Loading...
CC 05-20-93 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CC-859A 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 TELEPHONE: (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MAY 20, 1993, CUPERTINO SENIOR CENTER, 21257 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The meeting was called to order by Mayor Szabo at 6:55 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Counc. present: Dean, Goldman, Koppel, Mayor Szabo Counc. absent: Sorensen Planning Commissioners present: Bautista, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chair Austin Staff present: City Manager Brown City Clerk Cornelius Director of Public Works Viskovich Director of Community Development Cowan City Planner Wordell City Attorney Kilian 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Nancy Burnett complimented Council regarding the procedure and their appointments to the Planning Commission. She stated that CURB is pleased with the process. Counc. Dean invited the City Council to attend the water polo match June 15 at 5:00 p.m. at DeAnza College between the United States and Russian Olympic teams. Director of Public Works Viskovich announced that funding for the Tasman Corridor has been reinstated. The funding will come through another source than originally planned. 3. This is a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1993, ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (CC-859A) Mayor Szabo announced that this meeting was a working session and no decisions will be made. He then turned the meeting over to Director of Community Development Cowan. Mr. Cowan stated that the Planning Commission has adopted three resolutions: one recommending certification of the Environmental Impact Report as complete, another recommending adoption of the General Plan, and the third recommending adoption of the Housing Mitigation Plan, the second tier program, and the Slope Density Formula. City Planner Wordell reviewed some background information and how that fits into the resolutions. Where there are findings of significant effects, those significant effects require an answer or a finding of overriding concern. When Council adopts the General Plan, it is adopting all of those documents. Mr. Cowan reviewed what he feels are the six significant changes that the Planning Commission has approved. He recommended that Council bring up any other items they feel are significant. 1) In regard to allocation of 150,000 sq. ft., the Planning Commission felt it should go to smaller companies for "economic diversity". These would be companies with 100-1,000 employees. The actual pool consists of 261,000 sq. ft.; 110,000 sq. ft. is designated for Crossroads and City Center areas. The Planning Commission had a concern that start up companies would suffer with no possibility of growth. To be eligible for any of the 150,000 sq. ft., the company will also have had to demonstrate a long term commitment to Cupertino. There was no decision at Planning Commission regarding what specific companies would get the square footage. Following some discussion, the City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission cannot change their recommendation at this meeting, but can only clarify information for Council. 2) Mr. Cowan explained that the next item was the allocation of 2,000,00 sq. ft. The first General Plan was not explicit as to whom got that. This General Plan is explicit that it is for the "Big 3" companies as per their agreed upon distribution. Space being allocated to a company is unique to general plans. Regarding traffic, the Director of Public Works explained that the traffic is a system. The model only incorporates the base General Plan, not the 3,000,000 sq. ft. Council has stated it does not want to expand the peak period. He then mentioned potential sanctions for violation of the standards. City Manager Brown announced that Mr. Viskovich will not be able to attend the June 1 public hearing. Therefore, it might be appropriate to have public input regarding traffic at this time. 2 MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1993, ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (CC-859A) 3) Tier II Council and staff discussed ramp metering, the width of off ramps, and freeway congestion. The Mayor then opened this portion of the meeting only for public input. John Hailey, Tandem Computer, reviewed suggested changes regarding Tier II. In regard to control of partial peak time, it has been suggested that revocation of the use permit would be a solution. City Attorney Kilian stated that the more steps available before revocation, the better. Ultimately, if nothing else works, it would result in revocation of the use permit. Glenn Barber, Apple Computer, Inc., said that if the revocation of the use permit is stated, Apple will not build. If Apple did not build, they could just double the number of employees in its present buildings and the City could not do anything. Mr. Barber stated that Apple is trying to work with the City. With the revocation, it will not build but will grow elsewhere. Counc. Goldman stated that he did not believe Council would really kick them out of the building. He asked if the language suggested by Tandem would be acceptable. (City Clerk's Note: A copy of Tandem's suggested language, Tier II Traffic Mitigation, is attached as Exhibit A.) Mr. Barber stated that it might be acceptable, except for item no. 8. The question is, what is the level of the fee? The City Attorney replied that Tandem's request is that the developer has a choice of paying the fee. Mr. Barber said he has been with Apple for 10 years and has never been asked in any community what is being asked by Cupertino. He is willing to work with Cupertino as long as the City is not trying to solve a regional problem. Charles Newman, Cupertino Village and resident of Cupertino, expressed concern about transportation issues. He addressed Council regarding Highway 85, the expansion of 237, and the widening of 101 and 280. He felt that what Council should be looking at is, what do we want to do in this community? He urged Council to consider 3,000,000 sq. ft. and not stick Cupertino property owners with solving regional problems. Mark Kroll, SARES Company, addressed Council regarding the sanction of revocation of use permit. He understands that the City must have something with teeth in it, but real estate lenders are not in the risk business any more. Developers need to know the downside; what is it going to cost me? Then, they can evaluate the risk and decide yes or no. 3 MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1993, ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (CC-859A) Mr. Viskovich pointed out that in regard to Tier II, traffic would have to be reduced before any more building is done. The problem would occur if the developers then stop their TDM measures. Mr. Kroll urged the city to spell out understandable rules. It was stated that this process is based on a trust system, not games. If a sanction is put into the General Plan and not used, it is just a hurdle. Comm. Mahoney urged Council not to put it in if it's not going to be used. Nancy Burnett said that what is at issue is, what will be the effect on our local traffic by an increase in building. She asked when traffic measurements would be done and was informed they would be done at the time someone wanted to build. She stated that people could park anywhere and then just carpool into the parking lot. Fees for failing to control traffic after the buildings are up will not help the residents. 4) Mr. Cowan stated that the next item is traffic in general and the level of service. An additional intersection, Bollinger and DeAnza Boulevard, has been identified as becoming E+. Mitigations are not adequate to prevent level of service at DeAnza Boulevard/Bollinger Road and DeAnza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersections to be reduced from D to E+. The City Attorney pointed out this is a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. Council would need to find that the "heart of the city" as broadly construed is more important to the city than level of service at those E+ intersections. 5) The Tandem jackpot building Mr. Cowan stated that the Planning Commission felt the building should not be exempt from the height limitation. It does have a valid use permit. The main building is estimated to be 124 feet and with architectural details, approximately 160 feet. Across the street from where it is proposed to be built, a 120 ft. building has been approved. The height of City Center is approximately 128 ft. It was pointed out that since the building does have a valid use permit, that would be a change of the rules. 6) Park land The Planning Commission has found that park land east of DeAnza Boulevard is deficient. They suggest trying to look at recreation opportunities in that area. Currently, there is a policy to look at the Diocese property for open space. The Planning Commission suggests that maybe the City should look at the eastern part of the city. The Diocese area is 4 MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1993, ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (CC-859A) regional, not a city park. The Commission suggests prioritizing park purchases and creating park space in areas proposed to be built out. The Commission had discussed putting such statements in the specific plans. The Commission is satisfied with the Parks and Recreation priority list. Some commissioners express concern regarding the use of city funds for open space to be used by all. There seems to be a great need in the Vallco area for parks. Comm. Roberts expressed concern regarding the wording in the priority list. During general discussion of the entire General Plan, Council suggested that staff and the developers get together for wording regarding Tier II sanctions. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION Staff reviewed with Council the document entitled Statement of Overriding Consideration. Items in particular to be pointed out were page 8 of Land Use; page 1 under Transportation, the Commission clarified that it is not endorsing the use of concrete; page 5 of Open Space and Parks, and page 7, Vegetation and Wildlife. At 9:25 p.m., the City Council adjourned to a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation, City of Cupertino v. Mochelera, Superior Court. Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Counc. present: Dean, Goldman, Koppel, Szabo Counc. absent: Sorensen It was moved by Counc. Koppel, seconded by Counc. Goldman and passed unanimously by those present to authorize the City Attorney to resolve the City of Cupertino v. Mochelera on the following basis. The City will dismiss the lawsuit upon complete compliance and receipt of $2,000 to go towards Cupertino's cost of mitigation. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., Friday, May 28, 1993, Cupertino Union School District office. ________________________________ City Clerk 5