|
Principal Planner, Andrew Miner presented the staff report.
Councilmember Moylan asked if rezoning existing Places of Assembly would be problematic, because it does affect the existing properties and as pointed out in a citizen letter, could lower the property values at these locations
Planning Officer Ryan stated that by adding the combining district to the manufacturing zones clarifies that these are the locations the City will consider for Places of Assembly (which may affect the properties located in or adjacent to the zoning district). Planning Officer Ryan stated no property would become non-conforming and that industrial uses may continue to utilize their space in the same manner (per zoning) they had before the Combining Places of Assembly District was added to them.
Planning Officer Ryan stated that changing the zoning to Public Facility for the Places of Assembly, currently located in residential zones, allow for the facilities to become conforming zoning within the new zoning district. She stated this zoning change would affect how the facility will be used in the future, but would allow for a greater number of uses from a non-residential standpoint. Planning Officer Ryan stated that a designated Public Facility Use located in a Public Facility zone however, would be subject to a Use Permit. She stated that this is not the case in a residential zone, where some uses do not require a Use Permit.
Councilmember Moylan asked about balancing the need to preserve the Class C office space. Planning Officer Ryan stated that zoning change allows for up to 200 acres; however, the City has about 2,000 acres of industrial land. She stated that the locations where Places of Assembly appear are the reuse of Class C office space as these spaces tend to be large enough to allow for assembly uses. Planning Officer Ryan stated that Class A or B office buildings could still locate within the Public Facility Zoning, because the underlying M-S (industrial and service) Zoning District would still be in place allowing for the option to covert from Class C to Class A or B. Director Paternoster stated there is a lot of Class B and C office space available, and staff carefully identified areas where Class A office space would be less likely to locate.
Councilmember Hamilton identified that there is more Class A (at Evelyn and Mathilda) than shown on the map included with the staff report. Planning Officer Ryan clarified that those locations were added after the map was created which was in 2002.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that the motion the Planning Commission made regarding this item was to reduce the amount of acreage from 168 acres for the PD overlay starting with the Woods property. She stated her figures state 164 acres and asked staff what was the correct amount of the reduction that the Planning Commission requested.
Planner Miner stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, they did not take specific action to remove any properties; instead they said they would like to see a reduction in the number, specifically in the “Woods”, but did not list particular sites that should be reduced. He stated specific sites would be part of the rezoning study that staff would take back to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if any environmental testing had been done on the site at the corner of Wolfe and Stewart Avenue, just west of Lowes Home Improvement and identified on the map as a shaded area included in Attachment K, page 5. Planning Officer Ryan stated that staff has not actually looked at sites; rather staff has identified sites to consider, and the environmental review would be part of the analysis to identify whether or not there were any reasons the zoning district should not be applied.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with staff that it was possible the sites listed in the staff report could change in the rezoning process, but Planning Officer Ryan stated that staff will not look at any more sites than what is listed.
Director Paternoster stated that what Council is being asked to do this evening is to initiate the rezoning of those properties listed in the report within the overlay district in the M-S zones, and the rezoning in residential zones. He stated that the initiation does not rezone the properties, rather what occurs is that staff begins the process of notifying the property owners; undertaking the Environmental Review; going to the Planning Commission for their review, and then back to City Council for action. Director Paternoster stated that only upon Council’s action would the rezoning actually take place and that Council will have the opportunity to decide which properties should or should not be rezoned when the item comes back to them.
Councilmember Hamilton asked how many property owners had contacted them with concerns about this rezoning. Planning Officer Ryan stated one facility had contacted staff with concerns about this study.
Councilmember Chu asked if all the properties on Attachment L (page 2) were individually notified that a study potentially might be initiated. Planning Officer Ryan stated that staff notified these properties that the current study tonight was occurring.
Councilmember Chu asked if the property owners for the Combining Districts (Attachment K ) were notified. Planning Officer Ryan stated that those property owners have not been notified, but Director Paternoster stated that they will be notified along with a re-notification that will be sent to all the properties in
Attachment L should Council initiate the rezoning study tonight.
Councilmember Chu asked if the Planning Commission comments had specific areas they wished to reduce within the “Woods” based on their comments to reduce the acreage. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the Planning Commission felt that overall the amount of land identified for potential receiving of the Places of Assembly Combining District was too much and that it should be reduced. She stated the Planning Commission specifically said they felt the first place to look for reduction was the “Woods” to evaluate if that area should be included in the designation, but they did not pick any particular properties.
Councilmember Chu asked if there were a percentage factor or acreage number on the five maps for other use. Planning Officer Ryan stated that they did not do that level of detail on the report.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with staff that the existing moratorium covered industrial and commercial properties within the City. Councilmember Howe asked if this item were passed as staff is recommending, would Places of Recreation or Places of Assembly be allowed at commercial centers such as the one behind Walgreen Drug Store. Planning Officer Ryan stated that they could accept an application at such locations and that they would require a Use Permit.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m.
Sara Cordell and Jim Thayer representing Trinity Church of Sunnyvale, stated their opposition of Alternative 1, Option D (“PF” zoning). They stated that the rezoning is unnecessary and will create a loss of property values. They requested that Trinity Church be exempt from this option since the church has already entered into a contract to sell the property.
Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Thayer if he saw any conditions in which the rezoning would be necessary and Mr. Thayer stated he saw none. Mr. Thayer stated the proposed rezoning would prevent churches from selling their property or relocating due to greatly reduced property values.
Councilmember Moylan stated that staff is suggesting Public Facility (PF) zoning to assist with keeping churches in neighborhoods. He cited numerous cases where churches were redeveloped into residential housing and stated that staff feels a trend exists that when a church moves, the land is turned into housing. Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Thayer if he thought that was a problem. Mr. Thayer stated it was unlikely to happen within Sunnyvale because he contacted numerous churches in the City and none of them have entered into contracts to sell their property.
Councilmember Hamilton asked Mr. Thayer who the buyer is and/or for what purpose did they plan to use the site. Mr. Thayer stated he found out about the PF zoning from the developer who told them that they will not be able to build because of this item being voted on this evening. Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Mr. Thayer that they are selling to a developer for residential development.
Councilmember Hamilton told Mr. Thayer that the rezoning to Public Facility would not preclude Trinity Church from reselling their property. Mr. Thayer stated that it did prevent them from getting the price they could today from a residential developer.
Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Thayer if the church will be selling the entire parcel or just a portion of the property. Mr. Thayer stated the church is planning on selling the entire property in order to relocate (preferably in the City of Sunnyvale). Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Thayer how large the parcel is, and Mr. Thayer stated it is just over four acres.
Mayor Swegles verified with Mr. Thayer that he was a board member of the church.
Kristi Scudder, Trinity Church Director of Business and Finance, spoke in opposition of the PF zoning. She stated that they were not notified of the January 12 public outreach meetings, which they felt was a key point to share their concerns, and also were not notified of the special meeting on March 6 and only found out about the meeting through their developer. She stated that because they are a long-standing member of the community and wish to continue to remain a member of the community they are requesting immediate release from the rezoning included in this recommendation.
Councilmember Chu asked for a show of hands of individuals from Trinity Church and those who are not members but are in favor of the request by Trinity Church.
Councilmember Howe asked Ms. Scudder where they are in the process of selling the property, and what steps does the church need to take in order to sell the property. Ms. Scudder stated the process began about three years ago when there was a desire to grow in size. About a year ago, they received congregation approval and sent out 60 packets to developers and then interviewed the top five. She stated they signed the contract (which requires a 90-day feasibility study) on February 1, 2006. She stated they hope to close escrow by the end of 2006.
Councilmember Howe asked Ms. Scudder if there has been any formal application to the City from the developer for a residential project on the church site. Ms. Scudder stated they have met with the City throughout the process, but to her knowledge nothing formal has been submitted. Councilmember Howe confirmed with Mr. Scudder that the church would have to agree to the development and that they have not agreed at this point. Ms. Scudder stated that they expect to know whether or not the project is feasible by the end of the feasibility study, which is May 1, 2006.
Major Ken Hood stated that the Salvation Army did receive the notice of the Public Meetings regarding Public Facilities in Industrial Areas, but no where in the notice did it state anything about rezoning residential facilities into public facilities. Major Hood stated had he been aware of the topic, he would have attended the meeting. Major Hood asked staff what they have in mind with the proposal PF zoning regarding new regulations and signage issues. Major Hood stated this zoning will impact the property values of the facility and limit the types of buyers that can or want to purchase the facility.
Major Hood asked staff about regulations and rules they would need to abide by if they were changed from residential to public facility. Director Paternoster stated that the use would be protected as a non-conforming use so it would not change anything for the existing use. Director Paternoster stated that the intent of staff is to protect specific land uses in the City in order for those uses to continue.
Councilmember Hamilton asked Director Paternoster if the sale of a property or an improvement would trigger a change in the regulations for the property. Director Paternoster stated that the use goes with the land, and as an example if a non-conforming building were torn down, they would have to conform to the regulation of the current zoning.
James Johnstone, Jon Sanders, Karen Miller, Jim Asselin, Linda Olson, Jeff Howery, Melvin Oldeen, Arthur Schwartz spoke in opposition to the “PF” zoning and requested Trinity Church be released from the rezoning of this property.
Mayor Swegles stated that he has heard two speakers state that the notice they received did not mention the potential rezoning study of residential sites, and he asked staff what the notices did state. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the notices invited interested parties to the Outreach Meetings, but the notice of Public Hearing was general and did not state what the entire study embodied. Director Paternoster stated that this is a research project and to make sure the community has input, they hold Outreach Meetings, which occurs long before the staff recommendation on the study is made. He stated that if Council proceeds with the rezoning this evening, then there will be legal noticing requirements.
Tom Greene spoke in opposition to the rezoning of residential property and requested immediate release of Trinity Church from this rezoning.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with Mr. Greene that there is a legally binding contract in place between the church and a developer to sell the property subject to a 90 day clause.
Philip Payne spoke in opposition to the “PF” rezoning and stated the zoning change would be a hindrance to the community as it would keep the churches from being able to grow and improve due to lower property values.
Cathy Handzel stated that in the City of Sunnyvale Quarterly Report there was a notification of the January 12 meeting at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m., but that from the title of the notification there was no indication that rezoning of churches would be discussed. She clarified that the Trinity Church is not looking to make a profit in the sale, rather to enhance what it can offer.
Lynn Aisalva, representing the Fairbrae Swim and Racquet Swim Club (a private member-owned facility) questioned the appropriateness of the “PF” rezoning for this facility. She stated they did receive a notice about industrial properties, which had no relevance to their property. Ms. Aisalva stated that she is requesting that they be removed from the list.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that the designation of Places of Assembly inclusion stretches beyond churches in that it covers community-serving facilities, and confirmed with staff that the swim facility was on the list, because it was the only one of its nature in the City.
Planning Officer Ryan stated that what they are looking at this evening is not whether or not rezoning should occur, rather whether Council wants staff to discuss and examine rezoning. She stated that if Council identifies properties on the list that they do not want staff to pursue any further, they can make that determination this evening. She stated that if Council approves staff recommendation this evening, then staff would start noticing, talking with property owners and would develop a revised list of recommended properties to be rezoned and then presented to Council for consideration in the future.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with staff that rezoning to a Public Facility does not automatically open the facility to the public.
Councilmember Moylan disclosed he was a member of Fairbrae Swim Club and asked City Attorney David Kahn if he needed to recuse himself. City Attorney Kahn stated he did not.
Kara LaPierre, Director of Economic Vitality for Silicon Valley Leadership group, stated that her organization’s position on the appropriate use of land is an attempt to balance need of residential development with jobs and other public uses such as Places of Assembly. She stated it is important to have good location specific criteria in addition to a Use Permit process. Ms. LaPierre stated her organization supports the Council in pursuing the rezoning study to look at the uses in the Commercial and Industrial Districts for Places of Assembly.
Councilmember Chu asked Ms. LaPierre if any elements of the policy statement (Attachment J) dated January 22, 2004 have changed since that date. Ms. LaPierre stated that the Council does have the current policy position (as Attachment J) of her organization. She stated her organization believes in appropriate evaluation and thinks it is important to weigh the appropriateness of the land use (especially anything with sensitive receptors) by looking at how the space was previously used and how it is and is currently being used. She stated that Council should look at how much land they can rezone or allow an alternative use, so that in the future if a fabrication plant wanted to move in it would be appropriate with the uses that have been allowed.
Councilmember Chu stated that staff is attempting to follow the balancing principles mentioned by Ms. LaPierre since they are recommending changing zoning on 200 acres out of 2,000 acres with the remaining acres reserved for industrial use.
JoAnn Markham-Allen, Facility Manager for Dionex Corporation, stated she heard about the discussion this evening by word of mouth. She stated the corporation was totally against the rezoning and feels they may need to take a look at whether Sunnyvale is a place for them to own and operate their business. She stated that they do have manufacturing (with some chemicals used) and questioned the rationale in having a mixed-use facility next to some of their buildings where chemicals are used. Ms. Markham-Allen stated that Council should delay any votes or decisions as the business community has not been properly notified.
Councilmember Hamilton verified with Ms. Markham-Allen that she understood that the issue tonight is to look at studying this issue, and verified that her corporation was within one of the proposed areas.
Councilmember Chu asked Ms. Markham-Allen what Dionex manufactures and she stated that they make instruments that measure finite levels of substances.
Councilmember Chu asked Ms. Markham-Allen what the address of the corporation was and she stated they have multiple locations at Titan Way, up and down Lakeside and Mercury Drive.
Director Paternoster stated that there will be formal Public Hearings if this item does go forward, with both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He also stated that the purpose of the study is to try and protect industrial areas from intrusion by non-industrial uses. Director Paternoster stated that on the other hand staff does need to find locations for this use; therefore, staff is looking for compatible areas that accommodate mixed-uses.
Keith Claxton, Real Estate Broker for Trinity Church, stated that many of the industrial buildings in the City are older, functionally obsolete and nearly 20% are vacant. He applauded staff’s efforts to recycle this land.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with Mr. Claxton that there was a valid contract of sale between the church and a developer of residential properties.
Werner Gans stated that the City can’t afford to give up land for industrial and manufacturing locations. However, he does agree with the staff report and endorses the in-depth study.
Harriet Rowe stated that a friendly amendment for exclusion would be appropriate for Trinity Church since they had been working on selling their property for a year before this study issue began. She stated that she did not support the rezoning of residential sites and felt new homes would be more beneficial to the City and its residents. She supported looking at something that will work for both sides and supported the combining district.
Councilmember Chu asked Ms. Rowe if there was active discussion at the Public Hearings regarding existing churches converted into Public Facilities. She stated there were a couple of comments, but not much discussion. She stated that she believes that the PF zoning is a good idea but that each location should be considered individually, such as the swim club.
Nicholeen Nagrodsky-Scott stated she is in favor of industrial planning, and wanted Council to know there are five churches within three blocks of Trinity Church on Fremont Avenue.
Chuck Nolan stated he is not a member of Trinity Church, but in the interest of fairness he thinks they should have a right to proceed on the sale of their property. He stated he is in favor of utilizing industrial places for Places of Assembly.
No one else wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Mayor Swegles polled each Councilmember to see if they wished to continue with all three remaining agenda items or continue any items due to the length of the meeting.
Councilmember Hamilton, Howe, Moylan, and Chu stated they would like to continue with the items on the agenda. Mayor Swegles confirmed that with four affirmative votes, they would continue with the remaining agenda items.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Director Paternoster that the Combining District is for the purpose of adding a new use. Director Paternoster stated that currently in residential zones, Places of Assembly and residential uses are permitted; therefore an overlay zone in this area would not create any change.
Councilmember Howe asked if the staff recommendation were approved as recommended, what would happen to the piece of property at Trinity Church. Planning Officer Ryan stated that for the short term nothing would happen as the existing R-2 zoning would remain on the property. She stated staff would conduct the study (which would include this location and several other properties) and return to Council with a recommendation on the properties that staff thinks should be rezoned.
Planning Officer Ryan provided a several points of clarification:
- Should Council approve the staff recommendation to pursue rezoning of existing Places of Assembly in residential zones, staff would accept and process the application until the property is rezoned.
- Places of Assembly are identified in many ways such as churches, community centers, lodge halls, and business associations.
- Council has a couple of options regarding the current moratorium. Council could cancel the moratorium, in which staff may accept applications for Places of Assembly, or Council could choose to extend the moratorium. Should Council wish to extend the moratorium, it would have to occur at the next Council meeting in order to allow for proper noticing of the item.
|