Loading...
Draft Minutes 05-09-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - DRAFT MINUTES MAY 9, 2006 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The Planning Commission Study Session of May 9, 2006, was called to order at 5:45 p.m. in the 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: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell ColinJung Eileen Murray STUDY SESSION 1. North Vaneo Master Plan Ciddy Worden, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Said the purpose of the study was to determine how the area should develop in the future and the purpose of the Study Session was to receive input from the property owners in the area and also to discuss the scope of work and anything related to the background infonnation on regulations. On May 23, 2006 the Mountain View planner will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss their downtown process, particularly related to community input. · She noted that the infonnation requested by the Planning Commission on property owners was provided as a handout. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to report back to them in July as to the Planning Commission's progress; it is expected that their will be agreement on the scope of work so that the recommendation can be made to Council in July. · Staff sent letters and made personal contacts with all the property owners in the area asking them to provide input about their plans, and what their hopes were for the area. There has also been discussion about hearing the needs of their employees. · She reviewed Exhibit A, the North Vallco Master Plan Scope of Work, including community involvement, land use, circulation including traffic, schools, development standards, design guidelines, sustainability, and market conditions, Chair Miner: . Said the purpose of the study was to devise a way to move forward in a more efficient manner to do forward planning in terms of an entire area, rather than waiting for the developer to come in and inform the city what they are planning to do; and not just define what it is a developer cannot do, but to derme what a developer can do. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 2 May 9, 2006 · Other cities have been successful, such as Hercules and Mountain View and feedback and input /Tom them can provide helpful information and learn /Tom their experiences. A representative /Tom the City of Mountain View will be present at tonight's meeting to share some insight about their process and their learning experiences. · Mountain View realized that by having a plan in place, it was a lot clearer to the developers what they could and couldn't do and that shortened the time to get something approved by the city, and resulted in a happier outcome for all concerned. With that in mind, I would like to invite the developers or landowners to talk to us and give us some ideas of where you are in your property and your projects and what you would like to see in the city. Chair Miller opened the meeting for public input. Brad Lymon, owner of 10670 and 10710 No. Tantau: · Said that his partner Phil Mahoney has been before the City Council meetings during General Plan discussions to inform them that they were interested in changing the property to residential. · Their buildings are 35 to 40 years old and are outdated; they will be vacant and it would cost $30+ per square foot for improvements and commissions to make the buildings habitable for the next tenants. He said that based on the rents, it would make more sense to convert to residential because the property abuts to residential. Most of the property is in the Santa Clara School District, therefore it would not have an impact on the Cupertino schools, which is a concern. · He said they had two buildings, a one story and a two story building. The single story building is functionally obsolete. It was a manufacturing building and was converted into an office building and leased to a tenant in 2000 that went bankrupt. The two story building may not be functionally obsolete but it would not be cost effective to convert it /Tom its present configuration and make it into a building to rent out. · He said rather than residential, he had not considered tearing it down and building a class A building, because the rents do not substantiate tearing down buildings already purchased and rebuilding them. Chair Miller: · Asked Mr. Lymon if there was a situation where the rents would support it; e.g., in North Vallco presently the maximum height is 60 feet; so there is potential for intensifying the use on the site. He asked if that would be considered an incentive? Mr. Lymon: · Said the numbers would have to be studied, but the more square footage you can put on the property, the more rental income you can generate because of it. Because of their proximity to Apple, the area is seen as more highly favorable /Tom potential users. · Said it did not seem prudent to put a medium size retail box adjacent to the residential already there. · Said that when they purchased it in 2000, they anticipated that the tenants would leave and they could rent to others at a higher rate; however, that did not occur. The buildings cannot carry themselves by virtue of a dot.com situation; it is now a regular market and the more favorable space is being leased and the lesser space is not. Presently the potential rents would yield about half the property value that it was purchased for. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 3 May 9,2006 Connor Flynn, Kimko Realty, owner of Cnpertino Village, Wolfe & Homestead Roads: · Said they recently purchased Cupertino Village which current land use is primarily a retail commercial center. · He said he felt Val1co would provide a good anchor, as Wolfe Road would become a great commercial avenue for Cupertino. With the retail success of Ranch 99 and the other small retail uses, they could potentially build on it for their future plans and strengthen the center's core by increasing the Cupertino Village theme and create some solutions for some of the inefficiencies that the property has. · Relative to future plans, he said they were focusing on the due diligence of what they could and could not do. · Said they look to develop the highest and best use plan for their shopping centers; and as Cupertino is a very successful center, they do not want to inmnge on the core of the center; but determine what the inefficiencies of the center are. He said they were excited about Apple entering the community as well as with the new campus as it offers good potential for the area. He added that they had worked with staff when they first purchased the property to see if residential was a possibility. · He said it was their decision to stay with the retail core, and try to increase it and try to make it the premiere shopping center of Cupertino. They do not have any current plans for redevelopment. Chair Miller: · Asked Mr. Flynn if he had any thoughts as North Val1co area gets redeveloped; is there anything in the way of integration that you could suggest we might do or not do to better tie yourselves into what is going on? Mr. Flynn: · He said it was important to ensure that everyone is on the same page. He said that Cupertino is a city that they see as much more proactive than other cities they encountered. He complemented staff for having all the infonnation online for the community to follow the advances being made. He said to remain on the same course, and keep everyone involved in the process. · He noted that they had some office use on their property, which was second floor office space which has been vacant for some time. He said that he felt the mix of uses and creating a solid retail core on Wolfe Road in the North Val1co area is a good future plan. Mr. Kevin Wu, Pacific Resources, owner of 10300,10400 and 10501 North Tantau Avenue: · Said they recently sold one of their properties to Apple Computer as part of the Apple Campus. · He reported that in the Apple campus deal, they had to let go of two tenants. He reviewed the properties they were still trying to lease out and the obstacles they have encountered. He noted that because more retailers want to be on Stevens Creek Blvd, or Wolfe Road, it is more difficult to lease out on Tantau Avenue. Other obstacles include buildings that contain hazardous materials or offices that don't confonn to the current cubicle type design. They considered many options and decided that it was more feasible to consider residential conversion. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked for the cost of tenant improvements to bring the buildings into Class A condition and/or if they were demolished, could they be rebuilt offices be leased out. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 4 May 9,2006 Mr.Wu: · Said that to bring the building up to today's standard, on the first building with HV AC with asbestos, lead paint and the roof, it would cost between $10 to $20 per square foot, plus a new GI which would cost between $25 to $45 per square foot. · To bring the properties back to today's Class B standard, it would cost between $50 to $60 per square foot or higher. · The rents for a new building at that location, would be in the range of $1.50 per square foot triple net. If it is not renovated, it would not lease out and with the $1.50 per square foot it is not economically feasible. For a teardown and rebuild with the one or two story building, it will be in the range of$80 to $120 per square foot. · Said it would make sense to build up more stories, but other issues such as traffic studies, noise studies, and the environmental impact would have to be considered because they would have to look at what Apple wanted to do if they already announced their intent to have a campus there. Chair Miller: · He cited a scenario of Apple going in there although they have yet to hear about Apple's plans; however, Hewlett Packard is already there and another large corporation is going to be there. The space that you own, could you envision that there might be companies that do business with Apple and Hewlett Packard that might see an advantage to the proximity to their large campuses, that it might make sense to consider redoing them as office buildings for that reason. Mr.Wu: · Said it was a possibility, but he would discuss it with the brokers to see if it is a viable solution. Mr.Wu: · Relative to his earlier comment about residential as an option, he said they felt the site was not appropriate for high density, and considered between 10 and 15 units per acre. If the Apple campus is going to materialize in the next few years, it would be better for the employees to walk across Tantau than Hwy. 280 overpass to go to work, if the residential application was approved. · Said they spent $1 million on the base building before selling it to Apple. He