Draft Minutes 04-11-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. APRIL 11, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on April II, 2006 at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
CiddyWordell
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections as noted:
Vice Chair Giefer: Page 8, 'first bullet: "green building" should read" North Vallco"
Page 10, "starter guns" should read "starting gun"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Woug, to approve the March
28,2006 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
April 11, 2006
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Discussion of North VaDco Master Plan.
Ms. Ciddy WordeD, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Said the purpose of the meeting was to review the process and schedule.
· She referred to the power point presentation and reviewed the North Vallco area as defined in
the General Plan.
· She reviewed the objectives of the study; i.e., to anticipate requests for conversion of industrial
office uses to residential or to provide development standards and guidelines for any new
development, whether it is the conversion or a new office; and to look at things such as
connectivity and externalizing land uses.
· She said that looking at the area included in the master plan, there is a possibility of looking
only at part of the area that is subject to conversion. Staff is recommending that the entire area
be subject to a study.
· Cupertino has its own master plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan. The elements of a Specific
Plan are dictated by state law, so it is more rigid and has to be more inclusive of certain
elements than just a master plan or what Mountain View calls its Precise Plan.
· Another example in Cupertino is the North DeAnza conceptual zoning plan; it is decades old,
but is included as an example because it is still used and is an example of a parkway plan.
· Another discussion element relates to the community involvement aspect of the plan; the
concept being that the city would want to have community buy into the process and the
eventual resulting product.
· She said that ways to accomplish that are through a city wide mailing, community meetings, a
charette has been mentioned with actual real time design exercises with architects or other
professionals. An interest has been expressed about hearing rrom other cities, and how they
have been able to carry out a successful public planning process.
· Other stakeholders involved would be property owners, other businesses and Chambers in
Cupertino as well as agencies, and a specific effort would be made to contact the
neighborhoods surrounding this area, even if they aren't Cupertino, and other cities
surrounding this area.
· Staff is seeking direction rrom the Planning Commission on the scope of the plan. Looking
ahead to the next steps suggestions include creating a video for the city channel, begin the
community outreach, and hire a consultant in July once the budget has been adopted. The
consultant will draft the plan within by September, and the public hearings will begin in
September.
Chair MiDer:
. Summarized that it was an attempt to master plan an area in town, that is likely to come up
for redevelopment in the near future. It is not a discussion of conversion of industrial
property to residential, and just strictly that.
. Said it was an effort to look at a specific area before the developer comes and proposes how
the city would like to have it developed, and then invite developers in to build to the city's
plan. In the first case, the developers might be driving this process, but if successful, the city
will be driving the process. A number of cities in the Bay Area have been successful,
including Mountain View, Petaluma, Walnut Creek and Hercules. Hopefully Cupertino can
learn rrom them and apply the principles they used or the processes they used in achieving a
result that works for Cupertino.
. Staff can assist with setting a timeline for completion of the Plan. City Council has requested
a report back in July.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
April 11, 2006
· lfthe community wants more indusIry, there has to be a clear understanding of the city's role
to make it happen. There are many older buildings in Cupertino that were designed for a
business environment and business client, and it is not clear if those buildings are still
workable in the current business environment. It requires data on the market and knowledge
of what the neighboring cities are doing because Cupertino is competing with them for the
same j~bs they hope to bring into Cupertino.
· He summarized that it was not a meeting to talk about conversion of industrial to residential;
but a meeting to discuss how they want to see the area of town develop over the future.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said what they were considering was the potential loss of the entire tech industrial park to
housing in the future.
· The buildings along Tantau Avenue have been previously occupied by other companies prior
to the beginning of the 80s; through the 80s and 90s those buildings have been continually
remodeled. She said that stating the buildings are functionally obsolete is not accurate; they
have been converted repeatedly.
· Said that the buildings on the north east corner of Tantau and Stevens Creek directly south of
280 are prime candidates for conversion, and if converted, she would request a park in the
area. She said the buildings were built in 1990 and she did not agree that they were
functionally obsolete.
· She urged the Commission to ensure that the area is protected. When converting the land to
housing, it presents many problems for the neighborhood; the city cannot talk about the
schools, but the neighbors will have to go to the school districts to inquire about redistricting
and building other schools.
· She said there were superfund 2000 toxic cleanup sites, three of them on the east side of
Tantau and Homestead. She said the Commission may want to address the fact that people
cannot live there.
· In response to Vice Chair Giefer's questions, she said she felt citywide mailings, newspaper
articles, website information, and public hearings were the most effective ways to solicit
public feedback.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Clarified that there was nothing presently in the General Plan that would call for the changeout
of all the tech parks; thousands more units would have to be infused into the General Plan and
there is no proposal for that.
· He emphasized the importance of using the correct terms and staying focused on the real
issues. He said that the only threat to tech parks would be a market threat; and it was
discussed earlier what was needed to attract into the area.
Mark McKenna, President, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Said there have recently been misunderstandings on what the Chamber's view is on
conversion; which is similar to the City's - bring in a project for review and they will decide
whether it is good or bad.
· He said it was a hard sell to convert industrial/commercial into straight residential. He said
they would like to see businesses retained in Cupertino, and not have Cupertino become a
bedroom community with housing only.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
April I I, 2006
Kevin Wu, Pacific Resources:
· Noted and discussed what he felt were possible errors on the map.
· Said that the commercial property owners are sensitive to what is presently happening in the
market, some companies are beginning to hire more employees in the Fremont to Palo Alto
area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Thanked Mr. Wu for his input; and reiterated that it was not the purpose of tonight's meeting
to discuss the substance of the plan for the area.
Mr. McKenna:
· Said he understood that the Planning Commission was going to look at areas where conversion
should take place vs. where it isn't.
Chair Miller:
· Said it was his understanding that the Commission's task was to master plan the north Vallco
area, which is broader than just conversion.
Mr. McKenna:
· Said the Chamber was concerned where the pool will be built.
· Said as the complexes are converted ITom business to residential, apparently it will go into a
pool where it can be built somewhere else, and space is finite in Cupertino with building
restrictions on heights. He said they wanted to ensure there will be continued space to do
business in Cupertino.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Based on the comments made earlier and those heard ITom the public, he said it appears they
are going to need some market experts to provide advice to them and the community about
where the market is going, and perhaps input could be solicited ITom the residents, the
Chamber of Commerce and property owners.
· Said there were already some guidelines about prioritizing it going to the largest corporate
headquarters sites of Hewlett Packard and Apple, and enticing any other corporate
headquarters to bring their sales tax offices to Cupertino, such as Semantec. Said they would
like to hear their input as they go through the process again.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
· Reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the master planning of the North
Vallco area. He said that the focus is broader than just conversion; it is what makes sense for
the North Vallco area and how can it can best be achieved.
· He said that they may want to keep it all industrial; if so, he said he felt they should be
deciding what they need to do in the way of incentives, or in the way of densities to make it
happen rather than have buildings sit there for the next 30 or 40 years and not achieve
anything.
· He said it was broader than the discussion so far and he recommended making it broader at
this point.
Com. Saadati:
· Said they needed to ensure the economic vitality of the city in the near future, including
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 11, 2006
community meetings, involving the property owners, which would hopefully encourage more
people to bring in their opinions;
· Expert evaluation is needed on how the area can be identified for the future; perhaps
conversion to big box; whatever helps the economy of the city.
· Said it should be noted how many properties are vacant and what the future plans of the
property owners are.
· Said future traffic impacts and noise issues should also be considered, particularly with the
close proximity to 1-280.
· He said that in the future if some of the owners of industrial or offices choose to demolish
their buildings to replace with another office, there is a potential for residents objecting to it.
· How to make some portion of it more efficient and maybe allow for some residential for those
people who work in that area.
· Must evaluate all the aspects because there are streets that separate to some extent residential
from the core portion; that needs to be looked at.
· Address the height of the buildings, the nwnber of stories; are they efficient buildings; if not,
what would work best; perhaps offices with underground parking.
· The entire process needs to be addressed; to reduce traffic and address walkability to the
fullest extent possible.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Summarized from the comments heard that the scope should include market experts, reliable
data and vacancy rates, property owner surveys, and input.
Chair Miller:
· Asked for input on the best way to get input from the residents and other stakeholders.
Com. Saadati:
· Suggested doing the neighborhood noticing as done in the past; involving the Chambers and
Rotary Club announcements and other community organizations to try to encourage people to
get involved.
· Said he felt more people adjacent to the area would get involved.
· Suggested mailing postcards; use the internet for outreach; e-mail, and newspapers.
Com. Chien:
· When the Planning Commission decided to look at how to master plan the area, the City
Council requested that they roll the study into part of their industrial conversion study.
· Asked staff for the status of the study with respect to how it is going on the Council.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the Council held two discussions about the question of maintaining cohesive office parks
and may hold a third after they have an understanding of where the Planning Commission is
going with the analysis of North Vallco. They also may table their discussion and may decide
to proceed on a parallel track.
· Said he would report to the Council on the Commission's discussion of the scope and timeline.
Com. Chien:
· Said they needed to be cautious that they did not interfere with the ability of businesses to
bring their headquarters into the city or expand their businesses already there; as it would do a
disservice to the economic liability of the city and their ability to provide services for its
residents.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
April 11, 2006
· Said it was their task to look at a particular area and advise the Council on what would best fit
in, and what would not.
· He said the area they are studying is predominantly industrial right now, and the message for
people is that anything goes, they may consider keeping what is presently there, or think about
what other things might go in, which not only includes residential, but also opportunities for
parks.
· He said it was important for the Cupertino residents to participate in the process, and he fully
supported any efforts to get the message out. The website is an excellent way to get the
message out to the public.
· To involve the public in the process, the facts need to be known; what are the General Plan
designations for these areas; is it strictly industrial, or is it open to other uses as well.
· Recommended including examples of what to put in the area, such as parks, quasi-public
buildings.
· Relative to outreach, he said they need to follow past practices with mailers, newspaper ads,
the use of the website with a specific section developed much like the planning activiIy
subsection about the process.
Com. Wong:
· Emphasized that they were discussing the master plan for the North Val1co area; not
conversion or losing the industrial space.
· Said he agreed that quasi-public use may be appropriate as the ciIy grows and there is more
housing built in Cupertino. The churches and after school programs have difficulIy finding
space in Cupertino; and it would be beneficial if there were areas that could be zoned for those
uses.
· Asked staff to provide infonnation on the school boundaries in the North Vallco area.
· Questioned what Hewlett Packard and Apple's plans were for their campuses.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the new General Plan does not currently have the residential option on the
Hewlett Packard or Apple properties. He said if there was any threat of conversion, it is not
happening on those two major corporate campuses.
· Relative to Com. Wong's comment that Apple is already far outside of their corporate campus;
he said they have about 900,000 square feet of corporate campus and occupy about 2 mi1lion
square feet in the ciIy. He said they may like the opportuniIy to have some additional Class A
space on their campus where they could consolidate functions and get more of their employees
onto the corporate campus site.
· Summarized that the Commission wanted more infonnation ITom other major corporate land
owners, lessees in the communiIy that may have an interest in the North Val1co area, such as
Apple.
Com. Wong:
· Said as part of the General Plan, they were trying to attract companies to bring sales back into
Cupertino, and attract the big boxes. There are other stores such as Home Depot and Trader
Joes on the edge of San Jose that attract the Cupertino residents.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested changing the term to "box" because there are small, medium and large boxes to
bring sales tax to Cupertino.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 11, 2006
Com. Wong:
· Suggested that when the budget is discussed in July, staff consider hiring a consultant to
coordinate the meetings vs. staff time being used.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Estimated the cost of a consultant to be in the range of $100,000 to $125,000. He clarified that
the work program item was not part of the original City Council work program; which is a
reason they are considering a consultant to help develop it. He pointed out that the consultants
provide a relief to the staff and can provide data in a quicker turnaround than staff is able to.
· He suggested the following outreach methods toward the residents:
.¡' A dual mailing to all Cupertino postal customers;
.¡' A 2,000 foot radius or around the perimeter of the North Vallco area;
Com. Wong:
· Suggested use of the Cupertino Scene newspaper for outreach; it has been effective in the past.
· Said he felt it was a missed opportunity that the master plan was not used for Valleo South,
rather than having it be market driven.
· Asked staff to provide a zoning map illustrating the edges covered by hotels and housing, with
industrial in the middle. Also suggested putting the names on the buildings and indicating the
property owners.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she was pleased to be proactive and felt that reviewing their requirements was
constructive.
· Relative to the objectives, she said she wanted to ensure that it met zero job loss; specifically
if they look at the entire area and decide that some sites potentially could go to housing, she
would suggest zoning the business more dense.
· Said that if they remove commercial, there has to be an allowance for critical growth of
commercial in that area so they do not lose the potential for jobs in that area.
· Said she was surprised that sustainability was not part of staff's list. She said as they move
forward and look at potential large planned areas, it should be included as part of their
evaluatiân.
· Relative to circulation, she asked if it would include trails for pedestrians and bike paths.
· She said she concurred with most of the prior comments made.
· Recommended that it be added to the website, including the new icon on the homepage, so
that people are aware of what is occurring; use of citywide noticing; notice the San Jose
Mercury community section where they post things of interest for city governments; also the
Cupertino Courier and the Scene.
· Suggested using the Community Congress model as it worked well for the city and is not as
long and drawn out as the General Plan Task Force.
Chair Miller:
· Relative to Vice Chair Giefer's comment about job loss, and the concerns about conversion;
he said if they were going to encourage redevelopment of the industrial areas into industrial
buildings that work in the current environment, they need to have a full understanding of what
that means. It may mean more density, but there is a cost involved in tearing down buildings
and putting new buildings up, and that needs to be understood also.
· The current North Vallco plan allows buildings to 60 feet tall; is there a need for anything else
but Class A buildings; is it likely to change in the near future? He said there has to be an
understanding of where the market presently is headed and ascertain what Cupertino has to do
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April II, 2006
in order to make the area more attractive to the kinds of companies and individuals they would
like to attract for the area.
· Concurred with Com. Saadati that the boxes might be an effective use of the property,
although they have not been up to this point.
· He s1ressed the importance of having the community actual1y involved in the process rather
than merely being observers.
· Chal1enged staff to come up with a fonnat to achieve that result and fit within their money and
time cons1raints.
Mr. Piasecki:
· He said he envisioned a hands-on workshop; going out to the community; advertising; doing a
charette and discussing it and putting a game board together on what should happen. The
consultant wil1 bring in experts in facilitating.
Chair Miller:
· He said he would consider it a success if in the end, the community felt good about the result
in general, and that it was something that benefited the city.
· Asked if there was some basic infonnation gathering to be done whether or not there is a
consultant. There are four other cities in the area that have been through the process and could
provide valuable infonnation ftom their experiences.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it would be helpful if the Commissioners could consider what their vision is for the area
in 20 years, and is successful in whatever it ends up being. Should the land uses be more
integrated; Should there be more walkability; Is there a desire for buildings that are more
externalized?
· Said they may have to offer property owners some greater density to entice them to build
Class A space.
· There has been some discussion about opportunity for open space; where could it be located;
should it be cen1ralized; would some of the al1ocations be used to entice one of the property
owners to donate open space in the area.
· Relative to Calabazas Creek, is there an opportunity to create a pleasant walkway along
Calabazas and/or perhaps a link under the fteeway to pop up on the other side; or a walkway
that wil1 connect with South Vallco.
· Logistical1y for this project staff envisions the need to bring on experts to handle the
facilitation and the process. He said he appreciated Chair Miller's comment that the bottom
line is to have a plan that everyone would be excited about and that the community has felt
they have had buy-in.
· He said there were already some parameters set by the General Plan; it could be suggested that
as a result of this process, that they need to modifY one of those parameters because it was
found that it is only in the fonn of ten story buildings. He said there was likely enough latitude
and enough square footage with some of the square footage that went back into the pool.
· He recal1ed that some of the square footage in the General Plan for office and industrial was
bumped; if box retail was included, it is another source of squares that could be built into the
area.
· He asked what it should look like; presently there are fairly separate campuses; Hewlett
Packard, smal1er one story tilt up office and industrial; some manufacturing space, larger
fonnat buildings, and some residential, stand alone for the most part.
· He said that the area over the built out planned unit of developing could look considerably
different; the community needs to say what it might look like; and is it going to be more
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
April II , 2006
interactive than active space; is it going to be more sustainable; better connected.
Chair Miller:
· Commented that it was difficult getting land owners' input when going through the General
Plan review process. He said it was an important part of the exercise since there is so much
industrial area to begin with.
· Asked staff for an update on the area outlined in dark blue color on the map.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was officelindustrial; Kaiser may have taken over the comer building.
· There may be constraints to development options if there are chemicals in the area, in-ground
or stored on site.
· He noted there were other office/industrial buildings, although it was not known if they were
occupied.
Staff answered Commissioners' qnestions:
· Mountain View staff would be invited to the May meeting to discuss their experience with
their plan.
· An outline of the scope of work based on tonight's discussion will be provided.
· The time frame for the joint study session with City Council would be in the Fall.
· The North Vallco map would be updated to include labeling the buildings, and additional data.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held.
Honsine Commission: Next meeting will be held April 13, 2006.
Mavors Monthlv Meetine With Commissioners: Com. Saadati reported that he went to the
meeting but there was no meeting held.
Economic DeveloDment Committee Meetine: No meeting held.
The ReDort of the Director of Community DeveloDment: No additional report.
Other:
· Vice Chair Giefer reported that at the recent DRC meeting, there was a loophole discovered
relative to exposed neon signs. She said she felt it should be considered as part of the
evaluation of the sign ordinance and asked staff to agendizc discussion of the issue when the
sign ordinance was on the next public hearing agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting
on April 25, 2006 at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary