Loading...
PC 06-28-82 CITY OF CUPERTINO~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 28, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Adams~ Binneweg~ Blaine~ Koenitzer, Chairperson Claudy Staff present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Director of Public Works Viskovich City Attorney Kilian Associate Planner Piasecki APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 14, 1982 - It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed with Com. Adams abstaining to approve the minutes as submitted. Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 16, 1982 - It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed with Com. Koenitzer abstaining to approve the minutes as submitted. POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application I-GPA-80 of City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment to consider a comprehensive amendment of the City of Cupertino General Plan and a Specific Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area. The General Plan Amendment will concentrate on land use, traffic ciruclation, housing and economic issues which affect the entire community. The Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan will concentrate on the development of a more detaile land use, circulation and urban design plan for properties which abut the reach of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road on the west and Stern Avenue on the east. First Hearing continued. PC-389 Page 1 June 14 min- utes approved June 16 min- utes approved P' ~9 Paó¿ 2 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAJOR DISCUSSION OUTLINE 1. Presentation of Second Draft of Transportation Plan. 2. Discussion regarding financing options for the four alternative transportation plans. Assistant Planning Director Cowan informed the Commission that he would like to blend major discussion items listed in the outline into one discussion. He requested that the Commission narrow down the issues in the transportation section and try to reach a decision regarding the type and function of various streets in Cupertino. Director of Public Works Viskovich gave an update of events. He stated that Council had formed a transportation committee consisting of five persons~ four representing various quadrants of the City and one representing the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the committee had held a meeting which Counc. Gatto and Mr. Luebbers from CH2M Hill also attended. The purposes of the comittee is to arrive at a baseline and to get a feeling for the material. They would also determine if the level of the service methodology was appropriate for the General Plan. The outcome was that the committee felt that baseline data was reasonable for General Plan purposes. They also felt the methodology used by staff was appropriate. Difference occurred in level of service conclusions between the staff and CH2M Hill because that national average used by CH2M Hill was different than the local standards used by staff. However, the numbers were in agreement. It was stated that the important part was to be consistent and use the same method all the time. The committee also mod if ied a chart used showing the 80--20% in regard to residential-commute traffic. The committee recommended that a weighted average delay for the entire City be determined. Mr. Viskovich stated that he had met with representatives of Caltrans regarding the construction of a small segment of Highway 85. He had been informed that Cupertino could become a lead agency for an EIR and construction of a roadway (a local roadway to our standards) and that it would not be necessary to prepare an alternative analysis for the entire 18 miles. This could reduce the estimated cost. The City of Saratoga has stated opposition to any type of roadway in the 85 corridor. I Mr. Viskovich stated that the General Plan would address EIR issues in general but the ERC would have to decide whether the actual project would require a separate Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Viskovich presented graphs showing the cost of some of the capital improvements to achieve and/or maintain a D or better level of service for the various scenarios being considered under the General Plan hearings. He stated that the five methods of financing any construction under any plan selected would be 1. A special tax (requires an election and approval by 2/3 of the voters), I MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I , ;1 " I' ;¡ PC-389 " Page 3 2. Area of special benefit, 3. Development agreements, 4. City funding, 5. Redevelopment agency. Advantages and possible disadvan- tages were discussed following a definition of each of the alternatives .:; " ~! City Attorney Kilian stated that he felt the Item No. 2 area of special i benefit would be less legally defensible than other methods but would be necessary to show a special benefit to the property where funds were collected to be sure it was legally defensible. from the public would this time (no citizen came ~ ! , 'I , By consensus, the Commission felt that they would not want a redevelop- ¡ ment agency as the main source of funds. Development agreements were i discussed as a possible supplement to or use in lieu of special tax for area of special benefit in particular instances. The agreements could provide for payment of money to the City and/or building of improvements. Money submitted could be for the General Fund. It would be necessary for the City to adopt rules and guidelines so standards used would be the same for every development. , ,1 ~i ., Chairperson Claudy announced that the input be limited to possible financing methods at forward). It was stated that the Commission, during this public hearing process, would receive the components necessary to determine what is desired and what costs would be. Commission expressed the opinion that they felt most citizens want less traffic, parks, playing fields, library service, and police and fire protection. They want a safe, clean city. However, most citizens have not expressed their desires. Various desires of the Commission included improved traffic conditions, proper functioning of the interconnect system, easy access to neighborhood parks, a balance between housing and other types of development, library service continuing on Sunday, a couple more parks and general maintenance of the City. Concern was expressed over the possibility that increased office building might not bring in as much money as they would cost in service RECESS: 9:20-9:30 p.m. Chairperson Claudy announced that the General Plan public hearing would continue until 10:30 p.m. at which time Commission would move on to other items on the agenda. Walter Ward, General Manager, Vallco Park, expressed the belief that no knowledgeable developer would want to increase traffic so much that it could not get in and out of his development. He felt that a developer would be the first to stop developing. He agreed that residential areas need relief from traffic. He felt it not fair to charge developers who have not developed to improve the traffic level of service presently in effect if that developer could not build. He expressed the opinion that if citizens wanted better level of service, it should be paid for by all the citizens and that if further development occurred that would increse the traffic, there should be fair proportioning of any charge. He felt that not every PC-~9 Pa ~ MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING development would increase traffic. He stated that Cupertino did need a place for seminars, public functions and other large gatherings such as a hotel would provide. He felt that if the hotel could not come to Cupertino, it would locate elsewhere in the general area. He felt those who had spent money in the past on off-site improvements should receive future credit. He stated that Vallco has spent approximately $7,000,000 in the past on off-site improvements such as Tantau overcrossing and Wolfe Road from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Homestead. Val1co is paying $67,000 a year for 20 years to mitigate future problems caused by increased traffic. He stated that in addition to this with recent building they have agreed along with owners of the buildings to contribute to an LID if necessary to widen Wolfe Road crossing by 280. He requested that the City pay particular attention to spending any funds where they would do the most good for the money spent. He felt that the amount of funds should be worked into an economic package and should depend on intensity allowed. Future contributions of developers making no contribution at this time should be greater than the contributions of developers who have made significant contributions in the past. He felt a combination of City participation and agreement should be based upon the phasing of the development. Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, stated that he felt the development agreement method had some attractive parts. That way the City, the developer and the citizens would know exactly what is planned to happen. He felt this would have helped with the Seven Springs Ranch development process. The developer would know what is expected of them and what they are getting, and so would the community. He stated that a hotel would be nice in Cupertino and that he would like to see a cost/benefit analysis in terms of tradeoffs for various intensities of developments. He stated that if densities were increased in residential areas, people probably would want more parklands. He would prefer not to have higher densities but stated that was probably not realistic or fair. He would like to see Cupertino remain suburban but was against suburban sprawl. Bill Lewis, 7573 Bollinger Road, stated that he felt somewhat , encouraged by the Commission's remarks about asking citizens for a ~.. "wish list". He stated that if a special tax measure were placed ~ before the voters that stated that it would not affect them, it would ~ probably pass as the hotel tax measure passed. However, he felt a ~ real choice would be to present the voters with a measure asking which of the four proposed alternatives they chose. Then the r,,' Planning Commission, City Council and staff could determine ;,1 i exatly what could be afforded. He felt that the present General Plan does a reasonably good job of providing residential, commercial, ;] industrial and office space. He also questioned if higher densities ii did not create more need. His personal choice was to carry out the j General Plan as it presently is and not change it. ? í~ il I I Director of Public Works Viskovich presented the Commission with names of various types of streets and requested that a definition of each type be developed according to the function. The street types are: MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-389 Page 5 1. Freeways and expressways - roadways with intercity, intercounty and interstate traffic not providing direct access to abutting land. 2. Arterial - streets and highways serving major metropolitan areas. The highest traffic volume corridors, longest trip desires, service to abutting land subordinate, through movements, major bus routes. 3. Major collectors - streets and highways interconnecting and augmenting arterial systems. Serve trips of moderate length and somewhat lower level of traffic mobility. Emphasis on land access and interconnects between major road systems. 4. Minor collectors - streets penetrating neighborhoods, collecting traffic from local streets in neighborhoods, and channeling to arterial system. Minor amount of through traffic but mainly land access service and local traffic within area; local bus routes. Serves abutting property. 5. Local streets - direct access. Lowest level of mobility. Usually no bus routes. Services to through traffic discouraged; residen- tial neighborhood streets. Arterials - De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Prospect east 0 DeAnza,Homestead east of Foothill, Wolfe north of Stevens Creek Boule- vard. Major Collectors - Miller, Stelling, Blaney north of Bollinger, Bollinger, McClellan-Bubb to De Anza. Minor Collectors - Blaney south of Bollinger, Bubb, Rainbow, McClellan west of Bubb, Tantau. The next step to be taken is to set policies regarding the streets in conjunction with land use and necessary methods to be taken to protect the street designation. It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to continue the public hearing to July 26, 1982. I-GPA-80 continued 2. Application 26-TM-79 (Revised) of Regnart Creek Estates (Warren Whaley): Amendment of tentative map to eliminate a condition which requires the applicant to obtain a 20 ft. access easement over State right of way benefitting the property owner to the west of the subject property and Environmental Review: The project was previously assessed, hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the north side of Orogrande Place approxi- mately 230 ft. west of Stelling Road. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed a history of the application with the Commission. He informed the Commission that the State is not going to issue an easement, therefore, staff felt the condition re- quiring such an easement should be deleted. He said that the State will issue the easement only if the City sends a letter saying that they would buy the property if the roadway were later abandoned. PC-j89 I 6 P ic hearing closed MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Barry Scott, 22093 Baxley Court, general partner, Regnart Creek Estates, stated that the application was originally approved with primary access along a proposed Festival Drive. In order to put in Festival Drive, the City was to get an encroachment permit from the State. Condition 18 of the application refers to an unconditional encroachment permit. What was granted was he felt highly conditional. He stated that he is being asked to give an easement across an easement to someone else. He felt the State has shut the door to the developers and that they could not give Mr. Sargent an easement. Wayne Sargent stated that he was assured access to his back lot by Mr. Cowan. He stated that he gave up part of his area to provide Regnart Creek Estates developers with access to Orogrande Road and that part of the agreement was for him to have access to his back lot. Assistant Planning Director Cowan stated that he could not guarantee anything. This was originally a two property owner development but is no longer, and this has created problems. He stated that the approved tentative map for Mr. Sargent had emergency access and a bike path along the edge. Mr. Sargent had the joint emergency trail deleted. Mr. Sargent stated that he had had assurance of access to the back lot preceding his development plans and that during the process of his development plans, the road along the creek on his property had come into being. City Attorney Kilian asked if Mr. Sargent would be willing to I contribute to a fund for the completion of Festival Drive. Mr. Sargent stated that he had suggested that he pay a proportional share, but no one had followed through on his offer. I I ! I. Discussion followed regarding a !!floating easement". This type of easement is one which occurs when the exact location of the easement is not described but the easement is allowed somewhere on the property. It is likely to be the most direct route. Mr. Scott stated that the development map is approved and he could grant an easement on his property to Mr. Sargent. He stated that the two separate parcels are not dependent on each other. He asked what he could do with a condition that cannot be met. He requested that the Commission not confuse the easement across the private driveway with an easement across an easement. He stated that there was no ending date on the trust account. City Attorney Kilian stated that he was against an escrow account based on the information he had. It was moved by Com. Binneweg, seconded by Com. Koenitzer and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING CO~fl1ISSION MEETING It was moved by Com. Koenitzer, seconded by Com. Blaine and passed unanimously to approve Application 26-TM-79 (Revised) per Resolution No. 2070 with Condition No. 18 to read as follows: "The applicant shall provide an easement allowing the adjacent westerly property owner access over the 18 foot wide private driveway at such time as said adjoining property develops. A covenant shall be recorded requiring the owners of Lots 1 and 2 to maintain said private driveway with the stipulation that a future developer of said westerly property shall be required to execute an agreement to participate in the drive- way maintenance. The degree of participation shall be determined by the City in conjunction with the review of a subsequently filed development proposal. Such easement across Lots 1 and 2 cannot be used unless access to a public street or an easement across the state land can be obtained by the westerly property owner. This requirement shall not be construed as granting adjacent property owner legal access unless the above condition is met." UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Stevens Creek Ranch - Report regarding riding stables - Stevens Canyon Road. Associate Planner Piasecki stated that he had reviewed the use permit and felt that there were adequate safeguards in the permit. The Code Enforcement Officer had been to the site and did not find vio- lations while there. The revision to the use permit allows overnight boarding of horses and an adjusted scheduled of manure removal. He did state that operating out of a trailer facility was in conflict with the City's ordinances. Ken Brooks, 11050 Stevens Canyon Road, stated that the stable operation was successful and he was surprised at the negative comments of the neighbors. He stated that he has had support from the staff and the community. He does not anticipate problems and showed the location of the hitching post on a map. Brad Clayton, 11092 Canyon Vista Drive, stated that he was surprised to hear of the horse ranch. He knew that Buck Norred had been there prior to Mr. Clayton's moving into his residence. He now notices odors typical of stable areas. He said that they are presently minor and only occur under certain weather conditions. Lyn Faust, 11033 Canyon Vista Drive, stated that she has sent the City a letter regarding the reopening of the stable because of the way it was handled. She feels that the situation of the present stable is different than with the Norred stable because residences have been built since the original opening. She expressed concerns regarding odor and flies and the raking of manure near the creek bed. She hopes that it is picked up regularly. Ronald Moberg, 11103 Canyon Vista, stated that he can see the horses from his living room during the day. He has lived in his residence three years and stated that the sudden appearance of the horses disturbs him as his isolation was taken away. He also expressed PC-389 Page 7 26-TM-79 (Rev.) recommended for approval PC-189 P 8 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING concern regarding potential odors. He felt that the noise of dogs barking and voices at 7:30 a.m. was a problem. He said that there is no fence between his living room and where the horses are. Bill Adams~ 11043 Canyon Vista, also complained regarding the noise of the dogs. He expressed further concern regarding possible problems from odors and flies. Ken Brooks stated that the noise occurred from employees arriving between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. and dogs used for herding and as pets. He stated he was surprised that an odor is currently a problem and felt that it was probably carried by winds. He stated the intent to remove manure on a regular basis. He is currently using sprays, traps, small predator bugs and bait for fly prevention and did not foresee any problems in this area. The stable operates from 8:00 a.m. and horses are back by 7:00 p.m. every day. He stated that he planned a very small operation. The Commission did express concern regarding noise at 7:30 a.m. on weekends. The use permit has been granted and is legal. The Commission recommended that if a problem develops the neighbors contact the owner first and if the problem still exists to then contact the City. The condition on the use permit requiring regular inspection by the Health Department is probably no longer possible as it is highly unlikely that the County still does this type of inspection. Mr. Brooks stated that he had contacted the homeowners association and told them to contact him if any problems do develop. 4. Review of design change - Lincoln Property Company N. C., Inc. - Application 7-U-8l. Associate Planner landscaping plan. i ~ I ~ I j ! Piasecki outlined the issues - setback modification, Burch Boone introduced Bob Danielson, the landscape architect, who reviewed the proposed changes. Discussion followed regarding Condition No. 17 as approved by the Cupertino City Council on April 5, 1982 pertaining to the alignment of Torre Avenue and dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Boone stated that at this time there was no assurance of where - . the road will go or if that right-of-way would be returned to ¡ Lincoln Property if it were to be abandoned. It was suggested ! that he talk to Council regarding this matter. . r, Mr. Pete Testa, DES, Redwood City, addressed the issue of lighting. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Binneweg and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was moved by Com. Blaine, secondfd by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to approve the minor chang~ to. f~e building setbacks. It was moved by Com. Blaine, seconded by Com. Adams and passed unan- imously to approve the resolution recommending approval of landscaping, Conditions 1-15 per staff reports" deletion of Condition No. 16, and Conditions 17, 18 and 19 renumbered to read Conditions 16, 17 and 18. At 1:00 a.m., the meeting was adjourned. (These minutes were prepared from the tape recording of the meeting) APPROVED: /~/' . ATTEST: ~ ~. ; // Citf ler~ ;~~ PC-389 Page 9 Change to setbacks Approval of landscaping