Loading...
CC 03-16-82 . . . CITY OF CUPERTINO, STA"E OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telep~one: (408) 252-4~5 MINUTES OF 1'HE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON KARCII l6, 1982, IN THE COUNCIL CRAKBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Mayor S~ark~ ~alled the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Coun~. Present: Gatto, Johnson, Plungy, Rogers, Mayor Sparks Staff P~esent: City 118nager Quinlan City Clerk Cornelius Director of Public Works Viskovich Direct~r of Planning and Development Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Traffic Engineer Crigg City Attorney Kilian PJ:snning C01lllllisAion,,'.s Present: Adams, Binneweg, IIlaine, Cheirperson Claudy Mayor Sparks g~eeted those in attendance and informed th~m that the purpose of the evening's ~eetIng was to receive traffic information from 1973 as well as an update and projection. The format for the review of the material would be first a staff presen.ation, then a presentation from CR2M Hill, consulta·'t, and then, citizens, Director of Public Works Viskovich reviewed the pr~cess of collecting the data and showed the inter-county relationship of traffic. He provided historiczl and t.ackgrou..u information via slides, Cupertino is in Traffic Zone lO whose boundaries are Fremont on the north, Law- rence Expressway on the east and P~ospect on the south. He reviewed terms and definitions and the projected level of traffic flow at . intersections. He stated that a "D" level had been selected for ". best cost benefit ratio. He reviewed various alternate plans for Highway 85 anò restated Council policy of endorsement of the Highway 85 corridor to IOI and support for extension of roadw~y within the corridor. RECESS: 8:05-8:17 p.m. Mr. Dick Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, representing the Citizens Goals Committee, reviewed the COlll'llittee's duties which involved look- ing at the City in general. He stated that a subcommlt~ee of five ..øbers was formed to loù~ specifically at traffic. They had re- quested a consultant to be hired which Council approved. Mr. Childres introduced ~r. Richard Luebbers of CH2M Hill who had been retained ~o lo~k at the City traffic overview and review the staff åata. CC- 5(,5 Page 1 I ~ C~5 PW2 MINUTES OF THE MARCH l6, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Luebbers stated that he had worked with the aubcommittee and staff and had Deeo charged with reviewing the existing information and verifying or showing where he could not verify data. He was also to clarify t.he process and comme~t on recommendations. He reviewed the documents, talked to ~ITC and the County. Areas to be considered were the technique - were steps taken reason&ble and logical? Were methodologies appr~r~~~te? He looked at each step. He stated chat although the City's methode were not standard of industry today, he could understand why thosE' particular methods were used. The City used ABAG, County and mc information, and the cost was much less than a state-of-the-art study would have been. He stated that as he did review the material he came to a point where he was fairly comfortable with overall projections. He found a good correlation betw~en the County anrl City work. The County did have more data a~ilable, as traffic zones were broken down into smaller zones. - . He felt that the City's numbers were probaùly the best that could be arrived at without an ~xtensive study. He stated that the work done by City staff waa realistic and a good base for the General Plan. He did express concerns wich the increased intensity of development 3S there would be more traffic than General Planned. He also expressed - - _ nu.. ..Hn the assumptions that have to be made - there were a lot of "its". be felt the £ssumptions made were logical, but they widE'ned the confidence interval. He also questioned the reasonableness to estimate such things as turning movements at any particular leg at any particular intersection. He reviewed the calculations using his normal procedures and stated there were eome differences of opinion. The capacity of vehic12s in the lane an.! "green time" were defined. For freeways the high peak is the basic capacity. A lane only has c~pacity when a light is green. The City has determined capacity 2t 1,950 cars per lane when traffic is heaviest. The national average which CH2M Hill -.x".<&.-l¡; 1,800. Mr. Luebbers stated that there was potential to accomo- date all traffic with General Plan building without Highway 85, but there is enough uncertainty in the future that he would not recommend abandonirog Highway 85 corridor but believed a four-lane road in the corridor would be best at this point. He felt that abandoning the cor- 'rldòr was not in the long range best interest of the City, but exp:esaed the belief that it wo·Jld be wi'ae to master plan a four-lane road pith intersections at !,ey locations. He also stated the opinion that Stelling was needed as an arterial at least to 85 or Rainbow. If 85 were built, it would divert trips from Cupertino streets which could allow for additional development in west Cupertino. I, . . He recommended that the City work with De Anza College and major employers to spread the traffic peak. He also agreed that De Anza Boulevard should be kept as a major roadway, He did not support the concept ot ~ grade separation at De Anza Bouleva~d and Stevens Cr~~k Boulevard as the·e are problem areas on either side of that inter- section and the need for a grade separation may be less than the need for other things. He felt other improvements wocld be more in balunce with the system. I . MINUTES OF 1'HE ~!ARCH l6, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Hr. Luebbers spoke in supporr of allowing Vallco development to continue and stated that the proposed Town Center was in conformance with the General Plan and felr that it was a ratimtal thing to do. He encourag~d the developmenr of the Capital Improvement ?rogram for a roadway network in Cupertino whiLh would include definite ideas re- garding what type of road would go in which corridor. It would also include priorities, funding sources and implementation. He felt tha; the City's overall numbers were very sound. Hc was less certain re- garding projected data for certain specific improvements such as right turn only lanes. He felt this type of projection may be beyond the coĊ“petence of the numbers. City Manager Quinlan asked Hr. Luebbers if he had looked at the possi bility of Highway 85 stopping at Prospect. He stated he had not, but it was a fair assumption that it might pick up more traffic. Counc. Rogers asked if the clJI1sultant had looked at the City proposal of building a segoent of Righgay 85 from Stelling to De Anza. Mr. Luebbers said he had not ex.-ined that, but he felt it would divert tr~ffic cff of Rainbow and Prospect. . Counc. Rogers questioned Mr. Luebbcrs regarding separating the data for cars with San Jose zip codes. Mr. Luebbers said that could be done bat he did not feel it ~~ld be ~orth it unless the City was con- sidering sharing wit~ San Jose the cost of improvements. Counc. Roger.s asked Mr. Luebbers if he had any particular r~commenda- tions for the City. Mr. Luebbers stated that the overall numbers used were very good, and with a aicropr3cessor the City could more accurately model the local situation. The City could be broken into smaller zones and more definitive type information would be received. There would also be a quicker analysis of "what if" questions. He stated that a D level of traffic flow wa~ quite acceptable. Counc. Johnson asked if there was a way to quantify the level of ccnfidence regarding the Ciry's pr~ctlce of adjusting average3. Mr. Luebbers said the methodolo~ was no~ questionable - proj~ctions must be made, but doing that lowers the l~vel of confidence, especially in specific changes. He felt it was difficult to quantify the level of confidence. Counc. Gatto asked if it see_d appropriate to have an on-going a~alysis of the data and to 2Onitor the buildout and improvements to see if it is being done correctly. Mr. Luebbers stat£d that it was most appropriate. . Counc. Gatto asked what impact would occur on traffic if th£ General Plan shows residentia~ north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and it was changed to job producing uses. He requested the same information for south of Stever.s Creek Boule7ard. Mr. Luebbers stated it would change 'caffic patterns. Traffic c'~s from all surrounding communities to CC-565 Page 3 C85 P 4 MINUTES OF THE KARCH l6, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEg-.ING some extent. He felt that housing north of Stevens Creek Boulevard had less impact on traffic. Industry sout~ of Steven6 Creek Boulevard would produce outbound trips when surrounding residential generates inbound trips. '1 Counc. Gatto asked what would happen if Seven Springs area developed into a job producins area instead of housing. Mr. Luebbers stated that at the p... peak it would generate homeward trips. Some would join the predominate fl~w south, but there did seem to be plenty of capacity there. If the trips were northbound, it would be in the counter- flow direction. Counc. Plungy asked if the size of the car had an impact on capacity. Mr. Luebbers stated that California has good traffic facilities and the people are used to freeway driving. The "headway" is closer tha.l in other parts of the country, Smaller cars make lanes appear wider and you can get more in a mile than you can of longer cars. Cou c. Plungy asked if any improvement in public transit and its effect had been considered in the a~alysis. It had not. . Mayor Sparks stated that De Anza College was cutting back classes and asked if this would have an effect. Mr. Luebbers stated the effect would depend on what time these classes were. The Mayor also asked if the consultant was satisfied with the ASAG and other studies. Mr. Luebbers stated their recent work had beeL acceptable. The Mayor then opened the meeting to the audience. I Mr. Alf Modine, member of the Citizens Coals Committee s~bcommittee, stated that initial figures did not include anything being done with Highway 85. He also stated that the diversion slide showed no diversions off De Anza Boulevard. He felt that with something being done in the Highway 85 corridor many streets would be affected. . Mr. Charles Short, l0200 Vicksburg Drive, congratulated Council and the consultant on their work. He stated tha~ in general he agrees with the numbers. He does feel ~raffic will gc~ worse. He asked if ~he City really wanted to accept a D level traffic flow and asked what the cost ratio between traffic levels was. He read definitions of each level, A through r. He st_ced that the report seemed to allow for approximately six rorth-south major arterial streets and going east-west, arterials were cnnsi¿ered Bollinger. Prospect, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Homestead, Highway 85 and De Anza, He asked if the City planned to build out or provide roads first. He also ask~d if the City could assume the cost of roads before buildout. He inquired about financing oÍ roads. The City Manager informed him that we do have an unimproved street ordinance which is usually used forinLerior streets in the development. He also stated that there is a problem with fL1ancing. . MINUTES OF THE KARCH 16, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Planning Commission Chairperson Claudy asked if De Anzs Boulevard were improved and Highway 85 built, would the traffic balance out at D any- way as this would attract more traffic. Mr. Luebbers stated yes it probably would balance out at D anyway, but the traffic composition would change on individual streets. He further stated that E was usually considered capacity level. He stated that if 85 were not built and De Anza Boulevard were eight lanes with other intersections t.- proved and there was General Plan buildout, there would probably alao be a D lev,,!. However, it would be very close to an E level which 18 why he recommended preserving the 85 corridor. John Rakich, Upland Way, stated that he used Highway 85 going to Mt. View and regardless of congestion did not use rcsidential streets. He questioned the Director of Public Works regarding traffic figures and asked how internal trips were determined. He was informed that this was done via factoring from the screen line at Stevens Creek Boule- vard. Hr. Luehbers stated that in general these figures were validated by the County's. Hr. Rakich inquired as to the western boundary of Zone lO and was informed that traffic was counte4 on the northern screen line. He stated that he was di8t~rbed regarding the ABAG study and in reference to the colored bar chart stated that an average may be all right but local situations in any area may be worse than the average. . Paul Sonnenblick, Upland Way, inquired as to the cost of a model for better figures. He was informed that putting the data together for pur poses of inputting was probably the most er.pensive part of the proces and thz package would range from $50,000-100,000. Hr. Sonnenblick suggested that Council consider different levels of service for dif- ferent streets and not all D. Is D appropriate for residential streets? He also stated that for r..sident." unused concrete is not necessarily bad. He found the use of Bubb and Stelling as major arterials unacceptable. He stated that they were labeled local collectors in the General Plan. He stated that there is no peak hour, but the "rush hour" lasts several hours. He stated that he believed that he had heard the consultant say the D level would be shaky with full buildout. That meant there was ~ reasonable amount of uncertainty He requested that Council consider the overall quality of life. Director of Public Works Viskovich clarified that even with a peak period of two or three hourst there is a peak hour. Rosemary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton, objected to the intensity of develop- ment and requested that the school board be made aware of potential for ~ncreased traffic because of children crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard for the purpose of going to school. She stated that she believed that Stevens Creek Boulevard was presently at D level and that if Town Cen- tern were to be developed, traffic would break down. . Kathy Nellis, Regnart Road, stated that ~he felt the consultant should be availabl¿ for one or two more meetings after the people had had the opportunity to read his study. An example of when there might be ques- tions would be the Planning Lommission hearings on Seven Springs Ranch. CC-565 Page 5 ·~ 7-U-81 continued . .- MINUTES OF 1'HE KARCII 16, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Hr. Claudy stated that he did not feel be I18de available for special groups. to pay for such an open-ended process. that the consultant should As a citizen, he could not afford Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that other consultants are on board at this time. Hr. Luebbers said that as questions come up, perhaps they should be directed to the subcommittee as he had worked with them fot the last two months, and perhaps they could answer some of these questions. Mayor Sparks stated that he wt~ld accept written questions. Council r'iterated that the evening's meeting had been a study session for the City Council and Planning Commission to review staff and con- sultant'& reports to see if the staff's data was appropriate, so a consensus could be reached that the data was correct and would be used for future decisions. Council also stated that ongoing ...,nitoring and follow-up on traffic was appropriate. At the applicant's request, it was moved by Counc. Gatto, seconded by Counc. PJungy and passed unanimously to continue consideration of Application 7-U-8l, Lincoln Property, to April 5, 1982. The meeting wa~ adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ,,~~æ _