Loading...
CC 12-10-74 · - cm OF ctìPERrINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 lIl1IulIIS or TIlE ADJÚI.dtþ IIEGIILAR MEETING or THE CITY COUNCIL BLD ( I( -""-11. 10, 1974, IR THE COUNCIL ""'MRI'Ii, CITY BALL UInuaIRO, CALIFODIA SALUrE '10 TIlE PUQ KayO!' Sparks ~-l1.d the _etinl to order at 7:40 p... with the Salute to the n... IØ.L CALL CouDc. preaant: CDunc. -"MDt: Prolic:h, Jec:kson, Heyer.. ReUis, Kayor Sparks B_ Staff pr..ent: City Kenager Quinlan City Attorney Adaas Direc:tor of Adainistrative Services Ryder Direc:tor of Planning and Development Sisk Di~c:tor of Public Works Vi.kovich Aasiatant Planning Director Cowan PUBLIC IŒARING 1. General Plan Prolr. Description and Standards of Land Use Designations for the Stevens Creek Flood Plain, Upstream from Stevens Creek Blvd. - Kayar Sparks introduced Board Member Jam~s ~enihan and staff -.mbers of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Planning Dir~ctor stated this was a continuation of the Genera Plan discussions. In its deliberations of the Valley Floor Infill ing portion of the General Plan, the City Council deleted their decision of this portion of the Flood Plain in order to allow the staff time to prepare additional data regsrding the impact of the Planning Commission's land use policies on the owners of these properties. He referred to the December 6, 1974 staff report on this aatter. The Asst. Planninl Direc:tor reviewed in detail the Decemb..r 6th ataff report. A sketch placed on the bulletin board showed three variati~ns: a natural flood plain, 4 Qodified flood plaIn, and an excavated channel, explaining the pros and cona of each approac CC-242 Page 1 - - HlIIITrES :, rHE DECEMBEIt 10, 1974 ADJOUf.:;r;¡ CITY COL-:iCIL !lEt-ïING The Assis~t Planning ~rec~or said the PlannIng Commission dete~ned the two lolt COQrs<!S shoule! retaiJI ~rc1al/open space zoniD8. In addition, tbe Støc:kbeir, C.,., ... Si8a pro »!rties should be given 4.4 .esie!entlal zoning ...ith provisiOD for .....i<y transfer. The five badc aa....ptions are: 1) That the City d..~ to retain the natural character of tbe Stevena C~ envi~t ."Cre8a from Stevens Creek Blvd. 2) Tba the flooe! protecUOD aolut1on is an important cons1cleration 10 t;" dete..1nat~ of lane! use in the Stevens Creek area because solutions otbar th8D the Datural flood plain concept involve the cocstructloa of eartb levees and/or a concrete or rock line channel. 3) Th~: the use of . aatora! flood plain ;eneral plan designatIon foll~~ by a floo4 plaiD zoning regulati~n is constitutional. 4) Fr;:a" technical poiDt of view, a co=binat1on natural flood plainl ~:::i~ flood plain project could be dev~loped. However, the c~=:~3tion project would af{~ct t~e extent of flooding on flood pl.:= prop~rties on the opposite side of thp. channel. A modified c~~=~te rock lIne channel cannot be alternated. 5) T~.: the Santa Clara Valley Water District's cdlculations for the 1: ::~od are correct. The As5~~:~~t Plannln3 Director next re~i~ed the series of tables included 1n the De~e~¿r 6th staff repo~. The decision has to be made whether or not th~ ;::~~rty owners should be compensated. Counc. :~~~s~n asked, if there Is a fee purchase, what would be the restri:::=~s =ade on the e~ement. Mr. Gecrse Korbay, Design and Constr~=::~n Manager of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, said the flood t!.