Loading...
PC 06-12-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 12, 1997 IN CONFERENCE ROOMS C AND D. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Mahoney, Roberts, Chairperson Harris Austin and Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Project Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Ray Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-GPA-97 and 18-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the transportation element of the General Plan related to goals and policies for traffic level of service, including a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hour. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMiNATION: To be determined TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined Chair Harris opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that the item was one of four General Plan Amendments authorized by the City Council as a result of the joint session held in January. He said that the project had not been defined very well yet, in terms of the Planning Commission's and City Council's response to it, the environmental assessments have not been completed on the two projects, therefore no decision can be reached tonight. He said the first item related to a practice adopted years ago to limit the review of projects and general plans based on p.m. peaks. He said the issue at hand was that both p.m. and a.m. peak, should be considered, and noted that the p.m. number was in most cases the larger number. Mr. Cowan said that Mr. Chong prepared a report describing what other cities are doing, conclusions and information about the current and past a.m. intersection capacity analysis. He Planning Commission Minutes 2 June I~, 1007 explained that although a computer run was not completed to determine at what point problems with a.m. might occur, it is assumed that the p.m. hours will continue to be the worst case situation and if there was a development with a problem, through the individual that knew of that project, it would be the criteria of which it is said that development has to be curtailed in that particular area. He said that it was a policy question, reflecting the Congestion Management Agency; and it is time to go to both a.m. and p.m. in terms of analysis. Com. Roberts said that it might help to have a table of what A, B, C, D and E mean; and the question is whether given the quality of the information and the capabilities of these models, are the differences actually significant. If something is calculated to be D-, is it known that it is not D or E for that matter? Mr. Viskovich responded that every standard had to have a numerical to be able to judge between the D- and E+; it is a matter of seconds, but when it is calculated and a standard reached, that number has to be used.. Com. Roberts expressed concern that the level of service was weighted heavily in front of the community; and residents go across that stream. He said that the present method is biased in favor of the commuter and not in favor of the Cupertino resident, and the Cupertino resident complains about traffic, they are not complaining about the traffic the commuters see, they are complaining about their own delays. Has any thought been given to that? Com. Roberts said he has raised the question before and is very concerned about the issue. Mr. Viskovich said that it was a standard when you are judging an intersection as a whole; you are trying to judge it by the number of vehicles. Com. Roberts said that it was canned methodology and is what the Congestion Management Agency wants to see optimized. He said he was thinking in terms of the policy for the City of Cupertino, the residents of Cupertino. Mr. Viskovich said that the whole city has been designed to favor the commuter from the interconnect system; that is a policy that was selected; to try to move the traffic. If you are going to change you are going to create more congestion on the arterial road and then when you get on the roadway, you are not going to move; so the idea is you may have to be penalized on the side street, but once you get on the arterial road you are going to move, as the ramp metering is on the freeway. Com. Roberts said the question is whether the development should be permitted and does it place unacceptable or incremental burden on the people of Cupertino. Mr. Viskovich said that although you get an average number for the entire intersection, you can look at the different leg and say that leg that isn't really critical or we are interested in an "F" level. Com. Roberts said we don't do that, and maybe we should be thinking of it once in a while. He said it took him 5 minutes longer to get here than it would if he didn't have to wait at Bubb, Stelling and DeAnza Birds. He said he was considering leaving home at a time when he could get to the meeting on time without the unacceptable delays, and if he showed up 5 minutes late, that will be the calibration. Mr. Cowan said that the question is if you were to drastically curtail development, would it make a difference in the roadway in terms of this issue of sidestreet. Com. Roberts suggested using the models to find out what those traffic light cycles would be like to maintain level B on DeAnza Blvd. if the development was not permitted. Mr. Viskovich said that Com. Roberts was suggesting that the major arterials be congested for the benefit of the side streets. Com. Roberts said the trend has been to increase delays on the side streets in order to hold ground on major arterials. Mr. Viskovich said that they have been doing that, and the complaints come from the side street people, but said for the betterment of the Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 12, I997 majority, you make the arterials flow, because you want to encourage people to use the arterials since you get on it to flow better, than to be able to get out on the arterial and be stuck. Ramp metering is a good example; you stay there. He said the philosophy is you wait at the ramp metering, but hopefully when you get on the freeway, you move; so your time from point A to point B will be shorter than if you got on the freeway real quick and then stopped on the freeway. He said that it was the philosophy and the County policy and to change that would require that the General Plan would start looking at side street legs and determining the LOS based on that. He said he felt it would be creating mom congestion. Chair Harris questioned the average rating per intersection, which is the average of all of the legs. Mr. Viskovich said that Cupertino is conservative, and Congestion Management takes all the legs and averages them out, whereas Cupertino wants the critical ones, the ones being impacted. He explained that if the As and Fs and Ds were averaged, it would be a better average than just considering the E and F. When staff conveys that Cupertino is more conservative than Congestion Management has selected or the County, staff will provide the number that is the worst case scenario. Chair Harris responded that the worst case is not always considered; she said that Cupertino looks at what the City has decided is the critical leg, which is not necessarily the worst. Mr. Viskovich used DeAnza and Lazaneo as an example; DeAnza carried 3,000 vehicles and Lazaneo carries 50 vehicles. He said that the Lazaneo leg may be a good level, but the turning movement of someone trying to get onto Lazaneo conflicting with the through movement is the two critical moves. He said that is where the level of service is; the person who is trying to make the move is impeded by the cross traffic, rather than say that the right move on Lazaneo getting on DeAnza is an A. Staff is trying to select the critical moves where they are in conflict rather than tell you the smooth moves and give you a level of service that way. Mr. Viskovich said the critical peak hours are 5 to 6. He said that staff measures traffic and selects the highest four 15-minute periods, which may range from 4:45 to 5:45. Mr. Chong said that in any 2 hour p.m. peak period, the highest four consecutive 15 minutes. Mr. Chong said that the morning peaks would be determined by taking survey counts and following the same method. The survey results on Page 1-3 of the staff report were reviewed. Relative to the City of Sunnyvale data, Chair Harris asked what would happen if staff studied Cupertino's arterials and collectors. Mr. Chong said that the level of service would be much better than the intersection. He said that intersections are the critical points. He said that a study of the arterials and collectors, the results would not be worse than the intersections served. Referring to Page 5 of the staff report, Mr. Chong answered questions relative to the new developments approved in the last year, resulting in a D- level of service. He said that staff would be timing the traffic signals on DeAnza to improve operations to handle any future traffic, as well as on Stevens Creek Blvd. Chair Harris asked if there would be a plan for 1997 where Homestead and DeAnza was no longer a D-. Mr. Viskovich said that the General Plan specifies that as long as it is better than an E level, it complies with the General Plan. There is no guarantee that if traffic gets out of control and an E level is reached, such as Stevens Creek and DeAnza, as much as everyone wanted to keep it at D level, it reached an E and it was accepted as an E, and it is one of the intersections that is allowed in the General Plan. He said it may happen again in a few years where another intersection and it will hit a D level. He said that not every intersection would be able to be modified by timing. If growth and additional traffic occurs, the City may go into a D level, but all that can be done at a planning level at the time the development is approved, is that you are meeting the General Plan, but it doesn't guarantee a D level forever. Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 19, 1007 Com. Roberts asked it would impact future decisions if when entering into 1998, tile level for 1997 was D. Mr. Viskovich responded that as a decision maker, the Planning Commission would say we have already gone to an E level, do we accept it, and accept it like DeAnza and Stevens Creek. Com. Roberts asked if it required a General Plan. Mr. Viskovich responded that it required a General Plan; it would be accepted or said that it now going to an E level and no more growth approved because it has already gone beyond the General Plan. The decisions made are based oil the facts given at the time and if there are a lot of intersections going to the E level after you approve projects, because of growth, at that time the decision is made whether or not to accept an E as the next standard or don't approve development. Chair Harris asked how Homestead and DeAnza was fixed from 1995 to 96 which was an E and is now a D. Mr. Chong responded that traffic conditions and volumes change. Mr. Viskovicb reported that it was forced to that by Sunnyvale creating an impediment along Hollenbeck and it was one that was accepted as an E. It was an E based on the fact that it was induced by Sunnyvale and their attempt to try and reduce traffic on Hollenbeck. She expressed concern that when making the approvals of Homestead and DeAnza and there was concern about traffic impacts, the Planning Commission specifically asked about that intersection and the developments. She said it went from a D to a D-, which is less than the D level of service, approaching ao E. The Planning Commission was told that all the developments were taken into consideration at those development levels and there shouldn't be a negative impact, yet there is a negative impact because there was a decrease in level of service at the intersection. Mr. Viskovich clarified that all D+, D and D- were all considered a D level of service. Mr. Cowan explained that the process was that every 10 years a major computer analysis is done and it is projected out 10 years based on some development scenarios. He said that each year the intersections, in terms of traffic, housing, etc. are counted. When an annual review is done you want to say how much more development can this area take before it goes to an E. He said it would be a legitimate question to ask. Chair Harris said that something that could be suggested to the City Council while doing this change would be to do this major review every five years instead of every 10 years. Mr. Viskovich said that the problem is the freeways and the County; all around are D levels on tile freeway and internally the city is maintaining the D levels which is relatively unusual and in a lot of other cities they have a lot more D levels in town, where Cupertino is fortunate to maintain that, but one day those pressures from the freeway are going to start encroaching into the streets. Com. Roberts said if faced with a level of service E at a particular intersection and we are to approve development that would impact that intersection, do we need to make specific findings such as the economic benefit to the community outweighs? Mr. Cowan said it is not the same issue faced with the CEQA where you have to have the statement override by law but there would be some General Plan consistency issues if there is a General Plan policy that said D or better and it shows Es unless it can be mitigated and solved with another right turn lane or something or that nature. Com. Roberts questioned if it caused cause any problems in 1991 faced with those 2 Es. Mr. Viskovich that he thought the Council decided for the General Plan type of land use that they wanted, and are going to accept E levels of the intersection. Chair Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 12, 1907 Harris pointed out that it did not occur that way. Mr. Viskovich said the plans said at buildout there will be a D level at DeAnza and Stevens Creek and it was a fair question. The question was answered by stating it would be accepted for this General Plan. Mr. Viskovich reported that the trip generation factor was dropping.; more cars are on the street, but they are not all going at one time; still seeing and evaluating occupancy rate in buildings as lower now; telecommuting is becoming popular in Silicon Valley. He said there is a trend that is saying that the peak hour is not a valid thing to look at because it is the peak period that you are looking at. It is a bigger picture than just breaking the peak hours; you are getting to those peak periods where you are having almost all day traffic. Chair Harris questioned if more than 19 intersections should be defined. Mr. Viskovich said they tended to be the major ones on the roadway, unless you go into minor roadways; those are the indicators of where traffic is. Chair Harris said she felt it was something to look at every 5 years instead of 10 years when the main analysis was done, and now that development has occurred should we add or delete intersections? The AMGP Chart on Page 1-4 was reviewed, which identified what a D level of service was. Chair Harris asked that when it is taken to environmental review committee, that the ranges for D, D-, B- be given. She said that it would be useful to know what the critical moves were. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Application 8-GPA-97 and 18-EA-97 to July 23, 1997. Com. Mahoney Coms. Austin and Doyle Passed 3-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-GPA-97 and 17-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan related to goals and policies for urban design and building form and scale, including building heights and setbacks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: To be determined TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: To be determined Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan introduced Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Project Planner, who is temporarily replacing Michelle Bjurman, working 32 hours per week. He noted that she had extensive background in preparation of general plans. He said that she will also work on the Historical Committee. He also introduced architect Larry Cannon, Larry Cannon & Associates, who is affiliated with Ms. Ungo-McCormick's firm also. Mr. Cowan noted that Mr. Cannon served as architectural adviser for Pleasanton, Dublin, University of Victoria, as well as extensive work in urban design studies. Mr. Cowan said that the purpose of the presentation was to review design principles and methods used to implement them, and heights setbacks of buildings, and the relationship of the two. Planning Commlsslon Minutes 6 June 12, 199'7 The Planning Commissioners introduced themselves to Ms. Ungo-McCormick. Ms. Ungo-McCormick reviewed her design background and experience in preparation of General Plans. She said that the project at hand was to review the General Plan in terms of heights, ratios and separation ratios. She said that in addition to height, there were other design related issues, and in order to focus the work in the right direction, it was decided to bring it to the Planning Commission in work study sessions to focus the recommendations for the next meeting. She said that a slide presentation would be shown, and asked that the Planning Commissioners take notes and make recommendations and return them to staff in the next two weeks. She noted that copies of the slides were distributed, and that a summary of the existing policies of the existing General Plan were included in the staff report. Ms. Ungo-McCormick noted that the goal was to define the problem so that the Planning Commissioners could provide direction to staff. She said that relative to the revision of the height limits, some areas may need to be evaluated and staff recognizes that the different characters of the neighborhoods need to be kept in mind. Ms. Ungo-McCormick referred to a wall diagram which illustrated the vacant parcels in the Cupertino area as well as the vacant, but committed, parcels. She reported that the urban design overlay summarizes the intensification of buildings and heights primarily in the Town Center area and the Vallco regional shopping center area. Ms. Ungo-McCormick asked the Planning Commissioners to consider the following questions, in attempting to define the problem: 2. 3. 4. 5. What is the problem? Sense of green landscape being lost to new development. Prominent comers becoming too harsh in appearance? New buildings out of scale with Cupertino character? Too urban?? Loosing feeling of suburban residential community due to visual prominence of new multi-story buildings?? Loosing small scale community image from freeway? Ms. Ungo-McCormick presented a slide presentation which illustrated various planning areas in Cupertino which depicted such factors as height, setbacks, landscape, facade articulation, bulk, materials and colors, views and context. Slides shown and comments were made on the following planning areas of Cupertino: (During the slide presentation, Mr. Cowan explained that the slide presentation illustrated the various sub planning areas in the General Plan that have its own set of policy regulations.) · Town Center: Towers on comer of Stevens Creek/DeAnza; Brick Building; and corner lot which currently has a proposal for development. · Vallco Park: Business Park area and Office Building. · Stevens Creek off Hwy. 85: Oaks Center; DeAnza College; Mix of small retail; Corners of Town Center covered under Heart of City Plan. ~, Stevens Creek/Tantau and Stevens Creek/Wolfe Road: marketplace area, nicely landscaped; low level · Cupertino Town Center: Intensification of usage of office buildings(towers; City Center Plann{ng Commiss{on M{nutes 7 June I'~, 1007 · North DeAnza Blvd.: Nicely landscaped - Stevens Creek Blvd., Town Center, Vallco Park are all covered by Heart of City plan which requires specific setbacks and landscape (most of the buildings have been built prior to Heart of the City and level of landscape improvements as on North DeAnza as it has been in existence for 10-15 years; tall buildings are less obtrusive because of heavy landscaping and selection of trees. · Monta Vista - Buildings closer to street · So. DeAnza Blvd. (corner Bollinger): Has 35 ft. landscape easement as part of conceptual plan since the 80s · Merriman & Santa Lucia Roads (Off Foothill): Commercial adjacent to residential · Homestead Corridor: Commercial at Hollenbeck; DeAnza intersection (Iow rise development) · Homestead Corridor (East): Area of greater intensification; housing · Bubb Road: Low rise, densely landscaped area · Homestead Corridor gateways: recent Peter Pau development; shopping center Mr. Larry Cannon, Larry Cannon & Assoc., discussed height perception factors and problems that need to be addressed: He showed a slide presentation, depicting examples of height perception factors: · Height: Absolute Height: He said that the City Center buildings are high and not much to shield them. · Street Edge: What happens along a street edge makes a difference in the perception of how high a building is. If there are many trees in between, it does not appear as high. · Setbacks: Buildings that are close to the street and tall; they will feel taller because they are closer. Some development in the City are setback with one row of parking, which makes buildings appear smaller, with more chance for intervening trees to create a buffer · Landscaping: A building with tall trees to the side (not in front) landscaping off to the side of the building has less of an impact · Landscaping: Tall building with small trees out front; accentuates tall building · Facade Articulation (horizontal and vertical): Modern buildings, smooth boxes: the eye tends to slide up to the top - buildings seem tall · Bulk / Silhouette: Can have a great deal of impact on perception of height (buildings that appear to have straight lines, usually appear bulky; ones with varied silhouettes against the sky are less bulky · Bulk / Form: Square, boxy buildings tend to look bulkier · Materials and colors: Darker buildings when silhouetted against light sky, tend to appear bigger, bulkier and taller than buildings that are smaller and lighter in color · Views: On comer lots, there is a long view rather than the fleeting views, interrupted by landscaping; where you see a building from can influence perception of the height · Context: A building with taller trees appears to be smaller Mr. Cannon remarked that the slide presentation were illustrations of tools to be used, whether decreasing the height limits, increasing setbacks, linking height to the setback ratio, or using design guidelines to deal with the issue. Mr. Cowan said that his job was to provide guidance to applicants. He cited the two areas in Cupertino which were meant for high intensity, the Town Center and Vallco Park, which are the key element of the City planning since the mid 60s. Planning Commlss~on Minutes g June I ], 1907 Com. Roberts referred to the proposed Four Seasons Park and remarked that the Symantec building will block the Four Seasons Park. Mr. Cannon commented on the strong feeling of the hills coming down into the city because of the tall conifer trees on North DeAnza Blvd. Com. Mahoney said that he was not aware of comments about building heights on North DeAnza because of the setbacks. He said he felt it was not purely a height issue. Chair Harris said that there were enormous setbacks, a wide planting strip, and an undulating sidewalk and another planting strip in that area; a lot invested by requiring these buildings to have the tremendous setbacks, which she said she felt might have been sacrificed, under the Stevens Creek Plan which brings everything closer to the street. Mr. Cowan said there was an issue of land use, behind the North DeAnza Blvd. plan, the idea to be industrial office type buildings, and it did not require visibility to the street. The idea was to separate the buildings from the street from carefully controlling the access points. There is no curb cuts, the idea was to screen autos. Mr. Cowan said that the intent was to create a green boulevard into the city. Chair Harris said that the benefit was to integrate a significant amount of office space without visually impacting the residents. She said that the flack was about office R&D properties that are a departure from what was done on No. DeAnza Blvd. Chair Harris said the issue was the building being so close to the street, very bulky mass created. Mr. Cowan said that Stevens Creek could not be treated the same as No. DeAnza Blvd. because of its relationship between the treatment of those streets and the use. There has to be a much stronger interaction about the vehicular traffic on Stevens Creek than with the vehicular traffic on No. DeAnza Blvd. Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that what struck them as driving around, in the light industrial office areas that even those that don't have the master landscape plan, they have created a park-like environment. Most of the picture where there is a lot of landscaping other than No. DeAnza Blvd. are in the Vallco Park area, and it is because of the nature of the land use. Chair Harris read from Page 2-3 of the staff report, second paragraph "Since the City doe,~' not have citywide design guidelines, each property not covered by a specific plan is regulaled by a set development criteria unique to that development and not necessarily relating to surrounding uses. In many cases, the standards include minimum setbacks, maximum densities, minimum landscape and maximum heights allowed by the General Plan." She said that you can take a General Plan and write guidelines that are supposed to be ranges, but if in reality when the construction is minimum setbacks, maximum density, maximizing the value of the property, then there could be a perceived loss to the community. She said that she felt that no General Plan with ranges was ever meant to be developed in this fashion. She said that she agreed with staff's perception that it is happening itl Cupertino. Chair Harris suggested looking at the language of the General Plan and making definition that a range is a range, and which of these things matter to the Planning Commission. Chair Harris also remarked about staff's comment about the significance of massing when there is no landscape on the frontage or no streetscape program. She said that perhaps defining streetscape programs should be addressed, and decisions about what kind and how much landscaping there should be. Mr. Cannon said that if the height of the Apple building was a problem, trees could be planted closer to the street to shield the building from view. Chair Harris said that she would like to have a series of recommendations that are relatively easy to do, relatively inexpensive, future guidelines; how to fix what is wrong. Plannlng Commlsslon Minutes 9 June 12, 1997 Com. Roberts said that another factor to consider is that if every property is allowed to be built to the maximum, it will fill up the development allotment before complete build out. He questioned what to allow on the remaining properties; where is the connection between the size of the buildings and the traffic? Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that as the City evaluates some of the concerns regarding the issue, she referred back to the context that addresses what the problem is, and said that some answers have been given in the discussion. In terms of character, are there special areas that should be focused on -- corners, edges, and in looking at areas of potential development on projects being presented, those will be the areas where the policies will be tested; give direction along these lines if in fact that is something causing concern, ls height not really the issue? Is height a combination of factors as indicated? Com. Roberts said that of notes written, he considered the first four to be important, and the unimportant one was the image from the freeway. Com. Mahoney said that when the Geueral Plan was done, the things on height were to concentrate the height in those two areas; save "sandpile" approach; we would sacrifice the view from the freeway. Mr. Deke Hunter, Hunter Properties, said he agreed with some of the pictures and some of tile presentation. He said he was not a full proponent of hiding architecture behind landscaping. He said the setback was an important issue, and noted that it was not so much the product type, but the perspective as it relates to the street and what is the appropriate type of landscaping. He said he felt Mr. Cannon pointed out accurately that some pictures of elongated buildings, and elongated landscaping provided a good complement. He said that there were some residential projects that had relatively close perspectives to the street, but because of the undulation of the roofline, because of the appropriateness of the landscaping building up to the masses, then created a fairly comfortable buffer. He said that he personally felt that redwoods on the corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza were not appropriate, but that taller landscaping somewhere between would be more appropriate. Mr. Hunter said that his experience in working in other communities, there is sometimes an attempt to overly fix something that may only need to be repaired. He said that the urbanism movement in shopping centers and pushing the buildings onto the street, and towns making decisions that block views; he said he would have rather seen a sea of parking stalls aud an increasing scale in height to keep some view from the street, which seems to be the challenge. He said when down to 5% of the buildup, bump it up against levels of D+ or D-, and there is not a lot of growth left; there are areas left that could be fine tuned. He said he would not want to see all overemphasis on picking the landscape as compared to a proper placement of building masses as relates to the street frontage and building the accurate amount of landscape between the street frontage and the building mass. He said that a good example is No. DeAnza Blvd., sent out with a policy statement. He said that No. DeAnza Blvd. was the ideal entryway to a city as diverse as Cupertino and as economically diverse as the variety of employment contained in the first two or three miles. He said that it came out as well as any community that has been master planned in Santa Clara County and it would be hard pressed to find so many different ownerships and so many different buildings over a span of time, yet it was balanced. He said he felt that the Apple or Mariani buildings could have been done differently and more in keeping with the other projects. Mr. Hunter said that Cupertino has been successful, but of late some residential developments have been more criminal than the office of the R&D. He said that setbacks were just as important as height, because height can be mitigated through the setback. Planning CommJsslon Minutes 10 June t2, 1997 Mr. Cannon said that Mr. Hunter had provided good comments. He said he noticed particularly on No. DeAnza Blvd. that there was an informal quality to the landscaping that reinforces a certain community character, and because of the informality, there are places where you don't have landscaping, and other places that you do that breaks the profile, which helps. Ms. Ann Anger, President of Monta Vista Improvement Association, commended Mr. Cowan for his work in helping to upgrade old Monta Vista. Relative to the brick building on Stevens Creek, she said that the developer wanted to erect a six story building with underground parking. She said that a councilmember said that it could not be built because it would block the view from the hills. She said the developer then built three stories, and two buildings on the property, and the Mercury News architect said that it is one of the ugliest buildings in Santa Clara County. She said she felt because of that building, you don't always get the best from the city councihnembers. Ms. Anger said that she was in favor of high buildings in the appropriate places. She said that she felt Vallco Fashion Park would be better located on the Mariani site. She discussed the different company requests to expand in Cupertino. Mr. John Healey, Tandem Computers, said that the issue of urban design is the least understood. He said the tendency is to concentrate on the building, yet the perception is that it is more than that. It is the spaces between the building, the landscaping between the building, in front of the building, the combination of setback, height, and color. He said there was more good in Cupertino than poor. He said that is not an easy process, and commended the City at looking at the issue, trying to understand all aspects of it, and focusing on more than just the image. Relative to Tandem's interest in completing the development, they recognize that height and setback will be a big issue for the Planning Commission and the Council. He said they also recognized that there is great opportunities to find that and permit reasonable amounts of development. Tandem's involvement in the earlier General Plan process when they listened to the community input about the sandpile effect, etc. and have modified their view of the original proposals and are very interested in contributing to the dialogue and discussion. Mr. Bill Tag, Apple Computer, said that he worked for Vallco previously and is knowledgeable about urban design and landscaping. He said that trees are almost the enemy of retail, which is obvious from the building which is barely visible. He said that good design is nothing but good compromise. He said that care should be taken in the size of trees for planting because some grow very fast; hedges grow too tall; think ahead five or ten years. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Roberts questioned if there was a citywide policy on setback height ratios. He suggested that guidelines be considered. Chair Harris said that in some cases measurements were from the curb and in some cases from the property line. She suggested that guidelines be developed also. Mr. Cannon said that when he writes a set of guidelines, he attempts to have a set of 5 or 10 basic principles because design guidelines cannot be written for everything. Ms. Ungo-McCormick said that there was consensus that in terms of urban design, you can't just look at one issue, but how these things are treated and those will be the areas that recommendations will be provided for once the problem and issues arc defined. Chair Harris said that Page 2-11 of the staff report indicates Monta Vista shows street frontage setbacks are 5 feet from the property line adjacent to the street and 10 feet in the central common area; others measured from the curb line. She said that if we want to come up with something Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 12, 1997 consistent, or decide if Monta Vista is a different fish and do it differently. She said that heights in an absolute fashion were not addressed. Com. Mahoney said that he felt heights were not necessarily the big issue. Chair Harris said that she felt is was an issue, especially in the General Plan about maintaining the two story character of the town, and much of the land left for development is slated for tall buildings, and you can engineer a building to be built on any slope and good architectural work can be done with any height, but the question is what does Cupertino want, and where? Com. Mahoney stated that the General Plan did not specify two story. Chair Harris said that everything is built at the maximum height, and questioned if that was the intent of the General Plan; and if that is the case, then it is typical height, required height, not maximum height. Will ranges be discussed, or just average heights, or every building gets built to the maximum? Com. Roberts said it would be helpful to have a retrospect of some of the projects approved, the way they looked in terms of how they were represented; and how they look now from the place where people actually stand and look at the building. Chair Harris recommended that on major projects, a site visit should be scheduled and the use of flags for showing building ends, distance from curb, etc. Ms. Ungo-McCormick requested more direction on site visits on major projects. Chair Harris clarified that she recommended revisiting Vallco Park, and not looking at the so-called maximum. Mr. Cowan noted that there were two pending applications, Tandem and Hunter Properties. However, the projects are in a state of flux now. Chair Harris requested that the meeting documents be delivered to Coms. Austin and Doyle, and that the packet be labeled as to location and what issue they referred to in terms qf angles. landscaping, etc., and that the document be given to all Commissioners. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Mahoney moved to continue the item to July 23, 1997 Com. Roberts Corns. Austin and Doyle Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Chair Harris announced that the Mayor's Breakfast was June 19, 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Com. Roberts said that he would attend. Chair Harris suggested that a report of the May field trip regarding the Diocese property be given. Chair Harris said that she lived in the area where the frontage on DeAnza Blvd. is under the influence of San Jose rather than Cupertino. She commented that every day there are large garish signs put up. She noted also that McDonalds had an array of bright signs and flags on their property. She questioned if it was possible that the City request a dialogue with the City of San Jose, that although those parcels are in their jurisdiction, they follow Cupertino guidelines as Cupertino is affected by the signs. Mr. Cowan pointed out that San Jose had a strong ordinance, but it was a question of enforcement. He said he would talk with Jim Derryberry about the issue. Mr. Cowan reported that the City Council wants to step up code enforcement in Cupertino's jurisdiction relative to the political sign regulation and the private sign in public right of way. Planning Commlss~on Minutes 12 June 12, 1007 Chair Harris discussed the city budget relative to new staff hires. She said she thought the one new staffhire was code enforcement. Mr. Cowan reported that the new hires were for Parks, Buildings, and Groundspeople, Medians, to replace positions eliminated or laid off in the 80s. Mr. Cowan said that an intern would be designated for code enforcement. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on June 18, 1997, for the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission meeting. Approved as amended: July 14, 1997 Respectfully Submitted, _E h'zab .e.th~E_llis Recording Secretary