CC 01-27-97..... CC-937B
MINUTES
Cupertino City Council
Regular Adjourned Meeting
(408) 777-3200
January 27, 1997
5:30-7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
At 5:50 p.m. Mayor Bautista called the joint session to order in City Hall Conference
Room C, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino.
Council members present: Mayor John Bautista, Vice-Mayor Lauralee Sorensen, and
Council members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Wally Dean.
Planning Commission members present: Chairperson Paul Roberts, Vice Chairp~on
Andrea Harris, and Commission members Donna Austin, David Doyle, and Orrin
Mahoney.
Staff members present: City Manager Don Brown, City Clerk Kimberly Smith, Deputy
City Attorney Eileen Murray, Community Development Director Bob Cowan, Parks and
Recreation Director Steve Dowling, and Public Works Director Bert Viskovich.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING
ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
Community Development Director Bob Cowan discussed the alternatives for scheduling
general plan reviews, and recommended that the city avoid a large 10-year effort and
instead conduct a more substantive annual review. City Manager Don Brown noted that
the state does not specifically require the 10-year effort, each item on Exhibit G.
Bumett made a brief presentation and said he was concerned'about the amount of office
industrial growth in the General Plan. A lot of that has been assigned to corporations.
Also, a lot of growth is predicated upon reducing traffic, but that does not deal with
housing needs or the aesthetics of the city. Of particular concern is the Tandem
Computers Campus and the Apple Gateway development within the tier system. Bumett
showed a map of the Tandem property and noted that there is a substantial amount of land
which cannot be controlled because of a development agreement of Vallco. He also
January 27, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page
showed an illustration of the proposed growth at the shopping centex adding a second
bridge across to the Penny's store. Bumett illustrated a TanderaNallco development
evaluation chart comparing Novell, Apple Gateway, and Tandem parcels. He said there
is a potential for development of 17.3 acres but there is not a prescribed way to distribute
it. The substantial impact from all this growth is 8,000 new employees, large massing of
buildings, and profound negative impact on the quality of life. The tier system and
bonuses allow very poor control, and it is imperative that the Council address the issue of
Tier II expeditiously and determine what is the proper amount of growth.
Cowan reviewed each of the items on Attach G of the staff report, which is a list of
proposed general plan amendments (they were discussed out of order). The Council and
Commission discussed each item briefly:
1. Review "Tier II" development potential (policy 4-3, page 4-7) on the basis that
concern about Tier II growth may be excessive in terms of community character
and traffic.
2. Require both a.m. and p.m. peak hour to be Level of Service (LOS) D or better
(Policy 4-2, page 4-6). The basis for the amendment is that if a.m. peak is as bad
or worse than p.m. peak, then it should be considered unacceptable.
3. Consider a strategy to address future development "transition" parcels (Policy 2-
26, page 29). The basis for amendment is concern about intensity of transition
development related to adjacent neighborhoods,
4. Compare Policy 5-47 (Page 5-25) with the Heart of the City Plan and incorporate
any changes that might result from comparison.
5. Reconsider maximum heights (Policy 2-25, Page 2-26), based upon concerns
about visual impacts of excessive height.
Mr. Mark Kroll, representing City Center Associates, said it was important to
have Council's decision on this soon, since it could impact the hotel parcel at city
center. They would need at least the 5 stories currently allowed. Bautista said
Council should consider a standard for exceptions for items of significant
economic impact. Cowan said there could be general height limitations but
exceptions.for some vertical elements. Doyle asked that an acceptable height to
setback ratio be qnantified. Cowan said that appropriate setbacks will depend
upon the setting and character of the location as well. Chang suggested that staff
see how other communities have solved this problem. Burnett said he was more
concerned about the volume of buildings. Soreusen asked that they standardize
upon a measurement for setbacks (instead of measuring from curb or sidewalk)
Bautista said that thc vertical to horizontal ratio should be less than 1:1, and he
199' uper no oundl Page
felt the vast majority of Stevens Creek Boulevard should be suburban in feel.
Chang suggested a separate category for buildings higher than two stories.
Sorensen said that they should also consider the maturity of trees. Harris also
asked for standardization of gross versus net and measuring fxom curb vs.
property line. Burner said that floor area ratios (FAR) and setbacks should
always be measured from the property line.
6. Consider rewording the requirement to develop residential development at the
upper limit of the dwelling unit intensity range (Policy 2-13, Strategy 2, page 2-
21, and Policy 3-1, page 3-20). The basis for this amendment is concern about
impacts of higher density on adjacent neighborhoods. Council concurred to direct
staff to reword this requirement.
7. Allow interchange of square footage between commercial and office/industrial
uses (Policy 2-3, Page 2-7) based upon proposed development at Stevens
Creek/De Ajn?a Boulevard and any future development.
Council concurred to introduce flexibility into the regulations.
Cowan reviewed the options for the general plan review process and the mid-course
- general plan review in particular. Bautista said that these 7 potential amendments could
"- qualify as a mid-course review. Burnett agreed and said that the process would still allow
public input throughout. Harris and Austin felt that the issues were significant and
required more public input. Cowan said that staff could make a focused outreach to
specific groups to bring them into the normal hearing process. Discussion followed
whether a charette process would be appropriate for one or more of these 7 items. Dean
felt that everything should be put on hold for one year because there would probably be
no changes in the Tandem and Tier II issues until then, and then the city could begin its
10-year review process ,which took 3 years to complete last time.
John Hailey, representing Tandem computers, said that some of the issues have great
impact for his company. He said that the 3-minute limit for presentations was too
restrictive when explaining these items, and asked for sufficient time to give a full
explanation, presentation, and discussion. Bautista agreed that it was important that the
participants in these special meetings have sufficient time to present their information.
Bumett moved to review.these 7 potential general plan amendments in.the construct of
Planning Commission public hearings to be held at special meetings. Chang seconded
and the motion carded 4-1 with Dean voting no. Sorensen said she would vote aye but
would have preferred a more formal general plan process.
1anuary 27, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:15 p.m. the City Council adjourned and the Planning Commission recessed, to
reconvene in the City Council chambers for their regular business meeting.
Kimberl~
City Clerk