&.S~ent would be :auch the same as z.:"ning restrictions. When ve talk ~:~: alternatives, the District has a list of priorities and the Ste'e~s Creek ar.. is scheduled for Odny years in the future. Counc. ~~:~is was answered by Mr. Korbay that this area does not have the pc:t~:ia1 for d8œaa. as have some ether areas such as the low lands in Palo ,\:to. Hr. Kcr:~y said they believe preservation of the natural channel Is prefer.::~ to any structural changes to the chann~ls. Hr. Kor~~~ said the Di.tr1c~ has undertaken a study of the daœ structure.. He sai': :'~.ere are falÙt:a allover this area. Mayor S;:'.IrLs asked for c~t. from the audience. . . KI1mTES OF !HE DECEKIIU 10, 1974 ADJOOR!lED CITY comrClL IŒETING a.ee.. _ eal1ed haa &:40 to 8:58 p... .. Louis StoctI.eir. 22120 Stevena Creek Blvd., Cup.rU_, na1Disced about the 1906 ad other eartbquakes. 8e ffAde no ."etaatisUon for the ~r flood as it pertainll to his propert .... Stock1adr ....... pr.......L7 on tbe e..t aDd tbe _t eidea of Scenic 0\_. He..1œd wiry thia property vaa not 1Dc1udet~ ""en the __ wre _de up. Iø relaUO\I to the lOO-year flood, the property ill queation ia ... tbe a.e elevation .. his ~ aite. rbis is 17 feet above the bottoc of the channel of tbe creek. Be -Xc! lne to aee thet line straigbtened out a bit, for practical reaaons. 8. baa DO objection to the flood plain aa far .. the City is concerned. IIovever, be would like to eee aOOll! 8Odif1cati~. As to the ..tter of den.1ty, he would like to defer diacusa10n on that ..tter. Attorney S.. Anderson ..id there is a small ovan that could be very e~s:¡y filled in ~o make developable prope~ty. He also requeste~ ~onsideratlon of 11.55 a~res east of Scenic Blvd., of which J+ ~~res are developable, and he would like to add 1.5 acres on the ~e.t side. He alao asked for reduction ot 302 ¿c.~ to 190 contou!'. rhis would have the effect of squaring off his property. The Pla=~:~¡ Directcr said the 1.5 acreS have been determined to be d.~.::,~òle pruperty. Counc. Se:lis would like to know what .vail ".C'-"':': have on the f 1001 plain. directly At this time. effee< the filling in of the This was not a~swered Attorney :~hn Karlals, San Jose, on behalf of the Crump property, said t~~: ~" July 30th the last meeting was held on this matter. Studies ~~ve been made since that time. Anyone of the alternatur 5 that mdY >~ adopted would affect the Cruap property. This propert v.. ac~_:~.d in 1968, and development ~as initiated .n 1969, It Vas sta::ðd because of flo~d control problems. He said it Is apparent :~~t some measure will be adQpted and it will affect the Crump rr:,erty. This property is assessed at $25,000 per acre, They fe.: At this stage that the six-year delay in decision has a subst~::41 and perhaps irreparable effect o~ the development of this ,~~;erty. They vould like the City Council to reach a declsi~~ ~ they know vhere they stand. Ne does not believe there 1. a nee': ror further Studies. Attorney ~~ster C. Sachs, San Jose, representing Blackberry Farms, .a1d they .et on Deceaber 6th v1th the Assistant Planner in regard to this &Alter. He then referred to his written report. He said Blackber:-:o- f~rll wishes to continue as a golf course and to reta1n ita coaae~c1al/recreat1ODal use. They believe in the concept of density trAnsfer, which vould Ferm1t continuation of the present CC-242 Page 3 ~-'-- . . ES OF THE DEX:EIIIEa 10. 1974 ADJOUJlNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING of che properc,. TIaeJ -.1.. 11... to o1t doom ..... worlt with the .uff Co allow this. '!be, 8ft Jaun.c.d in ..nednl their J4 .cr... The, .ted tile Clt, of ~Jao to ....ct aoøina ordilUlDc. to penait chis .... as . _c1a1 ...U coan. rich c_~dal ..... hiab <l=o1t, zoainl of 6 ecr.. ,n. nl)' lx.ed oaUid. tile U.iu of. the n.taral flood pl.in, ad t.... ..... 2Ofo un. to b. dao1l...ted -.lined flood plUD. The)' tit ,n" tIIat con.truction or atructare. in the ......rcial/rec...tioaal ...