|
Mayor Swegles asked if any Councilmembers wished to make any disclosures regarding this matter.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated he met with the applicant and their legal counsel approximately a week ago.
Vice Mayor Lee stated he met with the applicant approximately a month ago.
Councilmember Chu stated he met with the applicant twice over the past six months to review what they wanted to do with this site.
Councilmember Moylan stated he met with the applicant team twice over two different versions of what was planned for this project (once as a Planning Commissioner and once as Councilmember).
Mayor Swegles stated he met with the applicant team twice over the last six months and reviewed their plans.
Planning Officer, Trudi Ryan presented the staff report to Council. She stated that only City Council may initiate a General Plan amendment and is not a noticed public hearing. She stated should Council initiate a study for this item, and then staff may accept an application and review the request in detail.
Vice Mayor Lee asked what the current and past uses of this site have been. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the applicant should answer that question, but that she believes at least one and possibly both buildings are vacant.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Aaron Yakligian, representing applicant Trumark Companies, passed out copies of a hand-delivered letter from the applicant’s attorney, Nadia Holober. He presented a rendering of some of their projects and spoke in support of the project and presented a summary of their revised mixed-use proposal.
Councilmember Hamilton clarified with Mr. Yakligian that they are planning for 300 housing units ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. She asked Mr. Yakligian what the height of the buildings will be, and he stated they must be below 50-feet and will be 4 and 5 stories over underground parking.
Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Yakligian if the housing units will be rental or for-sale units. Mr. Yakligian stated they would all be for-sale units at market rate with the exception of the 35 below market rate units.
No one else wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Councilmember Howe asked where the R-5 existing projects were located in the City (not where zoned but where built). Planning Officer Ryan stated that at the corner of Lawrence and 101 is a project of similar density (but on the low end of an
R-5 density) which are the Avalon apartments. She stated there is a single room occupancy facility at the corner of Borregas and Weddell, which is zoned
R-5, but because it is single room occupancy the density is higher as the units are much smaller. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the only other locations that would accommodate similar density are in the Downtown area, but those are not yet built.
Councilmember Howe asked Ms. Ryan if she meant the mall or Town and Country area when speaking about the Downtown area. Planning Officer Ryan stated that her meaning of the Downtown area (with similar density) included the properties along Mathilda; and the three blocks between Charles and Mathilda up to Washington. She stated that it would be higher density in the Town and Country area, and that the mall is difficult to measure due to its size and concentration among a few streets. Councilmember Howe asked how large the mall was in acres and Planning Officer Ryan stated it was 35-acres. Councilmember Howe confirmed with staff that there will be 292 units on 35-acres and that it is of a very high density style and character.
Vice Mayor Lee stated that he shows R-5 as 46 units per acre and asked what R-4 encompasses. Planning Officer Ryan stated that R-4 is up to 36 per acre, but that all zoning districts can go a little higher with density bonuses afforded.
Vice Mayor Lee asked staff if the staff recommendation not to authorize the study on this site was based on Council’s vote on the last application by this applicant. Planning Officer stated that was partially correct, but in addition staff has not seen a change in circumstance that would make this appropriate for residential. She stated the applicant has expressed that they have a different character of a project, but she cautioned Council that from a General Plan stand point there are no guarantees and once the General Plan is changed projects could appear that are residential without the other components. She confirmed that staff recommended against this change previously.
Vice Mayor Lee asked what Alternative No. 3 (Initiate a General Plan Amendment study for a range of densities) entailed. Planning Officer Ryan stated that it would entail what other densities Council wished to pursue for the site or Council could ask staff to study all the zoning densities.
Councilmember Hamilton asked for clarification of a section in the letter from the applicant’s attorney, who stated, (the City likely has the option to process Trumark’s application without a General Plan amendment). As pointed out by staff, the site is zoned “MS”. Under the City’s Municipal Code, each of the uses proposed as part of the project (office, retail and residential) are permitted in the MS District either by right or with a conditional use permit.). Planning Officer Ryan stated that the MS zoning district does allow residential use, primarily when there is a caretaker facility associated with another use and not as a primarily residential site. She stated that option is available, but staff has routinely advised the property owner to approach the City Council for a General Plan amendment if residential is the true intent of the site.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if the uses (office, retail and residential) are permitted by right as noted in the letter. Planning Office stated that only “office” use would be permitted by right.
Councilmember Chu asked about the density of the Cherry Orchard apartments. Planning Officer Ryan stated the site is at the high end of an R-3 (medium density), but is not actually zoned R-3 and that it looks higher density due to the large areas around it and the open spaces on the interior. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the open spaces were calculated into the overall land count in order for the project to qualify as medium density, which is what was allowed at that site.
Councilmember Chu asked about the density of the housing project under construction across the street form the Cherry Orchard. Planning Officer Ryan stated that she was not sure, but believed it was about 18-22 units per acre, which was the low end of medium density. She stated that medium density (R-3) ranges from 15 to 27 and (R-2) is about 8 to 14 units per acre.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked for clarification about the changes from the last application as he understood the original application was for all residential versus mixed use which is what is currently being proposed. Planning Officer Ryan stated what she meant by stating that there were no changes in circumstances. She acknowledged that the intent for the character of the site was definitely different, but that City policy has not changed in terms of the surrounding area. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the only real change was that there is more demand for industrial space which only strengthens the argument against changing the land use.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated that staff had mentioned there was not any guarantee that the type of plan proposed would exist after the study was done; therefore, he asked if Council could add a condition which identified what type of plan was required at that site. Planning Officer Ryan stated Council could adopt a General Plan Amendment which required a mixed-use project on the site and that Council could adopt and add mixed use zoning to the City (currently none exists).
Councilmember Spitaleri moved and Vice Mayor Lee seconded to approve Alternative No. 2: Authorize the initiation of the General Plan Amendment study for the subject site from Industrial to Residential Very High Density.
Vice Mayor Lee made a friendly amendment to include studying R-3 and R-4 zoning for the site. Councilmember Spitaleri accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she will not support the motion because she feels this is the wrong location for residential because it has only 1.5 acres of open space for 300 units and that is not enough open space. She stated that this was the only Class B office space in the area and that Class B rents easier than Class C. She further stated that although the project looks good there is no guarantee that it will be built and feels this is the wrong use for this parcel of land.
Vice Mayor Lee stated that this property has been vacant for four years and that Council should at least allow the study to see what else can be done with the land. He restated that Council would not be approving any project rather just looking at potential use of the space.
Councilmember Chu stated he previously voted to deny the application because it was a residential use only, but he is now encouraged as this is a mixed-use proposal.
Councilmember Chu made a friendly amendment to explore a Mixed Use zoning designation. Councilmember Spitaleri and Vice Mayor Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Moylan stated he has seen three favorable proposals for this site and that he is in full support of this study.
Councilmember Howe stated that Attachment B which shows the surrounding zoning and the two parcels as an island. He stated this map clearly identifies that a change to this area is a perfect example of “spot zoning”, which he feels will deteriorate the industrial area.
Motion carried 5-2 (Councilmember Howe and Hamilton dissented)
|