CC 02-03-92
"
'ft
crrr CF aJHÆTDÐ, S'DcrE CF CAI.Il'CRIIA
10300 'IamB AVEtU!:, aJPBRTDI), CA 95014
'1KLI!:PIIH!:: (408) 252-4505
œ-829
MDUŒS œ 'lHB R!GJIAR ..........lIG œ 'JHB Cl'1'f n-nrtJ:.,
HE'1D CIf PBBRU!\RY 3, 1992, <DIICIL UII_ _, Cl'1'f HIIL,
10300 'IamB AVJ!HJE, \..U&'JIoIU:.u.Ð, CALI!tRIIA
'D¡e meeting _ oalled to UL.:It... lit 6:45 p... by MIo}.....
Sorensen.
PIBIJGB œ AIUGIJH:E
ØŒL CAlL
0:Juncil PL B Il:
DeIm, Golålllln, Szabo, MIIyor !L..~
(bmc. Aba .L:
&:wel
staff Pi._s-!l:
City ~ Brown
City Clerk comeli.us
Director of Public 1Ixkø vi.sIIDrid1
Director of n-nnù.ty IØ~l.1. .. QrIl!lD
Assistant to the City ~ BmIm
Director of P8rIœ and Recnwtiœ DDlrliDl¡
Director of ¡Pi........... ~
Public Tnr....,~lia1 Officer Kœy
City Att:amey }{il ;....
ŒRIKIŒAL MM"ŒRS - PRBSI!B1WrIQIS
CeamJnisl 0IIth of offiœ 1IDd.... B I_i... of o.+iiliœtee
of JIppoiuL.uc.Jl to newly "ß'O,_att n-4_i----..
PblJ.awing the new tY'ftIfti_i......' œtb of nHi"., ."....
Sorensen ~ B iled each of thcøe.... S .1 with a o.+iiliœt.
of JIppoiuL.uc.JL.
ProclaœtiaJ. ~ 0Jpertin0 HiI 1 !HInr.\ far 0.1......
Bell award.
Procl.8maticn ~ Youth Q¡L".......,h PLuyL....
Mayor Sorensen ~ s !Oled the proc:laaati.cms.
-1-
. .
.
ral Communi-
cations
.
Consent Calenda
.
, .
MINUŒS Œ' 'DIE PEBRIIARY 3, 1992, RIGJLAR crrr aucn.
.......ulG (CC-829)
M.ti"~ - NDDe.
CRAL CXHUÐ:CM'Iœ8
Floyd Meyer, 10486 Nestac:re Drive, 0Jpertin0, ..:kh.....Jed
0:Juncil regarding their ampetency. He stated t:bat fh........l
has f'..i1ed to protect the citize118 fraD U. S. _i.... He
told the Mayor t:bat he ........at.. be limited to three ",.¡......-
if it tðlœs ~ thIIn t:bat to talk IIbout the 8IÐject. lie
~ s ttal a <qJy of a letter he received fraD the
Deparbœnt of california H.i9-Y Patrol regarding the
enf...............L of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit. He stated tbIIt
the 0:Juncil has been ~iring egainst him fraD having an
""K'ULt.unity to talk, He aslœd when the three minute policy
œme into effect.
Mayor Sorensen stated there 10ICUld be a five minute œœss.
(~: 7:00-7:05 P.M.)
Kathy ~l1iA, 22322 ~ ibid, 0Jpertin0, ..:kh. BB!~
O:Juncil reg¡miing the 0Jpertin0 Drug lItJuse fh........ 1 . &be
reqœst:ed t:bat the iswe of Red piHw1n 1IIIek and _Hng it
part of the hwtgoot r'L....-.s be agI!IDdi.æd for the DIIIId;
meeting. She also requested t:bat staff rt'!Idew the -.tteIr
and prepare a ..~L.
Mayor !L.....-... referred this to the City """"'"9"'" and
reqœst:ed t:bat he meet; with her and 1-,...1 to MIl. )Iool1i.
in writing.
Mr. Meyer: requested the ""K'ULL.øú.ty to speak when this it8a
is œthe~.
Father RI~ BCly1e .... B-ttal aootbør 10,000 postaIrds in
~l of ~l.,··-.l of the Ii;. :;;ue i-"-_lJ'. Tnt!1"'-
--..g thEm, be stated, wre 880 fraD the City of
0Jpertin0. Father BClyle ~ ale of the CIIIds into the
re..u:a.d.
Mr. Meyer: stated he protested, as be felt t:bat this iten
shculd be œ the &gI!IIda, he wished to speak œ it.
<DISI!Nl' CAIl!:NDI\R
QJunc. Golàœn reDDVed Iten 9. It _ JIDV'8d by fh'"1C'.
szabo, r-....ahJ by QJunc. Dean and pe>ased UDIIIÜJIDusly (4-0)
to GWLuV'e the balance of the QJnsent Calendar as
sutmitted.
-2-
.
.
þ
, .
MJH1ŒS (II' 'DIE FEBRUARY 3, 1992, RI!GJU\R CITY <DH:IL
......~..uC (OC-829)
1. Resoluticn No. 8589: "A Resoluticn of the City 0:11........1
of the City of 0Jpert.in0 Allowing Certain M.i_ and
Dt3ua.1ds Payable in the JIJD:Junts IIIId l"I:aII the Punds lIS
HereinIIfter Described for General and Misœ1.lanecus
Expenditures for the Period Ending January 17, 1992."
2, Resoluticn No, 8590: "A Resoluticn of the City n-w........l
of the City of 0Jpert.in0 Allowing Certa.in M.i_ and
Dt3ua.1ds Payable in the JIJD:Junts and l"I:aII the Punds as
HereinIIfter Described for Gta.:...al and MiPt'-11.......
~lditures for the Period Ending January 24, 1992."
3. Resoluticn No. 8591: "A Reøoluticn of the City <bmci.l
of the City of 0Jpert.in0 Allowing Certain ("l.i_ and
Do-,~, .IA Payable in the JIaamts and l"I:aII the PImds as
HereinIIfter Described for salaries and NLIgB8 for the
Peyroll Period Ending January 14, 1992,"
4. lÞJthly Activity ~l, Do--.lo(!'J, 1991.
5. Appliœti.a1 2-ASIIC-92 - ~ 'DO. - P-Il-t far
review and _uVal for _ ~~ ;<W\ to the sic;J1
orrii........... for s~ in an institut'i......l district. '!!Ie
site is located en the narth side of Alves Drive at the
t:mminus of sai.å111sy. p..... _____iM for GKM-v"8l.
6. A¡:proval of minutes of adjoumed reglll1T".-tinq of
.'TAmuny 3, 1992.
7. A¡p"aVal of minutes of I"'?'l.... meeting of .TAnluny 6,
1992.
8. A¡p"aVal of minutes of adjoumed ~lll1T" meeting of
.'TAm.."Y 8, 1992 .
9. RBIDVed fran the .........--L ra'......r.
10. Request for a¡pqri.atiœ fn1u Img 'nmD OiouohiHty
Fund.
~ ......¡ ~LI:J of t'hA Ci.~ n.,.~; 1
AYES:
!rES:
ABSI!Nl':
AB8'mIN:
Dean, Q)ldœn, szabo, Sorensen
Nooe
K.cgJe1
Nooe
rmMS RI!KNED F1Uf <DISI!Nl' CAU!HJIR
9. Approval of minutes of regular Jœeting of January 21,
1992.
-3-
·
·
Appeal of in-
lieu park fee.
Ruth Norman
·
MDV:ŒS œ 'DIB PI!.'SR[DIRY 3, 1992, RI!GJIAR crrr'() I."ll.
!£I!:l'DC (œ-829)
Q:Junc. GoI.ä.m refen:ed to ¡age 7 of the minutes IBId stated
that as he -r--alled, the _i..... also included tt...t .lIe
exIOe8'9 wculd g;> to the Affu...-.l.. IIDoøh~ fund.
It _ JIKMId by Q:Junc. Goldllm, _... '""I by Q uoc. szabo
and peI"- unaniDDusly (4-0) to cø--vw'8 the IIIÍJIUt:e8 _._..wI
to include the adj\.o.sl-ait. to the Affu..dttble lÞJø;ng fund.
PUBLIC ""'\RJ)I;S
11. N:me.
PLIHiING API"LICATIQtS
12. NDDe.
lUUt.l·.l] L;.l'\MAL JIll) S1'Œ API'IDIAL ~'.l'œ15 APPLICAT10IB
13. NDDe.
anrINISIIID aJb....-
14. NDDe.
NI!Jf _.....as
15. P.\.~ of in-lieu psrk fee MnBncl œ Pb......d 2 of
Jl(pH.....i..... 4-'1H-90, 11830 "'1..... tilly, Ruth P - "-'.
(~i"'- fraa ,TMllvny 21, 1992.)
Directar of Pdñ1c 1I:Jrtœ VisIIPri.d1 œrisIøI his ..~L with
t"n"""¡ 1 .
TbDthy Bittl... of the pow.-I-fi.. T..,l ....wvtJItoi....., stated tbIIt
be _ ....... J .. _ MrII. p- , at this hem:iDg œly at
this tiDe. Lit.igf1tiœ is pr-ihl... 'DIe c:bjecticn ¡a1:aiDs
to the fee œ the EIId.sting bcœe in its entirety IIIId the
IIIDUDt of fees œ the IBf Iot. Be stated that the staff
st:at8IEI1t œgIIŒ'dinq the II!Ip J\ct is ~....-t. Qxie F-+i.....
66477(e) relates to future hllu,hitmts. Mr. Bittle stated
that the City rœy as tell seod a bill to all EIId.sting
hcuseB in~. He stated them is no IBf iDpK:t. As
his three JDimJtes were ~, Mr. Bittle nquested one mre
minute. Reœiving the adIii.i.....l minute, he stated tbIIt
the City am ;..,.- a fee em a IBf Iot ~ to a ""iling of
three acres per 1,000 residents as per the City QIrli__.
'1his does put a auiiticn œ use of the lIIDJDt-thIIt it be
used for a new park or r'" .. ,ÆH.....ing a park in her
~bood. Neither is pl......-t. It is his uOOerstmxiing
that it will be used to pay the City's indebtedness for
eristjng parIts in other areas.
-4-
þ
MDCmS Π'!HE FEBRLUIRY 3, 1992, ~ CITY a:ocn.
......~..u«; (OC-829)
tþ:m being asked if I!!IßY answers rou1d be used against the
City in murt and if it should be tii~.sed in a d=n~
session, the City Attorney stated thIIt if __0 are giwn
in public, they am be used in murt. '!be 0Juncil rou1d
have a "l,:sed session (Xl this 1IIItter; hl::JwetlÐr, the use of
the m:mey is DDre in the Director of Public N:Jrkø'
hoi1 hdck. '1bere should be saœ answers to the gent!EIIIIII1'S
questi.crJs in public.
CDmc. DeIm requested the City Attorney's opinicn and the
basis of thIIt opinicn.
I
At 7:25 p.m., 0:Juncil adjourned to a cloøed session Nwo.ulæ
of potentiallitigatia1 of M.........l V, City of OIpertino,
QJuncil reccnvened in q¡en session at 7:45 p.m.
'lbe City Attorney amnmœd thIIt the City is new bIIck in
ops1 union. No action _ talœo. n-.........1 receiwd
adviœ ftaD their legal munsel. In I1!IgISJ:d to qœstiCIIIs to
the Director of Public N:Jrkø, he will ~n.1 to thI!m.
Mr. ViBIIDvi.d1 œviaIed haw the fee is establ; ..twt. -o,ed
(Xl an ~ of 0Ipertin0 lIInd, the City n-.........l ~
a lIInd valœ. 'Jh...... park ZICDe8 have ~ est"....H..twt. 'lbe
dollars are spsot in the <II:¥L.."...late zcœ. 'lbe fee is not
~sed (Xl need, bJt (Xl .".,.....àU.c:n of pcpu1ati.on per
subdivi·ÜCi.. Jollyaml,~, and 'Jh...... Oùø Perk are in
tbIIt zcœ. 'lbe ---mt åIIIrged is not JIIIIt:ched to the IIIIDmt
ne i~d.
'D¡e City At:tomey asJœd if this fee 1IICUld be used in the
zcœ in Wlic:h the ~'"II'"I-l)' is loœted far a IØr park or
phtohi Ht~H.... of an ex:i.sting park.
Mr. ViBIIDvi.d1 ~...- thIIt it bas to be spsot in tbIIt
zcœ. Jollysœn is being renovated; 'lbree Oùø Perk ..
renovated. 'lbe City acquired the ShIœ' ....'"II'"I-lr. ~
SdIool will be renovated. It's an ....¡,.....liture aJI18ist:ent
with the Gt:uc..al Plan. '1his is pIIrt of a mster plan thIIt
park fees iDplEllEl1t.
City Attorney Kilian AAIMrI thIIt if prior fees had been
paid, 1oD.Ùd there be a credit given for thBn?
Mr, ViskDvic:h respoodtd tbIIt there 1IICUld.
'!he City Attorney then asked if either Mrs. N::mIm1 or lJrI'f
p.~~sor of hers had paid.
-5-
~_.._---- - "------~"._-~._--_._.._-------,------------_.__.._-
Closed Session
.
.
Review of
Energy Comm.
I reading
Ord. 1581
MDVŒS œ THE FEBRUARY 3, 1992, RI!nJU\R crrr a:nc:n.
.......u.rG (OC-829)
Mr. Viskcvi.ch responded no.
City At:t:omey Kilian stated that in hiD ",;ninn. the fee is
authorized arxi allOlollBd unr:Ier state law. '1b8re is DO
questi.cn that a nexus exists bellLJUIl resideotia1 t"-_lz'
and the need for peIrlœ, provided they rn ._ly serve tho
area in which the ~_lf is 1oœted. '1!1ere will be bIo
houses; ti.:l1...fu...., bIo f_. 'DIe fact tbIIt the fee is
mllected at the time of the sul:xü.viding insteIId of a
billing sent, is not inpD:t:ant. It is his ",ini,.. that
charge 011 biD ~_Lies is valid, authorized by law, and
does not violate the àJe ~uu::aB laws or I!!IßY other
provisi.a1s of the QJnsti.tution.
At this time, MIIyor Sarensen invited . . ····-iLs b:aII the
pWlic.
Ployd Meyer aslœd IxJw JIIJCh the lots wcu1d sell far.
staff stated they did not kDDw as that .. DDt tT1IIAition-ed
in setting the fee.
Mr. Meyer CXJI1tinued, statinq the du1rd1 is _Iring the City
to talœ 100 acres 80 they œn døv81.q) 108 acres. Be felt
this _ out of kilter with this item. Be stated the City
shculd tell the du1rd1 not to -œ t:bBir I18S !ts liJœ tbIIt.
Q:amc. Szabo stated tbIIt after beIIring the City At.t:.u..ue.x's
qrln.i.cn, he IŒM!8 to deny the "IV"'1. (bunc. DeIm - ---"""1
the 1IIOt.i.cn. 'D¡e DDticn _ œrri.ed urvmi--..1y by thoøe
1A-~L.
16. RevieIf of paIoIIBr and functions of Ph.&.'::If ()"onni-i... and
reqœst for IIbo 1; ..n-.t:..
(a) Pirst r-ii"'1 of 0Minanœ No. 1581: "JIB
0rdinIInœ of the City Council of the City of
0Jpertin0 Deleting ~.. 2.38, Bbo:...'ß
rn....;ASÏ.a1, b:aII the 0Jperti.n0 !tmi.cipal Qxie..
Director of Public 1I1rks Viskcvi.ch reviewed his
r-· .......4k1at.iœ with Council.
No I,~·i ..., of the public wished to spe8k.
It _ IIDIIed by Q:amc. Szabo, e.:.......:b:l by Q:Junc. Dean and
I'I'9'3ed UI18IlÌIIDU81y (4-0) to rii AhAnd the Energy C"nIm; ASÏ.a1.
It ""8 IIDIIed by Cbunc. Golàœn, ".,u.ubI by Q:Junc. szabo
arxi paa.'IEd UI18IlÌIIDU81y (4-0) to read Ordinance No. 1581 by
title only arxi the City Clerk's reading to CDl8titute the
first reading thereof.
-6-
·
MIN!1IES (II' 'DIE 1<""""IL.IARY 3, 1992, RI!DJLAR CITY a:ucn.
......J.·uG (CC-829)
17. Approval of Ameriam Disllbility Act policy and
desigJatiœ of ""'PHMJee officer.
(a) Resolution No. 8592: °A Resolution of the City
QJunci..l of the City of ~ -Ving a
Di.....h; 1 ;ty DI.scriminati.o Policy and Chlph.int;.
Pro<-iIn-e. "
It _ IIDIIed by Qxmc. Go1åœn, 8"" ..olA.' by Qxmc. !'I9.Mn
and passed I.IDIIIÚDI:IU8ly (4-0) to å:Jpt the resolution,
ðdopt.ing a r!;.....hiHty di.scriminst:ic policy and ""'PlAint
~J....<Øn-e and ¿gxúDting the Assistant to the City ~
as the OCIIplianœ nfficer.
18. CD1si.deratico of œ:d.iDIInœs perh.inh":J to purà1ase of
1IIWli.eø and ""l"ipwo-t; and to P\mlic N::Irlœ .......t.......'t8
mx:I b;Ài;'Ç i&~ - - ........
þ
It .. IIDIIed by Qxmc. Goldœn, ee.......cItod by Qxmc. Szabo
and passed lJ1UOIIi.......ly (4-0) to COWL""" the staff
recx:mœndati.a1.
(a) First r-rlhog of QrrIi............ No. 1582: ·An
Ordinanœ of the City {"n........ 1 of the City of
0Jpertin0 - "'Ing~ 3.24 of the 0Jpertin0
Iblilrlp"'] 0XIe, Relating to PuråIue of RlWH-
and ~..
It .. IIDIIed by fh_, Goldœn, *...L-t by Qxmc. Szabo
aM passed urumi"""WIly (4-0) to read Orrti............ No. 1582 by
title only and the City Clerk's r-ting to const:i.tute the
first reading tl.......uf.
(b) First r-ting of Qrrti............ No. 1583: "An
0rdinImœ of the City {"n~ 1 of the City of
QJpertino -..4ing ~ 3.23 of the 0Jpertin0
)tmi,.ip"'l 0XIe for the PID:pu...s of Clarifying
OIpertino's ~tive RiMing ~
Pursuant to the Public a...it...cd. 0XIe."
It _ IIDIIed by Q:Junc. Goldœn, -.....io.1 by (bmc. szabo
and I"'':Ised IIrIIII1ÍJICU8ly (4-0) to read 0tdinImce No. 1583 by
title only and the City Clerk's reading to const:i.tute the
first reeding thereof.
19, J\Ip)in.....cuL of Planning O:mnissiCXler to the Affcm:illble
Housing Ccmnittee.
It _ naved by (bmc. Szabo, _....io.1 by (bmc. Golàœn
and passed 1IrIIII1ÍJICU81y (4-0) to 8ßX>int Betty MImn as the
Planning Q:mnissi.cn's L~ S.!>.íLati.ve,
-7-
rican Disabil-
ty Act
.. 8592 adopted
rchasing & bid-
ing procedures
1st reading Ord.
1582
1st reading Ord.
1583
fordable Housing
0.... .
.
.
Five Year Fore
cast & Capital
Improv. mtg.
Affordable
Housing Comm.
interviews
.
2nd reading
Ord. 1578
Ord. 1578
enacted
2nd reading
Ord. 1579
.
Ord. 1579
enacted
MINI1ŒS CF 'IHB r~ 3, 1992, RIDJLAR CITY a:ocn.
n.o.r;~'.ll'G (CX::-829)
20. Selectiœ of date to review the Pive Year ~......-t of
q¡erating I'8V'II!ØJe, ~.dimr. and Capital
n'lALu...._.Ls ~"":JL~.
By aJCIBEI18US, 0-......... 1 set 6: 45 p.m., HIIrc:h 5, Q:!nf.............
RcaIIB C and D for the meeting. 'lhis meeting will IIIX be
cableœst.
21. Selectiœ of date for ~ and 'Q1OLit-uL of one
amrunity .._.J « and one busiœss ...."... B iLative to the
Af:fordl!lble Housing a:maittee.
By CXIUIeI18U8, o-....,.i 1 directed staff to ðCIC:qIl. çli.cat.icns
until MIIrd1 13 and to CXJnduct interviews HIIrc:h 17, 7:00
p.m., QJnfaL~-..c RDan A.
WRI'1"l'8N <DIÐfiCATIaiS
22. Ncœ.
œDINIH:ES
23, ~ r-iil1lJ and er...t-.4. of ar.H~ No. 1578:
"An ~i~ of the City n-."""¡1 of the City of
QJpertino _ing nuv- 11.24.150 of the QJpertino
lImi,.jposl 0xJe, Rø1ating to BF....H~ of P8rking
Prcbibiti.œ CD St....._ creek Boulevard Bet: ! en Pbot:hi11
Bcul.evard and aö» Rœd."
It _ IIDIIed by 0-.-., Go1ållm, -.--- by CDmc. ~
and pllSsed l..-.i.-...1y (4-0) to ~ (krti~ No. 1578 by
title ooly and the City Cledt's pNting to ccnstitute the
~&l pNting tb......uf.
It _ IIDIIed by 0-.-.. Go1ållm, _.__IM by CDmc. szabo
and p!l8sed ".......i....,.181y (4-0) to EIDI!ICt 0tdinImce No. 1578.
24, Secx:o:i r-iil1lJ and _I:.uaa,l of 0nIi.......... No. 1579:
"An Ordinance of the City n-.........l of the City of
QJpertino Þ-riing nuv"lJ'" 11.12.030 of the QJpertino
Municipal 0xJe, Rø1ating to Establ.isbœnt of Pria
Facie Speed Limits CD BIIndley Drive, Betn en AlWIB
Drive and Valley Gœen Drive,"
It - IIDIIed by CDmc. Go1ållm, .........dt.d by CDmc. szabo
and p!l8sed UI1ðIÙJIDI81y (4-0) to reIId Ordi.nanoe No. 1579 by
title ooly and the City Clerk's re8ding to ccnsti.tute the
seam reading thereof.
It - IIDIIed by Counc. Golàœn, kuA.dt.d by Qxmc. Szabo
and p!l8sed UI1ðIÙJIDI81y (4-0) to enact Ordinance No, 1579,
-8-
--~---~---~_._--""--~---,------
·
MIl«11'ES (p 'BIB PEBØUI\RY 3, 1992, Rl!GJLI\R crrr a:DICIL
MBB'l'I1C (œ-829)
25. ~ r-ti"':J and Elb-t-:.iL of 0rdinIIInce lb. 1580:
"An Qrtti__ of the City Q:IunclJ. of the City of
0JpertiD:) J!JD!D1ing 0IIIpter 15.32, tIIIter n.._ vatlcm,
of the ~ lbIi"'¡J?"'l QÙI."
It _ IIICIII8d by 0Junc. Go1dB1, _...10..1 by 0Junc. szabo
and F-sed UDIIIliJIDusly (4-0) to reI!Id 0rdinIIInce lb. 1580 by
title œ1y and the City Clerk's r-ting to amstitute the
..........1 resiing tbc.,.,.,,!.
It _ IIICIII8d by 0Junc. Go1dB1, ...,. ......1 by 0Junc. Szabo
and r-"sed 1........;......J81y (4-0) to enact 0rdinIIncI!I lb. 1580.
~11TI<HI
26. lb1e.
S'DU'P 1CI5t'\.KL'Z»
27. oral .L~L8 by staff ··-·"'VI.lte
þ
CDH:IL lQaI\"CI:~
29. cœnc. Szabo - Iøjislative ~ Qlaittee - By
... --., n"........1 took the follDwing _i,.. regarding
~' ¥:J S! If 1egislat.ia:1:
!!In'" t.ed AD 181, solid wste, state ~, œlief
fJ:aD ......¡,..¡pal H....iHty; lIB 71 (RIpp), ...._LJ' u.-,
reII'eIJIJIt ï............... to citias by ..l....h~ 1..", .le far
\.UL1"'I-..1 i..... that ~ ---.dh1p; IDI AD 2295
(lbmtjoy), city 1Y'!I"""¡1 __..m_. n,,""'¡1 will
'1\'- lIB 208 (lfqp), ra..u..db; AD 2324 (ADdal), tmJD
liIIIits, 1Dœl elected nHilrl.1A, -- of bm1 fn:a
bDldiDg _ office agIIin within 1..ifet.iD8; and AD 845
(PeIIIœ), plb1i.c wrtœ u..IIit........1:s, ........... poei.......-"¥,
u..IIit......J.. pEe!toLe....., requirements.
At 8:20 p.m., 0Juncil adjourned to 6:30 p.m., !'ebruIIry 4,
1992,
L2 ~.?
City W
-9-
..,........~.~.~--:--..
2nd reading
Ord. 1580
Ord. 1S80
enacted
Legislative
"view Co_Htee
·
I
--~----'--, '-~-..~ '''''''''' -''''>'~~ .~~-~.", y~
... .. . ,,"'.w.;....... .. ,_
~
I
-.
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
I
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992
CITY OF CUPERTItfO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
t
I '9267
~
No,
CERTIFlm
Copy
~l':!~rs~WAYA
____1..J.. "~_'_......-.
,1Ia "....,,, A ..."y.
.... .I.... c.,,,.,,,,. "'116
(_, 6'7-7_
.
.
2 ,
A P P E A R A N C E S -
~
Marshall Goldman
city council Meaber
,
Laura1ee Sorensen
Mayor
5
Nick Szabo
Mayor Pro Tem
City Co~ncil Member
Director Community Development
City Attorney
Director ot Department ot
Public Works
6
Barbara Koppel
7
Robert S. Cowan
6
Charles Kilian
Bert J. Viskovich
9
10
11
Wally Dean
Ciddy Wordell
City council Member
City Planner
certified Shorthand Reporter
License No. 1123
.
12
13
Howard Schroeder
14
15
16
-000-
1.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~
!
..1..
---
~~,,~'''''C:
.
.
.;
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. ..
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
t
')
~
Tuesday, February 4, 1992
PRO C E E DIN G S
MS, SORENSZN: Good evening, ladies and
6:30 p.m.
gentlemen. Welcome to the adjourned regular meeting of the
City Council.
The first item is oral communications. I will
do oral communications down here.
This portion ot the meeting is reserved tor
persons wishing to address the Council on any Latter not on
the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
In most cases, State law will prohibit the
Council from making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda,
I. there anyone Who care. to speak?
Okay, because of the nUlllber of people -- we did
not anticipate this when we .et up this meeting -- we vill
take the meeting upstairs to the Council chambers so
everybody can be more comfortable up there. We will start
it up there.
(Whereupon, the meeting vas moved from Conference
Room C at 6:35 p.m. to the City Council Chambers, after
which the following proceeding. were had at 6:40 p,m.:)
MS. SORENSEN: We are going to begin now, if
people will be seated.
The purpose of tonight'. meeting is for the
Council to receive the major preliminary plan
-'f-J..
-..... -
c;......,SItar'I'IIrto~I"C
4
I
.
,
recommendations from the Planning Commission,
We felt that we needed a time to be able to
discuss these recommendations, to agree with them, to
, disagree and to make suggestions,
õ We will try to reach consensus,
6 .:ext Monday night, February lOth. we will meet
7 with the Planning Commission and share our comments and our
8 thoughts with them,
9 Tonight the meeting will last, if the Council
10 agrees, with the majority of our "iscussion until 9:00 p.m,
11 Is that agreeable with everybody?
12 Okay, we will take a break at 8:00 p.m., and it
13 will be about a ten-minute break, and then the public will
14 have thirty minutes at the end, and each individual that
15 wishes to speak will be allowed only three minutes, and we
18 will do it by the timer. And this will not allow very llany
17 of you to speak, but, ae¡ain, as I said, the purpose Of the
18 meetine¡ tonie¡ht is for us to discuss amone¡ ourselves.
19 Mr. Killan, would you like to add anythine¡?
20
MR. ltILIAN: Only, unlike, perhaps, as is
21 intimated in the press, this is not a meetine¡ tonie¡ht to
~ make tinal or even tentative decisions on a particular
23 policy.
~ The intent ot this .eetine¡ is to read the
~ recommendations of the Plannine¡ Commission, the tentative
28 recommendations Of the P1annine¡ Commission and to make
.. .I..
.......--
c...:r~"""""o1C
.
~
.~
~
Ó
6
.
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
18
I.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
determinations as bo whether the Planning Commission is on
the right track, whether it needs -- the Planning
Commi..ion need. to consider oth.r alternatives, whether
other alternatives are feasible or not and juct where the
Planning Commission is in its review,
This is the nature of a mid-course review. So
I caution the City Council to deal in issues reqarding what
the Planning Commission has or has not failed to consider,
whether the Planning Commission seems to be on the right
track or not on a particular issue. And that ià the type
of thing that you will presumably be communicating to the
Planning Commission at the meeting this next Monday.
You can take straw votes for that purpose if
you so desire, or do it by consensus. But once again there
is no decision-aaking on a particular issue or policy
toniqht, because, after all, there must be several public
hea~.ings in this matter on the General Plan to hear the
p'.dÜic input.
Certainly, the Planning C~ission staff, the
public and land owners must get a shot at all of these
policies before the Planning Commission can actually make d
final recommendation and the City Council can actually make
a final decision.
Once agai~, this is a mid-course correction
sort of meeting to see if the Planning Commission is
dealing with all the issues that the Council wants the
..-.1..
---
c.-..., ~ ~ 'roc
"...J..-....~_. ~._. .'.Ir~. ....,
~
Planning co~,ission to deal with.
MS. SORENSEN: ~hank you.
.1
Bob, would you begin.
,
KR, COWAN: Yes.
.,
First of all, could you turn the screen light
6 on for just a second, please, I don't want you to go
~
completely to sleep on this particular diagram.
I know you have seen it before. Just to
re-amplify what Chuck and the Mayor said, the Planning
8
9
10 co_ission right now is at a critical juncture. They are
11 right now at a joint decision-making juncture -- a decision
12 as to whether the Plan is in the right junction, It's a
13 process of going back and rethinking some things.
14
The next question I have is a question of
process. There are really two basic topic areas. One has
15
16 to do with the hillsides and Diocese, and the second has to
17 do with the core issues, major firms and those kinds of
16 issues in the City identity-type things.
19 The Planning Co_ission discussed the hillsides
æ and Diocese first. And I could do that first or go to the
21 core area. It'. up to the Council, I am prepared t~ go
22 either way.
23
MS. SORENSEN: I think we should probably go
with the hillsides first and deal with that and then move
24
25
on.
26
MS. KOPPEL: Are you going to limit the time we
. .1111.
---
c.t_~A~"C.
'r
6
e
.
I
I
I
I
I
~
.
.
þ
~_..,...--...,-:'"~.,.,........~. --
'. ' .... ..-~
.,..,.~,.~...~.
._,». -'-.- .
1
will be discussing the hillsides?
MS. SORENSEN: I think it will take about
I
forty-rive minutes. I will be watching the cl~k, It may
not take that long.
;
MR. COWAN: Now, the screen, Roberta, it you
6
could, the screen light.
This is a map describing the hillsidep in
~
8 CUpertino. I will briet1y relate that to the Diocese
property and .ome uther key properties that are still
9
10 undeveloped in our so-called urban service area. The green
11
patterns on the map reflect those properties that are still
12 undeveloped. And if you have real qood eyesiqht, there is
13 a better map on the board behind you. You will see a
14
squiggly line that represents the ten percent line.
And so we have always defined the hillsides as
those properties that are located within that ten percent
line which basically include. the western half of the
15
16
17
18
ranch: althouqh, in the mid-seventies, we put this in the
hillsides p1anninq are..
You can .ee -- with the exception of the
property owned by Kai.er quarry which consists of around
one hundred twenty acres and has potential yield of about
seventy-five house. -- there's that property plus some old
subdivided area ca11ed Inspiration Heights, which some of
the tormer com.issioners on the panel tonight know about.
That is the i..ue of antiquated subdivision that was
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
:l
. I
~ Jill.
~ JO)a""'" ~
~' "'_.
.P-
'r ,. r:v' , . ~Jë;.~ ·'i"r",·r 7":. .^.~'''r'1'-'''''''~'I''" .','"
consolidated in the late seventies and lots were merged
~
into larger properties and probably yield around twenty or
3 thirty houses here based on slope density formula.
· Then there is the Diocese property which I will
5 get into in a second here in greater depth.
6 One of the issues you may want to discuss
· tonight is as to what degree we get involved in hillside
8 policies.
9 The Planning Comaission did look at the Diocese
10 property in greater detail,
II I have some maps I can put on the board to help
l2 you with that decision later on.
13 NOW, if you could lower the screen, Ciddy.
14
Any questions on this map before it goes clown
15 in terms of the geographical area?
16
Okay. This transparency or vlew graph shows
I. the Diocese property. The reà colors indicate those
18 properties that are subject to development. And this
19 property is the biggest piece that surrounds the Gate of
20 Reaven Cemetery.
21 This is Cristo Rey Road, Foothill Boulevard,
~ Stevens Creek, permanente Road. This is the PG'E
~ substation, to get you oriented to this particular view
24
graph. This is a larger piece that is under contract __
about one hundred fifty acres.
This property over here is about twenty-five
25
26
. ~.~~~._---
-~-_._---_.._---_.._.._- _..__.~-----~.
8
.....
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
-
.
2
~
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Þ
.-,....._-~"._.__..-....+_..-.
-.-..'-....-'.~.....
.,.,.. r. .,...... ,.'-"" ..~. _,_ .. ~'J"'" or ..
9
acres which is not under the Williamson Act contract, and
then the st, Joseph's property.
All told, there is approximately two hundred
eight acres that could be subject to development.
This property was not part of that two hundred
and eight acres. But the General Plan, as you know, does
allow potential growth out here of around two hundred
ninety-three additional units, and that two hundred ninety-
three unit base doesn't include this property.
So the Diocese in the past has basically said
they have control over this property and the net yield to
be transterred to the other two hundred and eight acres.
Any questions on this diagram?
This is the Forua, by the way. And this is the
park -- county park systea.
Okay. Next, Cidcly. I will use this diagram to
illustrate the CQBBission's tentative position on the
Diocese property. This is the map that was used primarily
tor the Parks and Recreation Coasission and then went to
the Planning Co_ission. And the purpose ot this map was
to identity the sensitive areas on the Diocese's property
that should be excluded from the development.
And that site ranges from a wooded hillside
terrain on the southwest part ot the property, the very
prominent knoll that you are all familiar with trom
previous tie1d trips over here in this location. Some
..1".
--_.
CttIfeø s~ .a~ ,"'('
10
wood~d riparian environments in this location and then
2 wooded site slopes that face the 280 freeway. Then the
:\ permanente creek riparian environment along here, and then
4 a tree stand located to the we.t of the st. Jo.eph'.
5 Seminary.
6 These sites are all deemed to be very
; sensitive, and the staff, working with the Parks and Rec
8 Co~ission and the Planning Commission, deterained they
9 should not be developed.
10 I think before I get involved in the actual
11 Commission's position on development, I should say that
12 right off the bat, their first priority was the same as the
13 Parks and Rea Ccmai.sion's, and that is that the City
14
should take steps to somehow encourage regional
15 agencies -- becau.e I don't think it's a City obligation,
16 personally, and neither does the Parks and Rec
17 Commission - to somehow acquire this property -- the
18 balance of the property, and that is the Planning
19 Co_ission'. first priority.
~ They did .ay that they would give -- this is
21 their position now -- that they would give the co_unity,
22
in a broader sense, the entire co..unity two years to try
and get the process rolline¡ to try to find a means of
acquisition. That two-year period is not meant to be
23
24
25
absolute. It's meant t~ be a progress check, That is to
26
say, that if there seems to be so.. progress for finding
. ~!.s_.
.
e
I
I
-
·
>
:J
,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
." ~, .
the means to acquire the property, then that the process
for acquisition could continue,
But if \t appeared that there was no chance of
finding funds Gr suitable agencies to acquire that
property, then they might -- the City ought to consider
development options.
The third part of their policy had to do with
the actual development, should the City not be able to buy
the property. And that is the position that there ought to
be approximately four hundred eighty dwellin9s on the
property which is over the existing base.
r think the aajority of the Planning
Commission, three to two vote, as you all know, thought
straw vote -- perhaps, there is some housing opportunities
on this particula~ site that should be considered.
There was also a feeling that there might be
some opportunities to work with the Church in te~g of
takinq th_ up on an offer that thOltY made for open space
acquisition, be it development approvals. And so they
basically said that there ought to be two hundred ninety
single faaily units on this property, and a hundred of them
could be on relatively small lots. The idea of clustering
development tightly to have more open space,
And then in order to provide a range of
housing, there would be one hundred fifty townhomes that
would be cluster~ in a way that would not be seen from the
~ J".
~....,.,.--
~--'-------.----~---~'._-~------
-,
.
I
,
11
12
outside community. . And then forty apartments and,
2 approximately, have some of those affordable,
~ That, in a nutshell, is the Commission's
4 position on the Diocese in terms of the over~ll hillsides.
5 In the first report that you received, the
6 report of the core area, there was a couple of comments
7 ~hat dealt with the need for tightening up our present
8 ordinances in the hillsides. Primarily, the Commission has
9 a lot of concern about rich top development. And they
10 would like to see -- and I think this is unanimous -- they
II would like to see new pOlicies that control rich top
12 development and, perhaps, tune up the hillside ordinance to
13 provide more sensitivity towards the environment. That was
14
there, because they weren't charqed with the task of
15 looking at the entire hillside. That was always said about
16 the hil1sidf's.
Ii N~ at this point, ¡ could just take so_
18 comments, or you can talk about other alternatives, or we
19 can go riqnt into the core ar_. I don't know what the
20 Council's pref~ .-ence is.
21
MS. SORENSEN: Are there any questions of Bob?
22 Then I think what we should do is discuss this
~ before we go on to the core area.
24
MR, GOLDMAN: Thank you, Mayor Sorensen, for
25 allowing me to speak first.
26
Pirst of all, I would like to put it: I think
. !.e. ·~_s_
. .
._~---~--,----~-._,_._-
\
I
Ie
e
"----
~
2
1
,
.;
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2¡
22
23
~4
2.'
26
-- . .~'. ...~
<, ,-,",:, .-...,....-v:',j~.:<""~......_.,.__ ~..·~t-..:::~~_·'"'.>1'!:1 ,PJl~_.
13
the General Plan process has c~rtain perspective. When I
was elected two years ago, the major issues, if you talked
to citizens of CUpertino, that they were concerned about
were traffic, height of buildings and design of buildings
and preservation of open space.
And if you look at the preliminary report of
the Planning Commission, it has, in my opinion, not
addressed traffic in a specific enough manner. People are
concerned about the traffic that exists today. Why it i. a
problem and how it needs to be fixed.
And to merely add forty-nine hundred Trips and
distribute them at random on a first come-first serve basis
will not solve either the existing problem or a future
problem.
And I think we need to tind a way to address
that problem in this General Plan.
Th. second thing that people were very
concerned about was the height of buildings. I remember
when I first got on the Council, we got into a big dispute
over how ..ny teet is a floor. And there never was a
specific overall height of buildings.
And we see now proposals that come before us
that increase the height over even existing number of story
ami ts.
I think that we have got to address that and
hope we will come back to that at this meeting.
. ~~..s-~
'"
.. ,~.,.=-> '" ,.JIIII,...
14
In addition to the concerns of the community
.
2 that I saw two years ago, we asked the major corporations,
1 aa part of this General Plan process, to bring forth their
. long-term proposals.
5 And I think that was an excellent move by the
6 Planning Commission, because what we did was we said we
7 would like the major corporations, the majo~ businesses in
8 our community, to look forward to the futur.e and tall us
9 where thsy are going to Þe five, ten and twenty years from
10 now.
11 And we need to address those specific
12 proposals. We can't just say, "Thank you very much: that's
13 very nice." And then go on and put together a pool of
14
Trips again on a first come-first serve basis.
I think that ia a mistake.
e
16
16
So we need to address that. We need to find a
17 way that those corporations can live and grow in our city.
18 In terms of the preservation of open space,
~ which is really what we are talking about in a hillside
~ policy, we did address it partially through Measure T.
21 In point of fact, our zone -- existing zoning
~ regula~ions do not allow for, in my opinion, adequate
~ control. And that's expressed in the proposal -- the one
u specific thing that the Planning Commission did address --
26 and it was a three to two vote -- was what to do with the
æ Diocese property. And the way they addressed it
.
!
. '!!!!_s-..
I··,
-
15
essentially was to. shorten the time frame by which outside
interests could acquire the property from ten years to two
years and to increase the amolmt of units that would be
· built on that property if that didn't occur from an
; existinq General Plan desiqnation of two hundred
6 ninety-three units which I mayor may not aqree with to
7 four hundred eiqhty units.
8 And just to qive you an example of the type of
9 pr.c.dent that that would present, that represents 2.31
10 units per acre.
11 Now if we applied that to the Kaiser property
12 that has thirty-.ix hundred acres, that would result in
¡J .iqht thou.and three hundred seven units. And I firmly
14 believe that the co_unity d/)es not want that to happen and
13 that we must in scae .anner .ddres. this issue now and
16 ....ntial1y .ettle it once and for all.
17 And I did write a letter to the City Council.
18 I presente~ this April 27th, 1991, early on in the
19 beqinninq of the Generlll Plan. And in that letter, I did
~ brinq up the issue that we should look at the philosophical
21 issue of down zoninq property, includinq the Church
22 property, That letter was forwarded t" the Planninq
~ Commission. To my knowledqe, I have not seen them act on
14 that.
~ When I received the report from the Planninq
~ Commission, it did not addre~s the hillsides adequately in
. J"8
~-~-~.-
---..~--
,l
.
my opinion and essentially took it on my own to present to
~ the Council an alternative. This is an alternative, This
.1
is a way that i~ this community wants to protect the
hillsides, it can do it. And there's no question that this
alternative will cause ~inancia1 pain to members o~ our
~
5
6 community. No question about it. We can't get away ~rom
7 that.
8 But i~ we are to 50mehow plan -- plan the City
9 in a way that protects the basic quality o~ li~e that we
10 ~ll enjoy, we move here because we want to see a view of
11 the hillsides, because we want to be able to get out into
12 the hillsides quickly as opposed to having to go through
13 traffic and tremendous development, we have got to take
this step. And that's why I have done it.
15 So i~ -- with your permission, if we could go
14
e
16 through it, I would 1iko to explain it just a little bit
I. briefly and hopefully get some comment.
18
MS. SORENSEN: That is what I need to hear.
19
MR. GOLDMAN: Do we have the slide?
20
MR. COWAN: Here?
MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah.
21
x.:
Okay. Basically, what this does is create a
~ hillside zone which includes the Kaiser property, the
24 Diocese property, Rignar Canyon and Inspiration Heights.
~ It sets a maximu. density in that region of one unit for
26
every five acres. That would be the maximum density, And
--
. J".
JO,ce v... s...1'4I
,.........'t_~_....._....
þ
,
'j
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
26
.
17
it establishes -- and the way it does that -- it
establishes tools by which we can zone that property five
ac:re zoning whic:h we currentl:,.' don' t have, Ten acre,
fifteen acre, twe~ty acre.
In addition to asking that we strengthen the
slope density tormula, it also asks that ~e establish a
private open space zoning district which would work when an
owner wants to develop his property and comes to the City
and says, "I would like to maxe a deal with you; I want,
for example, tour hundred units and in return, I'm going to
keep the rest ot my land tallow in my hands but it will not
be developed."
The City would have a tool to make that more
certain. It would be able to say, nIt we agree on this,
then you will place the excess land in a private open space
zoning district." And that would have provisions tor
adequate maintenance ot the property and trail easements so
that in some tora, it would remain. and we would not have a
proposal come back to us ten years later that would say,
"By the way. I made that deal betore, but I would like to
now add more units."
Okay. It would be c]ear what the original
concept was. I think that is important.
The other thing is this would establish
stricter building and development standards tor the
hillside area,
.JM.
~"'.,. ~
c..-.ø s~ ~ I"C
I
I
18
I was tak~n up to a project -- I guess, it's
.
,
called Portola Ranch
and as an example ot a project that
¡ was sensitive to the environment. And one ot the things I
· saw that I thought was very good, the materials and the
j colors and the treatment of the development was done in a
6 manner by which the houses did not stick out, They tried
j to blend in.
8 If you gO to the current project, it i. not
9 is not in sync with the environment. And I think there are
10 standards that we could develop that would do better.
11 And the other thing that this does is it has a
12 provision by which if a person owned an individual lot that
13 was s..ller than tive acres, that person still could build
u
their home on that lot. I don't think it's right to take
e
15 away that privilege. I think that is important.
16 But I do think that in some manner, we have to
17 create a standard and we have to do this proactively as
18 opposed to reacting to the specific development proposals
19 so that we have a rule by which other people will
20 under.tand what is expected of the. and what is provided
21 for the.. And that's basically it.
22
I would be happy to answer any questions.
MS. KOPPEL: I have a question. Your last
23
24 comment, in regards to a person owning a parcel that would
~ be five acres or less, I guess, my quest~on to you is:
~ What makes that -- I am really being the devil's
..- .1111.
.JOta ",.,.. Søeye
~~.-......-.-
-~""-"--""~-""-.~'----<..,_..~...-.~-.. .-. _....'?"I':.~".."""!""" "'~' -
~
I
!
19
advocate -- what makes that much different than a larger
~ parcel and the rights ot that individual to build on it?
:]
MR. GOLDMAN: Well, I think the point is that
4 this plan -- I think that there is a la~qe portion of the
5 co_unity that would not like to see anything built on
6 those hillsides.
7
MS. KOPPEL: Of course. We all know that one,
MR. GOLDMAN : That probably would be a slam
dunk. :r don't think that is right, because you are taking
8
9
10 away the right ot a property owner to develop his property.
II Okay?
12 What this is doinq is not eliminating that
13 right. But what it i. sayinq is we are going to reduce the
14 amount ot development that you can do on your property, So
15 it we follow that loqic, if a person still has a single lot
16 that they have had for many years, they ~till ouqht to have
17 s01lle right to develop that property,
18 I don't think it is fair to take it away from
19 th_. But I do t.'1ink that the City -- it 1& legitimate for
20 the City to make a decision aa to What the maxi1llUII
21 developllent ought to be allowed on the hillsides.
22 And ve can say that four hundred eighty units
23 on the two hundred eiqht acres is the maximUII. We do that.
24 I don't aqree with that.
2S What I all proposing I think is a cOllpromise
~ between what everybody would say they would like to be done
.-J..
---
CMIIIø ~ ~ "t:
""_.~......-.,..~..--~.--,.._...,,~ ~.." ".
20
I
Ie
I
and still allowing some development.
2
So that is the concept of the small lots.
.1
I don't know if I answered that. That was
. longer than my three minutes, but, sorry,
5
MR. SZABO: All right. I am in basic agreement
6 that we should preserve as muc:¡ of that open space as
7 possible.
8 And for those of y~u who are not familiar,
9 there was a study done by some eminent people with vision
10 of 20/20 which said in this Bay Area what W. have got to do
12
is not keep spreading out and cause additional sprawl
because that just makes our traffic vors. and worse. W.
should set a limit, saying, "Well, thia 18 as far as we go
II
13
14
and then we won't go beyond that,-
I would like to see the Planning Commission
.
15
18 look at the ideas that Marshall has and also the idea of
1. finding some other alternate things.
I have a problem with the five acres. I think
18
111 what happens is: We get into the situation of being a very
~ few lota for some very rich people. ADd I would like to
21 have as .uch open space as possible and rather concentrate
22 in the remaining space whatever is po.sib1e.
~ I'd like the Planning C~i.sion to come up
24 with some imaginative ways of preventing sprawl, having
~ some population up there, but keeping the areas -- the
æ maximum area freely acce~sib1. to the public.
,-
I
..-J..
Jorc:It MMe~.
CMrIIIcr ~ RtØOI'tW 1,01(.
.
þ
25
26
'.-. --'""----.-... ~ "---,~-~.~,...---
. .
2l
The other thing that worried me about this
"
particular case is that I don't see any -- maybe Bob can
:¡
tell me what provisions are there for schools, access to
schools in that area.
.
.>
HR. COWAN: We did talk to the District about
6 growth plans, They are more concerned ~bout the lack of
; money for busing than they are for enrolling children in
8 the District.
9 I forget if it's stevens Creek School or the
10 one in Los Altos, but I think their major concern had to do
11 with the busing aspect.
12
HR. SZABO: If I understand correctly, the
13 District has decided to
14
MS. SORENSEN: They are in public meetings, I
don't know what they have decided.
15
18
HR. SZABO: I don't want the ,:ity of CUpertino
to do the same thing to the School District as San Jose
tried to basically have a residential neighborhood without
17
18
19
any means of having schools there,
20
I think we should make the prerequisite that
whatever re.identia1 neighborhood. we allow is going to be
contingent on having access to schools -- reasonably either
walking or bicycling.
I think the current status of the different
21
22
23
24
districts, busing may not last very long.
I would be apprehensive of having any kind of
.J.a
---
c..w~......".,"C-
22
solution that depenqs on busing.
2 Those are my two observations.
.
I like the Planning COllllllission to not only look
· at Marshall's plan but any other thing that basically cuts
5 back on urban sprawl.
6 And I like to make sure that there is adequate
7 capability for schooling, And r really don't trust the
8 District's acts for continuing to bus.
9 Thank you,
10
11
MS. SORENSEN: Wally.
MR. DEAN: Let me try a ditterent approach tor
12 the Planning Co_ission,
13 Three weeks ago, we went to Sacramento to meet
14
with the Senate and Assembly members. And through the
-
15 course ot tho.e meetinqs, atter two days ot meetinqs -- we
16
can expect Blaine Snyder to confira this
we can expect a
17 basic assault trom the State otCalitomia on city
18 government tor tundinq. They are coming atter our money,
19 basically.
20
Strunq out with ciqarette tax this year. It
21 will continue. The State currently, when we up there three
n weeks aqo, the state at that time had a tour billion dollar
~ deticit. Since that time, it's now six billion,
24 There are people up there that are sayinq this
~ year it will qo to twelve billion dollars.
~ Their plan -- the State's plan is to come
I-
I
.. J"a
---
CMIeø $o'Iorfwrø ~."'(:
Þ
!
.J
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
:ze
Þ
23
after the City.
I reference this for one reason, Sales tax
dollars closed out this year at 6,5 million dollars. In
other words, repeat the 1984. We heard this during the
election. But that is not including an inflation factor.
OUr sales tool for revenue for this City i.
sales tax. We are not cutting it. We are not even coming
close.
Property tax -- when we see all the building
that goes around here
the proposed building or total
revenue fro. property tax to the City, I think, is one
million dollars total.
So when a developaent comes in, any
developaent, any proposed development, it's getting to a
point where our costs exceed whatever will come in from a
property tax base.
The Planningccmalssion has to look at a re.edy
where we are not ending up in a total deficit situation.
And that's exactly where we are. We are
heading right down.
In a discussion with Blaine -- I will let him
speak for hi..elf -- in a discussion with Blaine, he
expects, with the trends we are currently seeing, having to
generate tax source in five years. That is scary. And
that is the current standards when we incur any
deve1op.ent, our services, the cost of doing business for
,
..-J..
_-s-..
c.-.__....
24
the City increases.
We need to dial that in for the Planning
t
!
!
Commission.
.
The phrase "build out cycle," We are currently
5 in the end ot the build out cycle. What we have right now
is a million and a half dollar construction tax unit as
6
7 incoae. It you extract that trom our plan ot business __
8 our cost ot doing goods we would be in deeper trouble
9 than we are riqht now. In other words, when we were
10 counting on cash tlow, a lot ot the busine.s construction
11 plans, the fees that were cominq in, were helpinq us. But
12 there is a point in time when those fees stop and we have
13 to carry the burden for ourselve.. In other words, we have
14
to carry the bills.
15
The streets, tor example, currently the state
e
16 is subsidizing. If we put three and a half ail1ion dollars
I. up for roads, the State utcbe. it. Don't count on those
18 tunds. Don't count on th_.
19
We have to build the plan riqht now for ten
æ years in advance. It's a business plan ten years troa now.
21
And ve have to decide and make a touqh
22 decision. When ve first vere talking Dioce.e, when I was
~ in Parka and Rec, we looked at all the hillside for twenty
24 acres zoning. We wanted to pre.ent that as a concept. It
25 never made it. It never ude it to just beinq discussed,
28 and that was the goals co_it tee.
.- J".
---
c..IIø ~ ...... Inc
It
2
.1
,
.,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t 14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
-,-., ~l"."II'" ...."'''''''''''r'''<:J:...,ç.,. : ":-,-.
25
We had ~ question we didn't know why. Now it's
kind of turned,
With the advent of some major actiVity in
hilisides, other than this, we have to take some very
proactive stances on zoning. It's not going to be popular.
My concern is more with the people that are
currently living here, not the future people that will be
living here.
You want to -- are we going to come back to
schools ar.d traffic and high rise and all that stuff?
Okay. Cap it then.
MS. KOPPEL: Well, you know, ideally in terms
of the hillside, this is an awful lot I think to be
thinking about all at once. I know the focus is mainly the
Diocese, but there is a much bigger issue here as we all
know,
Certainly, I think Marshall's plan is worth
discussing.
I also think that Nick's idea of urban sprawl
is important.
I also realize, ideally, it would be nice if we
didn't have to remove the Diocese trom the Williamson Act
which we probably do not. And it would also be ideal if we
could purchase it.
In time, I don't believe this is ripe for that,
I have a problem in that it just seems to me
.. J",.
JOrCt .v.,. s...y.
C8'IIIM)~ ~ "'C.
·_,,~, ..,. ".
2b
i
I
I
~
2
that we are not treating this particular property fairly in
terms of the thought of zoning that for such a low density
1 twenty acres when, in fact, the other people would be
around to develop, And I don't know what I am missing in
.
5 this, but somehow, this doesn't set with me in terms of
6 being equitable.
7 And so, I guess, I would like, when the
8 Planning commission looks at this, to look at what's fair
9 for everybody and not just separate little areas or
10 something that I am not comfortable with on this.
11 I need the Planning Commission to come up with
12 something that I think might be tolerable.
13
MS. SORENSEN: Let's let Nick ask a question.
MR. SZABO: Yes. ChuCk, when you have a lot,
14
15
lot of record, that is a ve.ted right, isn't that correct?
MR. KILIAN: No.
MR. SZABO: No, it is not.
MR. KILIAN: So.eone has a lot of record -- has
18
17
18
19 a lot of record. It's subject to all sorts of
æ restrictions. It can be under certain circumstances merged
21 under the Subdivision Map Act. There is no vesting of a
22
lot,
23
There's a -- vesting rights occur either up~n
the issuance of a building permit or any other kind of
permit which is a final discretionary permit for the
building of a house or a bUilding, or in the case of a
24
25
26
-
I
.- J".
.-......-
~~~""C:
I
I
t
".,..
27
development, you can have vested rights.
~
But the fact that somebody has a lot of record
that exi~ts does not vest in them the right to build on
:)
4
that lot necessarily.
Now, there are constitutional limits to that.
If you have a house, or if you have a lot that's in the
middle of a single family district that is surrounded by
single family houses and that is a vacant lot and it's the
same size as all the rest of the lots, you probably run
against the constitutional reasonableness in not letting
that person build.
5
8
..
8
9
10
1\
12
But in general terms, there's no such thing as
13
a vested right to build on an existing lot of record.
MR. SZABO: Thank you.
MS. SORENSEN: Any question...?
Okay. I thought about this after I received
14
!5
18
17 this and I am coming to agree with everybody. I think this
18 is an idea worth exploring.
19
I hacl two qu_tiona. And one ot th_ was
20 answered in the Mercury Hews today, They were clarifying
21 que.tions. And one ot th.. was: Is this legal? And,
~ certainly, our City Attorney, acCording to the Mercury
~ News, indicated it was legal, that we could do the zoning.
24
MR. KILIAN: Well, you better ask the City
~ Attorney and not the Mercury News.
26
I think it's important to realize that this
~JM.
~ JO)Qt v... $4wa".
- -
-.....-..--.'-.
-~ -"'-"-""'--~~
-..,,- "'--'-""''''''-'''P''''''~~~''--'''''''''''""1!,. ,"",,' "~!n'.-~.~''''1!.''''
28
is simply one Council Member's --
.
2
MS. SORENSEN: Yes.
MR, KILIAN: -- suggestion ot consideration,
]
.
I think it still needs to meet the standards ot
having to deal with the Planning Commission and the public
5
6 and the property owners. It needs to stand the crucible ot
· public debate. And it may turn out that twenty acre
8 parcels is not appropriate tor a particular piece ot
9 property. It may prove that a tive acre parcel is not
10 appropriate. In tact, it may prove that hillsides are not
11 amenable to acreages at all but that slope density is the
12 key.
13 So there are all kind. ot things that ttte
14
Planning C~is.ion needs to con.id.r, and it should tee1
e
16 tre., fro. what I gather from hearing fro. the Council,
18 this Council's propo.als fr..ly with the intent of
I. amending, changing, or whatever ..... appropriate at the
18 tille.
19
MS. SORENSEN: My s.cond qu..tion was: Are we
20 being fair to the landowners, which I think is what you
21 were addre.sing. The positive aspocts of this would be it
~ would be, it would create hill Sid. guidelines which, I
~ think, are important and that they n.ed to be done before
24 building goes on.
~ And going back to your comment on Bay Vision
28
20/20 would also protect environmentally sensitive areas.
.
~J..
~ .au.w..~
.
~
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
.
.. ·_'C~_'-'~. _,_ __. .~~u
.,--......'.,..,~.. ,....~ i""...Y~.~~7" "".~
29
r, like you, Nick, have concerns about the schools. How do
the children get to school?
r also have concerns about other City services
such as the tire department, such as .ewers, you know, all
of our basic infrastructure that will have to go in up
there, and r think needs to be addressed by the Planning
Commission.
r have to be concerned about what the fiscal
impact on us, on the community, would be which feeds into
Wally.
So what r think I a. hearing the Council say on
this particular issue is to refer it back to the Planning
Co_ission.
And, Bob, <10 you have all of the notes, or do
you need further clarification?
MR. COWAN: There i. a great deal of latJ,.tude
in tems of the density that'. being talJcec:l about. But I
think what I would do is just develop a mechanism to go
back and explore different derwity a_Ullptions. For
example, start out with derwity fo~.. of five acres as a
baseline and give the Council so.e optiorw. Have the
Co..i..ion consider options and have the report back with
some options.
Do you want to have further discussion at the
Co_ission level in terms of lower density for the
hillsides and assume that that would be uniformly applied
...... ~~... s...."
~ r--... ~_.=o_ .~.-
-~,..,...
JO
not just to one property?
2
MS. SORENSEN: Yes,
t
1 And I think that next Monday is the time when
4 we can dialogue with the Planning Commission --
5
MR. COWAN: Yes,
6
MS. SORENSEN:
if they have questions that
7 they wish to ask us on this.
8 Wally.
9
MR. DEAN: The only thing as tuture property
10 comes up, I don't want to be capped by twenty acres,
11 though, because the current zoning order some tuture
12 property coainq in is one hundred sixty acres.
13
Will this trap us it this is adopted?
this trap us tor tuture projects?
Would
14
15
MR. COWAN: When we say twenty acres, you are
-
16 talking about the twenty acre minilllUll lot size.
17
MR. DBAN: That i. what she is talklnq about it
18 you reterence to this.
19 But let's say there are tuture projects coming
æ up that would require larqer acreage lots.
21
MR. CORAØ: Well, no, I think sooner or later,
22 you are going to have to decide what i. the ultimate
ZI density.
24
MR. DEAN: We should contemplate this in
~ upcoming projects for the next ten years, Bob. That is the
26
purpose ot the General Plan, to look ahead, at least, ten
I
I
.
.. J".
-......-
c.tIeø ~ ~ "C
e
!
.1
.
.;
6
;
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
15
16
1;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IÞ
31
or twenty years.
MS. KOPPEL: Wally, you must be thinking of a
particular parcel or something that would warrant a larger
parcel acreage parc~l.
MR. DEAN: No. I think anybody would want it.
If we are given the option of someone coming in
and says, "I want to convert all of this land to this X
units based on this formula," that may not meet our
criteria in the next ten years.
MR. COWAN: Can I make one more comment?
You might be talking about the vast acreage
outside of the City's urban service area, Several property
owners and gee, I think you would have to be very
careful. You would not want to apply these kinds of things
you are talking about to the vast hinterland, the eight or
nine, sixteen thousand acres, that is out there in the
City's planning area.
I think what you want to do is limit this
discussion to the City's present urban service area and
then rely, at least, :r think you do, maybe, you don't,
maybe that is up for consideration as well.
A~ the present time, right now, the General
Plan differentiates between the County areas beyond the
urban service line and is a very restrictive formula which
starts out at twenty acres on a flat slope and goes up to a
hundred and sixty,
..- 01..
---
CnIIrø :#'IO'WIWIø' ~ ',"'C
32
ì
~
I
2
I would suggest to you that you don't get
involved in that area, I think that is going to hold you
1 for a long period of time because you have control with the
· urban service line. You don't have to extend City services
5 beyond that line,
8
MR. DEAN: We wouldn't be liable with something
7 like this?
8
MR. COWAN: No. The existing plan adopts the
9 General Plan by reterence. You could look at the County
10 General Plan and see it you are in tune with that plan.
11 It's really an open space zone. I would think you would
12 want to tell the Commission to tocus in on properties with
13 the urban service area.
14
MR. SZABO: Bob, a significant portion ot the
15 Kaiser property is zoned aqricultural, correct, County
16 agricultural, because it's not even in the City?
17
MR. COWAN: No. I think most ot it is A-20.
16 It's a slope density tormu1a. It's very restrictive, the
19 steeper the slope.
æ I have a copy of the land use plan that shows
21 it is hillside. I am not sure ot the exact zoning. 20/60
~ is what the zoning is. I will get more intormation on
23 that.
24
MR. SZABO: Supposing I want to buy some land
~ in there, supposing I go to Kaiser and say, "Sell me twenty
æ acres," that would go to a subdivision map? They could
,."..
JOþQ -. s...y,
Ca1IiIIø ShorIWIa 4~ -"C
e
"
,
5
6
;
8
9
10
II
12
13
-- I'
15
16
I.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
- ---"':"""..' .~~~"""""'~,'" ..~~.
~-'-..,...-~~~_. .......~-.
,. 1'9')',_~",__.\_,~ "''''~'''.~:''::r\.~P'''''' -~
33
sell me twenty acres and then I could build a house on it?
MR. COWAN: If it's flat. If you carved out a
flat piece and it had to be totally flat and you applied
that particular zoning, then, I suppose, you could build
one house if it was totally flat. I am not that familiar
with the County, I would have to look at the County's zone
to see if there is any requirements about planning the
entire property and things of that nature. It would not be
processed in the city. It would be processed in the
County.
MR. SZABO: Okay. Now the requirement to come
into the City occurs when you make a subdivision, right?
MR. COWAN: If it's contiguous to the City,
yes.
MR. SZABO: And you are making a subdivision.
What is the definition of a subdivision?
MR. COWAN: In our parlance, it's two or more
lots being qraded.
MR. SZABO: When would somebody be forced to
co.. into the City?
MR. COWAN: I think Bert just whisperecl to .e
services. The County does routinely process subdivisions
in the County.
And we have not, basically, been opposed to
that as lone¡ as they are consistent with that particular
County General Plan which we adhere to.
..- .I".
Jort;e ,w.... .s...,..
~~~~ f'C
1
\
34
So from a very practical point of view, Nick,
., there is very restrictive zoning. Nobody does it. There
1 are some subdivisions, the upper end of the road, that are
. still being processed and they are very, very restrictive,
.
5 Very, very large lots.
6 And so that kind of thing goes on.
7 If somebody wanted to develop .ore urban
8 densities, then they would have to go into negotiations
9 with the city for expanding the service area boundary. And
10 you mayor may not want to do that.
11 I gue.s what I am saying, fro. a very practical
12 point of view, you are going to get very, very large
13 restrictive 1arqe lot developments in the County, and there
14
is no real encouragement, no enticement, for them to
-
IS
develop a small lot in the city.
MS. SORENSEN: Any comment. that anyone wishes
16
17 to make?
18
Okay. Then I think the general consensus I
19 heard is to refer this back to the Planning co..ission to
20 have thelll look at Manhall's plan, it looks like and Nick's
21 ideas and Barb's ideas and Wally's.
22
MR. DEAR: Is it safe to say that the four
23 hundred eighty nUllber is --
24
MS. SORENSEN: No, I don't think we said that.
MR. DEAR: That is why I am asking the
:IS
26 question,
e
..1..
~"""$.....v.
c..ø~:,~."C:
e
2
.J
,
.;
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
:9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
·~'?'~"'.1J1:\o1"""'''''·'''·
'35
MR. KIL~AN: I think that would be
inappropriate at this time to make that kind of decision.
MR. DEAN: So still have that as an option.
MR, KILIAN: They can come back, Yo~ a~e
telling them to consider these options. But if the
Planning Commission comes back with the same thing, they
have the right to do that.
MR. GOT.nM".Jf: But this option does cloarly __
does not say four hundred eighty acres.
1m. KILIAN: No.
MS. KOPPEL: I quess, can the Council make a
comment as to any of us are buyinq that aaqic number?
MR. KILIAN: I think you need to hear more from
the public and you need to make that decision in the
context of a public hearing,
MS. KOPPEL: Okay. Thank you.
MS. SORERSEN: Thank you.
Now, ve vil¡ aove on to the floor of the City.
MR. COWU: I would like to spenel a couple of
minutes and explain t.he backdrop for the c:o..t.sion's City
before I unveil that. The commission did spenel a lot of
time discussinq the constraints to development and looked
at traffic. I know that vas mentioned a tew moments aqo.
The City has employed Martin Ashman to complete
some tratfic modelinq vork for the City. And we gave them,
if you recall, we had a couple of four difterent
..1..
---
c...r~~,~
. ..,.ft._,... ...___ ..~
36
actually, four different planning scenarios to look at from 41
2 a low density plan which would mean lowering existing
1 General Plan densities.
. We looked at the existing General Plan as it's
5 presently drafted, and we looked at a plan we called the
6 Increased Plan, and we looked at one that was kind of the
7 forbedrer for various community groups and the City
8 property owners and employers, basically, and some of the
9 major institutions.
10 And we started our work with the Barton Ashman
11 model of that growth. And that model does include the
12 County area and it also includes all the new transportation
u improvements. It includes the 85 freeway. It incl~des the
14
new auxiliary lanes on 280 and the HOB lane on 280, and it
also includes the bridge widening for the 280 De Anza
-
15
II Boulevard crossinq. So it has the full complement of
17 transportation improvements as well as the growth.
18 And we didn't get very far with that in terms
19 of looking at the options. We, basically, found out that
20 the existing General Plan at build-out is going to -- is
21 going to result in level service indicators for
~ intersections that meets our existing criteria.
~ For the last twenty plus years, the City has
24 used a level service D. And there is a weighted -- weight
25 the system from level service A. to level service F for
28
intersections, And A is a very free flow signal in terms
-
.. J".
-'"--
c..... ~ ~ "'t'
·
~
J
,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
-~--~'''''''''''''', -"-'"7.~~~_, .~!1""",,-'-.~.:,'\"1~'"'" ~~~
37
of traffic flow. And F, as the name implies, is failure,
The run over here in this column is the run for
the existing General Plan, And this, by the way, reflected
the General Plan assumption that did not reflect the recent
General Plan amendment for the shopping center. So in
actuality, it's somewhere -- the final run is ~omewhere
between existing and intermediate. And we will fine tune
that once we get some direction from Council and Commission
in terms of the final work we do.
But as you can see, there are some E level
intersections which is inconsistent with the general
policy. Some of those can be fixed. And Bert can explain
some of the intersections in terms of -- in terms of an
attitude on the part of City to try and discourage traffic
so you result in a level of service down here that's lower
than it could be.
But clearly Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza
would go to E, et cetera.
So the Co.-isaion did look at the traffic
constraints. And we spent a lot of t1ae on this. And I
don't want to spend that time with you tonight, becaQse you
are going to get a full measure of that. They felt that
the existing General Plan would be the baseline, and I will
get into the importance of that in a few seconds,
They looked at all the utility connections. We
still have not got a complete answer on water availability
.-J..
...... ..... -...
c:.tIeØ SIIOtII'\WIØ.....". "C
20
21
. ..~' ',...., .. ..... -.-
."'....,..._~...,....
18
~
~hich is a key consideration in today's day and age. The
water district has said that based on normal condition., we
.
1
can supply growth all the way from to the very high end
plan and clarify that in normal conditions.
The question is how long is the drought going
to last. The other question has to do with sewer capacity.
.
3
6
7 And there's plenty of sewer capacity in the plan,
8 The problem now is, of course, as you are all
9
aware, there is a tremendous amount of fresh water outflow
10 in the Bay and that is causing environmental problems. So
the question is not one of capacity of the plant. The
11
12 question is: How much good quality tributary water is
13 being pUJIped in and do we control that. And that is being
1.
worked on right now by primarily the City of San Jose,
Santa Clara and all the tributary service areas that are
e
13
18
linked to that plan.
The key may very well be maintaining the
drought conditionœ, drought policies, even though the
drought expires, just to control the amount of water that
goes down into the .ewer system.
In short, we looked at the school system. The
17
18
19
22 school syst_ school people have told us that they can
serve all the development options. There might be some
23
2. problems ~ith certain service areas in terms of the busing.
~ We talked about that a few seconds ago and we can get more
æ detailed information tor you on the geographical subject
e
.-J..
...... "--.
~ - "-"" -,
·
1
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
It 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2ð
26
t
.'. - -"'.,. .)....~.~.
39
areas in the community,
But, all in all, with the exception of traffic,
all of the basic growth options can be accommodated. And
they were talking just about service. now. I am not
talking about soge of the subjective issues in terms of the
appearance of the City and the community's character, those
types of things. We have not finished our housing work.
The next studies about the affordable housing
community, they are going to meet tomorrow and hope to have
a recommendation to the Planning Commi..ion here very
shortly. That's
we are talking not only about possible
mitigation plans for increased employment in the community,
but we are also going to be talking about recommendations
in terms of the over all jObs, housing balance issue that
comes into play when you start talking about employment
growth.
The Co_ission, after having digested all of
this material for the last thr.. or four months, began to
look at options.
And X abould tell you at the present time they
are looking at tentative ideas. They haven't gotten down
to the point of looking at individual separate properties
and assigning growth.
The first step was to look at the amount of
qrowth that is available, tryinq to understand their basic
objectives tor the community and seeing how growth can be
.- J".
---
CøIIecr ~ Rtirøctw 'f'C-
·_~-....." . .~'~~-~~~...,.'--~':"'"'"....
!
shaped to fit the traffic factor.
I think at this point, I would like to go to
the board and explain the basic points. I don't want to go
through -- you have got a recommendation that has a line by
:
,
5 line description which is four or five pages. I will just
6 try to hit the basic poir.;:s, and then I will discuss a
; couple of tables that deal with this Trip allocation.
8 The basic points recommended by the Planning
9 Commission and its very tentative straw position at this
10 point is that there should be a Heart of the city. Three
11 to two vote. The Heart of the City would basically be
12 focused in the Town Center area between Stevens Cr_k
13 Boulevard and between De Anza and the eastern edqe of the
14
City Center complex.
15 There is a further statement that there ought
18 to be some unique fora of development at the intersection
17 itself. The crossroads of the comaunity at Stevens Creek
18 and De Anza, there ought to be sOllething there that qives
19 us sOllie additional identity. But the Heart of the City
211 concept, the idea of creating a co.-unity gathering place,
21 encouraging lIIixed use development that should occur on the
~ existing city Center and the Town Center area south of
~ that, the older office developments that were built in the
24 sixties across from city Hall.
~ That is important because, if you will recall,
~ the committee that looked at the Stevens Creek area
.. "".
.If>ICO__
c....... ~ ~ 'I"C
40
.
-
e
e
.,
1
.
5
.;
~
8
9
10
11
11
13
e 1<
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
e
,.... ,..,
"'" -...=.,....-..-. ".-,., "..'.,.......~,..., ''''~~.-
41
basically had felt that there ought to be an option which
should be considered by both the Planning Commission and
City Council which should look at the idea of having a
development pattern and reconfiguration that focused on
stevens Creek Boulevard itself.
And another option was to look at a development
that was off line that would be served by stevens Creek but
would not be on Stevens Creek. And stevens Creek
Boulevard, under that second option, would be treated much
ditterently than it is today, but it would not be
signiticantly altered.
The reco..endation trom the City va. not to try
that right away to make some decision. vhe~e we .bould have
a Heart of the city and bave a turther review later on.
The OOmaission is basically saying, they are
beyond that and would like to recommend to you that we
focus on this area and Steven. Creek Boulevard as a major
tocal point.
Another aajor factor had to do with the ability
ot aajor tir1ll8 to expand. There is a very strong
preterence tor that. The exact IUIOUJ\t of growth is going.
to be dependent upon not so much the amount of land use
entit1..ent. that are there already, but how these
companies could be successful in ter1ll8 of traffic demand
management proqraas and mixed use housing proqrams and
things of that nature to decrease the demand for Trips and,
.-.1..
.JotooI» M.,. ~yI
CMrtIIetJ~~"C
. --'_~_~"'___"'_"""·__"'_"''''''''''''''T.._"",~'__
....~. ~-'<r.. v.,
42
2
therefore, be able to increase the building square footage.
And I will talk about that in a few seconds,
The Co_ission is interested in exploring
options for long term options for housing development on
4
1
.
5 areas that are currently in industrial uses, Specifically,
6 the Bubb Road, industrial park, was a good candidate from
, their point of view.
S Another option was the area of Bandley -- west
9 of Bandley in tha Apple campus, I quess the presumption
10 was that Apple consolidating its effort. into the corner of
11 280 and De Anza Boulevard and other areas, they are
12 considering there .iqbt be an opportunity to reuse those
13 properties both for housing. And, of course, they are
1~
looking very closely at Val1co planning area and along
Stevens Creek planning area. Tbo_ are really the basic
t
15
16 points.
17 So, again, wa are talking about expansion of
18 these compania. in two areas and, maybe, a third area in
19 Town Center.
~ I would like to ~o now -- unless you bave a
21 question on this diagra. -- I would like to go to the
n diagram on the Trip issue.
~ Any question.?
24
MR. DEAR: Yeah. The Planning COlIIDissioT., what
~ is their opinion of the traffic situation now?
28
MR. COWAN: Their position is that the City's
:.
.. .I".
JO)oa ~ s...Þ'e
~...,S/IO'WIe'tØ~..'C
.
,
.;
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
---~----~""'-W o,~.........,.:...nIL_"',~ ~ _~
"" , '"=-:.~~,~."q:o,:"~.~,~..~..--,,,,,.=..~.""wA'\":", '. , ",," >" ~ I'~"
41
currently working level service D and ~hat is acceptable
level of traffic.
HR. DEAN: So what's going on right now on the
streets is acceptable?
HR. COWAN: I think the question is going to
.become: Is it possible to even fix it beyond what it is
today. When it tirst got started on this, in tact, first
talked about level service C tor a long time, the Planning
Commission telt, let's try to make things better. Let's
try to get a level service C.
And the question is: How do you do that when
you already have a D on the system and the City can't
function in a vacuua.
So the question is: It you were to create a
level service C or a B in certain areas, would you create a
vacuua and draw traffic into our city from other areas.
And that is the dil...., really.
And Burton went into that in a few seconds, how
this so-called Water Theory or path ot least resistance
tends to work.
So D has never been an ideal level ot service.
But trom a very pragmatic point ot view has been the level
we have strived tor.
You know, the State law that deals with
congestion management as a level service E has a
criteria and all the cities in the County are still
..- JIIS
---
c.tIeØ ~ ~ '''C
~-~.------~._,,-----"_._~_...-
"-~'---':-~:-"->--'~-~ ...",,...,....T'.,..,....,.~~;...·...·7'_~~.___··
..........'""'''~-.,......':._-".." ··"··.,--.~-~..~.._-.....~'...,,.--"!l:!II(-4!!;_." ..",' ....n.
44
striving for D level.
2 In a few seconds, I think I mentioned earlier,
3 if I didn't, I needed to, the Commission is saying that,
.
< perhaps, we can go to an E level on this intersection if
5 it's the decision to create a community goal of having a
6 gathering place in the Town Center.
7
MR. SZABO: Well, I would just like to ask you
8 a question, I remember at the time of approval df the
9 Apple campuA, we had a lot of discussion about Homestead
10 and De Anza Boulevard and a lot of diacussion about stevens
II Creek, correct, and De Anza Boulevard?
12 And at that time delay was not going to be a
13 build out of more than forty seconds for either of those
1<
intersections and that was a key point,
Now, I see that we indicate that we are
e
15
16 forty-three seconds and forty-four seconds. Can you
17 explain that? What happened? We just updated the thing
18 and things got worse, or is it that it does not consider
19 those improvements that we were going to put in?
20
MR. VISXOVICH: I think the big difference of
21 the General Plan, which was a manual calculation of the
~ Trips and the accuau1ation over time, and through Trips and
~ all of that were done with one assumption, no 85. And it
24 was based on the Trip generation factors at that time,
~ Continued monitoring of that as development occurred s~emed
æ to follow that model pretty closely,
,. J".
Jota 4IMIe s...y.
c:.tfrId S/'IOfWWIG .It~ .I'\C
2
.1
4
.;
6
,
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
Þ
45
This current General Plan is dealing now with
85 then, In fact, they are on a regional basis. And for
the two, in comparison, it's very clo.e. I mean, in 1980,
manual calculation and then traffic .odel dealing with new
figures and 85, Stevens Creek and De Anza is the only one
that pops up as being floating into the B plus range of
maybe forty-two seconds.
So from a D level to an E plus level is the
difference.
And that'. the only one that has really crept
up as being a problem.
MR. SZABO: Okay. If I understand correctly,
we have reappraisal and new calculations. But, of course,
85 coming in should have really improved things rather than
making iG wor.e,
MR. VISKOVICH: Re.ember about a year and a
half ago, we presented to you the model and we went through
the whole thing. 85, becau.e we are so saturated, and we
have got this amount of pent up demand just waiting for the
roadway to open, once that opens, it will fill up. If we
had a peak hour that we only had so aany vehicles out on
that period of time, if you build more str.eets, you are
goinç to take that peak hour and divide it up among the
straets. But it you have got a 1arqe peak period as you
add these streets, it will just shrink the peak period.
And so that keeps shrinking and expanding.
. "".
---
CMIII' Sfo'IWIG ~ IfIC
----"--...>-..--"'~."...,,"*';~_-:.'".~ .-.
46
2
MR. SZABO: All riqht.
MR. GOLDMAN: I would like to make a point on
.
3 the traffic issue, I understand that we need to be
· conservative in terms of 85, But won't our traffic
5 patterns chanqe with --
6
MR, VISKOVICH: Sure, Traffic patterns will
7 change. If you look at the system, a lot of reshittinq
8 will occur until it all balances out.
9 Back to the Water Theory, they will fill up the
10 capacity available because the dam is too biq,
11
MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. So traffic patterns will
12 chanqe,
13
MR. VISKOVICH: Yes.
MR. GOLDMAN: And then if the streets remain
e
1.
15 confiqured in the same mar.ner, they will fill up aqain.
16
MR, VISKOVICH : Correct.
MR. GOLDMAN: Because there is excess capacity,
MR. VIS~OVICH : Excess demand.
MR. GOLDIIAn : Excess demand.
17
18
19
æ So if we were to look at the day that 85 were
21 to open, there would be a distinct chanqe in the traffic
22 patterns.
23
MR. VISKOVICH: Yes,
MR. GOLDMAN : Okay. And is it possible that we
could recapture so_ of our City from commute traffic if we
were to be thouqhtful about what that distinct chanqe would
24
~
26
e
.- "",.
---
---""
e
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 1.
15
16
I.
18
19
20
21
22
23
:u
25
28
--
""--:-_,._.:-1__ --.".- '-'.' ....."..- .- :...-._,."...,..'...,.,..,.,...._.'.~,..,...,. .......,"..-~
4'7
be and plan ahead for that? And has the Planning
Commission looked at that possibility? For example,
De Anza Boulevard right now is eight lanes, and it is eight
lanes because there is traffic that goes from Sunnyvale to
Saratoga. That is one of the primary reasons why we have
wanted 85 to be built: otherwise, why build it.
Now, if it was more difficult for people to cut
through from Sunnyvale to Saratoga, then there would be
less traffic on De Anza Boulevard
MR. VISKOVICH: Okay.
MR, GOLDMAN: -- pooled. And we would have to
somehow find a way to do that,
So what I ar asking is: Would it make sense to
look at this traffic in a slightly different way and assume
tha~
look at when 85 is open, see how the traffic
patterns change and plan to make positive use of those
changes and, maybe, we could find .,ays to fix sOllie of the
traffic problems we are having,
I know people are not going to be going down
stelling Road because they are ~oinq to be on 85. And I
understand.
I mean, I mean, I am not, you know, begging the
issue. But it se... to me that other cities have had
freeways that have gone through them before. And we
need -- I guess, what I am saying is: When I read this
report, I am not saying that we are looking at finding a
--'
.. J".
_..... s-...
~--_"'<.
- ...-._.~, ,._~..
48
way to solve that. And it seems we need to find a way to
do that. I mean, that is the point that Wally is making is
t
2
1 people are unhappy about the traffic as it exists today,
MR. VISKOVICH: I have got to make one point, I
,
õ think, and I usually use this as an example, When you talk
ô to people, it sounds like, based on traffic, Saratoga has a
; population of two hundred thousand and Los Gatos has half a
8
million because all the trips out on the road are someone
else's. You have got to face up that a lot of those trips
are ours, And we have got De Anza College, We have got a
9
10
Il large residential population. If you look at a traffic
12 zone, not just cupertino jurisdiction, we have qot a biq
l3 employment base and we have qot a good commercial base.
14
So most of those trips out there are yours.
t
15
And --
:6
MR. GOLDMAN: So you are sayinq, we can't solve
1; the problem,
18
MR. VIS KOVICH: Yes, you could do some of it,
19 But it's not that eaay. If it weren't our traffic, if they
~ weren't our trips, then diversion -- you may be able to
21 close the City, but you can't close the City, because your
~ residents need to qet throuqh and the employment base that
~ has to get to the job need those roadways.
24 So there is a certain amount that you just got
2S to make sure that you provide the capacity for your own
26
peopli3.
.
..- J".
JaJCe "-" s.w.y.
c.tIIN' SI'tO/I"IrC' ReDCV"r "C
~~~-~---~_.~--,~.__...._--~.,._.~._----_.-
t
!
3
4
5
6
;
8
9
10
11
12
13
t 14
15
16
¡;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
It
49
When we did in 1980 licen.e plate surveys and I
was booed out of this Council chamber. -- and I am afraid
to even mention these numbers -- but a neighborhood group
went out and actually did another test. It indicated it
was about seventy-five percent of the trips actually stay
in this zone. So twenty-five are really cut throughs.
One other -- one real quick -- there was a
model run, Keeping cupertino as status quo, no development
whatsoever, and allowed all the other cities around us to
increase, And you would exp~ct that our streets would
increase in volume. They didn't, It indicates that our
streets are carrying its capacity and, therefore, the Water
Theory couldn't assign any traffic through cupertino.
So we do have ability tu kind of control our
destiny. But we have got to also remember that those trips
in there are our.. There is a lot that can be looked at,
but the bottom line is we have got a lot of trips. A lot
of traffic in our community.
MR. GOLDMAN: Well, okay. All right. And I
understand.
I 9U... the point I am _king is: I think we
should look at the specific impact of 85, not with regards
to this ~-era11 pool of trips, recognizing they ar& going
to be shifted: but there's going to be some shifting. And
if we looked at that in relationship to any new development
propo.a1., we may find that there are specific place. where
..- J".
..".. ..... ~
c..ecr ~~/rtC
- -...--,........
50
!
development will not impact us as much as other place..
That's all I am sayinq.
You know, because I think that i. a one time
opportunity to~ us to do somethinq,
MR. DEAN: But I think the key thinq is: The
traffic is our achil1es. We need to generate sales
dollars. ~~at is all it is. That is our number one
revenue source sales dollars.
There i. some reason why they are not spending
money her;. We plateaued. We need to qet off that. We
4
J
.
5
6
,
8
9
10
II
12
13
need to qet it goinq,
How do we correct the traffic to qet people to
stop in the stores, to spend t.he money here, to generate
some sales revenue for the City? Because if we don't qet
t
14
15
16
it, we are in bigger trouble than we are at.
MR, VISXOVICH: A couple of other issues as a
thouqht: As we qo through this in the past, we used to
have capital improvements that would kind ot qet us out of
the problem. We 100lc at the De Anza Boulevard. There is
no more wideninq, There is no more widening of Stevens
Creek. There i. no aore capital improvements to allow
people to drive throuqh.
MR. KILIAN: And we don't have any money
I,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 anyway.
~ MR, VISKOVICH: The other thing, you have to
æ loolc at a system. We are not in a vacuum. We have qat 280
e
.- ~~~-P
It
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
e
~~-~---
.~,,"-.'-.'"
._..:...,.,....--".,...,.""'~Ip"......-..,-,...-
!Il
and 85. Sooner or later, you have qot to qet on one of
those freeways. And projections are, as you can see from
the conqestion manaqement, that our freeways, 280, is
hittinq that level already, I mean, it just finished
bui1dinq and it's at level -- 95 is predicted to qo to F
level.
So the perimeter around the city is in bad
shape, So internally, you can do whatever you want. But
you can't qet out. And so you are qoinq to be backed up.
So think of the traffic as a system and not
really street by street because the Water Theory will
quickly change that, Because when one street qets backed
up, it moves over to another one until they kind of balance
in an equilibrium,
MS. SORE}JSEN: Okay.
MR. COWAN: with that backdrop, let me qo into
our little model. In te~ of this traffic issue here,
what we did qet, as you recall, seemft to indicate that the
existinq General Plan at build up is qoinq to result in a
level service that keeps us based on current standards,
And so what we did was took the existinq plan and ran it
out in terms of what's on the qround now, what the build
out is, what kind of qrowth would be remaining and how much
of that is cOlDlllitted.
Some of that is already cOlDlllitted. And so we
have a category called uncolDlllitted remaining at qrowth.
..-"..
---
c...__""
25
26
~"'" ~-,.,....~~~..,
2
52
And that worked out to be a Trip pool of around forty-nine ~
hundred Trips. That is how many Trips we can begin to play
with and reallocate if we want to do that.
3
<
And so given that, we went into another
5
looked at a number of different options and finally
6 developed a position for you, Again, this is the remaining
7 uncommitted growth, This is a propoaed -- column B is a
8 proposed reallocation plan that they are tentatively
9 looking at and it assumes, for example, this figure does
10 not include the regional shopping center of five hundred
11 thousand odd square feet. This is eight thousand square
12 feet of growth beyond the regional shopping center.
13 And if you recall the subway report, this
1<
amount of growth is probably not feasible beyond the
e
15 shopping center. It's probably more akin, if you discount
16
auto sale., which I don't think we have much opportunity
for, you probably will be in a range of three to four
hundred thousand square feet of growth, assuming some
fairly ambitious capture rates to capture sales from other
jurisdictions.
So what the Commission did in this sense was
17
18
19
20
21
22
use this model which you might be able to use later on if
you don't agree with their model to begin to reallocate,
In this case, without selecting certain
properties, but just saying, "Suppose we took five hundred
thousand square feet cf commercial space away --" and, by
:>3
2<
*f-J..
---
___In<.
.
.,
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
e
53
the way, ~hat is probably most of that is in small
increments -- a building is not quite built out, They have
some development potential that they are probably not going
to exercise anyway because of parking constraints and other
things.
So the allocation table was to take commercial
away and put that in a pool for the office and industrial
users.
And, by the way, this number includes the --
all office and industrial space and the lion's share of
this is the major companies. But there are two other
companies and smaller offices inside that pool,
Anyway, the idea was to allocate some squar.e
footage to this area and provide two hundred more hotel
rooms than the existinq General Plan had assumed and then
to add about a thousand housinq units. And a thousand
housing units has to do with the Commission's response to
the fair share analysis given to us by ABAG that has to do
with the housing e1e.ant -- tha goal of trying to provide
at least a thousand more housing sites in cupertino.
Rather than having you debate this tonight in
terms of what allocation syste. is the best, r think the
idea r would like to get fro. you is this a good tool to
use. Is the Commission on the right track of using this
kind of a tool for allocating uses?
This, by the way, gets into this concept (If
.. , MS
.--'-
~--_....
-----'.-·.--,.·,...."..-~·_~·-··r.,_,._ ~ ....' -.........,..,,_~- 'C"_'_ '~-"" ......--,-'-.._._,-.._.,~~_,."..__~'""~_.~._._.,_____"~_.,..,,?.,-,~-..,......~-""7'-''''~- '_'~~,......~"'_..-
54
what do you do with the pool. And I heard 80me Council
! people express some c~ncern about this tirst come-tirst
3 serve. I think one direction you might give them, it I
4 hear tha Council right, is that you might want to have them
5 begin to allocate that space as opposed to a tirst
6 come-tirst service basis. This is the worst case
7 situation, though,
8 Ciddy, it you can put another diagram on the
9 board.
10 If you recall a few moments ago, I talked about
11 this idea of using traffic management and joint mixed use
12 housing proposals to enable companies to grow beyond the
13
existing General Plan thresholds. And again I would like
to propose -- the Commission is proposing to you that we
look at a mechanism to allow that to occur, And by this
14
15
16 tier one-tier two-tier three-approach -- tier one being
17 kind of a small grant discount it certain things happen.
16 This, by the way, would be tor new growth and not the
19 existing basis. And Bert can get into that in further
20 detail,
21 So new base -- a new increment ot growth could
22
buy a TOM coordinator and other types ot things that are
listed on this one through five list, Then you can get
some discounts and you can see the numbers that are equated
to that.
23
24
25
26
Tier two is kind of a Missouri approach, That
..1".
............ -
~ ~ "-øonw 1f'C.
It
I
e
.
-...----..~~..-- ~.·-i.,~~'~.·~"""V'."'"' -0;. ".w, ,¥" .w~·~ "~.. Y'!4~"""". "OV'~~..~.,... ,...~.,.~...-.-~' .'--:'''~'''''.~..~--:-:,,¡. '_~"_"_'~_' ."fJI~'?\II'''_'''- .......'" .
e
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e l'
15
16
I.
18
I.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
55
is, you have to shov me, Show us you can achieve greater
TDM programs. Show us. Prove to us that you can have
contractual arrangements with housing on site to ensure
that your employees that live on site work on site, It you
can demonstrate these kinds ot things, then you can begin
to significantly increase the potential growth on these
major firms.
For example, you might get to a situation where
you have one dw~lling unit might equate to a thousand
square feet ot otfice space. So it you go five h~ndred
units, that is a pretty significant number. That assumes
that there could be some kind ot guarantee that the people
who live there work there,
And then, of course, that number wau1d go down
based on your inability to guarantee that.
Tier three has to do with some traffic
system management technilUes; although, Bert mentioned
there is really no opportunity for major capital
improvements.
There might be one syete. where you lIIight, tor
exalllp1e, have an underpass at Stevens Creek and De Anza; if
that could be attractively done, that lIIight buy sOllle
capacity for at least that one intersection.
So, again, I don't know. The Commission has
not spent too lIIuch tillle yet on the individual percentages,
so I don't think you should do it t~night.
.- J".
......--
QwIIIIIeII SIIøhwtcI ~ Inc.
--~---~-~"---"'~~'----"'~- -- -----~-_._.__.~_....~._.....-
56
But does this approach seem to be acceptable to
1
you?
MS. SORENSEN: Marshall has a question.
MR. GOLDMAN: If you qo back to that chart
before --
MR. COWAN: Okay.
MR. GOLDMAN: -- where, first of all, how tall
i. the five hundred room hotel qoinq to be?
MR. COWAN : There is no heiqht specified. The
Co_ission I heard a couple of Council people say, by
.J
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 the way, they would like to qet involved in heiqht as
12 oppo_d to a nWlber of stories.
13
MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. The probl_ I have with
that chart is two thinqs: One, it tells me mathematically
14
15 that sOllehow these forty-nine hundred Trips .sre qoinq to qo
18 soaewher., but it doesn't t.l1 .. where they are qoing to
17 go and what they are going to look like.
18 And, for ......-p1., if in tho_ two thousand
19 eight units, four hundred eight units are at the Diocese
211 property, as an exallple, that is goinq to impact our
21 traffic syst_ INCh greater than if they are on stevens
22 Cr.ek n.xt to jobs that people will be able to walk to.
22 So it se... to m. that we can't r.ally
24 co.ment on it until the Planning Co_ission has really
26 been IIOre specific as to what does it _an and where does
28
it qo.
..- J".
---..
~__"C
I
I
I
I
.
e
I
--
I
·
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
t
57
And I think that is a tremendous amount of
variable,
I would like the Planning commission to be very
specific and say, "Well, this is the area that I want to
build the two thousand houses and this is where the hotel
is going to be and this is where I am going to build __
where we are going to plan to build the office industrial."
So that is one thing,
The other comment that I would make: I did
watch -- I have watched many of the Planning Commission
tapes and I commend them for the time that they have been
doing. I mean, I cannot believe the number of meetings
that they have had this month.
Anyway, but the point is: The other thing that
I heard -- I mean, I heard two other things. One is first
come-first serve. That ought to be wiped off the face of
the map. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to really
consider that policy. It reminds 1118 of the Oklahoma land
rush, you know, where you don't
everybody will be on a
horse and they will kind of all go towards wherever they
are going to go and we will have little trips squirreled
around like Easter eggs, that kind of thing. r really
object to that,
The other thing is: I do think we need to look
at this from a positive point of view as well as a negative
point of view, Just to say that the companies are going to
.- .I".
.- v_-..
Cø«<r '- _ '''''
~------..-~.-----.-"--~----..-..._----
I
have to do this anyway, so we will have to give away
, anythin'J for that is not going to get anything done. I
1 don't think that makes sense. And there are more things I
4 think the community is concerned about such as the height
5 and the traffic.
6
MS. SORENSEN: I think right now, let's limit
us to questions and wait until Bob finishes his
presentation to get into a general discussion.
MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. I am sorry.
7
8
9
10
MR. COWAN: I am basically finished.
MR. DEAN: Ciddy, could we have the chart that
was up there before that one, the three tiers?
MS. SORENSEN: Let me add one more thing.
II
12
13
14 Before we get into the general discussion, it is almost
15 8:00 o'clock. We will take a break.
16
MR. DEAN: This is a study session, so let's
17 study.
18
You have the three tiers up there. If you
19 analyze that from a cross standpoint, to us what we have to
æ operate, how would you put a revenue increasing up there?
21 How would we monitor revenue potential for the City that is
~ going to pay the bills? Would that be a workable situation
D for tier four instead Of just Trips? I don't really care
~ about Trips.
~ In other words, we have got the traffic set
~ where we want to go. If we can't pay for the services for
,. .I..
--"-
c.-.___...
_._._._---_._---_.__.__....._.._------_._--~--_.-
58
I
I
It
þ
~
.
5
6
7
8
3
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~
-"~~"'"
. .
>r',,', ' .' ~ . ~,'.' '.' '",. . .
59
fire, for police, could we gain something again through
tier four it it was connected to monetary?
MR, SZABO: Wally, I don't think you wore
around here when we looked at the Apple development. At
that time it was determined that we cannot require the
payment ot a fee other than something that is an impact tee
for a use permit. Whereas, for development agreement, you
can. But use permit, we cannot. So that severely limits
us in that :o:-espect.
MR. DEAN: But in selection of the previous
graph, where you're allocating your land and classification
and your segment approach, if you had a fourth tier and
equated it to an evaluation of what general funds are we
going to receive fr~ the existence of this establishment,
would that be a key indicator?
MR. COWAN: Let _ discuss that for a second
because the Co..i.sion was interested in that as well.
They feel -- a couple of Coaaissioners are at the point
where they would like to have -- there is just a pool ol
capacity left. In addition to that, I think they leel
positive in having _jor co.panie. r...in here. But they
feel there ought to be some benelit derived to the City as
a result and they want to look at that as well. We haven't
gotter that far yet.
They also are recommending -- I think it's
somewhere in the documentation about the mechanism for
.J.a
)Ore» ""'" s..,.y.
c..ø.ø ~ 4«Io....,.~c
l
60
doing that would be through development agree~.nts, I know
that is controversial itself, but that is a way to achieve
.
1
3 that.
~
MS. SORENSEN: Are there any other questions of
5 Bob?
8 Then what I would like to do is take a
. ten-minute break and then we will reconvene.
8 (Whereupon, a break was taken at 8:00 p.m., after
9 which the proceedings were reconvened at 8:09 p.m.)
10
MS. SORENSEN: We are going to be getting
11 started if everybody will please take their seats. It has
12 been ten minutes.
13 Okay, we will get started again,
l~
Just so people will know, at the present time,
I will have -- I have seven speakers that are listed. If
-
15
18 anyone else care. to speak, they can fill out a carel.
I. Sorry to say this, Marshall, first co.e-first
18 serve on the carel. I am just saying on the cards, first
come-first serve.
19
20
MS. KOPPEL: Carels only, Marshall.
MS. SORENSEN: Okay. Now what I would like to
21
22
do --
23
MR. GOLDMAN: Play back the tape on that.
MS. SORENSEN: -- to get started with our
24
~ discussion.
æ Does anybody care to 90 first?
.J..
JØrCI.I,I..,. ~
c..t.ø ~ .qW)Of'!W :roc:
t
l
1
.
5
6
,
8
9
10
II
12
13
Þ 14
15
18
I,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Þ
61
Nick, I know you had some comments written out.
MR. SZABO: Now, one of the thinqs that I see
in this General F1an that we will maintain level of service
D except at possibLy ~ne intersection or maybe two
intersections. I would like to caution you about this
becauße if you make in a water pipe restricted one place,
the rest ot the places, the water will tlow very nice and
leisurely. But wh~t I am sayinq is: If you restrict -- if
you allow level of service E in one location, the rest will
automatically be much lower because all the traffic has to
qo throuqh that particular intersection.
So I aa very hesitant to say it's only one out
of torty intersections or one out ot a hundred
intersections.
I have to restrict one. I have just basically
impaired the capacity on two major streets in the City of
Cupertino. And it will sound very qooc1. There is only one
of th_ i. E. But the traffic has really slowed down.
So I lilte to be cautious about that.
Now, the other thinq I lilte to CODent about i.
the level ot service E, Let'. not basically say, -Well, if
it's not 0, we will allow E." Because this i. a number of
seconds ot delay per intersection. It doesn't mean now
that we would qo trom all ot a sudden we say everythinq
is oltay. The uppGr Hmi t of E is sixty. So are we
sayinq that, oh, we can't make forty? Let's, therefore, qo
.J..
---
CMIIoct ~ ~ lit(:
24
62
to a sixty?
,41
"
I think it would be much more realistic.
1
okay, we c~~'t seem to reach forty because we
have already got more traffic, We can set the limit at
forty-five. We don't have to say at sixty.
There is nothing magic about following tbe
.
5
6
7
a1pbabet from D to E to F,
We bave tbe rigbt to basically set it in terms
8
9
of delay.
10
And I tbink it's way too big a jump to go from
level of service D all tbe way to tbe upper area E.
Tho.e are my two reservations.
It you allow me to restrict tbe tratfic one
place, I can mak~ level of service everywbere A.
And so we got to be very cautious i"'Jout that.
e
II
12
13
14
15
16 okay?
Ii
I like to add one more to your TOM. I think
18 when you provide child care services in the saae location
19 as the workplace, I think that we cut down on traffic. I
~ like to put that a. an incentive because it doe. reduce
traffic. And I think it i. very beneficial to the people
21
22 working there and everybody. I like to add that.
Oh, I would like the Planning Commission to
23
reconsider the first c~me-first serve basis. I don't know
~ about -- but I can see it we said it was tomorrow morning,
~ I tbink we would bave fifteen hundred proposals on tbe desk
~
.- 01".
---
~__,"C
~~---"._~_._--~.-.._---~.__._..._-----_._-_._--..._--------.-.-------------
It
!
.1
.
5
6
;
8
9
10
II
12
13
t 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Z5
26
t
631
tomorrow morninq. I don't think that is a qood way.
I think what we should do is allocate them on
the Dasie of certain values that We have. And I think the
values are already in the existinq General Plan that we
want to basically allow for qrowth of certain existing
companies that exist there rather than qoinq to first
come-first serve.
Also, I think therG is a very q~eat ..nsltivity
where We locate the development. I think that we qot to
locate it wherever the traffic al1ow~ rather than what is
needed out there, rather than on the basis of, "I threw it
into the hopper just before you did."
I am concerned about the parkway concept of
further restrictinq the capability of stevens Creek
Boulevard for traffic.
Bert, have any studies been done on how IlUch
the capacity of the street is reduced?
MR. nSItOVICR: Yeah. We have thos.. And
those can qo -- we can qo into detail on those thinqs when
you qet to that point.
I don't know if you want to do that toniqht.
For each different plan, so-called Grand
Boulevard and the Freedman Plan versus a parkway plan and
so forth, and some of the lane configuration intersection
conditions all have been addressed.
MR. SZABO: My reservation about that, for one
,.J..
---
CMiIIIr ~ Aeacww /"'(:
~--------_._._---------_.._._..._-_._----_.__._~_.~_.-----
r
I
thing, is that if we have a certain amount of traffic
2
volUMe to send down stevens Creek Bo~lÐvard ~nd we restrict
;
the flow as a result of the parkway concept, we will have
4
to allocate to stevens Creek a larger percentage and we
will roo that time basically from De Anza Boulevard. And
we have basically adversely affected not only Stevens Creek
but we also are affecting De Anza Boulevard. I am very
apprehensive about that.
And those are basically my concerns. And I
hope the Planning comaission will look at some of those
(Joneerns and evaluate thea.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Thank you.
13
MS. XOPPEL1 I have a couple of questions.
When you referred to BuDb and Bandley. I have
a question on Bubb. I can see Bandley. But wben you
conaider Bubb, that 18 kind of an island between there and
14
15
18
17 what would be 85. And I all not so sure residential would
18 be best for that. That is ay opinion.
The other que:¡tioD I have, when you were
It
20
talkinq about it was a thre~ to two vote the Heart of the
City anc:t what, depending on wb0Q8 wording you use, Town
Center right out here, but sort of C;~y Center, I quess.
You ..de a comment that if it were pede.trian friandly that
that intersection would drop to an E with this Heart of the
21
22
23
24
~ City atmosphere. Anc:t I quess MY que.tion to you, if it
æ weren't, is it still goinq to drop to D or is it not?
..-J..
---
CMiIIG' ~ ~ 11"1(
I
64
e
e
t
!
1
~
5
6
.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
I.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
65
MR. VISNOVICH: Let me just answer that without
the Heart or whatever it 1s,
If you take the General Plan as it is, you are
heading in a B level which is a decision you are going to
have to make as to whether you want to stay consistent with
the General Plan or no B's or as Nick indicated, it may
take a forty-two seconds, forty-three, When the Heart
comes in, there has been a lot of discussion whether it's a
Grand Boulevard type or whether it's a Heart off of
stevens Creek.
There was talk about sacrificing for the Grand
Boulevard, takinq it a lower level.
I would say, if you did the Heart the way it's
established or the way it's been brought to you, that you
really wouldn't have to sacrifice the intersection because
now the Heart is off and you would probably want to keep
the level at that intersection up.
So until we finally really layout your Heart,
your downtown, those kinds of things, you are going to have
to re-evaluate that.
But the way it's presented, I don't think you
need to sacrifice the level of service b.~auBe it's off of
Stevens Creek.
The other thought was to jail up Stevens Creek
so you could drive slow and observe the retail shops and
things like that. But if it's oft ot Stevens Creek, you
i
-
. .I"a
---
~ ~........ <f"C
66
want that now to travel so you can drive down stevens Creek
2
and you want to then just go ott into the Heart which would
be slow and F levels if you get in~? a congested quadrant.
~
4
MS. KOPPEL: Okay. That is all.
MS. SORENSEN: Wally,
MR. DEAN: Do we want to talk about the height
s
6
7
or do we want them to come back?
s
MS. SORENSEN: You can otter your suggestions
q as to what you think the height should be.
10
MR. DEAN: And the location ot the height?
MS. SORENSEN: Yes.
11
12
MR. DEAN: How tight clo you want -- how
13 technical clo you want to get?
14
MR. COWAN: Well, the co_ission wants to get
IS involvecl in height. They talked about the height that the
~ City Center -- there is a recommenclation for seventy teet.
17 Right now, the builclings out there are one
18 hundred twenty feet and then twenty teet transition.
19 They want to go back into the Vallco area as
20 well. So it yoa have sØlDe particular direction you might
21
want to give them as an alternative that would be tine,
22
too.
23
MR. DEAN: The print I saw was the eight-story
24 gas station.
25
MR. COWAN: Oh. That was a last minute
26 submittal.
.-J..
.IOrCI .v.. ~.
~~R«IO"IW"f'C
67
2
MR. DEAN: "Fill her up."
I am not really big on that,
3
I would really like
I don't see the need for
~ height, Sorry. I would like them to focus on smaller
ó levels -- my opinion.
6 The downtown, are you going -- you will come
7 back to us on the downtown concept?
8 Is that the formula, or do you want us to
9
discuss downtown? Does it fit?
MS. SORENSEN: I think you need to offer
10
11 whatever sugqestions you would like the Planning Commission
12 to consider.
13 W. do have three Commissioners here.
14
MR. DEAN: It sounds great. Lovely concept.
15 But I a1ll lIIissinq how it's qoing to be pedestrian intensive
16 and how it's qoing to work in the area. I know you are
17 talking about cluster on the side. With th~ streets, you
18 will propo.. SOlllethinq to us.
19
MR. COWA1f: The Commission is going to be fine
~ tuning its plan for City Center. And so far, all I said,
21 that should be the Heart of the City. That is all they
22
said 80 far.
23
There should be sOllie height lilllitations that
~ are lower than that allowed in the General Plan. They
~ haven't gotten into any lIIore detail.
~ So I quess what I hear you saying, they are
.J..
---
c.___,,,<-
68
!
saying like they have a pedestrian scale but that has not
been articulated yet.
MR. DEAN: okay.
MR. COWAN: Are you interested in that kind of
e
.1
4
5 a concept, or you just want to know how it's going to be
8 done?
~
MR. DEAN: I haven't made up my mind. I am
8 completely neutral.
9
My problem is: I don't see it workinq at the
10 intersection where it's pedestrian friendly. I just -- if
11 they have a concept --
12
MR. COWAN: I think the cOnCtipt of a Town
13 Center with a dramatic intersection itself might not be
14
conducive to pede.trians. So that is one concept that they
e
15 have.
18
MR. DEAN: When they talk about a theme or
17 goal, what do they ..an by that? I wish they would be more
18 definitive on that. Is there a th_e of downtown? Is
19 there a concept they are trying to pre.ent?
20 MR. COWAN: They are talking about the concept
21 of urban quidelin... Certain areas should have a thematic
~ approach like De Anza College. I forget the vote on that.
~ There is basic .upport of the Commission as a whole for
24 some sort of thematic approach on various areas of the
~ town. I will confirm that here.
2ò
Primarily, the term "theme" relates to an
~
...-.1..
---
~__-c:
t
2
1
t
.'
6
,
8
9
10
11
12
13
It 14
15
16
I,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Þ
69
architectural style as used in their work to date. So the
idea that there is a General Plan, makes it very, very
clear we don't want themes. We want their very eclectic
architecture,
A lot of members of the goals committee -- and
there was a Planning commission -- think that is not right,
That is unanimous on the Commission,
MR. DEAN: Will you ask them to eliminate the
term "compact parking" from the General Plan?
Just regular parking would be nice. I don't
know if you share the same view, but I don't want to fight
my way out of the car. I unc!erstand the reason.
MS. KOPPEL: Why should it be rellOved?
MR. DEAN: Why have a hassle getting out of
your own car. When you go to paJ:"k at a retail shopping
center, when you open your door you are 4inging the other
guy's car.
Let's make it user friendly.
MR. SZABO: Quite a few of our parking lots,
they c!on't meet tho.e standard. today and, especially, the
garage types.
MS. SORENSEN: Any other comments?
Marshall.
MR. GOLDMAN: I thought the hillsides was a
tough issue.
Compact parking, right.
,. .I".
---
CMIIIø' ~ ~ 1f'tC.
70
2
My comments are more in terms ot speciticity,
I really think that the General Plan should be a document
e
:1
by which somebody who wants to build a building in the City
will be able to look at that and have a reasonable
expectation of understanding what is expected of him by the
,
,;
6
City.
-
And if he comes to it, he can get it, and there
is a surety that the City will deliver on that.
And so it is my opinion that it's very easy to
be less than specific because there are very tough issues.
The more specific we are, the bett.er the
8
9
10
11
12
document vill be and the easier it will be to work with and
13
probably save money in terms of our planning.
And I will give a co~ple of examples: You
e
1~
15
know, ve bave talked about
the docuaent discusses
16 transportation corridors. And it says that buildings
17 should be located on transportation corridors. But it
18 really isn't specific, you knov, as to what the major
19 transportation corridors vill be.
20 And I re""'r listening to the discussion at
21 the meeting, and they talked about at one time, you know,
22 building by 85 or whether De Anza Boulevard or Stevens
23 Creek.
25
24 I think it's important to be very specific as
26
to what we consider major transportation corridors. And it
should be simple and it should be clear.
i
¡
I
I
.
.J..
JOpCe .wr. s...¡...
c.MIo ~.a~ "'C.
71
They talked about light rail. And, again, it
2 is not a rault or the Planning Commission. r realize the
J pressure you are working under.
~ In the end, the discussion ended up, "Well, we
5 could put it either 85 or down stevens Creek Boulevard."
6 Well, we will never get light rail unless we
7 are very specific as to where it goes.
e Now, I believe that that's a goal of the
9 co_unity. Now others may not share tha<t. view.
10 But if we are going to say we want light rail,
11 let's say Where it's going to go and let's go after it,
12 I believe we can accelerate the time trame.
13 Barbara was at a .eeting and she saw how one
14 co_unity was able to .ove from the bottom of the list to
16 the top of the list. I thouqh~ that was very interestinq.
18
So I think we need to be specific. And then I
17 think that if we know where light rail goes, then we can
\8 plan around that for future deve1cpment.
19 And even if liqht rail is going to be here in
æ fifteen years, building is going to take -- those buildings
21 are going to be here for thirty, forty, or fifty years.
22 And a developer ought to understand with
~ reasonable assurance what's going to happen to the street
24 he builds on.
26
The other issue is: The Co_ission may
æ consider in talking about the Band1ey and the Bubb Road
.01..
.;o,a oW... s...re
Cwt"«1~~tftC-
72
concept of housinq, may consider tradinq square footaq. in
L those areas for square tootaqe elsewhere in the City. For
! example, if on Bandley those buildinqs were converted to
4 housinq, commercial square footaqe would be removed. So if
5 there were some way of the development riqhts tor that
6 commercial square footaqe could be transferred to some
7 other area that needed it more, we would want to consider
8 that. And that would be, you know, in those pool cf Trips.
9
The other thinq is with reqards to the Heart of
10 the City. It's my opinion that the key issues are traffic,
II We qot to understand what people are upset about on the
12 traffic. And we have qot to find a way to address it.
13 It's qot to be more specific than we have done toclay. I
14 don't think we are doinq as qood of a job as we need to do.
15 And we do have to be specitic about the heiqhta. And we do
18 have to be specific about what we are qoinq to do in tbe
17 hillsides it we are qoinq to qain a certain degre. of
18 credibility with the community. And throuqb that
19 credibility, they will beqin to see us in a different
20 liqbt.
21 One of the key elements that we ran into on
~ some of the proqrams was I didn't feel there was a qreat
23 deal of trust. And we need to improve on that so that we
24 perform a little bit better. I think we can do that.
~ With reqards to the Heart of the City, it 's my
æ opinion that that is somethinq that cannot be planned trom
..- J".
---..
~--'''''
13
the top do~n. We cannot sit up her~, the five of u., ~r
the five Plan!1inq Co_issioners and say, "You know, bingo,
that's going to be the Heart of the City." That i. a very
sensitive i._ue to all of the co_unity. And the one thing
,
5 that I believe very strongly, and I thought was very good
6 ab~ut the Grand Boulevard co_it tee, is the overall
7 consensus was that you 40 a community project, a community
d work.hop that brings in the comœunity to create the Heart
9 of the City. You cannot just draw it on a pi.ce of paper
10 and expect people to buy into it.
11 So I would hop. that wher. w. get done with this
12 Gen.ral Plan, w.'ll create that proc.ss to draw everybody
13 in.
14
A final point: I don't .ee the neighborhood.
15 addr....d. I think that w. ne.d to look at, one, smaller
18 neighborhood park.. I think there are a lot of
17 neighborhoods that would like their own park that don't
18 have it. And it might be smaller.
19
I think, also, we have to look at biq house. on
20 small lots. You know that's still been a probl_ a.
21 developaent occurs. We are qoinq to .tart ...ing, aqain,
~ people tearing down ...11 hou... and building big ones.
23 And I think there has got to b. some neighborhood approval
24 process that would alleviate that. So I would like the. to
~ look at that.
26
MS. SORENSEN: Barb.
.. "".
-..... -
~--""
74
MS. };OPPEL: I have a couple of co_ents. I am
! really concerned with what you're saying about compact
J parking, It seems to me wher. we approve a project, there
4 always has to be a certain aaount of parking spaces, And
5 if we went to an old standard, I think we would be
6 defeating our purpose in t~ing to have the right amount.
7 So I just want you to know I am not in agreement.
8 Light rail, am I to understand that the
9 Planning Coaaission voted -- they aade a decision in
10 regards to not having light rail or soaething?
11 Scq¡ebody respond to that.
12
MS. WORDELL: Their reco..endation was to
13 identity Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza corridor as
14 potential light rail corridors.
15
MS. KOPPEL: Okay. You probably read th~.s
18 morning's paper regarding a .eeting last week with the
17 Board ot Supervisors. There was anoth.r .eeting this
~ morning I attended. Two cities who start with C put
19 pressure on the Board ot SUpervisors. So the hearing is
20 continued to next week. What had happened was the
21 Transportation co..ission had made a strong recommendation
22 to the Board ot Supervisors to approve the light rail
23 projects in a particular sequence.
24 And Stevens Creek Boulevard is right in the
23 middle of one and that is also by the City ot San Jose.
:ze
So there was sort ot some back room lobbying
~
!
..- Jill.
---
~-., "-"'C
75
.
last week, You sa~ what happene~, It didn't happen, So
, it will be considen'd next wr:ek.
And, hop~tully, Stevens Creek will be put b~ck
" up there because, as you Ienow, there is also consideration
5 to continue stand measure A which is a half cent sales tax.
6 This would go to complete 237, 85 and 101 as well as light
7 rail projects.
8 And, of course, to make anything pass in this
9 County, you are going to have to identify what those
10 proj ects are.
II And I think that came across loud and clear.
12 There is just nothing for the west side of the County.
13 It's not going to pass.
14 So I just wanted to share that,
15
MS. SORENSEN: Thank you.
The Mayor. I guess, will go last which is hard
16
17 sometimes. You really want to get in there.
16 I want to aqree with Marshall on speci~icity.
19 And I was sitting here recalling about three y..rw ago or
20 four years ago When Don McXenzie and I _nt to a planning
21 conference and they commented you had to have your 't' s
~ crossed and i's dotted. And maybe the Planning Commission
~ can make sure that the t's are crossed and the i's are
24 dotted.
~ I agrse a lot with what Nick said, that the TDM
æ companies locate development where traffic is.
..1..
---
_-"_1""
76
I am very pro light rail. And J have always
e
2 said this.
I would also like to consider somehow the
~ parkway, Grand Boulevard, or Heart of the City because I
õ have heard from the retailers that are along stevens Creek
6 that it is very important to them that something needs to
7 be done along this street and we need to consider that.
8 The height of the buildings seems to be
9 discussed. And I have to be one who's for architectural,
10 not conformity, but unity. Architectural unity, not the
11 eclectic approach that we have been doing.
12 I would also like to see more on the economic
13 end of it. And in all honesty, I will have to get 1IY
I~
thoughts in order on that one and probably bring it back to
you next Monday night.
e
15
II BnvironJIental quality, I am looking forward to
17 the Parks and aecs recommendations and would hope that
18 the.e would come forward and would be of help to the
19 Planning Commission. I think Marshall .entioned ...11
20 PLrka. I think we really need to consider that in view of
21 the economic times that we are in.
~ And, finally, this has never -- has not come up
23 and I haven't read about it. Do we have any idea of the
24 growth of De Anza?
~ And I think if we don't have any idea, I think
~ we need to know. Are we qoinq to remain at twenty-five
.. .1..
---..
CØIIIcr $IIQofwIø Þet::Iotft¡t I"C
-
2
1
~
5
6
.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
\.
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
26
I
77
thousand or are they going to plan on growing? And if so,
this needs to be taken into account in all of our traffic
projections, et cetera.
I think that's it. I am working from two
different sheets here, my original notes, and trying not to
repeat myself or repeat what others have said.
I think now, we will go ahead and hear -- as I
say, I have the seven cards up here,
And the first person, out of deference to her,
we will hear from Betty Mann. And it's up to the Council
to ask her any questions if they have any.
Betty is a Planning Commissioner and she will
not be at the meeting on Monday night. And so I
MS. MANN: Thank you. Thank you.
I appreciate this. And something has taken me
out.
I did wish to pre.ent. I have soaething very
long which I turned into you and, perhaps, it could be
copied and given to you to read at your leisure.
I am not ~ure exactly, since this isn't what I
started out with. I agree with the slope density and the
grading and 80 forth. We have tried very hard on many of
these things as you well know in the Commission.
I think, perhaps, one thing I ought to say: I
think the terms of the Commission ought not to be downed to
two terms because there's no continuity, We don't have
..-JM.
---
"--_..'"
78
anybody on the Commission that was in the General Plan
2 review before. And I think this has slightly hindered
1 everyone. You might want to reconsider two terms.
The time span on the seminary property, that
,
5 was, I believe my own proposal. And it does not limit or
6 at the end of two years mean that you have to make a
7 decision to develop or continue on. It could continue on
8 in any way, shape, or form. It's merely a benchmark. You
9 can do -- you know, the City Council could then do what it
10 wants with it. This i. not something you either -- if
11 nobody can find any money for it, it means that you have to
12 stop the Williamson Act and go over to development.
13 I think you're faced with a very creative time
14 right now. The City can either create a new city or it can
15 just simply tinker with the one we have got right now.
16 There are areas that are being torn down or
17 considered to be torn down which are not very old. Just
16 tearing down and putting up the Apple campus itself shows
19 that we have obsoleted part of our city. It's quite a
~ challenge to the City Council. And you're going to have to
21 face it. You are going to tinker, or are you going to
~ create, or are you going to be bold, or are you going to
~ just say, "Well, we don't know exactly what we are going to
24 do. "
25
I don't know. I am not on the City Council. I
~ am just going to give you all the problems. But I did want
-
,
.-J..
_ ..... s-,.
CØtrIIf s~ "'WXYI'Þ' ""C
·
,
1
~
5
6
~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
~'9
you also to note that you can't have it both ways. If you
don't want urban sprawl, then you have got to go to high
rise buildings, whether they are high rise apartments or
offices because you can't have growth without your sprawl
either up or out,
Do you have any questions that you may want to
ask me on some of my feelings or what I may not be able to
present to you next week?
MS, SORENSEN: Are there any questions ot
Betty?
I have noted that it's trom Betty Mann, and I
will give it to Roberta with a carbon copy to the Council
and to Don and the Directors. If they get it tomorrow,
will you still be around --
MS. MANN: Y...
MS. SORENSEN:
it anybody did have any
questions?
I appreciate that. I did read the firstpaqe
and I appreciated your comments on it.
MS. MANN: Thank you.
I tried to put what I could about some of the
things in there. And I hope that, perhap., it could be
sent out to the Planning Commission also since it also just
goes in generally and put my name on it since I did torget
that. I expect you all to know who I am.
MS. SORENSEN: Okay.
.- J".
---
CnIooI_ _"'"
80
2
Thanks, Betty.
MS. MANN: Thank you.
MS. SORENSEN: And you did it in three minutes,
:1
~ A little bit over.
; Richard Schoemaker.
¡¡
MR. SCHOEKAKER: I will defer to Father Boyle.
MS. SORENSEN: Okay, he has a card in. So I
~
8 will just go -- I am just taking these cards at random.
9
Pat Cala or Cola. Okay. Pat, I don't think
10 you have been to any of our meetings. I do limit your
11 remarks to three minute..
12
MS. CAIA: I am Pat cala.
13
I .. not from CUpertino. I am from Palo Alto.
I have been followinc¡ through the newspaper the
14
15 progress of the Dioce.e property. And I thought after I
16 heard the last result., it was the _etinq that concerned
17 the cards that c.- from the parishioners, I thought, okay,
18 business is bu.in.... Everybody i. di.cussing it. They
19 will handle it. And then when I .aw it in the new.paper
20 this morning, I became -- and I hata to use the word -- but
21 I really became frightened when it said, "Strict lot size
~ plan likely to pass." And it said, "Minimum five to twenty
23 acres. "
24 I had made somoa notes of my own of how much
~ this really made me afraid, not just that five or twenty
~ acres, but the fact that the change was occurring it seemed
. ./".
---
c.dIØ $IIoW'wto "eøof!W "'C.
I
I
I
~
-
,
~.
,
3
~
.j
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~
81
to me in midstream. And I clossed out these notes because
I learned a lot during the meeting that I was here tonight.
And I think things are -- you are doing a good job.
But what I had said to myself was in building
per square foot and in the height, those things and changes
bothered me because that is what happened to me as a
newcomer from the East to Palo Alto. They made the changes
after I paid a quarter of a million dollars for my lot.
And then Mr. Goldman mentioned "trust." And I
said to myself what is to prevent the Council from changing
requirements to, one, confiscate this property that serves
the public. What is to prevent the Council from changing
requirements to do the same to private property or to
homeowners?
And then I had made another note which I
crossed out but I really feel
and this is what had
frightened .., and I am going to read you my little
sentence so I don't get too wordy.
During .y lifetime, I asked myself, has this
ever happened, this change in .idstream. Has it ever
happened before? I said, "Yes, I believe it has to some
degree." Before the second World War, property belonged to
a particular religious group and was confiscated.
And you mentioned, Mr. GOldman, big houses on
small lots. What I say and hope not wrongly, you are going
to have small houses on large lots and your facilities, if
.-J..
---
~--"_."<'
82
2
this comes to pass, you are stretching your tacilities with
people who might be building tne small houses on large
1 lots.
· So I ask you, please, to consider your vote and
5 present the citizens of CUpertino with a more workable and
6 fair alternative.
~ Thank you.
8
MS. SORENSEN: Thank you. You did that in
9 three minutes, also.
10
MS. CALA: Thank you.
MS, SORENSEN: You people must be practiced.
Father Boyle.
FATHER BOYLE: Mayor Sorensen and members of
II
12
13
14 the City Council of CUpertino, this is, of course, a
15 response to Marshall Goldman's proposal, the Goldman plan,
18 or as somebody has already called it, the Marshall plan.
17 The Goldman proposal, from our point of view, to allow
18 fewer than forty homes on two hundred eight acres is simply
19 totally unfair. It's an unfair attempt to drastically
ro restrict the Church's existing rights to sell its property
21 for development, to change planning rules that have been in
22 force and which the Diocese relied upon for almost a
23 decade.
U It is unfair because it does not allow the
~ Diocese a fair return on property the Church has owned for
~ more than sixty-five years.
.- .I..
---
~--'"
.
I
~
,
--
24
25
26
83
This is a radical scheme that treat. the
2
Diocesan property far differently than surrounding private
properties have been treated in Cupertino and neighboring
communities in the past.
1
.
.;
Much of the developed properties up and do~
Foothill Boulevard are as steep or steeper than portion. of
the Diocesan land that is proposeà for ho.... This tactic
is very unfair considering that the Church declined a
chance to make the maximum profit on its property.
Unlike many for profit developers, the Diocese
has shown a willingne.s to compromise and help or hear from
the Planning Comaission and let th.. know that and to meet
community needs with this property, including preservation
of almost half as open space and the inclusion of
affordable housing.
The hillsidea on the Diocesan property are
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
It
15
16
17 protected in the Planning Commission I s proposal. The
Diocese has pledged to keep most hillside portions of the
18
19
property as peraanent publicly accessible open space.
Al1lOst half of the sea!nary property, more than
ninety-nine acr.., will be reserved for open space
including most of the hillside areas.
Housing will be restricted primarily to flat
land portions of the property with no grading permitted on
20
21
22
23
slopes of thirty percent or more.
Attempts to group the remaining Diocesan
.- J".
--~
CMIIecr ~ ~ It'IC.
a4
property with the Kaiser property, the Rignar Canyon area,
Inspiration Heights, as well a. other properti.. in the
-
I
2
1 toothills, is inappropriate.
4 The Diocesan property that would be developed
5 with homes consists largely ot rolling grazing land, tormer
8 orchards and the site ot ..minary building.. Land that is
7 tar ditterent in character from the hills and woodland. of
8 the toothills and ot other properties that would be covered
9 under the Goldman proposal.
10 The Diocese also has sold approximately tour
II hundred acre. already ot original Diocesan property best
12 suited tor park use, wooded and located farther up the
13 hill. tor the creation ot Rancho San Antonio Park anc:l
14
portions ot the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District Nature
e
15 Preserve.
18
MS. SORENSEN: Pather Boyle, can you sUDlIDarize
17 your --
18
FATHER BOYLE: I have one _ntence lett..
19
MS. SORENSEN: Okay. Thank you.
PATHER BOYLE: We are contident that the City
20
21 Council will recognize the Planning Commission's proposal,
~ the one that i. before you now, betore the Goldman proposal
23 ca.e out in the papers today.
24 We know and we recognize that you will accept
~ this as a fair response after it has a chance and after you
æ have had a chance to examine it in detail,
Ie
i
. J"a
__s.-.
c.ø.r $I\rorIwIcr ,Cf~ ...¡;
--'~---~---'-"'-----'--~-'-
85
I
I
.1
Thank you very much.
MS. SORENSEN: Thank you.
Diane Morino Acadia.
,
MS. ACADIA: Mayor Sorensen, I choose to deter
õ to another person.
6
MS. SORENSEN: Thank you,
7
Nadine Grant.
8
MS. GRANT: Mayor Sorensen, City Council, my
9 name is Nadine Grant and I am here tonight as a
10 spokesperson for OAXS.
11 We at OAXS respect the need tor the City
12 Council to have time to decide on your General Plan
13 requirements. As a result, we have chosen, at Mayor
14 Sorensen's request, not to have a presence here tonight,
15 but have chosen to ..rely ask that you consider the
16 to1lowing inputs in your discussions:
17 I have to tell you, based on what I have heard
18 tonight, I feel lik~ I .. pr.achinq to the choir, it you
19 will pardon the expression.
W We would ask ~at the City Council tirst agree
21 on a vision of CUpertino. We at OAXS see CUpertino as a
~ city that continues to draw people and businesses because
23 of the clarity and long term planning of the City, the
24 City's commitment to a high quality of lite entorced by
~ strong clear quide1ines as to growth and retention ot
~ contiquous open space, ot business environment that
..- Jill.
---
~--"'"
86
attracts employees, employers and customers.
2 The City's fiscal fairness which allows for all
3 the long term funding for the necessary support services
e
~ that I heard mentioned, schools, police, fire, waste
5 disposal, water, et cetera.
6 We believe that in order to achieve this
; vision, there needs to be a clear plan as suggested by a
6 number of you that there be a designated growth area where
e growth could be encouraqed while protectinq open space
10 areas and enhance CUpertino and the regional quality of
11 life.
12 By agreeinq on designated growth areas,
13 effective traffic plans and City sensitivities that" involve
14
e
that, encourage planned controlled qrowth, the recent
II assets found in CUpertino open space can never be actively
18 promoted to gauge reqional support which has been started
17 by Los Altos Parks and Rec. We recoqn!ze that.
18 We also need to ..et State mandated
II requirements in order for our vision to be accepted.
20 Towards that end, we would support an open space zoninq
21 ordinance to comply with State Code. sesides an obvious
~ need from a compliance point of view, we also urqe that to
~ ensure fairness to all landowners.
U It is only with a clear open space ordinance
~ that a clear designation for environmentally sensitive
æ areas and the hillside zoninq policy and the General Plan,
e
..1..
.-..... s-,..
CIrIIIIf s.~ ~ II"C
~
!
3
~
Ó
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Þ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Z5
2!1
Þ
87
that landowners can be dealt with fairly. Palo Alto,
Saratoga and other forward-thinking cities have such
ordinances,
Many of the state mandated r~quirements will
also facilitate regional funding potentials so that the
City of cupertino residents would not bear the cost of our
regional asset.
By creating clear zoning policies, by defining
long term growth plan based on designated growth core
areas, we believe that cupertino landowners can be dealt
with equitably.
cupertino will continue to grow meeting State
mandates.
CUpertino planning will be facilitated and
cupertino will be viewed as a leader and maintain its
position as a place to live.
On. little quick aside. I would like to inform
you that w. have gotten a nWllber of calls from
organizations such as the Green Belt Alliance applauding
the City of cupertino in its leadership role in open space
issues.
MS. SORENSEN: Thank you very much.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
MS. SORENSEN: That is all of the cards.
I think our ..eting is concluded unless
there are any comments that anyone up here on the
. J"a
---..
CMttM ~ ~."'''''C
---_.._..,.._._--~-------~-----_.-._---_._---
88
council wishes to make.
1
MR. KILIAN: There is a guy that has a card
.1
the:..-e.
.\
Would you come up,
MR. WIRE: I am Hugh Wire. I am Director of
the Council of Churches of Santa Clara County.
.;
6
7
I do not live in cupertino. I liv~ in
8 Berkeley, as a matter of fact. We jus~ had built next to
9 us seven hundred unitR for student housing. If you think
10 that doesn't impact the quality of your life my guess is
that some of those folks come from CUpertino.
11
12
So I do want to speak about -- I don't have
that for a fact, but I bet you they do.
The Council of Churches has worked with
churches in cupertino and with you in developing the
13
14
15
16 rotating shelter for the h~l.s.! Many of the folks that
1.
were involved in this see this as a temporary effort until
such time as -- maybe this is.wh,en the kingdom comes -- as
such time as there is affordable housing for all kinds of
folks.
18
19
20
21
As I was driving in, coaing down from the
freeway, looking at the companies and wondering how many of
the folks that work in those companies can afford to live
in cupertino.
It seems you still have -- and we still have in
the County real questions of where do people live who work
2'2
23
24
25
26
..1..
---
~--""
e
e
,e
I
i
89
for waqes and who work in our stores.
2 So many of the folks in the churches have been
3 workinq on affordable shelter, helpinq you with your homes
4 and also care about affordabilit.y,
5
So I have two questions: One is: Whether or
6 not the qeneral suqqestions qiven to the P1anninq
7 Commission toniqht preclude people lookinq at even the
8 hillsides as possibilities for affordabi1ity. I didn't
9 hear that as one of the criteria. And I would hope that
10 the Planninq Co_ission, at least, would or that the
11 Council would encouraqe the P1anninq Commission to think
12 about that question, too, so that autoaatica11y hillsides
13 aren't r_erved. It's not just open space, but that they
14 are reserved for the very wealthy.
15 Where do the rest of the folks live?
18
And the second one: The Diocesan plan tor
17 housinq was first presented a year or two aqo. It didn I t
18 seem to fe.l it ~ad provisions tor aftor4ability, but now
19 it does.
20 And so we would hop. -- the Board of the
21 Council of Churches would hope that you really do look at
~ it on its merits, that you do look at it as a method of
~ he1pinq you provide housinq for people for ordinary folks
u and for the folks that work in your stores and work in your
~ businesses and, therefore, providinq some of your tax base.
~ You have qot a very complicated task.
.- .I".
---
~-_....
90
I
!
\
~
And the fiscal thing, I learned stuft tonight,
I mean, in questions that were raised and we, obviously,
2
J don't have the answers for that. But~. all got to work on
~ that toqether. That is major.
5 So thank you very much tor letting a carpet
6 bagger be part at it.
7 But as I say, I think _ have got SOlIe at your
8 folks, too.
9
MS. SORENSEN: Mr. Wire, I apoloqize. I did
10 have your carel up here anel I inaclvertently tumeel it over
11 as I was turning over carels. I neeel to watch IIy tuming
12 over better.
13 I think we are aeljoumeel until Monclay, the
14 loth, at what time i. it?
15
MS. WORDELL: 6:30.
MS. SORBNSD: 6:30.
16
17 Thank you. .
18 (Whereupon, the proceeclinqa were conclueled
19 at 8:54 p...)
20
2\
-000-
22
23
24
25
26
~
..- "".
---..
~__"C
9.
2
:¡
,
I, Howard Schroeder, C.S,R. '1123, do hereby
5
certify:
6
That the foregoing proceedings were taken
down by me in shorthand at the time and place therein
named; and thereafter reduced to typewriting undar my
direction.
7
8
9
10
I further certify that I am not of counselor
attorney for any parties mentioned herein, nor in any way
interested in the outcome of this matter.
Witness my hand this .,/ ð ~ day of
II
12
13
14
z/~()_
.¿,~
State of California
, 1992.
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
.. .I..
---
---,~