PC 11-18-91
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 1991
ROLL CALL:
commissioners Present:
Chairman Mackenzie
Vice Chairman Fazekas
Commissioner Mann
Commissioner Mahoney
Commissioner Austin
Staff Present:
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
- None
Plannina commission Discussion on Seminarv Pro~ertv
Mr. John Sobrato, Sobrato Development, stated that the city report
made reference to a traffic study conducted by Barton Aschman &
Associates in 1989, he noted the consultant said a secondary access
connecting stevens Creek should be considered depending on density.
He noted after consulting with Barton Aschman & Associates, it was
determined that a second access is not necessary. He noted for
emergency access he would like to do an on-grade crossing over the
railroad tracks, similar to the emergency exit on st. Joseph's Ave.
He noted he would like to initiate a development plan and then work
with staff. He also noted that he believes that they can develop
in the sensitive areas and not be intrusive.
Mr. Dick Shuhmacher, 11321 Bubb Road, stated he likes open space.
He feels Cupertino has lots of open space and most of it is not
used. He stated it is not worth taking away the right to develop
this property to keep it as open space.
Mr. Joe Tambrock, 20791 Scofield Dr., stated there needs to be
affordable housing in cupertino and feels there is room for some on
this property.
A Gentleman from 19751 Drake Dr., stated that the Diocese of San
Jose need to develop this property in order to continue the
programs of the church. He noted it would be difficult to
purchased this property as open space. He suggested allowing
development to continue with consideration to the environment.
Mr. Jay Butara stated the view from the 280 freeway should not be
considered when considering allowing development of this site. He
stated the churcn needs the funds to continue the services they
offer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of November 18, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Bob Shelby stated the open space is used by the animals and if
developed the space will be gone.
Chr. Mackenzie noted the developer had a court reporter present,
the meeting was being video tape and they were unable to have the
City Counsel present.
City Planner Wordell stated she had photos of visual impacts from
the site as requested by the Commissioners. She stated the
constraint areas total approximately 94 acres.
Ms. Wordell gave a slide presentation of the visual impact for all
directions looking at the site.
Chr. Mackenzie listed the issues to be addressed:
williamson Act
Land Use
Density
Affordable Housing
Development Guidelines
Access
open space goals and pOlicies
Trail Plan
Park Dedication
Specific Plan
Parking.
He noted there are four kinds of land use:
Open Space
Residential
Conference Center
Retail
Each Commissioner gave their view on open space.
Com. Mann stated there should be lots of opens space with some
residential and or conference/retreat center.
Com. Mahoney concurred.
Com. Austin stated that it should remain open space, but an
educational facility and some residential would be appropriate on
the property.
Com. Fazekas stated there should be a city park on the property
which ties into the open space. He stated residential is
appropriate. He stated with regards to a conference center, he
feels this should be in the downtown area when the Grand Blvd. is
developed·. Com. Fazekas also suggested a facility like a coffee
shop be opened to the public in conjunction with the park. With
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
special Meeting of November 18, 1991
Page 3
regards to retail, there should be a convenience store to serve the
residential development.
Chr. Mackenzie stated there should be open space and residential is
appropriate. He concurred with Com. Fazekas as to the retail.
Com. Mann stated the conference center should be one which fits
into the area and is served more as a retreat center.
Com. Fazekas stated the open space should be to protect wildlife,
the view, riparian corridor and the slopes. He stated the city
park should be adjacent to Rancho San Antonio. The open space
should be usable to the public and contiguous with park and open
space.
wi th regards to residential, Com. Fazekas stated residential should
be in the flat areas and be grouped detached housing. It should
not be in the Southwest corner. He is not in favor of a conference
center. The retail should serve the park and local residents.
Com. Austin stated she would like to keep the site passive. Her
first priority would be all open space, but stated the owners
should get a fair deal. If development occurred, she recommended
keeping the sensitive areas as open space as recommended by the
Parks Commission. She recommended an educational facility or
museum or a retreat center. The retail should serve park only.
Com. Mahoney stated there should be parts kept as open space and
development over towards the freeway. He feels the conference
center will tie into the open space. He concurred with Com.
Fazekas as to residential, it should be grouped and not in
southwest corner. He is not in favor of permanent retail.
Com. Mann stated she would not be in favor of residential near the
freeway to avoid a sound wall. She suggested groups of housing on
large lots (1 Acre), on flat lands and not in the Southwest corner.
She stated the riparian corridor should be protected subject to
Parks Commission recommendation. There should be open space to
protect the wildlife and the retreat center should tie into the
open space. with regards to retail, Com. Mann stated it should be
kept to a minimum, maybe a coffee house to serve the park.
Chr. Mackenzie stated there needs to be affordable housing and
suggested putting a cap of 3000 s.f. on house sizes.
Com. Austin stated there should be a cap on all foothill property
so as not to discriminate against one property owner.
Chr. Mackenzie stated the residential should be on flat lands (15%
slope or less) and Rl-7.5. There should be rental units on the
property. He stated the conference center should be available for
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of November 18, 1991
Page 4
all the public and not specific companies. He concurred with Com.
Fazekas as to retail, a 7-11 store and or 2-3 shops in a center
tied in with the housing. The open space should protect the
riparian corridor and the ridge lines should also be protected. He
stated the city park should have a view and tied intq Rancho San
Antonio. He expressed concern regarding the trail linkages noting
these should be protected. They should be specific as to where the
trail linkages go. The conference/retreat center is acceptable.
Com. Mahoney stated it may only be necessary to protect the
riparian corridor from one side of the creek.
Com. Mann stated the houses should be hidden and surrounded with
trees.
Com. Fazekas stated native trees only, should be planted and
suggested the residential be more in terms of a planned unit
development. Com. Mahoney concurred.
Com. Mann stated if the residential is planned it should be rural
rather than urban to fit the surroundings.
Com. Fazekas stated the residential should be rustic/rural.
After doing a quick poll it was determined that open space was
higher on the list and residential next.
The commissioners discussed where development should not occur:
Seminary Property
280 view shed, vegetation and slope (13 acres)
East side, view shed, 280/Foothill, ridge line (22 acres)
Riparian Corridor (22 acres)
South West corner, slope and fault line (25 acres)
Com. Mann stated if any development occurs near the riparian
corridor it will disturb the wildlife.
After doing a quick pole it was determined that the riparian
corridor and southwest corner should be not be developed. Com.
Mann stated the ridge lines must also be protected.
Chair Mackenzie commented on how this property could be used:
1. county buy it and keep it as open space
2. Adopt General Plan that City should buy it.
3. Protect areas and develop on others.
Com. Mann questioned the possibility of incorporating into the
General Plan to give time to see if the property can be purchased
for open space.
PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES
special MeE ~g of November 18, 1991
Page 5
Com. Mahoney stated if the property was left as all open space, the
City would lose the residential needed.
Com. Austin stated protecting the open space is a major factor in
the quality of life.
Com. Fazekas stated the City does not need another sUb-division,
but affordable housing is needed.
Com. Mann stated there cannot be affordable for sale units in this
area, they should be rental.
Com. Austin feels the apartments should be in the downtown area and
not built on this property.
Chr. Mackenzie stated if they did not build on this property the
City will not meet the housing demand.
Residential use was discussed.
Com. Mann stated there are two kinds of residential use, single
family and rental units. The rental units should be of a size in
which they can be affordable rent.
Com. Fazekas suggested the same pattern as used in Los Altos for
the seminary property, larger homes and possibly a village concept
in the flat areas by the PG&E site. He noted there is a consensus
not to develop the southwest corner. The hillside areas should be
developed, with larger homes with half acre lots, and a rustic look
to blend in with natural landscape. He stated condo/townhomes
should be south of the cemetery.
Com. Austin stated there should be a 5,000 s.f. cap and they should
be of a rustic/rural look. No rentals, but maybe townhomes/condos.
Chr. Mackenzie stated the developer did a survey noting the more
homes developed the average price of a home reduces.
Com. Austin stated the housing placed on this site will never meet
the affordable housing need in the city. Com. Mann concurred.
Com. Mahoney stated there are areas on the property which are not
prime real estate, where rental units could be developed. The
remainder should be single family homes and maximize the open
space. He is in favor of clustering.
Com. Fazekas stated the low density scenario as proposed by the
. developer could be achieved saving the areas the commission
discussed, the riparian corridor and the southwest corner. He
suggested· 40 percent open space and large homes developed on
remainder.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of November 18, 1991
Page 6
The Commissioners discussed the number of homes to be developed and
average price as proposed by the developer.
Chr. Mackenzie suggested 400 homes with a cap of 3000 s.f. with an
average price of $700,000.
Corn. Fazekas suggested 293
bonus program of 100 units
plus 50-100 rental units.
affordable.
homes with a cap of 4500 s.f. and a
if 1800 s.f. or less homes are built,
The smaller homes would be more
City Planner Wordell
in the General Plan.
possible to save the
riparian corridor.
stated the 293 units is the number determined
She stated with this figure it would not be
view shed and honor the southwest corner and
The Commissioners discussed the type of housing and housing prices
suitable for this area.
Com. Mann suggested identifying the places that development should
not occur and gave a maximum number of units allowed.
Com. Austin stated the lowest number of houses possible.
Chr. Mackenzie opened the hearing for public input.
Ms. Nancy Hertert stated both sides of the riparian corridor need
to be protected. She suggested that Cupertino require the change
in elevation remain, so as not to flatten hills to put in housing.
Fr. Eugene Boyle, Diocese of San Jose, suggested presenting a
graphic to the Commission at the next hearing, with some of the
suggestions outlined by the commissioners.
Ms. Kindel Blau, 23005 Standing Oak ct., stated she liked the
process of the hearings. She would like to see the open space
incorporated into the Hillside Policy. He stated the community
does not want development.
It was a consensus of the Commission to meet on Thursday, November
20, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. to continue this item at that hearing.