Loading...
PC 06-07-73 � CITY OF �UPERTINO, STATE OI' CALIFORNIA PC-104 1U300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California • Page 1 T�lephone: 252 ' MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGUL�,R rIEETING OF THE YLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 7, 1973 IN THE COUNCIL CHANIBER, CITY HAI.L, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG ' The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Buthenuth with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Ada.ms, Gatto, Nellis (7:45), 0'Keefe and � Chair�an Buthenuth Comm, absent: None Staff present: Director ot Planning and Deveiopment Sisk Assistant City Attorney Terry . Associate Planner Cowan - • Traff ic Engineer Grigg . Director of Public Works Visfcovich Consultants Arnold ard Levy present: PUBLIC HEARING 1. CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider 1973 Comprehensive General Plan. , � � a. Discussion regarding Agricultural Land Use - Peter Lert ' Mr. Lert, employed by the Agricultural Extension of the University - � of California and the author of "Santa Clara County Agriculture: A Look a� its Future"�was introduced. • Mr. Lert said the open space plan suggesti�n of PPC is verq reason- able in light of what agriculture would be in this county in the next few years. Land is limiting fact�r, and there is a lack of f inancial incentive. Zt was_his opinion that Cupertino cannot maintain agriculture use in the long run by zoning or by the . Williamson Bill; it's a way to buy time. With regard to buying the land, the decision had to t�e made: How much is open space worth? • PC -104 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 1973 ADJOURN�D PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 • Mr. Lert indicated two possibilities: outright purchase of agricultural land and leasing back, or purchase of development rights and leasing it . back to agriculture. In this particular county thinking of agriculture is of orchards. Trees are old with declining yields and can't stand competition from • other areas. Units are too small for most row crops with the exception . of truck farming, su�ar beets, etc. Strawberries could be farmed again with success. Wine grapes were also suggested, but acreage would almost be too small. ' After a further brief summary of his report, Mr. Lert offered to answer any questions. • In anscaer to Comm. Nellis, Mr. Lert said with the exception of greenhouse nurseries, it was his opinion that agricultural use of land was not feasible under present circumstances. � Mr. Lert noted there are some good soil areas in Cupertino, but he was not familiar enough �vith this area to determine what was bare land and what had been built up. He said there is also some of the worst soil; each parcel would have to be accessed separately. • - Anything less than 40 to 60 acres in one parcel would normally be inadequate for row crops. The more you fragment and scatter open space the harder it is to work ir,to an agricultural area. When asked for his opinion on Seven Springs Ra.nch, Mr. Lert said his two suggestions would be (1) greenhouse type nursery (lease-back) and �' (2) large equestrian center, if not developed. He said he would not recommend walnut trees. . Mr. Lert p�int�d out that c��ater quality and climate are two factors that enter i.nto feasibility. He said there would be very few types � of crops that would return in any way nearly enough per acre to make agriculture economically feasible. ��ould have to be subsidized one . way or another. AgricuJ_ture would have tough time paying its own way even with tax bill taken away. � When asked about hill area potential, he said there could be some interest in winery grapes. He noted grapes do not require as much change to topography as o�ther crops. Christmas trees would create traffic and people problems. His best suggestion was for horse farm- ing and riding preserves, and maybe even one for moto.rcycles. � , With regard to greenhouse type nurseries, Mr. Lert �aid a 5 to 10 acre parcel would be adequate and would f'it in well caith neighborhood property. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 1973 ADJOURNED PLANNING CONiMISSI�N MEETING PC-ZU4 � � Page 3 Comm. Adams aske� if the soil �er.c �ette� in the valley than in . the foothills. Mr. Lert said ti�at some of the worst soils were in the foothills area. Chairman Buthanuth noted that Cupertino has done some leasing to � citizens f.or garuening and this might be one taay for the City to � buy l.and for open �pace agriculture. The meeting was then opened to the public for questioning of Mr. Lert. . Ms. Nancy Sallan, 10141 Bilich Place, Cupertino, said she was con- cerned about agric��ltural areas being preserved. In answer to her qaestion about tax burc�en being eased by zoning land agr:iculture, Mr. Lert answered �hat zoni:�g agrir_�ulture does not give any tax break. The land is still taxed on its highest best pos�ible