Loading...
PC 10-26-94 .¡': CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 26, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS - Called to order at 6:45 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Roberts Com. Harris Com. Austin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development ciddy Wordell, city Planner Bert viskovich, Director of Public Works Charles Kilian, city Attorney Consultants Present: Don Woolfe, Don Skinner, Leon Pirofalo, PRA. APPROVAL OF MINlJTES october 6, 1994. Com Harris amended the minutes of October 6, 1994 as follows: 1. Page 6, last paragraph, add the sentence "If uplisted to endangered species status, there must be approval from USF&W." after the word "...protected." 2. Page 9, Regarding Mr. Hopkins comments, it should be added to the minutes, that Mr. Hopkins stated he did not visit the site. Com. Harris stated it is important to have this comment in the minutes as it will cast a different light on his remarks. 3. Page 10, John Gibbs comments, 7th sentence, should read "The part of the seminary property near the park staging area would be a valuable addition to the park. 4. Page 11, 4th paragraph, comment #2, to read "Regarding secondary access, with no nexus, you can't require it." MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of October 6, 1994, as amended Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Letter from coyote Creek Raparian station POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 1. Application NO(S): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l-GPA-93 and 6-EA-93 Diocese of San Jose Same Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-52-3, 342-5- 54, -56, -59, -60 Located south of I-280, west of Foothill Boulevard and north of Rancho San Antonio county Park and Sevens Creek Blvd. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Very Low Density Residential 5-20 acre slope density to very Low Density Residential Foothill Modified 1/2 acre slope density with a cap of 293 units. The Diocese amendment. alternatives of San Jose applied for the above General The City Council directed that a total of be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. Plan ten ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Ten alternatives were evaluated. Significant impacts identified related to loss of and intrusion into open space lands; elimination of potential park lands; loss of and intrusion into natural vegetation, wildlife habitat and wetland areas; exposure to adverse geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion and pollution; wildfire hazard; visual impacts; water tank failure and leakage; and safety of school crossings. staff Presentation: ci ty Planner Wordell presented the staff report noting the purpose of this meeting is the following: 1 Determine if there are any outstanding issues that must be resolved prior to deciding to consider an amendment; 2. Determine if an amendment should be considered, and what the goals are for considering an amendment. Planner Wordell stated the major topics to discuss when considering an amendment are the following: Private open space; public open space; housing; fiscal impacts; vegetation/wildlife; public services; other. Chr. Mahoney asked each commissioner if there is any data they need in order to decide if they should consider a General Plan Amendment? Com. Roberts stated he would like to address visual impacts. Com. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 3 Harris stated she would like to discuss the issue of EMF's at a public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the public input. city Attorney Kilian stated the Planning commission can close the public hearing or keep it open. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing at this time. Mr. Melvin Caldwell, 10300 E. Estates Drive, stated this property was passed, down from the Diocese of San Francisco along with many churches In debt. He stated the Planning commission should consider the Diocese of San Jose as the property owner. Mr. Caldwell read an editorial from the San Jose Mercury News regarding this issue, written approximately four years ago. He stated he would suggest clustering the homes and preserving the open space. Ms. Nadine Grant, speaking on behalf of Oaks, spoke in support of the General Plan EIR adequacy review process and noted this gets confused with the amendment application process. She stated these processes should be kept discrete since the EIR certification must proceed with any amendment application process. She stated there are a number of items which are outstanding in the EIR specifically and there are no answers to Kendal Blau's comments regarding noise and schools. She noted there is an inadequacy in the EIR regarding schools and noted the dollars being presented as going to the schools are slightly misleading if one does not understand the State funding process. She noted the study used for the traffic analysis is questionable and needs to be looked at. She added given the new information received at this meeting regarding the red legged frog and no hydrological habitat analysis report, the EIR is not ready for certification. Regarding the amendment, OAKS is against any amendment until the EIR is certified. She noted when the DEIR is certified they suggest that the objectives the commission define at this meeting regarding the proposal should include not only the parameters for economic impact, but also for land use precedence setting. Ms. Mavis smith, 22734 Majestic Oak way, believes that the Planning commission do not have enough information to decide on the EIR. She noted there is a lot of concern about traffic and there will be more people in less space. She stated an access road onto Stevens Creek Blvd. will impact the surrounding properties and water supply. Ms. Diane Moreno Ikeda, FAIR, spoke in favor of the General Plan Amendment and ratifying the EIR. She stated the current General Plan scatters the development over 209 acres, but under the proposed amendment the proposal of up to 192 units is consistent with the current General Plan goals in that it preserves the front PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 4 hill as open space, preserves the western slope, preserves the Raparian environment as open space, guarantees pUblic access to open space, and clusters the development. She stated the open space is approximately 65% public and 10% private which IS a positive step forward. She noted the General Plan Amendment was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission in their recent report. Mr. Joe Tembrock, 20771 Scofield Dr., Co-Chair FAIR, spoke in support of the permanently dedicated open space and the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation that would dedicate 130 acres as public land. He stated the Diocese's proposal is a very beneficial way of obtaining public land near an expensive urban area. Regarding trees, Mr. Tembrock stated the native trees and vegetation on the land can be enjoyed by all. Mr. Bob Gray, Mayor Pro-Tem, Los Altos, stated the council of Los Altos unanimously passed a resolution addressing their concerns about the proposed development. He stated a number of people discussed their concerns at their Council meetings. Mr. Gray noted that the residents in Cristo Rey area will be impacted by the increase in traffic and their quality of life would be impacted. He also noted that property values will decrease and believes this development would be a taking. He stated this development will not provide any mitigation to residents of Los Altos and asked the Planning commission to strongly consider access roads into Cupertino. Com. Harris questioned Mr. Gray's comments regarding "a taking"? city Attorney Kilian stated this is not a taking. Mr. Gray stated it is a taking of the residents quality of life not of property. He stated he did not intend this as a legal term, but a moral term. Ms. Betty Thysen, resident of the Forum, expressed concern about the proposed General Plan Amendment and the decrease in the quality of life. She stated people who use San Antonio Park use it to get away from urban crowding. She stated it is her understanding that the houses proposed will be very expensive and added she is not in favor of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Steven Haze, 22681 San Juan Rd., speaking on behalf of the Committee For Green Foothills, stated he has been involved in this issue since the 1980 General Plan and was involved in the first development proposal of this property. He stated when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, the Hillside Development policy was put into affect, as a result this property was allowed: 36 homes in a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 5 21 acre development envelope; 177 acres as private open space; zero acres for public; zero trails and no public benefit except for visual. He stated the Diocese is now before the Planning commission and they have proposed, through conceptual site plans, to do the following: 192 units based on economic viability, on 54 acre development envelope; 12 acres as private open space; 138 acres as public open space and approximately three trails which will support a recreational gateway into the most popular park in the County. He stated this is substantial public benefit as agreed by the Committee for Green Foothills. Mr. Graig Breon, 22221 McClellan Rd., Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, asked what the commission will be voting on? Chr. Mahoney stated the Commission will be required in the amendment to specify the new upper limit and be more specific. Mr. Breon stated, under the current legal situation, it may be easier to say no for specific reasons and not to engage in trading with the property owners. He stated in someway it may be legally preferable to say no and let the developer come back with another proposal. He stated he would urge the Commission, in their discussion, to explain to the public the fundamental principals on which they are basing their decisions. He added the EIR seems to be grounded in environmental issues and hopes this continues. Ms. Diane Haze, 22681 San Juan Rd., stated a multi-use trail from Stevens Creek to Rancho San Antonio would benefit the community. It would reduce traffic on Cristo Rey Drive as well as allow for more park usage with less use of the parking area. She stated this would be an exceptional addition and the General Plan should be amended to accommodate this trail. Mr. Vince Donohue, 21533 Conradi a ct., stated there is a fairness issue. He spoke in support of the General Plan Amendment to allow the property owners to developer their property. He added that the Diocese has reduced the number of homes and he supports the new proposal. Mr. Don MCKenzie, 10114 Parkwood Dr., stated he is a past Planning commission and involved in the General Plan which the Commission are now discussing amending. He stated he spoke in favor of the 5- 20 acre land use designation, but disagrees as to where the line is drawn. He stated, it is his belief, looking at the topographical map, that there is a natural line of were the 5-20 acre designation should begin. He stated this line should not follow the property line. He noted the Diocese is proposing a double subdivision one area for public open space and the other for development. He added a General Plan Amendment should be looked at as there is a need for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 6 housing and this cannot be solved in just one location. Ms. Nicole Smith, 10317 Cold Harbor Ave., addressed the multi use trail and spoke in favor of this as it will keep horses off the roads. Mr. Phil Valdez, 282 Almaden, San Jose, spoke in favor of a General Plan Amendment. He stated it is important to keep the Spanish origin in Cupertino. Fr. Michael Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, stated, with regards to the Caretakers house, Governor wilson signed ABl33, which relates to civic organizations and buildings for preservation. He stated there is the problem with the religious organization owning historic property and it is more difficult to preserve a heritage facility. He stated he just wanted the commission to be aware of this and are reserving their rights to a hearing on this matter. Com. Harris questioned Mr. Haze's comments? Mr. Haze stated he is speaking in favor of the Planning commission recommending to the city Council that they review and determine if a General Plan Amendment should occur. He spoke in favor of the hillside policy, but noted its applicability is what is in question. He added if there is substantial public benefit, and the open space proposed is, then it is incumbent upon the Planning commission to entertain the amendment proposal. He believes if this land remains under private ownership a future city council could allow development. Com. Austin stated after reading all the materials, listening to public input and touring the property she is not in favor of a General Plan Amendment. She stated the higher the density the higher the impact and al ternati ve one would be the only viable choice for her. She stated after touring the property, she believes that the Seminary site is the most sensitive site in the whole area. She expressed concern about visual impacts and the precedence the Commission would be setting by setting aside the hillside policy. Com. Austin stated a goal which came out of the goals committee was to preserve the hillsides and allow more development along the transit corridors. She stated Cristo Rey area is not appropriate for development for several reasons. She stated traffic is a big concern and is an existing problem which further development would compound. She stated she is opposed to making the emergency access a permanent road because of the high truck use in this area. She also expressed concern about the impact on libraries, fire and police. She stated the larger the homes, the greater the visual impact. Com. Austin presented her comments in writing to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES october 26, 1994 Page 7 She noted the hydrological study should be addressed in the EIR. Com. Doyle stated he would like more information on the Water Tank and the Raparian corridor (what is the appropriate protection). He noted a benefit of the amendment is the public open space, he stated he would like to understand the options. He stated he is not clear on the impact on the red legged frog and has some questions regarding the financial impact on schools. He noted if the above questions and concerns could be addressed adequately he would be in favor of approving the EIR and a General Plan Amendment. Com. Roberts stated there is a lot information to consider and he would not be ready to recommend certification of the EIR or a General Plan Amendment at this time. He believes it was an unwise decision when they decided to simplify the preparation analysis of the EIR by leaving out a lot of alternatives. Chr. Mahoney stated other alternatives can be evaluated. Com. Roberts stated he believes the following are deficiencies in the EIR: - Excessive sacrifice of large trees on the Seminary property, pay special attention to the oak savannas. _ provision for the Wildlife habitat, not satisfied with this in the report. - open space benefits may not serve the desired purpose when broken up into pieces and would it be truly accessible to the pubic? _ special attention paid to the endangered species, this is the city's responsibility. Com. Roberts stated he would like to see a firm commitment to a habitat preservation plan, prior to EIR certification. Another hydrology and habitat study should be done with regards to the wetlands, the Cristo Rey parcel and the oak woodlands on the Seminary parcel. He believes the photos in the report are inadequate and the views presented are distorted. Com. Roberts stated there has been no talk about the noise impact on the park. He requested an al ternati ve which addresses the environmental concerns. Regarding economics and fairness, Com. Roberts stated there will be a small benefit to the City and a large benefit to the applicant. He addressed the fairness issue and reviewed the decision which was made with regards to the Forum project. He believes the Diocese has been treated generously in the past and this should be taken into account in the overall analysis. He expressed concern about precedence setting if the General Plan Amendment is approved. City Attorney Kilian addressed the recirculation of the EIR. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES october 26, 1994 Page 8 stated many recirculation, commission. issues have been raised which would but this will done by a majority vote require of the Com. Roberts stated he is not prepared to consider a GPA based on the alternatives before them and the information received so far. city Attorney Kilian stated the purposed of the EIR is to judge whether an amendment should be considered or not. He noted the first duty of the Planning commission is to determine whether the ErR is adequate. He stated if the Planning commission want to consider another alternative, recirculation is needed. Planning Director Cowan stated the EIR assessed 10 alternatives, but they spent more time on six. He noted the plan was to develop a continuum to enable the Planning Commission to select from all the alternatives. Com. Austin left at 8:25 p.m. due to illness. Mr. Kilian stated that not every inadequacy requires a recirculation, but maybe just a clarification. Mr. Don Woolfe, Consultant, stated the EIR was crafted originally to provide the Planning commission with decision making tools to evaluate between a range of 36 to 293 units. He noted going from 40 to 50 units is not enough of an impact to do another alternative. He stated another alternative can be done, but it takes months to prepare. He stated they are trying to get the commission to make a decision on the type of change that is desirable in the General Plan, if any change is desirable. He added he would caution the Commission not to try to develop more alternatives that would not result in any meaningful changes to the EIR. Com. Harris stated this is an important issue and the public process is important. She added the EIR was prepared to be circulated to the public and get feedback. She noted she is not opposed to amending the EIR to answer some of the issues raised, in a way that does not require circulation. She stated they need to deal with the issues that are deemed significant by the community and the Commission. She stated issues raised, which need to be addressed are the following: Multi-use trail addressed by the public. Second access road, have to decide if it is advisable to suggest a second access road. Red legged frog, has not been addressed adequately. wildlife corridor, Consultants should address this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 9 open space benefits issue, not clear about this and would like it addressed. Photolization - not adequate. EMF - needs to be addressed. Com. Harris addressed Mr. Mackenzie's comments and noted that this needs to be discussed regarding the property lines and the designation of the 5-20 acre designation. She stated she would like a recommendation from staff regarding the De Anza Party trail. Chr. Mahoney stated he would prefer not to study a number of units that the Planning commission will not consider. He believes the EIR is close. He stated that the Planning commission and city Council have already approved 2500 homes in the General Plan. He noted this will impact the schools and traffic. He suggested focusing on specific issues and spend time resolving these. He noted the project needs to move forward and he would prefer to spend more time on visual impacts at this time. In response to Chr. Mahoney's question, Com. Harris stated she is not opposed to considering an amendment to the General Plan. Chr. Mahoney spoke in favor of the hillside policy as it stands, but does not agree were the 5-20 acre line was drawn, as addressed by Mr. McKenzie. He stated there is a difference in the topography of the land. Chr. Mahoney stated he believes the majority of the Commission are willing to consider a General Plan Amendment at this time. city Attorney Kilian stated the commission should give direction to the consultants as to what additional information the Commission request. He stated if any of the issues are significant recirculation maybe needed. Chr. Mahoney suggested that each of the commissioners outline their three top issues. Com. Doyle - Visual analysis; Raparian corridor and impact on the red legged frog; public open space. Com. Roberts stated he concurs with Com. Doyle, but including wildlife habitat impacts, such as the red legged frog. Com. Harris - Water tank; EMF; Traffic circulation Mr. Woolfe stated he would like clarification as to how much detail the commissioners would like in the areas listed above. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 10 Corn. Harris stated she would like more public review regarding the Water tank and the EMF's. She also noted she would like a paragraph summarizing the school district's view. Corn. Doyle stated he would also like information from the school district regarding economics. Mr. Cowan stated they will have the school district personnel corne back and give a presentation. Corn. Harris stated she would like a staff recommendation on the advisability of a second access. Mr. Cowan stated they will look into this and do a comparison study with other areas within the city. Regarding public open space, Chr. Mahoney stated he would like more information on the accessibility and maintenance. He also requested more data on private vs. public open space. The commission requested more information on the trails discussed and the caretakers house, as addressed by Fr. Mitchell. Regarding wildlife and Vegetation the commission requested more information on the appropriate Raparian setback and how far the existing impervious coverage is from the creek. They would also like more information on the Red legged frog. Mr. Woolfe stated Mr. Hopkins from H.D. Harvey will look into the Reg legged frog issue. commissioners also requested more information on the wildlife transit corridor. Corn. Roberts requested a hydrology study done before making any recommendations. He expressed concern about approving a specific number of units and not being able to go lower. city Attorney Kilian stated the commission can approve up to a certain number of units. city Planner Wordell pointed out that the cost of a hydrology study would be approximately $16,000 to $22,000 and would take about two months to complete. Mr. Woolfe stated the participants of a hydrology study would be a biologist, a hydrologist and an engineer. He added it is a unique study. city Planner Wordell stated they will corne back with several alternatives regarding the red legged frog and the hydrology. Corn. Roberts stated there are a number of large trees on the PLANNING CO~~ISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 11 seminary property and the EIR is vague with regards to these. He stated he would like to know if more can be saved. Mr. Woolfe stated the arborists report makes a recommendation to save as many trees as possible and the accurate number will not be available until the final plans are approved. He noted the EIR assumes the worse case. city Planner Wordell stated the arborists report relates more to the eucalyptus trees and believes most of the oaks could be saved. She stated she will look into this further. Mr. Woolfe stated the eucalyptus trees form the visual screen between the Forum and st. Joseph's seminary property. He added the trees that have been identified in the report as being structurally unsound or diseased, would have to be removed regardless of the project. He stated this is mentioned in the EIR. He stated their recommendation is to preserve as many trees as possible through careful site planning. Regarding visual impact, Mr. Woolfe stated if the questions are on the accuracy of the photomontage, the consultants can give a presentation. He noted the initial seven view points were identified during a field trip involving City and County personnel, the Opens Space District, the applicant, as well as a private consul tant. He stated the view taken from the Water tank was suggested by Mid-Peninsula. Mr. Skinner stated they did look at a viewpoint from a higher location and came to the conclusion that the view from the water tank would show a more dramatic impact. The Commissioners discussed the possibility montage from a higher view point on the trails. to prepare a photo montage was discussed and agreed to obtain a photo of this viewpoint. of another photo The cost and time the commissioners The Commission discussed the benefits to the City and the applicant and Mr. Cowan stated he will provide a report to the commissioners regarding the number of units approved at the Forum. Regarding the fairness issue, City Attorney Kilian stated this is not relevant to the EIR certification process, but it may have some bases in determining a General Plan amendment, because a person is entitled to reasonable use of their property. Com. Roberts stated the EIR does not address housing. Ms. Wordell stated the housing element is certified with 36 units on this property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1994 Page 12 city Attorney Kilian stated the housing element needs to be considered in determining whether a General Plan Amendment should be granted. Mr. Kilian stated Com. Austin should review the tapes of this meeting before the next meeting. The Commission and staff discussed topic items for the next meeting. Mr. Woolfe stated with the number of issues raised and responses requested, they could not cover all the issues in one meeting, but will provide some responses in writing. It was a consensus of the commission to discuss the Diocese and the Heart of the city at the November 8, 1994 meeting. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to continue both the Heart and 1-GPA-93 discussions to the meeting of 1994. Com. Roberts Passed Com. Austin of the city November 8, MOTION: 4-0-1 OLD BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT: The Planning commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the meeting of November 8, 1994 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted ~ catherine IA·~J M. Robillard