draft minutes 4-28-09
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
April 28, 2009
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa
Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners absent:
Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Vice Chairperson:
Lisa Giefer
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Paul Brophy
Commissioners present:
Staff present:
Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Senior Planner: Vera Gil
City Attorney: Carole Karode
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, to approve the
April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Brophy absent)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Z-2009-01
James Fowler
(Apple, INC)
Pruneridge Ave.
@ Ridgeview Ct.
Rezoning of approximately 7.78 acres from a Planned Development
Residential - P(Residential), to Planned Development Industrial and
Residential - P(Mp, Residential).
Tentative City Council date: May 19,2009
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
April 28, 2009
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for Apple Computers to rezone a 7.78 acre site located at 19310 and
19320 Pruneridge Avenue from Planned Residential to Planned Industrial and Residential as
outlined in the staff report. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application
and recommended that the City Council grant the mitigated negative declaration.
. On April 14th the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council amend the
General Plan to increase office allocations only for use by major corporate campuses and
continued the discussion to this evening's meeting on the Housing Element and the discussion
on residential intensity in the North Vallco area.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
mitigated negative declaration as recommended by the ERC and also the zoning application.
Com. Miller used a slide presentation and reviewed the background material on the North
Vallco area, given that two years ago they did a preliminary master plan for that area.
. Illustrated the Apple site and said it was important that they worked together with Apple; they
wanted both Apple and HP to be successful in the city and also want to make sure that both
Apple achieves their objectives and the city achieves the city's objectives in terms of future
development.
. He reviewed the goals: (1) New development must or should be robust enough not only to
meet the current owners needs, but also the needs of future development and any possible
changes of ownership. Nothing is forever; change is to be expected. There is always the
possibility sometime in the future the current corporations that own this property might have a
need to sell off part or all of it. This is an aspect that the city has more of an interest in than the
developer and that is why this goal comes out. (2) Making sure that the area has some unifying
elements to it, so that there are some ties between the sites in that area, not only the office sites
but the housing and the retail as well. It is both in our interest and Apple to ensure that any
development there is done in a way that becomes a highly desirable place for people to work in
Cupertino at this particular site. If additional office space is going to be generated, the state
will require us to provide additional housing as well. There is a new requirement in the works
now which is the mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
. He showed a sample of block and street design that would encourage walkability which is not
present in the sites today; and said they would also discuss the importance of having a centrally
located commercial district to serve the needs of the employees and residents from the
Hamptons and others who may live there as well as potential future owners. It is also equally
important that we meet the needs of our corporate residents in terms of security and also in
terms of development intensity that they need in order to achieve what they are trying to do.
. The next important item is called unifying a vital cnter as a key unifying element. This is
essentially a commercial center that could include restaurants and other services that
employees and residents might want and would be defmed by the marketplace.
. Said they looked at a number of sites where this commercial center could go; and it could go in
a number of different places on Pruneridge; but in the consultant's mind, the best site was one
that was located between the two campuses and reasonably close to the residential units in the
Hamptons.
. In terms of worker needs, a convenient access to services is one that is very important. It is
also important to have some centrally located recreational facilities and I think particularly in
this day and age when it is hard to get people to work here because of the high cost of housing,
it is appropriate to have housing close to the work center.
. Reviewed the consultant's conceptualization of some block diagrams of where some of these
things might go. The ones are the two corporate headquarters and the commercial center is No.
2; No.3 is where he thought might be a good place to locate recreational facilities; and No.4
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
April 28, 2009
was an area where there could be additional pedestrian amenities.
· State mandated requirements - if additional office space is developed in North Vallco, the next
housing element update will place additional housing construction burdens on the city; and
given that, it is appropriate that we consider some of these areas for housing. Given the
difficulty of getting people to California to work here, either Apple or HP, it might be worth
considering that some of this could be corporate housing to use as an enticement to bring
employees here. Because of the high cost of land and affordable housing requires higher
densities, I think that is on staffs agenda as well; 35 units to the acre or higher in order to
make it work effectively.
· The second mandate which we don't have full details on yet, but is coming is greenhouse gas
emissions and one of the ways to address this issue, is through land use strategies to reduce
auto traffic. One of the ways we can address this type of issue is by putting housing within
both walking distance of the job center and the shopping across the other side of Wolfe.
. Relative to housing, the consultant felt that there was some key areas where housing might go;
the best location on the HP site adjacent to Wolfe Road; it is close to the shopping in the Ranch
99, walking distance to HP and Apple and is very convenient to Valko Fashion Park. It makes
sense that if there was a site in this area that would be a beneficial housing site for higher
density housing, that would be it. The other sites on the east side of Tantau also are potentially
good sites; we do need to be careful in terms of the density there, because they abut the
residential areas in Santa Clara over here. There is also the possibility of some sites on the
Apple campus as well as the one being considered tonight, former Morley Bros. site that has
already been zoned for housing.
. He summarized that it made sense to approve Apple's request to rezone the 7.78 acre site with
the following additional changes: that we find some other areas in North Vallco that we could
also zone for both industrial and residential use; that we increase the densities of the North
Vallco residential units to 35 to 50 units per acre; and that areas immediately adjacent to single
family detached housing be zoned to more moderate densities.
Jim Fowler, representing Apple:
· Said they have acquired the site to rezone as part of a larger 56 acre parcel that was slated for a
new corporate headquarters campus for Apple. As of this date, they are not certain what they
are going to do with the site; there are no plans, no development pending. They have come to
the Planning Commission with a straight forward request to prepare for planning this site by
changing the residential zoning to allow planned industrial, to accommodate their campus.
. He said although he understood Com. Miller's issues regarding the need for housing and
recreation in the area, the concern with greenhouse gases, concern with developing a vital
center for services to serve the residents and employees at this campus; but it was beyond what
they were trying to accomplish tonight which was a simple rezoning to enable the planning
process to proceed.
Com. Miller:
. Apple has asked for two things; they want more square feet there and they want to rezone this
parcel for potential industrial use instead of housing. I want to make sure we all understood the
city's needs in that regard in terms of having to balance off those additional office square feet
with housing somewhere in the city and rezoning part of the Apple site; a larger part than what
you are asking for can accomplish what we are trying to do. It doesn't commit you to building
anything there at this time; just like you are not committed to doing anything with the rezoning
you are asking for.
Jim Fowler:
. Responded that they deliberately decided not to request removal of the housing rezoning
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
April 28, 2009
because they recognized a need for flexibility. They wanted to add planned industrial to the
zoning, that would enable the campus to go forward; Apple is interested in increasing the
office allocations available in Cupertino and pursuing the initiative is important to HP and
other stakeholders in Cupertino.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Reiterated how important the North Vallco area is to Cupertino and to the future of Cupertino;
there is a great desire to have North Vallco remain tech park/industrial. She emphasized the
importance of preserving tech space in Cupertino.
. When the Morley Bros. project came in 2005, there was a great deal of dissent in the city over
what should be done there and a lot of upheaval when the project was approved. The
Hamptons was built several years ago to provide apartment housing.
. Said she was pleased to hear that Apple had purchased so much of the land in the No. Vallco
area and in some of the areas of So. Vallco. The overriding desire is to have it remain tech park
and she commended Apple for bringing back the industrial zoning onto this very important
property. She said she hoped that Apple and HP will remain in Cupertino and there needs to
be space for them to practice what they do, tech/industrial, etc.
. There are other places in the city to put housing; there is no need at t his point to increase the
potential density of housing in No. Vallco; that is a path we went down before, and the general
consensus was no one wants housing in No. Vallco. Apple is a growing company with their
own desires of what to do with the land.
Suzi Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
. Said that the Chamber's Legislative Action Committee has not had a chance to review the
specific item. It is clear that Apple is an important component of the community and their
request is to allow strategic flexibility, not only for the corporation, but also for Cupertino. As
the process moves forward and people understand more of what mayor can be done there, it
provides that flexibility without necessarily committing anybody to any particular course of
action. She said she felt the Chamber would be more than supportive of their current request.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Chair Giefer:
. Said her recollection was that Council acted and approved on it with no housing as part of the
plan, regardless of what the condition was.
Com. Miller:
. Recalled that the meetings were cut short because the Council wanted to end and so the
housing was never vetted properly. However, the consultant's report included it, but it was
never discussed. He said he was not sure if there was an approval or not; they accepted the
report and that was the end of it.
Com. Kaneda:
. It was stated that if you add office space, then ultimately you need to add housing to try to keep
the balance between housing and commercial. He asked staff to explain what the options are
for the Apple campus and HP. If we are talking about adding significantly large amounts of
square footage of office space that we don't have an allocation for now; how do we go about,
in the bigger picture, adding the housing in and how does it get built up.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 28, 2009
. Said he did not understand what the implication is in the housing element side of it if you add
all the space, then you need to add housing somewhere in the city.
Chair Giefer:
. Said the questions were relevant to the next agenda item. She clarified that the item is a zoning
hearing, not the housing element. She suggested the questions be deferred to the specific item.
Com. Kaneda:
. Apple is interested in adding square footage of office space at some point in the future, which
will have an implication on the amount of housing that therefore needs to be zoned if not
developed for the future. I understand it doesn't have to be on this site, but with the request for
change in zoning, what are the implications of that and if we say it could be industrial or
residential, at what point is it then up to Apple to decide if it wants to be residential or not; or
does it eventually come up in front of the city.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. If a development comes forward on the site that has been rezoned, it has flexible zoning,
typically we respond to the development that we get and it is up to the city and Council to
speak to what other things they would like to see. Typically, we do respond to the development
we get and we bring it forward; and if it is consistent with the zoning and General Plan and it
generally addresses all of the issues, we do bring that forward. The larger implication of the
housing element we can talk about during the housing element stage. By changing the zoning,
the applicant can bring forward an entirely industrial project; the city always has a say. We
look to see if it meets the General Plan and zoning requirements.
Com. Miller:
. Said his dilemma was that the two applications are tied together. How I vote on one is a
function of what type of vote we have on the other. It is hard for me to go ahead and vote on
this one after I just felt it was important to tie these two together; if we should decide as a
Commission that we don't want to increase the zoning for other housing in the No. Vallco area,
then I would not vote in favor of this application. On the other hand, if we did decide that,
then I would vote in favor of this application.
Chair Giefer:
. This particular application was noticed as a zoning application; it was not noticed as an ASA or
them asking for square footage or approval for housing vs. industrial; it is a zoning change. If
we took action outside of that scope, wouldn't we need to delay this and rezone it to include
those additional actions, many of which were in Com. Miller's presentation, such as the
General Plan amendment recommendation to increase residential density in the area and a
number of other items on his list.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. There are confines to this particular application; however, I have seen where a Commission
will make a determination on the application in front of them and have some comments just to
forward to the Council in the future about issues. It is not really making an action item to go
out and rezone other sites that are not part of the application, but they may make some
comments. That is one way of addressing it. The other way is some of these questions are
intertwined with the housing element so you could move forward with this item and then
discuss the additional items in the housing element.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
· Clarified that the Chair has stressed that increasing the density is a General Plan amendment,
most of what we are talking about is the General Plan amendment. At the last hearing we
voted on increasing the square footage for office space; and what Apple is asking for is a
General Plan amendment. What Apple is requesting is several items that are going to lead to a
General Plan amendment as is the housing element we are going to discuss in the next
application. There are going to be many General Plan amendments that are going to be
discussed now; it is part of the general process.
Aki Honda Snelling:
· Clarified that Apple is requesting rezoning to add the planned industrial; the current General
Plan designation is industriaVresidential; so it would be consistent. She said that the increase in
office space voted for last time is not consistent with the General Plan at this time.
Chair Giefer:
· Reiterated that this particular zoning application does not trigger a General Plan amendment.
If Apple was coming to us saying we want to remove the housing element to this and have it
only be planned industrial, then certainly I would see a nexus and an impact on the housing
portion which is our next agenda item. I think they are supporting what you are suggesting;
they are not eliminating potential for housing on an unbuilt property, and if for some reason
Apple decides that they will not fully develop the site, then housing is back on the table for this
site. But they are not eliminating that potential; I see this application as supporting what you
are advocating.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue discussion of
Application Z-2009-01 until after discussion ofthe housing element. (Vote: 3-0-1;
Chair Giefer No; Com. Brophy absent)
The agenda was moved to Item 2, Old Business.
2. GPA-2008-01
(EA-2009-05)
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element
Update. Continuedfrom the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting. Tentative City Council Date: May 5, 2009
Vera Gil, Senior Planner, stated that Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics would present the staff
report.
Paul Penninger BAE:
. Explained that it was a follow up to the draft presentation of the housing element at the Apruil
14 Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed that the housing element is one of seven
required parts of the General Plan which part deals with the residential land uses and needs to
be consistent with all of the elements in the General Plan.
· Focus this evening will be mostly on the sites inventory aspect of the housing element, in large
part because you asked us to come back and reevaluate some of the sites presented and to add
some sites. One of the things we were asked to look at was the impact of secondary dwelling
units, aka granny flats or accessory dwelling units. State law and through the Department of
Housing and Community Development and rules they have distributed, allows a certain
percentage of your housing need to be filled by accessory dwelling units. You can consider the
number of units produced in previous planning periods, look at your community need for this
type of housing, the resources and incentives available for developing second units and other
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 28, 2009
relevant factors around this type of housing. In any given year there are about 5 ADUs or
secondary dwelling units that are built or approved in Cupertino. One of the things we would
need to show, if we are going to show that these SDUs in particular are helping to satisfy the
affordable housing need, is that they have appropriate rents or sale prices that would make
them affordable to moderate, low or very low income households. There are a number of other
ways that you can go part of the way to meeting your regional housing needs allocation and a
few of these are listed on this slide. You can promote the substantial rehabilitation of units,
taking existing housing and through funding and other resources, helping to rehabilitate units.
These must be units that are of imminent risk of loss to the housing stock and in order to count
them toward your arena, they need to be made affordable through deed restrictions and/or other
mechanisms for a period of at least 20 years. You can also look at converting currently market
rate units to affordable levels through placing deed restrictions on them. One way this might
happen is if you had a rehabilitation assistance program or you were providing low interest
loans or grants to families or property owners to rehabilitate market rate properties. You might
chose to link those loans or grant funding with the deed restriction you would place on it.
Some cities around the Bay have done that where particularly apartment owners will come in
for a major loan or grant from the city in order to fund a seismic retrofit or other kind of major
rehabilitation and then in turn the city has asked to place a deed restriction and affordability
covenance on the property.
· Finally you can look at preserving existing affordable housing in the community that may be at
risk of ceasing to be affordable because its deed restrictions or affordability covenance are
expiring. We have done an exhaustive analysis of all such units in the city of Cupertino and
we believe that to the extent that it is possible, staff and city have already looked at all of those
opportunities for preserving existing affordable housing.
· Through ABAG and the methodology committee that was convened, including reps from local
governments all over the Bay, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the city of
Cupertino for the current housing element planning period was calculated at 1,170 total new
homes and apartments. There have been 516 new units approved already in the current
planning period through May 2009, which leaves a remaining need of 734 new units. You
need to identify for planning purposes adequate sites to accommodate 734 new housing units.
The majority of these need to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households.
You have already satisfied all and more of your above moderate housing need for the current
period. When we are looking at sites throughout the community, we are looking at sites that
are appropriate for multi family housing developments at a minimum density of 20 dwelling
units to the acre (DUA) which is the standard HCD asks us to use for this type of analysis, and
that could accommodate a variety of different housing types.
· Following last week's discussion, we realized that beyond this requirement showing you had
adequate sites for 734 new units for the remainder of the planning period, there was a lot of
interest from the Planning Commission looking more long term beyond this housing element,
well into the future and thinking about how residential development interacts with/pertains to
and affects commercial development; in essence how to balance jobs and housing needs. What
we did was to eliminate some of the sites you saw in the last draft; add some new sites that had
been suggested to us and rank sites according to whether we though they were thought that
they were really short term development opportunities, Tier 1 sites, or perhaps sites that might
develop as residential uses over some longer term, Tier 2 sites. This was something we did in
conjunction with staff and through the course of a tour of Cupertino. This kind of analysis
where we are looking at Tier 1 sites and Tier 2 sites is not something that HCD requires or
even encourages; what they and the State are interested in and what the law requires is that you
identify adequate sites to meet your regional housing needs application. You can chose to have
us go forward with this kind of framework if you think it is something you are interested in
pursuing, and that would be consistent with your other General Plan goals, but this is not
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April 28, 2009
something that is required as part of the housing element process.
. To summarize, what we found from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites, in terms of sites that we
thought could have short term development potential, in the next five to seven years, we
identified 26 vacant and/or under-utilized sites with the potential to accommodate up to 1400
units. The implementation program you would need to approve, for us to go forward with this
group of sites, is to rezone these Tier 1 sites to allow for residential development at appropriate
densities within two years of adoption of the housing element. In terms of Tier 2 sites, we
identified 35 sites that were under-utilized, some with lower short term development potential
within the planning period, but perhaps given the city's long term goals and needs, showing
some development potential over time. There is no real implementation program associated
with these Tier 2 sites other than to say that the city may consider rezoning some of the sites to
allow for residential development in the future.
. The first area we looked at, in the area that has the most short term development potential is
Heart of the City area. In that district, we identified 14 sites totaling 19 acres that could
accommodate 390 potential units at densities of up to 25 DUA; 13 of the 14 sites are identified
within the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Some of the sites already have the appropriate
zoning in place; all but one or two of the sites have the appropriate General Plan land use
designation and zoning in place to accommodate residential development. Many of the sites
do have existing uses which are commercial or other uses; by showing these sites in the
housing element doesn't magically mean that there is going to be a project sponsor who will
come forward and propose a development on each of the sites or that they will convert in the
planning period. Some of this is subject to market forces and the decisions of landowners and
developers and others. What it does mean is that the option exists by identifying the sites here
and identifying them as housing opportunities sites at the required densities, that there is that
option in play.
. Not-for-profit and churches were identified; there is a site currently in the BQ zone, sites 6 and
7; 10100 No. Stelling Rd., its current General Plan land use designation is quasi-public
institutional with matching zoning. It is a large site with a religious institution on it. There is a
lot of vacant property, a large parking lot. By identifying them, it by no means indicates that it
is going to become housing in the next 5 years; what it does is it provides this congregation
with the option of developing housing if it makes sense for them. There are many churches in
the Bay Area that are interested in building housing particularly for their aging congregants;
senior housing and other types of special needs housing that makes sense and is in keeping
with their mission as a congregation.
. Said he had many questions about that site as well and it is clear when you drive by it and
examine the site, that there is a lot of under-utilized space there and it may be of benefit to the
congregation if they chose to have their own residential. He said he felt HCD would be
agreeable. We have to show that the site is under-utilized and the most conventional way of
doing that is to show an improvement to land value ratio where you look at the value of the
land vs. the value of the built improvements; and where the value of the land is higher than the
value of the built improvements, that is one indication that the site is under-utilized. There are
a variety of other methods you could use looking more carefully at the site, inspecting the site,
touring it, looking at the quality of construction, the age, the vintage of the construction, etc. to
analyze the capacity or potential of the site to develop during the planning period.
Aarti Shrivastava reviewed some sites:
. 19930 Stevens Creek - Staff looked at businesses that seemed to be doing really well and
didn't include those as sites.
. Loree Shopping Center - it has had some changes, but could be included as a potential site,
possibly mixed use. Residents in the area have expressed an interest in keeping services such
as grocery stores there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
April 28, 2009
. 19825 Stevens Creek - on the list.
. Site No.4 - 20940 - it seems to be a business that has been there for a long period; we didn't
pick that as a site for that reason. Sites 5 and 6 - similar reason; long term businesses without
any vacancies or continuous changes, we didn't pick those as sites.
. Staff is primarily looking at identifying any of these as Tier 1 sites because none of these
appear to require rezoning or a General Plan amendment. It is looking at whether any of these
are suitable and meet the Tier 1 criteria that are consultant is talking about.
Paul Penninger:
. Said they looked at the Loree Shopping Center site and it met some of the objective criteria. He
said they heard earlier that the neighborhood was interested in retaining a healthy amount of
retail services and it was the traditional role of the center in providing neighborhood serving
retail to the surrounding community. It is a policy decision for the Planning Commission to
make as to whether or not to include the site. He said it was the most viable site proposed.
. He said that Site 1 did not stand out in looking at the city objectively in seeing where the main
opportunity sites were as a prime residential development site.
. There are three sites on Homestead Road identified as Tier 1 opportunities; 20916 to 20990
Homestead Road, 3 parcels of varying sizes that could accommodate up to 135 potential units.
Com. Miller:
. Identified sites 21030 Homestead Road, vacant lot; one site on Maxine Drive, presently a day
care center or school, very low density; Liquor store at Stevens Creek and Foothill, - family
operated for several decades, has a large vacant parcel as part of it; retail receipts are
decreasing.
Paul Penninger:
. Vall co Park South - 3 sites, relatively large sites with existing uses, lots of surface parking,
rezoning would be needed to make them viable residential development sites in the coming
planning period. They may be 3 of the sites that pertain to the earlier item.
. APN-31620088 is an under-utilized site with potential for accommodating a substantial
amount of residential development in the next planning period.
Vera GiI, Senior Planner:
. Said that APN-31620088 was part of the referendum; it was put back on the inventory because
there was some interest from developers in developing senior housing which would be a
different project than the referendum project, and may even satisfy the public's concerns of
impacts to schools for that site.
Paul Penninger reviewed the Tier 1 sites:
. North South DeAnza Boulevard areas: North DeAnza Boulevard - identified a site 7.98 acres
that would require rezoning, but could accommodate a potential of up to 169 new housing
units.
. South DeAnza - relatively fewer opportunity sites; identified 5 sites that within the current
planning period could potentially accommodate up to 79 dwelling units.
. Staff clarified that the sites on DeAnza Boulevard had a density of 15 DUA and would not
qualify as affordable and low/very low, but would add to the numbers.
. Said they were the sites identified that could, with the right General Plan land use designation
changes or zoning changes, have the appropriate infrastructure and environmental conditions,
and market potential to redevelop or develop as housing in the next five years. There were also
a number of other sites throughout the city, some quite large and almost all having existing
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
April 28, 2009
uses, that they were asked to include as Tier 2 sites for discussion purposes, including along
Bubb Road, in the Heart of the City and the City Center, Vall co Park North, including sites
owned by HP and Apple; North DeAnza Boulevard and South DeAnza Boulevard.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said that most of the DeAnza Boulevard sites are on Bandley Drive that the Planning
Commission asked staff to look at. In looking at those sites, they did not seem to meet the Tier
I criteria, but they could be a future site.
Com. Miller:
. Said his concern with the Bandley sites was that they are presently very usable office space,
and are not very high density sites. They are attractive for potential startups because of low
rents; they look in good shape and are being used today. Should they be rezoned for housing
and taken out of office mix?
Paul Penninger:
. He said consideration should be given to whether or not it is a useful way of categorizing the
sites to be included in the formal housing element. There are so many questions about each of
them today and how they will look 20 years from now. It is somewhat above and beyond the
call of duty in terms of what is required by the State and law.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Responding to a question if they would rezone whatever sites were decided upon, she said that
staff's recommendation would be for the purposes of the housing element, to just stick to the
Tier I sites, because they have to report annually on the housing element and just giving what
it needs will keep the flexibility. The Tier 2 sites could be a very loose policy to look for
future opportunities to balance or achieve other city goals in additional areas; and it can be
listed and can be something the city can take up separately in the future. They don't
recommend listing them in the housing element specifically.
. Said they could not be listed in the housing element, yet still rezoned. The State mandates that
anything on the list created as part of the housing element has to be rezoned within 2 years; the
city can chose to rezone the remainder whenever it wishes, now or later.
. Relative to rezoning the Tier 2 sites at this time, staff doesn't have a specific recommendation;
if it comes up as part of a discussion, and the Planning Commission wants to forward
something if it sees opportunities to achieve city goals, it can forward the information to the
City Council and the Council. Staff recommends continuing the dialog with the owners,
Planning Commission and Council to make sure it is a complete discussion.
Com. Kaneda:
. If a parcel is rezoned to residential and industrial, is that then considered to have satisfied the
housing requirement for this purpose.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The State does not require as part of this planning period anything you choose to do in the
future. The State will provide its numbers to ABAG and ABAG will use a method of
delegating numbers to various cities based on assumptions that it creates.
. We do not know how the additional office is going to play into it; we do know however that
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to locate density near transit is going to be
major. Balancing housing and jobs is always a good goal to have, but it is not mandated by the
State at this point. It can be a city goal that the city chooses to move forward locally and we
don't know how ABAG is going to look at this particular issue of how much office
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
April 28, 2009
development the city has in its next round.
Paul Penninger:
. In terms of how we analyze the capacity of individual sites to accommodate new residential
development in the planning period, we look at land use, zoning, infrastructure and
environmental constraints. The specific way we have to go about this analysis is spelled out by
state law and the Department of Housing and Community Development. More information is
in the housing element and also on the HCD website in their Building Blocks of an Effective
Housing Element. That is what we are doing for the Tier 1 sites, we are looking site by site at
if you have a vacant site, whether or not it has the right land use, zoning infrastructure,
environmental characteristics, and is you have currently occupied sites occupied by some other
use, is it under-utilized and likely to redevelop with residential in the next five to seven years.
That is the sites analysis part of it.
. Going forward into the next planning period after we are done this year updating your current
housing element, I think there are a lot of questions about how local jurisdictions are going to
be asked to update their housing elements. My hope is that it is in a much more collaborative
and cooperative way of cross jurisdictions. We talked a lot in the focus groups was that in
many ways it did not make sense for Cupertino to plan for its housing and jobs needs in
isolation from what is happening in Sunnyvale or San Jose, the broader regions. One of the
hopes that people have is that we will have a more rationale cooperative cross jurisdictional
approach to doing this, and also in a way that respects local communities' needs.
. One of the things that the State law requires is an analysis of jobslhousing balance which is
part of the needs assessment. Also needed is a discussion about the best way to grow in the
future in a way that balances your economic needs, and the needs of your major employers and
your innovative economy with quality of life. Particularly with reference to the Tier 2 sites, I
am not sure you have had a full vetting of all the issues about how to balance jobs, housing,
and quality of life, for us to address specific zoning needs on these sites as part of this housing
element process. That is my observation after many months working here. This is an ongoing
and important discussion; I think the whole question of jobslhousing balance is something that
is critical; I don't think with reference to some ofthe sites you see on this Tier 2 table, that you
are at the level of being able to specifically make General Plan land use and zoning decisions
as part of the housing element update process, this time around. He said that rezoning has to
be done on a site by site basis.
. The task tonight is to approve a list of sites which meets the current regional housing allocation
goals so that you can identify adequate sites to accommodate new residential development for
a full range of economic needs in the next few years.
. Said that Site 20 was a Tier 2 site.
Com. Miller:
. Said that two other sites suggested were the IOOF Hall and the DeOro site. Staff said that the
DeOro site might not be suitable because it has some historical properties to it and would not
likely meet the environmental standards.
. There is also a site on Tier 2 on 18920 Forge Drive behind a new office building being
constructed on the east side of Tantau. The office building site was formerly a superfund site.
Site is listed on Tier 2; if it is clean and safe for housing, it should be Tier 1.
. Another prime site is a strip the HP property that borders on Wolfe Rd; it is under-utilized and
next to shopping. Why would it not be a prime site?
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they were not separate parcels; they have not created parcels out of sites that weren't
separate; have tried to look at parcels that are separate; that is one of the reasons we haven't
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
April 28, 2009
looked at portions of sites.
Paul Penninger:
. Relative to the site, he said that it was part of a corporate campus, an existing viable
commercial office campus that has been well occupied and well utilized. From an analytical
perspective, looking through the lense of this housing element period, he said it could probably
not be considered an under-utilized site that is likely to be developed into residential land in the
next planning period. It could be considered under-utilized from the perspective that the
corridor could potentially provide work force housing for the surrounding employment
clusters.
. The Planning Commission could recommend that a visioning process take place working in
conjunction with the property owners to envision some alternative future, in which case that
might be something that would be a result of what would come out of this; but in terms of
identifying specific parcels, you could include it in your inventory; whether or not it would be
something that the State would think met the test of being an under-utilized site that is likely to
be developed with residential land uses in the current period is doubtful.
Com. Miller:
. Said there were additional sites on the east side of Tantau, one at the northeast comer of
Pruneridge and Tantau, two buildings; one a two story and a one story at the end of its useful
life and vacant. Staff noted the property was in Tier 2; Com. Miller suggested putting it in
Tier 1. He said he has been inside the buildings, one site is half filled; the site next to it is
empty and the owner has the property for sale. He said he felt it was a prime site; one of the
structures is a teardown.
. Also south along the east side of Tantau, there are additional buildings, currently occupied,
single story. The last one is a two story building; they were built decades ago, next to
residential.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said the Planning Commission could make a recommendation on the site on Pruneridge.
Vera GiI:
. Said when they did the tour they felt many of the buildings were occupied on Tantau and
backed up to residential, and they felt it could be a good opportunity for the future. Some of the
buildings on Valley Green Drive which back up to residential, and are currently leased by
Apple, would likely become vacant if they developed their campus. They also have big
parking lots and had better potential for redevelopment. Concern for some of the buildings on
the east side of Tantau was to leave some of them as they could continue to be used for tech
companies. Currently they are occupied.
Paul Penninger:
. Said they were seeking vacant under-utilized land whether it is associated with some structure
or not, preferably on a site that can demonstratively show is under-utilized using objective data
and other criteria. Going site by site is the general approach taken.
Com. Miller:
. Said that the reason for mentioning the area is that the prior application which was continued
precisely for this discussion, is the applicant for that piece of property asking for the right to
consider not building housing, but building office space on that; and my concern is that we are
now going to be putting ourselves in a further box for the next go-around of the housing
element update if we don't rezone some additional sites in that area that offset what this
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
April 28, 2009
applicant might do with that site.
. He suggested, that if they rezone that site to office/residential, that they provide some
additional sites that are rezoned to office/residential; to leave flexibility for the future. Weare
not going to do anything with it now, but we are just trying to be flexible from the city's
standpoint in terms of making sure we have enough areas in North Vallco to accommodate the
additional square footage that these two companies intend to build. Whether we just make a
recommendation for rezoning of that area in general or how we do it, I think it is appropriate
and important at this time since we have a serious corporate resident of this city that wants to
do something there and has indicated; that we also allow ourselves to plan for that event when
it comes, so that we have already thought about it.
. The idea of doing the master plan for North Vallco was to have the city put some thought into
what they would like to see there, so that when an applicant did come in, we had already
thought through this and we didn't have to scurry around at the last minute. This is another step
in that process of making sure that, from the city's standpoint, we are doing appropriate
planning. That is why I would like to see some additional areas of North Vallco zoned not
exclusively for housing because I think we want to leave both the applicant and the city the
flexibility, but to do the dual zoning, so that both the applicant and the city can have the
flexibility to plan appropriately as we move forward.
Com. Kaneda:
. With Tier 1 you have approximately 1400 potential units identified. For the current allocation
requirement we needed 1100 less 500 odd units that have been built or approved; leaving 734,
roughly twice what is needed.
Paul Penninger:
. Taking into account there may be instances where HCD will have comments on the sites we
have included in the inventory and may not believe they are actually appropriate as housing
element sites in this period.
Com. Kaneda:
. Having established that, can you give me a best guess if on the next go-around we have another
half million square feet of office space. How would that affect the requirements in the next go-'
around.
Paul Penninger:
. Said he could not provide a best guess; it is likely that it will mean if you do allow a lot of new
office development to take place and a lot of new jobs are added, you would need to plan for
additional housing.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she felt the exercise tonight was extremely unnerving, and surreal, as the city has been
carved up as a developer's dream. There is more value placed on housing in the city than on
commercial, residential, industry, high tech, HP, Apple, and the other tech partners. She said
she attended all the meetings last year, and is worried that if they start prezoning sections of the
city for housing, people will want to get rid of the retail and grocery stores and high tech
companies and replace them with housing to make the most money for their property. She said
that San Jose and Santa Clara have so many vacant affordable housing and it is destroying their
cities.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
April 28, 2009
Jim Fowler, representing Apple:
. Said they had not planned to speak on the issue tonight because they just learned in the last few
days about the potential residential rezoning of some of their property; and had not learned
until yesterday that 19333 Vallco was potentially Tier 1 zoning. He said they did not have time
to form a public position on that issue, but asked that the data points presented be considered in
determining whether it is appropriate to keep that property on a Tier 1 potential housing list.
. He said they paid tens of millions of dollars to acquire that property just last year for office
space, and are spending tens of millions of dollars to renovate that property for office space.
The property was acquired so that it could serve as swing office space when and if they were
able to develop the main campus over the next 5 to 7 years, possibly beyond that.
. Commented on Com. Miller's point about the properties on Bandley Way; many of those
offices which are 70s and outmoded, are leased by Apple. The intent behind their new campus
development is consolidation of many employees who are now spread out over rental units
throughout the city, into a new campus. It might be wise to consider particular projects that
come before you when those projects are formed and determine what needs those projects
might have in terms of housing and need for city services, rather than make a conceptual
change based on what mayor may not develop in the future.
Bob McKibbbin, Cupertino resident:
. Said he was uncomfortable with the direction of the discussion, and he felt they were
developing a housing protoplan based on pie-in-the-sky office development. Apple would like
to ask the Planning Commission and City Council to approve 3 or 5 million square feet of
office space and they haven't submitted anything to the city as to what their plans are; they
probably have no conceptual plans of what they are going to do with the property, and in two
years from now, depending on the direction of Apple, they could be selling some of the
property off for residential. The same thing with HP; they are going to ask for as much as they
can get regarding development of their properties in the office area.
. He said they were trying to determine how much residential allocation to develop based on the
pie-in-the-sky that they haven't seen any plans from the two companies in regards to the
ABAG numbers. He suggested they step back and decide what is currently before them, what
is realistic, and don't take into consideration what may hypothetically be built in 5 or 10 years
by the two companies or any other companies.
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
. Apple is possibly looking at a development agreement discussion with our community and I
am wondering if maybe they are saving older housing stock around what would be new
campus with the hopes of keeping that while they develop their new campus. There is going to
be a period when the old office spaces are phased out and they are going to move into the new
campus; they may want to keep some of that old office available for subsidiary companies and
such that will support them. But one wonders if housing could be made available then, and as
part of the development agreement that might be discussed, could some of this be brought up
and say over a stretch of period of time here is what is going to happen in the way of
development; we want this office space, we are going to take this old office space and keep it
for a certain period of time and as our new campus comes on, it gets converted to housing.
That way the community has a better idea of what is going to take place.
. Expressed concern that the housing element update didn't give the community a chance to
discuss specific sites, site by site, stating it was like a training process about what the housing
needs were, what ABAG was all about, what the city had to do in the way of generating certain
kinds of housing, and when it came to the city of Cupertino map, where it was going to be. He
said they were not allowed to be part of the process of seeing who was going to get picked and
see what they had to deal with. It is unfortunate that Apple and HP couldn't have been there
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
April 28, 2009
to be part of those discussions and maybe alleviate fear and anxiety in the community.
Tom Buganin, Cupertino resident:
. Discussed some available sites he found on the computer drive-by in Cupertino, looking for
available sites for housing. A large lot on Homestead Road part of a church parcel, quasi-
public, with a lot of gravel on it. The church could put faith-based housing on the lot, it might
be something that would be good for the community; 60 or 70 units which should be Tier 1.
The Morley Bros. Site; 8.5 acres that would net about 170 units at 20 DUA; the numbers are
130, but put Tier 1 as 170; Site on Maxine Drive, empty lot; something could be allocated as
housing there. The priests at St. Joseph's Cupertino have a housing site.
Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident:
. Illustrated some potential parcels; Church properties, No. 6 and 7; property on Stelling
mentioned by Tom Huganin; Church site next to Whole Foods, No.6 and No.7.
. He referred to the Homestead Shopping Center which was highlighted as a housing proposed
development. He said he would favor keeping Homestead retail in that area and developing
that vacant land; maybe the church might decide to develop.
. Once the city rezones these properties, what options do the property owners have; do they have
an options of saying they don't want it rezoned or do they have to accept the rezoning; do they
have to pay an increased assessment based on the residential component. Does Apple have to
pay increased assessment based on the residential component. These questions have to be
answered.
Chair Giefer:
. If the city moves to rezone a parcel, what recourse does the owner have if they chose not to
have the parcel rezoned.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Our idea was to rezone it in such a way to keep flexibility; it wouldn't take away the use that
they have, but would have a mixed use on it. There has been good feedback from property
owners where they have more flexibility to do what they want. It doesn't require them to build
residential, it just allows them to build residential.
. Said they looked at St. Joseph's retired priest housing; it didn't seem to meet the Tier 1; the
unit yield is low; typically try to look for really under-utilized sites, large open spaces.
Vera Gil:
. Said they could reconsider the parcel owned by the church on Stelling. They looked at sites
they thought had the most potential; the church had already sold some land and staff felt they
were not ready to redevelop that in the next 5 years. The property behind Whole Foods
appears to have redevelopment potential in the future.
Review of Dotential Tier 1 sites:
Com. Lee:
. Loree Shopping Center and 19930 Stevens Creek Boulevard
. Stevens Creek and Foothill (Liquor Store)
Com. Kaneda:
. Add church site on Homestead and Stelling, APN 3260722
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Add Morley Bros. site
. Add site at northeast comer of Pruneridge and Tantau
. Add Forge Drive site if safe for housing
. Planning Commission consider making recommendation that a strip of land on the HP property
adjacent to Wolfe Road and touching Homestead be added
Chair Giefer:
. Extend the property on Saich Way; all retail to Stevens Creek comer, excluding preschool
. Remove all Apple property from the list for the 1933 properties on Tier 1; Apple is not in the
business of building homes, neither is HP
. Add Bandley Drive properties to the list
Com. Miller:
. Suggested they only give to HCD what the consultant recommends they give HCD and no
more. All the other properties discussed tonight go on the local list, whether Tier 1 or 2, so
there are two different lists.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked what they wanted to send to City Council; send one list of properties that we agree upon
or do we want to suggest that we try to take action on multiple lists. She said she agreed that
they did not want to provide too much information that may be scrutinized in different ways.
Paul Penninger:
. Clarified that HCD does not enforce development; it makes sure that you have the appropriate
zoning and land use in place; they are not asking you to become a developer.
. Responding to a question if there was a downside to giving HCD a larger list than the city
needs to, he suggested they pick the sites they feel will be the strongest residential
development sites in the next 5 years and not attempt to identify every potential residential site.
They may also want to consider adding a policy or program now around collaborating with
major property owners and employers, to deal with issues such as jobs/housing balance and
work force housing in their long term needs, that could be in the form of a policy or program
rather than in the sites inventory. There is a program in there now, implementation program
No. 15, that is aroundjobs/housing balance. More details could be added to deal with some of
the issues being discussed.
City Attorney:
. Added that there were few constants in the world, one being HCD will be around and will be
asking for another housing element in a few years; and the city will have an opportunity to take
any extra sites and include them in the next round.
Paul Penninger:
. Whatever you say you are going to do, you need to do within the next two years, taking into
account what is possible and what staffing and community is likely to accept. The sites you
identify that you forward to HCD as part of this housing element; that filters through the whole
rest of your General Plan, your land use element, your circulation element; you really have to
do that. You have to change the land use, change the zoning and make it happen within a
certain time. That is what you are on the hook for and the next time you have a housing
element update, HCD will look to see that you have done what you said you were going to do.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
April 28, 2009
. Said the better strategy is to focus on having a smaller list of very high quality sites that have
the characteristics that a developer would look to in the short term to be a viable residential
development, and a willing owner.
. There are other things beyond the sites inventory; jobs/housing balance is important,
sustainable planning is important, you may want to add some other elements into this or
recommend we add some elements into this to forward to the City Council.
Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
Chair Giefer:
. Said they agreed to review the Tier 1 site plus the additions discussed with the goal to get as
close to the 734 number as possible, plus a small margin for discussion with the State.
Saich Wav from existing preschool to Stevens Creek Boulevard
. Com. Miller said it was just brought up this evening and staff has not evaluated it; it can be
included on the list; now we are into the situation where we give staff more than we really
want them to submit and we ask them to hone it down to the submittal number. We can't
make a decision on Saich Way until staff evaluates that site closer. How do we decide how
many units to attribute to the site.
. Chair Giefer said as this moves forward to Council, and as the list is reviewed, there may
be sites that drop off; it would help backfill that. As part of our final resolution, we may
want to direct staff to give Council that same direction we have agreed to, that they whittle
the list down to the 700 number, and they may have varied opinions on this based on
public input. Not opposed to taking some of the existing sites or recommended sites and
expanding it some. Relative to the number of units, we stick with what is here now, but tell
staff to look at it for additional units before Council.
. Aarti Shrivastava said to indicate the sites to be added, deleted; we will make a count and
try to prioritize them and Council can take the Planning Commission recommendation that
they want to send about 734 sites to HCD.
. Coms. Lee, Kaneda, and Miller said they concurred with the site.
. No. 20 (removed)
19333 Vallco Parkway (remove from list) (based on testimony from Apple and community).
. Coms. Kaneda, Lee agreed.
. Com. Miller said he was challenged with that; the Morley Bros. site is not on the list, we
are removing a site and we are back to same problem as before, last week we did a
questionable vote on increasing square footage for Apple and HP and I feel there has to be
some sites on the Apple property that compensate for that. If we could go back and
reconsider that decision, that takes the problem away. At this point, I would like to see
some property either in No. Vallco or So. Vallco that gets zoned to offset the extra square
footage that is going to be developed.
. Chair Giefer said you could also use the argument that it is not Apple and HP who have
depleted the commercial property space. We gave Mainstreet 100,000 sq. ft. I feel what
you are suggesting would be levying a tax on them that may not be their full responsibility.
Asked staff if there was any push back from Council with regards to the vote or the
additional square footage in commercial.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. That item has not gone to the Council yet; we are going to move that along with the housing
element.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Responding to your argument, we did allocate 100,000 sq. ft. of office space to Main Street;
they also gave us 160 housing units to balance it. That makes perfect sense; and I see that
example as following through with the next one with Apple or HP.
Chair Giefer:
. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't think this meets the test that we are trying
to measure the properties by. We have an applicant who is saying they have no plans to
develop it for housing and I am sure they would make it known to Council as well as other
organizations; that is my take on it. If you want to talk about enhancing other portions of the
housing element and encouraging a stronger policy between jobs/housing, I could understand
that, but I am not sure this is where it would make sense.
Com. Miller:
. Said he respectfully disagreed; because what drives development; the only thing that will drive
having additional housing is someone coming in wanting to develop a site and nothing will
happen until that point in time. The only places in town that are actively talked about being
developed now are North Vallco; so if we had any hope of having some balance between
additional commercial space, additional industrial space and housing, it has to be tied to North
Vallco in some way. It may not get developed in North Vallco, there may be some
arrangements that are made where it gets developed elsewhere in town; but unless we tie the
two together I think we are limiting our flexibility as a city going forward when these two
applicants come in with development projects.
Chair Giefer:
. Said his opinion was noted, but the vote was 3 to remove it.
Com.Kaneda:
. With 26 and 27, does this get rezoned to just residential; how does this work.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The idea was to put the flexible MP/ResZoning on it; the concern that Apple had was that
identifying it as a Tier 1 property was of concern to them, not necessarily having the zoning
because they didn't have any intention of developing it for housing within the next 5 years.
. Calculation shows that if we remove 26 and 27 and 20 and leave all the other sites in, that is
about 520 sites on Vallco Park area; removing the ones on DeAnza Boulevard 81 sites, we end
up with 745 which is slightly higher than the 734 we need. I see the Planning Commission is
looking to add some more sites, so we might well make that amount and we will just prioritize
the list and let the Council look at the final. We do have enough if we remove the Vallco
Parkway and leave the others in.
Com. Lee:
. Recommended discussing more about adding sites and not removing sites.
Chair Giefer:
. Said they would go down the list and review the Adds, but she felt if it was not likely to be
redeveloped, it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be on the list, because they are being
asked to review sites for potential redevelopment to move forward on this, during the life of
the housing element. She said they heard from that particular applicant that they would not be
moving forward on that within the timeframe.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
April 28, 2009
Com. Lee:
. Said she was supportive of keeping the minimal number; just add them and then later on staff
will make it so that it is about 730+.
Chair Giefer:
. Said they need to direct staff how to get to that 734; it is not their job just to take 3,085 units
and whittle it down to 734. She asked the consultant to comment.
Paul Penninger:
. Said they were added in at the Commission's direction and working with staff. The
Commission could direct the consultant and staff to go forward to City Council with some
general criteria and observations about the sites inventory, rather than going site by site.
Different communities handle it in different ways; if it is the desire to go site by site and to
analyze each site in consultation with staff and your consultants, that is one way to go. The
sites 26 and 27 were added in at Commission's direction; they weren't sites that automatically
occurred to us as consultants objectively from the outside at fIrst look at the development
opportunities.
. Said the sites were analyzed at the Commission's request, and not necessarily in every case did
we think they were optimal development sites.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The Planning Commission can choose to send only 734 sites worth or they can choose to send
a few more with the general recommendation to Council that the list be whittled down based
on those additions and deletions that they take a look at that list and bring it down to 734. It is
recommended that rather than numbers, prioritize the sites and then get to that 734 number.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said they found some extra potential sites that have higher realistic potential to be developed
than 26 and 27. They will ultimately be whittled to slightly over 734, which the list stands now
is slightly over 734 when you take those sites out. It makes sense that our fInal list is going to
be without those two sites.
. There was a brief discussion about number of lists to forward. Tier I would be forwarded to
HCD and a second list would be sent to Council as a Local Tier I list.
Review of sites continued:
. 26 and 27 are off the list.
. Loree Shopping Center
. I 1930 Stevens Creek (restaurant) Leave on list.
. Chair Giefer said this has always been a restaurant and they have been able to repopulate
that one; not sure it meets the criteria. It doesn't have a monolithic parking lot, so I would
not support that one.
. Com. Lee said that it has a big parking lot in the back and also existing housing next to it.
. Com. Kaneda: Neutral
. Com. Miller: good site, it has never been a successful commercial site in 30 years.
. Parcel 3260722 .. church parcel on Stelling an Homestead;
. Everybody agreed.
. Stevens Creek and Foothill Liquor Store
. Chair Giefer: has always been a liquor store and should continue to be a liquor store
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
April 28, 2009
. 3 agree that is be on the list
Paul Penninger:
. Explained that there may be sites suggested by staff or the Planning Commission or others, that
they would not suggest on their own; but when asked to analyze them, they will see whether it
is in the realm of reason based on planning, infrastructure, zoning and environmental
conditions. They analyze whether or not it is reasonable to include the sites in the inventory;
test them for basic reasonableness and if it is not reasonable that these sites could develop as
residential uses, they will have to recommend their exclusion.
. Morley Bros. parcel - Must be included on a list
. Com. Kaneda agreed
. Com. Lee - it has to be on the list because it was planned for residential before
. Com. Miller - part of the dilemma is that Apple purchased it after it was zoned for housing
as they did some other sites.
. Chair Giefer: I understand that; and I am okay saying we defer it; it is not on the list we
send to HCD but I don't see it as a Tier I list
. Aarti Shrivastava noted it was on the Tier 2 list to be forwarded to Council.
. Pruneridge and Tantaulnortheast comer - did not come up as recommended by staffs or the
consultant.
. Comer of Tantau and Pruneridge
. Com. Miller - prime site ready for redevelopment; is for sale; vacant one story building
. The Forge - we don't know about its toxic assessment
. Chair Giefer: we need to understand more about the toxic levels before we move on that.
. 10700 Tantau, 10670 Tantau
. Com. Lee - both bldgs vacant; should be on Tier 2
. Com. Kaneda - agree
Chair Giefer:
. Asked for comment on Com. Miller's suggestion regarding the HP property adjacent to Wolfe
Road.
Com. Lee:
. Although it doesn't have a designated address, I think we should still look at it.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they did not feel it met Tier 1 at this point; the site is being forwarded to Council for
future consideration for residential.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said conceptually he agreed with Com. Miller that kind of development in that location makes
sense. He questioned if it was realistic just because it is part of a bigger site.
. Recommended Tier 1
Chair Giefer:
. Said she was not comfortable having it on any list because in the past HP and Apple have said
they have no intention of opening up their property for security reasons, subdividing it, or
developing the edge properties. She said she felt it was a waste of time, and don't think it will
happen in the next 5 years or 10 years. Philosophically does it make sense? Yes, but we have a
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
April 28, 2009
property owner who owns the property.
Com. Miller:
. Said he disagreed, and did not feel it was a waste of time; if it is upzoned, zoned at 35 DUA, it
makes it more valuable; the HP property is very under-utilized as it is and that makes perfect
sense to have housing there for a number of reasons. HP is a part of a larger redevelopment of
that property and may very well come in and say this makes perfect sense. To not allow that
flexibility is a missed opportunity.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that Bandley made sense; they will go over the 734 number considerably.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said it made sense especially in view of the fact that if Apple does their campus, most of those
buildings on Bandley are subleases or leases, those would all end up becoming empty after
they used the swing space.
Com. Miller:
. Pointed out in past times other applications have come in to sublease that space in other than
an industrial nature and Apple has argued vehemently not to allow that to happen; to keep that
space as office space and to keep that area of industrial park in tact.
Com. Kaneda:
. The reason for that is because they needed that as office space but if they build a huge campus,
is that still the valuable office space it was to them if they needed it.
Com. Miller:
. It mayor may not be to them, but those buildings are usable space and it is low rent space and
it makes sense to keep it for startups.
Chair Giefer:
. You could use that same argument for everything on Tantau; everything we would like to
provide flexible zoning on, it's the same exact argument; so why not offer it to Bandley as
well.
Com. Miller:
. Said he did not see it as the same argument; there is plenty of housing near Bandley; on Tantau
there is none. We are talking about North Vallco; there is no housing to speak of and we are
talking about putting something like 10,000 jobs in that area. I want to match the housing and
jobs so we can cut down on the auto traffic.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Relative to the Bandley sites, she said that there was flexible zoning; staff's recommendation
was to increase the density in that area to 25 units so they are consistent with the General Plan.
Staff does not feel they are Tier I sites.
Chair Giefer:
. Suggested that when the Tier I list is forwarded to City Council, it be prioritized by staff and
Paul Penninger for the highest probability of redevelopment. If presented in priority order, it
would make it quicker for the Council. Also make Council aware of secondary sites.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Suggested having a secondary list; I think we are having a vote just on the Tier I; then we are
going to talk about the secondary list. We have to come back to the first application and we are
back to the same issues again. Last time there was an approval of increased square footage and
now they are asking to rezone a site that was supposed to be housing and is now probably not
going to be housing. I would like to make a recommendation to Council that addresses those
specific issues. I was hoping the motion would be with respect to the Tier I list and then we
could have more discussion on what we do with the rest of the sites.
Chair Giefer:
. It makes sense for us to dispatch the Tier I list and recommendation for further study and final
approval by Council and direct BEA to move forward on that. I am not sure where you are
going on the other issue; I think the best suggestion I heard was Paul's Penninger's suggestion
to ask Council to have us perhaps further study or come up with a policy that talks about
housing/jobs balance, because that was the only criteria ABAG used before. I understand it
needs to be done, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to do that in the context of the next
item we have where we continued the Apple application. I don't want to tie that into the Apple
application; I think we need to decide what we want to do with that rezoning application,
separate from the housing.
Com. Miller:
. In retrospect last time we had tied together the increase in square footage of office space to this
housing element and it got separated out and voted on. I think that was a mistake; I am trying
to adjust for that because that is the crux of a very key issue here that needs discussion and the
intent of putting them together in the first place was to engender that discussion, and by
separating it out we didn't fully vet it.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked staff for a recommendation on how to address the issue.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Recommended that a motion be made on the Tier I sites and the recommendation to Council
about staff prioritizing, that will help staff in completing the housing element. The
Commission can discuss the Tier 2 sites which are items for local consideration, put forward
goals that could go into the housing element generically and then separately locally review
sites or something else in the future; or discuss putting them in locally now and take votes or
otherwise. It seems that is more of a local thing and not entirely related to the housing
element, making that motion for the housing element and taking out the future generic policy
to look at achieving city goals whether that be balancing housing or greenhouse gas emissions.
Chair Giefer:
. Clarified that they did not have a goal as a city to balance jobs and housing; the only impetus
to do so previously was ABAG.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they had a General Plan goal that generically addresses it, but there are no numbers
attached to it and it is generally looking at balancing housing and other land uses; a balance of
land uses which could mean a variety of things. For the purposes of the housing element, it
would help staff to move the discussion along for Tier I and then the Commission can talk
about the second part of it and what recommendation they would like to forward to the Council
as far as the Tier 2 list.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
April 28, 2009
Paul Penninger:
. There is a very clear goal in the General Plan about jobs/housing balance in the draft housing
element, Pages 98 and 99, there are two policies you may want to refer to; one is Program 9
which is the Jobs/Housing balance program which says that it will require major new office
and industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part of
the development review process on a project by project basis, the city will evaluate the impact
of any application that will produce additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the
evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs in the city's housing stock especially in
relation to the jobs/housing ratio." We could make that even more specific by proposing a
particular methodology for calculating the number of new homes that would be required as part
of each new commercial development or we could leave it at this level.
. The other policy or program to consider is on Page 99 about residential and mixed use
opportunities near employment centers. This program says that the city will encourage mixed
use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers.
. The two programs are fairly strong, but could be more specific. They provide clear guidance
that on a case-by-case basis you are supposed to evaluate particular applications in terms of
their impact on jobs/housing balance. That is a separate question from what sites you point out
for review by HCD as part of this housing element process.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the modified Tier 1
list as a recommendation to City Council.
Friendly Amendment by Com. Kaneda: Also make a recommendation that the final Tier 1
list is slightly over 734 or a target number. Com. Miller accepted the amendment.
Paul Penninger suggested they recommend specifically that the Council forward to HCn
adequate sites to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation for the current planning
period of 1,140. Accepted by Com. Miller and Com. Kaneda. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Brophy
absent)
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Clarified that the sites were supposed to be sites that did not necessarily have residential
zoning on it or needed to be considered for higher density, and it appears that site No. 20
already has the zoning on it. Staffwill review those with the zoning and confirm 15,3,4 and 5
had the land use but not the zoning so those need to stay.
. Said that some of the sites approved as Tier 1 need to be rezoned; the information contained in
the Tier 1 sites did have consideration for rezoning, therefore the motion should cover it.
Chair Giefer:
. Are there any sites we want to add or remove from this list that will be compiled and
forwarded to Council as a way to potentially meet those policies that we reviewed earlier.
Com. Lee:
. All of the sites we mentioned to add will be reviewed by staff; will staff put those in Tier 2
automatically.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Staff will ascertain if they meet Tier 1; those that don't meet Tier 1 will be looked at to see if
they need rezoning. If they don't need rezoning, then they don't have to be on any list. The
Tier 2 sites were only the ones that needed some action. The Planning Commission can move
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
April 28, 2009
the ones that need action to Tier 2.
Vera GiI:
· There was a strip of land that Com. Lee had recommended for Tier 2 which was HP strip along
Wolfe near Homestead, that I noted was discussed for Tier 2.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· My notes say review for Tier 1 and if they don't look to staff and the consultant that they meet
Tier 1, they would move to Tier 2.
Com. Miller:
· That was the same situation for the potential superfund site as well.
Chair Giefer:
· We have a list of properties that we feel mayor may not make the criteria for the fIrst list;
some of them may be bumped down to the second list; are we comfortable in saying we accept
this list and any that don't meet the followup of the Tier 1 criteria, add those to Tier 2. There
was some discussion about the Apple lands, I don't feel they belong on the list.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The last time around, the Planning Commission as a whole had asked us to look at certain sites.
We moved the ones on Bandley to Tier 2 because we didn't believe they met Tier 1 and they
said to look at sites not owned by Apple and HP, so we have separated those sites on Val1co
Park North that were not owned by Apple or HP. We have in the last section sites owned by
Apple and HP, which will help with your decision making.
· Said the recommendation was to remove 19333 Val1co Parkway in Val1co Park South. Those
properties were originally on the Tier 1 list.
· Noted that all the sites owned by Apple and HP are on Tier 2 and if the idea is to remove
certain sites or just include a portion, they can discuss it. She said that the HP property was
currently on the list.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked for input on the list of properties on the Tier 2 site inventory.
Com. Miller:
· Keep the two in South Val1co, 19333 and the Morley Bros. site is already on the list. Add the
site on the HP property on Wolfe side of the street.
· Said he saw no reason not to put 19333 on the list; it is not forcing Apple to do anything; if that
site should in Apple's view and the city's view, make sense ultimately for a housing site, it just
means that we don't have to do a General Plan amendment in order to make it happen. It
doesn't preclude anything; it doesn't limit anything; it expands.
Chair Giefer:
. Said the objective is to rezone the Tier 1 properties; they would not actively pursue rezoning
Tier 2 properties, regardless of who the owner is.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· As part of the housing element, they would not be on the site and it is up to the Commission to
recommend to the Council how they want to review Tier 2.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
April 28, 2009
Chair Giefer:
. Relative to the Tier 2 list, she said she did not want to see the Apple or HP sites listed. She
said she agreed with the policy and felt they should be more flexible with the surrounding
properties. If they were not going to build the site and wanted to abandon some property or
sell it to a developer, she would not object; requiring them to build housing as part of their
campuses doesn't make sense.
. The next part of our discussion is once we have come to agreement on this list, what do we
want to do with it. Do we want to tell Council that we should move forward on rezoning these
properties; or send it to Council and say here are some other properties we have identified, that
you may also want to look at. Those are two very different actions.
Com. Miller:
. He said he hoped the Commission would make a decision on the increase in number of square
feet that Apple and HP can build on the No. Vallco site by 487,000 sq. ft. He said he was
hoping for a statement that there needs to be some kind of balance achieved in the No. Vallco
area between the extra office space that is going to be built up and the housing that has to
offset that office space, as a responsible community that is trying to achieve some kind of
balance and minimize greenhouse gas effects and meet the next go-around of the housing
element update.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that there didn't appear to be a lot of disagreement in terms of potential properties on this
list; the next decision is what their recommendation will be. Do we want to recommend to
Council that they actively move forward on rezoning this list; what is our objective. Are we
trying to send direction to Council that they should take the Tier 2 list and move forward for
rezoning that for future land use consideration, or should we just make them aware that there
are other properties that might meet a criteria at a future time. Which way do we want to go.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Staff's recommendation is that if the Planning Commission wants to forward a list for future
consideration, staff would recommend that this be the beginning of a dialog with staff, property
owners, the public and Council; and be a complete discussion so that you have all the
information you need and you can say to achieve goals, not necessarily to zone all those
properties to have all residential, but to have a balance of uses. You can forward a generic
recommendation and say, these are the sites we are thinking of, that could have future
potential; we can begin that dialog. Or you could say rezone them.
Paul Penninger:
. Said he did not feel they were ready to rezone all the Tier 2 sites as they have not gone through
some of the leg work that needs to be done to make that feasible, at least in the short term. The
Tier 2 category is their way of thinking as a community over the longer term, but having a
creative dialogue about how to meet their long term jobs and housing needs. That is the
purpose of the list. If they say they are going to rezone them, they have to do it as HCD will
hold them to it. He said his recommendation is not to use the Tier 2 list for that purpose.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The intention was not to include the Tier 2 list on the housing element and that is why
forwarding a generic policy about looking at some of these sites in the future for the Council to
consider and the Council can decide how they want to move forward on those sites, but making
it clear that they weren't going to be part ofthe housing element should suffice. If they are not
part of the list of sites that you were going to rezone, then HCD hold us responsible to rezone. .
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
April 28, 2009
Chair Giefer:
· It sounds like we should not even actively recommend to Council that they consider rezoning
of this list at this time. We have heard from the consultant that we don't have enough
information, haven't done enough outreach, haven't got enough information from the public or
other stakeholders, and that we may jeopardize our future use of this property information by
trying to move forward and rezone or make a rezoning recommendation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· That was basically if you were to include them in the housing element, and I don't think you
are; if you do want to look at it at some point in the future or start a dialog, that is something
you could forward to the Council, outside of the housing element.
Com. Kaneda:
· Suggested that it be separate from the housing element; it would be worthwhile to start a dialog
to see where it goes.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jim Fowler, representing Apple:
· Said that at some point they will have to have a discussion about housing/jobs balance but it is
an appropriate discussion to be had when they have a project to present. All Apple is asking
for now is a rezoning; they support the increase in office allocation but none of that has been
allocated to Apple and none of it has been allocated to HP. He said it will be appropriate to
have the discussion about the terms and conditions on which that allocation will be made when
they make that request and when they have a project.
· Said it differed from Main Street Cupertino where there was a specific project you were asked
to approve; and the applicant wanted to take 100,000 square feet of office that had been
allocated to North Vallco and move it to South Vallco where there had been no office
allocation in order to achieve approval ofthe multi-use project it was forwarding. In Apple's
case they have about one million square feet of office allocation with the existing buildings
there; there is still about 366,000 of office allocation in the current General Plan; 150,000 of
which is set aside for corporate campus. They do not know, since they don't have a plan and
have not developed the campus, whether that will be enough or not. They may well be able to
live within that envelope, but may need more. It would be good for Apple and for Cupertino if
they were given the e flexibility of additional office allocation beyond that 366,000.
· Putting conditions on the rezoning makes some assumptions about what they will request from
that additional office allocation if it ever becomes available, and is inappropriate in connection
with their asking for a simple rezoning of their project. He understood that the Morley Bros.
site, was zoned for residential because the then owners said there was no possibility that they
would be able to use that property for office space. It was zoned residential at their request.
. Said he understood that because there was such behemoth protest against that housing project it
was abandoned and eventually Apple purchased that site to integrate into its campus. In order
to make that integration possible, it has to be rezoned as industrial. Apple is not asking for the
residential to be removed, but needs it rezoned for industrial in order to be able to plan their
campus and to have the campus go forward, and if that is not possible, they will have to
reconsider.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she was not interested in having a dialog as it is just reopening everything that happened
on the Toll Brothers project. There is potential for massive problems for the neighborhoods,
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
April 28, 2009
property owners, and schools. Tonight they are looking at putting housing in North Vall co on
Tantau where they fought the battle four years ago; the city spent thousands of dollars to come
to the conclusion that no one wanted housing in North Vallco; but yet again we have housing
popping upon Tantau right next to Santa Clara. Let the Santa Clara residents come in and say
why they don't want multi-story housing next to them.
· She said that the eastern end of town cannot handle any more traffic; schools are overloaded.
· The governing bodies in this city can do anything they want to; they can propose housing on
every square meter, they can put it in DeAnza, they can put it in Rancho San Antonio Park or
at Blackberry Farm; they can even put it in the new bridge over 280, but you are still going to
have the same problems. If you are going to have this dialog, please make sure that you alert
the public; I would think that if we are going to be rezoning property we need to make sure that
the public knows about it because we don't do these things behind closed doors. I am worried
about it. We already have a lot of problems going on in this city; we spent many hours trying
to come up with the Sandhill project Main Street; I think everyone is very proud of the result; I
hope that it gets built; I understand it has slowed down. For the last ten years that is all it is
composed of, is trying to stick housing in every square inch of the city.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Chair Giefer:
. Said the other alternative was to forward it with a minute order to council. The city attorney
did not have a specific recommendation. Summarized that they don't have enough information
from the public or stakeholders with regard to what to do with zoning of the properties on the
Tier 2 sites; it could cause some problems with the HCD if it were part of the housing element,
so we have agreed that we will not include it as part of the housing element; and if we are
going to make a recommendation, it is how we proceed with the dialog for the list of
properties, plus the ones that don't make the Tier 1 cut list.
Com. Lee:
· Said she has been on the Housing Commission for 2 years and they always have the affordable
housing fund in place. Paul Penninger said that if the city wanted to make the ratio jobs to
housing, the Commission should look up program 9 and program 13. Even though we don't
make a recommendation to City Council to rezone everything on Tier 2 to housing, can we
implement Program 9 or do we move forward.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· That can be implemented as projects come forward; you can review the impact and look at it
on a case-by-case basis; that is what Program 9 was supposed to be. Program 15 we do have
large areas of the city that do have mixed use and that is the intent of the Tier 1 as well. I think
we have the ability to do both.
Com. Lee:
. What you are saying is whenever projects come in then we just say that the Commission needs
to recommend to implement Program 9 at that time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they can choose to implement it in various ways.
Com. Miller:
. Said Com. Lee brought up a good point; read Program 9 .. .Apple is here to tell us that they are
going to go ahead with an office project and they have asked for additional square feet in order
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
April 28, 2009
to do that and have asked to rezone some lands currently zoned for housing to industrial to add
to their industrial base, and they are saying all they want is some flexibility to design their
project. He said he supported giving them the flexibility, but stated that the city needs to have
the same flexibility to implement program 9. It is not limiting Apple in any way by doing this;
but just allowing the city to have established the ability to implement this program moving
forward.
Chair Giefer:
. Pointed out that Apple is not asking for a single square foot tonight; they are not here with a
new project.
. They have a million square feet in North Vallco currently that they can use; and I don't see a
project before us to have that dialog. When there is a project before us and they are starting to
use or request additional square footage from whatever pool is available, then at that time it is
appropriate for us to have that dialog. It is in our housing element; we have approved this and
forwarded it to City Council.
Com. Miller:
. Then it wasn't appropriate to add extra square feet into our pool because we had no projects to
which to allocate it. Why not wait until the project comes forward and see if it makes sense to
do this additional square feet at this time.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she was not disagreeing. She stated that the business before the Commission was the
housing element, which has already been voted on and agreed on what to forward to City
Council. There is an unfinished application tonight that you keep bringing back to the housing
element and yes, it is completely appropriate when Apple brings a project before us for us to
evaluate it based upon this criteria; that is not what they are here for tonight. In the interest in
moving forward we need to decide are we going to do anything to dispatch the additional list to
Council, are we going to make a motion on it, send a minute order, or let it die and move
forward and finish the agenda.
Com. Miller:
. Asked the city attorney for clarification on the last time they voted for reconsideration of an
item and it was not approved; can they vote again on reconsideration of that item.
City Attorney:
. Clarified that the motion to reconsider may only be made within a limited time of the action on
the original motion, usually at the same meeting; and in the case of a multi day session or
convention, in the next day within the session or convention which the business is conducted,
. .. ... .. She summarized that what happens is the motion for reconsideration may only be made
by a member who voted on the prevailing side on the original vote; it has to be at the same
meeting. (Response is No in both instances)
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to make a recommendation to
City Council that they rezone sufficient sites in the North Vallco area to be
rezoned as both industrial and residential so that it could go either way, to
compensate for the potential additional square footage that was voted on in the
April 14th public hearing; in terms of the number of housing units that will be
required as a result of that additional square footage being built. If that
additional square footage is never built, this will never be implemented, but if
built, then as part of Program 9, they will have a responsibility to as it says
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
April 28, 2009
provide housing as part of their development project to meet the housing needs
that they have created.
Com. Kaneda:
. What you are saying is that the rezoning would entail keeping the original zoning, but also
having the ability to either develop as per original zoning or residential.
Com. Miller:
. Said that he was not changing what they can do; just adding flexibility, so that at some point in
time should it be needed, we can implement Program 9.
Chair Giefer:
. Reminded the Planning Commission that if the motion passes, it may impact their long term
viability for future housing plans and HCD if they do rezone and allow people to built
commercial, the intent will not be to follow through with Program 9. Program 9 already exists;
when a project comes to us, we have that ability to evaluate every project based on Program 9
already without this motion. It is redundant it also strikes me because it is only for the North
Vall co area that we are adding additional restrictions and potentially spot zoning the area. She
said she had several concerns about that.
Com. Kaneda:
. Asked staff if that was correct.
Paul Penninger:
. Related to the HCD, if it is not on the list of sites, probably not. If you include these sites in
the list of sites that you are forwarding to HCD that we have analyzed and recommended a
certain set of actions on, then they are going to evaluate your next housing element to make
sure you did what you said you were going to do.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said the intent of the motion is not to do that.
Com. Miller:
. Said he thought it was agreed that only the Tier 1 list was going on to HCD. The Morley
Bros. site is not included in the HCD list and that particular site mayor may not be rezoned.
Paul Penninger:
. Clarified that in terms of the site inventory submitted to HCD, if you say in your housing
element that you are going to take a particular action such as rezoning a site that is only
rezoned for commercial or industrial or office uses now, and allowing residential development
on that site; if you don't actually take the action to change the zoning within a two year period,
there could be consequences.
. My recommendation in considering the Tier 2 sites is that over the long term this might be a
set of sites in areas of the city particularly North Val1co that require more engaged planning
and discussion, rather than thinking about rezoning each particular parcel. Obviously there is
some interest on the Commission in doing that.
Com. Miller:
. Expressed concern that they were being asked to do some very specific actions now and
suggestion that they will be doing something at some vague time in the future. He said he felt it
was appropriate to take specific actions now in terms of increasing office space and rezoning
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
April 28, 2009
property that is residential to probably go to more office space, and that it is appropriate to
have an offset there as a policy to show they are doing their best to implement the program.
Otherwise it is an exercise in futility, because if it is not done now, it won't be remembered
and won't happen. In three to five years other people sitting on the Commission and City
Council will not remember it. If it is voted on and put in writing, they can move forward. It
doesn't force Apple to do anything different at this point.
Chair Giefer:
· Recalled that the city spent $100,000 on the North Vallco Master Plan; the Council and
community expressed their opinion that they did not want housing in that area at the time. No
housing was approved as part of the Master Plan. She said if they wanted it there, it would
have been the time to act upon it, but the community at large did not want it.
Com. Miller:
· Said that Chair Giefer's statements were not correct; he was intimately involved with all those
hearings and meetings; no approval was given, the Council only accepted the report, but did
not vote on it. At the community hearings, there were people 'asking for more housing in North
Vallco and there were others such as Jennifer Griffm who said no, they did not want more
housing. He said he could produce a list of the people who said they thought that more
housing in North Vallco was appropriate.
Com. Lee:
. Said she would like the Tier 2 sites to be as long as possible, whatever Tier 1 sites aren't
approved in the 700+ that don't go to HCD, go to Tier 2.
. Whenever sites are redeveloped, even if they have a lesser tendency or chance, they should be
flagged so that when the sites come up for redevelopment, Programs 9, 13 and 15 are
referenced and it is evaluated whether or not it is appropriate to implement those programs.
· Com. Miller said to make it just for North Valko, but we don't want to spot zone; it is
important on all those sites, that is why they are on Tier 2. She suggested keeping it even
broader, and asked staff if it can be done.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said the Commission can forward whatever recommendation they want to Council on that
issue.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said that Com. Miller expressed concern that when it comes time to do something to develop
these properties, this discussion and that program may be forgotten. His suggested solution is
to rezone a group of properties in a way that you could put residential in but you could also say
that nothing will change. The issue is are we going to forget in the future when it comes time
to develop these properties. Is there some other options, such as specifically note Program 9 or
whatever program it is and handle it that way so it is in the record. What are our options that
will remind us that we are supposed to be balancing housing and business.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they could either forward the Tier 2 sites with the intent that this be looked at in the light
of program 9, 13 and 15 as future applications came forward, or designate areas such as North
DeAnza Boulevard or North Valko or other areas where this be looked at. A list of sites could
be sent up stating that they want to look at them as they develop. There are various ways; the
city attorney didn't think there was a benefit to a minute order vs. a motion.
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
April 28, 2009
City Attorney:
· Said it was the same legal significance, if you wanted to flag the items as you said, you could
send the recommendation up that these particular matters, these Tier 2 sites be placed on a list
and they be cross-checked every time an application comes in for development and there be a
sentence placed in the staff report to identify this as a Tier 2 list. You could send it up with a
particular recommendation on areas vs. properties; if you want those particular sites identified.
Since this is not part of any formal State process and not going to HCn, it is a local
jurisdictional issue, so you can decided how to deal with this particular list in what fashion and
direct staff accordingly. At this point what you are talking about is a position and a
recommendation to go to City Council as opposed to a final action.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· The overall intent of the Commissioners was to look at overall areas, and not necessarily tiny
slivers of sites; therefore if a tiny sliver of a site came in for an office development, it was to
look at large areas and to plan more realistically rather than just flagging individual sites. You
could look at areas and say these are areas we want to look at or you could flag individual sites.
(Vote: Motion failed 2/2)
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Lee, to forward on Tier 2 sites
inventory to City Council with the recommendation that they keep this as a list
that they can refer to as projects come up and they are trying to implement or
evaluate against Program 9, 13 and 15.
Friendly Amendment by Com. Lee:
Whatever discussed on Tier 1 that is not used for the 734 units, all those sites will be put on
Tier 2 and everything we approved, everything on Tier 2 and everything that is not used on
Tier 1 will be on a long list called Tier 2, and then all of these sites on Tier 2 whenever they
are up for redevelopment, whenever an application is brought forward to Commission or
Council, then the Programs 9, 13, and 15 should be looked at carefully and reviewed to see
that development so that we can apply 9, 13, and 15 to that development.
Chair Giefer:
. Point of clarification, the first part of the motion was part of what we passed and direction we
gave staff already.
Aarti Shrivastava:
· Yes, all the staff clarified that Tier 2 list only included those that needed some action in the
form of rezoning or a General Plan. Those that don't need action and already have the zoning
would not be on Tier 2.
Com. Kaneda accepted the amendment. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Brophy absent)
The agenda was returned to Item 1.
Application No. Z-2009-01 (EA-2009-01)
Com. Miller:
· Stated his opinion, that they should treat the rezoning identical to the Tier 2 one, that is when
an application comes forward that involves this particular parcel, they consider it in light of
Program 9. There is no need to rezone it at this point.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
April 28, 2009
· Said he was recommending denial of the application for the same reasons they chose not to
rezone other areas to compensate for this.
Jim Fowler, representing Apple:
. Reiterated that they did not have a project before the Commission; when they do bring the
project before the Commission they expect that there would be ample opportunity to discuss
jobs/housing balance, Program 9 and any other terms or conditions in connection with that
project. Their desire is to rezone a portion of what they hope will be their new campus so they
can proceed with planning that campus. If they are informed tonight that the Commission
doesn't want to rezone it, but keep it residential, so they cannot use it as part of their campus,
they would have to reconsider whether it is an appropriate site for their campus and whether or
not they can proceed with their campus.
Com. Miller:
. Said Apple proposed doing a second campus here and made the original purchase.
Jim Fowler:
. We never proposed any campus; we never said anything about a campus proposal; we do not
have a development in front of us.
Com. Miller:
. Steve Jobs came here and did do that.
Jim Fowler:
. He said we would like to develop a campus on this property. We do not have a development
proposal; we do not a plan; we don't know how big that campus might be; we don't know what
amenities or uses it will have; we have no idea and we are not asking you to approve any
concept or any plan.
Com. Miller:
. Weare not denying that you can build or not build an office in that particular area either; what
we are saying is bring us your plan and show us what you are trying to do and then you will get
approval at that time if it makes perfect sense. It is no different that what you are asking; even
if we rezone it, it is still zoned residentiaVindustrial. It is a fine distinction.
Jim Fowler:
. It is not a fine distinction to us; we could not use this site as a campus as it is presently zoned;
we are asking for the flexibility to be able to integrate this parcel with the rest of our property
that is already zoned for a potential campus use. If you deny that, what I would understand
you are saying to us is you don't want us to develop this as a campus.
Com. Miller:
. He said they were not saying to Apple that they did not want them to develop the property as a
campus
Jim Fowler:
. That is what I understand you saying; you don't want us to take a planning process that is
necessary in order to develop a campus on this. site.
Com. Miller:
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
April 28, 2009
. What we are asking you to do is come in and share your plans with us and work with us in a
mutually win/win solution.
Jim Fowler:
. That is not what I understand you saying; what I understand you are saying is you do not want
us to engage in this planning process because you are not willing to give us the basic zoning
we need in order to engage in that process.
Com. Miller:
. Said they disagreed on that.
Vera Gil:
. Said that one of the reasons Apple is requesting the rezoning is because they are currently
using part of the building. It was incorrectly stated in the staff report that the two office
buildings were vacant. Adding the PMP back would make them a conforming use again.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she attended many meetings when the land was occupied by Tandem, and eventually HP.
Someone came in and wanted to rezone it for housing which created an uproar that went on for
months. There were many different plans before Apple acquired it. Apple did not buy all the
parcels at once, and it went on and on; they basically purchased in an approved housing
complex to the wonderment of the neighborhoods.
. She said she was not opposed to Apple wanting to rezone a previously high tech commercial
property back to high tech commercial property. There is residential there, but hope is that
down the road, Apple is not in the housing business, and hopefully they will stay there for
Cupertino's sake and do hardware, not housing. She said she felt it was appropriate to let them
have this piece of property particularly if they have their high tech workers in two existing
commercial buildings already. We need to make sure that goes back and has the commercial
property designation. It is not unusual for high tech companies to have vast land holdings and
it is not unusual for Apple to sit on their property. It needs to be rezoned appropriately.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Lee:
. Said she supported giving flexibility but they have not seen anything yet; at that time it can be
rezoned.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said he supported housing/office balance, but will come down on the other side of the fence.
From a designer's point of view, I would have thought the way a developer or owner would
want to proceed is fIrst you do the rezone, then you put the money down and start paying the
designers to come up with something because the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of
money coming up with a concept and then bringing it in. In my mind there is a procedure that
needs to happen and that is a proper procedure. Having said that, when you do come in, I think
we do need to have the discussion about office balance, but I don't want to hold this rezoning
as a hostage to that discussion. It seems to me that now is not the appropriate time to do it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
34
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Said that the statement that Apple is not in the housing business is true; nor is Sandhill, but
they included housing as part of their project, and they are looking for someone to build it.
The parcel in question is not in the middle of Apple's property; it is on the edge adjacent to the
Hamptons housing project. There are other properties that Apple purchased in that area that
are both on the east side and on the west side of Tantau; there are at least two buildings on each
side, maybe more that Apple owns that could easily be housing and would substitute for this
particular parcel if this was where they needed to have the main focus of their campus. There
are other parcels in there.
. Said he was looking at it from the city's point of view in terms of what the city needs when
Apple comes in; we want them to do it and we want them to be successful but we also need to
address the additional burden of what the project is going to do to the additional demands on
the city. We could go back and reconsider the last motion, and maybe say rezone a couple of
the properties on the east side of Tantau as an offset to this, and I have no objection to going
ahead with this. Apple wants the flexibility on their side; the city needs to have the same
flexibility on its side, to make sure that its additional demands as a result of Apple's
development can be met.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Regarding the future use of this site, it could be done now or later, but they are currently using
this site and that complicates things somewhat because now it would be a non-conforming use
because the site is not zoned.
Com. Kaneda:
. He said he was inclined to wait until they come forward with a plan and then to inform them
that they will have to fulfill requirements related to housing.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said it can be done, but the fact is that they are currently using it as an industrial site and it
doesn't have the appropriate zoning. The Commission can make whatever recommendation
they want.
Chair Giefer:
. This is not the first time someone has come to the Planning Commission and said they have
purchased a parcel of land and need to change the zoning on it. They are not asking us to
remove housing from the zoning; they are asking us to make it conforming with housing and
industrial, that is very consistent with everything we have been talking about tonight. As a
developer, Com. Miller would not go out and buy a piece of property not knowing what he
would be able to build on it; and we are essentially asking Apple to go away and spend
millions of dollars in developing a site plan and figuring out what they want and they don't
know if they are developing for 57 acres or developing for 50 acres. We are asking them to
make a major investment without knowing what the resulting outcome is. We have referred
the housing element to Council that clearly states a policy that indicates that we have the
ability and we are required to review the jobs/housing balance when a project comes before us.
We do not have a project before us tonight, we have a request for rezoning, so that they can
move ahead with their planning process; and figuring out what their assessment and needs
analysis is. This is standard operating procedures; this is not the first time anyone has come to
us and asked for a zoning change in advance of the plans. I see it as consistent with all of the
dialog and discussion we have had tonight. She stated disbelief that they were continuing to
vacillate about the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
35
April 28, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Apple did go ahead and purchase the property when it was zoned for residential and had an
approval for an approved housing project on it without knowing whether the Council would
reverse that and allow them to go back to office space or not, so they already took that gamble
and purchased the property. Again, I am just looking at it from the city's point of view; we are
going to have to deal with the fact that they are going to build extra square footage and the next
housing element update we are going to have to deal with the fallout of that and it is
appropriate that we at this point in time take the additional flexibility step of allowing
ourselves some more flexibility in that area.
. They made it perfectly clear tonight that Apple intends to build industrial on this site and not
housing despite the fact that it has an industrial/residential zoning on it. Apple intends to
convert it; there is no doubt about that from Mr. Fowler's comments. We still have to address
the housing issue. There were other properties in that area that Apple purchased when they
were about to go into housing and it is creating an additional problem for us. Whether it is
housing in North Vallco or some parcels in South Vallco they purchased that were considered
for housing, some place on the map where they have been intimately involved we need to have
a meeting of the minds of how we are going to address the issues that are being created by their
development. I am just forcing the issue tonight.
Chair Giefer:
. Said it has been debated and discussed over a lengthy period of time; the application before us
tonight is to add, not take away the potential for housing zoning on the application; that is what
we are being asked to vote on. Weare not being asked to consider rezoning other Apple
parcels to help alleviate a jobs/housing balance.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Chair Giefer, to approve Application
Z-2009-01. (Vote: Motion failed 2/2) (Com. Brophy absent)
City Attorney:
. Explained that the rezoning application is a recommendation of the Planning Commission to
the City Council; the item will be passed to the City Council with a notation of 2/2 vote, with
minutes attached; and City Council will make the final determination.
New Business: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reported they approved the application
regarding rezoning for Apple lands.
Housin!! Commission: No report given.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners: Reported at previous Commission meeting.
Economic Develooment Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
. Aarti Shrivastava reported that the carwash item that the Planning Commission made a
decision on has been appealed to the City Council by the neighboring property, scheduled for
the first Council meeting in June.