Loading...
PC 04-28-09CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED r/IlNUTES 6:45 P.M. Apri128, 2009 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMN[UNITY HALL 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 present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Marty Miller Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: Paul Brophy Staff present: Community Development Du~ector: Aarti Shrivastava Senior Plarmer: Aki Honda Snelling Senior Plarmer: Vera Gil City Attorney: Carole Karode APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Apri114, 2009 Planning Communion meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by C'om. Lee, to approve the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Brophy absent) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Z-2009-O1 Rezoning of approximatel:~ 7.78 acres from a Planned Development James Fowler Residential - P(Residential), to Planned Development Industrial and (Apple, INC) Residential - P(Mp, Residential). Pruneridge Ave. Tentative City Council date: May 19, 2009 @ Ridgeview Ct. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 Apri128, 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 declazation. • On April 14`~ 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 azea. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated negative declazation 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 aze 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 becon-es a highly desirable place for people to work in Cupertino at this particulaz 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 i:n order to achieve what they are trying to do. • The next important item is called unifying a vital Inter 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 woulci be defined by the mazketplace. • 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; brrt in the consultant's mind, the best site was one that was located between the two campuses azid reasonably close to the residential units in the Hamptons. • In terms of worker needs, a convenient acces;~ 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 hazd to get people to work here because of the high cost of housing, it is appropriate to have housing close to the w~~rk center. • Reviewed the consultant's conceptualization of some block diagrams of where some of these things might go. The ones aze 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 Apri128, 2009 was an azea where there could be additional pedestrian amenities. • State mandated requirements - if additional oi'fice 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 v~~ork 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 staff's 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 thiis 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 Vallco Fashion Park. It makes sense that if there was a site in this area thz~t 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 cazeful in terms of the density there, because they abut the residential azeas 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 aze going to do with the site; there aze no plans, no development pending. They have come to the Planning Commission with a straight fonvazd request to prepaze for planning this site by changing the residential zoning to allow planned industrial, to accommodate their campus. • He said although he understood Com. Mille;r's issues regarding the need for housing and recreation in the area, the concern with gree-nhouse 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 1:o balance off those additional office squaze feet with housing somewhere in the city and rezoning part of the Apple site; a lazger part than what you aze asking for can accomplish what we aze: trying to do. It doesn't commit you to building anything there at this time; just like you aze not committed to doing anything with the rezoning you aze asking for. Jim Fowler: • Responded that they deliberately decided not to request removal of the housing rezoning Cupertino Planning Commission ~l Apri128, 2009 because they recognized a need for flexibility. They wanted to add planned industrial to the zoning, that would enable the campus to go forwazd; 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 pazk/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 u~~heaval 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 ~~urchased so much of the land in the No. Vallco azea and in some of the azeas of So. Vallco. Tlie 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 forwazd and people understand more of what may or 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 acid 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 hive 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 Apri128, 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 a€;enda 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 lousing that therefore needs to be zoned if not developed for the future. I understand it does~i't have to be on this site, but with the request for change in zoning, what aze 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 ~~ee. Typically, we do respond to the development we get and we bring it forwazd; and if it is consistent with the zoning and General Plan and it generally addresses all of the issues, we do bring that forwazd. The larger implication of the housing element we can talk about during the housing element stage. By changing the zoning, the applicant can bring forwazd an entirely industrial project; the city always has a say. We look to see if it meets the General Plan and zo~iing requirements. Com. Miller: Said his dilemma was that the two applications aze 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 azea, then I would not vote in favor of this applic~~tion. 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 four 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 we-re 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 aze confines to this particular application; however, I have seen where a Commission will make a determination on the application i:n front of them and have some comments just to forwazd to the Council in the future about issues. It is not really making an action item to go out and rezone other sites that aze 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 aze intertwined with the housing element so you could move forwazd with this item and then discuss the additional items in the housing element. Cupertino Planning Commission fi Apri128, 2009 Com. Miller: • Clarified that the Chair has stressed that increasing the density is a General Plan amendment, most of what we aze talking about is the General Plan amendment. At the last heazing we voted on increasing the squaze footage for ~~ffice 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 aze 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 industrial/residential; 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 particulaz 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 v~~ould see a nexus and an impact on the housing portion which is our next agenda item. I thvnk they aze 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 aze not eliminating that potentiial; I see this application as supporting what you are advocating. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second ley Com. Kaneda, to continue discussion of Application X2009-O1 until after discussion of the housing element. (Vote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer No; Com. Brophy absE~nt) The agenda was moved to Item 2, Old Business. 2. GPA-2008-O1 General Plan Amc;ndment for 2007-2014 Housing Element (EA-2009-OS) Update. ContinuE~d from the Apri114, 2009 Planning Commission City of Cupertino meeting. Tentative City Council Date: May S, 2009 Citywide Location 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 lazge 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 t:o 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 bar 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 Apri128, 2009 relevant factors azound 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 aze 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 aze listed on this slide. You caJi promote the substantial rehabilitation of units, taking existing housing and through funding ,and other resources, helping to rehabilitate units. These must be units that aze of imminent risk of loss to the housing stock and in order to count them toward your azena, 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 mazket rate properties. You might chose to link those loans or grant funding with the deed restriction you would place on it. Some cities azound the Bay have done that where particulazly 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 aze 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 pl~irming 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 aze looking at sites throughout the community, we are looking at sites that aze appropriate for multi family housing developments at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units to the acre (DUA) which is the standazd 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 ;yaw in the last draft; add some new sites that had been suggested to us and rank sites accordin;; 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 aze looking at Tier 1 sites and Tier 2 sites is not something that HCD requires or even encourages; what they and the State azevrterested 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 aze interested in pursuing, and that would be consistent with your other General Plan goals, but this is not Cupertino Planning Commission 8 Apri128, 2009 something that is required as part of the housir.~g 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 th~~ 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 a~ 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 ow~i 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; a~~d 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 Apri128, 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 aze 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 eazlier 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, vacaJnt 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 lazge vacant parcel as part of it; retail receipts aze decreasing. Paul Penninger: • Vallco Pazk South - 3 sites, relatively large sites with existing uses, lots of surface pazking, 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 anunder-utilized site with potential for accommodating a substantial amount of residential development in the next planning period. Vera Gil, 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 Boulevazd - 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 opportunit3~ 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, Nome quite large and almost all having existing Cupertino Planning Commission 1 f~ Apri128, 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, Vallco Pazk North, including sites owned by HP and Apple; North DeAnza Boulevazd and South DeAnza Boulevazd. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that most of the DeAnza Boulevazd ;sites aze 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 chat they aze 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 Wised 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 yeazs fi-om 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 staffls recommendation would be for the purposes of the housing element, to just stick to the Tier 1 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 sepazately 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 yeazs; 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, ands the Planning Commission wants to forwazd something if it sees opportunities to achieve city goals, it can forwazd 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 pazcel 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 neaz 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 tt~e city chooses to move forwazd locally and we don't know how ABAG is going to look at this particulaz issue of how much office Cupertino Planning Commission 1 L Apri128, 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 eve 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 aze 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 forwazd into the next planning period sifter we aze 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. N[y hope is that it is in a much more collaborative and cooperative way of cross jurisdictions. `]Ve 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 ;i 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 jobs/housing 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. Particulazly 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 jobs/housing balance is something that is critical; I don't think with reference to some of the 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 azound. 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 t~~ 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 his some historical properties to it and would not likely meet the environmental standazds. • 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 pazcels; they have not created pazcels out of sites that weren't sepazate; have tried to look at pazcels that aze sepazate; that is one of the reasons we haven't Cupertino Planning Commission 1~! Apri128, 2009 looked at portions of sites. Paul Penninger: • Relative to the site, he said that it was pert, 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 Tense of this Housing element period, he said it could probably not be considered anunder-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 ofbeing anunder-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 corner 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 salc;. He said he felt it was a prime site; one of the structures is a teazdown. • Also south along the east side of Tantau, the-re aze 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 Gil: 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 lie 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 pazking lots and had better potential for redevc;lopment. 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 aze 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 gen~:ral 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 furtl~~er box for the next go-azound of the housing element update if we don't rezone some additional sites in that area that offset what this Cupertino Planning Commission 13 Apri128, 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 aze rezoned to office/residential; to leave flexibility for the future. We are not going to do anything with it now, but vve aze just trying to be flexible from the city's standpoint in terms of making sure we have enough azeas in North Vallco to accommodate the additional square footage that these two com~~anies intend to build. Whether we just make a recommendation for rezoning of that azea in ;;eneral 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 vrhen an applicant did come in, we had already thought through this and we didn't have to scurry azound at the last minute. This is another step in that process of making sure that, from the city's standpoint, we aze 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 v~rant to leave both the applicant and the city the flexibility, but to do the dual zoning, so thz~t both the applicant and the city can have the flexibility to plan appropriately as we move forwazd. 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 vrhere HCD will have comments on the sites we have included in the inventory and may not believe they aze 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-azound we have another half million square feet of office space. How would that affect the requirements in the next go- azound. 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 aze 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 extremE;ly 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, Fes, Apple, and the other tech partners. She said she attended all the meetings last yeaz, and is v~~orried 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 Claza have so many vacant affordable housing and it is destroying their cities. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 Apri128, 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 askc;d 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 dollazs to acquire that property just last year for office space, and aze 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, aze leased by Apple. The intent behind their new campus development is consolidation of many employees who aze now spread out over rental units throughout the city, into a new campus. It might be wise to consider particulaz projects that come before you when those projects are foamed and determine what needs those projects might have in terms of housing and need far city services, rather than make a conceptual change based on what may or 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 squaze feet of office space and they haven't submitted anyt}iing to the city as to what their plans are; they probably have no conceptual plans of what thc;y aze going to do with the property, and in two yeazs 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 aze going to ask forasmuch as they can get regazding 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 regazds 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 a;~eement 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 aze pha:;ed out and they aze 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 aze 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 ~ipdate didn't give the community a chance to discuss specific sites, site by site, stating it wa;s 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 ~~f 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 unfortun,3te that Apple and HP couldn't have been there Cupertino Planning Commission 1.i Apri128, 2009 to be part of those discussions and maybe alle~~iate fear and anxiety in the community. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Discussed some available sites he found on the computer drive-by in Cupertino, looking for available sites for housing. A lazge lot on I~omestead 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 conununity; 60 or 70 units which should be Tier 1. The Morley Bros. Site; 8.5 acres that would Diet about 170 units at 20 DUA; the numbers aze 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 ~~roperties, 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 keepuig Homestead retail in that area and developing that vacant land; maybe the church might decide to develop. • Once the city rezones these properties, what o~~tions 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 pazcel, what recourse does the owner have if they chose not to have the pazcel rezoned. Aarti 5hrivastava: 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 I; the unit yield is low; typically try to look for reap}- under-utilized sites, large open spaces. Vera Gil: • Said they could reconsider the pazcel owned lby 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 appeazs to have redevelopment potential in the future. Review of potential Tier 1 sites: Com. Lee: • Loree Shopping Center and 19930 Stevens Creek Boulevazd • Stevens Creek and Foothill (Liquor Store) Com. Kaneda: • Add church site on Homestead and Stelling, Al?N 3260722 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 Apri128, 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 Homeste;ad be added Chair Giefer: • Extend the property on Saich Way; all retail to Stevens Creek corner, excluding preschool • Remove all Apple property from the list for tlhe 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 Coun~~il; 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 asknng 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 devil with issues such as jobs/housing balance and work force housing in their long term needs, ghat 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 around jobs/housing balance. 1\~ore 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 staffmg 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 elemc;nt, 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 1'1 Apri128, 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 tenor to be a viable residential development, and a willing owner. • There aze 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 declazed 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 mazgin for discussion with the State. Saich Way from existing_preschool to Stevens Creek Boulevazd • Com. Miller said it was just brought up thiis 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 t~ Council, and as the list is reviewed, there may be sites that drop off; it would help backiill 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. Coors. Lee, Kaneda, and Miller said they concurred with the site. No. 20 (removed) 19333 Vallco Pazkwa~(remove from list) (based on testimony from Apple and community). • Coors. Kaneda, Lee agreed. • Com. Miller said he was challenged with that; the Morley Bros. site is not on the list, we aze removing a site and we aze 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 squaze footage that is going to be developed. • Chair Giefer said you could also use the ~irgument 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 regazds to the vote or the additional square footage in commercial. Aarti 5hrivastava: • That item has not gone to the Council yet; wee aze going to move that along with the housing element. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 Apri128, 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 aze 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 w~int to talk about enhancing other portions of the housing element and encouraging a stronger ~~olicy 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 aze actively talked about being developed now aze North Vallco; so if we lead any hope of having some balance between additional commercial space, additional indusitrial 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 aze limiting our flexibility as a city going forwazd 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 rc;sidential; 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 :!7 and 20 and leave all the other sites in, that is about 520 sites on Vallco Pazk azea; removing the ones on DeAnza Boulevazd 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 Pazkway 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 aze being asked to review sites for potential redevelopment to move forwazd on this, during the life of the housing element. She said they heazd from that particulaz applicant that they would not be moving forward on that within the timeframe. Cupertino Planning Commission 1!~ Apri128, 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 ~~vays; if it is the desire to go site by site and to analyze each site in consultation with staff acid 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 fmal list is going to be without those two sites. • There was a brief discussion about number of lists to forwazd. Tier 1 would be forwarded to HCD and a second list would be sent to Council as a Local Tier 1 list. Review of sites continued: • 26 and 27 are off the list. • Loree Shopping Center • 11930 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 yeazs. • Pazce13260722 .. church pazcel 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 Apri128, 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 li;rt • 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 1 list • Aarti Shrivastava noted it was on the Tier :? list to be forwazded to Council. • Pruneridge and Tantau/northeast corner -did not come up as recommended by staffs or the consultant. • Corner of Tantau and Pruneridge • Com. Miller -prime site ready for redevel~~pment; 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 regazding 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 forwazded 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 p~^operty 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 I-Il' 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 fiict that if Apple does their campus, most of those buildings on Bandley aze subleases or lease~~, 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 veriemently not to allow that to happen; to keep that space as office space and to keep that area of industrial pazk 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 may or may not be to them, but those buildings aze usable space and it is low rent space and it makes sense to keep it for startups. Chair Giefer: • You could use that same azgument for everything on Tantau; everything we would like to provide flexible zoning on, it's the same ex~ict azgument; 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 neaz Bandley; on Tantau there is none. We aze 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 azea to 25 units so they aze consistent with the General Plan. Staff does not feel they aze Tier 1 sites. Chair Giefer: • Suggested that when the Tier 1 list is forwazd.ed 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 awaze of secondary sites. Cupertino Planning Commission 2:? Apri128, 2009 Com. Miller: Suggested having a secondary list; I think we are having a vote just on the Tier 1; then we aze 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 squaze footage and now they aze 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 1 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 1 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 heazd 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, sepazate from the housing. Com. Miller: • In retrospect last time we had tied together the increase in squaze footage of office space to this housing element and it got sepazated out and voted on. I think that was a mistake; I am trying to adjust for that because that is the crux of a eery key issue here that needs discussion and the intent of putting them together in the first ~~lace was to engender that discussion, and by sepazating 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 1 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 forwazd 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 aze no numbers attached to it and it is generally looking at bal<cing housing and other land uses; a balance of land uses which could mean a variety of thinks. For the purposes of the housing element, it would help staff to move the discussion along; for Tier 1 and then the Commission can talk about the second part of it and what recommendation they would like to forwazd to the Council as faz as the Tier 21ist. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 Apri128, 2009 Paul Penninger: • There is a very cleaz goal in the General Plait about jobs/housing balance in the draft housing element, Pages 98 and 99, there aze 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 particulaz 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 i:; on Page 99 about residential and mixed use opportunities neaz employment centers. This program says that the city will encourage mixed use development and the use of shazed pazkin~; facilities in or neaz employment centers. • The two programs aze fairly strong, but could be more specific. They provide clear guidance that on a case-by-case basis you aze suppose-d 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. Cam. Miller accepted the amendment. Paul Penninger suggested they recommend s~~ecifically that the Council forward to HCD 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. Staff will 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 eazlier. 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 2~l Apri128, 2009 the ones that need action to Tier 2. Vera Gil: • There was a strip of land that Com. Lee had re-commended for Tier 2 which was HP strip along Wolfe neaz Homestead, that I noted was discu;~sed for Tier 2. Aarti Shrivastava: • My notes say review for Tier 1 and if they do~i'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 mazy or 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 Vallco Pazk North that were not owned by Apple or EIP. We have in the last section sites owned by Apple and HP, which will help with your deci:;ion making. Said the recommendation was to remove 19333 Vallco Pazkway in Vallco Park South. Those properties were originally on the Tier 1 list. Noted that all the sites owned by Apple and HP aze 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 Vallco, 19333 and the Morley Bros. site is already on the list. Add the site on the HP property on Wolfe side of the sU•eet. 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 proF~erties; 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 2:5 Apri128, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Relative to the Tier 2 list, she said she did n~~t 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 tine 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 forwazd on rezoning these properties; or send it to Council and say here ~u-e 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 squaze 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 :;ome kind of balance achieved in the No. Vallco azea 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-azound 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 forwazd for rezoning that for future land use consideratio~i, or should we just make them aware that there are other properties that might meet a criteria apt a future time. Which way do we want to go. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staffs recommendation is that if the Planning; Commission wants to forwazd a list for future consideration, staff would recommend that thi:~ 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 a~~hieve 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 aze the sites we are thinking of, that could have future potential; we can begin that dialog. Or you coixld 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 i~~ 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 forwazding 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 ~~vant to move forwazd on those sites, but making it clear that they weren't going to be part of the; 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 2E. Apri128, 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 heazd 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 jeopazdis;e 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 tl~ a 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 the}~ 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 squaze feet of office that had been allocated to North Vallco and move it to '.>outh Vallco where there had been no office allocation in order to achieve approval of the multi-use project it was forwazding. In Apple's case they have about one million squaze 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. The}~ 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 a 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 beconnes 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 the~1 owners said there was no possibility that they would be able to use that property for office spice. 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 2"! April 28, 2009 property owners, and schools. Tonight they are looking at putting housing in North Vallco on Tantau where they fought the battle four yeass, ago; the city spent thousands of dollazs 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 Claz:i. 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 h~mdle any more traffic; schools aze 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 DeAnzz~, they can put it in Rancho San Antonio Pazk 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 aze going to have this dialog, please make sure that you alert the public; I would think that if we are going t~~ 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 StrE;et; I think everyone is very proud of the result; I hope that it gets built; I understand it has slo~~ved down. For the last ten years that is all it is composed of, is trying to stick housing in every squaze inch of the city. Chair Giefer closed the public heazing. Chair Giefer: • Said the other alternative was to forwazd it with a minute order to council. The city attorney did not have a specific recommendation. Surrvnarized 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 aze going to make a recommendation, it is ho~~v 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 forwazd. Aarti Shrivastava: • That can be implemented as projects come forwazd; 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 azeas 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 aze 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 variou;~ ways. Com. Miller: • Said Com. Lee brought up a good point; read Program 9 ...Apple is here to tell us that they aze going to go ahead with an office project and they have asked for additional squaze feet in order Cupertino Planning Commission 2f. 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 gall 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..[t 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 forwazd. 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 aze 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 th~it the business before the Commission was the housing element, which has already been voted on and agreed on what to forwazd to City Council. There is an unfmished 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 aze 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 fmish 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 ag~iin 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 I~om. 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 re:~idential so that it could go either way, to compensate for the potential additional square footage that was voted on in the April 14~ public hearing; in terms of the number of housing units that will be required as a result of that additional square footage being built. ][f that additional square footage is never lbuilt, 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 Apri128, 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 orig-final zoning or residential. Com. Miller: • Said that he was not changing what they can d.o; 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 HCI;~ 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 Vallco 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 forwazding to HCD that we have analyzed and recommended a certain set of actions on, then they aze going to evaluate your next housing element to make sure you did what you said you were going to Rio. Com. Kaneda: • Said the intent of the motion is not to do that. Com. Miller: • Said he thought it was agreed that only the 7:'ier 1 list was going on to HCD. The Morley Bros. site is not included in the HCD list and that particular site may or 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 aze going to take a particl~laz 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 yeaz period, there could be consequences. • My recommendation in considering the Tier ~: sites is that over the long term this might be a set of sites in azeas of the city particulazly N~~rth Vallco that require more engaged planning and discussion, rather than thinking about rez~~ning each particulaz pazcel. 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 a~t 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 31) Apri128, 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 forwazd. It doesn't force Apple to do anything different at this point. Chair Giefer: • Recalled that the city spent $100,000 on tlce North Vallco Master Plan; the Council and community expressed their opinion that they did not want housing in that azea 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 lazge 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 Jennifc;r Griffm who said no, they did not want more housing. He said he could produce a list ~~f 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 a~~ 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 aze 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 Vallco, 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 aze 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 aze supposed to be balvicing housing and business. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could either forwazd 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 forwazd, or designate areas such as North DeAnza Boulevard or North Vallco or other azeas 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 aze various ways; the city attorney didn't think there was a benefit to a minute order vs. a motion. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 l Apri128, 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 partic~ulaz 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 particulaz recommendation on azeas vs. properties; if you want those particular sites identified. Since this is not part of any formal State process and not going to HCD, it is a local jurisdictional issue, so you can decided how to deal with this particulaz list in what fashion and direct staff accordingly. At this point what you aze 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 lazge azeas and to plan more realistically rather than just flagging individual sites. You could look at areas and say these aze 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, everythin€; 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; Chair Giefer No; Com. Brophy absent) The agenda was returned to Item 1. Application No. Z-2009-O1 (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 pazcel, they consider it in light of Program 9. There is no need to rezone it at this point. Cupertino Planning Commission 3~: Apri128, 2009 • Said he was recommending denial of the apI-lication 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 tl-at there would be ample opportunity to discuss jobs/housing balance, Program 9 and any oilier 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: • We are not denying that you can build or not t-uild 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 residentiaUindu:;trial. It is a fine distinction. Jim Fowler: • It is not a fine distinction to us; we could not rise 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 i-se. If you deny that, what I would understand you are saying to us is you don't want us to de~relop 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 d~~n'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 3.3 Apri128, 2009 • What we are asking you to do is come in anti 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; whit 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 incorrecl:ly 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 bei:ore 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 prop~:rty. 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 3~G Apri128, 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 properly; it is on the edge adjacent to the Hamptons housing project. There are other properties that Apple purchased in that area that aze both on the east side and on the west side c-f 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 particulaz pazcel if this was where they needed to have the main focus of their campus. There are other pazcels 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 w~~ 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 ari 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 tie done now or later, but they aze currently using this site and that complicates things somewhat because now it would be anon-conforming use because the site is not zoned. Com. Kaneda: • He said he was inclined to wait until they corne forwazd 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 1:o the Planning Commission and said they have purchased a parcel of land and need to change the zoning on it. They aze not asking us to remove housing from the zoning; they are asl~;ing 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 anti buy a piece of property not knowing what he would be able to build on it; and we are e;~sentially asking Apple to go away and spend millions of dollazs in developing a site plan and figuring out what they want and they don't know if they aze 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 cleazly states a policy that indicates that we have the ability and we are required to review the jobs/liousing balance when a project comes before us. We do not have a project before us tonight, rve have a request for rezoning, so that they can move ahead with their planning process; anti 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 3.5 Apri128, 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 ApF~le intends to build industrial on this site and not housing despite the fact that it has an indu:ctriaUresidential zoning on it. Apple intends to convert it; there is no doubt about that from 11~Ir. 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. We are not being asked to consider rezoning other Apple parcels to help alleviate ajobs/housing balance. Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Chair Giefer, to approve Application Z-2009-O1. (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 fmal determination. New Business: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO:~i Environmental Review Committee: Chair Giefer reported they approved the application regarding rezoning for Apple lands. Housing Commission: No report given. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Reported at previous Commission meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meetin;;. REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMUPIITY 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.