Loading...
PC 07-23-97CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tome Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 AMENDED MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 23, 1997 IN CONFERENCE ROOMS C & D SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Mahoney, Roberts, Chair Harris Staff present: Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Project Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted a staff memo relative to determination of a quorum for voting purposes and a letter from Sares Regis Group relative to 7-GPA-97. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 8-GPA-97 and 18-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the transportation element of the General Plan related to goals and policies for traffic level of service, including a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hour. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 2, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1997 Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, explained that all four items were related and he would provide an overview of them collectively. He reported that the Planning Commissioners had reached a consensus on Item I on the use of a.m. and p.m. with questions on the technical aspects of LOS. He said that Item 2 related to land use, community character, and urban design issues, and discussion would include the interrelationship between setbacks and height. He reviewed Mr. Cotton's and Ms. Ungo-McCormick's previous workshop presentation on designing for corridors and other issues other than horizontal distance when considering good urban design. He said that all factors play a Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 23, I00'1 role in deciding what is an attractive development for the community, and stated Mr. Cotton would address the issue when discussing corridors. Mr. Cowan noted that the Heart of the City Plan adequately addresses the development and the corridor itself, and at the Crossroads there is the opportunity for higher buildings based on the present General Plan. However, it doesn't do an ample job of discussing relationships of the various properties to each other; nor does it do a good job for the major properties in Vallco Park, which is also an activity node. He said he would not address the Oaks Shopping Center and DeAnza because of the lack of development or redevelopment opportunities there. He added that the tiered development which doesn't have much support from either the Planning Commission or City Council, will also be discussed. He said that the initial idea of the tiered mitigation program was to allow an opportunity for thme companies that met certain criteria to be able to go beyond base entitlements, FAR entitlements; because they argued that they wanted an opportunity to expand if they reached buildout, and the mechanism was developed to allow that assuming that you could have a very aggressive traffic demand management program for a long period of time. He said, in addition to the traffic question, there was a question of increased development intensity and community character issues, and housing issues as well. He said he felt the second tier is on its way out, unless the Planning Commission felt that it was a supportable project. Mr. Cowan said that Item 4 related to the abilty to provide more flexibility for property owners to trade off between the land use type, commerical and office and other issues. He said that relative to Any Mountain, the owner was seeking approval to use the facility for office space. He said that in addition to the internal change, from retail to office, and vice versa, them is also the question of an office developer to draw down from the retail pool and do that which is not currently allowed by the General Plan. He said the mechanics and actual demand for retail would be discussed; if converting retail to office, what does it do to the retail base; what am the actual physical constraints for allowing more growth to occur, roughly 450,000 square feet (SF), can it really be applied to the land, and is there a market for it? He noted that them was a Sedway Group report relative to the market issue. Mr. Cowan reported that the other issue dealt with fiscal impact, a weak area. In response to Chair Harris' question about what office buys for the City, Mr. Cowan stated that office generates less revenue for the City than retail; food stores contribute nothing; and other types of businesses such as hotels contribute a large revenue source to the City. Chair Harris referred to the LOS on Page 1-5 and questioned if the language change was in tile General Plan. She suggested that the Planning Commission look at the item in question to see if they had any questions of staff. She questioned the word "reasonable" minium service of LOS D. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that the word "reasonable' be deleted. Chair Harris explained that the issue is when a project is reviewed, the traffic generated at the end of the day during the commute/peak hour is studied. She said that most other communities actually look at both the morning and afternoon commute hour; and the General Plan Amendment would require the review of both the morning and the afternoon. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application 18-EA-97 Com. Austin Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: Com. Doyle moved to approve the modifications to the General Plan as defined in Application 8 GPA-97, Exhibit C as modified, removal of both references to "reasonable" Com. Mahoney Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 23, 1997 VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 3. 3. Application No.(s): 9-GPA-97 and 23-EA-97 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Various Consideration of an amendment to the transportation and land use elements of the General Plan related to Policy 4-3: Tiered Traffic Mitigation for Additional Mitigated Development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 2, 1997 Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, referred to the overhead of Tier 2, aggressive TDM and Tier 3, transportation systems measures, and described Tier 2 as a portion of the policy that applied to the greater amount of the 2 million SF available for development, and applicable to the new and existing development. He said the concept is to reduce the traffic on the existing and proposed development using some very aggressive TDM measures, shuttles, close in housing, carpooling, and telecommunting; and theoretically by reducing all the traffic you would essentially have growth without a lot of traffic. He said the policy states you should meet the General Plan housing scope, provide for a positive civic image and there should be some substantial, significant economic benefit to the city from the additional growth, which is expressed in Policy 2-22. He said it was a difficult standard to meet in that you must demonstrate the effectiveness of the program; measure the base traffic; establish performance standards and meet those performance standards; and there is a development agreement required to lock these things in. He pointed out that there is a continued monitoring of the traffic to ensure those traffic standards are met, and if not, there are sanctions for noncompliance. He summarized that the bulk of the 2 million SF would be eligible within the second tier. Mr. Jung said that if the Planning Commission did not feel that this development can be implemented in a feasible manner so that there are no traffic impacts on the community over the life of the project; staff is recommendating the two policies, the tiered mitigation policy and the economic development policy be deleted. Following a brief discussion, Chair Harris summarized that there was consensus to delete Policy 4-3 and Policy 2-22, Appendix F. Referring to Page 3-27, Mr. Jung said that it was staff's recommendation to delete all references to tiered growth, and that the footnote at the bottom of 2-3 be deleted, and the last sentence on Page 3- 27 be removed. Chair Harris summarized that discussion would include heights, setbacks, and allowances additional development specifically related to traffic and community issues for the future. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. John Haley, Tandem Computers, reported on behalf of Tandem, and stated that they concurred with staff's recommendation. Mr. Bill Tagg, Apple Computers, said at present they are struggling to make ends meet, but if things improve, it would prevent them from developing any further in Cupertino. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 23, 10t)? Ms. Donna Gould, resident, said that she has watched the building go higher and higher and denser and denser, and recently became concerned about the quality of the air in the Bay Area, Cupertino in particular. She said she felt any mitigation on traffic would not be successful and she felt that traffic needed to be reduced. She said other ways that development could be mirrored was mass transit areas where people didn't have to drive cars to work. She said that industry should not be expanded, but housing built to accommodate those people already working in Cupertino. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Mahoney said that he had been involved from the beginning and it was always going to be a challenge for the companies to be able to do it, but he believed that if they could do it and not generate any additional traffic, they should be afforded the opportunity. He said given the way things are, he would vote against it with the changes. He said that if traffic is the main controlling thing and if attempts are going to be made to get rid of it; get rid of it and move on to deal with other visual impacts, development, height, etc. Com. Doyle said he supported removing it from the General Plan. He said in looking at the density and development that has been planned and approved in the last year, it tends to be concentrated in the same area where Tier 2 would have an impact, and he was concerned about the current approval and the next generation. He said to remove it, and address it if the issue arises again. Com. Austin said she concurred with Coms. Doyle and Mahoney. She also agreed with staff's recommendation to delete the sentence. Com. Roberts said that he has felt uneasy about Tier 2 from the General Plan stage primarily because of the concern that they would be unable to monitor the changes in real thne. He said he favored the proposed staff recommenation of striking Tier 2 from the General Plan including all enabling language such as the final sentence in the development reallocation policy. Chair Harris said that she also concurred with staff recommendation, Page 3-27, to remove the last sentence in 2-3, from socially necessary ... remove the ** in the development reallocation table, which adopts Exhibit D, and deletes policy 4-3, Policy 2-22, and Appendix F as well as the changes. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on Application 23-EA-97 Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9-GPA-97 as amended per model resolution with Exhibit D, elimination of all enabling language in Tier 2 and 3; Policy 4-3, Policy 2-22, Appendix F and the language as amended. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-GPA-97 and 9-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Planning Commission Minutes 5 July Consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan to allow an inter- change of square footage between commercial and office/industrial uses (Policy 2-3). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 2, 1997 Staff presentation: Mr. Jung explained that relative to the clarification of development rules being received, there was some uncertainty about how to apply some situations. He said that a specific case would be what to do when there is an existing retail center and the owner wants to convert it to office use. He said nothing in the General Plan states that it can be done, nor is there anything that states that you cannot convert an existing retail center to an office use other than what is in the general commercial ordinance which states that shopping centers can have 25% as office. He said there were examples of community buildings that their present use is retail and are requesting conversion to office use. Mr. Jung stated that it was a policy question because the land use does not specify whether it can be done. He cited an example of D & D Connor who is proposing an 80,000 SF office building at the NE comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd. which consists of office space and retail. He said the building exceeds the FAR, and there is nothing in the office development allocation table to permit it. He added that Tandem Computers is part of a proposed development agreement seeking conversion of the retail development potential to office uses to increase the office square footage they are allowed to build on Tandem's properties. Mr. Jung said that there has been questions about what this would mean from an economic standpoint as well as visual standpoint. On a traffic basis, by converting retail to office space you would be looking at 50% increase in FAR. He summarized that the two issues were: Is there a desire to convert; and at what rate to convert? Mr. Cowan said that relative to the issue of converting retail office; caution should be exercised regarding the possible erosion of the retail base which is the lifeblood of the city's economics, its physical growth. Mr. Jung referred to the maps illustrating the office/industrial properties and the retail properties. He explained the color coding of the maps, which indicated such areas as office and retail; pement buildout for office; commercial opportunities; and potential expansion areas. In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Jung said that relative to potential expansion in the Oaks Center, it is underdeveloped in a sense that it doesn't have the ratios of building area to the site area that are found on other sites, the reason being that restaurants generate a lot of parking. Mr. Cowan said that if it was assumed the restaurants would go away, there would be another 9,000 SF for growth, similar to Cupertino Village. Chair Harris expressed caution about not getting lost in the abstractions; that if the restaurants, Mintons' Lumber and Woolworth's Nursery were providing good services to the community, should a policy be written to suggest that they be taken? Mr. Cowan said that the issue from a physical constraint point of view is if the worry is about losing; there is a potential for about 460,000 square feet of growth, assuming Target gets built, where would that 460,000 SF go; and is there a need to preserve 460,000 SF? Mr. Jung said that if there was agreement that there is excess square footage capacity for retail, based on what is perceived to be theoretical development opportunities, there is excess commercial Planning Commlsslon Minutes 6 July 23, 1907 square footage; therefore do you choose to leave it like it is or do you chose to allow someone to convert it to some other use that at this point has more market potential, whether office or hotels or additional dwelling units? He said some office developers have indicated they would like to take advantage of that for properties that the city wants to develop. Mr. Cowan said he would be remiss in not addressing the City Manager's point regarding exercising caution for not giving away too much of the commercial base. He said he would not suggest converting the bulk of that space to another office use. Com. Roberts recalled that not long ago commercial office space was begging and the city wondered if they would be able to fill the capacity it had. He questioned the likelihood of the retail pendulum swinging in the other direction, at which time a provision for retail in the General Plan would be needed, because it is a source of revenue to the city. Mr. Cowan said that up until now parking has been a real constraint because people do not like to use structured parking, and there has always been a constraint about decked retail parking except at regional malls. He said the result is fairly Iow FARs for 25 to 28%, but that some of that should be preserved. Com. Mahoney said there were two separate issues; the first being, is their space? He said the message is that there is not space, therefore there needs to be an understanding. The second issue is there low demand? and if so, should conversion begin. Mr. Jung pointed out that 1,000 SF of retail development would convert to about 1,500 SF of office development; 3+ of housing units and 4 hotels; therefore by the conversions, which were done back in 1993 in the General Plan when retail space was converted to hotel space to additional residences and office space, it essentially added square footage in different land uses, resulting in taller buildings, more massive buildings, because a higher FAR was permitted, and only traffic was considered, not mass. Referring to tables on City revenues for development by Sedway & Associates, Chair Harris questioned what the difference in City revenues wouM be if you compared a 250, 000 sq. fi. building with an equivalent-sized retail site. Staff was unable to derive a specific number, but the tables showed retail had a higher revenue return than office. Mr. Jung said that a conclusion of the Sedway report was that the existing retail base under-served some categories such as grocery stores, yet Cupertino was well served in the restaurant category. Mr. Jung reviewed Exhibit C, Sheet 1, City of Cupertino Summary of Built Inventory and Growth Potential by Non-Residential Land Use, explaining that it provided information of what occurred since 1993 relative to approval in different land use categories. He said that for the net growth potential, it indicated I million SF for retail, slightly more than half of which is in Vallco; and in the office category 1.2 million of office potential and many hotel rooms if you can find a place to put one. In response to Chair Harris' question about percentage of educational use and centers which do not generate sales tax, Mr. Jung said that no analysis had been done. He pointed out that some educational companies such as computer learning centers or tutoring companies go in office buildings and some in retail centers; they are specialized schools that are considered as part of the Planning Commission Minutes ? July 23, 10t)'/ conditional use in retail zoning. Chair Harris suggested that as part of the planning unit, it should be addressed relative to how much the city has and how much sales tax dollars has been eroded. She said many changes are occurring in the centers that would change the Sedway group study, and it should be addressed. Discussion continued regarding the tradeoff of traffic intensive land use building area for less traffic intensive use and its implications. Chair Harris said she would prefer to spend her tax dollars in Cupertino, but Cupertino does not have all the services. Discussion ensued regarding Sedway's summary relative to the Cupertino retail analysis. Chair Harris expressed concern and disagreement about the comment relative to most retail centers in Cupertino having a poor appearance, and said that dicmpancies in the report should be addressed. She also expressed concern about the comments on Page 4-3 aud said that the report should be discussed and staff submit evaluation also. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input, relative to the transferrring of retail to commerical use to office/commercial use. Them was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Harris questioned what prevented the Planning Commission on deciding on a case-by-case basis without any General Plan changes that Any Mountain should be allowed to redevelop as office. Mr. Cowan said that as noted in the trip allocation table, there is a certain number of square footage for office/industrial. Therefore if it is viewed as an absolute constraint or limit, it would be difficult to make the conversion. He said he felt there should be the flexibility to do it. Mr. Cowan said that the General Plan for that area allows office/retail or housing in the No. DeAnza area, and the use permit is for retail only; therefore the question is what would prevent staff from allowing them to file a use permit to make the change from retail to office. Com. Mahoney said at the time of the General Plan, there was a formal reallocation based on similar discussions about retail at the time and it is fixed until it is redone again. Chair Harris said that it should be fixed in the General Plan so that it it clear; if it is parcel-by-parcel and a change is desired to a citywide pool, she said that it should be done. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Marilyn McArthy, a Cupertino resident for 20 years, said she had seen many changes. She said she felt everyone present was interested in preserving or enhancing the quality of life in Cupertino, yet at the meeting for the last hour all she heard was the same box being shifted, trying to "bulge it out and keep it confined to the same space." She said she had not heard anything radical, with no sense of vision; everything was about controlling traffic, not diminishing traffic. She suggested offering businesses an incentive to get people out of their cars and provide a delivery service; give a tax cut if they provide delivery services, or give them a tax break if they provide vans that go to people's homes and pick them up/deliver them back home; get people out of their cars and eliminate the parking problem. Ms. McArthy said that the retail space could be increased in a less amount of acreage and there wouldn't be the worries about the parking spaces because there would be a limited amount of cars on the road as a result of the van pools or shuttles providing people with goods and services, and then the city would have a better chance of reaching its sense of vision about the Heart of the City. She said she grew up in Willow Glen and still can walk down Lincoln Avenue and get all of her needs met, and all of her shopping. She said she makes a conscious effort to spend her sales tax dollars in Cupertino, and she was not one who thinks bigger is better, and is not enthralled by stores Planning Commission Minutes ~1 July ~.3, it)O'] such as the Price Club. She said she would prefer to shop at Whole Foods or the Oaks or some place where she knows her money is going back into the community, and she felt she wasn't hearing that at the meeting. Ms. McArthy said that is what the Planning Commission is about; creating a community with a sense of vision so that people can look at Cupertino and say "look at Cupertino, they really took a risk and branched out instead of working in this little box of parking spaces and traffic and tiered amendments". She reiterated that she was not hearing that sentiment at the meeting. She said one of the reasons she liked to live in Cupertino is to live in a community that is proud of who they are. She said the idea of not having Yamagamis and Woolworth Nursery was so abhorent she couldn't comprehend it. She asked the Council to think of those things with a sense of vision. She questioned why it was so inconceivable that retail space couldn't be increased, diminish the number of parking spaces, by offering retailers an enhancement or some type of tax break if they provided a shuttle service or a delivery service. Mr. Deke Hunter, Hunter Properties, reported that although Cupertino had an economic steering committee, and a retail subcommittee, the interest from the broker community, retailers, and participants from the subcommittees had dwindled. He said that the Cupertino retail picture is complex because its citizenship's vision or desires of vision will give a certain type of output~ natural barriers, fractured ownership, and difficulties because of how the infrastructure is configured. He said there isn't a simple fix to the retail problem, and zoning for more retail is not necessarily going to solve the retail problem. Mr. Hunter said that the concept should not be thrown away; it is going to be a damage and destruction issue with the opportunity to reconfigure retail. Referring to the Sedway Report, he concurred that Cupertino had a large number of mid to lower priced apparel stores; but was lacking in higher end categories, whether it be lifestyle categories, hard goods or soft goods. Mr. Hunter said that the population growth in Cupertino did not necessarily directly equate to the success of retail within Cupertino, nor did it mean all the new affluent residents to Cupertino are going to keep the sales tax here; because you are only providing one flavor of retail; you are not providing an urban setting; and will get that flight of retail dollars whether to Los Gatos or Westgate. He said it would take a catastrophe to reshape the complexion of the Cupertino retail market; and said there is a chance to add a different face to the retail picture at Vallco. He said it was his opinion that Vallco would never be a major mall again; however, there is a remote chance of having a three-department store format there which is what it takes to have a major mall. He said it was possible that Vallco may become a community center; many fantastic thiags could be done. He said that is where there would be exceptional retail opportunities provided. Mr. Hunter discussed the Oaks Center and said that the Oaks is probably one of the very few places other than Vallco where something such as a parking garage could be built. He said although it provides one of the best walking environments in Cupertino, it struggles because of the placement of restaurants and parking. He questioned whether the city could accommodate a major tenant if it came to town; Vallco has the capacity. He pointed out that if there was an expansion or repositioning of a shopping center in town, the city may want to have some of the pools to keep. Converting would help support some of the existing retail and would help fortify some of the major employment base; it would help give the ability to introduce some gateway type concepts and possibly some mixed use type development such as restaurants. He said if the city was able to move some trips into mixed use setting, parking may go underground and provide more retail at grade which would work for a restaurant but not for a more typical type retail. It is a complex question in trying to manage what physical constraints there are and what limitations there are because of experience in certain categories that are overlapped and also trying to manage Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 23, lot)? community concerns by making things too urban. He said there was not an easy answer, but that the 1:1-1/2 might be too aggressive, but the 1:1 may be more appropriate, or the one project at a time approach may be more appropriate. Chair Harris asked Mr. Hunter for his expert opinion on what direction to follow with Vallco. Mr. Hunter explained that within Santa Clara County, there were about 6 major retail malls; and that realistrically by the end of the century there would only be 3 truly regional malls, the king pin being Valley Fair. He said that parts of Westgate that are now successful are the traditional retail sites, and it is no longer a mall. He added that someone recently purchased Vallco and will try to make it work once again. He said that Vallco is a chance to provide some different formats for the community. Chair Harris said that the trend had been to hide the parking; however, when people don't see the parking, they go somewhere else. Mr. Hunter said that within Cupertino, all formats are needed and Vallco is a combination of formats with the opportunity for an entertaimnent format, stay within the confines of a larger building, consolidate the strengths of Vallco and then reuse parts of it to start over and make a more surface oriented parking and clearer presentation. He recommended moving J. C. Penneys across the street and strengthen it up. He said it would provide the opportunity to tie in the rose bowl. He said there was .5 million SF at Vallco to help make it stronger or help reach other goals, such as mixed use, whether it is retail or office. Mr. John Haley, Tandem Computers, said that the Sedway study was commissioned for Tandem for the development application. He said that the report needed to be understood iu its full content, and he was willing to arrange to have a Sedway consultant at a meeting to answer questions. He said that when the issue of transfer first arose, they didn't have any answers or know whether or not it was feasible and what the implications would be. They knew there were serious retail problems in Cupertino and chose the consultant the city was familiar with to address the issue. He commented that neither Carlos Murphys nor the Rusty Pelican were successful restaurants. Mr. Haley stated that the report concluded that there were redevelopment opportunities that could capture some new performance and when redeveloped could become better contributors to the tax base. He reiterated that he was open to having the consultant available to answer questions about the report. Mr. Bud Hoffman, owner of Any Mountain, provided a history of the retail store. He said he started 25 years ago as the original Any Mountain at the location presently occupied by the Outback restaurant. He said that he opened the store in 1972 against the advice of an attorney; and was immediately successful. In 1976 he purchased the property where presently located; opened the store in 1977, and through 1985 the store was successful. In 1986, a 7 year drought period started and almost put the store under. He said they went through some rough years in the 90s because of lack of snow and being in the middle of the worst recession. Mr. Hoffinan said he had mixed emotions about being present and talking about the facility because he was strongly attached to the original facility, being involved in the design and architecture. He said unfortuntely, because of financial difficult times, the changes in the marketplace were from where thiugs were before with individual small storefronts, to big box configurations; he did not like what was happening in the marketplace, but it is reality. He said Any Mountain is up against stores like Sportmart and large sports chains and it is very difficult to compete; he said that he sold more skis out of one store in the early 80s in Cupertino, than he was presently selling out of 8 stores today. He said that the retail environment is a different ballgame today, and he was planning to relocate in Westgate in a smaller store on one level to attempt to get back to being a profitable business. Mr. Hoffinan asked for the Planning Commission's support in approving a use change from retail to office in order that they could lease out their old building. He said that he did uot like being out of Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 23, 1907 Cupertino, and has looked for a facility and may consider REI facilities in the future if it becomes available. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Cowan commented that Mr. Hoffman wanted to file for a use permit and the question arose, could he, within the present General Plan constraints, file an application for a use permit (it is zoned for all the uses that are now allowed). The North DeAnza Blvd. conceptual plan allows those uses with the use permit. Mr. Cowan questioned if the trip allocation table was constructed in such a way that says you cannot increase the office space. He said it was not drawing down from the commercial pool but is internally changing within the site from one use to another; and is a question of how you interpret the plan. Com. Mahoney said that flexibility could be added, and noted that 500,000 is more than could be used in retail and the opportunities to accomplish something from a retail point of view are at Vallco. He said that treating it conservatively, he could support a 1:1 shift which would still put the incentive there to have it retail to go commercial/office, with 100,000 remaining in the border area, keeping 400,000. He said it was appropriate, which would mean that he would approve the short time on being liberal about the cases coming up and interpreting it loosely enough, on a case by case review. Mr. Cowan suggested that the pool not be made without a cap; Com. Mahoney suggested 400.000 sq. fi. as the cap; therefore up to 100,000 could be shifted and put back things that were taken away. Com. Mahoney clarified that he approved of an existing office building becoming commercial, and said he felt it was appropriate to use existing buildings. He said the 500,000 was potential growth and not tied to what is already on the ground; flexible on a case by case basis. Mr. Cowan said that the floating pool for office was actually 150,000 ft. He said the Environmental Review Committee was discussing how to handle the conversions. Discussion continued regarding trip allowance usage. Com. Doyle expressed concern that the transfer had the potential of reducing the retail opportunities in Cupertino. He said that the transfer to office would produce less city revenue potential; get less city retail services, and increase housing demand. He said that he did not support the transfer. He questioned whether the decision was made that it was a General Plan required designation. He added that if there was no way of finding the office space, his response would be "yes." Mr. Cowan clarified that it was internal, and if everything stays in that site, that site is converted; not drawing from the pool, and is not a General Plan change. He said he did not recommend a shopping center being converted to office space. Chair Harris questioned the concept of making a major development at DeAnza and Stevens Creek that will be a focal location requiring an office allocation. She said that they had all the office site specifics, but without the shift, how would it be accomplished? Mr. Cowan summarized that Com. Doyle was opposed to it and Com. Mahoney would only if there was a minimum of 400,000 remaining. Planning Commission Minutes 11 July '~3, 1907 Com. Austin said that she was opposed to converting present retail/commercial except on the periphery and the small elements. She said that she would increase the cap for SOl-ne of the small stores, but generally was not in favor of general changing because they could go wholesale. She said she was not in favor of a major office building on the corner; and was in support of the Any Mountain rezoning. Com. Roberts said he felt the 500,000 number was not right for Cupertino. He said that he was in favor of incentives to encourage retail development and opposed tendencies or trends towards devoting potential for retail development, but hesitated to apply that to a specific application or case, paricularly one that has not come before the Planning Commission yet. He said that if it were to convert, he would like to see it compensated by diminishing the office industrial poteutial, not converting retail to industrial; not necessarily on a 1:1 basis. Com. Roberts said he would rather see land use that is devoted to office industrial, converted. If a parcel that is zoned for retail or office indsutrial is converted up, it's presently in retail, and is converted to office industrial; somewhere else he said he would like to see land in compensation converted that was designated office industrial rezoned; the land use designation changed to permit retail. If done in enough areas that were contiguous then somehow big parcels would come out and would become available for retail development. Mr. Jung said that at this point staff is getting proposals for converting some marginal offices to retail and residential. Chair Harris said that the need exists to convert office to retail and industrial to retail and it can be done globally by creating joint zoning districts; office/retail and industrial/retail that would allow plotting over time because the plan is for 20 years. She said that the city locked itself into a development agreement with Vallco for 20 years on the site and now 6 years downstream sees that society is changing; the opportunity is lost to maximize the development for 14 more years. She said she felt that industrial allocation should no longer be site specific on the new development. She said in the General Plan buildout for office and industrial, there was 1.294 million feet yet to be developed, it is site specifically determined but it doesn't have to be because at any time it can be decided what the heights and density are going to be on the property. She said she would like to see that floating to allow decisions to be made while staying within the allowable development with the current General Plan. She said in most communities, the zoning is not for 40 years until you decide to build; it is from year to year, or 5 years to 5 years. Chair Harris said she was in favor of 500, 000, keeping at least 400,000 if there was any shifting. She said the I:l shift was appropriate; it is a retail incentive and reduces traffic. She said she felt the need for a case by case review which is the reason for a more flexible General Plan. She said it was important to be able to look at a proposal that comes in and serves the community and not be locked into somethiug unbuilt land from 15 years ago that someone thought was a good idea. Chair Harris said there was a consensus that they did not want a wholesale shift from retail; and all but 2 cases there was no transfer, open pool of all development uses. Chair Harris requested that staff do more work and that the item be continued. Mr. Cowan said that he would inform the Any Mountain applicant that a decision will be made when it comes up for a use permit. Chair Harris directed staff to look at the land that is currently undeveloped that is iudustrial and office and define it, in the event it is changed to retail. She said she also wanted to address the Planning Commission Minutes 1:2 July :23. 1007 hotel issue, to ascertain if the plan for the five hotels will exceed the 1,027 in the General Plan. She asked that the staff proposal meet the sense of the Planning Commission which is to provide incentives to focus on retail, traffic and have incentives for retail development. Staff to return with a recommenation if they want to create 400,00 or 450,000. She also requested that Exhibit E be updated as it was vague; also Page 4-10 needs to be re-written. Chair Harris also requested that staff comment on the Sedway report which is different than having Sedway present to cross- examine. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Application 5-GPA-97, and 9-EA-97 to the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Com. Mahoney Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris called a recess from 9:55 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 7-GPA-97 and 17-EA-97 City of Cupertino Various Consideration of an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan related to goals and policies for urban design and building form and scale, including building heights and setbacks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: To be determined TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 2, 1997 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1997 Staff presentation: Mr. Larry Cotton, Larry Cotton & Associates, referred to all overhead of the current General Plan maximum building heights. He said there are some elements that give strong direction relative to height and urban design and the General Plan and the Heart of the City; there are some gaps and inconsistencies and they are partially addressed. Mr. Cotton discussed issues, options and recommendations associated with major corridors, Vallco Park and Town Center as outlined in the attached staff report. In response to a question from Chair Harris regarding the hotel location, Mr. Cotton said that there was a problem of access unless certain illustrated buildings are torn down. He said there were creeks to contend with, therefore it was not a very accessible site. He said that Tandem should have the flexibility to do a better plan, one that more nearly meets the goal of an activity center. Referring to the overhead of the Heart of the City Concept Plan, (Town Center) Mr. Cotton noted that Town Center was different. He explained that Tandem is one property owner, and is one area where the property owner can prepare a comprehensive plan with different heights to make it work. He said that in this case, the city is dealing with several property owners and there is a limited amount of guidance. He said that one of the problems is that the Heart of the City Specific Plan has standards that come down to the edge of the Town Center area and indicates that heights and and others are set forth in the General Plan. What it does say is that there aren't that many standards in here; there is a setback requirement and a height requirement. He illustrated on the map the areas that need more definitiion, and stated that one way to achieve that is to involve both the city and Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 23, It)O'] private property owners, hotels, and Mr. Hunter to see if something could be developed to meet the intent of the General Plan and provides a range of heights but that does not at this point say what the heights are but except to set a range as suggested in the Vallco Park area. He said that if a similar criteria was applied, that is being used along the remainder of Stevens Creek, a I:1 setback could be set and it would be consistent with what is happening along the corridors. He said they felt it was not well defined yet and there is some benefit in that the architect working for Mr. Hunter and the amhitect working for the Hotel is the same architect, and that a combination of their input and the city's input could produce something to mom rationally make a decision on what the height should be in that area. Ms. Ungo-McCormack said that the discussion will include the image to be projected as discussed in the previous presentation; the image that will be projected about the City of Cupertino, and the direction was to continue to project a low rise surburban community with a parkurbia concept expended upon. North DeAnza was one area that everybody seemed to agree works for many reasons; the amount of landscaping and how that has been designed; the informalness. She said that retail was studied and how retail cannot be compared in terms of the presence that it needs to show to the visibility that retail requires and therefore is more difficult to get a continuous landscape work. She said that the issue to focus on is that Cupertino's corridors are primarily commercial office industrial and that is where to focus the discussion of how it projects itselfi She said the plans studied all contain that direction; however, they do not have standards that need to be applied to implement the policies that the city may have. Some standards include looking at how to develop some recommended ratio setbacks, and in the discussion held a month ago, there was consensus that height in itself may not be the only issue, but it is a combination of factors. Ms. Ungo-McCormack said that from the diagram presented by Mr. Jung, there is a sense of where this development will occur, and the large amount of redevelopment or development that is going to occur is going to be in the two nodes that Mr. Cotton illustrated. She said that some standards need to be added and ratios applied particularly along North DeAnza, and South DeAnza. Stevens Creek Blvd. is provided for by the Heart of the City, and the Heart of the City element only addresses the maximum setback at 35 feet from the curb; and that the height of 36 feet should not be exceeded. She said ranges were also discussed; some Planning Commissioners expressed concern about the set up for maximums. The assumption is that if it is a maximum, you will try to achieve it as much as possible especially if you are trying to squeeze in parking, and maximize your FARs. One other recomendation is to look at providing some flexibility so that you look at ranges throughout those corridors. She said that a corridor not addressed in the General Plan is Homestead, and Homestead is developed, but there are potentials for redevelopment and there are critical corners that might want to take a look at or at least accommodate in the General Plan. The other corridor is down south of 85 which is an area of potential redevelopment; not significant but some potential. The diagram has been expanded because the diagram in the General Plan falls short of taking Homestead and So. DeAnza; basically there is a general statement that said everything outside of the specific areas should stay at 2 or 3 stories but again doesn't provide any more guidance than that. She said that it says two stories, however 3 stories if it doesn't impact adjacent neighborhoods or adjacent residential. Mr. Cotton pointed out that it is difficult to set the height standards, that it is a judgment call on every project, and he recommended that the Planning Commission and developer should have the flexibility to produce an outstanding design within this range, with the ability to modify it if necessary. The rigid standards of setbacks or heights very seldom lead to quality development. Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 23, 1997 Ms. Ungo-McCormack said that the setback for the North DeAnza Boulevard specific plan was 50 feet minimum with a 35 foot average, as described in the staff report. Mr. Cowan explained that there were plans for both segments of DeAnza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek; however, there had been no activity since the 80s. He said that the General Plan called for reviewing the plan in the future. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. John Haley, Tandem Computers, referred to Option 3 and stated that the flexibility was available to the property owner prior to the 1993 General Plan; there was no specific area lined up next to the freeway or adjacent to Stevens Creek that had specific height limitations. He said they agreed that it provides more flexibility, and more flexibility with a good design team means better overall urban design; and they supported the concept. He expressed concern that it is not uncommon for Planning Commissions and City Councils to ask applicants to master plan the site before subsequent decisions are made; and said they would like to master plan the site after some General Plan decisions are made and possibly in conjunction with the development agreement or following the development agreement and an application pending what is approved in the development agreement. He said they had that flexibility prior to the 1993 General Plan. He said that relative to the area to the north of 1-280, they had less property so were not as heavily affected by the designation. He said in this plan they were not proposing anything above the current FAR or current height limitation in the area. He said that historically the area was designated in earlier General Plans as being planned for higher intensity, which was th reason theywere interested in it when they were a tenant and is the reason they pumhased it, because they believed then and believe now that it is a good area for higher intensity. He said they had a vested interest in trying to secure as much growth for Tandem and in future as possible in this area and are very concerned about limitations. He said that Tandem purchased the property in 1989 and since that time have acquired 50,000 sq. ft. He said at this time projected growth was not known, but that if successful itl the merger with Compac, the company could grow in a big way. He said that Tandem was not in the landlord business as it was not profitable; however the building on Wolfe and Pruneridge was rented out. Mr. Deke Hunter, Hunter Properties, addressed the Crossroads Corridor. He said he strongly agreed with the comment that it is almost impossible at this point to find a solution to all four corners given the fact that the office building is going up, the gas station has re-upped their long term lease; but there is some merit with sitting down with the City Center people, the hotel architect, and trying to come up with some strong imaging and complements in relationships between the two. He said there was another issue of trying to make the conneciton to the landscaping and have those setbacks and building heights relate to each other. He said his first choice was Option 1; there are so many natural barriers already within that interchange that what they are attempting is to create one more set of hurdles such as Option 3, rnaybe not quite as much as Option 2. He said they see it as an opportunity to have a community component at the comer, a retail component and an office building component. He said he felt the current set of conditions works well given the number of issues they are trying to balance, but they may not be able to balance everything if there were additional constraints. Mr. Cotton presented diagrams which illustrated different approaches for the intersection of No. DeAnza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Boulevard. A discussion ensued regarding the design guidelines for Stevens Creek Blvd. and DeAnza Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 23~ 1995 Chair Harris said there were several issues defined on Page 2-11 which were not addressed and said that there needed to be some direction for the future. She said there needed to be recommendations for all the issues. Com. Doyle suggested that staff prepare a list of wbat tbe Planning Commission needed to make decisions on. Ms. Ungo-McCormack said some of the issues had to be addressed through a General Policy. She said that the General Plan should not define those details; it should be defined through a specific plan or reevaluating existing plans and filling in the gaps to deal with the massing issues. The General Plan should look at the overall picture of the heights, should the heights be reduced in areas? should they be kept where they are and look at ranges, or do we want to increase them? Chair Harris said it would be helpful since all the work was done to have all tile thoughts fbr tbe future, including the recommendations for the General Plan and a recommendation for the Specific Plan work. Ms. Ungo-McCormack said they attempted to show the different options in terms of tile General Plan, do you change the heights or not change it; do you stay with what you have; do you add; do you fill in the gaps; or do you in fact come back and change the heights in the general plan or the ranges? She said they did present some recommendations. Mr. Cotton said that he felt strongly that there should be a stronger design review process because some of the problems seen were ones that fell apart at the last minute because decisions were made but were not made with the understanding of what happened. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Roberts moved to continue Application 7-GPA-97 to the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to the regular July 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary