PC 05-18-1993 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 MAY 18, 1993
SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin
Vice Chairperson Mahoney
Commissioner Doyle
' Commissioner Bautista (arrived 6:48 pm)
Commissioner Roberts
1 Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of
Community Development
Ciddy Wardell, City Planner
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
Bert Viskovich, Director of
Public Works
Charles Kilian, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chr. Austin made the following change to the minutes of May 6,
1993: Page 3, last paragraph, should read "Mr. Edward Jajko..."
0 MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of May 6, 1993,
as corrected.
0 SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 5 -0
( MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 1993,
as presented.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1
ABSTAIN: Com. Mahoney
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS:
- None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
- None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
- None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
- None
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Application No(s): 3- GPA -90 and 50 -EA -90
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Same
Project Location: Citywide
Recommendation of adoption of the General Plan amendments and
recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
De Anza College Traffic Projections
Mr. Bert Viskovich stated the model, which incorporates the actual
traffic accounts in the field to generate the base, had more
traffic than De Anza generates today. He stated from the City's
perspective there is zero increase.
In response to Com. Bautista's question regarding ,an agreement
which involves Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Blvd., Mr. Viskovich
explained this agreement and what is proposed for this interchange.
He stated the City is hoping to accelerate this before highway 85
is open.
Tier 2
Mr. Viskovich stated staff added what was discussed at the last
meeting. The City now allows a window were Companies can get
credit for their reduction. It also sets forth the rule that new
development will set a base rate of 1.7. Mr. Viskovich also
explained the six month period addressed in tier 2. He stated six
months should be the minimum-period in order to stabilize the
traffic. Regarding fees, Mr. Viskovich stated there will be
significant fees to pay if mitigations fail.
In response to Com. Roberts question, Mr. Cowan stated the basic
tier policy is in the General Plan and the more detailed
information will be in an appendix.
Mr. Viskovich stated the tier system lays out the best intent of
the City and 10 years from now things could be different in the
field and other factors may come into play.
Discussion of DEIR
City Attorney Kilian stated if the responses of staff are not
adequately addressed, the Planning Commission should seek further
clarification.
City Planner Wordell stated a summary of the changes are included
in the staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 3
' Chr. Austin outlined the significant impacts as follows:
1. Visual Character
2. Transportation
3. Drainage and Flooding
4. Open Space and Parks
1 5. Vegetation and Wildlife
City Attorney Kilian stated the Planning Commission should decide
if there are any other impacts which are not significantly
mitigated and would fall into the category of overriding
considerations.
In response to Com. Bautista's question regarding noise as a
significant impact, Ms. Wordell stated the noise impact was changed
from significant to less than significant because it does not
exceed the General Plan standards.
Regarding Drainage and Flooding, Com. Roberts exprqssed concern
about the language to the extent that property is not protected by
channel improvements. He feels some of the mitigations contradicts
the City's polices to protect hillsides.
In response, Ms. Wordell stated there are many policies in place
about keeping the water courses in their natural state.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that the vast majority of water sheds are in
the County.
In response to Com. Mahoney's concerns, Mr. Jung stated the
reference to the significant impact about the structures within the
100 year flood plain refers to existing development. He stated
residents of this area have chosen not to channelize the creek and
this is the reason it constituter a significant impact. He added
the Santa Clara Valley Water District proposed a flood preparedness
and warning plan. Mr. Jung noted this is an existing significant
impact.
Com. Roberts addressed the EIR text revision, page 4, section 8.
He suggested eliminating the additional wording and add the
following "Strictly limiting hilLside development as proposed in
the revised General Plan, offers the best means of protecting the
riparian environment and avoiding increased flood potential." He
feels this addresses what is addressed in the General Plan.
Com. Doyle questioned the in fill. areas?
Mr. Cowan stated in fill areas are the valley floor areas.
Mr. Jung stated the wording as proposed to be eliminated by Com.
Roberts was recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 4
address that flooding in the permanente creek water shed was more
a function of the creek channel and topography and not the result
of urban run -off, as there is little development in this part of
the water shed.
Com. Roberts stated the channel should be improved as opposed to
limiting development.
Mr. Cowan stated the plan, as written, would allow 41 homes in this
particular area, and there are policies to minimize disruption to
the riparian corridor.
Com. Doyle stated the statement is to address in fill in the valley
floor areas.
There was a consensus to eliminate the language as addressed by
Com. Roberts, but also not to add the additional language proposed.
Com. Doyle asked if it would be appropriate to add the.preparedness
plan from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as a mitigation?
Mr. Jung stated this plan is listed as a mitigation in the drainage
and flooding section, but not as a General Plan policy.
Parks and Open Space
Com. Bautista addressed the environmental impact number 4 and the
mitigation proposed. He pointed out that the real impact is the
fact that the General Plan does not adjust the imbalance that
exists in different sections of the City in terms of park land. He
also expressed concern about the mitigation which addresses
purchasing of the Seminary property as being a top priority. He
asked if this is a realistic mitigation?
City Planner Wordell stated there was much public testimony
regarding the purchase of the Seminary property for open space.
She stated the citizens have addressed some options, but do not
know how feasible the purchase of the Seminary property is.
Com. Bautista expressed concern that the purchasing of the Seminary
property as a top priority, reduces the City's ability to correct
the imbalance of park land in other sections of the City.
In response to Commissioners questions and concerns, Ms. Wordell
stated the Parks and Recreation Commission did evaluate each
neighborhood for park land. She noted some areas do not meet the
ratio and the Commission selected neighborhoods which do have a
potential for park lands.
Com. Roberts suggested the language which has been added, regarding
recreation facilities at Vallco and Stevens Creek Blvd. areas, be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
•
Page 5
directly connected to the areas which will be most impacted by the
development.
In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Kilian stated the
priority issue was discussed over two years ago and since that time
the economics of the City have changed. He added there have been
no meaningful advancement towards acquiring the funds to purchase
any parcels for park land. He rioted the Commission may want to
reconsider the prioritizing issue.
Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendha Ln., suggested the following
wording, "Purchase of the Seminary property for open space, is a
top priority." Ms. Burnett also corrected May 10th minutes, page
6, her comments, should read "... a residential area south of the
freeway..."
Mr. Mike Brenner, Sobrato Development, asked the Commission to
reconsider the modifications they have made to the clustering
section. Mr. Brenner addressed the increase drainage flow from
development in the hillsides. He stated a higher flood potential
is only created if the new flows created, leave the property and
enter the channel. He stated development does not have to be
eliminated to address this problem.
The Commissioners continued discussion of Com. Bautista's concerns
regarding the existing imbalance of the park land throughout the
City.
Com. Bautista suggested adding an additional environmental impact,
that says new growth will result in furthering the existing
imbalance, consider the mitigation efforts in the plan, if any, and
decide whether this is an overriding consideration. He feels the
response to the purchasing of the Seminary property was to address
the preservation of the greenbelt:.
Ms. Wordell addressed environmental impact number 1 and noted any
additional mitigations could be added in this section.
Com. Roberts suggested adding to the General Plan that Com.
Bautista's concern regarding imbalance will be taken into account
in guiding parks and recreation planning for the Vallco and Stevens
Creek Blvd. areas.
Com Mahoney stated this is a 10 year General Plan and if all
mitigations are met, is there still a significant impact?
City Planner Wordell stated if lands are developed they would be
taken out of the inventory of lands that could be purchased for
park lands.
Com. Bautista suggested a mitigation which would prioritize the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 6
purchase of property in areas in which there is a significant
impact.
Com. Mahoney stated the purchase of the Seminary property for open
space was the priority.
The Commissioners discussed policy 5 -41 regarding prioritizing
purchasing of property for park lands.
There was a consensus to change Seminary property wording to
Diocese property.
Com. Bautista proposed the following word change to the mitigation
to read "Actively pursue inter - agency cooperation in buying
properties near the western planning area boundary to complete a
continuous open space greenbelt along the lower foothills, with
special focus on the purchase of the Diocese property"
There was a 4 -1 vote (Austin No).
Com. Austin feels there is no connection between this property and
the areas which will be most impacted.
Com. Bautista stated if the Commission accept the fact that a
significant impact to the plan is an imbalance, they need to come
up with a mitigation measure or a statement of overriding
consideration. He noted a mitigation he proposes would be to
assign priority to purchasing property in the eastern section of
the City.
Mr. Cowan reviewed policy 5 -47 which addresses prioritizing the
purchase of park lands. He noted the Parks and Recreation
Commission have been working closely with the School District
regarding surplus land.
Ms. Wordell stated the significant affect under #1 in the
Description of Environmental Impacts is the same as #4. She noted
language could be added to identify certain areas.
Mr. Viskovich stated the City has entered into an agreement with
the School District for the next 25 years to improve their lands as
long as they don't sell any of their school sites.
Com. Mahoney stated he does not feel comfortable specifying certain
areas.
The Commissioners discussed the environmental impact after
mitigation, under #4 and the rationale.
City Attorney Kilian suggested adding housing to the rationale.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 7
Chr. Austin stated it is her belief that there is a high priority
in the General Plan to purchase vacant land for parks wherever
possible.
Com. Roberts feels this is not adequately covered, as does Com.
Bautista.
Both Coms. Mahoney and Doyle feel it is adequately covered in the
General Plan.
The Commissioners agreed to add housing as a statement of
I overriding consideration and felt. the Heart of the City is not an
overriding consideration. There was a 4 -1 vote (Mahoney no) that
the environmental impact after mitigation should be left as
significant.
The Commissioners reviewed the Statements of overriding
considerations as outlined in exhibit H.
Ms. Nancy Burnett, stated CURB is concerned regarding the impacts
on utilities. She stated the mitigation is based on the 2500 homes
proposed and not on the number of homes needed in the new General
Plan. She added this is a regional impact, which will impact
locally.
There was a consensus of the Commission to recommend approval of
1 Resolution No. 4459.
1
Com. Doyle made minor changes to the responses to oral and written
communications.
1 The Commissioners reviewed the proposed general plan changes as
outlined in exhibit C.
PAGE LU8:
Com. Mahoney stated he is in support of a minimum of 100 employees,
but feels there should not be a cap.
Com. Doyle stated the large companies can grow through the 2
million square feet and feels if the small companies are not
allocated the 150,000 sq. ft. they will not be able to grow.
Com. Mahoney suggested giving priority to the Companies who employ
100 to 1000 employees. Com. Bautista concurred.
There was a 3 -2 vote to leave the policy as is. (Mahoney, Bautista
No)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 8
PAGE LU21:
Associate Planner Jung read the language to be inserted -
definition of landmark buildings.
PAGE LU28:
Com. Bautista suggested the last sentence should read "The project
or development shall keep the open space area contiguous as much as
possible.
PAGE LU28 -30:
City Attorney Kilian stated the RHS zoning Ordinance will be
changed to conform with the General Plan. He added the current RHS
zone would not be applicable to the new General Plan.
Ms. Burnett stated that Policy 2 -50 should be included in Page
LU28 -30.
Mr. Jung stated the reason this was omitted was because the policy
itself relates to the structures. He stated this can be added.
PAGE H2 -H3:
Com. Doyle requested the removal of the words "by type ".
PAGE T4:
Com. Bautista questioned if the traffic generated by De Anza
College should be considered in the model?
Chr. Austin stated De Anza should be mentioned as it has a major
impact.
Mr. Cowan stated the intent of LOS D is for all intersections
except for De Anza and Stevens Creek Blvds., and the Commissioners
may need to change the General Plan policy to accept LOS E at both
De Anza and Stevens Creek, and De Anza and Bollinger intersections.
Com. Mahoney stated the General Plan policy should be changed to
include De Anza and Bollinger intersection.
Ms. Burnett expressed concern about safety at De Anza and
Bollinger.
Mr. Viskovich stated traffic patterns will be different when
highway 85 opens. He stated the Council has limited the
intersection of De Anza and Stevens Creek Blvd to a delay of 45
seconds and suggested the same be done for De Anza and Bollinger.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 9
Com. Roberts stated by accepting LOS E at the intersections
defined, does not imply that lower levels of service will be
accepted throughout the City.
Associate Planner Jung reviewed the references to the levels of
service within the General Plan.
Com. Bautista stated LOS E+ is acceptable in the General Plan in
order to implement the Heart of the City, but in the EIR there are
I other overriding considerations to allow the E +.
Com. Bautista spoke in favor of maintaining the policy and changing
I the EIR.
The Commissioners discussed the Heart of the City concept and how
this relates to the E+ level of service at De Anza Blvd. & Stevens
Creek Blvd., and De Anza Blvd. & Bollinger.
Com. Bautista stated by reducing the Heart of the City concept and
allowing less growth on Stevens Creek Blvd., he believes LOS D can
be achieved.
Com. Mahoney believes that E+ will be reached without a Heart of
the City.
Chr. Austin spoke in favor of keeping the General Plan language as
is, adding that E+ LOS is acceptable at both intersections
addressed above.
A majority of the Commission spoke in favor or accepting LOS E+ at
1 both intersections with a 45 second delay.
Com. Bautista stated the EIR is inconsistent with the policy.
Com. Mahoney suggested removing the companies from the statement of
overriding concern regarding LOS E +. 5 -0 vote.
City Planner Wordell stated the proposed change in the EIR,
regarding the purchase of the Seminary property, will also be made
in the General Plan.
Com. Mahoney stated page LU28 should be titled Hillsides and not
Seminary.
City Planner Wordell stated the policy 2 -41 relates to the Seminary
property and the headings will be changed.
Com. Bautista questioned LU20 regarding building heights on the
Tandem property.
The Commissioners discussed the height allowed on the Tandem
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 10
property.
Com. Bautista stated the height allowed should not be an exception
and should be consistent with the height in the area. He believes
that tall buildings will detract from the interest in the Heart of
the City. He stated 160 feet is too excessive.
Mr. Cowan outlined the building heights allowed and noted that this
General Plan is more restrictive that the existing General Plan.
Com. Bautista suggested deleting the last sentence on PAGE LG20.
5 -0 vote.
City Planner Wordell outlined the minor changes to the building
height map. She also noted that Steven Haze has submitted a letter
on April 26th which raised some issues he would like responded to.
One of the responses, following his letter, discusses a change to
the EIR text related to his request to have the De Anza Trail
referenced in the EIR. Staff is recommending that this be
referenced.
The was a consensus to reference the De Anza Trail in the EIR Text.
Com. Roberts outlined a wording change to Appendix E, Slope
Density.
Mr. Jung stated the change will be made.
Ms. Wordell stated the Meeting of May 24, 1993 is canceled.
City Planner Wordell reviewed the EIR changes as follows:
1. EIR, section 8, Pg 1, additional wording regarding potential
flooding, as suggested by staff, should be eliminated.
2. Reference to the purchase of the Diocese property changed.
Add new language that special focus should be on the purchase
of the Diocese property. All reference to Seminary property
be changed to Diocese property in both the EIR and General
Plan.
3. Regarding mitigation for the loss of potential park land in
the matrix for open space, wording will be added about
rationale being related to goals for housing and Heart of the
City.
4. General Plan EIR, page 24, change "entitlements" to "potential
growth ". Will delete incorrect reference to section 10, page
5.
5. Accumulative Impact Section, page 3, new wording will be added
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1 Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
• Page 11
so the reference to the table will be correct.
6. Overriding consideration for Transportation, strike
everything, but the Heart of the City.
7. Add reference to the De Anza. Trail.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to recommend approval of Resolution
4458, certifying the adequacy and completeness of the EIR
subject to the findings and subconclusions of the
hearing.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5 -0
City Planner Wordell reviewed the General Plan changes as follow:
1. Page LU21 - new sentence defining landmark buildings.
2. Page LU28, change in the wording to clustering. Will make
changes that the Seminary property does not relate to all the
hillside policies.
3. Policy 2 -50 will be added to a list of policies, refer to the
Municipal Code instead of RES.
4. Housing, page 2 and 3, strike the words "by type ".
5. Transportation, page 4, De Anza college will be added. Page
4, add De Anza and Bollinger to the intersections which will
be acceptable below D. Also change to E+ (45 seconds). This
will be done in the text page T3, also in Policy 2 -4.
0 6. Land Use - LU20, delete the last sentence.
P 7. Correct the slope language on page 2.
Com. Doyle stated item 4 of Resolution 4459 should be amended to
include De Anza and Bollinger intersection.
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to recommend approval Resolution 4459
with the changes outlined and subject to the findings and
subconclusions of exhibit H.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5 -0
MOTION: Com. Bautista moved to recommend approval of Resolution
4460 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the
hearing.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5 -0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting of May 18, 1992
Page 12
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
- None
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
- None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: 1
- None
ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission
adjourned at 10:45 P.M. to the joint City Council
Meeting on May 20, 1993, at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Calk ,n ka._ M P,o .t-.ta46 -1
Catherine M. Robillard,
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission
at the Regular Meeting of June 14, 1993
1
/s/ Donna Austin
Donna Austin, Chairwoman
• Attest:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius
Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk