreed that the grading should be kept to a minimum and work with the natural contour. strict guidelines should be developed for this and other hillside properties. Density was discussed. Chr. Mackenzie stated what is proposed is not high density. Com. Mann stated it could become high density when the homes are all put together, but the grading is very important. Com. Fazekas stated when it is a PD landscaping issues can be addressed. Com. Mahoney stated that the developer may not maximize density. Com. Fazekas stated that each piece of property has different uses and may not be maximized. Com. Fazekas stated that because of the topography different types of housing should go on different areas of the project and as it is hillside property grading should be limited and landscaping should be ma~imized using native vegetation and the park should be buffered. Also create special public improvement standards to give a rural atmosphere. Chr. Mackenzie suggested breaking up the 300 units to different types of housing, it should be incorporated in the General Plan. Com. Fazekas low density. density. said the steeper, more visible the lots should have The flatter and less visible lots the higher the The commissioners discussed placing a cap on the size of the homes as outlined below. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 9 The Commissioners consensus points are: 1. strong consideration to protect the riparian corridor. Width to be determined at specific plan stage. 2. Keep southwest corner as open space. 3. Use distance/density to avoid a soundwall along I-280. 4. Wherever possible defer development of property as long as there is reasonable opportunity to purchase it for open space. 5. use of all or part as open space preserve is highest priority. 6. Pursue every available option to acquire property. 7. Provide a high level of plan review, using appropriate tools and technology available. . 8. Provide site plan, grading plan, pad elevation, model or computer simulation, and massing study at the preliminary review. 9. The EIR consultant should be qualified to provide alternate designs. 10. Grading should be kept to a minimum, work with the natural contour. strict guidelines to be developed for this and other hillside properties. 11. 200-300 homes (100 less than or equal to 2000 s.f.) 175 apartments The cap must meet other development requirements as suggested by the Commissioners in the list below. Chr. Mackenzie open the hearing for public input. Ms. Kindal Blau stated she liked the process. with regards to funding, she stated there is no value to the land before it is zoned and this makes is difficult to talk about funding. Mr. Bob Summers, Diocese of San Jose, stated he researched how the other property was sold. He noted there was pressure from the City of Cupertino to sell to the park. He noted the property needs to be developed. He urged the Commission not to take away the rights to develop this property. Mr. John Sobrato stated the density is 2.8 units per acre, and the density within the apartments is 11 per acre. He suggested if the Commission want more homes they should go with more apartments. He stated requiring the apartments to be rental is not financially viable unless more units are added. He stated the plan proposed would work if the units could be sold. He noted if they are to be kept affordable they could put a cap on the size of the units. He noted everything else the Commissioners discussed they will comply with. In response to Mr. SObrato's question, Ms. Wordell stated it has not been specified in the nexus study if the units can be for sales as well as rental. She stated when the units become ownership they become unaffordable because of the down payment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of November 21, 1991 Page 10 In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Sobrato stated they had put economic tests on the proposed plan and with dedicating the 85 acres the plan would work. Ms. Sue Mirch Ketchman expressed concern regarding affordable housing. She noted this project will not meet the affordable housing needs. Nancy Hurtert stated the commission should be discussing modest income housing. Mr. Phil zeitman complemented the Commission for the process of the hearing. He encouraged them to go forward with the process. He stated this is the largest vacant land left in Cupertino and needs to be protected. Fr. Boyle stated the money from this property is needed to provide services within the church. He noted they are dedicating 85 acres to open space. He stated there is a need to develop this property to get the value of the land. Mr. steven Haze stated the definition of open space needs to be defined if development occurs. He stated there should be landscape buffers. He noted there is only one access to Rancho San Antonio and another access would be required if development occured. He stated smaller houses and higher density is feasible keeping the rustic look. General Plan Amendment to be continued to regular meeting of November 25, 1991