Loading...
PC 10-06-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1994 Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Austin Com. Doyle Com. Harris Com. Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works Charles Kilian, City Attorney Consultants Present: Don Woolfe, Don Skinner, Planning Resource Associates (PRA) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Chr. Mahoney said they were included in the packet. POSTPONEMENTS-None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application No. (s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 1-GPA-93 and 6-EA-93 Diocese of San Jose Diocese of San Jose Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-52-3, 342-5-54, -56, -60 Located south ofI-280, west of Foothill Boulevard and north of Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek Boulevard GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation ITom 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. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 2 geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion and pollution; wildfire hazard; visual impacts; water tank failure and leakage; and safety of school crossings. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 1,1994 City Planner Ciddy Wordell showed transparencies as follows: 1. Purpose and order of meeting, 2. Remaining information needed. Ms. Wordell announced that the department has re-noticed the October 26 public hearing to include the Gate of Heaven parcel. 3. Issues identified last time which included traffic circulation, visual and open space, vegetation and wildlife, schools, water tank, EMF and fiscal. 4. Recommended discussion format 5. Major Hillside General Plan policies and consistency with alternatives Director of Public Works Viskovich discussed the second access road to Stevens Creek Boulevard which had been previously discussed and had been required for emergency access. He said there is no need to have it for capacity or level of service. Pros and cons have been provided to the Commission. The main pro is there would be another access that allows some discretion. The con is that most (80%) of the demand is north to 280. He described two options, one west and one east ofthe cemetery. Maintenance costs may not warrant it because it might not be used. Another issue is whether the crossing at the railroad will require grade separation. In summary, Mr. Viskovich said that from a technical point of view another access is not required. Politically, it is something that will have to be decided during the hearing process. In answer to Com. Harris' question regarding construction, Mr. Viskovich said they would probably work on half the road at a time. Emergency access is available if needed. Chair Mahoney asked Mr. Viskovich for pros and cons regarding the 20% diversion. Mr. Viskovich stated that in order to achieve more than 20% diversion, the project would have to be redesigned for houses to face an internal road that is closer to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The benefit would be that it's good to have two accesses to any neighborhood. However, you couldn't argue to redesign to force traffic onto Stevens Creek Boulevard because of costs or level of service. Regarding air quality, if traffic is artificially forced to the south, more vehicle miles and thus more pollution will be added. Com. Roberts said that the number of trips generated by The Forum is higher than was projected. Mr. Viskovich said the actuality might be different from projections. Com. Roberts stated that this bears on the confidence the Commission can have in the figures for this project. Mr. Viskovich said the Forum was a different type of project, and there was not enough data. There is lots more data available on normal residential developments. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 3 Director of Community Development Cowan said that for the first couple of years, Chateau Cupertino generated lots and traffic and parking problems but that has changed. There might be an decrease expected with this project as well Com. Harris asked about the traffic impact at 1-280; a signal there could improve level of service. Mr. Viskovich said the City might be overruled by other jurisdictions, it is a matter of priority. Chair Mahoney stated the opinion that the assignment of trips at this intersection is really not related to the project. Com. Austin asked if consideration might be given to another way to get on Foothill. Mr. Viskovich said these are just two proposals and there are probably others. Commission has to look at the route and decide if it would be used. Many alternatives are available but you have to ask, do they make sense. Com. Doyle asked why no analysis had been done at the intersection of Cristo Rey Drive and the entrance to the Open Space District. Mr. Viskovich responded that if that becomes a problem, spot widening and a left turn pocket could probably be provided. Com. Doyle asked if that type of decision would be made early or after the fact. Mr. Viskovich said that if it could be projected that it would be a problem it could be done in advance. The question is whether or not the project is creating the problem. It's something that is monitored and mitigated as it comes about. City Attorney Kilian said that with respect to the secondary access issue, according to the staff report this project does not impact the need for a secondary access; therefore, Commission will be hard pressed to require it because of lack of nexus unless it is voluntarily provided. With respect to emergency access, he did not see a problem. Mr. Kilian repeated that without showing that this new project causes the need for a second access Commission will be hard pressed to require it. Chair Mahoney said there are many decisions made about traffic in the City that are not purely technical. They are done to reduce the impact on certain neighborhoods. Mr. Kilian stated that may be but absent an impact that is caused by this project the City is going to pay for the second access. The technical data says that the project is not impacting the second access. Chair Mahoney said there is a separate issue of the impact on the neighborhoods and we did not do a technical study on that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Viskovich explained the General Plan criteria used in trying to protect neighborhoods. He said for the size of development there would need to be an emergency secondary outlet. That would be an easy criterion to establish. Com. Roberts asked if St. Joseph Avenue could be open for an emergency access. Mr. Kilian said there is now litigation. If it will continue to be open you can consider it for this application. If Mr. Viskovich feels that this is a sufficient emergency access, another one might not be needed. If he feels it is not adequate for health and safety reasons he needs to say that the St. Joseph access is not sufficient. Mr. Viskovich said that because of Central Fire District station locations the City would want access to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Regarding the caretaker's house, City Planner Ciddy Wordell referred to the Historical Society letter recommending that if changes are made the historical aspect be preserved. Staff will need to come back with more information on that. Ms. Wordell said Don Woolfe and Don Skinner were here from Planning Resource Associates. Mr. Woolfe said that during their review of prior written and oral comments they concluded it is essential to establish a decision-making frame of reference for this project. It is important to understand that we are not dealing with a typical project EIR. We are dealing with a general plan ElR. There has been no formal application to the City for any type of discretionary entitlements. The request by the Diocese was to amend back to the original general plan and to change the underlying zoning. That is the project. The project is not any of the six alternatives contained in the EIR. These alternatives were developed at the request of the City in support of the general plan request for change. Mr. Woolfe explained that the purpose of the alternatives is to provide Commission with a body of comparative information in the form of sketch plans in order to determine if the General Plan should be amended and if so, how it should be amended. In his opinion, this general plan EIR contains far more detail and information than any he and his colleagues have ever seen or reviewed in their 30 years in business. The plan alternatives should only be evaluated in terms of the relevance to the general plan amendment. None of the alternatives contain enough detail so that they may be evaluated as separate projects. He informed Commission that by certifYing the EIR and approving any general plan amendment, they will not confer an approval on any plan alternative contained in this draft ElR. By approving a general plan amendment they will be establishing an appropriate land use, maximum development density and a general distribution of the proposed dwelling units. This is only the fist decision-making step. Following any change to the general plan, the applicant must submit a formal application for subdivision. This application will trigger intensive review by staff. If the applicant's tentative subdivision map submission substantially resembles the approved level of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 5 development that is finally approved, no further ErR would be required in accordance with the master EIR concept. This does not mean that the City can not require preparation of additional final project analyses. The subdivision process and other entitlement processes require additional public hearings before the Commission and City Council prior to final project approval. Mr. Woolfe said that everyone who had worked on this, including himself, had fallen into the trap of considering this as a project EIR, rather than a general plan EIR. Ms. Wordell said this is a more detailed general plan than many, which Commission might want to have in this case. The risk is that it will probably not be as detailed as the final project. Staffs recommendation is that Commission try to see what kind of comfort level they can get without having the last detail. Tonight's testimony might help them feel that they could reach a degree of specificity with the general plan so they may be able to leave some of the details to the actual project. Mr. Woolfe said the EIR only deals with the lands of the zoning and general plan designations for the lands of the Diocese. Commission has to have enough information that they feel comfortable with making a decision. These are sketch plans, not blueprints. They are to let Commission know what might happen if they approve a general plan amendment at these various levels. Don Skinner said they can also at this point specify any questions they think are particularly important to clarify during the last steps. Mr. Woolfe talked about the term "substantially similar." He said it referred to level of density and general distribution of dwelling units. He also discussed a hybrid of two alternatives. Mr. Skinner said the probability of finding a hybrid that is close is higher because of the number of alternatives considered. Mr. Woolfe and Mr. Cowan addressed Commission's concerns regarding the possibility of bringing up something of an environmental nature later that might have been overlooked during the earlier stags. Mr. W oolfe said that any late discoveries or impacts that were not apparent during this EIR process can be brought up as part of the subdivision review process and appropriate conditions and mitigation measures placed in addition to the ones that are contained in this ErR, if they are reasonable. Mr. Woolfe said that he did not agree with the applicant's comments that the City would not be able to require a reduction in the number of units but only in mitigations of another kind. Mr. Cowan said the general plan establishes a range or maximum capacity for development. Mr. Skinner discussed the issues relating to schools, including busing as a mitigation, the possible need for a school crossing guard on Foothill, students walking to Montclair and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 6 the impact of parents driving their children to school. The school district says they are not in a position to provide busing. Neither mitigation, busing or a crossing guard, can be required as a condition of approval. They are there for infonnation. The number of students, number of new classrooms and financial impacts were identified, as well as program changes that might result from the development. The school district is not aware of any major program changes that the development would require. Mr. Skinner said that students from houses built in the Seminary portion would attend Montclair School. Those in the Cristo Rey area would go to Stevens Creek School. He confirmed that the school district said no additional classrooms would be required. Mike Raffetto, Associate Superintendent for Business, Fremont Union High School District, said the fiscal analysis looks at facility needs as well as the ongoing needs. The facilities needs are covered by developer fees. Fremont is a basic aid district. From a purely financial standpoint, the district benefits through the assessed valuation that the project generates. Robin Phillips, Director of Finance, Cupertino Union School District, said they are a revenue limit district. As with Fremont, developer fees would offset the costs of new facilities if needed. The district would receive just under $3,000 per student, which would cover the costs of teachers, materials, etc. She said there is no fiscal benefit. They are neither better nor worse off financially. Mr. Cowan said that even though the general plan approved a certain number of units, we need to talk about redistribution of them. Ms. Phillips said they have looked ahead and anticipated development. The school facilities have been sized to accommodate this anticipated development. They have space to add modular classrooms. Impacts to individual schools depend on where units are built. Ms. Phillips said the district is not providing crossing guards. Some cities provide them. Regarding impacts on support activities Ms. Phillips said that both Montclair and Stevens Creek Schools had been modernized and the capacity of the library and multi purpose rooms increased. Mr. Raffetto said Fremont District doesn't see that kind of capacity problem. Mr. Woolfe introduce Rick Hopkins, H. T. Harvey & Associates, Ecological Consultant. He said there are two issues: I. Dead trees as a nesting habitat. 2. Hydrological study - mitigation measures in protecting the marsh area which the habitat of the California Red Legged Frog. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Hopkins said he is the project manager hired by Thomas Reed and Associates. Dr. Mark Jennings did the surveys. The EIR calls for general avoidance of the seep and the marsh and a hydrological study to ensure that development would not cause the seep to dry up. The frog is proposed for uplisting to endangered species, and there is supposed to be a ruling by August. If the approved design is such that the frog is not affected, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services probably need not be consulted. Answering questions about the difference between species of special concern and endangered species, Mr. Hopkins said they are not necessarily protected. If uplisted to endangered species status, there must be approval from USF&W. USF&W generally requests that EIR preparers consider effects to candidate species as if they had already been uplisted. If the design results in effects to the frog, the developer would have to enter into consultations with the Service. Mr. Hopkins said that general avoidance means avoid taking of habitat; reconfiguring roads would be one way. A hydrology study would reveal which building arrangements would or would not affect the seep. Regarding fencing of the seep, Mr. Hopkins said this is a small frog population. If no development were to occur it could die out or could recolonize new sources. There is no good empirical evidence. Mr. Hopkins said you would want a hydrologist to tell you what the source of water for the seep is and what might affect that source. Mr. Woolfe said the hydrologist would determine what level of surface drainage within that water system would tend to flush out the watershed or by restricting the drainage, tend to dry it up. The subdivision could be conditioned to require retaining the services of a hydrologist and others to work with the designer of the subdivision from the initial stages so protection could be built into the tentative map. Regarding location of storm water detention, Mr. Woolfe said he didn't think specific location of detention basins has been mentioned. This must be part of the overall drainage design for any final development. Mr. Hopkins stated that a detention basin could be a benefit depending on the design. It might require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding whether it is a change. Mr. Hopkins said that the question of whether it is better to have the dead trees for nesting habitat or to get rid of them because they are a fire hazard must be answered by Commission. They must weigh the issues then decide which is more important. It comes down to the final design of the project. A mixture including live and dead trees, brush, undergrowth and clearings is desirable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 8 Regarding whether the Oak Savannah is worthy of conservation, Mr. Hopkins said he does not have enough specific experience on the site to comment on that. Ms. Wordell showed a drawing with trees recommended for removal by an arborist. Only one Oak is included in those recommended for removal, most are Eucalyptus. Mr. Woolfe said that many can be saved by good site planning which would come with the final plan. Mr. Hopkins stated that an arborist approaches tree removal differently than an ecologist. It is difficult to compare the recommendations of an arborist and an ecologist. Their goals are different. Regarding the effect of stonn water detention on the Oaks, Mr. Hopkins said if they are Valley Oaks they don't like their feet wet. Grading is generally kept a dripline and a half away from the trunk. There are other ways of ensuring that you don't damage the roots. Depending on the distribution of the trees, removal might or might not be required. Mr. Hopkins said the Eucalyptus (Blue Gum) is non-native, but is an important food source for certain birds. They sometimes compete with native species and are sometimes undesirable. He said existing conditions have been described and are supporting a certain amount of wildlife. He discussed the effects on wildlife of removal of the Blue Gums. in regard to how long a species must be in an area to be considered native, Mr. Hopkins said it depends on who you ask. There is no simple answer. Ms. Wordell said the Eucalyptus are recommended for removal by the arborist because they are non-native and would spread. However, the ErR says they should be saved. Mr. Cowan inquired about replacing tree canopy. Mr. Hopkins said that habitat can be replaced, but you must be replacing the functions and values of what was removed. Responding to Commissioners' concerns, Mr. Woolfe said they have the ability to have experts testify in the context of reviewing the subdivision with regard to specific engineering or ecological studies that are required in association with final plan review. He said they have the identical opportunity to require additional infonnation and require testimony of experts to support the infonnation. Mr. Hopkins said in his experience if officials are not happy with the level of detailed analysis they can request more. It is difficult to do a specific analysis at the general plan level. The specific plan level is when you know where houses, roads, etc. will be. Mr. Kilian said they could have a focused ErR done if a situation is created by a discretionary action that the master ErR didn't address. He assured Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 9 members that while the City would not be required to conduct further environmental studies, they would not be precluded from further environmental studies. He said they have all the choices. Mr. W oolfe said the next issue is contiguous open space. He stated that there is no standard to define contiguous open space masses. It depends on the function. The Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD) comments deal with visual and functional continuity and movement of wildlife. These were adequately covered and identified in the EIR. Mr. Woolfe said he thought visual continuity of open space was the most sensitive function. Mr. Hopkins commented on what his response would be to challenges of his report from environmental groups regarding wildlife movement. He said he had not visited the site, but felt the issue is why are they moving - home range movement, migration, daily movements, dispersal, foraging, etc. Birds will be less affected. Small animals have more difficulty moving and are more affected. What generally happens in this kind of development is that habitat is lost. Do these corridors suffice? The question is, will the knoll be cut off from access by other animals. The answer is no. CEQA states "substantially" affecting wildlife movements. In his opinion, animals are not "substantially" prevented from getting to the knoll. Mr. Hopkins said the value of the smaller open space buffers is reduced as wildlife habitat. In response to questions as to whether movement by wildlife would be cut off by the open space provided in the proposals., he said some may be. The PG&E substation offers an alternate corridor. Most animals will move through this size corridor (200 ft.), deer for example. He stated that some species might actually be attracted to the buildings. The frog is a unique issue. It would have to be established that it has been cut off from a colonizing area. Development results in loss of habitat. However, it is difficult to make a case that movement is cut off. Recess: 9:02-9:15 p.m. Regarding Kaiser impacts, Mr. Woolfe said Kaiser wanted to ensure that purchasers would be notified that the operation is there and is sometimes noisy and dirty. Test results concluded that noise is not a significant impact. Regarding air quality, criteria pollutants were monitored and the results discussed with the Air District. There are no current problems. The second question is in regard to toxic hot spots. Studies were done to detennine potential health hazards from carcinogens and chemicals at the site. According to a 1991 report and revisions, there are no serious health impacts coming from Kaiser. The Air District is reviewing the latest update which will be completed in a few days. He said it is important to tell potential buyers that Kaiser trucks run 24 hours a day and they may be heard under certain conditions. Regarding visible particles, this will be discussed in the final EIR and be part of the disclosure. According to Kaiser, there PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 10 have been 20 specific complaints, half about smoke and odor and the other half about dust. Each complaint was investigated and half were confirmed. In answer to questions about noise ITom the train, Mr. Woolfe said the noise was not recorded on the receptors. The next item for discussion was open space options. Mr. Woolfe said that once you get past the appropriate uses of open space there are three major considerations: maintenance costs, improvement costs and liability issues. Some options are as follow: 1. City acquire and maintain open space. 2. City not acquire, it remains in private ownership and is regulated by the use of conservation easements (typical in this region). 3. City in partnership with County or Midpeninsula maintains, operates and owns land. 4. County acquires and maintains open space or a portion of it. 5. City acquires and goes into partnership with private foundation or group to maintain. John Gibbs, representing Supervisor McKenna's office, said his comments would be very general since the City is in the early stages of the process. On August 15 Sup. McKenna responded to a letter ITom Father Mitchell which inquired as to County interest in acquiring the open space. Mr. Gibbs said that County Parks provided the comments on the EIR and Lisa Killowgh is here to answer questions. He summarized Sup. McKenna's letter which was contained in Commission's packet. County's analysis of the area would be similar to the one for adding to any County park. The part of the seminary property near the park staging area would be a valuable addition to the park. The next most desirable part is the flat area adjacent to the park which could be used for parking. The area adjacent to both County and the open space district is very desirable. The knoll area is desirable but separation might present problems. This needs further evaluation. Any development adjacent to the park will impact it so the County hopes to have input. Mr. Gibbs said that the historical aspect of the knoll would make it more valuable. Regarding added parking, Mr. Gibbs said the existing area had been reconfigured for more parking so no paving or graveling were required. He said the County did not evaluate in the master plan what potential impact the adjacent development would have. He said the open space district wants to limit demands on their land so they would not want the County to put in a lot more parking. Discussion followed regarding development in the cemetery area and where open space is proposed. Mr. Gibbs said on the conceptual map they considered there was no development scenario. Generally, they would like to see a buffer along the riparian corridor. Clyde Armstrong, 2465 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos, said he heard there was a study that said the County expected usage of the park to increase to 500,000 cars a year in the next PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page II several years. Mr. Gibbs said he thinks they were referring to the master plan. He did not remember the exact figures, but the information is available to the public. Ms. Killowgh said the basic philosophy behind the master plan is not to increase park usage but to manage existing park usage. To do that they made projections of use over the next several years. The improvements at Rancho San Antonio are the result of the master plan. Regarding the desirable size of a buffer, she said she thinks the County General plan calls for 150 ft. measured from the top of the bank. One hundred feet from the edge of the riparian vegetation might exceed that. In answer to a question about why the County is opposed to a neighborhood park adjacent to a County park, Ms. Killowgh said Rancho San Antonio has been used intensively and they have all the traffic and parking problems they can handle. To introduce a neighborhood park could cause more problems. She said she believes buffering is in everyone's best interests. Mr. Viskovich said that 500,000 cars a year is not a lot. Father Michael Mitchell, 10110 North DeAnza Boulevard, repeated that we are talking about a general plan amendment. The amendment secures in public open space the western hillside that the general plan identified, the historic front knoll and the riparian bank. It does not set a precedent that would be deleterious to the current general plan. In fact, no other land owner would be willing to in effect give their land away. Financial advantages have been verified by staff. Father Mitchell said they had heard at the previous meeting that changes were required and have moved to provide more contiguous open space. He introduced Marie Cooper who would speak about legal questions which had been raised. Marie Cooper of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, P. O. Box V., Walnut Creek, counsel for the applicant, spoke about three legal points. I. It is important to compare the general plan amendment with the existing general plan. The City can't require dedication of property where there is no nexus. Under this general plan amendment, 65% of the land would be in public open space. 2. Regarding secondary access, with no nexus, you can't require it. 3. Schools - Since the schools expressed concerns they have reached an agreement in principle and are willing to accommodate the schools' concerns. Mike Bruner, 1144 Derbyshire, representing Sobrato and the Diocese, clarified where the cemetery property line is and how the open space and trail connection could be accommodated. He said there are 8.7 acres of tree coverage. The developer will work around the trees when constructing the detention basin. In regard to the Oak Savannah, Mr. Bruner said it is on County property. The proposal could have more acreage in native vegetation than there is now. He showed some alternative plans to show that plans could accommodate the owner's financial needs and still make open space contiguous. He said they have a biologist and a hydrologist here tonight. He also said they never PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 12 proposed to get rid of all dead trees, any may move some of the snags to the detention basin. Malcolm Sproul, LSA, 157 Park Place, Richmond, biologist, stated the opinion that this is not good breeding habitat for the frog. They like more woody vegetation. It is more likely a dispersal area. He doesn't believe residential development would preclude the fiog and described other projects where frogs live near residences and some created habitats where there are breeding populations. One positive aspect of the development would be the elimination of cattle grazing. He said that with the proposal there is no habitat loss, the seep is protected and corridors and water sources are maintained. Kirk Wheeler, hydrologist, fiom the consulting civil engineering firm Schaaf & Wheeler, l73-C N. Morrison Avenue, San Jose, made the following points: 1. From the hydrology study, the geologist concluded that the seep has a larger source than local ground conditions. 2. Drainage - detention storage will be installed which should provide similar runoff to what is now occurring. 3. Water quality - pollution of San Francisco Bay would not be a significant concern. There is a potential of increased pollutants into local streams. This could be dealt with by public education and other programs which improve overall runoff quality. Where the goal is to not degrade water quality and to provide for existing beneficial uses of water, you may be able to use detention storage or other measures to improve water quality. He described how the detention storage would work. Clyde Armstrong, 2465 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos, spoke on behalf of the Cristo Rey Homeowners Associations. He said no one has responded tonight to concerns regarding traffic on Cristo Rey, especially since it's the only access. Traffic has increased since the opening of The Forum and park expansion. He asked that Commission please be as concerned about the people as about the environment and to please consider an additional access route to the project for safety and environmental concerns. Ms. Wordell said the people who spoke at the last meeting will get a written response. John Matthews, 10279 Byrne, said he has two oppositions. I. Open space - environment is not open space when it is developed into a park or communities. 2. Consider needs of people other than those who can afford luxury ranchettes. Mr. Matthews said he can't afford to live in Cupertino any more and is moving. When asked if affordable housing would affect his decision, Mr. Matthews said we can't have an entire community of executives; we need housing that is affordable by workers. Robert Schick, 1046 Cuesta Drive, Mountain View, said he is a Catholic who has wavered on both sides of the issue. He said Commission opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance which ends in the words "liberty and justice for all." He invited everyone to keep that spirit. He said he felt some hostility fiom all groups at the last PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 13 meeting. He said the Diocese has looked at and tried to address all concerns. They have scaled back the plan and are offering land. Maybe St. Joseph residents could open up the street for access. The Diocese is a property owner. They could suffer a major loss of property value. Mr. Schick said he hoped Commission would consider all sides. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, stated grave concerns regarding traffic in her neighborhood. A reality is there are conflicting interests - more people live here and they need to live somewhere. Another reality is that the Diocese needs to pay its bills. She said reality is a bunch of agreements and asked Commission to move the idea through so people can be served. She said she is not willing to extirpate any species. Steve Sparks, 22953 Longdown Road, said he has been working with Kaiser to try to mitigate impacts of Kaiser truck traffic. He opposed the new road from the proposed development to Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said to insert traffic imported from another area is offensive. The 178-home plan offers 130 acres of open space, some of which is accessible without driving. The proposed street would destroy the open space character. He urged approving the development plan for 178 homes because it provides a unique opportunity for access to open land. He asked Commission to reject the road. Melvin Caldwell, 10300 East Estates Drive, said that the reason the Diocese is asking for a general plan amendment now is that the City Council had asked that they wait until after the general plan was approved, then come back and ask for an amendment. He said he thinks input has been positive and would like Commission to support the plan based on 178 homes for the benefit of the City and residents. Gino Cappallazzo, 1117 Stafford Drive, said he gives 100% support to the Diocese, they need it. Clifford Mastenbrook, 10171 Camino Vista Drive, described traffic near this home this morning. He said if an additional access road is put in more traffic problems would result. Prior to installation of the light, traffic moved with the four way stop. Mr. Mastenbrook described an earlier Kaiser proposal which included residential, commercial, office and a convention center. He said if that type of plan were approved you might have more traffic than with the Diocese plan. Robert Stutz, Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, representing Los Altos Horsemen's Association and former chair of the Pathway Committee of the town said Los Altos Hills has been working for this type of system of connecting and giving access to open space. He congratulated the City and the Diocese for working toward it. He said they have used volunteers for many projects including building bridges. He urged the City to let the people who will use the facility put it together and maintain it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 1994 Page 14 Mike Westphal, 1500 Cloverdale Road, Pescadero, representing the Coyote Creek Riparian Station, urged the Commission to go with conservative testimony such as that of Rick Hopkins. It would be hard to say what the impact will be on the frog. Mark Jennings is an expert on the frog. He urged the Commission and Diocese to take advantage of the USF&W database information and to go back to some older projects than were described to see what the effects of housing as been on the frogs. Richard Seymour 818 Hollenbeck, Sunnyvale, said this area which is now called Silicon Valley used to be called the Valley of the Hearts Delight. We have paved the valley. Only the foothills are left. We have to say there are enough houses and enough developers have gotten rich. By consensus of the Commission members, the hearing was continued to October 26. City Attorney Kilian advised Commission as follows: First, they can divide the issues and determine which issues are important in deciding whether they will adopt the general plan amendment. Prior to a final decision on that, Commission has to determine if the EIR is adequate and recommend certification to the City Council. In that regard they have to determine whether as a result of these hearings there are significant factors or facts which were not considered adequately in the ErR and whether they are so significant that the EIR must be recirculated. There are guidelines established by the Superior Court for that. If they determine the EIR is adequate, he said he was sure there are environmental concerns that are not mitigated, in which case, if they desire to adopt the general plan, they will need to direct staff to prepare some statements of overriding concerns to Council. Then they can decide on the project. Commissioners asked for the guidelines regarding recirculation of the EIR, sample statements of overriding concerns and biographical information on the PRA people. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 1 0 p.m. ~ì j