-r-.t, DOt to lie inhabited b, peopI. CD b. allow.d. The,......teII the 6 acn. be liven. u.. penait antil the .....o1ty tr....f.r .n.lla an ..... oat. T!tey reqa..cad that the City of Cupert1no DOC obJ...c to doe ViU_n kt duIln.Uon on the 28 .cr... He odd Ilac:ltberry f.... 10 wUUna to porcha.. ..y adj aceat property. He ..i. t'" 2.6 acre. or re.I property pr..eatly ovnad by the Santa Clara eo..ty Veer D..trt,.! and .·,bj.ct to the .:Jdlfied flood plaln is c..-patlble wtth ebe lol~ , a.. and c~rc:ialír.c:r.atio!\al us.. Counc. Ke:n~r. qu..c1oaed if the VilllM180n Act does recogniz. co.Dercial recreation.l usa &ODin, .. upen space. The Pl~nDina Director .aid t~t it d1d. ,Counc. Fr~:i~h ~.. ansver.d by Mr. ~orb~y that the Water District fconSider~ :~e flood tn. ..-..eat a. beins very restrictive. IAttomc}· ::',¡.:!1s said that. ...saln. the City i~ willinl to .agree to j the I~~~r~: ~utlln.. of his ~~tter (the ar~d within th~ ~úlf rour5e) that the ~:.:y would have ~ pt"ltectll'1n that there would be a I.:Ont¡nuN : :.ae of t~e ¡....If course an::! the cœ-.erci.alin,.-rt.".Jt tnnal use. Hh cl if'nt ~s ""t g: .10nl with t~t Itaff's ;'Irop")s.tl. Th... Pl.anni:1i( Direct~r I :;.ue5t1or~.! ..·h~th., 100 unit. on tho.. sLx .a.:res would fit 1:. with the ¡ .:haracter ....f the ar... Counc. Xe~:i" .aid thl1 would COIN to ablJUt 16 unit~ per .a..:re. It is t.portant :~ k~.p the c~r.ct.r of the surrounding area in mind. CounC. Fr~:1ch ,_14 tbe Flood Control District haa indicated they are nat re~y :~ adelce.. thi. yet iD ttrIP of their priorities. H. noted that the ~istrlct haa beeD .xtr...l, cooperative with the Cit,. Counc. Heyer. a:keet about cI.- operation and stream flov. Even if the daa did n~t exllt, the ~~tUAl flood daaage possibility must be asse~sed. Coone. Frol!ch ..id be !1m'. it h.rd to .ccept the Idea that a 2o-ye.r flood is indeed .. ct..cr1bed on the ..p when p,~ople who have aChlatly liv.d here .1~e before the turn of the century challenge thIs stat~m~nt. Perhaps the Diltriet aboald re.--.ln. whether their .approach 1. too COG..rvatift.. - - IIDIUTES OF THE DECEllllEa lO, 1974 ADJOURNED CIn couøCIL HEETINC Ifr. JoIm aicluord_. of the EngiHeering staff of the Santa Cbra Valley Vater District, Save a detailed explanstion of the doc.-nt with the design c:dteris for the 20-year flood. They baae their -.lyais on atr_ flow records. They plot th18 icfo...tion atatistieally. The dedgn flow is the best eaU.ate on which they can baae their decisions. Counc. Nellis asked why the District chose to use lhe lOO-year standard for deterain1ns what protection is needed here. o Mr. Korbay said the courts have generally found th18 to be a good atsndard. Mra. Nancy Hertert, San Juan Road, said she 18 concerned about erosion and about earthquakes from the San Andreas Fault. Mrs. Mary Gonzales, 10461 Stokes Avenue, said they are consider ins a demonstration orchard on the property adjacent to H£Clella~ Rane) , Psrk. It appears this is the property Mr. Sachs was interested in. Civil Engineer John Finnemore, 22374 Riverside Drive. asked how I far downstream we are going to take th~se levies. Mr. Korbay said¡ the alternatives were offered on a broad basis. The n1~trict wishes to find out what kinds of approaches to this problem ¡.re acceptable to the City. Moved by Cou~c. Meyers, seconded by Counc. Frollc~ to ~lose th~ public hearing. Kotion carried, ~-O Counc. Meyers reported on the meeting he and Counc. Frolich had I with the staff and the Water District people. The most acceptable, at this point were the nonstructural channelization and .ltern~tiv 5 3 and 4 for density transfer. There is the strong potential for the District to assist in making the taking of :and an equitable situation. The City, in enacting zoning, should allow the flood plain and a certain density transfer. lie is not willing to say there should be pa>~nt as well as d2nsity transfer. Alternate) sppears to be the most equitable solution co him. It addresses itself more to the character of the area. Counc. Frolich stated that if we took the original approach and put in the trapozoidal channel and no flood plain it would have been the DOst costly. We have gone through the entire County and aolved the flooding problem, for the most part. CC-242 PSle 5 CIC-242 rCe 6 !lot ion "" Stevens Creek flood ¡t:a1A . ~ HlII\JTES OF THE DEC1!IØEIt 10. 1974 ADJOUR.'ŒD CITY COUNCil. KEErDlG Couac. Frol1ch &aid be feela it aight be worthwhile to eatabUsh a cooperative diatri"t ro solve these types of probl.... The district aight waat to purc:hase SODe right-of-way for at least parr of tbis flood plain zone aDd the rest be realized with dedication by the developer, with _ acljuac.ent in density to make up for it. The City and the District could share the responsibility of the property owner. lie would Uk., __ policy statement from the District. COUQc. Frolich noted that the State is finding themselves in the situation that they are unable to follow through with many of their projects. Mr. Jaaes Lenihan. Board l1ea~er, said this is a very complex area. He said he will pass these comments on to the Board. They are assessing their probleas with priorities. Counc. Nellis said she would be in favor of the nonstructural alternative. A rock lined channel 15 not viable because a creek sho~ld be natural and in addition, the co~t wculd be exnorbitant: some 1 ':lillion 200 thousand dollars for a 3"!dl~ied channel. By doing this we ·.·culd have some 38 additiùnal acres. ~~e no~ed that we are talking a=cut ~axpayers' money. She said the ~its per acre in alternative 3 are ~:ill ~ bit high, but she would co~si~er going that route. ~ounCa Jack30n said t~e :.c g~lf courses are in the Ge~era¡ Plan as open spd~e _h~ther or ~ct .~ ~ave fl~od plain proble=sa ~e fully ¡agrees with the non5tr~:t~ral approach a The trend no. ~5 to take the land ~s we fInd it ~~ë accocccdate ourselves to 1t. As to density transfer, he would cc~s~~er 5.4 units per acre c~:5ide the flood plain are.a. The City ~nager said if the District uses a cost benefit formula, as used by th~ Cor? of Eng1~eers. the cost a1~ays comes out better because of the benefits gained. He suggested a restudy of the District's mechanics of prioritising. Moved by Ccunc. Jackson, seconded by Counc. Meyers to adopt the revised City of Cupertino General Plan Program Description and Standards of Land U.. Designations for the Stevens Creek Flood Plain Upstreaa froM Stevens Creek Blvd.. as set forth in Exhibit D-l of the Planning Cocmlssion. The -.ended first sentence of paragrpah 3(b) shall read: "Area within the natural £1000 plaiD can be credit~d in an amount not to exceed one dwelling unit per acre to de~era1ne tbe total number of dwell:.ng units permitted on each property.". The aecend seatence of this same paragraph substitutes the words ''n\Drr ,'411 rang.- for "numerical designation" in reference to n....er of units ,loved on each property. Motion carried, 4-1 Couac. Frolich gave dissenting vote -. "----- . .. IOJIUTES OF THE DECDIBEa 10, 1.974 ADJOUR1\'ED CITY COUNCIL MEETING Counc. Heyers proposed a 8f e order uUng the staff to write to the Wner District to 8rp it to evaluate devdoplleDt ri&Jats ~ .ease.eDts as a flood aatrDl position. lit - 4_ carried, s-o aJCIIJlOOŒ.."T Coaac. Ndli:. requp.sted _ eze.cutive session for the purpose of .t.scu8sion r€signation of . PubliC Safety Commissioner. The Council adjourned ac 11:23 p.a. for this executive session. The .eeti~& ~convened 1D opeD session at ll:40 p.m. and vas _journed i=ediatcly thereafter by Mayor Sparks. AP'i'i.CWED : :: 1st Reed Sp~rks Ka7or. City of Cupertino ArrEST: /s/ wm. f. ~vder City Cler>:. -".-'---- CC-242 Page 7