Loading...
PC 02-14-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 14,2005 MONDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission adjourned meeting of February 14, 2005 was called to order at 6:45p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Taghi Saadati Staff present: Community Development Steve Piasecki Director City Planner Ciddy Wordell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. General Plan public hearing to discuss Land Use and Housing Chair Wong: . Explained that the Planning Commission will be making recommendations based on staff's report Planning Conunission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 2 February 14, 2005 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: · There have been three or four meetings on the subject of Land Use and Housing in terms of public hearings, and the Commission decided it would be breaking after the major elements to see if some things could be wrapped up and prelinùnary decisions made · The Environmental Impact Report still needs to be reviewed, so there may be some things that the Commission may not be ready to make decisions on-such as the residential buildout-until it has looked at traffic or school impacts · The first topic of discussion is the vision and goals · The next subject is the possible reclassification of some properties · The remainder of the discussion will be on the "hot topics" Commissioners have received materials on in the past Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development: · The slide being shown is the "How to Build Community" slide which was obtained from a nonprofit organization · "How to Build Community" talks about fundamental concepts such as getting to your neighbors, being more visible in the community, and helping out · What I want to emphasize in the concept of the General Plan is that it all needs to tie together. The concept is that a General Plan works toward some end · The programs that the General Plan outlines should be aspiring toward some end product · We've put together a vision, and the General Plan Task Force endorsed the concept of being a "balanced" community, being accessible with hillsides, creeks, quiet attractive residential neighborhoods, exemplary parks and schools, a vibrant mixed-use heart of the city and that the city will be safe, friendly, connected, walkable and inclusive for all residents with ample places for people to interact and recreate · Each of these words means something when we look at a statement like this-"balanced" needs to be defined. What do we mean by "balanced"? What do we mean by "vibrant heart of the city", etc. · When we talk about being "connected", we'll discuss trails and sidewalks and connections through projects that knit and tie things together · "Walkable" is a nice word, but what does it really mean? Many of our streets don't feel comfortable to walk on. They're too fast. Sidewalks are too close to the travel lanes Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 3 February 14, 2005 · When you think about the General Plan and ""hat you are putting together, you need to think about how Cupertino is going to be different after implementation of the plan · After 20 years of implementing its policies and goals, what is going to look different? · I put in "Building a Cohesive, Balanced Community." This summarizes the vision statement we went through · We know what "community" means-people interacting in one fashion or another, usually revolving around a common interest, such as soccer fields, schools, work and active retail · When we think of this interaction it usually goes back to what we identify as "small town" characteristics · Those are concepts that link us as a community with common interests revolving around our families, our children, ourselves, people of all classes and all ages · We need to need to be more comprehensive in our thought process. It seems that often the number one priority is to race around this community, When I go down Stevens Creek Boulevard and see people in wheelchairs or walkers trying to navigate around the city, I realize that people are unconscious of the needs of an elderly person trying cross a major street. We need to be conscious of all of our community if we are going to aspire to the concept of being inclusive and being connected as a community · It is very important for all people in the community to feel the sense of "I belong here and I'm welcome here." · This may be at the expense of other objectives, and it will be the job of the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council where that balancing act is · I would say emphatically that we have stressed moving around fast as one of our top priorities for too long, If you look at the communities that we hold up as being models, whether it be Los Gatos or Los Altos, they are not talking about moving around fast as their top priority · "Small town characteristics" would be more inclusive--Iess divisive, more transparent-- less closed, more externalized--Iess turned inward, safe and open - not closed · Some of the divisive characteristics of our community are wide and/ or fast streets, gated developments that signal exclusivity to the rest of us, and inwardly oriented buildings that do not participate in the community · Examples of some of the "closed" forms we have: De Anza College - as wonderful as De Anza College is, it is a parking moat. It is a sea of parking around a wonderful campus. There are 26,000 students-not Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 4 February 14, 2005 all from our community - and we need to externalize those activities so they become integral to the community · Many people may not like the look of the University of California at Berkeley, but it is an example of an externalized campus. You see those students, They are all over the place · Apple Computer is a wonderful corporate citizen in our community, with again, a parking moat around it · Valko Fashion Park has a closed building wall that closes it off. Fortunately, they are changing Valko. They are talking about a cinema and ground-level retail on both sides of Wolfe Road, creating a mini- version of a Santana Row that is externalized. That is what we should be working toward as a community · Hewlett Packard is a corporate citizen that has a beautiful landscaped moat-one of the best around- but, nevertheless, you can't see in. But, if we have to have the evils of exclusivity, maybe green is better than gray parking lots · Why doesn't "closed" work? There is less interaction, less community benefit-if you can't see it, you can't interact with it · An example of an "open" form is Seven Springs Ranch, which was developed with palms right on the Rainbow frontage. It was a conscious decision not to close off that development · Cali Mill Plaza is an open, visible plaza that can be seen into and it embraces the buildings around it · With Travigne, along Blaney and Stevens Creek frontages, there are porches and stoops and frontage retail · Monte Vista, with Imperial, Pasadena and Stevens Creek frontages, there is again active retail engaging the street · I want to stress the importance of having a vision, and interpreting what the words in the vision statement mean. This General Plan gives the Commission and the City Council the opportunity to transform Cupertino in a very positive direction---one that builds community Ms. Wordell: · You (the commission) had indicated an interest in discussing the goals and you may want to do that before you get into particulars Chair Wong: · I would rather hear the whole staff report first Planning Commission General PIan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: · The Planning Commission got a handout this evening on the properties that could be subject to reclassification. There is a memo on top and a map underneath. It is called "Reclassification Criteria Matrix" · The Commission asked to look at properties that might be converted to residential or mixed-use. One of the reasons is that, if they are not competing in the marketplace, it might be good to look at whether there are other uses that they would be better for · If you want to do that, there might be some criteria to use in your consideration · We have taken half a dozen or so areas and outlined them on the map as far as areas that could have either residential in combination with other uses or strictly residential. · On the map, at the right, there is an area along Tantau, north of 280 that is outlined in red. This area is currently Industrial/Office and there has been a fair number of vacancies there and a number of inquiries about converting some of those properties to residential uses · The next area is the south Valko area, outlined in green. This area is designated as mixed-use · The Valko area to the west of that is outlined in blue. That should primarily be a commercial area and it could have some mixed-use. For instance, Valko was interested in having some residential up near 280 · Just to the east of that area, on Stevens Creek, mixed-use or residential for some of the properties south of Stevens Creek Boulevard · The central Stevens Creek Boulevard area is outlined in a bright green. It has the same category---mixed-use or residential, and that is because if you go to the main part of Stevens Creek Boulevard, outlined in blue, again it is primarily commercial, with some mixed-use, but not exclusively residential. The same would be true for the Oaks further to the west · Going down to Bubb Road, that is possibly office or residential · Going down to south De Anza, we are calling that mixed-use · At Homestead, north of 280, it is designated mixed-use. We're not saying it is primarily commercial with residential-it could be a genuine mixed use · The classification criteria is criteria you might use if you were considering changing either a property or an area to something other than a non-residential use, such as: Is there a critical mass of those kinds of uses that would make it able to operate and stand alone? · The next criteria are" self-contained and cohesive". It integrates well as far as design goes, it is vacant or underutilized, provides a quality living environment, has available community services and is not a 5 February 14, 2005 Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 6 February 14, 2005 significant sales or user tax producer... or if it is, loss of revenue can be mitigating · The current Land Use element of the General Plan does allow residential in all of the land use categories, so if you wanted to maintain the status quo, you could really just leave it as it is and know that residential is allowed everywhere. It might require rezoning if someone came in with residential, but you would not need to change the General Plan · If you want to make it more explicit, you could identify certain areas that you specifically want to have designated uses. For example, Stevens Creek Boulevard is just Commercial/Office/Residential, so you don't necessarily know which uses you want and where. You could get a little more fine-grained than what we currently have. · You could also do it with an overlay. You could say, "Commercial is allowed, but you could do a residential overlay to say this an area we would also consider residential" · The finest grain you could go would be to identify specific parcels, which we haven't done here. One of the problems with that, is that, if you do that you are really being very directive to a property owner saying that the market may not say that this area should be commercial, but it will be commercial whether the market says so or not. This does not allow flexibility. Vice Chair Miller: · I would like to discuss individual properties · In looking around town, I've noticed a number of empty buildings. One of our objectives in reviewing the General Plan is to look at areas in town that are working and areas that are not working · Where things are now working, this is an opportunity to re-define the use or rezone, only if appropriate, to make it work better for the City · If we start with the Measurex property, it seems that it is not working that well as an industrial property, and it could potentially be another use · One of the other issues is that there always seems to be an over- abundance of jobs and an under-abundance of housing. To look for opportunities to change that balance is an advantage to the City · If some of that area were reduced in terms of its industrial use, it would reduce the job count. If it were changed to a housing component, that would benefit us in two ways · That is an area of town that is close to Monta Vista High School and could potentially impact the school, but there are a lot of residential Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 7 February 14, 2005 projects that might work-for example, a senior project might be appropriate for that site . My thought is to look at opportunities to be creative in doing something with these properties that might be of more benefit than their current uses · In the staff report, Ciddy mentioned that there is an area along Tantau, outlined in red, which also tends to be generally vacant. That is an area that is at the edge of the City, and if we were to do some other type of development in that area, such as a housing development, it would have minimal impact on the rest of the City, but might serve some of our housing needs · Edge areas are potential areas for developing housing · Los Altos, to meet their affordability housing needs, put one at the intersection of Homestead and Foothill, which is right at the edge of Cupertino and Los Altos · I'm sure the motivation was to keep it in Los Altos, but to keep it as far away from the center of town as possible · I also noticed that those structures are 4 stories - one story of parking, with 3 stories of housing over it · One issue is to make sure we are in good stead with ABAG, and I think the numbers we are talking about in any of the plans meet the ABAG numbers, but we are falling short in our affordability component in housing · When we did the city-wide survey, that was something that reached the top of the list in terms of what citizens would like to see us address · Looking for areas where we can put more affordable housing is a worthwhile exercise · In order for housing to be more affordable, it has to be higher density, and we are looking for places in town that have a minimal impact on our residential areas, but can allow us to increase the density to a point where we can make the housing affordable · In the current General Plan, it seems that the objective was to get more housing, and we changed our formulas for commercial in order to create incentives to build more housing. Now it seems that the situation is almost reversed. Almost everyone in town agrees that we want more commercial, but there is a lot of disagreement on how much more housing we want · Maybe we should be looking at doing the reverse-offering to allow people to have housing in return for more commercial, which everybody wants Planning Commission General Plan 8 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Chair Wong: · I want to protect the industrial area we have in north ValIeo, Bubb Road and North De Anza. Some of the spaces are under-utilized, but if we build houses in our industrial area, when the economy picks up, where will we put the future businesses in Cupertino? · Valleo south is the most perfect example of where we can put high density housing, as well as retail · Monta Vista is already impacted with traffic, so putting more housing in the Bubb Road/Measurex area would add to it. We haven't gotten the full EIR, so I would need to see that before I can make further comments Vice Chair Miller: · I don't think I am in disagreement with Gilbert's (Chair Wong) opinion about North De Anza. When I look at the North De Anza area, one of our prime revenue generators is Apple Computer. We should be supportive of Apple, as long as that support doesn't conflict with other goals in the City · It's clear that Apple is being very successful with their ipod, and they are taking up space in a lot of vacant space in the vicinity. It is clear they need more space in order to expand · In our current General Plan, that area is zoned for mixed-use, including housing. From my standpoint, it doesn't make sense to put housing on an internal, closed campus. That should probably be rezoned and the housing component taken out of that place, That would allow Apple to expand and increase the sales taxes that they give to the City Chair Wong: · Regarding the north Valleo area, along Tantau Road--this is the first time I have seen staff's suggestion to potentially look into building housing on the edge where it goes into residential Santa Clara, as well as, the new Kaiser Hospital · By opening that "Pandora's Box", we would be losing more industrial area in Cupertino. My concern is to protect that industrial park Vice Chair Miller: · We do differ there. I think the issue is that the more industrial we put in, the further we get from a balanced community · I spent the weekend reading studies on how to get balance in a community and how to reduce traffic. Interestingly, there is a strong argument that when you increase the density and you provide balance, you actually reduce traffic Planning Commission General Plan 9 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use . If you can encourage people to live in the community that they work in, people don't have to commute from outside the community and the traffic level is reduced . We already have centers of job density, and if we had centers of higher density housing in the City, it would become appropriate to have a bus system - perhaps a commute bus system that is funded by the local companies-that facilitates people moving around the City without increasing the traffic internally Director Piasecki: · Our current General Plan has offered housing just about everywhere, and has largely been market-driven. If the market says housing is the thing to do, they will put housing just about anywhere they can · It is our job to scrutinize that. Many people in the community get upset or agitated, because it might not seem like a logical place to put housing. It will impact the school, it will take away some opportunities for office or industrial · I think what Commissioner Miller is suggesting is that maybe we can be more strategic about identifying specific sites · This is not a staff recommendation so much as an approach, given the interest that the Commissioners have raised, where you might say, "Well, if you take the edge properties, those may be the ones that are most potentially connected to existing residential neighborhoods where the services exist." You don't let it be solely market driven · As part of an economic development strategy, we might want to allow a little more housing, if it accomplishes community objectives. By that I mean, housing may be an economic engine to drive better, higher quality commercial · You have to answer the question: To what end does the office or industrial serve community needs? · You can argue that we have some "Class AU Apple, HP type corporate citizens that are major contributors to the community. Then there are a lot of others that aren't contributing, and never have, and probably never will · Then the question is to what end are we preserving this ability to continue this use which isn't contributing much to our vision of more cohesiveness and smaller town qualities · We need to find a better way to finance what we do. We can no longer rely on the old mechanisms · Another strategy with housing might be to decide that it is an economic engine to drive some of the objective we have - such as the Rosebowl site where you have several hundred units driving 140,000 square feet Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 10 February 14, 2005 of retail, plus a cinema, which will hopefully reinvigorate that whole shopping center · Similarly, we might want to keep ourselves whole in terms of the cost to serve, so we might ask for an in-lieu fee to help us do that. The schools might also need an in-lieu fee, as well · The reason that staff continues to endorse the concept of mixed-use is that it is a very powerful market force today · We are seeing a change in the type of housing that new and upcoming families desire. They can't afford the traditional single-family home, so they are seeking other alternatives such as condos or townhouses in mixed-use projects, because they are more affordable · This should be working toward community ends-it should be "village-y", it should be connected, it should be obviously integrated into the fabric of our community. If it were residential today and office tomorrow, I would make the same argument for office tomorrow- maybe office tomorrow can be used to build a better community for Cupertino Commissioner Giefer: · Since Measurex has come up, I wanted to share a conversation I had with Rick Burgess, assistant superintendent of CUSO. This is for the Commission's knowledge. The Measurex site is across the street from Lincoln Elementary School. Kennedy and Monta Vista would be the middle and high schools. Lincoln is maxed out. They don't anticipate having any more room at that school for the next decade, given the current residential count in the neighborhood and the amount of children they are projecting to move forward. When we look at reclassifying or rezoning, we need to look at everything that goes into that · A senior project might work there, if in fact, that site is not producing tax revenue for the City · If we put in single-family homes or high-density homes that produce children for the school, they are going to be going to school at Stevens Creek Elementary School, which is not close. They would not be able to walk to school. · As we consider rezoning, we need to look at the holistic impact of what our actions may be producing Director Piasecki: · I want to stress that the current General Plan allows residential on that site, so if you're rezoning, you're rezoning away from that Planning Commission General Plan II Special Meeting February 14,2005 Housing and Land Use Chair Wong: · Lisa (Commissioner Giefer) brought up a good point. I agree with her and I'm also concerned about the traffic impact. I know there was a proposed plan for some kind of housing at Memorex. There was a proposal to send the students to another school site. They would be sent to Stevens Creek (Elementary), split between the new middle school and Cupertino Middle School and then to Homestead High SchooL That is not really building a community · Commissioner Miller had a good point that a senior complex would be a good project, but we can't tell property owners what they can or cannot build. Until we see the Environmental Impact Report, we can't make a decision Vice Chair Miller: · Is there some way we can encourage a property owner to do a senior housing project as opposed to some other type of housing project? Ms. Wordell: · I think there is. One thing would be, if someone comes in and wants to do residential, and we identify that some of these criteria could not be met, like the schools, a senior complex would be a very logical choice Director Piasecki: · The important thing is that the criteria work equally for a senior project as they would for an industrial or a single-family project · I would hope that if we were going to put seniors into a location, that there are the community assets and facilities, such as Memorial Park and the Senior Center and shopping, where they can walk to shopping, or maybe on a bus line · The Results Way I Measurex site doesn't have a lot of services that senior individuals would need in their community. A senior center may not be the best candidate when you go down Ciddy's list of criteria for that type of use. ValIeo, on the other hand, might be a great 10cation Chair Wong: · If we don't zone the Measurex area as residential, and since there are so many Rl residential areas plus a high school and middle school, we could zone it commercial for retail, since there is a market right there. Those folks could actually walk there. Director Piasecki: · This is a difficult site, under any circumstances. It is a very traffic- impacted area with the tri-schoollocation. If you put any user in there, Planning Commission General Plan 12 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use you have to W"eigh hoW" much traffic W"ilI be added during the peak periods. · It is interesting W"hen you are analyzing properties that, oftentimes, there are no quick and easy solutions Vice Chair Miller: · It sounds like the best use would be a park Ms. Wordell: · There will be time at the next regular Planning Commission meeting to discuss this item. The only agenda item is the General Plan. We are planning to discuss Environmental Resources, but this might be a good item to bring back · Some of the remaining discussion items are: Development Allocation and Housing Densities. · The major options before you are: What's Been Built; The Task Force Option, and the New Option, where some alternatives were suggested in terms of residential and hotel. One reason is that the Task Force did not realize that things had been built or approved between 2000 and now. They were either undercounting or really squeezing these areas by capping them where they did. You can look at possibly increasing the residential for those reasons, and the same for the hotel rooms · When the City Council talked about Land Use at their special meeting a week or so ago, one of the comments was that we all seem to be in agreement on the hillsides, we all seem to be in agreement on the neighborhoods, so discussion area is really our urban core and what options are there. There are complicated choices, but it does simplify the way you look at the General Plan, because the real options are in these areas · The Heart of the City and City Center slide has a bar graph showing commercial, office and residential in terms of what is built, what the existing General Plan would allow and what the Task Force draft is proposing · One aerial shows the heights recommended by the Task Force: 1) City Center, 45 ft., with 3-4 stories and 2) Heart of the City, 30-45 ft., 1-4 stories, depending on whether it is residential or non-residential Chair Wong: · So, the maximum height for the Heart of the City is 45 feet? Is it currently 45 feet in both the General Plan and the Heart of the City Plan? Planning Commission General Plan 13 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: · 35 feet is Heart of the City . The Heart of the City allows up to 45 feet through an exception process for certain things like roof features - it's not for extra stories Director Piasecki: . We'd really like to do away with the term "exception" and either say we allow it for roofs, period or not. This has generated so much misunderstanding and people have treated it like it's a variance, and it's not Ms. Wordell: · Looking at the ValIeo area, both north and south, most of the commercial development would go to the ValIeo Fashion Park because of their development agreement. The Task Force recommended the height limit for ValIeo North at 30 feet and ValIeo South at 35 feet · Hewlett Packard and North De Anza have something like 200,000 square feet wrapped up in their development agreement. The got a development agreement some years ago with the City and it was a fairly long-term agreement (20 years or so). A lot of the office growth in the North De Anza area is already wrapped up in Hewlett Packard · The last area that has the greatest possible change would be North De Anza and Homestead. In the North De Anza area, the height limit would be 30 feet with 1-2 stories and in the Homestead area, 35 feet in height with 1-3 stories Director Piasecki: · (Referring to the slide) If you look at North De Anza Boulevard with 30 feet and 1-2 stories, you're aware that the Apple campus has 4 stories and up to 60 feet, so any new buildings would be very short, relative to their neighboring buildings. Also, we have some 3-story buildings that are quite tall, around 45 feet. We may find that if we're looking at Apple as being one of the economic drivers and a good corporate citizen, they may need some additional capacity in the future and these types of limitations may not accommodate them in terms of their needs or in terms of compatibility with what is out there · One of things I would stress in terms of creating cohesiveness, we try to at least have buildings of similar height and mass and compatible- looking structures whether they are of the same use or not Ms. Wordell: · The summary of the last meeting's discussion of the hillside area is that there are 27 properties that have characteristics of the hillsides. The Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 14 February 14, 2005 Land Use map that was proposed, is proposing to change those from the valley floor low-density to the residential hillside 'I2-acre slope density. The feeling was that the zoning regulations would be beneficial and much easier implement. The real issue was the subdivision potential, and there was a fair amount of testimony about that at the meeting · We tried to do a rough analysis of what properties would be affected by going to the General Plan designation for 'I2-acre slope density. You heard at the last meeting that there are 4 properties that might be able to subdivide under the existing zoning and we need to look at them further, as do the property owners, to see how they may be affected by the slope density formula · It appears from the rough estimate, that out of the 4 properties, the Del Orr property and Knott property might have the size and the less steep slopes that might allow a subdivision of the two properties · It is possible that the other two properties, Santoro and Sun, have an average slope that is steep enough that would not allow subdivision. They would probably need to do their own slope density analysis to determine the actual outcome, but they do have quite steep slopes · That is all the discussion about the hillsides, so going back to the discussion outline, we are talking about development allocation, housing densities and economic impacts. We would like to delay the school impacts discussion until we have met with the school districts and come to more of an agreement on what the school impacts will be from the proposed General Plan · If you would like to talk more about the "One percent for Art" ordinance, or if you have any other points on open space parks or the specific properties, that would complete the topics of discussion for tonight Chair Wong: · Could you go over the commercial floor area ratio again and tie it in with mixed uses · Currently we don't have a horizontal mixed-use regarding housing to commercial Ms. Wordell: · The issue with the Task Force was that in the administrative draft, there was a reference to a floor area ratio for commercial and office. Traditionally, commercial had been 25% floor area ratio and office had been 33%. In the administrative draft, the suggestion was to lower the floor area ratio for commercial and office to 15%. If they did mixed-use, they could possibly get more or they could maximize the build out of Planning Commission General Plan IS Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use their property by doing mixed use. It ""as an incentive to lovver the floor area ratio to encourage mixed use · The Task Force took out the reference to allow a mixed use, but left in the low floor area ratio. That has to be fixed by either raising the floor area ratio or by leaving the mixed use in or going back to the current General Plan which is more a pool of commercial square footage that doesn't have a floor area ratio for commercial uses · The current General Plan has a pool of square footage for non- residential areas. The Heart of the City has a commercial pool, shopping centers of more than 5 acres have their own pool, a power retail has its own pool-it's not by property, but rather by category Chair Wong: · How was the 25% floor area ratio decided for commercial? Director Piasecki: · If you have a standard shopping center, typically there is a 25%floor area ratio of building area, and the remaining area is taken up by parking and landscaping · It is a convention in the industry, because retail commercial doesn't usually do two floors. They usually stay at the single story building, because they need accessibility. They generally do at-grade parking, so the floor area ratio ends up working out to be about 25% · If you restrict them to 15%, unless you give them something else, you probably not have any change because it's not a practical percentage to build stand-alone retail. Why would you tear down a 25 or 30% building to build a 15% new building? · You either allow them to back-fill with some residential or you "up" the numbers for the retail to the conventional 25% · We are a primarily built-out community. People will not tear down an older shopping center simply to replace it square foot for square foot of retail · There is a strong market now for mixed use and other kinds of innovative types of land use patterns than we've seen in the last 20 years Chair Wong: · Could you tell me what the percentage of retail versus housing is at Santana Row Planning Commission General Plan 16 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Director Piasecki: . I don't have the exact ratio, but I can tell you it's very density. There are high-density apartments and the retail is very high. The ratio would be much higher than 25% Vice Chair Miller: · I have some numbers from Palo Alto. Before 1989, in Palo Alto, neighborhood/ commercial was one to one floor area ratio. Then they decided there was too much intensity of development, and they cut it back to 40% floor area ratio · If there is general agreement in the community that one area we should be encouraging is retail and commercial development, and if developers seem to be inclined toward housing, instead of having an incentive to build housing, we should be having an incentive to build commercial. The bonus is to allow them a few housing units · We have seen one application before us, the Adobe Inn, on Stevens Creek Boulevard where the proposal was primarily residential and a little bit of commercial. That seemed to be an unpopular choice · One of the things we might consider when we do a mixed-use project, where we are hoping for commercial to be developed, there has to be some minimum percentage of the project that is commercial-and it can't be just a minimal amount Director Piasecki: · One of the factors that the Commission needs to weigh in on is that we know for certain that there is not an inexhaustible demand for commercial. If there were, all of the commercial in our current General Plan would have been built out. We're not seeing that. There is no stampede to build commercial in the community. Even the old 1993 General Plan emphasized that we have three primary areas: ValIeo, City Center/Crossroads and the Oaks that are specialty shopping districts. The "mid-blocks" could be other than commercial · If we load the Plan with lots of commercial and tell developers they must build commercial, the developers may just walk away · What we don't want is to force property owners to build "marginal" commercial. We need really strong, active commercial to create connections and viable districts and fulfill community needs, as well as, providing sales taxes Vice Chair Miller: · I agree with that. We don't want to put in commercial and have it not be successful Planning Commission General Plan 17 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use . One way we might try to help commercial be successful is to take different areas in town and define them as study areas, and invite the landowners in each of these areas to see if we can't reach some kind of agreement to move ahead with a particular project that has a mutual benefit for both the City and the landowners Commissioner Giefer: · I have a question regarding the public art on page 6 of the staff report. It seems that staff have changed their position with regard to the 1 % funding for public art. It seems that the position has been softened from what we heard last week. I'm trying to clarify whether I have misunderstood your position or why it has changed Ms. Wordell: · I don't think the position has changed. We talked about some options, and the Fine Arts Commission was promoting the 1 % for art. They are very strong on that Commissioner Giefer: · Specifically, the Task Force is recommending the wording: Develop and adopt a one percent art ordinance · If I'm reading this correctly, the new option is saying: Consider developing and adopting a one percent art ordinance Ms. Wordell: · That is presented as an option, because we know that is a controversial recommendation in terms of a policy · It originated with the Fine Arts Commission and the Task Force didn't discuss it · It was brought up as a way of being sure that it did get people's attention, Knowing that there could be some reactions to it, we wanted to put out some options in case you wanted to consider other wording Mark McKenna, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce representative: · There are three issues we'd like to address tonight 1. Maximum building heights and densities: The Chamber would prefer no maximum height restrictions on buildings. However, we will support the original administrative draft plan, which allows for flexibility of our business and development community 2. Narrowing of Stevens Creek (Boulevard): The Chamber does not support any narrowing of any main artery of the City. This would cause too much congestion and would make Cupertino a Plar=:ng COtt11IDSSIOn General Plan 18 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use business-and-cornmunity-unfriend1y toW'n. People W'ill not W'alk across an extremely busy, narrow road over a normal-sized busy road. This move would make no sense and would cost too much money for no major benefit to the community 3. Housing: The Chamber realizes that the homes-to-jobs ratio is off. We would be concerned with any recommendation to lessen the net amount of commercial/retail square footage throughout the City Alan Loving, forward pIanner for Taylor Woodrow Homes: · I am here in a dual role tonight. The owner or the representative of the owner of the Results Way property could not be here tonight · He asked that the Commissioners get copies of a letter that he sent to Mr. Piasecki and to the City CounciL He thought it would be relevant for your consideration in the General Plan update · Taylor Woodrow constructed the Astoria project on Imperial Road just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is a 56-unit multi-unit project · We have been negotiating with the Grosvenor people who owned the Astoria property and who own the MeasurexjHoneywell site · We have been negotiating to acquire about a ll-acre portion of that site in order to develop single-family detached homes · We are proposing to build 94 homes on that property. They will range in size from 2,000 to 2,400 square feet · We think this is a good location for housing. Because the current General Plan indicates there could be 150 housing units in that Bubb Road area. Fifty-six of them were built at Astoria. The remaining 94 is what we are proposing on the southern part of that property · We realize that there are some real concerns about the schools and traffic in that area. We urge you to wait until the studies have been completed to at least consider what the impacts really are · There has been a lot of confusion about the schools. We hear from some people that the schools can handle a project of 94 homes, and that the additional students would not overcrowd the schools. Then we hear from other people that it would be a tremendous impact · We'd like to get to the bottom of that issue and work with staff to find out what the school districts' capacities are · I encourage you not to change the Bubb Road designation. The owners have tried to lease it. The use is currently obsolete. The buildings are currently obsolete, and he hasn't been successful in leasing it out for other industrial users Planning Commission General Plan 19 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Chair Wong: . Since we haven't gotten the Traffic Impact Report or the School Impact Report, but we do know that there are impacts that could have been mitigated, and Lisa (Commissioner Giefer) has a very good point that some students would have to be sent to other schools and that our community really encourages "walkability", How would you address or mitigate those concerns? Mr. Loving: . I think that is my point-we have heard both sides of the story. We have heard that, for certain, the middle school and elementary school would not be impacted by our project and require the children to go to other schools · There has been discussion about the high school, but the problem with the high school numbers is that they move around a lot. We understood there was supposed to be a study completed by the end of November. The study wasn't completed-it was moved to the end of January. I spoke to the school district last week, and they said it will take another two months. That is a problem for everybody, because we can't figure out what the real story is John Knopp, Cupertino resident: · I'm here to talk about those special properties on Mt. Crest and Lindy Lane · I sent each of you an e-mail representing some of the concerns and thoughts of some of the property owners. It only went out today, we were a little bit confused, and please bear with us-we're trying to sort this all out, too · A little over ten years ago, the Planning Commission took a look at that hillside, then 9 properties, and couldn't find any reason to change the zoning. So, they left it as it was · We just found out that on March 1, some limitations are going to be imposed, going to 15% slope density. We weren't aware of that. We are still trying to figure out what that means and what the impact is · The essential problem is that we bought all of our properties, realizing that there is real value if you can subdivide. Most of the 27 properties that are under consideration now, could not be subdivided under current conditions or those that are being proposed · There are 4 or 5 that could be and that are affected · The proposal to go to RHS came out as informational, and we had some informational meetings and we were here a week ago. The assumption was that there wouldn't be much impact on those properties Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 20 February 14, 2005 · There probably is a great deal of impact. We don't know how much it is, though. That is the essential problem · If you look at the Moxley property, it is probably a good example, It was subdivided into 3 lots and each lot was sold for about $1,000,000 · If it were under the restrictions that are going to go into effect on March 1, or the RHS, you could not get three properties out of that. You might get one or maybe two · There are a couple of other properties that have been looked at, and under current zoning, could subdivide. We don't know if they would meet the restrictions of under 15% or the RHS · The real problem is that we don't know what the economic impact is · What we are trying to do is preserve the value of the property and not let it arbitrarily be taken away · If any development were to be done on any of those properties, we would want to take a look at the environment to make sure that it can be done without creating additional problems · When the Moxley property was subdivided, there were a number of restrictions that were placed on the size of the housing, positioning of the houses, trees, site views, etc. · We understand that, if we were to subdivide, we would have to go through that, and we would want to go through that. We are not trying to slip questionable properties in here · We'd like to roll back the 15% and preserve our ability to subdivide in the future, rather than cutting it off altogether right now Dick Weaver, Cupertino resident: · When the "Vision" chart went up, if it is an historical document, it is fine. If it is an "ongoing" document, could we add the word "healthy"? The City will be healthy. · Art is being talked about. I would appreciate an accounting for what the City has - the only word I have is "extorted". The City in the past has extorted money from developers. I'd like to know what I have today in the City for the money the City has required to be spent on art in the past · I'd like an accounting of the art money the City has spent thus far · The last speaker has reminded me that property is a speculative investment. Things can change Deborah Jamison, Cupertino resident: · I am here under" Other" · Maybe I'm just here to say the words "Open Space, Parks and Trails" so that this subject comes up Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 21 February 14,2005 . I want to recommend two changes to the draft General Plan and reiterate what I said last week to you · One changè would be to prioritize the trail linkage from Rancho San Antonio, where the trail is going to be coming out in the vicinity of the Hammond/Snyder House. The trail, as shown in the current General Plan and the County Trails Master Plan, goes over privately owned land to connect directly to the county park. I would like to see that prioritized, because that trail connection is a much higher-quality trail experience than the trail alignment which is being pursued currently- and that is marching people up Stevens Creek Boulevard for 1.3 miles to Blackberry Farm to connect the Stevens Creek Trail · The second change I recommend is to strike the words" formal urban" when referring to the Stevens Creek Trail through our Stevens Creek corridor park land and substitute "maintained rural" · Even though there has been some disagreement about this trail, I think everyone on the Parks and Recreation Commission and all of the residents who have been participating in this discussion agree that trail ought to be rustic, rural and the word "urban" is inappropriate to apply to that trail · A question I brought up last time is that when the Diocese property was approved for development with a much-reduced density of housing units than what was originally proposed, property was dedicated to the county, and I believe some property was dedicated for a City park. We were promised trail access to these dedicated public lands before the first house was to be built · It is now over ten years later, and, as far as I know, those trails have not been developed or that public access has not been provided · I think that ought to be a high priority also · I want to second the remarks of my neighbor about a "healthy" community. I think that, even though development proposals keep getting made, it is unhealthy to put residential housing units next to major highways and highway interchanges · It is especially unhealthy for children, for people with asthma, people with reduced lung capacity - it is unhealthy for all of us, but it could be deadly for some people, and I don't think that's the kind of development that should be proposed, even though in some places it is convenient or will meet some housing goals Chair Wong: · Regarding the trail linkage on private property, is she talking about the old Halls Road that the private school owns? Is that correct? Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: . It's actually north of that. It's in the General Plan on page 2-52 Trail Linkages, Figure 2-1. The trail that Deborah was talking about is the dots - "Future Trail Linkages". It's the far left trail shown on that map, The top part of that trail, which is "Future Trail Linkages" does match up with a trail that the County got some funding for and is going to be implementing by the fall of next year. That would be along the creek, more or less in the Diocese cemetery area. As it goes further south or southeast, that is not part of any City plan to extend it · Deborah referred to it being a part of the County plan, but it would be for the future as far as the City implementing it . We felt it was appropriate to maintain that as a future trail, rather than existing or proposed, though I think we possibly could have changed the upper part of that to existing or proposed, since it should be coming online in about a year and a half · The trail map that was included in the packet shows a trail going near Cristo Rey Drive and going north of the Oak Valley subdivision. It is getting very close to being open to the public. I believe you can access it now, but it's not officially open. They are still working on it · Some of it is very close, and some of it is a little bit further down the line, but it is coming 22 February 14, 2005 Chair Wong: · Closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Commission · I suggest that we use Exhibit A, which talks about the Hot Topics, commercial floor area ratios, economic development plan, 1 % for the art ordinance, Open Space, Parks and Trails and specific properties and see if some of the Commissioners would like to give direction to staff · I know that we haven't received the full ElR, so we can't give everything to staff, but I want to see if some of the Commissioners feel comfortable enough to give some kind of input to staff Director Piasecki: · It would be good for the Commission to make comments to your other commissioners, because you're going to ultimately need to come to some consensus-with at least three of you agreeing on where you want to go with heights, housing densities, the balanced community, etc. · You are making proposals to each other at this point Commissioner Saadati: · In general, I think we need to be flexible Plarming Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 23 February 14, 2005 . It would be very difficult to determine what the future will bring · As far as some of the comments that my colleagues made pertaining to available spaces, which were bordered in red, under the opportunity for putting some affordable housing or housing on the exterior of the City, if that is pursued, is that in line with "inclusiveness?" · If a senior center is built outward, how can people access the center of town? · As far as the community is concerned, which has been expressed at the various public meetings, people are looking for areas to gather. Those areas would most likely be focused close to the center of town · Regarding the height of buildings - Steve brought a point regarding the current heights which exist at the Apple complex. Was the 60' height done through an exception? Ms. Wordell: · I don't believe there were any height limitations at the time that the Apple complex was built · The height limitation went into the General Plan after that Director Piasecki: · If you were to take the most common height along the street frontage of the North DeAnza Boulevard area, it would be around the 45-foot figure, as opposed to the 30-35 foot limit · A three-story office building tends to have a I5-foot floor to plate height, so three stories gives you 45 feet. That is a fairly comfortable number from staff's viewpoint · I would like to suggest to the Commission that, as you are discussing this, you might determine where you'd like the Commission's recommendation to go-how would you alter the Task Force recommendations-if at all-on the very specific areas? · If you can't come to resolution on any or all of the topics tonight, you may need to think about it further, and that is fine, too · We'd just like for you to start working toward resolution of your recommendations Commissioner Saadati: · My concern would be that, no matter what heights we determine to be included in the General Plan, what would it impact? · You could build buildings of a little over 45 feet, but if it's done properly and in the right location, the impact may not be as obvious as if it was not built properly · There should be some level of flexibility Planning Commission General Plan 24 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use . For example, if we look at Valko South, the Administrative Draft is 30- 60 feet, 2-3 stories, and the new option is 45 feet. What would be the impact as far as keeping the community vital? Director Piasecki: · For Valko South, to give you as sense of it, the new theater complex, which is part of the development agreement, is going to be up around the high 70's, perhaps 78 to dose to 80 feet tall · That is a vested element under the development agreement · What you really need to think about is what kind of heights you're going to need for future hotels · Those are the only buildings that we would envision getting much taller than two to three, or even four stories in this area · That is probably not a bad format if you were to define that-it would get you up to around 60 feet. For an office building you may be able to get up to 6 floors, if you went 60 feet, though that would be really scrunching it · The floor height for a hotel is usually not more than 10 feet per floor, with the exception of the first floor, and similarly for residential · Maybe you would want to only allow 60 feet for hotels and everyone else would have to conform to a 45-foot limit Commissioner Saadati: · My view would be to try to limit to the level, and based on the level, that would result in a height that might be below what we discussed in the past · I would suggest 45-50 feet, which would easily allow a 4-story building, If someone wants to build a 3-level building within that height, that would be possible, too · I don't foresee any residential unit with such a high floor height · In the Homestead area, with the new option that has been proposed, it all the same height-45 feet. I feel comfortable with this, with allowing some flexibility · We don't know what the impact will be on future development and potential offices · Is there any demand for office space right now? Director Piasecki: · No, there is no demand now · From staff's standpoint, 45 feet is not an unreasonable number that the Task Force is recommending in the City Center · It seems to be a workable number Planning Commission General Plan 25 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use . There is very little development potential. most of it will happen toward the southern end where it should step down anyway Commissioner Saadati: . That would be closer to street then, wouldn't it? Because, right now, the 60-ft. buildings are set back a few hundred feet from the street, right? Director Piasecki: · Yes, generally it is true that there is a setback relationship. The taller buildings are set back further · The former Ernst and Young building, which is a 2-story structure, is 38-ft. tall. You can see how a structure like that with only 2 floors is pushing 40 feet. So 45 feet provides a little bit of flexibility · That is what the Task Force is recommending and even the new option has the same number · It would be good if we could at least get through the height issues tonight Chair Wong: · I think I know where I am heading, and let's see if we can get some consensus · Let's look at page one of the Cupertino Task Force Hot Topic Summary. The first page is "Height" . · Monta Vista: It says 2-3 stories, I don't feel comfortable writing "stories" -I want to give "feet". I'm suggesting Monta Vista should be a maximum height of 30 feet; Valko Park South, a maximum height of 60 feet; Heart of the City, a maximum height of 45 feet; Homestead, a maximum height of 60 feet; City Center, a maximum height of 45 feet; North De Anza, a maximum height of 60 feet and Valko Park North, 60 feet, commercial only · Let us use that as a discussion point and see if we can get some consensus Commissioner Saadati: · For the areas with a maximum of 60 feet, at what distance from the street? Chair Wong: · Right now, we're talking about height only Planning COrnnUssion General Plan 26 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Commissioner Chen: · I want to come back to the original general guidelines of how we want to conduct the meeting . I thought we are not giving specific directions. We are making comments. If we can make some general comments, maybe we can go into the specifics next time when everybody is better prepared · Or do we want to go through these areas one-by-one and give specific directions and start a discussion Chair Wong: · That is really up to my colleagues. I just wanted to give some direction to staff · I like to be more specific and not "beat around the bush" Commissioner Saadati: · I agree with the Chair. We need to come to some sort of resolution and at least give some direction to staff. It can be discussed further at the next meeting Commissioner Giefer: · I'm comfortable talking about heights specifically, because I do think we need to start moving through and seeing if we have consensus · We need to provide flexibility for the community for the next twenty years · I would rather see a cluster of density along Stevens Creek than having us infill the neighborhoods and create additional crowding in existing neighborhoods · I would agree with what the Chair has said, with the exception of the following: On Homestead, I would prefer to see that only go to 45 feet high. I'm not sure I agree with the North De Anza area at 60 feet. I think that, if it's a very well-designed building, height and setback should be considered and become part of that · We need to give developers guidance in terms of where we would like to see them go · I know that Apple is at 60 feet high, and we need to create a visual image where it is integrated into the site. Apple tends to sit alone. In that area, 45 feet is the maximum I'd like to see · In the Valko Park North, I would prefer 45 feet · In the City Center, I may be willing to go higher than 45 feet · In Valko Park South, I agree with 60 feet · For North De Anza, I am waffling. I'm more comfortable with 45 feet, but if it's a very well executed project that fits in well and is well Planning Commission General Plan 27 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use integrated on the site, that is one area where I am not completely firm at this time Vice Chair Miller: · I look at this in terms of what we're trying to do, and in the gateway areas of town, where they're away from the residential areas and we're looking at more affordable housing projects or more intense commercial development, I'm in favor of going to higher height limitations. · That would be in the Vallco area, the Homestead area and in the North De Anza area. I'm comfortable with looking at as much as 60 feet, although I wouldn't want to give a blanket approval to that · Within the Apple campus, 60 feet is already there and there's absolutely no problem with having other buildings that go 60 feet · I notice that you have 30-45 next to that. Does that imply that Apple is separate from the other areas in North De Anza? Ms. Wordell: . Yes Vice Chair Miller: · It may be appropriate that for the Apple site, we offer a little more and for the other areas, we stay more consistent with what is already there, which I believe is a 45-ft. height limit · Going back to the Homestead area, I think that is an area that has been identified as a potential area for more intense development and staff is suggesting a 45-foot limit, and I'm certainly very comfortable with 45. I'm still not sure that 60 feet is appropriate in that area · I agree that in the Monta Vista area, we should keep the height down and 30 feet is fine-maybe with a maximum of 35 feet · In the Heart of the City, I think we have general agreement of 45 feet · City Center-45 feet, and 60 feet for both North and South Valko areas Commissioner Chen: · I want to come back to the point of "balance". The General Plan is a balanced land use plan to address the needs of different ages, different incomes, different jobs and different groups of people with different ethnic backgrounds to let them live happily in this community and be provided with the quality of life that every property owner in this community deserves · With the limited land that we have, I think mixed-use is a good compromise to address those needs Planning Commission General Plan Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 28 February 14, 2005 · Looking at height, I think height should be in balance with setback. If the building is high, but far enough away from the curbside and street, it is not as intrusive as are some of the buildings that are brought up to the street and also very high · If all we want to look at tonight is height, I would be conservative. If the height goes up, I would use that to encourage mixed use · In Monta Vista, I see an agreement between the Task Force draft and the New Options, and I would agree with the 2-3 story limit · Valko-the Task Force is recommending 35 feet and the New Options is recommending 45 feet. I would feel uncomfortable to push it up to 60 feet and I would suggest 35-45 feet and, only in special cases-if it is a mixed use, well received by the community - would we consider pushing it up slightly higher · Heart of the City-I see an agreement between Task Force and New Options of 30-45 feet, and I will go with that · Homestead-35 feet up to 45 feet. Again, I would use 45 feet just to encourage mixed use · Civic Center-35 feet to 45 feet. That is not a problem with me · North De Anza-60 feet for Apple. I want to stress the importance of balance between height and setback. Apple is high, but Apple is not seen from the public streets, so I don't see a problem with leaving Apple at 60 feet, but I would feel very uncomfortable if we push all the buildings up to 60 feet. So, 30-45 feet for the remaining buildings of the North De Anza area. Again I would use 45 feet to encourage mixed use · Valko North-30-45 feet. I want to come back to my point of 45 feet, only if it's mixed use and it's a project that the community wants and is well received Chair Wong: · I think I am hearing a general theme from the whole commission that, when we talk about maximum height, it doesn't mean that we will allow the maximum height. It has to be balanced between design, setback, landscaping, mixed use and how much commercial versus housing · These are just maximums of what we can do. I am not advocating that the whole area of Vallco South should be all 60 feet. It has to be integrated very well. · I would like to talk about the units-per-acre in each of the different special centers areas to give us some of guidance, because that would be helpful, too Planning Commission General Plan 29 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: · Could we get Taghi's (Commissioner Saadati) response on all of the areas? I think he mentioned a couple, but not all of them Commissioner Saadati: · Monta Vista-about 35 feet to 3 stories · Vallco South - 45 feet. I am willing to look at 60 feet, depending on how the project is designed and if it is mixed use · Heart of the City Plan-45 feet · Homestead-45 feet · City Center-45 feet · North De Anza-45 feet, but reiterating how it is designed, how close it is to the street - if it goes further back, a little bit higher building can be allowed · North ValIeo-I lean toward 60 feet, hoping for some mixed use Chair Wong: · I want to go to page 3 and throw out some ideas regarding units-per- acre in different neighborhoods · On ValIeo South, I agree that it should be 35 per acre · Heart of the City - 25 per acre · Homestead - the reason I agree the Administrative Draft Plan of going 50 per acre is that we always talk about affordable housing and I believe that Villa Serra can accommodate that. We have to look into the school impact and traffic impact, but that is an area in which we should be a little more open and flexible · Civic Center - I agree with 35 per acre · North De Anza, ValIeo Park North and Bubb Road-I don't support any housing units. These are the three areas in Cupertino that are industrial areas, and I believe that we need to protect our industrial areas for the future · We can do in-lieu fees for maybe 20 years, but I don't think that will suffice for the next new companies. Where will they go? · I want to take out those housing units and put them somewhere else in Cupertino · This is for discussion and I'd like to hear from my colleagues Commissioner Giefer: · I'm not ready to talk about the number of units in each area · I have a question for staff - as I was review this and thinking things through, must we indicate exactly where in the City the housing units Planning Commission General Plan 30 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use have to be or can we just have one pool of them, that as projects come in that merit consideration, we then assign the housing pool Ms. Wordell: · It seems like that is theoretically possible. One of the problems is the Environmental Impacts can be analyzed more easily in the General Plan through areas, because you do have to, at least hypothetically, put them somewhere in order to do an environmental impact. Otherwise, you'd have no idea · We do have a new phrase that may have escaped notice. In the Draft and the Task Force Draft, it says that, even though the numbers are by area, they can be flexible, so if you have a certain number of housing units that are shown for a particular area, this General Plan would allow it to be moved from one area to another if you chose to do that · That is not exactly what you're asking, but there is a way of getting there, even with the Draft Commissioner Giefer: · In general, I think the numbers that originally were in the Administrative Draft, especially now that we realize that some of the units that the Task Force did not understand were already committed, show that we have a deficit between what the Task Force recommended and what the reality is · I am more comfortable with the densities of the Administrative Draft. I wish we could just pool them and assign them as projects come to us with merit · I understand that increase the amount of complexity Commissioner Saadati: · Monta Vista -12 units per acre · Valko South-35 (units per acre) · Heart of the City Plan-25 (units per acre) · Homestead-35 (units per acre), the same as the Task Force recommendation · City Center-35 (units per acre), the same as the Task Force · North De Anza-I am leaning toward something between the Task Force and the New Options, depending on the total number of units. As long as we come close to the ABAG total-we were supposed to get some new data regarding ABAG, due to the change in the market, and I am wondering if that will have an impact on the total number Planning Commission General Plan 31 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: . I'm not following what we were expecting from ABAG Commissioner Saadati: . Previously, there was a question of the ABAG projected number of units for Cupertino. Is that the most recent data? Ms. Wordell: · It is good until 2006, and probably even longer than that, because they have never rebounded quickly enough to give us new numbers when the old ones expire Commissioner Saadati: · North De Anza-35 (units per acre) · Valleo North-I'll go with the Task Force draft · Buff Road-20 (units per acre), which is the same · Undesignated - there is a total number of units at 850. How does that compare with the Task Force recommendation, which is 20 units per acre? Ms. Wordell: · I'm not sure if the existing General Plan has a density for "undesignated". Let me check that. Maybe it is 20 Commissioner Saadati: · If that coincides with 20, then I agree with the 850 Vice Chair Miller: · Monta Vista-we want to keep this area low, and I'm assuming 12 units per acre is reasonable · On Valleo Park, there is currently no allocation. Is that correct? We've used them all up, so are the 700 in the New Options new allocations that are being proposed for that area? Ms. Wordell: · It's a partial new allocation. Actually, some of it is going to be used up by Valleo Fashion Park-204 of that already are spoken for. Menlo Equities is spoken for, with 107. If Toll Brothers wanted something, it could come out of that larger number - or if Valleo Fashion Park wanted more housing Planning Commission General Plan 32 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Vice Chair Miller: · Could you give some clarification on what "undesignated" really is? Where in town is "undesignated"? Ms. Wordell: · It got changed a little bit between the existing General Plan used it and the way the Task Force used it. The existing General Plan was really a small number of units for the non-residential areas, for the most part, that were just "floating" units, and it was a fairly low number. When the Task Force did their numbers, they lumped anything that wasn't a special area like North ValIeo and North De Anza into "undesignated", and they maybe annoyingly put all the neighborhood units into that, as well. We had never counted "undesignated" as the neighborhood units, and that is actually one of the problems with the Task Force draft-they didn't account for maybe 600 units that could build out just by normal zoning in the neighborhoods. The reason we bumped up the New Option for "undesignated" was to account for the neighborhood units, as well as units that could be applied to the other nonresidential areas Vice Chair Miller: · I'm not sure I'm clear on exactly what street do I look for "undesignated" on. The existing General Plan has 947 units. Maybe it would be helpful to know what the units-per-acre is Director Piasecki: · It might be helpful, when we come back with the other items, to bring a map in and show where those "undesignated" units would be located. In some cases, they are not very likely to redevelop to gain the one or two units scattered throughout these areas that might be possible. In other cases, there are underdeveloped or clearly vacant properties that will be developed in time. Let us bring back some more clarity on that Vice Chair Miller: · I had a question on North De Anza area-is the end of the North De Anza area on the northern side Highway 280 or does it go past Highway 280 to Homestead? Ms. Wordell: · It ends at 280 Planning Commission General Plan 33 Special Meeting February 14,2005 Housing and Land Use Vice Chair Miller: · In the Val1co Park South area, I would be willing to consider 35-50 units per acre and look at possibly increasing it over 700 units · Heart of the City - I am comfortable with the New Option and the Task Force recommendations · Homestead-I agree with Gilbert (Chair Wong) that we'd like to have the flexibility of going as high as 50 units per acre · North De Anza area-we should probably leave that area as a commercial/industrial zone and protect it and eliminate the units there · Val1co Park North-we talked earlier about some edge properties and we might take those 300 units and put them on those edge properties · Bubb Road-we are potentially some units on the Measurex site, although that is still uncertain. We should have units allocated there in case that makes sense to go ahead with that site and it may need more than 81 units Ms. Wordell: · But you're keeping the 20 density? Vice Chair Miller: · Yes, in fact 20 may be too high for that area. I would be more comfortable with 12 · I think that, if we're going to do anything there, it should not be of too much intensity Ms. Wordell: · What did you say for City Center? Vice Chair Miller: · 35 is fine. City Center is essentially pretty much built out at this point. The Task Force recommendation is fine there Ms. Wordell: · For ValIeo North, you didn't mention density Vice Chair Miller: · I would say 35-50 units per acre. Again, I will just wait for further clarification on "undesignated" Commissioner Chen: · Monta Vista - I will go with 12 units · ValIeo South-I'd like clarification on "some of the units are spoken for" Planning Commission General Plan 34 Special Meeting February 14,2005 Housing and Land Use Ms. Wordell: · Valko Fashion Park got 204 units, although 20 of them came from "undesignated", so 184 went to Valko Fashion Park and 107 went to Menlo Equities · That number came out high, because at one time there was quite a bit of residential that was proposed there, in addition to what was already committed Commissioner Chen: · So, we seeded the Task Force recommendation already. I'll max it out at 291, so whatever I will go with whatever units per acre are needed to achieve that · Heart of the City - 25 units per acre · Homestead - 35 units · City Center-35 units is fine with me · North De Anza - I feel uncoITÚortable with the high units recommended. I will go with 25 units · Valko North-I agree with Gilbert (Chair Wong), it is zero · Bubb Road -12 units · Undesignated - I need more clarification on that one Chair Wong: · I want to address the specific properties · What was staff's recommendation regarding specific properties? Ms. Wordell: · The recommendation was to change the land use designation to slope density '/2 acre hillside Chair Wong: · Could there be some flexibility for the four specific properties? Ms. Wordell: · You would need to change the land use map or some text. You would either need to allow a higher density on the map or say something in the General Plan that would allow subdivision · The two elements are subdivision and zoning, whether it will be under RH5 or Rl, so one possibility would be to still develop the units under the Hillside zone, but possibly allow subdivision of the existing lots that could subdivide Vice Chair Miller: · I went out and looked at the property and read an e-mail that was sent by one of the neighbors, John James, who said that in the 1982-83 winter season, heavy rains caused liquefaction on hillside and completely destroyed his home and damaged his neighbors' homes, as well · I also looked at the Moxley property that we had approved - and looking at the way that house is being built on the top and the huge amount of retaining walls that are being built, I cannot help but think that if those retaining walls were to give way, there would very easily be a slide that would affect properties below Commissioner Saadati: · I am in favor of rezoning, but as far as subdividing, I think we should be consistent with the adjacent area. We need to look at the stability of it. If the technical or soils engineer analysis indicate it is not feasible to subdivide because of risk of slides, that should be taken into consideration · Allow subdivision pending a positive geo-technical report that sees no potential hazard of sliding Planning Commission General Plan 35 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use Commissioner Giefer: · It appears that there are primarily two lots that will lose the potential to subdivide at a later time · I think it is important for us to give our comments to the residents tonight · It appears that the Sun and the Santoro properties mayor may not be divisible, depending upon what survey results are done for them. The others are more likely to be divisible at a later time, based on staff's current analysis · My concern remains that, in that area, it looks like a hill. It looks just like the opposite side of the hill, which is RHS, once you get past the tract development · The area has slid in the past, both on Lindy Lane and on Linda Vista on the opposite side of the hill · As we increase additional homes in that area, we will decrease the vegetation and the trees, which makes it more susceptible to sliding in the future · I'm concerned that, by not consistently zoning the hillside area, we have created a preferential zoning district, which I think may have some legal considerations for the City · I am in favor of rezoning AQJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2005 . Chair Wong: · If you could let the owners of the specific properties know when we are going to be talking about this, they will not have to come to every meeting · I appreciate all of you coming here on Valentine's Day to talk about this, and if you could keep in contact with Ciddy (Ms. Wordell), she will let you know when we'll be talking about it. Plan to come toward the end, when we will be making our final decision · I would like to continue the rest of the items and we can give our recommendations at the next meeting · We can continue the recommendations first and then go into the Environmental Resources discussion Ms. Wordell: · We do have our geological consultant coming to our March 22 meeting. It might be a good time to ask him about that area, or just a general question about what kind of assurance we can have about the safety of the hillsides Chair Wong: . I am a strong believer in private property rights. If it can be subdivided, I would like to see it subdivided · My other concern is safety issues and landslides · Again, the geological study needs to be done, You will probably not get the standards of RI. It will probably be a mixture of RI and RHS · We do need protection for the hillside, and I think the neighbors are very open to that. We will continue to work with staff to see where we can come to resolution Commissioner Chen: · I think Marty (Vice Chair Miller) hit it right on-safety is the main concern. How do we determine if it's safe or not. I don't feel I understand the topic well enough to make any recommendation tonight Planning Commission General Plan 36 Special Meeting February 14, 2005 Housing and Land Use · One of the primary reasons for the hillside ordinance is to protect the hills and the neighbors that are below from natural hazards. Evidence that we have had slides in that area in the past, speaks for rezoning from a standpoint of safety Planning Commission Genera] P]an Special Meeting Housing and Land Use 37 February ]4, 2005 Respectfully submitted: ecording Secretary