Loading...
PC 11-24-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-346 Page 1 MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1980 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER-SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Chairman Koenitzer Absent: Commissioner Adams Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan APPROVAL OF MINUTES POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATiONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Application I-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan including, but not limited to, (1) Land use changes for a number of individual properties located throughout the community; (2) An evaluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property located along Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) A refinement of the City Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long-term financing of major trans- portation improvements. First Hearing continued. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that over the past six to eight months the Commission had largely defined the preferred General Plan Amendment, in terms of land use for various properties, circula- tion improvements within the 85 corridor and the De Anza Boulevard/Steve s Creek intersection. He noted that the undercrossing plan deserved further consideration. There were two elements to be looked at before hiring consultants to do the joint background report for this big elemen revision and the E.I.R.*, they were the Parks Plan and the Housing Plan. The Commission had been advised about two months ago that these elements would be looked' at, and in the report sent to the Planning Commission on the previous Friday night, the Planning Commission was advized they would be asked to authorized staff to look at an optional consideration for two parks in the City, and also they were asked that there not be a revision to the Housing Element at this time. He summarized housing * E.I.R. Environmental Impact Report PC-346 ~ 2 MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1980 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION quickly by saying that in September some ten bills were passed1 ïhe common thread throughout them being that lack of housing was now a major crisis within the State. Cities were being asked to look at the housing implications. In terms of Cupertino, the provision of one bill stated that the local council and government, for example ABAG* in our case, would take a very serious stance in its fair share concept, determining the fair share burden for each community. The State Department of Housing and Community Development would determine a fair share for those cities in the State that did not have councils to government. Some factors would be, availability of land, previous efforts made hy a city in trying to resolve housing crises, and the number of units at a moderate price at present. The relationship of land zoned for housing purposes to land zoned for other uses would be another major factor. The implication was that if a city had a heavy employment base, it should be trying to provide some housing opportunity. The bill would go into effect in October of 1981, and if the Cupert~no City Housing Element had already been accepted by the State, then the General Plan would not have to be amended to meet the new State guidelines. The State had not yet given the final word on the 1978 element, it having been two years in process. However, the plan seemed to be acceptable, based on the old guidelines. COMMISSIONER CLAUDY asked if written acknowledgement had been received that the State had received the plan. Assistant Planning Director Cowan replied that verbal acknowledgement only had been received. The State had been called, and Ms. Williams, a contact person, had said she would personally pullout and review the document. COMMISSIONER CLAUDY suggested that written confirmation be obtained. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that after the bill was passed, many cities were pursuing plans with the State, and that Ms. Williams had promised a reply in a month and a half, as to whether or not the element was adequate, based on the 1977 guidelines. He said he did not think the housing discussion should be opened up at this point until confirmation was received that the element was satisfactory. If it was not, we would have to wait for the work that ABAG* would be doing, working with all the cities in the nine-county Bay Area to create a fair share concept. COMMISSIONER BLAINE pointed out that if the plan was acceptable under 1977 guidelines there would be no problem. Assistant Planning Director Cowan agreed, and said there was some subjectivity involved. He had spoken to Deputy City Attorney Terry Foley, who had said that we might be looking at General Plans with a new perspective, and that they might be a little tougher now. * ABAG; Association of Bay Area Governments MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1980 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-346 Page 3 COMMISSIONER CLAUDY made the point that although the plan would not have to be modified if the one on file with the State was accepted, it did not in any way negate the fact that ABAG* would determine the fair share, and the fact that we had a plan accepted would not eliminat this. We woúld not have to modify it, but we would have to act as if we had. Assistant Planning Director Cowan observed that this was nevertheless an important consideration, as the town could in theory shut down if it had an inadequate housing element and a suit were brought. COMMISSIONER BLAINE said that the new law had not been clarified, and that stipulations on frequency of reviews and revisions were ambiguous. She suggested that it would be wise to wait and see what happened. She said that with all the things that had been done, Cupertino was probably ahead of anywhere in the State. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER said that it did not seem reasonable to modify now and perhaps be told next September to modify again. The concensus was to wait and see what happened with the State. Assistant Planning Director Cowan then reported on another piece of legislation adopted by the Governor and signed in July of 1980, AB.859. enabling cities and park agencies to purchase school lands at a discounted price if they became surplused. He explained how the purchase price was arrived at. It was in no case to be less than 25% of current market value. The School District had recently sold Menta Vista site for $2.7 million, or $380,000 per acre. It might be possible to buy surplused school lands at around one third of that price. He pointed out that there were ways for school districts to circumvent the law, and Cupertino School District had said that it needed to remodel its buildings. However, there was an opportunity to buy cheaper park sites through this Bill. He pointed out school sites on the board for the Commission to consider. He said that the existing General Plan for parks emphasized the use of school sites, and that it was recognized that in terms of our publicly-owned present and future parks, the need for three acres of land per thousand population was not met. In 1979 it had been decided to develop a Parks Plan relying to a certain degree on school sites. If school sites were closed they would be purchased. He explained that the map outlined the school sites that would be bought if they became surplused. Two acres of Monta Vista site had been already bought. If Lincoln, Regnart Hoover, Jollyman, Older or Sedgewick became surplused they would be bought. Sites such as Eton, Garden Gate, Stevens Creek would not, as there were parks nearby. He said that three categories, marked in green on the map, were highly unlikely to close. Kennedy Junior High, Garden Gate, Wilson and Hyde would not close in any circumstances. This meant that most of the school sites that were desirable had a chance of being sold in the future. In Kennedy Junior High district there was a possibility of Regnart, Hoover or Jollyman being closed, PC-346 Page 4 MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1980 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION though the staff favored the possibility of Hoover. In 1978/79 Stevens Creek had been marked for possible closure, but now it was permanent. Garden Gate had been permanent, but now it was a possible closure. The Junior Highs had all been given permanent status, which had changed the status of Collins. Older school was permanent, Eton probably was, and Doyle was in process of being sold. Assistant Planning Director Cowan noted that Doyle was too close to the edge of the service area to be interesting, though Sedgewick would be, but this had been considered permanent. He emphasized that these were staff's recommendations only, and that the Board would not make a decision until their hearing on December 9. Staff had recommended closure of Hoover and retention of Regnart as permanent. If the Board adopted the staff position part of Hoover school would become available. However, the decision would only be to clase the school at this juncture, not to sell. Under the new Bill, it would have to be carefully looked at so that full advantage could be taken and a school site bought for less than $380,000 per acre, as for Monta Vista. Assistant Planning Director Cowan continued by saying that the main thing to be covered at the meeting was agreement in finding the scope of work to be done on the parks Plan study, which would be part of the General Plan. The Commission was firstly asked to consider a change in the Plan to delete the pu,chase of three acres West of Stelling, next to the Oro Grande condominium development, as the acreage could be transferred across to Jollyman school. It was proposed that one and a half acres be bought; this could be accomplished at Jollyman, a large campus, at the reduced price. Stelling road had been chosen because of the barrier effect ùf the transportation corridor. Secondly, the commission was asked to consider the acquisition of the so-called Park and Urban Plaza, and that the site be transferred to Eton School, as District staff felt that this was a good possibility for closure in the next year, Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out that the pattern of the Town Center had not yet been fully determined, and that whether 400, 600 or 800 units were built there would have a big impact on any park decision. He said the staff would like to have a contingency plan for that particular complex. COMMISSIONER BLAINE questioned where the children in the Town Center residential units would go to school should Eton school be closed, and whether Wilson school would be opened up again. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said this was unclear, and that interest had been shown in a bridge for area children to cross Calabazas Creek onto the Older site, and in this being a joint project with the City. He said he would investigate with regard to Wilson, but that the Eton idea was being actively and publicly pursued. ' COMMSSIONER BLAINE said that she could not see how thé scheol district could ignore the 600 units being considered for the town center. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that a very low generation factor for condominiums was still used, and this had not changed as housing costs continued to escalate. MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-346 Page 5 CHAIRMAN KOENITZER noted that Garden Gate had been changed from permanent to a possible closure because of the drop in the number of students from the apartment complex nearby, Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the apartment complex behind Gemco had changed hands, and this had affected the number of children, putting the school on the questionable list. Assistant Planning Director Cowan ended the staff presentation by askin that staff be allowed to consider the two changes, He asked for other ideas that the Commission would like staff to explore. COMMISSIONER BLAINE asked about Seven Springs Park - if there was to be a park at Seven Springs Ranch, and how large it would be. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that it would be three and a half acres, favoring the northern half of the site so that Cupertino residents had priority. If the District recommendations were adopted by the Board, and three acres of land were bought in this area, then there would be a park in the neighborhood bounded by Rainbow, Highway 9, Prospect and Stelling and one in Seven Springs Ranch, and there would still be the possibility of a school site being somewhat open for residents of the area. Programs for the whole area would be conducted at Seven Springs Ranch and at Hoover. He said that the idea in 1979 had been to favor smaller parks, which were safer for children in terms of accessibility,with neighborhoods isolated by major streets having safer access to parks. Therefore there were a number of smaller parks, but they did not come close the the standard of three acres per thousand of population. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER was concerned about shifting the park to Jollyman, as something connected with the 85 corridor might be put there, and also Stelling Road would be a significant carrier of neighborhood traffic, so that it appeared the area would be isolated from the 3011yman site. COMMISSIONER CLAUDY recalled that the area was endowed with attnactive scenery, and felt that as development in that area occurred, there would have to be some allowance for flood protection. There had been a lot of discussion on the Stelling and Jollyman park sites because of the close proximity, but he felt that because of the attractiveness of the site and the barrier effect, this site might, in the final analysis, be kept. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER said that he had no real objection to the staff studying these alternatives, and that if the opportunity presented itself, serious thought should be given to buying property at a third of market price. There had been significant changes from permanent to non-permanent, and things might change again in the future. This should be studied so that savings could be made. He was concerned about Seven Springs Park because of his perception of the proposed development there being a conclave with walls and security. He did not want a public park behind locked gates. PC-346 ;e 6 MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that this would not happen. The park might have a sociological benefit "to provide common ground. However, the perception was correct that developers were interested in an autonomous community, achieved by heavy landscaping. He felt that a park in that area would serve as a melting pot for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER BLAINE requested that all alternatives be looked at, as Sunnyvale was already moving to buy sites, and there might be nothing left. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER wondered why school sites could not be transferred to park use without having to do more than reimburse the School District for costs, since they were publicly-owned. Assistant Planning Director Cowan made it clear that the only part of a school site which could be bought at the special rate was the piece used for recreation, and that any other part of the site would be at market value. The merits of buying various school sites next to parks was then discussed, in terms of the number of parks in an area, and whether sites were likely to become available. Sedgewick was mentioned as an area of special interest, and it was agreed that staff would investigate whether the Rancho Rinconada Recreation District was still functioning in that area. The consensus was for the staff to investigate not only the proposed park sites, but any others that the School District indicated might become available. The Commission was interested in finding out the uses that different school sites were put to after school. It was thought that organized activities depressed the use by other activities, and that these activities might increase if organized activities ceased. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER asked if the public wanted to address the Planning Commission on any of the items and subjects raised. There was no response. MOTION Commissioner Claudy recommended that the public hearing of I-GPA-80 be closed and readvertized at such time as new data was available for discussion, Commissioner Blaine PASSED 3-0 Commissioner Adams SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: UNFINISHED BUSINESS It was agreed that the seconØ meeting of December be withdrawn, on the advice of Planning Director Sisk in his memorandum to the Commission dated November 21, 1980, in orddr for the Commission to devote time to preparations for the January meetings. The Council Meeting on December 16, 1980 when the General Plan, especially with regard to Route 85, would be discussed was brought to the attention of the Commission. MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PC-346 Page 7 It was decided to add two new items for information to the Agenda for the December 8 Planning Commission meeting. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER asked that staff report on the requirements of the Manufactured Housing Law in terms of the City and the Planning Commission, so that the public and the Planning Commission could hear this. Assistant Planning Director Cowan agreed to this request. CHAIRMAN KOENITZER asked that the City Attorney's staff provide details on the Santa Barbara decision on unrelated people living together, explaining the case and the impact it might have. He noted that Menlo Park was passing an ordinance on this subject. NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MEETING ADJÓURNED 8:40 P.M. APPROVED: ATTEST: