Loading...
PC 04-11-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. APRIL 11,2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The continued meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on April 11, 2006 at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: . Vice Chair Giefer: Page 8, first bullet: "green building" should read" North Vallco" Page 10, "starter guns" should read "starting gun" Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve the March 28, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of North Vallco Master Plan. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: . Said the purpose of the meeting was to review the process and schedule. . She referred to the power point presentation and reviewed the North Valko area as defined in the General Plan. . She reviewed the objectives of the study, i.e., to anticipate requests for conversion of industrial Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 11, 2006 office uses to residential or to provide development standards and guidelines for any new development, whether it is the conversion or a new office, and to look at things such as connectivity and externalizing land uses. . She said that looking at the area included in the master plan, there is a possibility of looking only at part of the area that is subject to conversion. Staff is recommending that the entire area be subject to a study. · Cupertino has its own master plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan. The elements of a Specific Plan are dictated by state law, so it is more rigid and has to be more inclusive of certain elements than just a master plan or what Mountain View calls its Precise Plan. . Another example in Cupertino is the North DeAnza conceptual zoning plan; it is decades old, but is included as an example because it is still used and is an example of a parkway plan. . Another discussion element relates to the community involvement aspect of the plan; the concept being that the city would want to have the community buy into the process and the eventual resulting product. . She said that ways to accomplish that are through a citywide mailing, community meetings, a charette has been mentioned with actual real time design exercises with architects or other professionals. An interest has been expressed about hearing from other cities, and how they have been able to carry out a successful public planning process. . Other stakeholders involved would be property owners, other businesses and Chambers in Cupertino as well as agencies, and a specific effort would be made to contact the neighborhoods surrounding this area, even if they aren't Cupertino, and other cities surrounding this area. . Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on the scope of the plan. Looking ahead to the next steps, suggestions include creating a video for the city channel, begin the community outreach, and hire a consultant in July once the budget has been adopted. The consultant will draft the plan by September, and the public hearings will begin in September. Chair Miller: . Summarized that it was an attempt to master plan an area in town, that is likely to come up for redevelopment in the near future. It is not a discussion of conversion of industrial property to residential, and just strictly that. . Said it was an effort to look at a specific area before the developer comes and proposes how the city would like to have it developed, and then invite developers in to build to the city's plan. In the first case, the developers might be driving this process, but if successful, the city will be driving the process. A number of cities in the Bay Area have been successful, including Mountain View, Petaluma, Walnut Creek and Hercules. Hopefully Cupertino can learn from them and apply the principles they used or the processes they used in achieving a result that works for Cupertino. . Staff can assist with setting a timeline for completion of the Plan. City Council has requested a report back in July. . If the community wants more industry, there has to be a clear understanding of the city's role to make it happen. There are many older buildings in Cupertino that were designed for a business environment and business client, and it is not clear if those buildings are still workable in the current business environment. It requires data on the market and knowledge of what the neighboring cities are doing because Cupertino is competing with them for the same jobs they hope to bring into Cupertino. . He summarized that it was not a meeting to discuss conversion of industrial to residential, but a meeting to discuss how they want to see the area of town develop over the future. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 April 11, 2006 Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said what they were considering was the potential loss of the entire tech industrial park to housing in the future. . The buildings along Tantau Avenue have been previously occupied by other companies prior to the beginning of the 80s; through the 80s and 90s those buildings have been continually remodeled. She said that saying the buildings are functionally obsolete is not accurate, they have been converted repeatedly. . Said the buildings on the north east corner of Tantau and Stevens Creek directly south of 280 are prime candidates for conversion; and if converted, she would request a park in the area. She said the buildings were built in 1990 and she did not agree that they were functionally obsolete. . She urged the Commission to ensure that the area is protected. When converting the land to housing, it presents many problems for the neighborhood; the city cannot talk about the schools, but the neighbors will have to be going to the school districts to inquire about redistricting and building other schools. . She said there were superfund 2000 toxic cleanup sites, three of them on the east side of Tantau and Homestead. She said the Commission may want to address the fact that people cannot live there. . In response to Vice Chair Giefer's questions, she said she felt citywide mailings, newspaper articles, website information, and public hearings were the most effective way to solicit public feedback. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: . Clarified that there was nothing presently in the General Plan that would call for the changeout of all the tech parks; thousands more units would have to be infused into the General Plan and there is no proposal for that. . He emphasized the importance of using the correct terms and staying focused on the real issues. He said the only threat to tech parks would be a market threat; and it was discussed earlier what was needed to attract into the area. Mark McKenna, President, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: . Said there have recently been misunderstandings on what the Chamber's view is on conversion; which is similar to the City's - bring in a project for review and they will decide whether it is good or bad. . He said it was a hard sell to convert industrial/commercial into straight residential. He said they would like to see businesses retained in Cupertino, and not have Cupertino become a bedroom community with housing only. Kevin Wu, Pacific Resources: . Noted and discussed what he felt were possible errors on the map. . Said that the commercial property owners are sensitive to what is presently happening in the market; some companies are beginning to hire more employees now in the Fremont to Palo Alto area. Mr. Piasecki: . Thanked Mr. Wu for his input; and reiterated that it was not the purpose of tonight's meeting to discuss the substance of the plan for the area. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 11, 2006 Mr. McKenna: . Said he understood that the Planning Commission was going to look at areas where conversion should take place vs. where it isn't. Chair Miller: . Said it was his understanding that the Commission's task was t master plan the North Valko area, which is broader than just conversion. Mr. McKenna: . Said the Chamber was concerned where the pool will be built. . Said as the complexes are converted from business to residential, apparently it will go into a pool where it can be built somewhere else, and space is finite in Cupertino with building restrictions on heights. He said they wanted to ensure there will be continued space to do business in Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki: . Based on the comments made earlier and those heard from the public, he said it appears they are going to need some market experts to provide advice to them and the community about where the market is going, and perhaps input could be solicited from the residents, the Chamber of Commerce and property owners. . Said there were already some guidelines about prioritizing it going to the largest corporate headquarters sites of Hewlett Packard and Apple, and enticing any other corporate headquarters to bring their sales tax offices to Cupertino, such as Symantec. He said he would like to hear their input as they go through the process again. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: . Reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the master planning of the North Valko area. The said the focus is broader than just conversion, it is what makes sense for the North Valko area and how can it best be achieved. . He said they may want to keep it all industrial; if so, he said he felt they should be deciding what the need to do in the way of incentives or in the way of densities to make it happen rather than have buildings sit there for the next 30 or 40 years and not achieve anything. . He said it was broader than the discussion so far and he recommended making it broader at this point. Com. Saadati: . Said they needed to ensure the economic vitality of the city in the near future, including community meetings, involving the property owners, which would hopefully encourage more people to bring in their opinions. . Expert evaluation is needed on how the area can be identified for the future, perhaps conversion to big box; whatever helps the economy of the city. . Said it should be noted how many properties are vacant and what the future plans of the property owners are. . Said future traffic impacts and noise issues should also be considered, particularly with the close proximity to 1-280. . He said that in the future if some of the owners of industrial or offices chose to demolish their buildings to replace with another office, there is a potential for residents objecting to it. . How to make some portion of it more efficient and maybe allow for some residential for those Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 11, 2006 people who work in that area. . Must evaluate all the aspects because there are streets that separate to some extent residential from the core portion; that needs to be looked at. . Address the height of the buildings, the number of stories, are they efficient buildings, if not, what would work best; perhaps offices with underground parking. . The entire process needs to be addressed; to reduce traffic and address walkability to the fullest extent possible. Mr. Piasecki: . Summarized from the comments heard that the scope should include market experts, reliable data and vacancy rates, property owner surveys, and input. Chair Miller: . Asked for input on the best way to get input from the residents and other stakeholders. Com. Saadati: . Suggested doing the neighborhood noticing as done in the past, involving the Chambers and Rotary Club announcements and other community organizations to try to encourage people to get involved. . Said he felt more people adjacent to the area would get involved. . Suggested mailing postcards, use of the internet for outreach, e-mails and newspapers. Com. Chien: . When the Planning Commission decided to look at how to master plan the area, the City Council requested that they roll the study into part of their industrial conversion study. . Asked staff for the status of the study with respect to how it is going on the Council. Mr. Piasecki: . Said the Council held two discussions about the question of maintaining cohesive office parks and may hold a third one after they have an understanding of where the Planning Commission is going with the analysis of North Valko. They also may table their discussion and may decide to proceed on a parallel track. . Said he would report to the Council on the Commission's discussion of the scope and timeline. Com. Chien: . Said they needed to be cautious that they did not interfere with the ability of businesses to bring their headquarters into the city or expand their businesses already there; as it would do a disservice to the economic liability of the city and their ability to provide services for its residents. . Said it was their task to look at a particular area and advise the Council on what would best fit in, and what would not. . He said that the area they are studying is predominantly industrial now, and the message for people is that anything goes; they may consider keeping what is presently there, or think what other things might go in, which not only includes residential but also opportunities for parks. . He said it was important for the Cupertino residents to participate in the process, and he fully supported any efforts to get the message out. The web site is an excellent way to get the message out to the public. . To involve the public in the process, the facts need to be known; what are the General Plan designations for these areas; is it strictly industrial, or is it open to other uses as well. . Recommended including examples of what to put in the area, such as parks, quasi-public Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 11, 2006 buildings. . Relative to outreach, he said they need to follow past practices with mailers, newspaper ads, the use of the web site with a specific section developed much like the planning activity subsection about the process. Com. Wong: · Emphasized that they were discussing the master plan for the North Valko area, not conversion or losing the industrial space. . Said he agreed that quasi-public use may be appropriate as the city grows and there is more housing built in Cupertino. The churches and after school program have difficulty finding space in Cupertino, and it would be beneficial if there were areas that could be zoned for those uses. . Asked staff to provide information on the school boundaries in the North Valko area. . Questioned what Hewlett Packard and Apple's plans were for their campuses. Mr. Piasecki: . Clarified that the new General Plan does not currently have the residential option on the Hewlett Packard or Apple properties. He said if there was any threat of conversion, it is not happening on those two major corporate campuses. . Relative to Com. Wong's comment that Apple is already far outside of their corporate campus; he said they have about 900,000 square feet of corporate campus and occupy about 2 million square feet in the city. He said they may like the opportunity to have some additional Class A space on their campus where they could consolidate functions and get more of their employees onto the corporate campus site. . Summarized that the Commission wanted more information from other major corporate land owners, lessees in the community that may have an interest in the North Valko area, such as Apple. Com. Wong: . Said as part of the General Plan, they were trying to attract companies to bring sales back into Cupertino, and attract the big boxes. There are other stores such as Home Depot and Trader Joes on the edge of San Jose that attract the Cupertino residents. Mr. Piasecki: . Suggested changing the term to "box" because there are small, medium and large boxes to bring sales tax to Cupertino. Com. Wong: . Suggested that when the budget is discussed in July, staff consider hiring a consultant to coordinate the meetings vs. staff time being used. Mr. Piasecki: . Estimated the cost ofa consultant to be in the range of$100,000 to $125,000. He clarified that the work program items was not part of the original City Council work program, which is a reason they are considering a consultant to help develop it. He pointed out that the consultants provide a relief to the staff and can provide data in a quicker turnaround than staff is able to. . He suggested the following outreach methods toward the residents: ./ A dual mailing to all Cupertino postal customers; ./ A 2,000 foot radius or around the perimeter of the North Valko area. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 11, 2006 Com. Wong: . Suggested use of the Cupertino Scene newspaper for outreach; it has been effective in the past. . Said he felt it was a missed opportunity that the master plan was not used for Valko South, rather than having it be market driven. . Asked staff to provide a zoning map illustrating the edges covered by hotels and housing, with industrial in the middle. Also suggestion putting the names on the buildings and indicating the property owners. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was pleased to be proactive and felt that revlewmg their requirements was constructive. . Relative to the objectives, she said she wanted to ensure that it met zero job loss; specifically if they look at the entire area and decide that some sites potentially could go to housing, she would suggest zoning the business more dense. . Said that if they remove commercial, there has to be an allowance for critical growth of commercial in that area so they do not lose the potential for jobs in that area. . Said she was surprised that sustainability was not part of staffs list, and said as they move forward and look at potential large planned areas, it should be included as part of their evaluation. . Relative to circulation, she asked if it would include trails for pedestrians and bike paths. . She said she concurred with most of the prior comments made. . Recommended that it be added to the website, including the new icon on the homepage, so that people are aware of what is occurring; use of citywide noticing, notice the San Jose Mercury community section when they post things of interest for city government; also the Cupertino Courier and the Scene. . Suggested using the Community Congress model as it worked well for the city and is not as long and drawn out as the General Plan Task Force. Chair Miller: . Relative to Vice Chair Giefer's comment about job loss, and the concerns about conversion, he said if they were going encourage redevelopment of the industrial areas into industrial buildings that work in the current environment, they need to have a full understanding of what that means. It may mean more density, but there is a cost involved in tearing down buildings and putting new buildings up; and that needs to be understood also. . The current North Valko plan allows buildings to 60 feet tall; is there a need for anything else but Class A buildings, is it likely to change in the near future? He said there has to be an understanding of where the market presently is headed and ascertain what Cupertino has to do in order to make the area more attractive to the kinds of companies and individuals they would like to attract for the area. . Concerned with Com. Saadati's comment that the boxes might be an effective use of the property, although they have not been up to this point. . He stressed the importance of having the community actually involved in the process rather than merely being observers. . Challenged staff to come up with a format to achieve that result and fit within their money and time constraints. Mr. Piasecki: . Said he envisioned a hands-on workshop; going out to the community, advertising, doing a charette and discussing it and putting a game board together on what should happen. The consultant will bring in experts who are good in facilitating. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 April 11, 2006 Chair Miller: . He said he would consider it a success if in the end, the community felt good about the result in general, and that it was something that benefited the city. . Asked if there was some basic information gathering to be done whether or not there is a consultant. There are four other cities in the area that have been through the process and could provide valuable information from their experiences. Mr. Piasecki: . Said it would be helpful if the commissioners could consider what their vision is for the area in 20 years, and is successful in whatever it ends up being. Should the land uses be more integrated; should there be more walkability; is there a desire for buildings that are more externalized? . Said they may have to offer property owners some greater density to entice them to build Class A space. . There has been some discussion about opportunity for open space, where could it be located; should it be centralized; would some of the allocations be used to entice one of the property owners to donate open space in the area. . Relative to Calabazas Creek, is there an opportunity to create a pleasant walkway along Calabazas and/or perhaps a link under the freeway to pop up on the other side, or a walkway that will connect with South Valko. . Logistically for this project staff envisions the need to bring on experts to handle the facilitation and the process. He said he appreciated Chair Miller's that the bottom line is to have a plan that everyone would be excited about and that the community has felt that they had buy-in. . He said there were already some parameters set by the General Plan, it could be suggested that as a result of this process, they need to modify one of those parameters because it was found that it is only in the form of ten story buildings. He said there was likely enough latitude and enough square footage with some of the square footage that went back into the pool. . He recalled that some of the square footage in the General Plan for office and industrial was bumped; if box retail was included, it is another source of squares that could be built into the area. . He asked what it should look like; presently there are fairly separate campuses; Hewlett Packard, smaller one story tilt up office and industrial; some manufacturing space, larger format buildings, and some residential, stand alone for the most part. . He said that the area over the built out planned unit of developing could look considerably different; the community needs to say what it might look like; and is it going to be more interactive than active space; is it going to be more sustainable; better connected? Chair Miller: . Commented that it was difficult getting land owners' input when going through the General Plan review process. He said it was an important part of the exercise since there is so much industrial area to begin with. . Asked staff for an update on the area outlined in dark blue color on the map. Mr. Piasecki: . Said it was office/industrial; Kaiser may have taken over the corner building. . There may be constraints to development options if there are chemicals in the area, in-ground or stored on site. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 11, 2006 . He noted there were other officelindustrial buildings, although it was not known if they were occupied. Staff answered Commissioners' questions: . Mountain View staff would be invited to the May meeting to discuss their experience with their plan. . An outline of the scope of work based on tonight's discussion will be provided. . The time frame for the joint study session with City Council would be in the Fall. . The North Valko map would be updated to include labeling the buildings, and additional data. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housin2 Commission: Next meeting will be held on April 13, 2006. Mavors Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: . Com. Saadati reported that he went to the meeting but there was no meeting held. Economic Development Committee Meetin2: No meeting held. The Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report. Other: . Vice Chair Giefer reported that at the recent DRC meeting, there was a loophole discovered relative to exposed neon signs. She said she felt it should be considered as part of the evaluation of the sign ordinance and asked staff to agendize discussion of the issue when the sign ordinance was on the next public hearing agenda. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 25, 20 t :45 p.m. . ~ SUBMITTED BY: Approved as presented: April 25, 2006