Loading...
CC 08-01-95 CC-905A MINUTES Cupertino City Council Regular Adjourned Meeting August 1, 1995 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m., Dean called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Council members present: John Bautista, Don Bumett, Barbara Koppel, Lauralee Sorensen and Wally Dean. Council members absent: None. Staff present: Acting City Manager Bert Viskovich; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood; Public Information Officer Donna Krey; and City Planner Ciddy Wurdell. ORAL COM_MUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Applications 1-GPA-93 And 6-EA-93, Diocese Of San Jose, Property Owner, APNs 342- 52-03, 342-05-54, -$6, -59, -60, located south of 1-280, west of Foothill Boulevard, and north of Rancho San Antonio Park and Stevens Creek Boulevard - 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 of San Jose applied for the above General Plan Amendment. The City Council directed that a total of ten alternatives be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. 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 mn-off erosion and pollution; wildfire hazard; visn_a_l impacts; water tank failure and leakage; and safety of school crossings. The City Planner reviewed a matrix of questions and concerns by Council and explained that additional handouts given to Council that night were associated with numbers on the matrix. They had been previously distributed in the Council backup but were reproduced and marked with green highlighted numbers for ease of use during this meeting. She highlighted the changes made to Exhibit D, List of Mitigation Measures for Significant '" ' August I, ! 99~ Cupertino City Council Page 2 Environraental Impacts Identified in EIR. She corrected Item 5-8 on the mitigation list so that the wording would say, "encourage" rather than "require". She explained the difference between General Plan mitigations vs. project mitigations. Mr. Don Wolfe, representing Planning Resource Associates, explained this is a hybrid project. The EIR defines it as a General Plan Amendment, but staff has gone far beyond the requirements because of the number of proposals reviewed so it is also similar to a project EIR. These are not the last hearings on the project. There may be a development agreement and use permits, and it will go through tentative and zoning hearings. At that scale, there will be addirional detail, such as retaining oak trees over a certain diameter or replacing them with a certain size. That is appropriate detail for the zoning hearing. Ms. Wordell explained that the two maps attached to Exhibit C are the two Planning Commission options. Council concurred to require bonds regarding tree protection as a mitigation policy. Ms. Wordell completed reviewing the matrix, which included the General Plan package, access, tree protection, wildlife protection, visual parks and open space, grading and geology, housing, public services, and miscellaneous issues. Council concurred that architectural review should be required for all residential areas, not just the sensitive ones, but that it can be done at the zoning and use permit review level. Council concurred to include the language fxom the applicant's handout rifled "Architectural Guidelines", but ag~ed that the picture and the streetscape shall not be incorporated. Council concurred to stay with the existing wording regarding parks and to require tot lots. Council concurred that with respect to any future transfers of the open space property, the city shall have right of first refusal and the wording should reflect that the transfer should be for no value. Council concurred that below market rote units must be constructed on site. The City Attorney discussed density bonus requirements. He explained that the law requires that the city grant a density sale bonus of 25% of the highest land use if the development contains 20% low income units and 10% very low income units. Any cap on development cannot be guaranteed as a specific cap. It could be 25% higher. In this particular case, it would be difficult for the applicant to require a density bonus because it would require a redesign. However, because of this law, Council may want to continue to request a range of houses rather than a fixed cap which would trigger the density bonus provisions. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich explained that the development itself will require a million-gallon water tank. The additional million gallons proposed to be included in the tank will increase the city's total volume to six million gallons, which is still short of standards. He explained that there is an interim tank there now which will be removed. Mr. Don Skinner, representing Planning Resource Associates, explained how the visibility of the tank could be mitigated by placing it on county property and moving it back farther. It appears it could be well-screaned in this way. Another option was to soften and round the edges of the tank and paint it a color which would blend in with the dark green forested areas. Another option would be to use retaining walls to build up the "' "August I, I00~ Cuperfno Gty Council Page elevation and which would enable them m plant trees higher. He recommended a condition that the exposed wail not be higher than 30 ft. as designated on the matrix. Ms. Wordell said that staff would add that language to page 3 of the General Plan Amendment. The City Attorney felt that the City's responses to the Los Altos comments were adequate. Mr. Viskovich discussed traffic issues and Council concurred that the bridge and other improvements, including off-site improvements, may require the applicant to contribute as part of traditional nexus studies. Staff was aiso directed to follow up on whether the entrance to Rancho San Antonio County Park will also be an off-site improvement. The City Attorney explained the difference between a development agreement and a planned development designation. He said the approval of a specific plan could have the same conditions as a development agreement, but it could later be changed by the city and, therefore, is more flexible. Staff is recommending that the city not enter into a development agreement for this reason. The consensus was to remain silent in the Generai Plan Amendment at this point. Regarding the cemetery issue, Mr. Wolfe said there are no recognized setbacks between cemetery sites and residentiai plots. Council may desire some landscaping screening. Ms. Wordell said there could be as much as a 65 ft. buffer. Mr. Mike Bruner, representing the applicant, said this is only a conceptual plan and there is the possibility that more grave sites would be placed closer to the property. Currently, there is a 65 ft. separation, but that could go down to as little as 20 ft. With the roadway change, it will probably end up about 55 ff. Council agreed that the General Plan Amendment should consider a buffer area between the residential and the grave sites. Staff was directed to investigate the Snyder house for possible historicai designation. Ms. Wordell noted that the Diocese has already objected to such a designation. Ms. Wordell reviewed the Planning Commission majority options as follows: Option 1 would have 116 units without any dedication of open space, including 86 units maximum on the seminary property. Option 2 would be a range of 148-178 units with a maximum of 55 on the Cristo Rey Drive area and an offer of 65% public open space. Council members explained their individuai positions. Bautista said his first choice is public open space and 178 units, but he was concerned about how to deai with the density bonus issue in that case. If that were an issue, he would prefer a range of 148-178. He favored flexibility in the range to ailow 55-65 units on Cristo Rey and 115-125 on the seminary property. If there is no dedication of public open space, he would request 116 units. ' August I, 1005 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Sorensen said that she had driven through thc seminary property that day. The Oeneral Plan Mission Statement was to preserve the hillsides. She wanted 30 units clustered on Cristo Rey and to remove the seminary property. She felt the community had been marketed into 178 units. She also wanted to know how much the land and open space is worth, how much the homes will sell for, and how much the Diocese will be making as a result of this project. She felt that St. Joseph's Avenue should bc opened because thc level of traffic on Cristo Rey is not acceptablc. This proposal provided no room for negotiations. She said her vote on the Forum while a Planning Commissioner had been a mistake, and also on Seven Springs, and she did not want to make the same mistake. She would accept 60 units on the seminary property and 30 units,on Cristo Rey. Koppel Said that much of her time on Council had been spent on negotiations on this property and it was inappropriate to ask about business profit. She had visited the Diocese property yesterday, as well. She felt the proposal is fair and would accept no more than 178 units. She wanted a cap at 178 based upon the Diocese proposal and based upon the letter from the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, she had no problem with 12 homes on the other side of Cristo Rey. She also suggested that the staff pursue the issue of the Snyder house as historically significant. The City Attorney said that a cap of 178 can be done, but if the applicant brings in an application which includes low- and very low-income housing, they could be entitled to 25% more. A public hearing would follow. To decrease the number of units, the Council might have to amend the General Plan, but he wanted them to be aware that a fixed cap of 178 units could be exceeded without a General Plan Amendment. Burnett said regarding the density bonus issue, development would have to have low- income housing, very low-income housing, or be 50% senior housing. That would be a drastic change in the nature of the development and he did not think it was feasible since it would make no financial sense. There was some risk that senior housing would be proposed to trigger the density bonus, but he was willing to take that risk. The Diocese proposal would benefit a lot of people as opposed to 36 or 116 units scattered throughout the property. The current proposal would encourage new neighborhoods to fo~m. The housing will be close to job sources and will minimize commute distances. There are too many benefits vs. too few objections, which boil down to aesthetics. Clusters are better than scattered housing to get useful open space and it will benefit the wildlife corridors and provide people access to the De Anza trail He said he will vote for 178 units with open space as offered by Sobrato. Dean said that valid questions were raised at last night's meeting regarding the needs of the Diocese and the concerns of the community. The issue of the water tank is one of his main concerns. He said he did not appreciate the lawsuit, phone surveys, the focus groups, the PR firms or the citizen front mailers. He said that the focal point on this issue ~-- is that the developer is generating a number and not providing any other solutions, and he felt it should have been negotiated. He said the number acceptable to him was much lower than anything that has been presented. He agreed with Councilmember Sorensen's · August 1, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 5 comments and her proposed numbers. Regarding the comments from The Forum last night, if the proposal was to have half-acre parcels in that section with a lot of trees, it would probably have been acceptable to the Forum and it wouldn't have had such a major impact. He said that there will be an impact f~om this project. Mayor Dean said he would not support 178 units, or 116, but there are three votes fight now for 178. Dean referred to a letter which said there were no plans to build on the Maryknoll property, and pointed out that it does not eliminate the possibility that they could change their mind. In that process, the Catholic church has first right of refusal on that land. Burnett moved to direct staff to develop a General Plan Amendment for a planned development based on the Diocese proposal for 178 units together with all restraints and mitigations subject to fmai certification of the EIR and other required documents. Koppel seconded the motion and asked if Bumett would accept a friendly amendment to include a development agreement on the project. She did not want it to become a campaign issue. Burnett did not accept that amen~nent. Koppel offered a formal motion to amend his motion to require a development agreement. Baufista seconded for discussion purposes and asked if that would solve the density bonus issue. The City Attorney said yes. Bautista moved to amend the motion to impose a possible range of 148-178 units. There was no second and this amendment failed. A straw vote was now taken on Burnett's original motion to accept the Diocese proposal of 178 units and 65% public open space, with a planned development designation. The motion carried with Dean and Sorensen voting no. Mr. Skinner said that the discussion tonight and all further discussions on this item are based on preliminary documents. The decision tonight is subject to final review and authorization of the EIR, adoption of the Final Statement of Overriding Considerations and the findmgs of fact which will come back before City Council at the meeting of September 5. The City Planner reviewed Exhibit A, the Final Statement of Overriding Considerations. Council agreed to strike the reference to the water tanks, since' that has now been fully mitigated, and also to delete the reference under housing, that it will provide 2,587 units. Bumett moved to direct staff to develop a Final Statement of Overriding Considerations based on Exhibit A, with the changes as noted. Koppel seconded and the motion carried with Dean and Sorensen voting no. Council agreed to continue this item to the meeting of September 5 August I, 1995 Cupertino City Council Page 6 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 2. Request to reinstate item from Floyd Meyer regarding a traffic warrant. Mr. Meyer discussed a traffic citation he had received from the Highway Patrol in Solvang and the events that would follow if he were arrested. He explained why he did not want to pay the citation and instead wished to serve the appropriate amount of time, and he wanted the warrant honored. The City Attorney said that the law does not require that a defendent be transported to the appropriate jurisdiction by the city, but that it is the defendent's responsibility to go to the place that issued the ticket. Dean said that Mr. Meyer would be given a transcript of this portion of the minutes and a copy of the tape. ADJOURNMENT At 9:40 p.m., Council adjourned. ·