use. Ms. Sallan said she woulc� encouxage the staff to take a very creative approach to investigate possibilities of preserving agricultural zoning in Cupertino. ' Ms. Hertert, 22830 San Juan P.oad, Cupertino, made three suggestions: ' (1) demonstration orchards for historical purposes, (2) nursery for source of City plantings and (3) something jhe had seen done in Europe. Vegetable gardens with small housing for the older citizens to tend. Chairman Buthenuth thanked Mr. Lert for coming. b. Discussion of Core Area . Mr. Arnold reviewed briefly, showing where the City had been broken into three pieces f�r consideration in the General Plan. (1) Infil�- ing on valley floor, (2) foothills, and (3) core area. He iChen pointed out these areas on the map, explainin� the very complex processes with e�:tensive feedback from publ�c and Planning Cotnmission Chat had been necessar�r to arrive at alternatives. Mr. Arno1d felt � ; a preliminary General Plan statement for valley floor and foothills could be presented on Monday evening, ;June 11.• There are two questions on core area. Should the regi.onal shopping center be on riariani property, Vallco Park or should it be in Cupertino at all? Regional shopping center location should be � considered equal as far as square footage, buildings, sales, etc. He then commented on final Craffic impact report, part of which had . been discussed at previous meeting. YC-104 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 1973 EIDJOURIv'ED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 � Mr. Arnold then�nassed out a page containing key questions for commercial land use discussion. (1) What is the evaluation by the City of strip comrnercial vs. agglomerated commercial development? � (2) How much agglomerated commercial activity, larger than neighbor- hood type, can the City expect? (3) What are the best locations for agglomerated comnercial activity? (4). How much neighborhood commercial • activity is required and what are the best locatiorls. Strip commercial was defined as any kind of commercial activity that - occupies frontage of property. ' Using a blackboard to illustrate, Mr. Levy showed the approximately 200 acres outside the proposed regional shopping center sites. There is approximately 64 acres along major road frontages in the core area. Mr. Levy then discussed, the fiscal differerice in putting in strip commercial development vs. agglomerated commercial development. Mr. Arnold explained his analysis of other commercial centers, using � Pruneyard and Town & Country Center in San Jose, as examples. Proposals in foothills are not critical to this study. It was noted approximately 40-SO acres would be needed for the Pruneyard type agglomerated commercial.development. The located of an agglomerate type center cvould depend on which site �..ras chosen fer the re�ional shop�ing cent�r. If on Plariani site, one loca-- tion could be opposite the center and the other could be opposite t'ne Civic Center. If the regi�nal. shopping center were in Vallco Park, it could be opposite To�an Center or across from center. In di_scussing commercial alternativesand requirements, Mr. Levy said some strong criteria had�come out so far. (1) Neighborhood type faci.lities should be located in proximity of growth, which seems to be on westerly portion of City. � (2) To the extent that these parcels add to the residential activities, there would be a demand for neighborhood type . facilities. (3) There doesn't. appear to be an;� need for neighborhood facilities near to tliose existing. � Homestead property was not considered. ° � One question Mr. Arnold'posed to the commission was: D� you think you get could more tlian one Pru�ieyard in Cupertino? On the Vallco site there is easy room for a Pruneyard development and a Sar. Jose Town and . Country development. It was ascertained that az� abglomeration would entail approximately 20 acres ; a strip develo�meiit , 4 acres . . M?NUTES OF' THE JUI�'E 7•, 1973 �1DJOLIRNED PLANNING CUrfMISSION MEETING PC--104 • 1'age S Mr. Arnold noted that Crossroads assessment district no�. being put in and commercial development east of Gemco were given and had not been taken into consid.er.ation in their calcul_ations. Comm. Nellis said since these areas are committeci to go conunercial, , they should be taken into consideration af square footage. P1r. Levy noted that even if acrea�e estimate were off by as much as 30% there would be 140 acres that wouldn't support commercial. which leaves the massive problem of where does it go and �ahat do you do with it. � Chairman �uthenuth said he felt a decision of strip vs agglomerate commercial should be made, and he favored agglomerate. Comm. Adams and 0'Keefe both agreed that a�;glomerate would be more favorable. Comm. Gatto said the size of the agglomer.ate type was still a question, although he favored agglomer_ate also, He suggested *he possibility of reduction of 10 acres and �ahat might be done as another type of anchor. Mr. Arnold agreed this was a very importan� point. There can be just so much other commercial and the commission.�,=ou?d have to be very caref.ul not tu fragment right off the bat, A11 other commer- cial competes with the ultimate being looke>d for. Conun. Nellis agreed to agglomerate, but did not t?Zink they shauld program a blanket statement against strip.commercial. On very small lots (4-S aeres) she did not think.an isolated element woul.d be so undesirable. Mr. Levy said this focuses on one of the issues involved with strip commercial. Once you open the door, there must be a very strong criteria either in terms of use or location. After further discussion of other factors involved in strip vs. agglomerate, such as fiscal, traffic and advantages, the meeting , was opened to the public. Mr. Billawalla, 20252 Hill Avenue, Saratoga, questioned feeling expressed that strip commercial is no good. He felt strip commercial broke traf_fic d�wn rather than massing it in one location. Some uses are convenient to have in strip commercial; banks, Savings and Loans, office buildir��s which don't need to be a part of a large center. Comm. 0'Keefe saici he felt the ingress and egress to strips made for very hazardous traffic. conditions. � PC-104 ' Page 6 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 1973 t1DJ0URNED PLEINNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. 0'Keefe also pointed to integr.ity of desi_gn. An a�glomerate can . be more cohesive and consistent allowing developmeut to occur quickly � _i_n a planned way with maximum control. Suggested 7'raffic Engineer s�udy whether parking space is lessened in agglomerate devel.opment. � Comm. P�ellis pointed out to Mr. Billa�valla that what the commission . . was s�ying �aas not that strip or a�glomerate. produced any more traffic, but that it could be controlled better in an agglomerate development. ' �lfter further discussion with Mr. Billawalla, Comm. Gatto said he tiiought the prime consic�eration is•to be able to plan and control functidn in a given area. rlost types of needs met by strip uses can be accomodated into aggLome.rate� very easily plus giving control of traftic and over-all planning scheme. i�is. Ann Anger said she wanted to go on record against strip zoning. � She approves very much of Pruneyards, but would not like to see surroundings such as in i;ampbell. �Ir. Bob Karpen, sgolcesman for the Cupertino Citizens Goa1s Steering - Commirtee, referred to some of the policies inco in their study and fe]_t they would be aided by agglomerate development. Ccmm. 0'Keefe maved that the cc�mmission adopt a policy or position that they favor an agglomerate development over.a strip development in the core area. Seconded by Comm..Gatto. � • Nlotion carried, 5-U It was noted the nei�hborh�od �.ommercial shauld be considered as a se�srate entity. ` Chairman Butt�enuth then announced a break at 9:40 p.m, with tYie meeting reconveninb at 9:55 p.m. After a brief di_scussian on what the consultants would be presenting on Monday evening,it was suggested that property c��mers should be notified to be present Uefore a choice or �l.ternate is made, Mr. Arnold then suggested the commission talk about realistic alternates for pr�operty if the shopping center were to go in Vallco Park. Residen- �tial. was one alterna�ive; some industx-ial caas another. If this is an ��lt�ernative wliat can be doT�e witti this property in �he most imagiriative � way that caill clo mast fer the character of the City. Fiscal indications �indicate choices will not be m�de on ttiis basi.s because of i_rnpact oF SB90. � �Industrial vs residenti��1 with regard to traffic ileed� more input. Residenti.al will be <� �cwer trafi =c generator c�a Fiighway 9. If resi- i i . I MINUTES UF 7'FIL J'JI�E 7, "1973 ADJOURNFU PLANNING COM:�1ISfiIUN MEETING PC-104 � I Page 7 � i dential there i.s the seri�us question of alterilat� dens�_ty. Some planned unit deve]_opment with various type and cnixtures of develov-� ment has been cor.sidered. A cliscussion ti�as held �n how to insure equity to oti,mer.s and yet to achieve planizing objecti.ve. Comm. Gatto pointed out the crux is still the location of the regional sho.pping center. He questioned tr�e distr�bution of t'r�e 50-60 acres i_f there were to be no center. Mr. Le�ry said they had intended to present this alternative. As . . . far as the discussion �it this paint was concerned, the addition of the r�gional center would encourage amount of commercial the � City could get as one aggl.omeration �aould be attracted by the center. Another point �vas if there were na regional center, this area would still retain incentive for encouragement as fii-st priority area had with center. So if there were no regional center, the comnission �aould be t.ryin� to figure out where second ' agglomerate would ga. . Comm. Gatto noted theze has been some approval aiready on Highway 9 that �tiould noL lend ii�self to a high priority Town & Cou���.ry center.� So to �ive a blanket conuaercial zoning and consider use permi� for full banket of uses, doesn't really give a good handie on ��ahat is � a good locatiori. Mr. Arnold suggested possibly what wou_ld have to be done in decidi.ng what uses would be compatible with what area � �vould be to 7_and en something like 20 acres to be minimal for �agglomerate activities. He pointed out the many difficulties that would bc faced i.n making these decisions, A detailed discussion was held on how to protect the Town Center area and keep it the real hub of the City. - On General Plan A, �onun. Nellis said if center �aere i.n Vallco Park the complimentary us� would go to Toc•m Center_ area. Important how that particular parcel is dPveloped as to en�ire To�m Center image. pt1tting incompetitive commercial situation� was discussed. What � � �aith commerc:i.al already heYe, Cupertino �aould not be 1_acking. Cot?un. Nellis noted she had suggested industrial use on Mariani site, . ' but, now wouid prefer residential after the �tr.aff;ic consultant's report on peak haur Lraffic use generated by i.ndustrial. She also f.elt it was unwise to consider more industri.al use in Cuper_tino • sinc.e there are two successful industrial areas in Vall_co Park and West Valley Industri.al Park, esPecially in light of SB90. PC-104 MINUTES Ok THE JUNE 7, 1973 ADJOURN�D PLANPIING CONTMISSION MEETINGS Yage 8 . Comm. Gatto questio:zec� that is any commerci.al activity would not fit in Town Center area for �ne reason or another, could not find another spot in town? A disct�ssion then L on types of commercial that would be wanted in tocm but would not fit in ttle agglomerate commercial develop- � ment and locations where they might go. After a detailed discussion cluring which co?nmercial was defined as two types: conunercial for private recreatior., such as theaters, bowling alleys, etc. and commercial for service, such as veterinary, tool rental, etc., Conun. Gatto noted a plan for taking these strip uses and makin� them int.o an over-all plan; taking existing uses . and mod:ifying them to correct undes:irable problems is an agglomerate , plus. He felt that limiting themselves to strictly 'To�,m and Country orientated type uses would be a mistake. The importance of accessability to services �oas then discussed. A discussion was held on whether it would be better to pick type of services and needs and limit them tc� certain locations, or whether to decide what type of service should be put on the land. rSr. Karpen asked :Eor clarification of economic in.ipact or. the City w�.th the loss of $90,000,00 and Mr. Arnold said this �aould be a net fiscal impact. � ' A discus�ion was then held on iuture meetings. Mr. Sisk also brought up the amount of i.rifo.rmation the co�nmission felt it_ should •loolc at concerning the shopping center per se. He noted a::epresentative • irom the Mariani site had sent in written material ta the staff for di_striUution to thE� commzssion in respoase to the conimission's suggestion at their previous meet Elfter a lengtFly discussion with som� of the commission membc.rs teelin� this �,rould be more i.n the nature of 7_ooking at precise pl.ans and they should not be inf_luenced by the looks, etc. of the developmeiit, and then oL feeling t�iat every available piece of inFor.mational material should be consi.dered, the Assistant Attorney's advice was aslced . Mr. Terry said now was t�.me to set ground zules anu explained reasons tor ' imper*aiic� of this. He also noted tl��ar_ everythinp, �aas public record so there could be no l�egal �bjections to a.iythin; they �a�anted to 11ear, Mr. Joe Burlce, representi.n� Bayshore ProUerties for rtariani developers, noted he had understood the conunission had directed him to submit written material to sta�f . �ie felt an i.ntel:Ligent cle.cision could not . be m<�de without having avai_1ab1e to them information on qualiLy and function of develcpment and type of business coT2mitmec:ts that must he made to have a vial3le retail d��vel.opment. Nii-. Rurl�e said �.f the ccir�nissi_on would not accept materials �r. epared , he �•�ould rnail it to th��n at their humes . . �i I AII?v�ITE.S OF 7'HE JU�IE 7, 1)73 ADJOURNED PL�d:VItiG CO�I`fIS�ION MEETING PC-].04 � , ! Page 9 "1r. [�:ard, t'alico Park representative, said he fel.t the infornation sh�ul_d be presented si.r.iul.taneously cazth saine list of �_ter.ls being subm�tted. ' Corli�. r'e21i.s noted this is a pr.oject of such m�gnitude that the}* should hear from all concerned aiid she ��ould r_ecor�.;�lend accepting the wl-itten materia]_. The rtaterial �•ras then distrit�uted to the com.Tnission members. � At 11:15 p.m. after further discussion, Cor�-n. Gatto move.d. ' seconded by Cc,mm. Adar,is, to adjourn until :Sonday evenin�, June 11. • • 1973 at 7:30 p.m. , Motion carr�ed. 5-0 APPROVED: /s/ John W. Buthenuth Chairman ATTEST: - /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk ,