Loading...
PC 10-16-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Telephone: (403) 252-4505 PC-343 Page 1 MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING CO~IMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CA::: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUTES POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN CO!~ICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUßLIC HEARINGS: ITEM #1, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan including, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of indivi dual prpperties located throughout the community; (2) An evluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property located along Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) A refinement of the City Circulation Plan including a pIa to provide long-term financing of major transportation improvements. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 17, 1980. Asst. Planning Director .Cowan described a step process to be used to help he Commission and citizens in decisions on road improvements strategies, Step 1 being the question of regional versus local emphasis of the 85 corridor; Step 2, if a more localized approach had been decided upon, would be to narrow down options for a localized road system, and Step 3 would involve commenting on residual land in the corridor, whether it should be open space or used for some mode of residential development. He explained that Public Works Director Viskovitch had prepared some pros and cons for each step, and after hearing these he suggested having public testimony on the 85 corridor. After this, the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek intersection would be dealt with using the same type of process, and there should then be a consensus vote on these two areas to establish fairly hard options to be examined further, he suggested. He stated that, in Staff's op~nlon, an environmental impact report would be required because of the magnitude, so that after the vote Hearings would be closed to enable Staff to work on the matter for two months. PC-343 Page 2 NlNUTES OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION HEETlNG Public Works Director Viskotitch firstly went into the regional issue, 410W 85 affected other parts of the County and if options would be cut. A måp of the different zones Staff had been working with had been prepared relative to this point, and he referred to a chart comparing 1980 with 1990 in terms of job, housing, trip and through-trip increases to help determine where these increases would occur. ' It was determined that no. 3 on the chart, Sunnyvale, would increase in jobs slightly, no. 4, Santa Clara, would almost double, and no. 5, north central San Jose, showed some increase, so that these areas would attract trips. Using another graph, he determined that trips would be generated in regions 7 and 12, where there would be doubling and tripling of housing, and using chart overlays, he determined that areas 4,5 and 8 would have the greatest through traffic increases by 1990. He concluded that in examining the attraction, generation and through trips, the activity seemed to be occurring in an area far removed from Cupertino, and it seemed that Route 87 and Route 85 in the center of San Jose were areas to be improved, rather than Cupertino area. COHo ADAMS wondered if proper comparisons were being used, as area 7 was five times greater than Cupertino. Public Works Director Viskovitch explained that zone 10 incorporated Cupertino, but was larger than the Cupertino area. COM. CLAUDY pointed out that it was nevertheless one of the smallest zones on the map. Public Works Director Viskovitch suggested looking at numbers and percen- tage increases only, since some of the larg~r zones incorporated sparsely inhabited areas. He went on to the next phase, looking at two options, Stevens Creek to Highway 101, with and without 85, as it affected the City and County. He said that from a County point of view, one positive factor of having 85 go through was to divert traffic from other areas, but negative factors were that it might be one of the lower priorities in the County, that Caltrans did not want to build roadways presently, that other \-lest Valley cities might oppose it, and there was a threat of development within the corridor, wl1ich, together with financial negatives,made it appear regionally that the money should go into other areas where there would be more future expansion. COM. CLAUDY Pointed out that though being built, the positive factor was was buil t. these factors might work against 85 an improvement in the situation if it Public Works Director Viskovitch continued with the analysis of what 85 would do for the City if built in its entirety. Positively, he thought it might remove the local trips from neighborhoods that had their origin and destinations within the alignment of the roadway, and also through-trips impacting the west Cupertino neighborhoods, but it might not remove much of the comnute from Wolfe Road or De Anza Boulevard. A major positive aspect, he said, was that it would take traffic from Stelling and put it on 85. On the negative side, he listed attraction of trips through the City from 101 with some traffic maybe from Los Angeies to San Francisco, with accom- pan~ing noise and air pollution; thàl it would not be most beneficial to the MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOUNRED PLANNING COMMISSION IŒETING PC-343 Page 3 residents of the Stelling area, due to access problems, as it would be ~rad£ separated; that it would be a regional decision and therefore might not be implemented for a long time. He thought if Cupertino asked the State to make some commitments to the Cit in the event of 85 being abandoned, it would be a good approach, as if nothing was requested nothing would be gained. If it was decided to stay with the regional approach, then the only decision was to develop a contin- gency plan to be put aside for the future, as this in essence would be a decision to let, the State determine. Cupertino's fate. However, if it was decided that money coming into the County should be spen t in other areas where future expansion would occur, then the next process in decision making would be activated. CHR. KOENITZER saw pushing the State as being the only real avenue open to the City, and this had been done for twenty years without result. Public Works Director Viskovitch observed that if Cupertino had initiated "_something, and had a contingency plan, it would at least have a wedge in the decision making, and could be prepared to implement its plan. COM. ADAMS wanted information on the initiation of freeway agreements, and inquired whether they could be initiated by cities. Public Works Director Viskovitch replied that normally such agreements were initiated by the State, and that if one city along the route chose not to execute such an agreement the freeway would be killed, though in the case of an expressway, ile thought the State might have the right to proceed. A city could probably take the initiative, he thought, and it should be done in this case. Bill Perkins, Columbus Avenue, Cupertino \vanted to know if there was any chance of extending the freeway to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road only, and if the e would be discussion in that direction. Public Works Director Viskovitch confirmed that this approach would be dealt with in later stages, and went on to his next point with a chart showing the western portion of the City and having two sets of numbers, one a traffic count taken by the City and the other a count taken by a group of ,>-Iest Cupertino residents, which, though not directly comparabl showed 500/600 vehicles per hour using these routes during peak hour today. He indicated the projection out to 1990 on the chart. and theorized that some traffic might be discouraged through roadway modifications, and some might take the Bollinger road route if that was opened up. He used traffic manual figures that an uninterrupted roadway could carry 2,000 vehicles per hour, with some at-grade intersections decreasing this to 1,000/1,200, to demonstrate that the traffic could be handled. COM. CLADDY felt Public Works Director Viskovitch had .left out traffic at present on N.De Anza Boulevard which would shift to highway 85 if ~t were buH t. PC-343 Page 4 MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Public '.Jorks Director Viskoticì1 advised that this element would be disci}ssed in the options, and , assuming no traffic was to be added, these were the numbers that would be shifting; 300 off Stelling and 200 of Bubb, but with more work in overall roadway design, more could be shifted, he thought. CHR. KOENITZER Homes tead Road, 1,000. believed the number of vehicles entering Stelling at coming from Sunnyvale, in route to De Anza College were about Public l,Iorks Director Viskovitch informed him that the Department had done counts at De Anza recently, and within an hour it had attracted 2,400 vehicles, so that it was a big culprit. COM. BLAINE, acknowledging that the majority of traffic to De Anza College came from the north, wondered what percentage carne from the south. Public Works Director Viskovitch said that 23% came from that direction, and that it was to be discussed at this Meeting how to deal with De Anza; . whether to change the hours from peak hours,.. to bring a roadway into the College, or, if poss ible, hold extended learning, adu! t, and technical education classes off-campus. COM. BLAINE commented that this was already being done. Public Works Director Viskovich went to a graph showing four alternatives for á local road in the corridor, terminating at De Anza or Prospect. The first alternative was a four to six lane freeway with grade separations and no at-grade or local access, terminating at Bollinger Road. He described this as benefitting the through-commuter and removing the connnute from local roadways, but listed several negatives, as follows; based on Staff surveys it was an over-build; it was the least beneficial to the community because of limited access; it attracted discretionary trips from out of the area; it increased environmental impacts; it could shift the 85/Stevens Creek bottleneck to De Anza Boulevard/85 unless extended to Prospect; there might be more congestion, as it might be backed up further d~wn; a major road- way was being established in the western portion of the City, taking away from the commercial area; it depended on State financing. COM. BLAINE wondered what restrictions existed at De Anza Boulevard that did not exist at Prospect. Public Works Director Viskovitch said it was a matter of six lanes coming down into four lanes. CHR. KOENITZER thought it would be good to split the traffic, some getting off at De Anza Boulevard to go south and Prospect to go east. Public Works Director Viskovitch advised that people in the Rainbow area of San Jose did not want their area penetrated, and thought that if a four lane road instead was put in, witll an at-grade intersection at McClellan and one at Stelling and De Anza Boulevard it ,wuld accomplish the same, but would also allow neighborhood access also, and possible remove additional traffic from Stelling Road, On the negative side, it would attract discretionary trips; increase traffic that would be better kept in the commercial area; it could sit idle outside peak hours, like Foothill Boulevard; the State might decide not to fund it, being a local roadway. MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-J4J Page 5 The third alternative he described was a two-l aIle road with a two-lane '~ ~eserve, which he felt was potentially better for integrating residents with the roadway, with access points into the neighborhood, and the capacity met the needs and left a reserve for the future. The negative aspects he saw as the potential for attracting discretionary trips, and the costliness of maintaining the two-lane reserve.. CHR. KOENlTZER saw a problem with cross traffic wanting to get onto the roadway, as happened now at Stelling and Rainbow. Public Works Director Viskovitch acknowledged that more needed to be done to take traffic off Stelling, and that providing this type of road could be an answer. He went on to describe the last alternative, a two lane roadway, which, he pointed out, had the highest benefit/cost ratio, but which also closed future options _There were two choices for the use of the surplus land left 'under all alternatives, he said, the first being open space, which minimized impacts and enhanced. aesthetics, retaining f~ture options open, and the second being development, which eliminated the cost of building the roadway, but added to the traffic. He reported that the cost of two or four lanes, plus open space, hovered around the $14/15 million mark. COM. CLAUDY said he had sensed a concensus building among the Commission, and had decided to write a statement for the benefit of the audience and to give the Commission a starting point to make some recommendations to the City Council on what should be done. His statement -{("Proposed Cupertino Circulation Action Plan" listed recommended State actions for Highways 280 and 85; opposed light rail in the 85 corridor, unless it did not terminate in Cupertino and was supplemental to a roadway; gave alternatives to be followed if Highway 85 was not built; suggested limiting growth in the Rainbow/Bubb/Stelling area until circulation improvements were conwitteed to construction. He remarked that this was not what Staff had been recommending, but that he would be prepared to submit is as a Motion to go to Council. COM. ADAMS, while not wanting to countermand Com. Claudy's proposal, felt no action could be taken until the State had decided on the disposal of the corridor. CHR. KOENITZER suggested there should be a cut-off time, when the City told the State it had waited long enough. However, if significant development commenced anywhere in the corridor, that might also be a point to trigger the City's alternate plan. Public Works Director Viskovitch advised that it was difficult to get a response from the State, as there was a buffer in tIle Environmental Impact Statement; the State did not have to make a decision until it was completed. CHR. KOENlTZER felt sure there must be a loophoie to force the State to respond, and suggested establishing a cut-off point of some kind on any- thing sent to Council. * See ] -r,p ^- 80 FTLr: PC-343 Page 6 MINUTES, OOTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION I1EETING COM. JOHNSON suggested having two consensus votes, one on a general st~ement and the other on an option, if it was decided to go that way. COM. BLAINE wanted some discussion on Com. Claudy's statement, in regard to 85 going through or stopping at De Anza Boulevard or Prospect. COM. CLAUDY said he was suggesting that the State build it all the way, starting in Cupertino. However, if it was not to be built all tile way, it should not be bull t tilrough Cupertino, and there should be a parkway instead. COM. BLAINE agreed with this point, and thought that if Com. Claudy's statement was adopted, it might be more explanatory in that direction. CHR. KOENITZER reminded the Commission of an option he had brought up previously, of maybe pushing the County to build an expressway as far as Highway 17, if the State would not bQild a freeway, as 80% of the corridor land up to that point was State-owned. ·COM. ADAMS, referring to Public Works Director Viskovitch's statement that based on traffic studies done in the seventies, Cupertino had fared better than anticipated in the eighties, because the peak hour was not as great, asked him if other cities, such as Sunnyvale, had experienced the same thing. Public Works Director Viskovitch did not have information on p~rticular cities, but said his information indicated that the pattern was County-wide, due partly to flex-time. He pointed out that a 30% increase was being projected for 1990. but felt that the same thing might happen, that due to gas prices rising, size of cars, van pools, etc., projections might not materialize. COM. CLAUDY wondered whether there were as many trips now as projected, with peaks over a longer period, or whether there were fewer trips. Public Works Director Viskovitch informed him that the projected number of trips tlad materialized, but with peaks over a long period, requiring fewer lanes than anticipated. COM. ADAMS thought the last point of Com, Claudy's proposal, that develop- ment be halted in West Cupertino, should be considered fi.tst, just as in the early seventies restrictions had been put on commercial and industrial growth. He agreed with Com. Claudy that a decision on the Stevens Creek/ De Anza intersection could wait until the Spring, and also favored not making any decision on 85 at the present time. CRR. KOENITZER cl~rified that there would be no decisions mode at thIs Meeting, other than suggesting General Plan directions, and asking~Sta[[ to take the three most viable options to study for a few months, and then to return with them. Public Works Director Viskovitch saw Com. Claudy's last point as not only relating to the west part of the City, but also to tIle center, and observed that if some type of grade separation was not utilized growth control measures would have to be taken. COM. CLAUDY thought that with 85 built, and a good signal interconnect, no grade separation would be needed ih the City center. He did not think MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMlSSION MEETING PC-343 Page 7 that when there were two projects costing millions of dollars, both sh01..11d be completed. Public Works Director Viskovitch agreed with this point, and said the biggest benefit would be ~o put money into the City center, rather than the west of the City, thereby attracting more traffic there. COM. CLAUDY further thought that a ßrade separation at De Anza and Stevens Creek would not make the City more unified, as Staff had claimed it would, lie pointed out that Public Works Department's projections in 1973 and 1975 had been for ten lanes in that area, but though these ten lanes were not in existence, the City was surviving" and if conditions got worse, the traffic would go somewhere else. Public Works Director Viskovitch thought "somewhere else" would be the neighborhoods, and that it would be a mistake to concentrate on 85 instead of De Anza Boulevard. COM. CLAUDY was concerned with the effect of a grade separat'ion on the -community, in terms of aesthetics and psychological impact. C~R. KOENITZER thought the traffic interconnects should be evaluated before making a decision on an underpass. There was general agreement with Chr. Koenitzer1s suggestion, and it was decided that the matter should be evaluated in six months to a year, when the interconnects had been tested. Mr. Alf Modine, Cupertino resident, wanted to register his strong objection to Staff's projected image to the State and other communities that Cupertino might be giving up on the construction of Highway 85. Regarding the spreading of peak [¡ours; by this principal, in 1990 peak hours would last all day, he thought. He felt the light rail option should be removed, as studies had said the corridor was not a place for it, and did not understand Mr. Viskovitch's remarks that if a new option was created for commuters they would find it, but on the other hand, if 85 was built, nobody would use it. Public Works Director Viskovitch explained that over-building àttracting undesirable traffic was the point he was trying to make. !1r. Modine countered that something had to be put in the corridor to alle- viate the traffic, and that traffic now entering the community at De ^nza Boulevard wüuld move to it, obviating the need for an unùerpass there, whie! he sa« as being a project for the behefit of the Public Works Department. Ann Anger, Cupertino resident, pointed out that in a 1979 ABAG!MTC* study the 85 corridor had the highest preservation priority. She had got over 1,000 signatures from the community for preservation of the corridor and commencement of construction through Cupertíno. It seemed,from what Hr. SI1elley Williams had said at recent Meetings, that two-thirds of Saratoga residents were also in favor of 85, and she thought maybe signatur 5 should be collected from there. She was in favor of going to Sacramento, with as many signatures as possible, as Cupertino, having waited 25 years had waited long enough. . ABAG - Association of Bay Area .,Gõvernments; Transportation Co~ission. MTC - Metropolitan PC- 3113 Page 8 I1INUTES, OCTOBER 16, REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Frank Mulkern, Cupertino Chamber of Conunerce, advised that the Chambã.r had met that day and the Board of Directors llad taken the position to urge the State to proceed as soon as possible to protect the entire Highway 85 corridor from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Highway 101, and also to urge the State to proceed as soon as possible with the stretch from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Prospect Road. He observed that this position seemed to integrate witlI Com. Claudy's statement. Chuck Cantoni, Cupertino thought that local traffic figures should be taken into consideration when discussing road capacity for the 85 corridor, there being some 5,000 cars travelling south in the evening on Bubb, Stelling and De Anza Boulevard combined. Taking Mr. Viskovitch's ideal flow numbers, that a two-lane road could handle 1,000 vehicles, B\1bb could only take 500 and Stelling the same, and De Anza Boulevard, with timed lights and four to six lanes could handle 2,000/2,500, so that there would be approximately 2,000 vehicles to use the Highway 85 extension, which, if it was a two-lane roadway would be a little heavy. Assuming that the roadway would attract traffic from the east in addition, he felt it should definitely be wider. He applauded Com. Claudy's concept, and suggested as a contingency, modifying the General Plan to zone the corridor for open space, so that developers could not bid inunediately, should tile State abandone it. He personally thought that public transit would be a reality in the Valley because of the energy crisis, and felt the City should reserve room in the corridor for light rail, as long as the City could control it, as it seemed a politically astute thing to do. He thought a short stretch of freeway would not be much use, though a parkway would be, but that if the State was going to build the whole thing, it should all be freeway. Mr. Ralph Courtney, Cupertino resident presented a parkway proposal which had been drawn up by landscape architect Sandy Thompson, and clarified that his West Cupertino citizen's group were not proposing a freeway, contrary to what many people thought. He described the proposal as being four-lane with a median strip, greenery, trees, and a walkway or bike path, and having four access points, at McClellan, Stelling Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard. Regarding financing, it was felt that developers, such as the Seven Springs Ranch developers, could be assessed, and also that a bond issue could be put to the vote. In closing he remarked that a 200 ft. wide corridor was not wide enough for a road and development together. Fred Cunningham, Cupertino resident, quoted from a Silicon Valley regional design study in the September issue of Electronics Design, which said traffic would grow 40% by 1990 with only a 10% increase in capacity to handle it, arId that this, combined with the difficulties of luring skilled profcssicJoal,s, ~.;rould force clectron,Ícscompanies to locate elsewhere. He had been ùisturbecJ by what he saw as a provincial approach to the problem over the past several Hearings. ,CHR: KOENITZER pointed out that Cupertino had tried to look at regional problems, and an example of this was the interconnect system on Stevens Creek Boulevard which would help not only Cupertino citizens, but others. The City had been planned on the basis that the County and the State would do something, regionally, regarding 85, but now Cupertino itself had to decide wnat to do. HINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980, REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMHISSION MEETING r C- J 4 J Page 9 Hrs. Puahi Sheehy, Cupertino Resident, said she lived two houses from Stelling Road and could not open her windows in summer, even at 11.00 p.m. because of the traffic, which~. contrary to Mr. Viskovitch's statements, had increased greatly over the past five years. The priority, she felt, should be to build a road to take the Stelling traffic, and matters of loc 1 access were of secondary importance. Omar Chaddy, resident of Willow Glen, San Jose, said he was a member of the Multi-modal Task Force on Highway 85 and a member of the Highway Users' Federation and gave advice on getting the freeway built through Cupertino through political pressure and lawsuits, citing the examples of HaYI.¡ard and Fresno. He gave details of how this could be accomplished, bu said the City would have to be prepared to provide light ,rail, as the State was very mue}l in favor of it. He did not feel it was true to say that the Stal!e could abandon 85 tomorrow, and felt that if Cupertino put its 1.8 miles in, Saratoga would probably change its thinking. His feelings on the issue of .a freeway versus an expressway were that a freeway, Q,r even a parkway, were much safer. There was ptenty of 'money in the Highway Fund, he said, to get the whole freeway built, and if Cupertino waited for two years for the political picture to change, insteal of acting now, he felt it could be bui~t, but it was possible to get the 1.8 miles now if the City was prepared to take action. He thought that Route 87 in the Guadalupe corridor,due to be studied on November 19, would not be built as a freeway, but an expressway carrying only half the amount of traffic, and fel t this should be borne in mind when deciding the type of road for the 85 corridor. He had serious reservationu about the new County bus system, where traffic lights would be changed for buses, and felt this should also be taken into consideratio He felt Mr. Viskovitch' s example of Foothill as being a road with no traffic was invalid, as it was right next t~ an existing freeway , and this would not apply to 85. He concluded that a highway was tbe best and safest way to move people, and that Cupertino needed to lead the way and get vocal, so that the State would build it, rather than concentrating on De Anza Boulevard, which the City would have to pay for. Pamela Ware, Stelling Road, Cupertino felt that building more roadways would not solve the problem, and that City and Stae money would be best utilized by expanding and improving the existing roads and mass transportation, and if changing lights for buses would make people ride on them, this would be beneficial. Hr. Chuck Cantoni announced that a Regnart Homeowners Association was being formed, having its first meeting on October 29th at Regnart School for the purpose of discussing concerns regarding the 85 corridor and the Seven Springs Ranch Development. Public Hearings closed on this section, and there was a short recess. CHR. KOENITZER opened a discussion on the position to be presented to City Council. PC-]43 MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REG.ADJ. PLA1'-¡NING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 COrL CLAUDY enlarging on the controversial measure he had sugge.sted to limit development in the Seven Springs area, he fel t that this might put some pressure on tIle State, and at the same time, stop conditions getting worse for the current residents until something was done. He thought the option of approaching the County or other cities about a parkway-type road was a viable one, and felt from Cupertino's standpoint, it might be a better solution than a freeway. COM. BLAINE wanted to support adding lanes to 280, as this should have been done a long time ago, but from a local standpoint, she was not sure that a freeway, part-way or all the way to 101, in the corridor was the right thing,as it would not help greatly with the local traffic and would lead to more road constructiön, as it would need other roads to service it. However from a regional standpoint, 85 as a freeway was important to alleviate traffic on 17 and 101, if totally built, but she was opposed to putting in Cupertino's 1,8 miles until the State was totally committed and other cities had signed agreements. iñ regard to development in the west Cupertino area, she saw a good reason for limiting it, in that the concept of developers helping to pay for traffi¢ measures should be explored before construction commenced. She did not basically dislike light rail, she commented, if it was logical and practical, but at the moment, it was not. COHo JOHNSON felt the light rail approach should be on the Agenda for another evening, and 85 should be concentrated on. He suggested that the option to go along with the concept of pursuing 85 might be an express,"ay with four lanes, with the four accesses and basic points that Com. Claudy had mentioned. CO~!. CLADDY said he would go along with the concept of an expressway or parkway Hith some right turns, but did not want to see cross streets, other than McClellan and Stelling. COHo BLAINE pointed out that this would "not get the local traffic off Stelling and Bubb Roads. COM. JOHNSON did not want the public to he under the misconception that the Commission was trying to push this through immediately, and reiterated that the Commission still believed in the 85 concept. COM. ADAMS favored delaying to see what controlled traffic would do, staying with the freeway concept entirely, and reconsidering next spring or fall. COM. CLAUDY pointed out that the Commission was only trying to develop an option in case the State decided not to build a freeway. COHo JOHNSON favored taking a consensus vote on the regional aspect and another on whether or not an option should be presented, getting into the development concept at a later point. COM. BLAINE felt the problem of local traffic, and whether a freeway would help, had to be addressed. CHR. KOENITZER thought that 85 was nee<jed on an overall basis, to take trafEic£' 1 11 d to the industrial areas near Rte.237. from Lawrence, Wolfe and De Anza t1at trave e mNUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REG.ADJ.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-J4J Page 111 COM. JOHNSON felt that Staff presently needed direction on the Regionn.l ~ approach, and that local matters could be discussed at the next Meeting.- CRR, KOENITZER thought there was a consensus for the conservation and construction of 85, all the way through. COM. JOHNSON did not think more than the consensus phase was needed to present to Council, and suggested leaving issues of timing until the next phase. COM. ADAMS suggested using the environmental study as a timing tool, if the State accepted it, toeir intention would be known. COM. JOHNSON wondered whether the timing issue should be discussed at the present time, and suggested using Com. Claudy's paragraphs regarding construction of the freeway in the corridor and pressing Sacramento, as they gave what was needed, 'public Works Director Viskovitch pointed out. that City Council. required their input on timing, some point where further action would be triggered. (GAP IN TAPE) CHR. KOENITZER felt Com. Claudy's paragraph on light rail could be passed directly to City Council, COM. ADAMS and Com. Blaine felt that Staff maybe could come up with more positive wording. CHR, KOENITZER summed up that the Commission's position on 85 would be covered by Com. Claudy's second, third and fourth paragraphs. He asked for the Commission's feelings on options or alternatives to 85. COM. BLAINE wanted a parkway with right turn accesses for local people. The Commission was in agreement, except that CHR. KOENITZER wanted the variation of a two-lane road with an option of two more lanes. COM. BLAINE felt she could accept aIR. Koenitzer's variation, but as City Council had asked for an ideal option, regardless of cost, she favored four lanes with open space, right turns in and out, with tt,;vo major intersec- tions in the middle. She cited the example of Fremont Boulevard bet~een Highway 85 and Grant Road. She reminded the Commissioners that the matter of an option to go with tne main option if the freeway went all the way through had not been addressed, and would like to see a solution other than Stelling and Bubb Roads for local traff ic. Public Works Director suggested that it might mean four lanes on Stelling. CHR. KOENlTZER asked Assistant Planning Director Cowan and Public Works Director Viskovitch whether their discussion had provided the direction sou ht. PC-343 Page 12 MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REG. ADJ. PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING Mr. Cowan and Mr. Viskovitch confirmed that it did, and summarized the position as that 85 should go all the way through, with no action taken - on the alternative plan until a decision was made in the future to trigger it. COM. CLAUDY felt that taking a,stronger line had also been suggested. COM. BLAINE observed that there had been' a change of emphasis, in that the idea now was to push for the'"hole thing, not just for the part through Cupertino; the wnole thing had to be accepted and scheduled. It was decided at this point, as there were two Public Hearings left, to continue I-GPA-80 to the next Meeting. MOTION: Com. Claudy,. to continue Application l-GPA-80 to the Meeting of October 27, 1980. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: 'CHR. KOENITZER suggested to the audience that" they write to the Governor and State Representatives. lTEM 112, Applications 38-Z-80 and 22-U-80 of ROBERT E. AND DIANE I!. SCHEY: PREZONING approximately 1.356 gross acres from Santa Clara County Al (resi- dential and Agricultural) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with single family residential, 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct seven residential dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaratíon. The subject property is located adjacent to and southerly of Bollinger Road at its present westerly terminus approximately 120 ft.west of De Foe Drive. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 17, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report, noting that the Commission was familiar "ith the project, 'and explaining that the appli- cants were now asking for a decision for a seven unit development, and that the Staff position was consistent with their previous position, that planned development in this case was not justified, as a parcel so small could not achieve planned development objectives, and were therefore recommending denial. COM. CLAUDY thought the property had been zoned Rl-6, and that therefore the applicants could come in with a Tentative Map and build. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it ¡lad, but that the applicants could only build on six lots under the zoning, which Staff thought was preferable. Applicant Bob Schey wanted the Commission to take a fresh look at the design, as it was a good one, and since the designation was five units per acre, they wanted further consideration. He did not see large homes and 10tR in the area, and felt their proposal "as on the low side. Regarding being in harmony with the neighborhood, it appeared that Bollinger Road would eventually be pushed through, and would be four lanes, so that they would be separa ted in this way from their neighbors to the north, to the east w~s a preschool and to the south, Jollyman Elementary; MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-343 Page 13 Mr. Phil Schwimmer, the architect, distributed a handout representing previous comments from the Commission, and pointed out that the units were considerably smaller than previously proposed, the setbacks would be the standard R.I setbacks, and the planned development concept was being used at one side, where they were proposing zero lot lines, all zero lot line walls being on~-storey, without windows, for privacy. He felt there would be no more congestion than on 60 ft. lots where the houses were in the middle, and their 14/16 ft. side yards were useable space. They were so close to qualifying, even under the penalty. that they wanted to pursue this, especially as their rear yards were now 25 ft. in depth, and their front setbacks were 20 ft. COM. BLAINE wondered why they had not met the' City density range of Rl-6, while asking for PD with zero lot lines. Mr. Schwimmer advised it was partly economics and partly because, if the cul-de-sac did not infringe, they could have provided another house under the Rl-6 rule, which he saw as a guideline only. COM. BLAINE commented that the zoning referred to a minimum lot size. Mr. Ed Jock, owner of the adjacent property, request a deviation from the Rl-6 zoning and what wondered if he could justified such a deviatio CHR. KOENITZER advised that no such deviation had yet been passed, but that under the PD zoning, deviations of up to 10% would not be considered unreasonable, under special circumstances. HonaN: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing. Com. Johnson PASSED 5-0 COM. BLAINE felt as the Planning Commission had wanted a zoning of Rl-7.5 for the area, Rl-6 should be taken as an absolute minimum, and she fel t the zero lot lines would not be of benefit in this case, as the lots were too small, so she felt she could not approve the application. COM, CLAUDY liked the zero lot line concept, but concurred with the Rl-6 determination. COM. JOHNSON was in agreement. COM. ADAMS concurred with the zero lot line concept, and as there was a seh 01 at the back, he could see the setback distances not being so critical, but also felt the lots could be bigger, and that there should be six units only COM. BLAINE observed that the fact the PD concept had to be used in order to get zero lot lines, even if the applicant came back with basically Rl-6 lots, should be addressed. COM. CLAUDY thought that at this point the Commission could recommend approval of the zoning and not the use permit. PC-343 Page 14 MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLM,NING COMMISSION MEETING MOT ION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy to recommend the Negative Declaration of the Environmental Review Committee. on Application 38-Z-80. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy to recoITlTlend approval of Applicatio.n 38-2-80 'as contained in the Staff Report of August 8, 1980, subject to Standard Conditions 1-14, condition 15 as in the Staff report, Condition 16 being tllat. subdivision of the property is limited to six lots with 6,000 sg.ft. minimum per lot. Findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy, to deny application 22-U-80 for the reason proposed use did not fit with the zoning recommended by Commission. Corn. Blaine PASSED that the the Planning 5-0 UNFINISHED BUS INESS ITEM 1/3, Application 28-U-79 of REGNART CREEK ESTATES: Request for modifi- cation of a side yard setback for Lot 3 of a five lot single-family subdivision. Said property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place in a P (Planned Development) zoning district. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that this was essentially an appeal of a Staff decision, and using a portion of ti,e site plan for 28-U-79 approved in December, 1979 he showed the setback for unit 3 as being 17 ft. The curr:ent request, he lI:"eported, was to move the building closer to an existing residence, with the setback being reduced to 12 fL, with a cantelevered second level going as close as 10 ft., whicli Staff had denied, as Planning Director Sisk had felt it to be too major an amendment. He advised that the owner of the adjoining property had contacted Staff and was concerned, so that he might' wish to address the Commission. Mr. Barry Scott, the applicant. did not feel the Staff Report represented a fæir picture, as in the original concept setbacks and figures were guide- lines only, and the setback in question was legal. He explained that several months later they had gone to Architectural and Site Control with actual dimensions, and at that time Staff had picked up the discrepancy, which had been discussed and approved in that Committee, as there v.,ras also a minimum of windows overlooking the Ware1s property. In August it had come up again, and they had found that it should have been approved by the Planning Commission. He felt the Staff Report misrepresented their intention as being a firm 17 ft. and that they were "charging in" on the neighbor's privacy, which they were not. He was bothered by the- point of privacy issues, which seemed to come up when developing in an established neighborhood, even though setbacks were be~ng met. j{e questioned how much this could be regulated. COM. BLAINE inquired whether the room facing the Hare's home ,;,¡as a bedroom. Hr. Schwimmer confirmed that it was _the master bedroom, and said the ,window .coÜld be chánged to a chelestory type. PC-343 Page 15 MINUTES, OCTOBER 16, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINr, Assistant Planning Director Cowan wanted to have it on record tllat Mr.Schwimmer was informed in April of this year that the site plan for the use permif was the guiding document. Mr. Schwimmer did not deny it, and said he had a slightly different point of view from Mr. Scott, in that they thought they had resolved the problem, but when they had asked for the permit, they were told the setback had not been solved. The initial problem, which he felt should rest with himself, was that there had been a drafting error in their office, which had been discovered in May at the Architectural and Site Committee Meeting, but that he had lost track of It, there being other problems to attend to. COM. BLAINE accepted l>is explana tion, and observed there seemed to have been bad communication all round. Mr. Richard Ware, llOll South Stelling Road, pointed out that he lived in a single level house, and the bigger the setback was, the better he would like it. He said Ìle especially did not like the window that overlooked his backyard, as he would eventuaily be having a ,pool built. COM. ADAMS suggested, as the zoning was PD, shifting Unit 3 building pad over by 3 ft., giving approximately 12/15 ft. sideyard distance to the east, and a sideyard setback of 13/15 ft. on Mr. Ware's sid~ which, together with a raised window, could help. Hr. Schwimmer thought that 9 ft. on one side, which-was what it would amount to, would not be allowed. CHR. KOENITZER explained that as it was PD zoning, the zero lot line concept could be used. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested making a finding that the change was minor, to obviate a Public Hearing. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Adams, to approve the request for a minor modification, on the basis that the easterly yard setback line on unit 3 of Application 28-U-79 be 13/15 ft., the 3 ft. shift being taken from the westerly sideyard setback, and the upstairs bedroom window facing east be raised sufficiently to provide the neces- sary privacy between the two units. being a 2 ft. wide window right at the ceiling, or a sill height minimum of 6 ft. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-1 MOTION: NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF PLk'JNING COMMISS ION CHR. KOENlTZER felt the zero lot line prOVlswn in R.l ordinance itself and limitations on house size size were things the Commission needed to examine. Staff'working on these matters when they had time. the R.l ordinance, the in relationship to lot lie said he would appreciate MEETING ADJOURNED 11:58 P.M, A~ City Clerk' (2# f..:-,