said it cost about $45 per square foot for new GI because the tenant improvements were from the 80s with small offices, and didn't fit today's office space plans, It also included tenant improvement commissions, totaling $50 per square foot, amounting to another $5 million. Shawna Holmes, Hewlett Packard: · Said that Hewlett Packard (lIP) currently has 4200 employees in Cupertino and the company has been there since 1969. Since the Compac merger, they have closed three different land deals, selling a total of 9 buildings. The plan is to bring employees from across the street as well as from the Mayfield site in Mountain View, which is scheduled to be shut down, and from Palo Alto within the next 12 to 18 months. There is room to grow as some buildings have been tom down. · Said that a small percentage of their employees live in Cupertino because of the high cost of living there. Hewlett Packard supports more affordable housing in the community so that their employees can live closer to work; and it also supports regional transit projects to bring the employees efficiently into work. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 5 May 9, 2006 · The employees are pleased with the changes as they are eager to have services available such as restaurants and shopping. The accessibility to parks and green spaces is also desirable to the employees. · She encouraged the city to expand its vision beyond North Vallco, and how that piece fits into the larger economic health of the community. · In response to Com. Wong's question why they gave up Vallco south for a mixed use while still having two office buildings at Vallco south vs. Vallco North, she said they were merely lab buildings which they had no use for, similar to the ones sold to Apple. · There is ample room within the campus to grow; the employees can work more efficiently on that campus and can be provided more amenities. It is less expensive to operate and a more attractive environment can be provided when the employees are together on a campus. · She reviewed the services that are provided on the campus, including a cafeteria, health center, basketball courts, outdoor recreational space and coffee shop. She explained that the goal was to provide employees with a pleasant environment, but not make them feel hostage and not want to venture outside the campus. She said they would not offer dry cleaning services or similar services since the campus was centrally located with other regional centers surrounding it, and it would also include issues such as mixed use on their site, security and environmental impacts. She added that they did not envision adding housing to the campus. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked if HP had any intent on spinning any of the components of the campus in the future and selling some of the main campus portions. · Also inquired whether they were considering removing some of the older buildings and replacing them with Cass A space or just removing them entirely. Ms. Holmes: · Said they already removed some buildings, and at this time were not considering removing any more. With recent retrofits they were able to absorb the employees in the surrounding area without doing any major reconstruction; and that is the intent. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that there was no residential option under the current General Plan and Ms. Holmes made it clear that HP does not desire any at this time. Hewlett Packard has a development agreement with the city which locks in a specified number of square feet; if tearing down buildings and replacing them, there would likely be more capacity over the long term. · Said when they discussed other commercial uses on the campus and Ms. Homes stated they would not want to mix them in, a speaker spoke of Wolfe Road potentially becoming a commercial corridor, which would provide the opportunity for the Hewlett Packard to carve out a secure location at the comer with coffee shops, Juice Bars, restaurant services, and outdoor dining where HP employees could walk off campus. He asked if HP had considered creatng a mini village area · He said they would like the plan to work toward the office park of the future and as the patterns are changing with people working from home, telecommuting, different hours, it is not old office park any longer. He asked if there was a good mechanism to engage the employees in the process. If there is any mechanism to engage a selected number of employees, to gain that insight. Ms. Holmes: · Said it was not only them, but would also be the employees who were in the buildings recently purchased by Apple. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 6 May 9, 2006 · Said that creating a mini village area was not a concept that HP was considering. · Said she did not feel she could accurately comment on the future of that campus as she was not part of the real estate team. Mr. Piasecki: · He said that circulation and connection appear to be an important issue. He asked if HP would consider a bike/pedestrian corridor in the area of Highway 280 that separate with South Vallco. He cited examples such as Daly City's overpass over Hwy. 280 with attractive lights; Santa Barbara has an area with wrought iron separations between the traffic. Ms. Holmes: · Clarified that the convenience was that there were sidewalks on both sides; employees often walk between the buildings and the issue was that there was a sidewalk only on one side. · Said it was premature to speculate whether HP would increase the number of stories and whether the height would go beyond 60 feet in the buildings if they rebuilt. · Relative to timeline of an analysis, she said they are constantly reassessing their needs and did not have a fixed timeline to make a detennination for the site. They have made decisions related to much smaller properties across the US and in other areas of the world, but haven't made any decisions related to most of their major sites. · Said that they would keep an open line of communication with the city in order to provide feedback to the city as they continue to master plan the site. Chair MiUer: · Said he envisioned the process as a joint effort; not just the Commission's vision, but HP's vision, the Planning Commission's vision and others including the residents, and what they could all agree to. Bill Brown, Kimko Realty: · Said they met with staff about different uses on their site including residential, office, and enhancing the retail presence; and they are considering strengthening their street edge on Wolfe Road. · They own in excess of 1,000 shopping centers throughout the country, and presently have several redevelopments going on. He said there were interested in being an active participant in the process; land use wise, transportation wise, parking is a big deal throughout the area. Relative to costs, the current market is such and the construction costs are such that many uses become cost prohibitive. · He pointed out that addition of parking was a high cost item; a parking stall in the Bay Area can cost between $25,000 to $30,000 to build today, which is $100 to $150 per foot. Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that he strongly cautioned Kimko Realty against any ambitions for residential on that site, pointing out that the cohesive commercial shopping center policy was recently adopted in the General Plan, and the city feels it is a great shopping center. Mr. Brown: · Said that they heeded the advice, and shifted from residential and are looking at a higher density of retail and what can be done within their lease restrictions. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 7 May 9, 2006 Mr. Mike Foulkes, Apple Computer: · He applauded the Planning Commission and staff for their effort, noting that they have been working with the Chamber of Commerce for a number of years. · He said North ValIco is the last big piece of property in Cupertino and once it is gone, there are no more apricot orchards, He noted that they were still in the acquisition phase; stilI completing deals for the properties that they are currently looking to acquire and have not thought beyond that. It is considered to be a four to six year effort that they will work closely with city staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council to determine what the new campus wilIlook like. · He said their goal is to bring the employees from scattered sites together as the campus of the future for R&D and the type of things they do involves person-to-person communication and being on different sites can have a negative impact on their colIaboration efforts. · Relative to the issue pf partner and vendors, he said they receive input about their current campus wilI hear in volumes from the new campus there is no space close by for partners, suppliers, vendors, to come in. They wilI come in only after a project is complete; so part of when looking at what they want for North Vallco is to consider not only Apple but the other people who wilI come in who are important generators of jobs and revenue to the city. · He said that many of the buildings they currently lease are functionalIy obsolete. Some functionalIy obsolete buildings in the right places are stilI functional, but others have to be torn down; it depends on location in real estate. · When looking at North Vallco from our perspective, what do you and the community want to see in this part of Cupertino; how can this be an important add to the city in tenns of revenue and terms of shopping, jobs, look of the city; but also making sure that we are looking at the long tenn goals of Cupertino. If you look at any commercial building in town today, they alI have a higher value out there in the economic community as housing. A lot of those folks are not going to stay in Cupertino and once it turns to housing that is the end of the road. When we look at planning, I want to make sure we are looking not just for the next couple of years for Cupertino, but overalI in ten or twenty years, what do you want to see, not just North Vallco, but other parts of the city. From our perspective, you want to maintain as many and not just North Vallco, but other areas as welI, as much cohesiveness of those commercial corridors as you can and areas that are not cohesive, there are a lot of underutilized areas. As you heard from several land owners, things have changed quite a bit and that is going to continue, hopefulIy as Apple continues to grow and as staff mentioned, we want to stay in Cupertino, we want to make sure there is space for us to grow over time. Com. Wong: · Of the spaces that you lease on ValIey Green Drive, Bubb Road and as you consolidate in four or five years into North Vallco, how many buildings do you lease around the community and how many spaces that possibly could be empty when you go onto your new campus. Mr. Foulkes: · Said that the Apple employees on Bubb Road feel isolated, the total number of buildings is about 40, some are very smalI and some are large, but the key things is 1rying to get Apple employees close and to build the camaraderie that people share both on Hewlett Packard campus and Apple campus that makes it a world class institution, where right that doesn't exist. Over time, and as we have a better sense of what our future plans are going to be, we might be in a position to talk about what we think we are not going to keep, and what we are. Right now we have no idea of how large the campus will be, and don't have any idea of what is going to move there. All those decision are many months, if not years down the road, Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 8 May 9, 2006 Com. Wong: · Said that Mr. Foulkes commented that on Valley Green Drive, Bubb Road, it depends on how much a company is willing to buy a piece of property, maybe at prime rate; and he stated that they do not want to lose industrial space, they want other industrial space to stay so that they can complement each other. He also commented that if you build housing, it is difficult to go back to industrial; there is no housing going back to industrial now. If those spaces were vacated and you were going to look beyond the scope, is that you would rather have it industrial vs. conversion, or is there some conversion for housing? Mr. Foulkes: · Said that as planners, Cupertino has to look both at commercial/industrial and retail/housing. When considering housing, given that financially it makes sense to move to housing and given the climate, there is not a strong push in the community for more housing, especially dense, affordable housing. The city needs to be considered as a whole and it is better planning to say ftom a planning perspective this makes the most sense to put in housing, vs. saying it is the rush to whoever stakes the claim first, wins. · Whoever gets in line and gets the allocation, gets to build their housing, which in the past, has created some windfall profits but not necessarily a good plan for the city. · He said presently they do not have that; everything is overlaid with the housing overlay and he suggested that if you pull off some of those housing overlays as well as putting in very strong language on housing in other areas, it will encourage more housing. · Presently, every place can be housing, and therefore every single thing that comes to you and the City Council is a huge fight. It takes much too long to get developed and it is not in the best interest of the developers, the citizens or certain ftom the business community. He said that certainty is a valuable commodity in their business, and they want to ensure that ftom Apple's perspective, there is enough room for them to grow. Com. Wong: · For the new campus, just on the edge, if it can be secure and you are willing to lease, where are you open to having retail on the edge or even a park on the edge that would benefit both Apple employees as well as other businesses around you in North Vallco. Mr. Foulkes: · Said he would have to discuss it with their executives and real estate people as they have not done any planning in that area. He said that post-91I security is a major issue for them; Apple is one of the larger targets in Silicon Valley for terrorism and the Director of Security was more concerned about adjoining uses, trucks parking in parking lots, things that were not a big concern before 911. Com. Saadati: · Asked if they developed the parcel, what would work better operationally - a single tower with green space around it, or multiple buildings; and what timeline? Mr. Foulkes: · He said he did not have a definitive answer, as it is something that would take long range planning to ensure that it is something that is both functional and idea for their employees. He said they were still in the signing document stage to acquire the buildings; and have discussed three to five years, or four to six years, partly depending upon how quickJy things move forward. He said unless they take their housing it will be their last development in Cupertino, Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 9 May 9, 2006 and we want to make sure we do it right and that it is both a grand beacon for Cupertino and meets Apple's needs for as long as it will be operational. Vice Chair Giefer: · Given the comments regarding security, has there been any discussions regarding internalizing the campus, vs. making it more externally focused? Mr. Foulkes: · He said he felt it would not be less secure than their current campus. He added that there was the additional type of security involving trade secrets that may leave the campus. It is a huge issue for Apple since they are developing the latest and greatest technology and many people are curious about that. Chair Miller; · Referred to the comment made about the need to have partners and vendors close to the campus. There appears to be a concern from the landowners that they couldn't make it economically viable to continue as an office space and that is why they are converting to residential. He asked for input on putting them together with some of Apple's vendors and suppliers in order to make that happen, because the city cannot force them to do one thing or another; they can only provide economic incentives. Mr. Foulkes: · He pointed out that all the buildings