Loading...
PC 04-26-1993 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252 -4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 26, 1993 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin Vice Chairperson Mahoney Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Bautista (arrived 7:52 pm) Commissioner Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Associate Planner Bert Vis-wvich, Director of Public Works APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of April 12, 1993, as presented SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Bautista POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: Item 2: Application 81,004.120 - Sign Ordinance Revision: Continued to the meeting of May 10, 1993. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to continue item 2 to the meeting of May 10, 1993. SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4 -0 -1 ABSENT: Com. Bautista WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - No discussion ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 o Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s) 3- GPA -90 and 50 -EA -90 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Same Project Location: Citywide Proposed General Plan Amendments and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Chuck Kilian, City Attorney, s':ated Commissioners absent during the General Plan hearings should listen to the tapes if they wish to vote. Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell stated the purpose of the meeting is to introduce the General Plan Amendment and the DEIR to the public. She reviewed the additional hearings which will be held on this matter. Mr. Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed a chart outlining the General Plan Revision Workplan. He noted the EIR is an update of all the technical reports received by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the chart is to show the Commission that they are at the end of the program. He stated the basic objectives of the plan are: 1. Hillside Preservation. 2. Heart of the City. 3. Expansion of the major Companies. 4. Maintain level of service D. 5. Comply with State's standards and increase the housing supply. 6. Create better means to preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Cowan showed a graph outlining the development levels for the General Plan EIR alternatives. He noted this graph is an indicator of the physical form. Com. Roberts asked why the growth potential is allocated to the large companies as opposed to the smaller businesses in the City? Mr. Cowan stated this was a Planning Commission decision. He stated there was concrete proposals from the large companies. Com. Mahoney stated that the major companies will grow within their own campuses. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, presented a view graph outlining the general location of industry, commercial and residential areas. He stated the proposed plan amendment will basically change the system of reallocating development in the City. They will also PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 3 change the building intensity of different areas within the confines of the existing transportation system and the proposed improvements. Mr. Jung reviewed the major goals as addressed by Mr. Cowan and showed a chart outlining the development reallocation by land use. He pointed out that the major companies will only be able to expand if they can mitigate traffic. Mr. Jung presented a chart outlining the maximum building heights within the City. The tallest height would be an eight story building and this is proposed to be permitted in Vallco Park, North De Anza Blvd. and in the Town Center. In adjoining residential areas height is limited to 45ft. He reviewed the height allowed in other parts of the City. Mr. Jung outlined the environmental impacts with the growth and reviewed the proposed mitigation. He stated they are proposing a stronger policy to protect residential neighborhoods. Mr. Jung addressed transportation showing a map outlining the primary circulation system. He also showed a graph outlining how traffic travels regionally and how it impacts Cupertino. He reviewed the Transportation Model outlining the increase in traffic within the City as a result of Highway 85, and the intersections it will affect. In response to Com. Bautista's question regarding the reallocated development, Mr. Jung stated the existing General Plan traffic conditions are used as a bench mark and it was reallocated based on the traffic conversion factors. He noted the concept behind the tiered system is that no further development is allowed unless traffic generated will be mitigated. Com. Mahoney stated the tiered concept must be demonstrated before development is allowed. He stated the only way to add the additional development is to reduce the number of trips that are existing. Com. Doyle stated the ABAG data shows that retail generates more trips. Mr. Jung stated most of the trips generated by retail development are from customers. Tae Commission discussed the trips generated by retail, office, hotel rooms and residential. A map was presented outlining the level of service at each intersection within the City. He noted De Anza and Stevens Creek are at E +, in order to implement the Heart of the City. Bollinger and De Anza intersection is also at E+ which is below City Standards. He noted the Traffic Engineer reviewed these intersections. He stated De Anza and Bollinger is an unavoidable significant impact given the existing improvements. In response to Commissioners concerns regarding De Anza and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 4 Bollinger, Mr. Viskovich explained the water theory noting that an impact on one intersection will spill out onto another intersection. City Attorney Kilian stated that the E level at Bollinger and De Anza is an unavoidable environmental impact as a result of the proposed general plan. In order to recommend approval of the General Plan, a Statement of Overriding Concern would need to be written on this issue. Com. Bautista asked what would be the traffic impact on the Heart of the City concept? Mr. Viskovich stated in the General Plan evaluation, they have taken the system as one and have not addressed one particular roadway. He stated development on a particular roadway does impact other roadways and the system as a whole. Com. Roberts stated that the citizens are concerned about the impact on neighborhoods, but using the general model does not specify which roadways and /or intersections will be impacted. Mr. Viskovich stated to look at each intersection would take one set of evaluations after another and it could not be done as a system. He stated the goal is to maintain a D level and if this is achieved, except for the two E+ mentioned above, the goal has been achieved. Com. Mahoney stated on a specific project the applicant would be asked to do an individual study on the impact of traffic from their development. Mr. Viskovich stated that specific projects will have to assess the impact locally. A larger project will have to go through a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), that has been established by CMA and this goes beyond city boundaries. He stated if D level is reached before the growth allowed in the general plan is met, development will be stopped at this point. He stated the assurance to the citizens is that each project will be evaluated and an accumulative affect will be tested as we move into the future. In response to Com. Roberts question, Mr. Viskovich stated the model used by the City was done by a consultant. He stated this is more of a regional model. He added that the model was started by Sobrato and then the City took over. He explained how the model works. He feels this is the best tool the City has at this time. City Planner Wordell reviewed Housing, Parks and Open Space and Public Utilities and Facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 5 HOUSING The major areas for housing growth would be the Hillsides, approximately 300 units, neighborhood infill, approximately 800 units and Core Area Intensification, approximately 1,484. Ms. Wordell presented a map outlining the different districts in the core area. Regarding mitigation for housing, Ms. Wordell stated that office /industrial development would be required to provide 28 housing units per 100,000 s.f. of development. She also outlined the residential housing mitigation program. She stated several significant impacts were identified, those are as follows: 1. Jobs /housing balance, this would get worse if mitigation was not required. 2. Not adequate affordable housing, there are a number of housing mitigation programs to address this. 3. New higher density could impact surrounding residential areas. There is a mitigation policy to protect the residential neighborhoods. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Ms. Wordell reviewed the areas for parks and open space and outlined the areas for trails. Residential areas in the core areas, the policy calls for more parks, either public or private, to accommodate the residential growth proposed. She stated the plan proposes to maintain the 3 acres per 1,000 population and the calculation shows the ratio is exceeded citywide. Impacts: 1. New growth could increase park and recreational demands. Mitigations are proposed to deal with this. 2. Park demands may not be met 11 some of the open space land is developed. This is not fully mitigated. 3. Significant impact of the development, visually, to adjacent park land. Mitigation is to have very low density to reduce this impact. 4. New growth could affect vegetation and wild life. Mitigations measures are in place. 5. New growth could affect potential purchase of park lands. Several mitigations are proposed. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND FACILITIES Impacts: 1. Impacts on schools, could affect the School District's ability to serve their student population. Policy proposed is that they will not be impacted beyond their capacity. The School PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 6 1 District also have their own mitigation measures. 2. Bussing not provided, access to schools could be an impact. This has not been fully mitigated. She outlined the impacts and mitigations regarding waste water 1 treatment. She also briefly reviewed the impacts and mitigation for solid waste disposal and water. Ms. Wordell stated April 26th was the last day to submit written comments to the EIR. She noted written comments and oral communications submitted at this hearing will be responded to. She stated there will also be an opportunity to submit written and oral ► comments at the Council meeting. Com. Mahoney stated E+ level of service at De Anza and Stevens Creek is not included in the EIR. Mr. Jung stated the assumption is that the City would accept a lower level of service at this intersection to implement the Heart of the City. City Attorney Kilian, explained the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Com. Mahoney expressed concern regarding the wording relating to this intersection. Ms. Wordell stated the standards are arbitrary. Mr. Viskovich stated the standard is lowered so they are not violating the policy. Com. Mahoney asked if the EIR is adequate and complete if De Anza and Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection is not mentioned as being of level of service E +? He stated there is an environmental impact. Mr. Cowan stated there would be an environmental impact if the reduced level of service results in poor air quality or noise impact. Com. Mahoney asked if there is a negative environmental impact regardless of any standard having to do with traffic and should this be outlined in the EIR? Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Mr. John Hailey, Tandem Computers, complimented staff for well written and organized documents. He noted he did submit written comments. He stated there are many positive elements of the General Plan that are recognized and developed in the DEIR. He stated the major issue for Tandem is the ability to grow on existing campuses in this City and other Cities in California. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 7 noted it is important that job growth be permitted. Mr. Hailey went on to outline his concerns with the DEIR. Page LU 17 policy 2 -22, under Additional Mitigated Development, this is inconsistent. He stated no developer or company could endorse in so general a policy and believes if companies or developers create a positive revenue balance, due to mitigated growth, there should be no other economic sanctions adopted. Page LU 20, Policy 2 -25, DIER Section 1 -26, deals with height limitations. He noted Tandem was involved in the process of determining the height limits on their properties. He feels there is an .inconsistency in this policy. He stated the designation divides and 12 1/2 acre site in half. He requested that the 120 ft. height limitation be extended to the east to include the 60 ft. area. With regards to transportation, Mr. Hailey addressed tier 2. He stated there are several problems in the tier 2 approach and unless corrected will make development for any portion of the two million square feet infeasible for the companies. He noted Tandem, Apple and Hewlett Packard have established TDM programs currently. He stated when preparing a measurement technique that uses a new base level ADR, at the time a company comes forward and makes a request to develop part of the 2 Million s.f., would mean that anything they have done, in the interim,, will be counted against them because they will have a higher base upon which to demonstrate conformance or performance. He feels this will result in a rush to develop the 2 Million s.f. He hopes that point two in this section will not be necessary if a number of changes, specified in his written comments, are made. Mr. Hailey expressed concern about trying to control the peak period. He stated the companies do not need specific programs to control the peak periods. He added this is also addressed in his written comments. Mr. Hailey addressed the post occupancy section. He stated the companies are concerned about the section which relates to the use permit being avoided in the future if specific criteria is not met. He stated they would not be able to proceed if this criteria remains in the provision. He stated the TDM programs Tandem will develop are subject to decisions of the employees. He stated success cannot be guaranteed, but quality programs will be implemented. Mr. Hailey addressed Section 3.25 and requested that a focused EIR be required as opposed to a complete EIR as is required in this section. Mr. Jerry Cashman, Hewlett Packard, stated in 1988 the Clean Air Quality Act was passed and all employees have to follow this. He outlined the fines imposed if the Clean Air Quality Act is violated. Mr. Cashman briefly outlined some of the programs that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 8 are successful. He stated walk :Lng and bicycling, specifically bicycling, have been very successful. He stated this must involve cities, regions and the companies to make it successful. He noted there are Federal tax breaks for van pools and many companies are doing this. He noted another tool, in which Apple is involved in, is telecommunicating. He stated, as a business community, they are concerned about the additional sanctions imposed by the City. He noted companies are committed to (educing trips and penalties and procedures are in place. He stated there should be goals for the company to work towards, as opposed to requirements of the City. Mr. Cashman gave an overview of the cost for establishing the TDM programs. Mr. Herman Hitchman, Chamber of Commerce, stated in their mission statement their main concern is the economic climate of the City. He noted the Chamber has published, two position statements and all remarks written and verbal are the result of the position statements. He stated if businesses are ignored they will leave the City and with it will go the major part of the City's income stream, utility taxes, direct and indirect sales tax revenues, partnership with the City and Schools. He noted this in turn will affect the economic viability of those businesses which remain here and the services the residents receive. He stated the goals and policies proposed in the General Plan are the minimum for businesses to keep the City viable and fiscally afloat. He recommended approval of the plan as proposed with the minor amendments proposed by the major companies. Ms. Nancy Burnett, CURB, stated CURB did present written communications to the Planning Commission. She addressed the chart regarding the trips presented by Mr. Jung. She stated this chart needs clarification and noted when the Planning Commission were working on this they started with 4900 trips. She stated the City Council added more retail therefore there was an increase in the trips. Ms. Burnett presented slides outlining CURB's position. She reviewed the non - residential growth proposed in the General Plan noting this is approximately a 50% increase. She also addressed the alternatives in the DEIR noting that one of the alternatives proposed represents a 30% increase. Mr. Ronald Moore, stated he presented a drawing to the Planning Commission of potential development of the City Center. Mr. Moore reviewed his drawing and what he proposes to establish as the Heart of the City. He stated he is proposing that shops remain open in the evening and this may in fact relieve some traffic. He feels there needs to be some focus for a Heart of the City. He added the traffic loop he is proposing may help the traffic overall. He stated retail tax should be considered. Mr. Cowan stated the City Council is discussing an approach for the City Center and noted they did hire a design facilitator. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Mark Kroll, City Center Associates, noted they did submit written comments to the Planning Commission. He stated the most important issue is the definition of Commercial, Office and Residential, which is found on page LU 39. If this remains as is, it would take that entire portion of the City and make it non- conforming with the new General Plan. He stated they have a suggested fix to this, which was presented at a previous meeting. He noted when the Stevens Creek Specific Plan starts, the two projects in City Center that have been proposed, two legal parcels separate these projects from Stevens Creek, and forcing them to wait until the Stevens Creek Specific Plan is finalized is unreasonable and could make the project infeasible. Mr. Glen Barber, Vice President, Apple Computer, stated they did submit written comments to the Planning Commission. Regarding the housing issue, he noted they have made a commitment to provide housing in the community, along with the other major companies. He stated they would like to see this General Plan concluded as reasonably quickly as possible. Mr. Barber stated Apple, Hewlett Packard and Tandem have reduced their request for additional density from 3 million to 2 million square feet. He noted the biggest concern for Apple is the tier 2 mitigation and the proposals. He suggested looking at the language he submitted in his letter and noted they concur with the comments made by John Hailey and Terry Cashman. He stated they do not want to see a different set of requirements regarding traffic mitigation and proposed that the Planning Commission follow the recommendations of John Hailey. He stated Apple have worked hard on traffic mitigation and have over 10% of their local population participating in TDM programs. He stated they are concerned about traffic and are working on this. He noted they want to avoid the imposition of requirements, which after the fact, would deny them the ability to use the buildings, which have been constructed. He commended staff for an excellent ;job. He noted a lot of work went into each element and it is time to get to a reasonable conclusion in a timely manner. Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, stated he submitted written comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Haze addressed tier 3 of the Traffic Mitigation Program. He asked what the specific improvements would be and the cost associated with it, also who would bear the costs? He addressed the section regarding roadway improvements. He asked what type of analysis was preformed in the areas identified? He also asked the affects of Highway 85? Mr. Viskovich stated the improvements addressed by Mr. Haze were implemented under the old General Plan and are currently underway. Regarding tier 3, there are no improvements because the City has reached the widening ability of the major roadways. He noted there are no capital improvements on the horizon. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Haze addressed noise mitigation as it relates to Highway 85. He also addressed the sections on open space and trails and also the expansion at Santa Clara County Park. Mr. Haze addressed De Anza College's Master Plan, noting the college is proposing a conference center at Stelling and De Anza and are proposing an elevated parking structure. He recommends that additional language, relating to the ethnic and cultural diversity of the community, be added to the vision statement. Additionally, he stated two major institutions are not referred too. Mr. Haze addressed policy 2 -44 and would like this defined. In response, City Attorney Kilian stated there is an ordinance in place with respect to the open space. It provides that open space can be zoned on the property with the consent of the property owner or as a condition to any developments. Mr. Al Hoffman commended the staff and would like to see this completed in a timely matter. He stated the in -lieu fee for housing for excess development seems to be insufficient to ensure the additional housing that may be needed. City Attorney Kilian addressed the public's responses and noted all the comments will be replied to by staff. Chr. Austin stated the public will have another chance to comment on May 6, 1993. Mr. Cowan stated if the Planning Commission have directions for staff these should be given at this time. Chr. Austin expressed concern about Tier 2 as addressed by several speakers. Mr. Viskovich stated there are two ways to approach the existing and new development. He stated scenario one would be that a company had allocations that are not part of tier 2 and may want to exhaust these first. The existing development would have to be based on what they are generating on the street. He stated staff would work with the industry to develop a baseline, then programs would be instituted to reduce the trips that exist. He noted this is the pool the company would use for new development. Mr. Viskovich stated the General Plan is based on the existing traffic and when the companies reduce the traffic then credit is given towards new development. Com. Mahoney stated he has two concerns, one is that the tier 2 approach pushes a first come first serve approach. It also provides a disincentive to mitigate before they reach a level over the General Plan. Mr. Viskovich stated artificial numbers can be given, but reality is dealing with what exists. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 11 The Commissioners discussed the tier two approach. Mr. Viskovich stated growth will have to be monitored and they will have to watch how development occurs because of existing conditions. He stated if the mitigation fails there is potential for revocation of their use permit. Com. Doyle asked that staff look into this issue and come back with other alternatives. Chr. Austin stated she is concerned about the trips generated by De Anza College. Com. Bautista stated the ideal :situation would be to encourage companies to put into affect TDM programs as soon as possible so when they do begin to develop they are in a favored status stage in the development stage. Mr. Viskovich stated the companies may put into effect their TDM programs, but when the traffic is measured it may be at level of service E and when the development is completed it may drop to F. Com. Mahoney stated the 2 million s.f. of development proposed by the major companies can only be developed if the traffic is mitigated. Mr. Viskovich stated TDM programs should not be put in place until a developer knows when plans will be submitted. He stated if there is a time plan, staff can work with this. The Commissioners discussed the proposed meetings to continue discussion of the General Plan. Mr. Cowan stated written comments will be sent to the Planning Commissioners prior to the May 18th meeting. City Attorney Kilian stated the Commission should discourage people who spoke at this hearing from speaking at the May 6th meeting, unless they have new information. Com. Bautista requested that staff look into the comments addressed by Mark Kroll regarding the non-conforming uses. He stated he would also like information on the impact of the De Anza College Master Plan. Com. Mahoney stated the City has no jurisdiction over the College. City Attorney Kilian stated this is true of education facilities, but the City does have some control over activities such as flea markets. He stated anything that has a significant environmental impact should be addressed in the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 12 The Commissioners discussed the development at Vallco, Mr. Cowan stated they are within the existing General Plan base. He noted there are traffic mitigations in terms of traffic coming onto the street system from their parking structures. Com. Doyle questioned the height limit addressed by John Hailey. Mr. Cowan stated the height limits were developed by the City Council. He noted they wanted to lower buildings on the edge of the streets. He added this can be addressed when involved in a specific plan. Com. Roberts questioned the City's position regarding Highway 85. He noted the benefits given by Highway 85 may not be what is expected as it seems it will bring more traffic to Cupertino streets. He asked if there is a plan to take action along De Anza corridor to restrict traffic? Mr. Viskovich stated traffic will re -shift until a level is reached. He stated staff has been saying that Highway 85 will not take traffic of the City's roadways and the County model shows the Highway at level of service F. He stated what decreases in one area will increase in another. Mr. Viskovich stated they must deal with this as a whole system. He noted there is no specific plan to reduce the traffic Highway 85 will generate. Mr. Jung stated there will be a traffic analysis after Highway 85 is complete. Com. Roberts stated he would like to see some way to discourage commuter traffic from using Cupertino streets. Com. Mahoney stated traffic as an impact must be in the EIR. He concurred with Com. Bautista regarding the De Anza College Master Plan. Ms. Nancy Burnett stated that housing is an issue and needs to be addressed. MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to continue this public hearing to May 6, 1993 SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 5 -0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Roberts stated he recieved a copy of the Bio- Regional Planning from the State Resources Agency and will give copies to staff and the Planning Commissioners. He requested that staff look into this as a means of long term implementation of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 Page 13 Chr. Austin questioned the Joint Powers Agreement and requested staff to look into this. Com. Roberts addressed the Heritage tree on Foothill Blvd that was taken down. He encouraged the Commissioners to go look at the stump. Mr. Cowan stated the standards today are more rigorous. He stated the owner must take responsibility to take care of the trees. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:10 P.M. to the next Special Meeting of May 6, 1993 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a,(,VU tt i ' r1 u`so Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary P Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of May 10, 1993 Donna Austin, Chairwoman Attest: Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk