Loading...
PC 03-23-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-379 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 23, 1982 AT KENNEDY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The'meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Koenitzer, Chair- person Claudy Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk City Clerk Cornelius Director of Public Works Viskovich Director of Parks and Recreation Dowling Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Attorney Kilian Approximately 90 people were present. Chairperson' Claudy stated ground rules for the hearing. Issues other than general traffic were to be discussed. If there is a project, what will it be like? Issues to be considered are the Fremont Open Space Preserve access, the possibility of a fire station and a proposed location för it, the nature of the development - intensity, a park, and on-site traffic circulation. Assistant Planning Director Cowan presented slides touching on the issues. They demonstrated site plan changes that have evolved over the last six months or so. Mr. Jim Jackson, representing lnterland Development Co., introduced Mr. Claude Stoller, architect for the proposed development. Mr. Stoller stated that the plan was originally developed in 1978 for Mrs. Lyddon and was specifically designed for energy efficiency. Mr. Jackson stated that the density was less than that of surrounding areas and the proposed buildings were well situated on the site. Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, presented transparencies to the Com- mission. He requested that the Commission consider the impact of the project on the environment and stated that traffic was a part of the environment. He asked how the proposed development integrates with existing development on Upland Way and Rainbow's End. He requested that if the Commission wished to cut the density, they should remove the six units from the southwest hillside. Questions from the Planning Commission followed regarding lot sizes in the general area. 379 1 oe 2 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Sonnenblick stated that his particular lot and the lot behind him were a little less than half an acre. Lots south on Upland were one acre. He stated that some were pre zoned hillside density. Com. Koenitzer asked if the west part of Upland Way did slope up. Mr. Sonnenblick stated that his particular lot does have a gradual slope. Donald Senuta, 1249 Weymoth Drive. stated his understanding that there was an earthquake fault near the particular property of the proposed development. Chairperson Claudy stated that there was a fault on the riparian easement. Mr. John Rakich, Upland Way, said that the Monta Vista Fault is essentially the Riparian Fault. The EIR also mentions a Shannon Fault of which he was not aware. He stated, in regard to Mr. Jackson's remark regarding density transfer, that no ODe can predict what a future Planning Commission or City Council will do about any open space left. He requested that the units in the hills not be transferred to the flat area. Mr. Gerry Pressman, Rainbow Drive, stated his feeling that the number of houses is too high. He requested that the Commission con- sider the impact they will have on existing homes. Mr. Stan Koslowski, Stelling Road, stated that costs of housing in the area are already prohibitive and he felt that the prices of the proposed homes would not change much with a lower density. He felt few could afford to buy anyway. Benefits from lower density would be fewer cars and fewer people. Jim Jackson stated that there would be a dedication of development rights on the forty acres where there has been a density transfer. This dedication would be to the public so there would be no future development in the hills. City Attorney Kilian said that the granting of development rights was enforceable but could be abandoned by future councils. Mr. Jackson stated then they could dedicate to another entity and it not be abandoned. The City Attorney informed Mr. Jackson that it could still be abandoned and that people have the best chance to stop a City Council rather than a private entity. He knew of no way to put in it perpetuity. Kathy Nellis, 22322 Regnart Road, expressed the opinion that the development was an infill, even though it is big, and should therefore blend with existing homes. --'-'--""'~--'-~-----'- MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-379 Page 3 ry Mr. Max Grimmer stated that the Commission and residents should not wo about the future and the uncertainty of future Council actions, but should merely act on whether or not the density is proper. He stated that if there is a slope density formula, he assumed it was based on research and therefore why not apply it. Tom Cates, Cupertino Homeowners Association, asked if it really were necessary to put that many homes in that area as the streets cannot take it. Is this the best way to meet Cupertino's housing needs? No. He felt high density in smaller areas was needed. He felt this is an expensive and large development and will saturate the road system. Chairperson Claudy asked for Commission comments on the following issues: 1. Overall density. 2. Transfer of development rights. 3. Dwelling units above the 10% slope line on the Prospect side over the number that is allowed. Corn. Koenitzer stated that in regard to the density transfer, there seemed to be too much concern regarding future Council's actions. He stated that with development rights granted to the City, a public hearing and specific action would be necessary to abandon those rights He did not feel the overall density was unreasonable. He felt the slope density formula should be applien to the hillside areas and additional units not be allowed in these areas. Com. Adams expressed concern for the density transfer and the City development rights of the forty acres in the southwest corner. Over- all density is lower than that of the existing area. He felt the slope density formula should be applied to that southerly portion - 4.9 acres. Com. Blaine development mula should good idea. stated that the most reasonable thing would be to deed rights to the City. She also felt the slope density for- be applied and transfer of units to the flat land was a She had no problem with the overall number of units. Com. Binneweg spoke in favor of the proposal for a clustered planned development with common open space. She expressed preference for the density to be in the flat area. She felt the number of units on the slope in the south should be reduced - 6 or 7 units should be trans- ferred to the main part of the development rather than be placed against the riparian easement (fault line). Chairperson Claudy expressed agreement with the overall density of the project. Above the 10% slope line, he expressed favor for follow- ing the slope density formula. He stated a preference for better inte gration with the existing units on Upland Way, and found transfer of the development rights of the upper portion to the City acceptable. In regard to the on-site circulation plan, questions to be answered include where should access to Upland Way be? Should there be access across Stelling Road? Is the concept of a circuitous road within the project acceptable? PC~379 F 4 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Jim Jackson, representing Interland Development, stated the feeling that a mid-block exit on Upland Way would be best. In reference to Stelling Road crossing the railroad tracks, he expressed the opinion that he doubted that Southern Pacific or the PUC would want to approve a railroad crossing. He expressed concern, particularly because of possible delays, that the City has a condition for a two year period in which permission for the crossing may be obtained. He also was concerned that such a crossing would create a break in the sound barrier and would not be aesthetic. He requested Commission to approve the circuitous design of Rainbow Drive in concept. It has not yet been engineered and would be designed at the use permit stage. It is expected to serve as a traffic impediment by slowing down cars. Com. Binneweg asked who would should Rainbow be redesigned. public right of way and would be responsible for the extra landscaping Mr. Jackson stated it would probably be not be deeded to the property owners. Com. Koenitzer asked if with a mid-block exit onto Upland, would the driveway at the end of the street still be desired. Mr. Jackson thought it would still be needed. Com. Koenitzer expressed concern regarding a possible problem with cars turning on the corner. Com. Blaine asked what kind of easement over the railroad tracks was now in existence. She also inquired about the number of trains each day and what type of sound barrier was being planned. Mr. Jackson be- lieved that at present there is a private easement, two trains a day, berms and plantings with some type of sound wall were planned as the barrier. Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, West Cupertino Homeowners Association, submitted a packet of information to the Commission regarding problems and possible solutions for the proposed Seven Springs development. He also stated that he wished to channel the project traffic east to De Anza Boulevard. Recommendations made regarding internal traffic circu- lation included putting the Upland exit at the 90 degree bend, continue the Rainbow meander onto the railroad tracks, a bike path, not a bike lane on Rainbow (Mr. Sonnenblick believes that the developer is doing this). He also recommended independent neighborhoods within the develop- ment linked only by bike and pedestrian paths. He felt the use of auto- mobiles within the development should be limited and the Commission should look at the concept of "sub-neighborhoods". He expressed the desire to keep Upland as rural as possible and to minimize traffic on Upland and Bubb. He requested that the homes built along Upland have reasonable setbacks. Mr. Dave Klinger, 7538 Waterford Drive, Hoover area, asked that the Commission visualize driving through the area and seeing a sound barrier. He felt this would be a psychological barrier between Seven Springs and the rest of Hoover area and would create a division of the neighbor- hood. He recommended that instead of the sound barrier a nicely designed gateway concept be constructed with openings for bike and pedestrian traffic. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-379 Page 5 Mr. Gerry Pressman expressed concern regarding safety aspects and loss of onstreet parking in reference to the Rainbow Drive design. He sug- gested the Commission set standards for the design since it had not yet been completed. Chairperson Claudy stated that he was sure that before the final plan was prepared, it was likely that the residents would be asked for input and that the plan would not be imposed upon them. Mr. John Rakich, Upland Way, a member of West Cupertino Homeowners Association, stated that he would prefer the opening of Upland at the bend and not in mid-block as homes would be impacted. He felt there would be less impact if the opening was at an existing intersection. Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that the staff had no pref- erence. Stan Koslowski, Stelling Road, stated that if there were berms, walls, etc. the view of the hills would be blocked from those on Stelling. Chairperson Claudy stated that between Rainbow and the railroad tracks there would be some kind of sound barrier to protect the residents from noise of the train. Mr. Koslowski stated that the sound was not so great that a monstrous wall was needed. Mr. Ken Kelly pointed out that in back of El Paseo de Saratoga is an eighteen foot high berm and residents would surely object to this. Kathy Nellis, Regnart Road, expressed concerns regarding Rainbow Drive. She felt the proposed blending of developments would shift traffic through adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the road may well attract teenage drivers to see how fast the turns could be taken. She recom- mended that external traffic be examined as well as parking. She felt any closure of Stelling and Prospect would make a difference in the internal traffic. She recommended small neighborhoods within the big development with internal circulation. Chairperson Claudy stated that the small neighborhoods would increase and possibly double the need for access roads. Com. Blaine suggested the use of emergency access roads connecting one neighborhood with the other. She also felt that the concept of small neighborhoods should be examined. She felt that access to Stelling Road should be provided and that the developer should discour- age commuter traffic on Rainbow and slow it down. She agreed there was nota need for twc accesses on Upland. Discussion followed regarding Figure 7 in the draft EIR - the geologi- cal map - regarding a possible way to bring a road across one area so 379 1., óe 6 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23. 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING only one access to Upland would serve all houses in the area through the redesign of the internal road. Com. Blaine stated that whatever was done with Rainbow ultimately it should go all the way to the railroad tracks. She also stated that she felt the bike path along Rainbow was an excellent idea. Com. Binneweg stated that she found the sub-neighborhood concept intriguing but did feel it would be a problem because of need for increased accesses over the railroad tracks. She felt it may detract from the integration of the project. However, she felt it might be desirable to have neighborhood nodes of old and new together if this could be done without additional surface pavement. She suggested that rather than a very visible access across an existing barrier re- quiring a great deal of cut and fill, it would be preferable to have an almost invisible driveway serving a few separate houses. Com. Adams favored mid-block access on Upland Way and requested the deletion of the extra driveway to the 3-5 separate houses. He felt those few houses should be served by the circuitous road. He was not in favor of another entrance and felt that one on Upland, one on Rainbow and one on Prospect would be adequate. He also felt the treatment of Rainbow Drive would be a challenge to teenage drivers, but by the time it is done it may not be a problem. He liked the integration of the two neighborhoods and felt perhaps a blending could be achieved through island planters to guide parking. Com. Koenitzer, in regard to the Upland exit, expressed a weak preference for the exit at the bend. However, he did want only one exit on Upland. He also felt that Rainbow should extend at least to the railroad tracks and felt the proposed treatment of Rainbow needed more thought. He would like an exit across the railroad tracks at Stelling and felt the Rainbow exit should not be opposite any existing streets. Com. Adams felt the main drive through the southeast portion of the project should swing and be more circuitous. Chairperson Claudy preferred one driveway to Upland either mid-block or at the corner, preferred access off Stelling across the railroad tracks, felt the Rainbow treatment should extend to the railroad tracks and stated that there should be access on Prospect Road. He felt traffic should be diluted by forcing it onto certain streets. In regard to the internal neighborhood concept, he spoke in favor of it with non-connecting streets and emergency vehicle access. He also suggested a possible "T-bone" cul-de-sac treatment off Rainbow running east and west. In this way, all houses on Rainbow would face the street. Mr. Jackson stated that the developer had thought of a "choker" near the recreation area on Rainbow if traffic became a problem. Barriers thought of were bollards and/or a circle. He stated that this is an integrated community and includes access to the recreation areas. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-379 Page 7 Although clusters are neighborhoods the area was designed for access throughout. Chairperson Claudy stated that as most people drive even within their own neighborhood, there would not be enough parking for those who will drive to the recreation center. Com. Blaine stated that looking at this as one neighborhood is a burden on those presently in the area in that perhaps the recreation area should be moved and bike paths be put in throughout the develop- ment. She expressed a concern that the bollards would create more accidents. She was in favor of a design that would not encourage commuter traffic to enter the development to cut through it. Chairperson Claudy felt a straw vote would be appropriate in this matter as a Commission consensus was not apparent. There was a consensus on the following matters: There should be a Stelling Road access across the railroad tracks. One access onto Upland. Rainbow treatment should be extended to the railroad tracks. The developer should look at "neighborhoodizing" the develop- ment and blocking through access. The Chairperson also requested that the developer look at the "T- bone" cul-de-sac concept off Rainbow rather than dealing with sub- neighborhoods. Director of Public Works Viskovich suggested that the Commission look at other internal traffic matters after external traffic issues are determined as they will have an impact. RECESS: 10:15-10:25 p.m. The next item of discussion concerned open space. Mr. Jackson spoke in favor of staff recommendation and did not wish to make a presentation at that time. He requested that the park district give their presentation, but he would reserve the right to respond. Mr. Herb Grench, Regional Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, stated that the District's goal was to provide future dwellers of Seven Springs and other Cupertinians safe, reasonable access to the Fremont Older Open Space District. He said the hillside is permantly protected as a natural area. He has found that public interest in such areas grows, and much public money has been spent in the area. The trail and parking are needed because of public interest. It has been found that the largest users of preserves are those living nearest. He stated that the terrain at the parking lot on Prospect does not allow for significant ex- pansion. There is also a problem with the narrow road. He felt 379 Page 8 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING that the Seven Springs Canyon was one of the more beautiful parts of the preserve, and people will try to get there the shortest possible way. He said that a local access from Upland was nice, but would not be adequate as the only access. He stated that the northern canyon was not as important a feature to the preserve as the Seven Springs Canyon. He felt that Mrs. Lyddon's 40 acres would provide a blockage between the subdivision and the preserve and the trail across her property would provide security against trespassers for her. He stated that the de- velopercould install a security fence along the road close to the house that could be naturally screened. He expressed a need for a parking lot outside of the creek riparian area in the natural riparian area, but was not inflexible regarding the exact location. He expressed concern that units on the retained portion of the property might be placed at the entrance to the canyon and on the hillside and expressed preference that all be transferred to the flat area and open space easement beyond the hillside. He stated the District required three conditions: 1. Upland Way neighborhood access and a Seven Springs Canyon trail easement on the 40 acres. 2. Open space easement on the hillside and a Seven Springs Canyon easement to protect against future development. 3. An easement for a patrol road in the area over the 40 acre parcel. Com. Blaine inquired as to the riparian easement - who has it and who controls development rights. Discussion followed regarding definition of riparian easement. Chairperson Claudy felt that one was a zone and one was an easement. City Attorney Kilian stated that a riparian easement has to do with water courses and right to flow. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the idea was for 200 foot setback to protect residents from potential hazard. Mr. Claude Stoller stated that the term IIriparian easementtl was loosely used in this concept and was not used in its legal sense within the PUD area. This easement would be set aside, could not be built on and would belong to the homeowners association. Mr. Grench stated that the trail easement could be dedicated to either the City or the MROSD as could be the Seven Spring Canyon entrance and hillside area easement. The City Attorney pointed out that if the easement were dedicated to the City, it would be their responsibility to maintain it. Com. Blaine inquired as to the usual width of a patrol road and was informed it was a ten-foot or less dirt road. Com. Adams asked about the present parking on Prospect as to whether or not more spaces could be made. He was informed that at present MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-379 Page 9 it holds ten cars and could not be enlarged a great deal but just a few spaces. He was informed by Mr. Grench that it is used on tours of the Fremont Older House. He felt the use of the preserve will increase and the lot will be filled regularly within three years. Com. Koenitzer asked how the Seven Springs Canyon area was being patrolled. Mr. Del Woods said it was being patrolled through the Prospect or Regnart access at this time, but better coverage is the result of through patrol routes such as the one proposed. Chairperson Claudy stated that when the development at the top of Upland was approved an open space access was required in that prop- erty. (This was the Rainbow's End development.) Assistant Planning Director Cowan said yes, that the easement had been recorded but the roadway was not yet built. The developer was having financial trouble. Mr. Grench stated that this was a minor neighborhood access. Com. Binneweg said that she had recently taken a tour of the area and felt that with delineated parking spaces more than an additional ten cars could be fitted in the area. Mr. Al Leavitt, attorney representing Dorothy Lyddon, stated that the requested trail and path cut Mrs. Lyddon's property in half. He read from a report dated 1976 to Mr. Grench from Mr. Olson, land manager, regarding Prospect Road and available parking spaces. He stated that part of the Seven Springs Canyon also belong to Mrs. Lyddon and that the proposed trail will cut across her property. He urged approval of the City staff recommendation for access through Upland Way. Carolyn Lekberg from the Midpeninsula Trails Council read a letter to the Commission stating that the Council does focus on trails and maintenance and works to protect open space area for public enjoy- ment. Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, West Cupertino Homeowners Association, asked if there really was a need for another access with parking. He said the present parking lot is not used often. He also expressed concern regarding any Upland Way access and stated that page 81 of the draft EIR stated that access without parking could lead to illegal parking in the area. He felt that current access was suf- ficient. He stated that the Seven Springs Canyon environment was fairly fragile and he hated to see additional trails and/or parking areas. He felt that additional parking in the present lot would be adequate with the rest kept as it is. ~ - -379 ¿;e 10 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Kathy Nellis, Regnart Road, expressed the opinion that a trail near Mrs. Lyddon's house was premature and perhaps could be considered in the future when that area is subdivided. She said that the Fremont Older Open Space District is also connected to the County park system, and public access and parking can be obtained through that area. Com.Binneweg stated that she did not like the concept being proposed. Com. Blaine expressed mixed emotions as she felt the Open Space District has done an excellent job. However, she stated that if they wanted the land perhaps they should look into purchasing it. Corn. Koenitzer expressed concern regarding the length of the trail and stated that he did not reel that access at that point was warranted. Com. Adams also expressed the opinion that there was already sufficient access. He supported Mrs. Lyddon's position and also stated that if the Open Space District wanted that property they should investigate its purchase. Chairperson Claudy also stated he could not support the District's request. However, if perhaps in the future Mrs. Lyddon were not living there or wanted to develop the area, he might take a different view. By unanimous consensus, the Commission stated that access trail and patrol road on the Lyddon property was not acceptable, an alternate neighborhood access from Upland would be agreeable with a low profile entrance. However, if parking became a problem, it may have to be closed. Mr. Grench stated that such an access could be offered to the District, but he was not sure that it would be accepted. The next item of discussion was the park within the proposed develop- ment. Director of Parks and Recreation Dowling said that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended acceptance of the three-acre park. He felt both options were livable; however, the "reserve" park had greater potential in value and flexibility. Mr. Dave Klinger, Hoover School area, was not in agreement with staff recommendation. He felt no need for a passive use park in that area. He stated that the recommendation ignores the critical need for an active sports area and that the Parks and Recreation Commission had expressed concern for lack of youth sports axeas in that vicinity. He recommended the City take "in-lieull fees and look into the possible purchase of school surplus sites which could be purchased for 25% of the market value. He stated that there was a strong consensus in the Hoover School area for open space and active sports there. He recommended the acceptance of the in-lieu fee, that the City and school board seek financing options, and that the City work with the residents of the area. -----,--~~-~~------- ~-~----------_.._--~------- ~-------_.._----~------- -------- ---------,--._---,-----------~_.--,-.,---------------_.- ----------- -----. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-379 Page 11 Mr. Jerry Pressman of Rainbow Drive stated that residents on Rainbow had held a meeting and there was no strong feeling regarding the park. He felt the three acres does.provide a green space but did not like the "reserve" park idea. The acceptance of the in-lieu fees would be preferable to that. Mr. Max Grimmer stated that most of the open space in Cupertino was owned by the school district and that schools provide the only space for active sports. He did not feel small parks would solve the park need in the area and could be a dangerous place for small childredn. He further stated that the money and open space areas were needed now. Com. Adams suggested that the proposed three-acre park site could become the place for the fire station. Com. Blaine recommended the acceptance of the in-lieu fees and stated the need for large playing areas. She suggested that the proposed three acres be used for the fire station or integrated into the de- velopment. Commissioners Binneweg and Koenitzer, as well as Chairperson Claudy, agreed that the City should accept the in-lieu fees from the developer. Corn. Koenitzer suggested that the Commission consider reserving the site for a fire station just in case it was ultimately decided to have one in the area. Chairperson Claudy agreed that it could be done for awhile. Com. Binneweg recommended that if a fire station go in it go in away from the Stelling and Rainbow intersection. At 11:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned with the announcement that the hearing for Applications 25-Z-80 and 3-GPA-8l was continued to 7:30 p.m., April 22, 1982, Kennedy Junior High School multi-purpose room. APPROVED: l;;& c:::?~ Chair n ATTEST: