Loading...
PC 02-22-05 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Developrnent Director: City Planner: Assistant City Attorney Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes ofthe January 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Saadati requested the following change: . Page 26, 4th motion: The vote should state that Com. Saadati voted No. Motion: Moved by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair MiUer, to approve the January 25, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0, Com. Giefer absent). Minutes of the February 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the February 8, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Chen abstain; Com. Giefer absent). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 22, 2005 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. GPA-2004-01, EA-2004-17 City of Cupertino Citywide Location General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan. Subject: Environmental Resources Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Explained that staff wanted to clarify their position; mainly agreeing with the Commission, and the Commission agrees for the most part with the Task Force, resulting in less controversy. · In the Monta Vista area, staff agrees that the 30 foot height makes sense for two story buildings, and the Commission may want to consider whether to allow 35 feet for dormers. It is not a burning issue with staff, but something that provides more flexibility for applicants in that area. · Vallco Park south - Staff is comfortable with the 45 foot height limit, the Commission is willing to go to 60 feet; staff feels that 60 feet is appropriate for a future Vallco hotel. Staff would like to have a discussion or invite the property owners who probably aren't following closely what has been done, so they can provide input on height. · As the Commission is aware, there is a development agreement for Vallco effective through July 2006 which preempts anything that might be done in the General Plan, and preempts the current General Plan. · North DeAnza Boulevard - There was some discussion about 45 feet and staff is comfortable with 45 feet across the board, even for Apple, because the potential for Apple to add on in the next 20 years is going to be out in the front along DeAnza Boulevard where there are typically 45 foot limits already. · If the Commission feels there should be a tower element or a gateway feature, they may allow it to go higher than 45 feet; staff does not feel the need to match the larger campus in the back area, simply because it is 60 feet high. It is a large structure, set back to bring that same height out to DeAnza Boulevard, unless it was an architectural element. Staff said that it may be problematic. · Vallco Park North- staff indicated that while the Commission feels you could go as high as 60 feet, most of the buildings in Vallco Park North are lower, there are some exceptions. Staff is comfortable with a lower 45 foot height for Vallco Park North. The Planning Commissioners commented on their preliminary recommendations given at prior meetings, and illustrated in the Decision Matrix for Land Use/Housing Elements in the staff report. Com. Chen: · Thanked staff for clarifying her previous direction. · Monta Vista 2-3 is stories, not height; if converted to height, would say 30 feet; for Vallco Park South, it is 35 to 45 and should remain that way with 45 feet only for mixed use. · North DeAnza - cancel the 60 feet for Apple as it was not her intention to give Apple that exception to build 60 feet for the new extensions that they have planned to build. · Said she wanted to ensure that the height and the setback were one issue; if the setback is enough for the building to hide behind and not be seen from the public street and height is less Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 22, 2005 of an issue than if it is right up on the street. Asked for Monta Vista if they were going by the standard setback for all these areas, or are there exceptions for any of the areas. Ms. Wordell: · Said Monta Vista does have some different setbacks from the other areas; it can go as close as 5 or 10 feet on some of those streets. · Said it varies from area to area; suggested that since everyone commented about the importance of design and setbacks, and possibly going higher with mixed use, it could be clarified as a comment on the matrix, or could be put on the height graphics to make it clear that it's connection between some ofthese elements and the height that is allowed. · The Planning Commission and City Council would have to be satisfied that there is good design and adequate setbacks in order to grant the maximums. Chair Wong: · Monta Vista is low impact, single family large lot area, that is rural; suggested 30 feet for height, but would be tempted to go lower to 25 feet to keep that low impact area. · Vallco Park South- go to 60 feet high to encourage mixed use; don't want to see any lowering of the commercial space and retail space there, but if height is allowed, he said he agreed with Com. Chen that setback will playa big role in that and also to allow flexibility for housing. · Regarding North DeAnza - allow 60 feet for flexibility for Apple; and Vallco Park North 60 feet only to increase industrial space for the future. Since this is a 20 year plan, prefer industrial only, no mixed use. · Preference is to keep 60 feet for the entire North DeAnza area, for office/industrial only. Vice Chair Miller: · In Monta Vista, there was agreement that it should be a low intensity area; however, it is important to start looking at opportunities to add senior housing and at the last meeting suggested that the Measurex site might be good for senior housing. There were some comments that it is not close to shopping and parks, but other senior housing areas that are not close to shopping and parks have been successful. · Said he felt it was important to encourage senior housing, and if a project was put in, would like the plan to have some flexibility both in terms of heights and density of nnits or density bonuses to encourage people to do something desirable for the community at large. · No objection to low intensity in Monta Vista with the exception that if someone is going to put in some special needs housing desirable to the city, encourage them to do that with either greater height or greater density. · Vallco Park South - agree that 60 feet is appropriate. · North DeAnza Boulevard - 60 feet on the Apple campus; it already exists at 60 feet. · Vallco Park North - Disagree with the Chair, and would support 60 feet, but it is important to look at some of those areas in Vallco Park North for further housing density. · More affordable housing is needed and the only way to get it is with higher density, but yet put it in places where it doesn't impact the community at large. The north eastern section in Vallco Park North is the ideal place for it, where it won't impact the community. Strongly support doing it there. · Said that in reading the task force document, it was evident that the task force made a recommendation to limit further housing development in town. It also states that meeting the ABAG requirements and adding further height, that density housing is not necessary, and as the jobs housing balance seems to have shifted, the goal will not be aggressively pursued. · Reviewed graphs on unemployment and housing prices in Santa Clara County. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 22, 2005 · Said they need to do something more in the way of providing more affordable housing; unfortunately the way to do it is density and need to keep that density away from the existing neighborhoods, but need to put it in places that it will work. This is a way of suggesting that one of those places is North Val1co area, and should allow higher density housing there to meet some of the goals for affordable housing. Chair Wong: · Said at the January 25th meeting, he asked staff to come back and discuss how they want to reallocate the housing element in the industrial areas because in the North DeAnza area and the Bubb Road area in the 1993 General Plan there is a housing allocation, and in the draft plan there is an allocation as well. He asked how the allocation was determined, and why. Ms. Wordell: · The staff recommendation for North DeAnza was not to include housing as the staff option; Bubb Road was left the same as the task force. · The task force has 2,000 additional housing units; it has the same number of housing units as the existing General Plan. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it raised an issue relative to what Vice Chair Miller discussed; as explained in the past, many of those units are spread out, and are in an undesignated pool and not likely to be built, and in some cases too close to neighborhoods. There have been suggestions that they can rake up some units, take some out of Bubb Road, North DeAnza or out of some out of the undesignated pools and put them into Vallco. It is good to think about a strategy that achieves your objectives. At the same time staff feels that for the next 20 years, sticking with the numbers ITOm the 2001 housing element, doesn't make sense and residential can help drive some of the retail desires, and by creating the lower density it doesn't matter as much on the density. · Retail is evolving and staff is learning more about the market trends that are going more toward mixed use because it provides the property owner and applicant with a buffer against the fluctuations in the market place. · Said he did not feel the densities in some cases need to be as high as they are. It would also allow more comfort about leaving some residential in some areas at lower densities, again with the incentive of them being an economic engine to drive some retail sales tax producing uses. Com. Saadati: · Based on what Vice Chair Miller stated for higher density, it would be beneficial to have that as an incentive for affordable housing, if higher density is pursued, then affordable housing units would be increased in those developments. Presently there are not too many houses in Cupertino priced in such a way that teachers or other city workers can afford those. By putting it as an incentive to bring in more affordable units, there are some people in the community who work here, and may be able to afford to live here. It may be something that could be pursued. Chair Wong: · Concurred with Com. Saadati that in prospective areas such as the Oaks Shopping Center, next to the senior center, where mixed use didn't successfully prevail, it would be an ideal site for senior housing. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 22, 2005 · He said the reason he supported more higher density in VaIleo Park South vs. VaIlea Park North is that he wanted to salvage the industrial area, and still try to keeo the semi-rural atmosphere as well by putting it on the edge of town at Vallco North. · With a potential applicant coming in, they would want some flexibility, and by putting it on major thoroughfares like Stevens Creek Boulevard, that will encourage that life style center which is the trend going on in the public; as well as include and encourage light trail coming to Cupertino. Vice Chair Miller: · Relative to the issue of industrial, said he was uncertain why they should have a goal of preserving and increasing the industrial base. If there are now empty buildings, the problem in town is that it is over-built with industrial and the housing did not keep up with it which resulted in an imbalance and disagreement in the community. If there are some empty buildings in town, it is an opportunity to balance the community out without adding additional housing; by taking away some industrial land, it gives some more balance. · Light rail would be nice, but he said he was not sure if there is a plan on the books for light rail; however, a bus system in town might be very workable and might be supported by some of the company sponsors. If there was high density housing concentrated in certain places and already had employment concentrated in places, it becomes very feasible to have a commuter bus system that shuttles people between those areas, and might substitute for light rail. · The Bubb Road area is primarily industrial now, but there are many aging buildings, one and two stories which were developed back in the 60s and at some point, it is going to be redeveloped, and people are going to want more intensity there, and then the question is what makes sense. Said he was uncertain if it made sense to redevelop it with three or four story industrial buildings, the road system would not support it. Perhaps it should be discussed further; as Bubb Road comes up for redevelopment, what kind of projects would make sense on Bubb Road. Com. Chen: · Said she agreed with Chair Wong, and felt a balanced community should have a piece of everything; especially since Cupertino is such a small area. · Said she did not support converting the majority of the city to residential just as a goal to balance jobs and housing. · Supports mixed use, although feels mixed use provides a good balance for the local small area. · Said she would only support the height in the housing unit increase if it is a mixed project; mixed use has to be in the right area because the impact is significant for the area in terms of traffic, infrastructure, public safety needs and school needs. · She said they needed to exercise caution in determining which area should be designated for mixed use; there should be different ways in the General Plan to encourage the mixed use development in a different part of the town. Vice Chair Miller: · Clarified that he was not suggesting they convert the majority of Cupertino's industrial base to housing; there are some relatively small areas that are potentially convertible now because they are empty. · In terms of affordable housing, Cupertino is low in meeting those requirements for affordable housing, and it is not that they are trying to provide affordable housing for the entire area, but just meeting what is generally expected as a community in comparison to what other communities are doing. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 February 22, 2005 Com. Saadati: · Relative to Bubb Road, one option would be mixed use; there are some one story industrial buildings and if in future those go away, one needs to evaluate as to what would be the benefit and impact of a mixed use there in the high traffic area close to Stevens Creek and McClellan. · That is a potential for consideration to put some housing units on the second floor; mixed use would work best if people are close to shops and be able to help with the environment because they would not be in their cars as much. For senior housing, the residents would be able to walk to the shops. The people who work in the offices there could also live in the same complex. Chair Wong: · Concurred that the Bubb Road housing should be a two story mixed use area with no third story dormer element. · The intensity of the housing should be 12 or under, perhaps 6 or under, to maintain a low intensity in that area. · Said he agreed with Com. Chen that they have to be careful when increasing the housing; the goal of the Commission is to have affordable housing and does have the 15% affordable housing, but then it is the market that is driving the housing. · Because Cupertino is unique with its excellent school system that drives the housing costs, they have to ensure they have enough parks, library services and funds to cover all the city needs. · Expressed concern about the impacts on planning staff and the effect of two much housing. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that there have been no layoffs, the loss of employees has been through attrition or retirement; some have gone on to other cities and other jobs and they are short about 17 positions, which is showing very clearly in terms of how they are able to do their jobs; furlough days are days without pay. · Said for the Monta Vista area, a preference has been expressed for 30 feet, and not to go to 35; with possibly a caveat for special needs housing which can be discussed later. · Relative to Vallco Park South, staff talked about inviting the property owners and talking about 60 vs. 45. Staff feels comfortable with 45. The counterpart to that is that staff is comfortable with keeping the density for Vallco Park South at 35 units to the acre because that is what fits into 45 feet. · He said the difference between 35 nnits to the acre and 50 is the difference between 3 floors and 4 floors; and with the exception of City Center area, Cupertino does not have 4 floor housing formats; almost everything is three or lower. · At the previous meeting they discussed where the opportunity sites were, particularly in North Vallco and to some extent in South Vallco; these are sites that are near buildings that are already at two floors or usually around the 45 foot height limit; which would be an argument for keeping the density at 35 units to the acre and no more. Discussion continued relative to mixed use housing in different areas, etc. wherein Mr. Piasecki answered commissioners' questions. Mr. Piasecki: · Continued review of the decision matrix. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 February 22, 2005 · Relative to VaIleo Park South, he said there was a predominance of 60 feet; staff was contending for 45 feet outside of Vall co Fashion Park; the Commission can either say yes, no, or remain the same. · He clarified that staff may take a different position in some of the areas when the Planning Commission recommendation goes forward to the City Council. · Heart of the City - Everyone agrees there was no issue there. · Homestead - Agrees with the majority - 45 feet. · City Center: 45 feet - Staff agrees. · No. DeAnza Boulevard - Staff suggested 45 feet; two commissioners said perhaps the Apple campus should be allowed to go to 60; which results in a 2:2 vote; you may want to wait for Com. Giefer to be the tie breaker. · Vallco Park North - Staff is comfortable with 45 feet, that being the predominant height in the area now. The Planning Commission favored 60; if they don't change their minds, it will remain the way it is and as it goes forward, staff may take a different position in those three areas. Chair Wong: · Relative to North DeAnza - Changed his choice to 45, 60 on Apple. · Relative to density, said he wanted 6 per acre for Monta Vista. Discussion on residential would occur when Com. Giefer was in attendance as she has not included her numbers; and they discussed getting more information on the environmental impacts. Com. Saadati: · Said his position on Bubb Road was 20 units per acre. · Asked if it was accomplished with two stories. Ms. Wordell: · Said it may be somewhat high, but could be three stories. Com. Saadati: · Said he wanted to add that it would be a condition with the additional affordable housing. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked for clarification on the undesignated numbers. Ms. Wordell: · An explanation was included in the staff report. · Said that in the existing General Plan there are two kinds of undesignated areas; one is a floating pool and one is more of the neighborhoods. · The task force had two categories of other areas, they did not realize what kind of numbers went into that and that the neighborhoods were already committed for a large part of that and that they had not put enough units to go around to accommodate the housing units needed in both neighborhoods in a floating pool. · Said it was not as important to understand which kind of area is which, but to know that the neighborhoods were under-counted by the task force and did not leave very much in a floating pool to be used citywide. The number needed to be raised to allow for both of those situations. · The pool is a slush fund and typically that number has remained fairly low because if you put a huge number in that category you could be creating impacts that you hadn't anticipated; it is a fairly small number which is spread around. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 February 22, 2005 Chair Wong: · Requested that when staff returns with more information on density; could they calculate how many units will be in that special area; because by saying 12 or 6 for Monta Vista, how many units will that generate? Mr. Piasecki: · Said that staff would bring back information relative to Vice Chair Miller's question about how many housing nnits there are today and how many are proposed for the time period of the General Plan. COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA RATIO Chair Wong: · Vice Chair Miller said Palo Alto has 40%, Santana Row is almost 1:1; what was staffs recommendation? Ms. Wordell: · Clarified that it came up to correct a task force deletion, but it does raise the issue of philosophically what is desired. The correction that was needed is that the administrative draft and the way the task force left it was the FAR for commercial and for office and industrial as well is .15 or 15% FAR. The design was to have a low FAR that you could build out then, achieve some sort of greater use of your property if you did mixed use. It would be an incentive to do mixed use by keeping the FARlow. · The task force deleted the reference to mixed use and the draft was left with a low FAR. Something needs to be done to address that and that would be to raise it, so that you have a higher FAR or put back in the language that allows mixed use or to go back to what the existing General Plan has for commercial which is a pool. · It needs to be addressed in some way; you would want to talk about philosophically how do you want to deal with it; do you want to keep it low to encourage mixed use; do you want to go to a flat floor area for the different uses or do you want to have a pool or some other combination. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he felt they should make a distinction between commercial and office/industrial. There is general agreement to increase the commercial, retail space; and they want to encourage that, but not sure they want to encourage a lot of additional office and industrial space except in those areas where there is already corporate residence that needs to be expanded. · Said he would like to separate the commercial out; the emphasis in the past has been allowing people to do commercial if they promise to do housing; but the environment has changed. People now do not want to do commercial but they want to do housing; if there is a desire for an incentive in town for doing more commercial, they need to reverse the incentive and say if so much commercial is done, they will be allowed to do some housing. Com. Chen: · Said she concurred with Vice Chair Miller that they should encourage commercial space; and use residential as a way to increase commercial. · Said she supported Vice Chair Miller's suggestion to increase the FAR for commercial if it is a mixed use. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 February 22, 2005 Ms. Wordell: · Clarified that the wording in the Administrative Draft; FAR could be increased above .15 if there were residential; it did allow for more if residential was provided. Vice Chair Miner: · Said he was suggesting the opposite; you could do more residential if you have a certain minimum amount of commercial. Mr. Piasecki: · Said the task force reacted against the idea of mixed use; they did not want to see the mixed use, so they removed the residential but left the FARlow; they did not backfill it with anything else. · Par( of the logic was they should be encouraging just retail. It wasn't so much a market driven logic as the preference is for more retail. Com. Saadati: · Said Vice Chair Miller's suggestion may work; if developers want to put in residential, a condition could be attached that commercial needs to be included. However, it has to be done in such a way that it would be successful. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that the Planning Commission think that it may be situational as well; there may be situations where in the case of Vallco Fashion Park, the Rose Bowl, you would get 140,000 square feet of retail and they are putting in about 200 housing units. If they were not given the 140,000 square feet, they probably wouldn't approve 200 units of housing if they were not getting a substantial retail component. · It may be said in those areas such as Crossroads, City Center, Vallco, it is important to get the substantial retail component and you might be able to give them a bit of residential again to make that work. The Heart of the City Plan on the other hand says in the mid-block areas, they are not looking for substantial retail components; this came up in conjunction with the Adobe Lounge property, should it be predominantly residential or not. Com. Saadati: · Said he concurred that they should consider Vice Chair Miller's suggestion for incentive to build residential. Chair Wong: · Said he agreed with other commissioners that if they did mixed use, then the ratio for the commercial has to be very high; almost I: I . · He said they want to encourage commercial retail to be in the center of town, and cited two examples of Hamilton Square Plaza and the Pruneyard. · Said he believed they could remodel the Crossroads, Marketplace or the strip malls along Stevens Creek Boulevard similar to what they did in Campbell. · He wanted to emphasize the retaiVcommercial because they need it; there are no sales tax dollars coming into Cupertino. If the trend is toward mixed use, the commercial should remain high at I: I. · Said he would prefer surface parking, underground parking, or parking structures similar to the Pruneyard, hidden in the back, or underground parking. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 February 22, 2005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN Chair Wong: · Asked staff to address the perspective of big boxes or not; and discuss staff's position regarding economic development plan. Mr. Piasecki: · The suggestion to encourage the collection of small or a big box derived ITom the current Plan. The current Plan allows 150,000 square feet set aside for big box and you could be particular about what kind of big box, you don't have to take a particular one that may impact local businesses more than other ones, the theory being that you need to bring in a collection of small or a larger big box simply because of the revenue generation that it brings to the city, which could be in excess of $1 million per year. With the $1 million per year, you could build a lot of community; offer programs to enhance parks, add to your police services and you can fulfill the goal and the plan that talks about building community. . It is difficult to do in Cupertino because of limited sites where that may be possible. Typically bigger boxes cannot pay the same rates for land as residential, office or commercial; it makes it difficult to make the numbers work. · Given that, there are some possibilities there may be a collection of smaller boxes, they may be combined into a lifestyle center. From staff's standpoint, they do not want to close the option; they cannot force people to put in uses they don't want, but can offer it; if that doesn't happen, you may say you will have $150,000 set aside like the current Plan has. If an office user came in and brought in a sales tax office, you may offer the $150,000 we set aside for this purpose can be made available to you. · With that, there may be different strategies that you can employ, that would allocate that building area to somebody that brings in a retail sales tax, even business to business office. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked if there were many places in Cupertino to do big boxes; essentially one large box is not going to work in Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki: . Said there were some sites where it might be possible to amalgamate the land area necessary for one large one; but not likely. The numbers they are willing to pay and what is seen as land values in Cupertino are significantly apart, and not sure there is a way to bridge that. · Said it was unlikely they would find a large one, but could get some smaller boxes, and they could be in combination with a lifestyle center, mixed use project - Vallco, possibly. He said they should not try to judge the market so much as leave the option open. · He said they were trying to fmd alternate ways of funding what they do, and are running out of options. The retail sales tax options are not working, and they are not seeing the retail demand coming into Cupertino; and where it is happening, it is happening too slowly to be responsive to the kinds of budget needs they have had for quite a while. Vice Chair MiUer: · Said what they were saying made sense in terms of wanting big boxes and medium size boxes where appropriate, and make sure they are compatible with the existing uses that are going on there. For example in Vallco, if Vallco is already planning to put in a lifestyle center and there is some other developments that need to go in there, or are planning to go in there, whatever they do in there should be compatible with and synergistic with the development that is already planned for that area. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 February 22, 2005 Com. Chen: · She said big boxes or medium boxes are desirable. · Asked if anyone showed interest in Cupertino, and if so, what sites. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they had inquiries from three big box retailers asking questions about Cupertino, but have not seen the numbers come together, and felt it was unlikely that it could happen. · Large box retail can typically pay about \4 to Y, what residential will pay for the same land; a property owner has no incentive to allow a large box to come onto their property unless they are leveraging it in exchange for residential. · As Vice Chair Miller mentioned earlier, you can make up the difference by allowing them to have X number of residential units in exchange for taking less money for the 10 acres needed for the large box. · Explained that the size of the common area was not reduced if a big box was put in; it allows that use to go in conjunction with residential. A big box would not be used unless it was very lucrative and favorable for existing uses as well as lucrative for the city. · On the Toll Brothers site, they were proposing roughly 100,000 square feet ofretail and the problem with that was they were simply going to move an existing business and bring in one more that was going to produce relatively low sales tax numbers. Com. Saadati: · The new option proposes to have a five year revenue plan; he said he felt it should be five and ten year so that it would be more long range. · Said the task force draft says ten years; but his preference is to have a ten year long range plan, with an incremental range within it. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested they need to work on this section; there are a number of enhancements to bring into this whole economic development idea and you might set a goal to double your retail sales tax figures in ten years; be aggressive about it, say however it is done, we should double our retail sales tax figures in ten years because those are the kind of revenue demands we are going to have on services. We have less sales tax generation than a city little bit larger than one-half our size; it is not good in terms of our performance in that area. · That is due to being upstaged by Valley Fair, Santana Row, Stanford; no question they have taken business away, as well as the big box phenomenon surrounding cities and it doesn't do any good when San Jose puts a Home Depot at our border; we get the traffic and none of the revenues. There are a lot of factors contributing to the decline; the economy being the most substantial. We need to be strategic about it; we need to really invest in Vallco and shore up Vallco. Com. Saadati: · Said as recommended by the minorities report, they need to have some flexibility that would allow them to react to the changes in the future. Chair Wong: · Said he concurred with Com. Saadati, and staff wants more time address the issue. Mr. Piasecki made a good point to set a goal of doubling the retail sales. He said he agreed with the task force draft that it is a ten year forecast. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 February 22, 2005 · Agreed with Vice Chair Miller and Com. Chen on the need for some medium boxes in town that are compatible in synergy with the surrounding neighborhood, definitely a home improvement store, maybe a Lowes, an Office Max or Office Depot, a book store and an electronics store. · It has to be decided which is more important, bringing sales tax into the community or more housing. The applicants want to get the full cost of their property value as well as the community leaders. · Said he supports ten years, and encouraging big boxes. Said there was a need to collaborate with property owners and have better communication with the large land owners to make it a win-win situation. Com. Chen: · Said she did not comment on the five or ten years; being a professional administrator for so many years she realized that any projection after five years is more of a guess rather than a realistic projection. · Said she would support a five year projection with an annual adjustment. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he agreed with Com. Chen about the ten year projections; it is difficult enough to project and target five years out, but it is probably a more realistic goal to strive for. · In terms of offering housing as an incentive, he said he was confident that they would agree on a reasonable number in the General Plan and whether it is the task force numbers or a higher number, it is going to be a limited number agreed to. · They may not reach that number; it depends on what the particular projects and developments are that come in and in terms of what incentives are given. · He said he thought the amount of housing they would develop is finite and pointed out that they perhaps should be looking at the mix so that they slant it toward making housing affordable not just for fireman, policeman and teachers, but for new engineers who want to work in Cupertino and cannot afford to. ONE-PERCENT FOR ART ORDINANCE Com. Saadati: · Supports the one-percent public art. · Public art should be displayed outside so that everyone can view it 24 hours a day. · Relative to limiting it to the larger developments, said it could be evaluated. · Questioned if putting a one-percent for art ordinance discourages developers to build; and asked what threshold would not have any impact and how has it been impacting other cities that have one-percent. Ms. Wordell: · If you developed an ordinance, kept this policy in, and developed an ordinance to implement it, you would get into that level of detail. He agreed that if other cities do it so broadly, one would think that it has not discouraged development. · Said she felt they could get into more of the size of the project. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that it be worded to say that the General Plan would encourage an analysis, not necessarily that you are going to do it, but that you would move forward with an analysis to Vice Chair Miller: · Said he agreed with the suggestion that it be studied and encourage analysis. · Art enhances and beautifies the city, but it is not an absolute need, and if asking for additional fees from developers, priority has to go to shirring up city finances, mitigating impacts to local schools and supporting services if the affordable housing isn't paying its own way; then looking to developers who are potentially making large profits and asking them for in-lieu fees. · Art belongs in the plan, but it has to be prioritized appropriately, and there are other uses for money coming out oflarge projects that might take higher priority. Com. Chen: · Said it made sense to have a minimum requirement; if it is a project more than 50,000 square feet, public art is required, but with some language that gives some flexibility in the art selection; or waive the requirement based on the building not being seen by public. Mr. Piasecki: · Said a threshold for size could be set up that would get at some of the smaller parcels which are not publicly visible, differentiated from most ofthe properties in town that are along major boulevards and publicly visible. He referred to the City of Mountain View website which illustrates examples of how cities have implemented this. Ms. Wordell: · Said that it did not have to be a piece of art, but could be an architectural feature or something incorporated into the building. Com. Chen: · Clarified that even if it is a project that cannot be seen by the public, they requested that an art piece be put outside. Ms. Wordell: · Said the task force did not discuss it; which is one reason they brought it to everyone's attention to show that it was a part of the recommended General Plan. · The recommendation came from the Fine Arts Commission, and they specified offsite because of limited locations. If it were offsite, it would require more staff involvement to determine where the art would be offsite, whereas if it were project related and on the project site, it is much easier to manage. Com. Chen: · The task force suggests setting aside one percent of the total project budget for onsite art; asked if it is a requirement that the art has to be onsite. Com. Saadati: · It should be pursued with evaluation, as suggested. find the impact on the economics of development, allow the opportunity for the Chamber to come in and tell you; that way you would not have to decide it all. · It sounds like an interesting idea but there is a lot of work that needs to be evaluated before going there. February 22, 2005 13 Cupertino Planning Commission Cupertino Planning Commission 14 February 22, 2005 Chair Wong: · Said he supported the Fine Arts Commission regarding setting aside the one-percent for art ordinances. · Does not support in-lieu fees because art is very important in the commnnity, and a lot of the developers or applicants are making some kind of marginal profit; it is important to include it. · Also supports minimum size of 50,000 square feet as suggested in the new options, and do an analysis as staff suggested regarding smaller areas. · Public art is very important and the Fine Arts Commission and staff suggested that by having an in-lieu fee, it would be more work for staff. SPECIFIC PROPERTIES (LAND USE MAP) Ms. Wordell: · Reviewed the background of the Lindy Lane hillside properties. · The proposal was to change the land use map to put the properties into the slope density one- half acre category; and some of the issues were that it would be more efficient for them to be in hillside in terms of zoning because even if they are Rl and are steep, they are going to have to abide by the RHS and the Rl; which is the way the Rl reads. · The downside was that there were four properties that may be able to subdivide under their current zoning RI-20 or one of them is also an A; but their ability to subdivide might be affected if they went into the hillside slope density designation. · The information presented at the last meeting was that it looked like two might still be able to subdivide, even under the hillside. Some Commissioners felt it may be acceptable to subdivide as long as the studies showed that the geological situation is satisfactory and they can subdivide. · Said that the geological consultant will be present at the next meeting if there are any questions about hillside development. Com. Chen: · Said she made the statement that safety is the primary importance which was captured in the comments. · Supports the hillside study; if there is a request to subdivide, a study has to be provided. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he also commented that safety was the primary issue; and he would hold his comments until the next meeting when the geological expert would be present at the meeting. Com. Saadati: · Said he indicated previously that it was acceptable to go with the hillside, conditioned upon the specific site geological. Hopefully next time they can get more information. Chair Wong: · Said he agreed that safety was of primary importance and after a hillside study, if the geological work was acceptable, he felt they should allow the property owners to subdivide. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 February 22, 2005 OPEN SPACE. PARKS AND TRAILS Ms. Wordell: · Said there were no Hot Topics relative to the issue; there was some testimony from Deborah Jamison. · Some commissioners agreed that calling the Stevens Creek Trail "rural trails" was more appropriate than "urban trails". · Possible change relative to a trail designation on the trails map, showing it as "future" and could call part of it "existing" or "proposed" because it does correspond with part of the trail that is in the Rancho San Antonio area. Consider giving it a different symbol. Chair Wong: · Asked staff to follow up with Deborah Jamison regarding the wording. · Relative to the linkage, asked how they could make it more rural. Ms. Wordell: · A lot of it is already detertnined that it won't be and the one Ms. Jamison preferred was the one that is called "future" which is along the western foothills, which she acknowledged is part of private land. · Likely fine to keep it as "future", but there wouldn't be any specific plans to implement it in the city's plan. Chair Wong: · It is a 20 year plan, and in 20 years that land might develop and it would be in the General Plan; and the landowner would know they have to have an easement for that trail to develop the land in the future. Ms. Wordell: · That is the reason to keep it in. · Relative to the school on Stevens Canyon Road, she said there was no easement on the property for a trail to go through. It would have to be part of some type of development agreement. · It was shown as a trail in the General Plan. Vice Chair MiUer: · Asked when designating a trail along Stevens Creek Boulevard, is it just a designation or is something done on Stevens Creek Boulevard to make it more walkable or more accessible to handicapped persons; or is there something specific about that aside from designating it as a trail. Ms. Wordell: · Said there were improvements as part of the Stevens Creek Feasibility Plan; and were likely in the document distributed at the last meeting. Vice Chair MiUer: · Agreed with comments that trails along urban streets are less important than trails in the hillside areas; however, it is equally important to give consideration to enhance the walkability of the city by making improvements along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Com. Chen: No comment. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 February 22, 2005 Com. Saadati: · Said he encouraged making it easier for people to walk on city streets and hoped that they could enhance the trails along Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide a good walkable surface. Chair Wong: · Declared a short recess. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENTS Ms. Wordell: · Said that a Hot Topic was identified for the Environmental Resources Element which related to the sustainability task force; and as pointed out in the staff report it is almost an excuse to be sure that the Planning Commission, City Council know that sustainability is a big emphasis in environmental resources element. Mr. Don Wolf, consultant: · Gave a brief overview of current planning concept; and paraphrased the United Nations committee on environment: "Let's not squander our environmental resources today, through inattention to design so that there will be something left for future generations." · Said that sustainability is a holistic approach, whereas the planning done today is more piecemeal and more individualized, but is a holistic approach to shaping the community and involves virtually every single scientific, economic, social, planning, construction, and design discipline that we have. It is an amazing construct that involves everybody who is interested in creating community. · The goal of sustainability is to create communities with irreducible environmental impacts, all within economic capability. · He referred to the San Mateo Countywide Guide, Sustainable Buildings and noted that it was an excellent reference guide on green construction. · He distributed a copy of the Pacific Energy Center educational calendar of courses and seminars relating to sustainable planning and building. · Said that the sustainable planning process, green building process is new and results in the need to change the way we think; we fundamentally think about buildings and about what we approve and what we don't approve and how we condition approval; it is important for Planning Commissioners and staff to have an understanding of the world of sustainable design. · Said the Hot Topic was whether or not a task force should be appointed to develop a comprehensive yearly sustainability and resource plan. Said he did not object to the development of a task force to work on a sustainability plan, but the issues of sustainability are so esoteric and broad, that no one committee could really handle the job. Sustainability plans depends on the level of sophistication you would like in the plan; if you are just going to develop some goals, to protect resources, that is one thing; if you are going to go ahead and do a comprehensive sustainability plan that covers every aspect of building and planning, you are going to have some problems with it. The other problem that Cupertino is faced with, like many other cities, is a shortage of personnel. · He recommended approval in concept of a citizens' committee to work on a sustainability program with staff and consultants. He added that he found that another useful committee would be one which makes certain that the city is always using the appropriate and latest technology in what it does to its own public buildings and how it applies and evaluates applications for private development. He said Cupertino is a perfect city for such a technology committee to be appointed. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 February 22, 2005 Com. Saadati: · Said that he attended a sustainability seminar before, and asked if green building compared to a few years ago, has become more affordable; and did Mr. Wolf foresee in future as more and more projects are designed with the concept of making them green, if it is going to be a more competitive market. Mr. Wolf: · It is becoming more competitive by the month; the prices of green building materials are coming down rapidly; they will always be a little higher than conventional materials because they are manufactured materials. The main thing about the green building program is to educate those who are building, the developers, builders and owners that in the short term the buildings may cost a little more, but in the long term, they will save great quantities of money. · The first city that did a green program was in 1990 was Portland Oregon and their program is used as a model program throughout the country; they saved $2 million in the first four years just on electricity for their public buildings. Com. Saadati: · There is a great benefit and saving a lot of energy, recycling in Cupertino; also recycling of construction materials when buildings are demolished. · There are grants available; this is a way of the future. Vice Chair Miller: · Questioned if the new buildings had any green building aspects to it. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the library had some daylighting components; the chambers had some of the same features built into it, but likely doesn't meet the literal definition of what is truly in a green building. · Some building materials were recycled. Ms. Wordell: · When the Planning Commission approved the use permit for the library, a commissioner asked what were some of the elements, and the architect responded. There were not any cutting edge but there was a list of things they did for energy efficiency. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he participated in some seminars on green building and sustainability and it is a concept whose time has come and it is getting more economically feasible to do that. There are a number of consultants who can show how to do this in an economically beneficial way. · Said he was in favor of moving in that direction and one of the first steps is education. Some developers do it on their own, but the city does not presently offer any educational materials on sustainability or green buildings or anything of that nature; and it would be beneficial to provide some educational materials and discuss it with developers when they come in. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that materials are available in the planning department, but staff is not proactive in encouraging it. · Some of the education can extend to the residents in terms of how they power their own homes and recycle materials. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 February 22, 2005 · Composting is another concept of green building that residents can participate in on their own property. Vice Chair Miller: · At times the state has given rebates for the use of the materials; and making people aware of these kinds of programs potentially has a benefit. · The next step is to have a more formal process to discuss it with developers. The city is mostly built out, perhaps there is an opportunity with what is going on with Vallco North and South to actually have an impact. · Questioned why a consultant couldn't come in and look at plans that are on the books for the area and see if there are some suggestions that may be acceptable. Mr. Wolf: · Another way to do it is to require the project applicant to do the architecture, and architecture is really beginning to lead the way with sustainable design. · This city has done some things taking steps toward sustainable program. Vice Chair Miller: · Said the Planning Commission and City Council could educate themselves by visiting some of the sites. Chair Wong: · He said to set an example for sustainability, government should start with their own public buildings; and commented that city hall and the new library were two missed where they could have had a I 10% sustainable building. One example as staff mentioned was DeAnza College and the library in West San Jose, off Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Wolf: · As of two years ago, there were 125 cities in the country that had sustainability programs and had gone ahead as a fIrst step and at least inventoried their own buildings. · There are likely about 250 to 300 cities that now have full sustainability programs. · Encouraged everyone to visit the Getty Center in Los Angeles; it is environmental planning and sustainability at its best; great use of daylighting; the integration of the landscaping as part of the architecture is superb. Ms. Wordell: · Reported that the items relative to circulation and public safety would be continued to the next meeting; and that the traffic consultant and geological consultant would be present at the meeting. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Deborah Hill, resident: · Said that she was on disability and explained her housing plight to the Planning Commission; stating that she had 28 days to find new housing. · Said that she had contacted various agencies in Cupertino for assistance and asked if the Planning Commission or City Council could assist her in fmding housing. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 February 22, 2005 Corns. Cben, Saadati and Vice Cbair Miller: · Supportive of plans to merge the March 14th special meeting into the March 22m! Planning Commission regular meeting Chair Wong summarized the future meeting schedule: · Keep the March 8th circulation and health safety meeting with the Bicycle Ped and Public Safety Commission; which will complete the second phase. · Cancel the March 14th extra meeting and give comments regarding circulation, environmental resources, health and safety on the March 22"d Planning Commission meeting; · Hold off on preliminary amendments to the task force draft on March 22"d and listen to the full report of the draft EIR; on April 12th hear the preliminary amendment to the task force plan as well as the draft EIR. · April 26th if a second meeting is needed, continue the recommendations; if not needed, make final recommendations, but possibly push it into the first meeting in May. Chair Wong: · Noted that the item will be continued to the March 8th Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Wong noted the meeting was cancelled. Housinl! Commission: Com. Saadati reported on the February 10th meeting: · Major topic of meeting was the availability of housing in Cupertino; reported active sales for homes listed under $500,000 was one condo at $325,000, which is why some of the teachers are not able to purchase homes. · Discussed the $220,000 for the teachers. So far no one has come forward to take advantage of it because the housing market prices are so high. The Housing Commission recommended to reduce the number from 5 to 4 teachers. Economic Development Committee Meetinl!: Quarterly meeting; no report. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:.No report available in Com. Giefer's absence. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported: · The February 7th discussion of land use policies; staff report raised 6 issues and questions; the Council decided they would review their ordinance that requires Council authorization prior to an application for a General Plan amendment and may amend that revision. · Staff is working diligently with Vallco to get them on the March 8th agenda; they need to bring in some additional plans; staff will make every effort to keep them on track.