Loading...
CC 12-11-96 CC-935 MINUTES Cupertino City Council Special Meeting City Hall Council Chamber, 10300 Torre Avenue (408) 777-3200 December .11, 1996 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:52 p.m. Mayor Bautista called the meeting to order in the C~uncil Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Bautista, Vice-Mayor Lauralce Sorensen, CoUncilmembers Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Wally Dean. Council members absent: None. ...... Staffpresent: City Manager Don Brown; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Adroinistrative Services Director Carol Atwood; Community Development Director Bob Cowan; Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling; Public Information Officer Donna Krey; and Public Works Director Bert Viskovich. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS None. POSTPONEMENTS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Sorensen moved to approve the items on the Consent. Calendar as presented. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-0. December I 1, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 2 1. Resolution l~lo. 9743: Accounts Payable, November 15, 1996. 2. Resolution No. 9744: Accounts Payable, November 22, 1996. 3. Resolution No. 9745: Payroll, November 15, 1996. 4. Resolution No. 9752: Accounts Payable, November 27, 1996. 5. Resolution No. 9753: Payroll, November 29, 1996. 6. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - October 1996. 7. Minutes of the November 13 regular adjourned, November 18, 1996 regular, and the November 20 regular adjourned meetings. 8. Resolution No. 9746: Approving destruction of certain records (City Clerk, Planning). 9. Resolution No. 9747: Approving change order No. 1, Somerset Park Improvements, Project 96-9102. 10. Resolution No. 9748: Approving agreement, parcel map and improvement plans--E & H First Family Limited Pattaership; 21901 Dolores Avenue. 11. Resolution No. 9749: Authorizing execution of improvement agreement with Brian Kelly Development, 10411 Byme Avenue 12. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Control license, The Carvery at Harry's Hofbrau, 19624 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: Bautista, Burnett, Chang, Dean, and Sorensen Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. December 11, 1 ~}~)g Cupertino City Council Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Public hearing to consider amending Section 16.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to require class A roofing for all residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of November 18, 1996.) (a) Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1742: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Requiring That All Roofs of New Dwellings Shall Be of a "Class A" Fire Retardant Material and All Replacement Roofing for Existing Dwellings Shall Be of a "Class B" Fire Retardant Material." The Community Development Director said this was the third public hearing on this item and staff had no additional comments. Mr. Marmy Muniz, 8622 Gaines Avenue, Orangevaie, said he approved of the ordinance as written with two technical corrections. He suggested that references to the Uniform Building Code be changed to California Building Code, which bo.~ many state amendments including roofing. Concern had been expressed that some homeowners may attempt to bypass the roofing standards by repairing their roofs one quarter at a time. There is current wording in the California Building Code Sec. 1502.2 which may address that. It says '~vhen 50% or more of the total roof area is re-roofed within a one-year period..." The City Attomey said if those changes were made then this hearing would constitute another first reading and a second reading would be required. He said he was not concerned about the Unifotni Code provision, since the city has always interpreted that to mean the California Code. Last time Council had discussed the potential for gerrymandering of construction and had decided that they would not address that. The Community Development Director said that the existing wording gives the homeowner more flexibility. The public hearing was closed. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1742. Motion carried 5=0. Council concurred-to review-the ~ reports and disouss item Nos.-14 and 15 logether. 14. Applications 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96, City of Cupertino - General Plan amendment to the land use and housing elements to redistribute residential potential among the planning districts and the undesignated classification. Environmental Determination: The · - Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of November 4, 1996.) December ! 1, / ~)06 Cupertino City Council Page 4 (a) Resolution No. 9750: Approving General Plan Amendment 4-GPA-96. 15. Applications 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21-EA-96 - Thompson Residential Co. (Tandem Computers, property owner) - Use Pe~,,it to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres ' and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES). The project is located at 10750 Wolfe Road. Environmental Dete~ii~ination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of November 18, 1996.) (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1749: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code By Rezoning a Parcel Located at 10750 Wolfe Road From Planned Industrial Zone P (MP) to Planned Residential P (RES), (Application 5-Z-96)." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff reports for item Nos. 14 and 15. The Planning Commission recommends that the number of units be reallocated to allow no more than 560 units to accommodate these specific residential projects if necessary, and that the additional 60 units assigned to the Vallco area be transferred from the undesignated category. The 60-unit transfer is based upon two applications, the Thompson Residential Company project as well as the Sandhill Development which is currently under review by the Planning Commission. Discussion followed regarding the level of service to maintained at the intersection; requirements for park space and park fees; definition of net density versus gross density; and which school district(s) will be affected. Sorensen asked that staff return with an outline of specifically where the recreation areas are and define which high school will be impacted. Mr. Will Thompson, applicant, urged approval of the Planning Commission recommendation to allow 560 units for the two developments. This will allow each project to be reviewed and approved separately. These projects will help to provide apartment housing in a very tight market in Silicon Valley and the city. Ten percent of the Thompson units will be low-income or very-low-income units. An example of this need is that 98 new teachers have been hired in the district and the majority of them cannot fmd or afford housing in Cupertino, and in many cases they are commuting from outside the county. Mr. Thompson highlighted the changes they had made in the plans based upon input from the Planning Commission and community. This would be one of the largest apartment communities in the city, and will have a density of 25.5 based upon gross acreage~ ...High. density.-in the..Generai -Plan is. defined as 20-35..units per gwss acreage. This is much lower than the density of comparable projects being developed in the Silicon Valley. Mr. Thompson said there had been no negative feedback from neighbors or the community on this project. This project is appropriate for this site, surrounded by compatible uses which provide jobs, shopping and services, and is not - adjacent to any residential neighborhoods. This project will also create an operating business which will employee 12 people on site, and pay about a half million dollars in December l 1, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 5 property taxes. Mr. Thompson clarified that this development has been accepted into the Santa Clara Unified School district and there will be no impact on Cupertino schools. Mr. Alex Seidel, architect, reviewed the site plans and elevations and discussed the traffic pattern, parking and garages. There will be a community center with a lounge, health club, business center, a swimming pool, and a series of pedestrian open spaces and parks. There is a reduced profile for buildings on the perimeter of the site, and there is significant landscaping along Wolfe Road. Mr. Sidell showed two models of this project. Mr. Paul Lettieri, landscape architect, said there are 1.85 acres of amenities as required by ordinance, and there is additional open space not included in that calculation which amounts to another 3.8 acres of landscaped open space, which have hedges or garden areas, seating areas, etc. The largest open space is 230 feet by 170 feet wide is flat and unobstructed. This recreation space also creates a nice vista for the tenants immediately around it. He showed the locations of picnic areas and children's play areas, and the pool and courtyard. He also discussed where additional trees and shrubs would be planted. Chang asked what kind of recreation opportunities were there for children of junior high or high school age. Mr. LaTierry said the large play field was a great amenity for that age group, because they are not typically interested in play structures. The field can be used for football, catch, Frisbee, etc., in addition to the pool area. There is currently no provision for basketball, and it can be a problem in apartment sites because of the noise it generates. Mr. LaTierry pointed out the location of fencing and said there would not be a gate across the main entrance. Mr. Bruce Dor£man, project manager, showed a map which illustrated that the entire project will be in the Santa Clara Unified School District. Mr. Dorfman said there are currently 3 apartment projects under construction totaling 456 units. This project and the Sandhill project will raise number to 560. He explained that aparhuent construction has peaks and valleys. Economics of aparhxlent development make sense during today's strong market. Apartments built in the 60's and 70's were built for much different resident profiles. Today's apartment renters tend to be the same profile as homeowners, and they are looking for the same quality and aspects. The design of this project is oriented toward them, with walk-in closets and more 3-bedroom units. Another difference fxom earlier apartment construction is the tougher building construction standards and ADA standards. All units will be sprinldered for life safety; and the design must address seismic issues, energy conservation, and sound attenuation. Mr. Michael Marten,-representing the Greenbelt Alliance, said they.strongly support the development of high-quality housing located in existing urban areas that is affordable to all seg~xtents of the Bay Area population. This project meets their criteria for support based on its location, accessibility, density, and nature. '- Ms. Betty Mann said she was speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters Cupertino/Sunnyvale. The League supports equal opportunity in housing and an increase . in the supply of safe, decent, adequate and affordable housing for all Californians. They December I 1, 1 ~)~)6 Cupertino City Council Page 6 encourage the use of density bonuses, mixed cluster, inclusionary zoning, and increased density along transportation corridors. The League believes this project meets those criteria. Without an adequate housing supply for this and following generations Cupertino may slowly lose its reputation as a great city. Ms. Mann urged Council's support of this project in order to fulfill the pressing needs for housing. Mr. Terry Feinberg said he was representing the Tri-County Apartment Association, Housing Action Coalition, and Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. Their common message is there is a critical need for more rental housing in Cupertino. They support this application and encourage Council's approval of the project. Mr. William Wickwire said that he represented the Cupertino-Sunnyvale Churches Coalition on Homelessness and Affordable Housing. They are the sponsor of the Faith in Action Rotating Shelter. He said that the coalition was in favor of this project fxom the standpoint of affordable housing it will provide. Mr. John Hailey, representing Tandem Computers, said he was particularly encouraged by the quality of this proposed project. Tandem has a vested interest in insuring they can provide attractive employment opportunities for future employees and nearby housing is critical. There are other employers in the area who feel they will benefit when this housing is available, and employees at Tandem that know of this project are ready to wait in line to rent one of these units and be close to the workplace. It is a well-designed, attractive project which will be a future asset to the community. Burnett Said the General Plan shows this area as having no development potential because the office-industrial growth was transferred elsewhere. He asked if Mr. Hailey knew the details of that transfer. Mr. Hailey said that the floor area ratio credits were transferred off that site to other projects that have already been built in the Vallco Park area. The transfers occurred before Tandem acquired the site. Bumett said he has a request in to staff to clari~ this issue. Mr. Don Peterson represented the S & K Sandhill development team which has proposed the project across the street. He said that both of these projects collectively contribute to the traffic impact, which has yet to be defined. Both projects should collectively bear any ramifications from such a study. Burnett said he was strongly supportive of this project. He said he felt that the City did have some control over demand for housing, and that will be addressed later in land use and industrial areas. Even if that demand is cut drastically, the need for housing is outstripped by.the <lemand-created. by planned industrial-growth.. -Burner said he shared some concerns about traffic input but many tenants may not need to use cars for a lot of their trips to grocery stores, shopping, etc. Traffic is a serious issue but a few more units won't make or break the situation, and the overriding need is to provide people a chance to be close to their jobs. Dean said there will always be a need for housing, as well as affordable housing, but Council must consider the city's ability to handle an influx like this. With the approval December 11, 1996 Cupertino City Council Pa~e 7 _ of tbese two projects there will be a total of about 1,000 new houses and apartments. It's a nice idea that residents would be able to walk or ride bikes to work and shopping but he wasn't sure that was reality. The City was forced to accept 500 units for this area predicated upon a state mandate based on jobs/housing balance. Dean said he was concerned with height and density and whether the city would be able to cope with the traffic impacts. Sorensen said she had concerns about density, traffic, and the height, especially that the 40-foot setbacks from Pruneridge may not be adequate. Also, the issue of park fees must be settled. Chang said he was impressed with the work which had gone into this project. He said most of his concerns had been addressed although he had earlier pointed out the need for teen recreation. The proposed mount of park area in this project is appropriate, however they need to take care of the teen-agers, who tend to be most at risk in this society. The city's Teen Task Force is working on this and it is important that every segment of the community help out. Since this development will not be close to many community facilities, he would like to see some space that is redesigned specifically with teens in mind to make it an attractive gathering place. There are already amenities directed toward toddlers and adults. Chang said he would wait for the traffic report results before he makes his decision about the appropriate density level. Bautista agreed that housing was needed and this was a good site because of its proximity to transportation corridors and employers. His concerns were with the density, which may be able to be resolved after looking at the traffic study. They should look carefully at the amount of park space in this project. This project has a bare minimum of park space and the residents will not have many alternatives. He questioned the multiple used of 1.8 persons, which assumes a total occupancy of 600 residents, but he felt there would be more than that. When the multiple becomes 2, the amount of park space would increase about 3/10 of an acre. He added that the use of a podium for parking was an excellent idea to increase park space, and the design and amenities were good. Sorensen asked that when staff prepared the traffic study they break out the impact of the Thompson and Sandhill projects as well as the Hudson development in San Jose and whatever will go in on the comer of Homestead and Lawrence. Bautista said that direction to the applicant was be to address height, density, traffic, setbacks on Pruneridge, park fees, and designing park space for teens. There is also concern about the-placement, of.park-space, the...need for more.space, and for more contiguous space to make it more truly useable based upon a multiple higher than 1.8. Dean moved to continue both of these items to the next meeting in January. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. At 8:50 p.m., the Council recessed, at 9:03 p.m., Council reconvened. December 11, 199/; Cupertino City Council Page _ 16. Application Nos. 9-Z-96 and 34-EA-96, Emily Chen (Rossi Family Trust) - Rezoning a .9 acre parcel from RI-IO ag. Zone to R1-7.5 Zone. The property is located at 10346 South Stalling Road. Recommended for approval. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. (Continued from the meeting of November 4, 1996.) (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1748: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code By Rezoning a Parcel Located at 10346 South Stelling Road From RI-10 ag. Zone to R1-7.5 Zone - (Application 9-Z-96)." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. Bautista opened the public hearing. Ms. Emily Chen, the applicant, said she was pleased with the recommendation, and this project will be consistent with the majority of the surrounding neighborhood. Dean moved to approve staff's recommendation. Sorensen seconded, and the motion carded 5-0. Sorensen moved to grant a negative declaration. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-1). Sorensen moved to approve application No. 9-Z-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4768. Burner seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. 17. Applications 8-Z-96, 18-U-96, 6-TM-96 and 26-EA-96 - Chalet Woods, Inc. - Zoning amendment to rezone a .66 acre parcel from R1-6 to POLES); use permit to construct 5 single-family detached residences on a .66 acre parcel in a Planned Development Zoning District; tentative map to subdivide a .66 acre parcel iht6 5 lots. The project is located at 1187 Gardenside Lane. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for denial. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1746: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of .Cupel'tino. Amending .Title-19 of .the Cupertino..Municipal Code By Rezonlng a Parcel Located at 1187 Gardenside Lane From R1-6 to P(RES) - (Application 8-Z-96)." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. Bautista opened the '- public hearing. December 11, 1996 Cupertho City Council Page 9 _ Mr. Jim Jackson, representing the applicant, said that they had agreed to put in a sycamore street tree as requested by one of the neighbors. They had tried to meet all of the conditions and concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Shishir Mukherjee, 1174 Scotland Drive, said he was the neighbor facing the No. 5' building on this parcel. He attended the Planning Commission meeting on October 14 and raised some objections to the density, lack of privacy as a result of second-floor windows, and problems with traffic in that narrow street. The commission met again on October 25 but he was not infomied even though he had specifically asked the applicant the day before when the next meeting would be. He asked for an explanation why a five- lot development offers more oppo~mity for privacy protection and design-control than a four-lot development. Some action has been taken about windows on the west side of the property, but he didn't think the same had been done for windows facing Kingsbury Place. This is only a 20-foot wide street and already has a parking strip on one side and they plan to add another which will make the street too narrow for two-way traffic. Also, this two story development is not ham~onious with the neighborhood, Mr. Mark Blaszczyk, 7453 Kingsbury Place, appreciated that the applicants accepted his input. He asked that the park strip be 6.5 feet wide all the way around the development, which would include Gardenside. He said the second-floor setbacks on the new plans did not have much dimensionality. Mr. Mary Kirkeby, 21442 Elm Court, engineer for the project, clarified the plans for the street paving. The proposal is to have a typical 20-foot wide pavement from centerline to face of curb, which is the city standard, with a 10-foot park strip and 2-foot easement so the park strip will match the 12-foot park strip on other side of the street. Mr. Kirkeby explained that there would be 105 feet between second-story windows which exceeds the old standard of 100 feet between houses, and these would also be allowed in an R-1 zone. There is an agreement with the neighbor to the west that the applicant will build a retaining wall and a fence. It is not known yet if that will be a common fence between the two properties. Mr. Daryl Fazekas, architect for the project, said there may have been confusion between the terms "parking strip" and "park strip." The 6.5 foot park strip measurement refers to landscaping between the curb and sidewalk. Mr. Fazekas highlighted the changes made at the request of the neighbors. There will be a 4-foot by 10-foot cantilevered roof overhang to break up the sidewall. That could be extended to 20 feet at Council's request. Sorensen moved to grant a negative declaration. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Sorensen moved to approve Application No. 8-Z-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4759. Dean seconded and the motion carried 5-0. December 11, 1 ~)/)g Cupertino City Council Page 10 - The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved and Dean seconded to mad the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carded 5-0. Dean moved to approve Application No. 18-U-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4757, with the requirement that the cantilevered roof canopy be increased to 20 feet. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Dean moved to approve Application No. 6-TM-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4758. Sorensen seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Council concurred to re=order the agenda to discuss item No. 21 next. 21. Resolution No. 9751: Approval of agreement with Symantec, et al. for installation of park space and streetscape improvements at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff r ort. There was one additional item not discussed in the report having to do with possible dedication of the park site to the city from Cupertino City Center Builders. The City Attorney said that if Mr. Diller, the principal, chooses to dedicate this property it must be done before the end of the year. This will have no impact on the Symantec proposal. Sorensen moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a resolution on behalf of the City Council accepting the deed of property at the "four seasons orchard" park site if the property owner should choose to dedicate the property. Bumett noted that the sundial design and shadow were out of scale. The Community Development Director-concurred, and noted that the sundial, is not. a foregone conclusion but merely a conceptual suggestion at this time. He explained that the Fine Arts Commission has begun discussions on the art for this site. There will be $140,000 to work with for landscaping and some of that money may be set aside for public art. The Fine Arts Commission will follow the same procedure they did to acquire the mural, - which includes an RFP and might entail the advancement of funds for artists to respond by providing models for Commission and Council review. December 11, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page 11 - Mr. Gordon Ciochun, representing Symantec, said they would like to move ahead with this landscaping issue, which is the final step of this project. Bumett moved to approve Resolution No. 9751. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0 18. Review of Council committee assignments. (Continued from the meeting of November 18, 1996.) Council members discussed their preferences for committee assignments. Bautista asked that the list of assignments be updated on the agenda. Council members can verify those listings and note any changes at the next meeting. 19. Nomination of council member to serve on Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County. The City Manager said that if any of the Council members were interested in serving on this commission they should contact him within the next few days to have their name entered for consideration. 20. Annual General Plan report. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. He said that some of the General Plan amendment actions to be considered include (1) a potential change in criteria for traffic and peak-hour levels of service; (2) re-investigate the concept of tiered housing development; (3) height limitations; (4) housing policies regarding density ranges; (5) review plans for property acquisition; (6) policies regarding schools; and (7) consider timetables for implementation and schedule for review by goals committees and planning commission. Dean suggested that a joint study session on these topics be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Burnett said that the discussion of tiered development should be broader than just Tier II and the tier system should probably be eliminated entirely. Council should look at the entire issue of office and industrial growth. The Community Development Director said that staff was working on bringing their data base up to date so that Council would have the latest information. Council concurred to hold a study session with the Planning Commission on Jan~_mry 27 at 5:30 p.m. in. Conference-Room C & Dto discuss these General Plan issues. ORDINANCES None. December 11, 1996 Cupertino City Council Page STAFF REPORTS 22. Report regarding Don Frolich memorial. .The City Attorney explained that a plaque in memory of former mayor Don Frolich would be dedicated on December 19 at 2:00 p.m. in the redwood grove at the library. COUNCIL REPORTS Burnett said he had attend the National League of Cities conference in San Antonio. He obtained some interesting infom-tation on police and fire applications using infrared technology, as well as information about ADA requirements, and would pass on the information. He noted that San Jose won a prize for their excellent affordable housing program. ADJOURNMENT At 10:12 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of City Council will be held on Monday, January 6, 1997. City Clerk