PC 04-22-82
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PC- 381
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING CO}fMISSION
HELD ON APRIL 22, 1982 IN THE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
KENNEDY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Chairperson Claudy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Koenitzer (8:10 p.m.)
Chairperson Claudy
Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Director of Public Works Viskvoich
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
City Attorney Kilian
Deputy City Clerk Campagna-Blaise
Consultants: Bert Verripe, Sedway-Cooke, San Francisco
Byron Larons, Geo. S. Nolte & Assoc.
Approximately 80 people were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledged letter from James Jackson of
Jackson, Donovan, Brodgon & Rudd; Robert L. Rocket~ Chamber of
Commerce; Janet Norris of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application 25-Z-80 of Interland Development Company (Seven
Springs Ranch): Prezoning approximately 148 acres from Santa
Clara County Exclusive Agricultural ("A") zoning district to City
of Cupertino P (Planned Development with residential intent) zone
or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Com-
mission and Environmental Review: A Draft Environmental Impact
Report has been prepared. The proposed Planned Development pre-
zoning would permit approximately 419 dwelling units consisting
of a mix of detached and attached single-family dwellings. The
property is generally bounded by Rainbow Drive to the north, Stel-
ling Road to the east, Prospect Road to the south, and by the
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and Upland Way to the west.
First Hearing continued.
PC-J81
'age 2
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
2. Application 3-GPA-8l of City of Cupertino: A General Plan Amend-
mend to consider deleting a planned neighborhood park for the Seven
Springs Ranch and adjoining neighborhood (Stelling Road between
Bubb Road and Rainbow Drive) and to consider the need for public
access to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. In addition
to the issue of a park on the Seven Spring Ranch, the General
Plan Amendment will evaluate park needs for the southwest quadrant
of the City with special emphasis on the neighborhoods served
by the Jollyman, Regnart and Hoover (school sites). Environ-
mental Review: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the
granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing continued.
Chairperson Claudy reviewed Application 25-Z-8l of Interland Develop-
ment Co. (Seven Springs Ranch) and explained the process of hearings.
He emphasized that the public hearing being heard tonight was
the zoning application only and if and when that is approved, then
a use permit can be granted, then a tentative map. He stated that
the draft of the final EIR and the CH2M Hill traffic analysis had
been received and with all the data available, they hoped to make
a decision on the zoning application after the close of the public
hearing.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk introduced Mr. Verripi and
Mr. Larson, consultants.
Com. Blaine questioned the EIR draft final, specifically pages
84 and 93 referring to De Anza/Bollinger existing traffic count.
One level of service analysis says C+, the other D-. What is
existing level there?
Mr. Larson, Geo. Nolte & Associates, explained that the level was D-
in 1979 and was C+ in 1980 when the count was taken. He explained
the difference between C+ and D- and how the level could fluctuate
depending on such things as the season.
Director of Public Works Viskovich spoke about the future traffic
improvements on De Anza/Bollinger which would result in better
than a C level.
Jim Jackson, 10455 Torre Avenue, representing Interland Development
Co., spoke of number of cars during peak hours. He thought possible
traffic solutions include the closing of Stelling and Rainbow,
the widening of De Anza and a roadway in 85. He stressed that the
proposed project is good, could work and the solving of traffic
problems goes beyond just Seven Springs Ranch.
Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, presented transparencies to the Com-
mission. He referred to page 2 of the staff report concerning
traffic, the CH2M Hill report and problems with the ErR. He
commented on the ErR quality, inadequate replies to comments, major
traffic problems/errors and presented proposed findings and recommenda-
tions with additions and corrections. He felt that De Anza is
inadequate to handle the additional traffic, and Highway 85 is needed.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-381
Page 3
John Rakich, Upland Way, presented transparencies pertaining to the
EIR issues of community gardens VB. agriculture (comparison invalid),
adequate community services (poor response), utilization of facilities
(unsubstantiated response), minimizing areawide traffic (key word
"could"), alleviating housing shortage (kind of housing needed not
addressed in EIR).
Stan Koslowski, Stelling Road, spoke on the sewage problem and expresse
concern over lack of capacity. He also stated he recorded traffic
noises on Stelling and Prospect and not only was the noise level high
but the squealing of tires was noticeable.
Tom Cates, West Cupertino Homeowners Association, spoke regarding
the EIR data on traffic and stated he expected a traffic increase of
1/3 considering site of Seven Springs Ranch and location of jobs.
He stated there is not a lack of housing in the area, there is a lack
of affordable housing.
Gerry Pressman, Rainbow Drive, presented the Commission with recommenda
tions proposed by the West Cupertino Homeowners Association. He re-
quested that the Commission make a finding that a major roadway in the
Highway 85 corridor is essential to mitigate effect of Seven Springs
development. He also reviewed other recommendations in regard to
traffic and the development and the maintaining of service levels.
He expressed the opinion that the ErR is not correct and accurate.
He agreed with the proposed neighborhood integration; felt the park
in-lieu fees and method of payment should be stated in any conditions;
agreed with the railroad crossing at Stelling Road; and felt a conditio
should clearly state the method of determining the riparian zone as
per the EIR.
Bill Lewis, 7573 Bollinger Road, spoke on the traffic problem vs. the
General Plan. He suggested a continuance of the public hearing until
the City Council meetings of April 27 and 28 and a policy on traffic
levels was established. He spoke on extending Highway 85 to De Anza
Boulevard. Mr. Lewis has consulted with the City of San Jose regarding
building in Highway 85 - the EIR and costs. He thought that at this
time the application is inappropriate and premature.
Barbara Stofer, 20555 Prospect Road, expressed her concerns on the
cost of sewer fees and also on profit of homes. She expressed the
opinion that the Commission does not listen to the people.
Charles Newman, Chamber of Commerce, referred to the letter from the
Chamber, which had passed a motion to support the proposed development
of Seven Springs. He was representing the Chamber and spoke on their
behalf to encourage the Commission to pass the application and send it
on to City Council.
Lynn Stevenson, Rolling Hills, spoke on people's constitutional rights,
the quality of life, and the effects of such things as air pollution
and traffic on that quality.
~~C-381
age 4
25-Z-80 pub-
lic hearing
closed
3-GPA-8l pub-
lic hearing
closed
Negative Dec.
Approve of
Environmental
Resources
Element
recommended
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Scott Epperson, 11411 Bubb Road, encouraged the Commission to have
the foresight to see that the traffic and other problems are solved
before it is too late.
Bill Lewis asked if anyone had a copy of the Williamson Act or
Robinson Act for clarification regarding the open window provision
for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract. City Attorney Kilian
replied that the window provision provides for cancellation if
it is not inconsistent with the General Plan.
Mrs. King, Squirehill Court, challenged Mr. Jackson on his car count.
She said that he reported 298 cars for 419 homes and she feels this
is not feasible.
Mr. Jackson replied that he was speaking per the EIR - nine trips
per day per unit during peak traffic hours which comes to about
11% of total trips occurring during peak hours.
Steven Shackett, Stelling Road, had heard that they were going
to build a 7 ft. concrete wall along Stelling to hold back the
noise of the railroad and would amplify the traffic noise. He asked
how the Commission felt about it and if it had been approved.
Com. Claudy said there was no wall in the zoning application; that
would come with the use permit, if at all.
Kaylin Koslowski, Stelling Road, reported that she lost two more
cats due to traffic on Stelling Road.
RECESS: 9:50-10:10 p.m.
The Commission decided that findings would be decided at the reg-
ular meeting of April 26, 1982.
It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed
unanimously to close the public hearing on Application 25-Z-80.
It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed
unanimously to close the public hearing on Application 3-GPA-8l.
It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed
unanimously to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration for the
Environmental Resources Element amendment.
It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed
unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the Environ-
mental Resources Elements of the Cupertino General Plan dated
April 15, 1982 (staff report).
Commission discussion on the EIR followed.
Com. Adams commented on the report and the
testimony. He stated his opinion that the
he had heard occurs on the traffic count.
believe this made the Report unacceptable.
amendments and on the
biggest discrepancy
He did not, however,
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-381
Page 5
Com. Koenitzer questioned staff on the spread of traffic count. He
also referred to page 37, letter #7, of the final EIR which indicated
the area could be serviced by San Jose Water Works instead of by
storage tank and said he would like to see some input on it. He asked
staff if they knew how many residents there are south of McClellan,
west of De Anza Boulevard, north of Prospect and east of the creek.
He also disagreed with the last paragraph of item 21 of the proposed
zoning resolution.
Com. Blaine was concerned over the discrepancy between the traffic
counts and which numbers they were going to work with, espec ially
for the Transportation Element of the General Plan. She questioned
the completeness of the traffic figures of the EIR.
Com. Binneweg said that the facts show aggravated traffic. She does
not like to see a community divided because of nit picking over differ-
ent studies. She said that they should get to the basic problem of
understanding why traffic has not been addressed properly in the area
and figure out the best way to deal with it. She did feel the EIR was
complete in this aspect.
Chairperson Claudy agreed with Com. Binneweg concerning traffic and
said that although the traffic figures may not be accurate they are
complete enough to make some sort of rational decisions to mitigate
existing traffic problems.
Com. Binneweg remarked that maybe traffic will stagger because of the
caliber of people residing in the area - they may have flexible hours.
Com. Koenitzer remarked that peak traffic hours are extending and as
long as surrounding communities continue to build, traffic on De Anza
will increase. Traffic is the major item of contention regarding this
development. He did not know if additional information would change or
help in making a decision on the EIR.
Com. Blaine was concerned as to whether there was enough information
to decide what mitigating measures would have to be put into effect
and when.
Mr. Viskovich clarified that the counts were done in 1979 and 1980
and numbers fluctuate. Things change, patterns change, levels of
service change so the information available now is a guide for today.
Com. Adams stated that when Vallco Park area study was done some ground
rules were put down based on traffic levels in certain areas and
phasing of certain improvements were tied to traffic levels.
Director of Public Works Viskovich agreed but said that traffic at
Vallco did not increase during peak hours.
Com. Adams asked if there was a way they could cope with traffic and
use corrective measures to not allow future development to overwhelm
them.
~"C-38l
age 6
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Com. Adams asked if this were a way to alleviate certain traffic
problems.
Director of Public Works Viskovich agreed, but stated that industry
alleviated the problem at ValIeD once a certain level was reached.
Flex time and other measures were used.
Com. Blaine stated that huge disparities in numbers for the same
intersection makes a decision difficult, as one count could lead to
mitigating measures and the other would not.
Director Viskovich replied that between 1979 and 1980 the majority
of counts decreased; he did not know the reason. However, the numbers
were the actual figures, not "massaged". He felt enough information
was available to make a decision on mitigating measures.
Com. Claudy stated that two issues were being addressed:
1. Is there sufficient information in the EIR to make a zoning
decision for the site?
2. Is there sufficient information to grant a use permit for the
site as things are or is it necessary to impJement mitigating measures
before granting a use permit? Must any mitigating measures allow
for a certain level of performance before a use permit is granted?
Also, the Circulation Element of the General Plan is being reviewed.
The question is whether more information is needed for General Plan
review, for a decision on the zoning, for a decision on the use
permit?
Com. Blaine asked if it were necessary to specify traffic mitigation
measures at the time of zoning or could they be conditions on the
use permit. She was informed by the City Attorney that general
guidelines could be addressed with the prezoning and any specific
mitigation measures could be determined at the use permit level.
Com. Blaine replied that she could then find the traffic part of the
EIR complete for the purpose of making general statements. City
Attorney Kilian informed her that prior to consideration of a use
permÜ a supplemental ErR could be requested for more specific
information.
Com. Koenitzer felt the traffic numbers made it difficult to make a
decision on mitigating measures or if any are necessary. He was
satisfied with the rest of the report, but needed more clarification
of the traffic portion.
Chairperson Claudy polled the Commission regarding the EIR.
Should the EIR be sent back for additional information and further
work? "No" by consensus (Com. Koenitzer dissenting).
If a zoning resolution is approved should there be further traffic
analysis and recommendations required at the time of consideration
of use permit? Approved by consensus.
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Director of Public Works stated that the General Plan will deter-
mine the types of off-site improvements that are feasible.
It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed with
Com. Koenitzer dissenting to recommend that the City Council find
that the EIR is a complete and accurate document.
Chairperson Claudy said that on Monday, April 26, 1982 at 7:30 p.m.,
the Commission would consider a recommendation on 25-Z-80 zoning
application.
Director of Planning and Development
a date for the General Plan hearing.
May 12, 1982 at 7:30 p.m.
Sisk asked the Commission to set
The date set was Wednesday,
City Attorney Kilian reminded the Commission that the Commission made
a quasi-legislative action on the zoning; they could review the evi-
dence from prior hearings but could not take any new evidence because
the public hearing was closed. He also suggested that the zoning res-
olution be drafted for Monday night's meeting.
Chairperson Claudy adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. to Monday, April
26,1982 at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chamber.
/) ß.:,
C~
(These minutes were prepared from the tape recording of the meeting.)
PC-381
Page 7
Recommendation
to Council re
EIR
General Plan
hearing date