Loading...
PC 08-24-64 411 • 80,000.4 10321 So. Hwy 9, Cupertino, Calif., 9501/1 252-11.505 CITY OF CU PERT I N O CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION-Aug. 24, 1964 PLACE : Cupertino School District Board Room 401 TIME: 8:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG II ROLL CALL: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS : August 6, 10, 13, 1964 Comm. present : Frolich, Gates , Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Traeumer, Thomson Comm. absent : None Staff present : City Attorney Sam Ande:Pson City and Traffic Planner Adde Iaurin Recording Secretary Lois Inwards Corrections to the Minutes of August 10th : Page 7, first paragraph. Comm. Frolich said the overpass and the semi-public use behind these lots made the difference . Page 10, third paragraph. It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Johnson to close the First Hearing on Application 18-•Z-64, and to table the Tentative Map 7-•TM,-64. Page 10, second paragraph from the bottom. B. should read : "Chairman Thomson commented on the General Plan and Map, " Page 11, first paragraph. Should read as follows : "Comm. Frolich objected to sending this to the City Council and the State . He suggested we notify the State that the work involved in the contract with Wilsey, Ham & Blair has been completed. " Page 11, paragraph directly under C.2. should read as follows : "Comm. Frolich felt the City may be extending itself considerably for the next several years and wonders if it might be wise to have the City Staff only make plans for the landscaping of the Stevens Creek Blvd median strip at this time. It was moved by Comm. Traeumer and seconded by Comm. Johnson 110 that the Minutes of August 10th be accepted as corrected.. Motion carried, 7-•0 ..' 8 410 410 Corrections to the Minutes of August 6, 1g64 : Page 1, Second paragraph under II; : Comm. Traeumer said he had suggested that the Ordinance NOT broken down into sections; rather, each Planning Commissioner would study the Ordinance thoroughly. It was moved by Comm. Gates and seconded by Comm, Small to accept the Minutes of August 6th .s corrected and the Minutes 411 of August 13 verbatim. Motion carried, 7-0 III COMMUNICATIONS : A, Written: 81,005 1. COUNTY REFERRAL 6S64.7 (4 lot subdivision at Alcalde and Merriman Rds . ) The City Planner showed ,'the Planning Commissioners the map for the subject 4 lots . The zoning here is R-l. The map was then put on 'the bulletin board for all to see , The City Planner recommended he be instructed to write to the County indicating there were no objections to this application. So moved by Comm. Gates; and seconded by Comm. Hirshon. 110 AYES : Comm. Frblich, Gates, Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Traeumer, Thomson NOES : None Motion carried, 7-0 2 . Discussed later on in the agenda . 3. Communication from the ; County H-Control regarding a Decorator Store in Monta Vista on Mann Drive , north of Stevens Creek Blvd. It was noted this abuts R-l. The City Planner had no objections. There were no comments from the audience , There were no comments from the Planning Commissioners . 1110 It was moved by Comm.. ,Traeumer and seconded by Comm. Gates that the City Planner be instructed to write a letter to the County indicating Cupertino has no ob- jections to this application, AYES : Comm, Frol:.cif, Cates, Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Traeumer', Thomson NOES : None Motion carried, 7-0 -2- 410 4. Letter from Mr. George Gatter offering his services at an appropriate fee. Chairman Thomson instructed the City Planner to write a letter to Mr . Gatter thanking him for offering his services. 410 81,005 5. Gas station at Foothill Blvd . , between Old Stevens Creek Road and Salem Avenue . The City Planner recommend that this item be heard after the discussion of the road system in the area. 6. Letter from Mr. Ellis Jacobs on Regnart Road, urging preservation of Regnart Creek. 86,006 2. CITY PLANNER : Road System in the Bubb Road area. The City Planner gave a written and a verbal presenta- tion for the area south of McClellan, and west of the railroad tracks . He noted that at present, there are no streets wider than 60 ' in this area . The County has proposed an extension of Foothills Blvd. through to Prospect Road. The City Planner stated that, as a rule of thumb, a resi- dential street should under no circumstances carry more than 3,000 vehicles per day, which volume is created by about 500 dwelling units . Other sources have indicated that 2,000 vehicles per day, or 350 dwelling units as a maximum, normally should not be exceeded. Streets carrying more traffic than quoted in the above paragraph but less than normally carried on a freeway or expressway should not be planned as residential streets . Lots should not have direct access to such streets; intersections should be spaced from 1,000 to 3,000 feet apart , and the roadway should be divided. That is , the essential safety devices of an expressway should be incorporated., even where traffic volume does not justify the width and design speed of a full-sized expressway. Where the width of a residential street is increased in order to carry through traffic, this will increase the capacity but also the number and severity of accidents . Speed increases with width of roadway, whether posted or not . If through traffic has to be carried in a 411 residential street, the City and Traffic Planner 's opinion is that a width of 60 ' os preferrable to 90 ' , unless capacity demands the greater width. The distance which traffic travels through residential streets is also an important factor. It is very difficult to make drivers maintain low speed compatible with a residential area where distanoas exceed 1/2' mile. -3- 111 After considerable research, the City and Traffic Planner decided that Regnart Road would be the. natural outlet from the Foothill area within Cupertino, as well as from some adjoining County area, to the central part of Cupertino, to San Jose via Junipero Serra Freeway, and to Sunnyvale and San Francisco via Stevens Freeway. The area that could be served :by Regnart Road contains about 450 acres within the City of Cupertino and about 300 acres within the County. With one-acre lots , but including an area already zoned for 10,000sq. ft. lots, there could be about 850 lots in the area, creating a traffic volume of about 5,000 vehicle trips per; day. in Regnart Rd. Three lanes/would be hazardous . A steep, undivided four- lane road with frequent intersections (with still steeper side streets ) and where cars from adjacent lots could cross at any point, would also be very hazardous, A 60 ' road here , required by present subdivision standards, would also be very expensive , create landslide problems , and would obliterate the vegetation screen around the creek. Instead, the City and Traffic Planner proposes that there should be two one-way streets, one uphill and one downhill; one on each side of the creek. Each street would contain one 12 ' travelling lane and one 8 ' emergency lane , plus a 5 ' emergency sidewalk (not necessarily level with the road- way) and sufficient areas for containing landslides . To avoid right-angle intersections, which would be very dangerous in this steep road, traffic from side streets and lots at the uphill road to the valley should join the uphill traffic and make a U;turn over one-lane bridges at selected locations; other directions would travel in a similar way. There is a connection (about 1/3 mile long) between the steep part of Regnart Road and the Foothill-Prospect Road. This through connection should not be carried through a local residential street in a valley subdivision. It should have a 4-lane divided roadway with no direct access from lots; but the cross-section could be reduced compared to the Foothill- Prospect Road. Exact alignment of the connecting road would depend on the terrain;' and sonic adjacent houses.. If the landowners in the area would agree on a coordinated zoning, development plan, and street plan, restricting the number of lots served by Regnart Road and Lindy Lane to a total of about 300 (or 400 at most ) and preventing any inflow of automobile traffic from adjoining areas, then 2 lanes only in Regnart Road /could be considered satisfactory, and connection through a local street in the valley sub- division would be less objectionable. 41) Financing of such a road system was discussed next. The City and Traffic Planner said the City cannot do very much about it in the early stages . The developers are naturally against major road systems- in an area, because of the added cost . This can hurt future developers who cannot get access . -4- i • but not impossible It is difficult/to equalize the burden of the road. system. One possibility used by' other cities is that developers in an area contribute more than their share to a right-of-way, being compensated by contributing less than their share of construction. The City and Traffic Planner quoted a: Jotter from Mr. Belser, Director of the County Planning Department, ® regarding the continuing of Foothills Blvd. until it connects with Prospect Road, to be constructed as a 4- lane , divided road with a minimum of access to adjacent property, The Baywood Terrace subdivision makes the originalalignment impossible so the road will bend some- what to the east of it. If the right-of-way for a road to connect Foothill Blvd.with/is not preserved we will be in trouble . Prospect Rd. Saratoga does not have direct access to Prospect Road. The back sides• of the homes are adjacent to it, • Chairman, Thomson• asked for comments from the Planning Commissioners'. He noted that, after a show of hands , almost everybody in the audience (roughly 100 people ) were directly concerned• with this area. Chairman Thomson informed• the audience that the Planning Commission has recommended by Resolution to have the City Council contact the. State regarding a south bound off ramp and a north bound on ramp at McClellan. He said we are looking for a good traffic pattern for this whole area. The Chairman al an also said the Commission is interested in public opinion. Cottim. Frolich felt there were actually two main roads under discussion here -- Regnart Road and Bubb Road. He said he would like some more detailed maps •and infor- mation from the Staff and from the County, Comm. Frolich felt it might be wise to go ahead and determine what to do with the application for approval of the Tentative Map at Bubb, Regnart and Lindy Lane. Comm. Frolich wondered .if Cupertino will be biting off more than they can chew by going ahead with the under- taking of a' major road system:- He doubts if the City can handle .it economically, He felt" that: Bubb Road • should go to 90'°-- width: : '...- He commented on the apartment area on Wolfe Road (where the street is 90 ' ) and the apartments are so arranged that there is only about 1 or 2 driveways coming directly out onto Wolfe Road. • The City Planner wanted to comment on the total road program. Grid roads are all the same width. Any resi- dential street only needs 2 moving lanes. Providing additional lanes for parking of cars is very expensive. He then suggested more narrow residential streets as a possible way of saving money. -.,• ® • Comm. Johnson asked for the City Planner,'s estimate of the cost of Foothills Blvd. extension to Prospect. The City Planner said this was hard to estimate , but it will run more than $500,000. Comm. Hirshon asked the City Planner how he arrived at the L150 figure for the acreage along Regnart . The City Planner said he measured the area on the map that could be reasonably served by Regnart Road. • Comm. Johnson asked when the City Planner estimated this planning project would be completed. The City Planner said the technical part could be done within 2 months. Negotiations , however, cannot be estimated. As soon as the area is developed, one 2-lane roadway would be completed in that portion. Comm. Gates asked if County funds are available for a project such as this. The City Planner said they were not; this would probably have to come from gas tax funds . Comm. Frolich offered the information that there are probably 8 or 9 sources ;of money for city streets . Comm. Frolich asked how 'Rainbow Drive fits into the program. The City Planner said that Rainbow Drive peters out whereas Prospect follows through. The freeway interchange will be at Prospect. Chairman Thomson asked if there are any engineering • problems for development of McClellan. The City Planner said that with ;money, it can be done . Chairman Thomson wondered if McClellan were improved and Rainbow widened, if it would relieve the situation somewhat. The Chairman called for a 5-minute break. The Chairman asked for, comments from the audience , instructing them: 1. To save comments on Mr. Crump 's• application until later on in the agenda. 2 . To be brief. 3. To make their point without emotion. Mr. Fred Oppen, 21L130Vai, recapped the freeway routes. He said he drives to San Francisco to work and would not mind driving a mile or so to get onto the freeway. He felt that, withoutapartments up on Bubb, the streets are capable of handling the traffic here . He 4111) then asked if there is some connection between the Ruth .& Kruschkov apartment complex and this road problem. 16- • Mr. Herb Regnart, 22005 Regnart Road, said he has lived here all his life . He said there are 300 acres in this canyon and the narrow roads are at 80 degrees . . He was generally averse to the City Planner 's proposal. The Chairman finally had to intercede and ask Mr. Regnart if he had any further pertinent information and, if not, to please sit down. 11 The City Planner said he wanted to avoid a 60 ' road so he suggested two narrow, one-way roads on either side of the creek or, if the landowners agreed, to rezone to lower the density in that area. He wants to avoid the situation of inadequate roadways when this area is developed. That area should either el e have an adequate p q road system or the zoning should be revised toward lower density. Mr. Ed Freitas said he lives at the end of Rainbow Drive and is concerned about the irresponsible proposal to put a road .r:ight through his house to service an area of jack rabbits. Mr. Jim Martin, Regnart Road, said he is concerned about a 2-lane road taking his home . Mr. Sabastian Salanegro said he is new in the area. He asked for a review of the Foothill Blvd. route; where it connects going north. The City Planner said it connected at Simla, with an expressway under construc- tion. Mr. Salanegro then asked why the roads must go right by all these schools . Mr. George Wood, 21513 Terrace Drive, opposed to the widening of Bubb Road. He felt it was premature to make wise decisions of the road pattern here. Mr. John Wister, ' Bubb Road, felt that once the freeways are completed the people won 't be driving this way. Mrs . Oppen, 21430 Vai Avenue, asked for a clarification of the expressways'. She felt these freeways and ex- pressways Would take a lot of the load off, the resi- dential streets. Mr. Perkins,; 11717 Regnart Road, said that the Regnart Water Company furnishes 125 homes now. He said that another 'road here WOuld 'destroy` the natural beauty of . the area. . Mr. Anthony Anastasia Mr. Ed Cali 's attorney;. said he was representing the Cali properties. - He :;said there are 84 acres of level, but gently rolling, ::land in- ® volved here. If this proposed road pattern is followed through it will take' the heart out of the 84 choice view lots . He also said they object to a junior ex- pressway going between two schools.. He said the 'smog and high speed will be brought into the heart of Cupertino 's prime property, -7- l 411 Mr. Anastasi then asked who would benefit by these expressways through this prime area . He thought it would be San Jose , Saratoga, Los Gatos . He asked if these expressways are really necessary. ° Hill areas of this nature call for Lovely, expensive homes . Mr. Anastasi concluded with these points : 1. This road system will take land off the tax rolls . 2. This road system will' depreciate property. 3 system road s stem will result in an increase of policing, maintenance;, and rezoning of this property to Industrial, Mr. Anastasi said proposajls such as this will frighten developers away from here for some time to come . 7-TM-64 3. WARD CRUMP DEVELOPMENTS„ INC . : Application for approval of Tentative Map at Bubb :Road, Regnart Road, and Lindy Lane. (Second Hearing) It was decided this Tentative Map application would be considered together with: Application 18-Z-64. B. Verbal Communications There were none , IV HEARINGS SCHEDUIRD : 410 8-V-64 A. BLOSSOM VIEW HOMES : Application for a Variance at 20025, 9-V-64 20065 and 20105 Cedar Tree Lane (8 ' fence where Ordinance 10-V-64 . allows 6 ' ) . Second Hearing, Mr. Robert Langford, 20115 Suisun Drive , said they would like to keep the one decorative screen at the one home where it has been constructed and add the same to the other two properties at the rear, to give some semblance of privacy to the people who will buy these homes. Mr . Langford said he has checked with some of the neighbors (Messrs . Peterson, Denton and Lowry) and they have indicated they do not object to this decorative screen. Mr. Langford emphasized that this is not low-cost housing-- these are $26,000 homes and they have remained unsold for 8 months , mainly because of the 2-story school and the freeway overpass overlooking the back yards . The Chairman asked the City Attorney if a variance is necessary here . The City Attorney asked how far from the rear property line this decorative screen has been constructed. 410 Mr. Langford: said it is L T from the fence . The City Attorney said he believed 'a variance was not necessary if this decorative screen were 5 ' from the property line (fire hazard, etc . ) but that this must 'be checked out with the Building Inspector. r -ua- I � Chairman Thomson noted that the variance is for an acces- sory structure , not for an 81 fence . Comm, Frolich said he uses this freeway overpass every day and the decorative screen blends in very well, and the` ' greenery planted behind the decorative screen will probably become large enough to camof lage the screen anyway. Chairman Thomson asked for comments from the audience. There were noneG Comm. Traeumer said he was opposed to variances; there should be an ordinance enacted to allow for 8 ' fences adjacent to non-residential property. Mr. Langford said this same home is being sold for over $3000 more, less than a mile from this location. Here is a hardship -- there are extenuating circumstances. • Comm. Johnson asked when construction of the church school was begun. Mr. Langford said the church school,- was begun after these houses were built, Comm. Traeumer asked Mr. Langford if he has checked with the Building Department . Mr. Langford said he had not, 'but if it is necessary to rip out this decorator screen and- move it beyond 5 ' from the rear fence he will do so. It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. HirShon to close the Second Hearing. • Motion carried, 7-0 ;It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Small to approve applications 8-V-64, 9-V-64 and 10-V-64, subject to the location of the decorator screen being checked out with the Building Department for compliance with the Building Code . AYES : Comm. Frolich, Hl.rshon, Small, Thomson NOES : Comm. Gates, Johnson, Traeumer Motion passed, 4-3 18-Z-64 B. WARD CRUMP DEVELOPMENTS, INC . : Application for rezoning of approximately 15 acres from A-2 :B-4 to .R-1, at Bubb Road, Regnart Road .and Lindy Lane. Second Hearing. Mr. Ward Crump requested the rezoning be handled before the Tentative Map. 111 Comm. Traeumer said he felt this is the proper place for R-1. Chairman Thomson asked for comments from the . audience. Mr. Salanedro asked for the definition of R:-1 zoning. Chairman Thomson said it was 7500 sq. ft , lots for single family dwellings „ This land is presently zoned agriculture. -9- • • It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Johnson to close the Second. Hearing Motion carried, ,7=0 It was moved by Comm, Johnson and seconded by Comm. Hirshon to approve Application 18-Z-64. AYES : Comm. Frolich, Gates , Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Traeumer, Thomson NOES : None Motion carried, 7-0 The Tentative Map was then brought under discussion. Comm. Frolich requested the Planning Commission receive copies of Tentative Maps when asked to act upon applications for them. The staff is to check on this . Comm. Hirshon asked the applicant if he has worked with the County Flood Control on this . Mr. Crump said he had. Comm. Small asked if the applicant has obtained an easement from San Jose Water Works . Mr. Crump said there shouldn 't be any problem here . Mr . Crump said his chief objection is that he doesntt want to give away any land that would serve no purpose. 410 Mr. Crump said he will agree to set aside land for widening Bubb Road to 90 ' provided the land will revert back to him if the road widening program is not followed through in adjoining sections . Comm. Gates was concerned about the 4 lots which would be involved in the proposed street plan. He asked if it could be arranged so that the driveways would be on the side streets . Mr. Crump said the map must be reworked. Councilman Fitzgerald, who was in the audience , offered the information that San Jose has already established a plan line on Bubb Road set at 60 ' width. Chairman Thomson asked for comments from the audience . There were none . It was moved by Comm. Johnson and seconded by Comm. Traeumer to close the Second Hearing. Motion carried, 7-0 Comm. Frolich said he did not see how they could tie up 41) the whole development here until the road situation is re- solved. He feels a 90 ' rQad. would be out of place here . The developer has said that if it goes to 90 ' he shall no longer be interested in developing this into R-1. -10- 110 The City Planner recommended that the subject Tentative Map not be approved in its present form. Three possibilities for further proceedings seem open: 1. The applicant should revise the plan to. provide; for the proposed thorofare and the proposed connection with Regnart Road. ® 2 . The applicant should revise the plan in such a way that certain lots are withheld to a later Stage, and then can either be developed or used for the thorofare and the connecting road. 3. The applicant could withdraw his plan until the time a Trafficways Plan for the entire area can be completed. Comm. Frolich asked Mr. Crump how he would feel if the Planning Commission asked for changes in the road width. Mr. Crump said there is some latitude here. Comm. Traeumer reminded the Commission they have already approved the Gagliosso property with a 90 ' road width. He feels that a traffic engineer should come out and look at the situation and advise the Commission before any decisions are made. Chairman Thomson felt it would be wise to check with the City of San Jose to try to coordinate the road systems between the ,jurisdictions. I •. 1 ® Chairman Thomson felt the following conditions should be added to a motion: 1. Correspond with City of San Jose . 2 . A study should be made by a traffic engineer. Commb Traeumer feels this is the job of the Planning Com- mission, not the City Council. It was moved by Comm. Frolich and seconded by Comm. Small.: to approve Application 7-TM-64, subject to the following conditions : 1. Dedication of additional right-of-way beyond that shown on the map to change the width from 60 ' to 90 ' to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to create a street with 4 moving lanes . AYES : Comm. Frolich, Gates, Hirshon, Johnson, Small, Traeumer, Thomson NOES : None M ® Motion carried, 7-0 -11- • 411 410 • -MINUTE ORDER : • It was moved by Comm. Frolich to ask the City Manager to have the staff make a study as : to the possibility of getting 4 moving lanes of traffic and checking with. the City of - San Jose regarding their road plans in this area, with particular reference to 7. TM-64 Motion carried, 7-0 111 • • • • V UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Regarding Item 5 under ,written communications . The County . . master plan calls for a 901 non-access road here. Therefore . . a gas station is not in order ; here. B. Proposed Ordinance. The CityPlanner would like to have comments .from the Commissioners regarding his• recent pro- posal just as soon as possible. • C. Mr. Milton Peterson, 1421 Dentwood Drive, San Jose, had a few comments regarding the Re,gnart Road plan. He said he did not on purpose withhold his statements until after the audience had left. He felt the problem of widening .roads in the Regnart area is engineering. Steep banks here increase the hazard of road widening. He was in favor of two one-way streets here , as : proposed by the City and Traffic Planner. 410 VI NEW BUSINESS • A. There will be a rebiew of the , Cluster Plan by the Planning Commissioners on Thursday, Sept . 3rd, 8 P.M. , City Hall. The Recording Secretary will contact the Commissioners by telephone on that day to remind them. VII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M. • • APPROVED : • • /s/ • Scott Thomson Chairman ATTEST: City and Traffic Planner . -112-- I I -