Loading...
CC 01-06-97 CC-936 MINUTES Cupertino City Council Regular Meeting January 6, 1997 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:48 p.m. Mayor Baufista called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Baufista, Vice-Mayor Lauralee Sorensen, Councilmembers Don BurneR, Michael Chang, and Wally Dean. Council members absent: None. Staffpresent: City Manager Don Brown; City Clerk Kimberly Smith; City Attorney Charles Kilian; Administrative 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 Mr. Hiram Sibley referred to his property at 10370 Stelling Road. He complained of difficulties associated with the eminent domain procedure in which his water meter was moved and water line taken; the water line is now covered by concrete; his inability to get a water meter; construction had taken place next door without a permit; and a fire hydrant was installed in front of his yard without notice to or permission from him. Baufista directed staff to follow up with Mr. Sibley. January 6, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Sorensen moved to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 1. Resolution No. 9754: Accounts Payable, December 6, 1996. 2. Resolution No. 9755: Accounts Payable, December 13, 1996. 3. Resolution No. 9756: Accounts Payable, December 20, 1996. 4. Resolution No. 9757: Payroll, December 13, 1996. 5. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - November 1996. 6. Minutes of the December 11 special City Council meeting, amended on pages 7 and 11. 7. Resolution No. 9758: Approving dea~ction of certain records. 8. Annual report from Telecommunications Commission. 9. Resolution No. 9728 (Amended): Accepting grant deed of property from Ruth S. Plato, Successor Trustee of Declaration of Trust of Selma Elida Nelson, 21979 San Fernando Avenue and appropriation of funds in the amount of $389,929.08. 10. Review of applications for Alcoholic Beverage Control license: (a) Caffe Bella, 19998 Homestead Road, Suite C. Co) Penka International, 1381 Aster Lane. 11. Resolution No. 9759: Adopting a Citizen Participation Plan for the twenty-third year (1997-98) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. 12. Resolution No. 9760: Authorizing execution of agreement with Miu Jue, 10545 Cordova Road, APN 342 dA.-012. 13. Resolution No. 9761: Accepting grant of easement for roadway purposes from Miu Chiang Jue and Clemen Jue, 10545 Cordova Road, APN 342 ~d.-012. 14. Resolution No. 9762: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights from Miu Chiang Jue and Clemen Jue, 10545 Cordova Road, APN 342-44-012. 15. Resolution No. 9763: Approving parcel map and improvement plans of property located at 1358 So. Stelling Road; Developer Debcor Corporation; authorizing execution of improvement agreement, signing of parcel map and improvement plans. 16. Resolution No. 9764: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights from Allan A. Lin and Judy J. Tang; 10555 Merriman Road, APN 342-16-099. January 6, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page 3 17. Resolution No. 9765: Accepting grant of easement for roadway purposes from Allan A. Lin and Judy J. Tang; 10555 Merriman Road: APN 342-16-099. 18. Resolution No. 9766: Accepting quitclaim deed and authorization for underground water rights from E & H First Family Limited Partnership; APN 357-14-027, 21901 Dolores Avenue. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: Bautista, Bumett, Chang, Dean, and Soreusen Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council members concurred to discuss item Nos. 19 and 20 together 19. 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 classifica~on. Environmental Dete~,~6nation: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of December 11, 1996.) (a) Resolution No. 9750: Approving General Plan Amendment 4-GPA-96. 20. Applications 14-U-96, 5-Z-96 and 21-EA-96 - Thompson Residential Co. (Tandem Computers, property owner) - Use Permit to construct 348 apartment units on 14 acres and rezone the property from Planned Industrial Zone P 0VIP) to Planned Residential P (RES). The project is located at 10750 Wolfe Road. Environmental Determination: The Planning Conunission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. Recommended for approval. (Continued from the meeting of December 11, 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)." lannsry/~, I/){)7 Cupertino City Council Page 4 .- The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report on item No. 19 and said that the Plavnir~g Commission recommended the number of units be increased to no more than 560 units to accommodate the Sandhill and Thompson residential projects, if necessary, and that those additional 60 units assigned to the Vallco area should be transferred from the undesignated category. He said that a traffic report has been completed and will be discussed in more detail with the individual applications. Both the Thompson and the Sandhill projects can be made to work with some traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Chuck Corr, representing Cupertino Union School District, summarized the school demographics study. The di~kict commissioned a study to dete,~fine if there had been a change in the expected numbers of students. 'The yield from aparh~.ents is typically .073 students per apartment dwelling, and the study showed a small increase to .09. For single family dwellings and detached homes the yield increased from .605 to .662 per house. Mr. Corr said these small increases fit into the planning already done by the school district, and they believe the di.~trlct can handle all the growth anticipated within the city's General Plan. He cautioned that the class-size reduction proposal is an entirely different issue than the district's ability to meet General Plan estimates. However, even under the current operating procedures, classes are not loaded beyond the contractual limit. If the limit would be exceeded, another teacher and classroom are added. In addition, Sedgewick School is designed to house more students than are currently _ enrolled, and there are modular locations identified if they become necessary. Discussion was held on item No. 20. Council was given a letter from Nancy Symons dated January 6 stating her support for this project. The Community Development Director di~trlbuted a set of revised additional conditions of approval for the use permit. Dean showed a series of slides illustrating pwjects which had been approved by the City' Council. These included a low-income housing project on Stevens Creek Boulevard, a home on Peninsula Road, and the Mariani project. Dean pointed out inadequate front yard, back yard, and sideyard setbacks as well as areas of insufficient landscaping and difficult garage access, and urged Council to make careful decisions about setbacks and building heights in the projects under discussion. Bautista suggested that Council discuss the feasibility of de facto standards for planned developments at their next goal-setting session. Mr. Will Thompson, applicant, urged the approval of the general plan change to increase the General Plan designation of 500 nnits to 560. He said this would provide important support for more housing, especially more affordable housing, in a very tight housing market. The two projects will provide a total of 56 units which will rent at low- and very- low-income levels, with rents discounted as much as 60% from market rate. He -' discussed the changes made to the project since the last meeting, which included reducing heights and increasing setbacks for 3 buildings along Pruneridge; increasing the landscaped area; increasing active recreation areas and providing more variety, with some J'an, mry 6, ! 997 /~upert~lo City Council areas geared toward teen sports. These changes resulted in the reduction of 15 parking spaces and a parking ratio of 1.96. Mr. Thompson said this quality project is an expensive one with high fixed costs. There has been some discussion as to whether the project could be built with fewer units, but that would increase the nnit cost and force them to reconsider their ability to meet the requirements for landscaped open space, active recreation areas, and some of the parking options Mr. Alex Seidel, project architect, discussed the changes to setbacks and building locations which created more opportunities for landscaping. Height of buildings can be reduced from 2.5 to 4 feet, depending upon the roof pitch angle selected. He reviewed the other changes including more open space, reconfigured parking and traffic patterns. Mr. Seidel discussed a chart which showed the relative heights of buildings along Pruneridge. He commented on the slides shown by Dean earlier, and said one of the problems with the Stevens Creek Boulevard project was that there were massive ~tractures (stairs) which come out into the landscaped area which cut that space into smaller pieces. That project also has a much smaller setback than is proposed for this project. Mr. Seidel showed elevations of the buildings with an overlay illustrating the existing trees on Pnmeridge and discussed the other architectural features and options, including the alternative roof pitches. Mr. Paul Lettieri, landscape architect, highlighted the changes that had been made to the project's landscaping and amenities. This version of the plan has fewer picnic spaces but more diverse recreation areas for all age groi~ps. Some of these amenities are a par course, badminton/croquet lawn, sand volleyball, putting green, and a basketball court. Mr. Lettieri discussed how the landscaping would serve to screen the view of the buildings from the street. Mr. Bruce Doffman, project manager, discussed setbacks of this project compared to other recent projects in the city and to the neighboring buildings. Mr. Terry Feinberg, representing the Tri-County Apartment Association, Housing Action Coalition, and the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group, addressed both the Sandhill and Thompson projects. He said there is a critical need for more rental housing and · affordable housing, and these two projects are a great opportunity to address that need in a way that fits in with the neighborhood. He cautioned that an increase in setbacks or amenities can result in delays, higher construction costs, and lower densities, which translates to higher rent or sales prices. Ultimately it is the employees and the residents who pay the cost. Ms. Leslee Coleman, representing the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group and the Housing Action Coalition, spoke in favor of the project. She said at the top of every ann~jAI survey done by the manufacturing group there are two issues, Ixansportation and housing. Measures A and B will help to address transportation issues, but the housing -- crisis continues to impact that. There is a vacancy rote of under 1% in many of the cities in this county, and these housing projects are desperately needed. lanuary 6, /997 Cupe~no (~ty (~ounc~l Page Mr. Werner Ganz, resident of Sunnyvale, spoke in favor of the project and its location. He questioned the traffic impacts on Wolfe Road and on the nearby single family homes. He suggested that Council take a field trip to a project already constructed if there was any concern about appropriate setbacks and how they translated from drawings to the actnml project. The Public Works Director highlighted the two traffic studies developed for the Thompson and Sandhill developments. He said that with some mitigation measures the traffic would be at a level of service D, which is allowable by the General Plan. This includes all the other projects which have been approved whether or not they have been constructed. Burner suggested that the southbound lef~-tum lane on Wolfe Road be extended by moving some of the trees in the median. Dean said he applauded the applicant for the progress made in addressing the issues raised by Council. His frustration was trying to acclimate to a starting point of three stories and then going to four. Another issue is the 3-story buildings along Pruneridge. If they were commercial buildings they probably would not be allowed because of their height and setbacks. He was also concerned with the feel of the entryway off Pruneridge because of the height of the buildings. Burner and Sorensen also approved of the improvements made since the last meeting. The type of project and its location meets a strong community need. Sorensen felt that the buildings may appear too flat from the street. She also asked that the replacement trees be as large as possible, and preferred the roof at a lower pitch. Sorensen was concerned about the traffic and how it might impact the morning backup on the 280 on- ramp. The Public Works Director said these two developments would have an insignificant impact on the 280 on-ramp, but staff is working to address that backup from an operational standpoint. Chang was pleased with the improvements, especially with the recreation spaces, but agreed with the concerns about the setbacks and the visual impact of these tall buildings. Chang said he was not enthusiastic about allowing the additional 60 units, and suggested removing one of the buildings along Pruneridge. Bautista felt this project was high density and therefore difficult to achieve the desired result with appropriate setbacks and building heights. He felt the setbacks along Pruneridge and Wolfe were generally okay, but that the internal density of the project was still a concern. He said he would prefer the more steeply-pitched roof. He noted that because some of these buildings are podium projects, they are acWal!y four and a half stories high, and these are the buildings closest together. He also would like to see the elimination of one building to reduce the density to about 24 units per acre. One mitigating factor is that this development is separate and apart from other developments. ,lan~ry 6, 10/)7 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Dean said the key issue for him is the q, Rlity of life for the citizens of Cupertino that are here now, and how it will affect them. This is a nice project and the housing is needed, but Council has made some design mistakes in the past. In this case the setbacks are not very large compared to the height of the buildings. Chang agreed that there is a density issue, and wished not to exceed the 500 units already established as a baseline. He discussed variations in location and building heights. Soreusen did not want to approve the additional 60 units, but suggested an additional 30 units instead. The Community Development Director explained that these are townhouse units, so the reduction of the fourth story level would reduce the height but not the number of units. The City Manager noted that the grade of Buildings 7 and 8 is below the level of the off- ramp, so the impression there may already be that the building is only 3 stories high. Discussion followed between council members and the applicants regarding the various grades of the property and freeway ramp, how the buildings could be modified to make them lower, and how the site is laid out to allow sunlight into the open space areas. Chang moved to approve the project as presented, with the removal of the lofts on Buildings 7, 8, and 9. Bumett seconded. _. The Community Development Director clarified that by approving the project at this density, Council would be agreeing to accept higher than 500 units. Chang agreed that was his intention. Bautista suggested an amendment to the motion, that the units on the left- and right-hand sides of the pool also be modified to eliminate the lofts. Chang and Burner accepted the amendment. Bautista called for a straw vote, and that motion carried 4-1 with Dean voting no. Chang moved to approve Application No. 14-U-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773 and with the following added conditions: (1) Traffic Mitigation - applicant and Sandhill Properties shall jointly fund the Pruneridge Avenue/Wolfe Road intersection improvements identified in the Barton-Aschnmn Associates traffic report dated 12/20/96; (2) Roof slopes - the main building roof slopes shall be no more than 7:12 and no less than 6:12; (3) Grading and drainage plan - Applicant shall prepare a revised grading and drainage plan that reflects the appwved site plan, Sheet//2, and is to the satisfaction of the Director; (4) Replacement trees 'shall be a minimum of 24-inch box trees; and (5) Trees shall be moved to another location in the center strip to allow for enlargement of the left turn lane on Wolfe Road; (6) Buildings 7, g, and 9 shall have the fourth-story lofts removed, as well as Buildings 1 and 2 on the sides facing the pool; and (7) Council agreed to accept a parking ratio of 1.96. Bumett seconded the motion, which carried 4-1 with Dean voting no. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sorensen moved to approve Application 5- Z-96 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4774 and to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Cupertino City Council Page Sorensen moved to grant a negative declaration. Bumett seconded and the motion carded 5-0. The City Attorney noted that all of these actions are predicated upon the adoption of the General Plan amendment, item No. 19. (Note: The General Plan amendment was also discussed in conjunction with the Sandhill Properties project. Both of those items were continued to the agenda of Jan. 21, so the Thompson item only received conceptual approval). 21. Applications 15-U-96, 6-Z-96 and 22-EA-96 - Sandhill Properties (Tandem Computers, pwperty owner) - Use penifit to construct 213 apartment units, 8 single-family detached units and a 4-story hotel (maximum of 215 moms) on ten acres located at 10741 N. Wolfe Road, and 19590 Pruneridge Avenue; Rezoning of a 10-acre parcel fi'om Planned (Commercial, Office, Recreation) zone to Planned (Residential/Commercial) zone; Tentative map to subdivide I0 acres into 13 lots to allow 8 single-family residences, 213 apartments on 2 lots, private driveways and a community center and park. Recommended for approval. Environmental determination: The Planning Commission recommends the granting of a negative declaration. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1750: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code by Rezoning a Ten Acre Parcel Located at 10741 N. Wolfe Road and 129590 Pnmeridge Avenue from Planned (Commercial, Office, Recreation) Zone to Planned (Residentiai/Commercial) Zone (Application 6-Z-96 Sandhill Properties)." The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. The following correspondence was distributed to Council: (1) A letter dated January 2 from Hilton lnns~ Inc. discussing their anticipated acceptance of Mr. Pau's application for a Hilton Garden Inn franchise; (2) A fax dated January 6, 4:55 p.m., from Attorney James. Eller regarding the Marriott easement and the agreement between the Marriott Corporation and Vallco Park; and (3) A letter to the City Attorney from Attorney James Eller regarding Sand Hill Development. The Community Development Director said there are some questions about the use of the 40-foot easement which goes back from Prnneridge to the Marriott property. Staff and the city attorney feel that the easement provides for vehicular and pedestrian access and some landscaping, but there may be a legal dispute between the parties on that issue. There is a suggested condition that the city would be indemnified if there is such a dispute. The City Attorney said the city is requiting that 30 feet of that easement be used for roadway purposes and the other 10 feet be used for sidewalk and landscaping. The language of the easement says that if the city requires improvements on the easement then either property owner may cause those improvements to be made without the consent of 997 Cupertino City Council Page 9 the other property owner. He referred to the lease between Marriott and Vallco which also provides for a 40-foot easement for ingress and egress and utilities, and Tandem's representatives stated that the easement already reviewed was an implementation of that agreement. The attorney for the Marriott property feels those are separate easements. The applicant's lawyer has agreed to indemnify, defend and hold the city harmless from any problems with the easement. Mr. Mike Anderson, representing the applicant, highlighted the site plan and the single- family portion of the project. He said this is an oddly-shaped property on the border of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and will be a mixed use with hotels, single family homes, and apmi~iients. Marketing studies show that people prefer owning their own home rather than a condominium, and the primary method of keeping those homes affordable, given high land prices, is to have an efficient home on small lots. Mr. Anderson sh6wed some pictures of similar homes in Southern California which were designed by the same architect. He reviewed the design features which maximize space, de-emphasize the garage structure, and add architectural interest to the facade of the house. Although these homes have a relatively small rear yard, they all face a neighborhood park directly across the street. Mr. Anderson said that they were willing to provide 15-foot rear yards in all of the homes, as requested by the Planning Commission. He discussed the Commission's requirement regarding floor area ratio (FAR) and said that they tried to address that issue by placing bedrooms above the garage and the entryway so there is no wasted space; ._ instead the homes actually take up less land and are more affordable. He showed the location of the existing sound wall and mature redwood trees, and said they will meet all of the ambient noise requirements of the city. Sideyards are a minimum of five feet from the property boundary to the wall of the home, so there are 10 to 12 feet between homes. Mr. Bob Glazier, architect for the hotel project, reviewed the site plan, elevations, and amenities of the hotel. The setback from Wolfe Road is 95 feet from the base of the building to the curb, with one exception where the building juts out toward the street and the setback is about 72 feet. He explained that the hotel actually has two front faces, instead of a front and back, and they look very similar. He discussed the traffic pattern, landscaping, and the architectural details on each facade. He requested a one-to-one parking ratio and a height extension of 2 feet to allow for 9-foot guest rooms and an attractive pitch to the roof. Mr. SOmrt G-ruendle, SNK Multi-Family, showed a video illustrating the apartment project. It includes both a central garage structure and podium parking. He highlighted the landscaping, private patios, security gates, and interior and exterior amenities including a pool and community park. He noted that setbacks had been increased to 33 feet, except for one 40-foot linear section with a setback of 20 feet. Setbacks on Linnet have minimum 50-foot high mature coast redwood trees, an 8-foot wall, and setbacks of about 28 feet to the property line for 70 percent of the frontage of the building. There are existing pine trees on Linnett and they will supplement those with minimum 36-inch box Ian,s~y 6, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page 10 trees. Mr. Gruendle referred to the conditions of approval regarding linkage of the hotel to the aparhuents. The developer proposes that no certificate of occupancy be granted on building No. 5 prior to the commencement of construction on the hotel. The developer will also post a $300,000 cash deposit. They propose that the developer complete and submit an additional traffic analysis to staff regarding the use of the easement. The Cornmunity Development Director could then analyze a potential left-turn pocket on the main easement to the hotel. Mr. Jussi Rajna, 1725 Linnet Lane, referred to a letter he had submitted which was on page 21-9 of the back-up expressing his concern about the setback on Linnet Lane. Mr. Warren Mine, 10630 Linnet Lane, represented the a single family property in this project. Some concerns had already been addressed by the developer, but the remaining issues were (I) The need for a barrier, fence or netting between the basketball court and their fruit trees; (2) The need to eliminate access to their property from the new development; (3) The need for a buffer to minimize noise from the pool area. The Community Development Director noted that the Planning Commission was adamant that the access be kept open to provide a linkage to the half-acre open space to the west. Mr. Steve Swenson, 1789 Lark Lane, said he was also concerned with the setbacks on Linnet and did not want the street to attract overflow parking for the apartment complexes. The Community Development Director noted that the parking ratio for the aparhxxents is 2:1. The Public Works Director said that since Linnet is a Sunnyvale street, staff can make the request that the east side of Linnet be posted as a no-parking area. Mr. Werner Ganz said there will be another 1800 cars each morning and again in the evening using the intersection at Pruneddge and Wolfe. The 280 metering lights will cause a backup on Wolfe Road in the morning, and another a backup will occur on 280 in the evenings. This project is too dense in total and the tratTlc will not work. Mr. Jim Eller is the attorney representing the Cacitti family which owns the land on which the Marriott hotel is built. He said there are concerns about the easement and its diminution in size because it is crucial to the Marriott hotel. It is currently 40 feet wide and provides ingress and egress, landscaping, and utilities. It was created in 1986 on a map in favor of the tenant. A second easement was created in 1994 in favor of the landowner, and that's the easement which the city attorney has reviewed. Mr. Eller said there is a significant dispute about the easement. There is no need to reduce the easement except for the incredible density of this project. He said his client was not opposed to the project in general, but not at the expense of the landowner. They were also concerned about the rotary intersection and said there had been no internal traffic studies done. He asked for a two-week delay so his client, Marriott and the developer can study the project and develop a proposal that will work for all of them. J'an~ory ~, 1 ~)~17 Cupertino City Council Page - The City Attorney said the easement which Mr. Eller describes as an unrestricted 40-foot easement is acla~_ally a lease provision reserving an easement to the Marriott Corporation. The easement that has been reviewed by the city is also a 40-foot easement but it is clear that it is for pedestrian access, landscaping, and utility access, and it is susceptible to modifications and improvements by the city. Mr. Eller said he strongly disagree with that interpretation. Ms. Patficia Schille, representing thc Marriott Courtyard, said she agreed with many of Mr. Eller's concerns about the easement and felt it should stay the way it is now. Also, they were concerned about the inadequate parking at the Marriott for their current level of occupancy, and this will be worsened by the new hotel. The Marriott has a parking ratio of .9. In response to a question about the need for a sidewalk in the area, Ms. Schille felt it would not be heavily utilized because their guests simply did not walk over to the Cupertino Village. Mr. Ernest Piccone, representing Tandem Computers, said he was involved in the negotiations when the most recent easement was created. It refers back to the previous easement. Mr. Piccone quoted some sections of the easement agreement, which included the phrase "for vehicle and pedestrian access, ingress, egress, and for underground utilities and landscaping with appurtenances thereto." The document also says that whatever is done with the easement "shall not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the easement." Mr. Piccone said on each side of the easement there are parallel parking spaces which were used when the restaurant was 'in operation. The document anticipated future development around the easement because it also says that Tandem retains the fight to grant concurrent easements for ingress and egress provided they are granted for the benefit of one or more of the parcels. Mr. Piccone said he understood that the purpose of this easement, done in 1994, was to confirm the existence and location of the previous easement. Council members began their discussion. Burnett felt the setbacks along Linnett needed to be increased, that the central parking structure in the apartments would create a shadowing problem, and the podium design would be a better solution. Regarding the easement, it is very important to provide pede~ian access and landscaping in that location. The rotary traffic design must be done with great care, but it can be a safe way to handle a large volume of traffic instead of using stop signs. Chang shared Burnett's concerns about small setbacks on Linnett and the shadowing caused by the central parking.area. He was glad to see recreation opportunities for different age groups but agreed there should be a fence and/or trellis between the basketball court and the neighbor's home. There should also be a larger setback for the hotel. January 6, 1/)/)7 Cupert'mo City Council Page Sorensen was concerned about the five-foot sideyards in the single-family homes and concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation about floor area ratios. She felt the setbacks on Linnet were too small and the 3-story apartments were too high next to single family homes. She was opposed to the central parking garage, and agreed there should be buffers around Mr. Mine's property. She felt there may be some problems in the park because of the intensity of use and the potential for criminal activity because of its design. Sorensen felt that the easement is an issue which the attorneys must work out. Dean discussed the reasons why the city has adopted a requirement for .45 floor area ratio, and this hous'mg project does not fit that. He urged that they follow R-1 guidelines instead. The hotel design is good but the trellis and vines in the back are not a sufficient mitigation for the problems with the facade. The front of the building looks very good. He concurred with the other council members about the problems with the cenlral parking structure, and felt the parking and traffic flow problems have not yet been adequately addressed. Bautista said he would accept the hotel as designed with the towers and a two-foot increase over general plan guidelines for the roof. The hotel will be of incredible benefit to the city with substantial revenues per year, so that was an overriding consideration. He agreed with comments about setbacks on Linnett and the internal parking structure in the _ apartments. He preferred to see R-1 standards in temxs of side-yard setbacks and FAR, for the single-family homes, which would ultimately mean a reduction in the number of houses. He would accept the 3-story element of the apaxhnents. Bautista concurred that there needs to be a protective fence along the Mine's property, perhaps an 8-foot masonry fence with some additional feet of trellis. Bumett discussed the park area and said it was important that it not be a dead-end, bUt rather kept open to allow circulation. Discussion followed regarding a way to improve the view of the garage area on the back of the hotel. Mr. (~lazier said that they could bring more of the entry elevation elements into play. For example, some more of the tile roof could be brought down to the first stories to create a projecting tile roof about 12 feet offthe ground. Possibly some of the wrought-iron railing details could be brought down to the first floor as well. Council discussed single-family homes and the feasibility of R-1 standards for sideyards and FAR. The Community Development Director said those standards were really designed for 6,000 sqnare foot lots, and would not work on 2,000 square foot lots. He noted that if the Council was concerned about impacts on the existing Sunnyvale homes behind this project, the rear yards were probably more important than side yards. Council reached consensus that the project Should be reduced to 7 houses with minimum 15-foot rear yards and increased side yards. January 6, 1 ~{)7 Cupert/no City Council Page The apartment project was discussed in more detail. Council agreed upon an 8-foot wood or masonry wail with a 3-foot trellis to protect the Mine property, and that the north part of the triangular park area will be kept open. There was consensus to eliminate the 3- story parking slxucture and replace it with underground parking, and that setbacks on Linnet shall be 40 feet if the building remains at 3 stories, or a 1:1 ratio if the building is reduced to 2 stories. No parking will be ailowed on Linnet, and the City of Cupertino will send a letter t9 the City of Sunnyvale to initiate that request. Also, 36-inch box hedges will be required. The City Manager discussed the suggestion by the developer to offer a $300,000 cash deposit and to withhold the certificate of occupancy on one building until the hotel construction has begun. He said another option was to require a substantial phasing beyond a single 10-unit building. Council agreed to discuss these options at the next meeting. Council directed staff to initiate a Generai Plan change for the height issues related to architectural appurtenances; that Council be provided with a copy of the internal traffic study; that staff provide some options related to phasing; and that staff verify the Marriott parking situation. _ This item was continued to Jalluary 21, along with item No. 19, which was 4-GPA-96 and 23-EA-96. The City Attorney noted that the Thompson project approvais were contingent on adoption of item 19, so the developer of that project may not yet begin work. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 22. Application 32-U-85 (Extension), Rancho San Antonio Housing Co~p. - Use permit extension for one year for Phase II of the skilled nursing and personal care facilities located at 23500 Cristo Rey Drive. Environmental detemiination: Categorically exempt. Recommended for deniai. The Community Development Director reviewed the staff report and explained that the Planning Commission felt enough time had been given to this case, since it has been going on since 1985, and recommended against any more extensions. The other option would be to adopt an urgency ordinance. Mr. George Ivelich, architect for the Forum project, explained that the Forum consisted of about 600,000 square feet of construction, and 560,000 got built. About forty percent of the heaith center was not built because they were not sure when the beds would be needed. The core services are all there, and they will be proceeding with construction within the next 12 months. .lanuary 6, 1997 Cupertino City Council Page Sorensen was in favor of granting the extension. Burnett objected to taking a procedure for use peiafits and changing it for special chcumstances. He asked if there was a way to streamline the process for reapplication. Mr. William DooLittle, president of the San Antonio Rancho Housing Corporation, said they are beginning to mn out of beds now and some patients must be relocated to other cities. As the population grows older they will need even more beds. The construction will be done this year or not at all. Burnett moved to deny the extension per Planning Commission Resolution No. 4790 and direct the applicant to apply for a new use permit. Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-1 with S0rensen voting no. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ~one. NEW BUSINESS 23. City Attorney opinion regarding campaign financing restrictions. This item was continued to Jan, ory 21. ORDINANCES 24. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1746: "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 1187 Gardenside Lane From R1-6 to P(RES) -(Application 8-Z-96).' The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Sorensen 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. Bumett moved and Sorensen seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1746. Motion carried 5-0. 25. Second reading and enactment 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 R1-10 ag. Zone to R1-7.5 Zone - (Application 9-Z-96)." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burner moved and Sorensen 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. Bumett moved and Sorensen seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1748. Motion carded 5-0. January 6, 1997 Cupertino Ci~t Council Page 15 STAFF REPORTS 26. Shopping cart regulation. This item was continued to January 21. COUNCIL REPORTS None. CLOSED SESSION At 12:00 a.m. Council recessed to a closed session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - City of Cupertino v. C. G. Uhlenberg, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV746356. At 12:20 a.m. Council reconvened in open session. The City Attorney announced that the City Council discussed settlement and gave direction to its lawyer to proceed as directed. ADJOURNMENT At 12:21 a.m. the meeting was adjourned to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 7, to conduct interviews and make appointments to advisory bodies. City Clerk