Loading...
CC 05-25-82 ^ · · · CITY OF CUPERTINI), STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 ft1lOUTr;S OF THE ADJOURNED RECULAR MEETIJIIC OF 1'HE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON KAY 25, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAKBER, CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CALIrORNIA Mayor Sparks called the meeting tc order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chsmber, City Hall. ROLL CALL Counc. Present: Gatto, Johnson, Plungy, Rogers, Mayor Sparks Staff Present: City Manager Quinlan City Clerk Cornelius Director of Public Works Viskovich Director of Planning and Develcpment Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan 1. Councfl set the regular meetiag of Honday, June 7, 1982 for a hea~in8 to consider an increase in garbage rates as requested by the Los Altos Garbage Co. 2. Application 3-GPA-81 of City of Cupertino: General Plan Amendment to consid , deleting a plar~ed neighborhood park for the Seven Springs Ranch and adjoining neighborhood (Stelling Road between Bubb Road and Rainb~ Drive) and to consider the need for public access to the Fremont Older Open Sp~ce Preserve. In addition to the issue of a park on Seven Springs Ranch, the General Plan ~ndwent will evaluate par~ needs for the southwest quadrant of the City with special emphasis on the n~ighborhoods served by the Jollyman, Regnart and Hoover (school sites). Environmental Review: The Planning Commi3sion recommends the granting of a NegaLive Declaration. Recommendeå for approval. (a) Resolution No. 5859: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan." 3. Application 25-2-80 of lnterland Development Company (Seven Springs Ranch): PrezoninR approximately 148 acres from Santa Clara County Ex~lU&ive A~ricultural("A") zoning distric~ to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with residertial intent) zone and Env.ron- mental Review: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been pTepar The proposed Planned Development pre.oning would permit approxi- mately 419 dwelling units consisting of a mix of detached and attached sin~le-family d~llings. The property is generally bounde by Rainbow Drive to the north. Stelling Road to the east, Prospect Road to the south, and by the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and tpland Way to the west. Recommended for ûpproval. GG-573 Page 1 Increase in garbage rates ;w~ MINUTES OF THE KAY 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1174: "An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2 by Prezoning Approximately l48 Ar.res from Santa Clara County Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District to City of Cupertino P Zone; the Proposed Zoning Would Permit Approxi- mately 419 Dwelling Units Consisting of a Mix of Detached and Attached Single-Family Dwellings; th~ Property is Generally Bounded by Rainbow Drive to the North, Stelling Road to the East, Prospect Road to the South, and by the Fremont Older Open Space PreserVE and Upland Way to the West." 4. To Consider the Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Application 25-Z-80 (Interland Development Company: Seven Springs Ranch). The certification of the EIR can be granted if the City Council determines that said ElR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines and that the City Council has re- viewed and considered the information contained in the Environ- mental Impact Rep~rt. Said project is generally bounded by Rainbow Drive to th~ north, Stelling RoaJ to the east, Prospect Road to the south, and by the Fre~oat Older Open Space Preserve and Upland Way to the west. Recommended for a~proval. . Mr. Wes Phillips, Scofield Driva. stated tÞat the land could be developed in the County or could annex to Saratoga. He expressed the desire that the opportunity to annex the property not be blocked as annexation would give Cupertino so~ control over the traffic. Ann McElroy, l358 S. Stelling, opposed the proposed development because of increa3ed traffic and difficulty with flood control. She expressed the opinion that more removal of trees would incr~gse chances of flooding. She did express support for improving traffic in Cupertino. Director of Public Works was directed to check into Mrs. McElroy's problems with flooding. Jim Jackson, l0455 Torre Avenue, addressed Council regarding the application. He stated that the area was currentl~' in the third year of considera- tion fQr pcezoning. He felt that the applicants had a commitment to solve anv traffic problems. He urged Co~ncil approval of the application as it is a good project and steps pertaining to annexation, cancellation of Williamson Act contract, the tentative map and the use permit still ;ad to be taken. . City Manager Quinlan s-Jggested that Council amend Condition No. 21 of the proposed ordinance to require that homes be fitted with sprinkler systems and eliminate the requirement of a fire station. The site could still be set aside. He also requested that the condition be chanled to reflect the viewpoint of the consultant's report pertaining to the police anQ fire study. This would allow more flexibility. . . . MINUTES or THE KAY 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Discussion followed regarding the Environmental Impact Report. Counc. Gatto asked how traffic volumes in the report were generated and if the consultant were comfortable with the numbers. Mr. Byron Larson of George Nolte & Associaces stated that numbers in the appendices were the result of either manual or machine count. To determine level of service a manual count was t~kon. Re stated that counts for the level of service were the ORes that were most importaut. Counc. Gatto asked which numbers were usecl and how comfortable was he u~ing those numbers. Mr. Larson stated that the latest count was used and a 15% change would equal approximately one service level (it was determined there was an 85% confidence level). Hr. Larson also stated that .he Nolte report 1982 figure& include the Seven Springs full buildout. 1990 figures sssume the full Seven Springs development. The Rigbway 85 r level assumed two lanes in the corridor from Stevens Creek Boulevard to De Anza Boulevard. He stated that the Seven Springs development only reduces the level of service one-half of a level. Mr. Jackson stated that it was estimated that present traffic in the area was estimated at 2,400 auto trips during the peak hour; 400 homes would equal 300 individual car trips during the pesk hours. This was probably why there was only a half level of service change. Counc. Gatto asked what improvements would be necessary to keep the level of service as it is should the development go in. Mr. Larson referred to roadway improvements included in the traífic impact report on page ll. Ann McElroy as~ed who would pay for improvements such as the widening of Stelling. Director of Public Works Viskovich stated that SteÜing is designed for four lanes. The obligation for payment of improvement would be ~n the property owner at the time of further development. He stated that approximately 70% of the asphalt is already there and a large ~ortion of the uni~proved part is along the Seven Springs Ranch. Improvements would be done under the unimp~oved street ord- i:1ance. Mrs. McElroy asked if she would be reimbursed for any condemned prop- erty of hers. She was informed that in cases of condemning or taking property, the owner is reiDbursed. Paul Sonnenb'ick, Upland Way. asked if the figures on page :J of the draft EIR, Traffic, 1982, assumed that Boliinger would be put through. He was informed that the Bollinger extension was assumed as it was part ot the approv~d General Plan. He stated that widening streets changed them from collectors to arterials. He felt thüt the traffic should be considered as part of the Citywide circclation plan. CC-573 Page 3 C.3 P 4 KlNUTES OF THE KAY 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Counc. Gatto stated that he needed to know the level of service without Bollinger being put through. Thelma Epstein, 7975 Rainbow Drive, expressed opposition to Rainbow becoming a three lane road as she felt three lanes were dangerous. Mr. Larson explained that by three lanes it was meant that at the approach to Stelling there would be a left turn lane. Also if an entrance to Seven Springs were along Rainbow, there would moAt likely be left turn lanes into that area. Discussion followed regarding traffic figures without Bollinger being extended. Ed Jouch, 10760 S. Stelling Road, asked why the feeling was that pu~ting Bollinger through would alleviate traffic on Stelling. He was informed that it would take the burden from Stelling to De Anza. Mr. Jouch presented traffic figures to Council that he had taken on the same day at two different times. These counts were taken in the area of the Roundtree condomioium development. He stated tha, development of Seven Springs would create the same problem at the other end of the street. He requested that Council consider people already living in Cupertino. . Mr. Tom Cate, West Cupertino Homeowners Association, felt that the EIR conclusions were inconsistent with the data included. He presented transparencies and expressed the opinion that traffic threatens the quality of lif~ in Cupertino. He expressed opposition to the project and skepticis& regarding the solutions offered to mitigate traffic problems. He stated that if it were possible to get rid of the ,raffic fro~ Sar~toga then perhaps Seven Springs could be built. He suggested a small industrial park and apartment complex as an alten.ative in the area. He also said that if a large development must go in there, Seven Springs would be as good as any. He suggested that Council consider the traffic impact and look at other alternatives for use of the land such as offices. an enter- tainment complex or apartments. He expressed support for a Cupertino- funded Highway 85. Scott Epperson, 11411 Bubb Road, also expressed concern regarding traffic. He stated that it is a real problem in Cupertino and expressed conce~n regarding the consideration of the building of a large development when traffic problems have not been solvéd. Mr. Cate stated that Condition No. 17 of the proposed ordinance was unfair to the developer and it seemed like postponing of a de- cision. He stated that it was necessary to balanc~ the rights of the developer with the rights of the populace. . ~r. Paul Sonnenblick suggested that the proposed zoning be changed from residential to an industrial park of a "think tank" type. With this type of building, traffic to the area could go in the opposite direction of the current peak flow. It would also remain a green · · · MINUTES OF TIlE KAY 2S, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING space on weekends. Be felt this was a viable, serious alternative. He asked if it were possible to get & level of service estiaate on Bubb Rainbcw for current traffic and a proposed LOS with the development of Seven Springs. Be was informed it was possible to get such an estimate. Wes Phillips, Scofield Drive, mentioned that Council could not annex that area without the prezoning and requested that they keep this in mind. It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed unanimously to close the public hearing. By consen~us, Council requested the following information: I. Impact of the development on traffic without Bollinger going through. 2. Possible improvements to be done and at which stage of develop~nt and the resulting level of service (this to include cost of improve ments). This information shall be for 1982, not 1990. It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed unanimously to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Paul Sonnenblick, speakin~ for himself and not the homeowners association, stated that Counc. Gatto's points were val11 and expressed the opinion that the EIR should not be accepted. He expressed concern regarding Condition No. l7 and stated that the Seven Springs applicant would not l~se the Williamson Act window by filing for cancellation of contract with the County at this time. Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant is under many time deadlines. Figures could be gathered at this time and General Plan Amendments could change them all. Mr. Cate stated that th~ EIR focused on Seven Springs only and the General Plan Amendment is covering the entire City. He stated the opinion that much new information would be gained by waiting for the Genral Plan Amendment. Barbara Koppel asked if eleven years ago it was decided that Highway 85 was needed. She was informed that that was the decision. Ms. Koppel stated that development was approved without HighwdY 85, and now another development is being cons~dered without completion of Highw 85. She also felt that Seven Springs should not be develope~ without a roadw3Y in the 85 rorri1nr. It was moved by Counc. Johnson, seconded by Counc. Ro~ers and passed unani~ously to close the public hearing. CC-S73 Page 5 Public hearing closed Information requested by Council Public hearing reopened Public hearing closed -. ·7~ . EIR fou:ld incomplete Motion res- cinded Certifying of EIR postponed Seven Spr ings hearings con t loued Task force .tUdY !fic data I MINUTES OF 1'HE KAY 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL KEE'lING RECESS, 9:35-9:45 p.m. Council was asked to decide if there were enough data for a prezoning and was there adequacy of data. Director of Planning and Development Sisk informed Council that the requirement in doing an EIR is to address the existing General Plan of the City. That is one gauge of the adequacy of the EIR. Be also stated that if it were necessary to add information to the EIR, then it .ust go back to the Planning Commission and the public f~r the review process. It was moved by Counc. Plungy and seconded by Counc. Johnson to postpone action on the EIR to the meeting ~f June 7, 1982, to receive adjunct information regarding Bollinger. The motion was defeated (Councilmembers Gatto, Johnson, Rogers and Sparks dissenting). Bert Verrips, Sedway/Cooke, explessed agreement with Mr. Jackson. Be said that additional infora&tion is needed constantly along the way. He felt the ElK should be certified and any new information should ~e presented in a staff report. Mayor Sparks expressed the opinion that he had enough data to make a decision. Counc. Gatto ~tated he did still w nt the staging of development spelle~ out. It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Gatto rnd passed with Councilmembers Sparks and Plungy iissenting to find the EIR incomplete without information pertaining to non-extension of Bollinger Road. It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Gatto and passed unanimously to rescind the previous motion. It was moved by Counc. Rogers, seconded by Counc. Plungy and passed unanimously to postpone consideration of certifying the EIR until a written opinion by the City Attorney is received in response to Council's concerns as to wh~ther the information without the Bollinger exttnsion would be a revision of the ElR or jast additional information. Council continued the discussion pertaininp' to the Seven Springs Ranch development to their regular ~eeting of June 7, 1982. The Attorney's opinion is to be submitted prior to this meeting. Council also requested that the consultants retur1 (.n Junl~ 7 for that ~.ea1"ing.. 5. Counc. Gatto suggested that Council de~elop a task force con- sisting of fiv~ to seven people to work with the Di,ector of Public Works to validate ùr provide a level of com~ort for the tr.affic data. . . . . . Kll'IlTl~ OF THE KAY 25, 1982 CITY COUNCIL IŒETING By consensus, Council determined there will be a five-øelllber task force that will I118U DO reco_ndation and will not evaluate alterna- tives. There will also be no delay to the General Plan process. Counc. c..tto will be a nOD-voting chairperøoL for the task force, which should complete its task in a 2-3 week period. By consensus, the City vas divided into four quadrants usina the Stevens Creek Boulevard aud De Anza Boulevard intersection to divide the City. Four CounclMlllbers were each assigned a quadrart frOll which to select someone for the task force. CouncU....r Gatto will cODsult with the Chamber of C~rce regarding appointing a member of the business cODIIIUnity. The quadrants were assigned as follows: Rogers - northeast Plungy - southwest Johnson - southeast Sparks - northwest The ...eting was adjourned at lO:25 p.m. ~ d. --, ¿,.~ Cit Cler~ CC-573 P..~e 7