around their campus are Apple buildings, hence, there is no room for anyone to go in. Many of those buildings are much more obsolete than others; and as planners, it is important to know that the suppliers and vendors won't come in until the campus is complete. · He noted that they anticipate having the Toll Brothers property, Vallco and the Rose Bowl complete before their projects, leaving the small square of North Vallco remaining, and they want to ensure there is ample room. He said they would take space first if they need it, but others may get their first. Chair Miller: · Said he understood the 'chicken and egg scenario,' however, in this particular case there is an existing campus and empty buildings surrounding it that vendors and suppliers for Hewlett Packard don't seem to be taking advantage of now. He asked why they felt it would change for Apple? Mr. Foulkes: · Said he could not speak for Hewlett Packard, but from Apple's perspective it has been a problem with their current campus. Chair Miller: · Said that clearly from Apple's perspective, there appears to be more of a value in leaving the surrounding buildings commercial as opposed to converting some of them to residential. Mr. Foulkes: · Reiterated that if they were discussing a site two or three times as big, it would be different. He said he considered it one contiguous area and he was not certain there is another part of the city like that; that has the proximity and square footage. Presently, they are not thinking about Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 10 May 9,2006 changing current uses, just maintaining them. If the city had other plans for a large business park in another part of the city perhaps the conversation would be different. · There are many other areas where housing can be build; however, they are not many areas to put a new campus. · Said for Apple employees, particularly those in the Torre A venue buildings, it was more important for them to be able to walk to lunch, than being able to walk to work. It is the primary concern; their employees are scattered throughout the Bay Area, and where they chose to live is a personal choice that is not seen as reflective of proximity to work, but involves many other factors. There is no statistical difference between the employees who live close to campus and those who choose to live further away from where they work. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified Mr. Foulkes comment that housing overlay applies everywhere, and it doesn't apply to your current campus; the General Plan removed it. It doesn't apply to the Hewlett Packard campus and coupled with the cohesive office parks and commercial centers policy, it also does not apply to a lot of the nucleus of office parks and commercial centers. It is not a universal allowance throughout the community. Mr. Foulkes: · Said he agreed, but noted that the prior General Plan had housing allocated for Hewlett Packard and Apple's campus. It was common knowledge that it would never be built, therefore it was a fallacy. He said he would rather have as a planning document something that could be built. Instead of having 100 units that never get built, it would be a better policy to put them where they are actually going to get built, where they really belong and where the community wants them to be. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the Planning Commission and City Council heard that and made those adjustments in the plan, precisely for those reasons. He pointed out that in Apple's North DeAnza campus, there is development potential and they could create some of the space needs that Apple has on its own campus by building a three or four story building on North DeAnza Boulevard. · He said they would likely have to provide a stacked parking structure and some type of skybridge to connect it with their existing building; there is that potential, perhaps up to several hundred thousand square feet. Mr. Foulkes: · He commented that it was a small amount in comparison to their total needs; and they would rather do something more significant. He said that the Apple campus draws business from around the world and they want to ensure that aesthetically they continue to be that front door to Cupertino and very visible, as well as something pleasing to the residents, visitors and employees. They are not interested in putting up buildings that are functional for their purposes but would detract from the overall look and feel of the campus. It has to have the Apple look and feel and look and feel that people expect of Apple. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that as the office allocations are increased in the community, the regional authorities assume the city will provide more housing to accommodate the employees it is generating. It is a circular problem that the city has to deal with in trying to get its housing element certified. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session II May 9,2006 · Different options for uses include commercial; externalizing the campus more than the current campuses; hotel space to accommodate vendors visiting Cupertino fi-om all over the world. The site is a highly marketable hotel site on Highway 280; and hotels pay transient occupancy tax. · He pointed out that the General Plan now has a park site on some of the area that Apple is purchasing. There have also been talks in conjunction with the Toll Brothers application about improvements to create a trail along Calabazas Creek and possibly even a seasonal trail through the huge culvert that goes under Highway 280. · He asked Mr. Foulkes to think about the circulation connection question posed to Hewlett Packard; if they perceived a benefit of any type of shuttle service to connect North and South Vallco. This is still a viable development; it is well connected to South Vallco and Cupertino Village, etc. · He said they looked forward to Apple's input into the process, and encouraged them to engage their employees in providing input also as they work there everyday and it would be helpful to hear what works for them also. Bruce Liedstraud, Former Mouutain View City Manager: · Said he was City Manager in Mountain View during the period of planning and revitalization of downtown Mountain View. He recalled that a ten story in the middle of downtown Mountain View stood vacant for ten years with guard dogs guarding the interior. The city, community members, and people in the downtown area worked together with an urban designer to put a Precise Plan together for the city. · The clarity of the city's expectations for downtown as expressed in the plan were helpful in inviting businesses and development in and making the downtown a much better place. · He said it was a good experience and wished Cupertino well in their effort. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Expressed concern about the potential of the North Vallco area becoming housing and said she felt it was a poor decision for the city's future. She felt the area along Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue has always been a tech/industrial park area, and it was not a good idea to allow properties considered edge properties on the east side of Tantau to be converted into housing. She felt there was indication that the market was coming back and the job market had improved, · She said with Apple moving into the area, there may be new tenants coming in who are interested in prime Cupertino office space for tech and industrial. Once the edge properties are converted to housing, it becomes housing and the center of the industrial park which would be the west side of Tantau is now the edge property and therefore you have residential creeping across the tech park, which would result in the overall erosion of the tech park. She said her vision for the future of the area is that it remains intact as an industrial/tech park in northeastern Cupertino. · She said she hoped there would be smart use of the area for the tenants; there has always been a long history of reconversion of office and industrial buildings in that area. The buildings Mr. Wu has, there is a nice high bay testing facility Tandem put in during the early 90s; there are incredible use of facilities in this area and it is anticipate that this area stays industrial/commercial. Kris Giusiana, CEO of Cnpertino Chamber of Commerce: · The Chamber has spoken against having housing encroaching into this particular area where Apple is coming. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 12 May 9,2006 · Relative to an earlier comment about incentives, she asked how the city could help Apple and itself by offering incentives to prospective businesses to come into the city; incentives such as retail being exempt ftom paying sales tax for the first year. It is anticipated that they will grow and make more money and bring in more sales tax; however, there will be many empty buildings and the concern is once these buildings become empty, the current owners of the buildings will then declare them as obsolete or unusable and there will be a rush to find accommodation for the companies that will want to come in. · She expressed concern that many of the owners may do a lot of patchwork to keep the buildings up and going. She asked if there could be incentives such as loans available to bring current buildings up to a better standard. How can the city help the builders so that the Chamber is not constantly trying to get the housing overlay as their bottom line? Chair Miller: · Said that Ms. Giusiana expressed very well one of the challenges that the Commission hoped to try to answer with the process; and that is if it makes sense to keep a particular area as an office space; what can the city do in order to make that happen. Mr.Wu: · Referring to Ms. Griffin's comments about the labs, he said the labs were two story buildings consisting of structural steel with no windows, and all concrete, and could not be converted to any other spaces, The only alternative is to tear them down and rebuild. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that because they are bound by housing element rules of the state, the city has to be cautious when adding more growth in the office or commercial area and in turn has to try to add sufficient housing units on fewer sites. It needs to be accomplished in a balanced way that achieves the multiple objectives of housing in the right place. He said it would be an interesting process to work through and they should not lose sight of that need. Chair Miller: · Thanked the landowners and developers and others present for attending the meeting and said he felt it was a productive session. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION: Chair Miller adjourned the Study Session and declared a recess to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary