 |
|
|
|
|
City closes 'loophole' in its land use policy
Council agrees that it won't 'pipeline' academy application
By GEORGE MOORE
The Cupertino City Council meeting March 18 offered a glimpse of what could be a long road to nowhere for the proposed Canyon Heights Academy project.
Council members unanimously denied an appeal by the academy pertaining to city staff's decision to stop processing its application, negating any "pipelining" possibility. Council members also voted 3-2 in favor of the deletion of Policy 2-80 from its General Plan, an antiquated quasi-public land use policy.
The meeting was not meant to be a public hearing on the issue of whether the council should allow a 210,000-square-foot school to be built on the former site of the McDonald-Dorsa quarry located in the Cupertino foothills off Stevens Canyon Road. But council members sat for four hours listening to almost 30 people voice their concerns and opinions on the subject before giving their own views.
There was standing room only in the chamber and many people sat in chairs in the lobby watching the meeting on the City Channel. Approximately half of the people at the meeting were proponents of the academy, many of them parents of children already attending the school, which is temporarily located in Mountain View. But the majority of those who spoke were opponents of the project, including members of the Stevens Canyon Residents Association.
Policy 2-80 is an approval policy created in the late 1970s that allows quasi-public structures to be built in almost any zoning designation without requiring a General Plan amendment.
Under the current policy, Canyon Heights, a private, nonprofit school, would be able to submit its application for approval without asking for an amendment of the General Plan, and a zoning review would not be required. The site is currently zoned for 12 to 14 low-density housing units.
Andy Faber, a land use attorney who's represented the academy for quite some time, asked the council for fairness and that the council not change the rules in the middle of the game.
"There's a process and we would like to continue with that process," Faber said. "I'm a bit uncomfortable having to plead for our lives today. We would like to be here in the future addressing you during public hearings."
Faber said the issue is whether the school would be compatible with neighboring homes and he feels the final project would comply and the council would be able to make a subjective decision.
"It should ultimately be your decision, not the staff's decision," Faber said. "Since the beginning, we were told specifically that the project does not require a General Plan amendment. We don't think the staff has the right to stop working on this project. It would be fundamentally unfair not allowing us to continue. If the policy is deleted, our application should be allowed to be pipelined."
Paul Parker, principal of Canyon Heights, also asked for fair treatment and for the council to "go beyond what is easy and to do what is right."
"I promise if you give us the chance, we will make you and the city of Cupertino proud," Parker said.
In a show of support, Parker asked all the proponents of the project to stand before the community; many had their turn at the podium. Trisha Carbajal, a Cupertino resident, said the school has always been dedicated to youth.
"Cupertino has always said 'yes' to education and 'yes' to students," she said. "The school will be an asset to the community. Students are taught values and ethics, and its mission statement is to help form future leaders."
Mary Ellen Tanberg, a San Jose resident with children attending the school, said the tuition payment is the same as her house payment.
"We make sacrifices as parents," Tanberg said. "Canyon Heights is an exceptional and unique school that forms that child completely."
Sharon Blaine, a member of the residents association, said the proposed development would be larger than the Crossroads shopping center, including Mervyns.
"It's obvious why there are concerns," said Blaine. "This is a major land-use change and the best way to deal with it is to follow staff recommendations."
"The staff is helping Canyon Heights save money by recommending a scale back," Cupertino resident Anne Dor said. "They need to listen and propose something that has a chance. Schools don't have to have 1,500 students."
Dor added that developments like what is proposed take millions, not thousands, of dollars--in reference to a comment earlier by Faber that the school has already spent a lot of money on the project.
Many opponents of the development spoke about the safety issue of building a school in a canyon with only one way in or out--increasing the danger of fires and flooding--and the fact that it is located near a faultline. Others discussed the issue of traffic on Stevens Canyon Road, which is already extensively used by trucks driving to and from Stevens Creek Quarry.
Councilwoman Sandra James said the point of requiring a General Plan amendment for projects of this magnitude is that it opens it up to the community to weigh in on the issue, with the ultimate decision made by the council.
"Policy 2-80 takes some of the decision process away from us," James said.
There was consensus by the council for supporting the staff's decision to halt the processing of the application because the proposed site is zoned for such a different land use. Because of this decision, the issue regarding whether the application should be pipelined became a nonissue and was unanimously voted against.
The Cupertino Planning Commission gave the council the option of adopting a modified, more stringent version of the policy if they chose not to delete it altogether. Vice Mayor Michael Chang said he was not comfortable with deleting the policy completely, stating that there might be issues in the future where they would have to backtrack. Both Chang and Councilwoman Dolly Sandoval supported the modified policy over its deletion. Mayor Richard Lowenthal, Councilman Patrick Kwok and James all said they felt that the policy should be deleted, but were ready to back Chang's decision.
However, at the last moment, Chang changed his mind and opted that they table the issue until future General Plan discussions. Chang made a motion to do so, but was only supported by Sandoval. Before anyone in the chamber could blink, James had motioned to eliminate the policy, with Lowenthal and Kwok backing her in a 3-2 vote.
Canyon Heights will now be required to request a General Plan amendment to rezone the proposed site and will probably have to scale down its proposal to gain approval from the city council and local residents.
|
|
|
|
Cupertino, California Since 1947
