PC 04-04-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
5:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDA Y
The Planning Commission study session of April 4, 2005 was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in
Conference Room A, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
TaghiSaadati
Lisa Giefer
Commissioners absent:
Commissioner:
Angela Chen
.
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Eileen Murray
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
(
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Noted that there were two meetings; the study session to focus on a work program for the next
year; and the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the General Plan update. He pointed
out that the Planning Commission would not make a decision on the Regnart Creek Trail at
this time, but the public could comment on whether there should be trails in these kinds of
situations at the following Planning Commission meeting.
Nicholas Garcia, LaMar Drive:
· Expressed opposition to Regnart Creek Trail.
· Said the trail would be along his back fence; it would not be good to have people walking on
the trail path along the back yards of the entire street day and night from a security, personal
property and privacy standpoint.
· Would be a violation of the residents' privacy.
· Main concern is property and personal safety.
Beth Garcia, LaMar Drive:
· Said the trail was dangerous for walking because of the safety factor.
· Concerned about the impact on their privacy; people tossing items into their back yard.
Gary Sepulveda, FaraIIone Drive:
. Primary concern relates to privacy.
. We understand the wheels of progress and the necessity to have a fine library; but feel like the
city is in our back yard.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
2
April 4, 2005
· Lights will be installed, benches put along the trail not far from their property line.
· The library lights still shine into their property and there is constant activity around their
home.
· Said it would be less objectionable if the trail was on the park side.
Discussion continued wherein Mr. Piasecki offered suggestions to the residents for expressing
their concerns and providing input relative to the proposed trail.
STUDY SESSION:
1. Planning Commission 2005 Work Program
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
· Summarized that the Planning Commission received a copy of the draft of the projects for the
coming year to gives its recommendation to the City Council. Projects included but are not
limited to some minor zoning amendments including the electronic fence, Toll Brothers and
the cinemas, and some possible conversions from office/industrial to residential.
· The ideal way to look at this is to ascertain if there are projects that you feel should be
undertaken in the coming year whether there is staff time or Planning Commission time to do
them; but what is missing if anything re the other priorities that you feel we should be looking
at, and let's see if we can.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff would communicate those additional few onto the Council probably during the budget
process and would need additional resources in the budget to accommodate that should you
wish to go there.
· Inform staff of any gaps they should look at.
Chair Wong:
· Could you explain about the last page regarding special projects like Sobrato, Taylor
Woodrow, Stevens Canyon Road, Marketplace; and how much time it will take and what it
will be about.
Ms. Wordell:
· Both of them have submitted applications, Taylor Woodrow is the furthest along; there has
been a fair amount of staff time spent reviewing architecture, reviewing the impacts, and
getting an initial study done by a consultant.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is consistent with your current General Plan, so they are not asking for a General Plan
amendment. Some of the others that will be discussed will be needing to ask for a General
Plan amendment.
Ms. Wordell:
· Sobrato will need a General Plan amendment to get those units on property that is just east of
the Hamptons Apartment complex, south of Pruneridge.
· Marketplace is a new commercial building and is preliminary; they don't have a formal
application yet but they would be possibly taking down some structures at the back to provide
some more parking.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
3
April 4, 2005
· Stevens Canyon Road is existing apartments that will be demolished and detached single
family units.
· Toll Brothers is still talking, and came back with a preliminary plan that they will be seeking a
General Plan amendment for more units than the Council previously authorized; they are no
longer authorizing them, so they can apply for whatever they want.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to the neighborhood parks, is Rancho also in there?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Page 3 of 21; There are two components; one component is the half acre vacant parcels owned
by the San Jose Water Company and another component which is the Santa Clara County land
where they use for storage.
· The County has said they would have to find an alternate location to store paving materials
and light poles. They need 3 to 4 acres.
Ms. Wordell:
· Updating the development agreement for Valko Fashion Park is another project to discuss
verbally, expires in 2006.
Com. Saadati:
· Questioned if traffic congestion around the schools would be discussed.
· Will the electronic fence ordinance be revisited? Need to revisit fence ordinance as a whole.
· Evaluation of public transit.
Com. Giefer:
· What is the closest park to the neighbors in the Homestead area?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Serra Park
Com. Giefer:
· As we are talking to Toll Brothers and trying to figure out where we would put a park in the
Hewlett Packard land; I would like to see Regnart Creek opened up there if we can work with
the water district to open up where the creek is underground and build that as a creek trail
before we put in housing and other things.
Mr. Piasecki:
· While we envision there will be a park somewhere along there, the issue of whether you were
to reopen a creek channel itself results in a fairly large floodplain that has to extend off of the
now opened channel. It is Calabazas Creek. It would result in a large swale that has to
accommodate it; and it is also very expensive to remove the existing culvert.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would continue to bring the issue up until she learns that that it is completely cost
prohibitive.
· If we are talking about opening creeks up and making them walkable, let's do it before we put
a neighborhood around it.
· Chair Wong said he supported Com. Giefer.
Planning Commission Study Session! Public Hearing
4
April 4, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· Based on my engineering knowledge. when you remove the concave, the floor water will slide
down and could flood the area, which results in environment issues.
Com. Giefer:
· Would also like to pursue downtown opportunities; extend on-street parking on Stevens Creek
between Stelling and Highway 9. We want to develop a downtown area and create more of a
walkable city. One way we can make pedestrians feel more protected is by allowing on-street
parking in that one specific stretch of Stevens Creek.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The Crossroads streetscape plan addresses that issue. You will be recommending that in
connection with the update.
Com. Giefer:
· We all agreed when we talked about sustainability and recycling, we have nothing in the
workplan that outreaches or provides an economic incentive for builders within our
community; we all agreed the city should lead in this area, but if this goes into unstaffed
projects I would like to take a look at the fiscal impact of providing some incentive to
developers who employ sustainable or green building within our community. It may be adding
solar, or using more bio friendly green products; it is an unstaffed project and if we gave them
some incentive by lower pennit costs or such, I would like s8æetiæe someone to look at the
financial impact of that so that we could get to the point we could make a recommendation that
we reduce overall permit or fees if they are practicing green building.
· The General Plan policy does nothing for builders in sustainability.
· The task force specifically did not want that in there.
· Need support from the Planning Commission if it is to be a separate task.
Chair Wong:
· Said he would support Com. Giefer's plan (excluding on-street parking).
· We are always talking about the big picture and what is put into the General Plan; we don't see
any policy. Our government buildings should be green, and if we are going to be doing the
talk, we should have policies to implement it. I would like to see it on our work plan.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Summarized that the Planning Commission would like to see that there be an analysis of the
economic implications of providing incentives to private and public developers to build green
buildings.
Com. Giefer:
· Noted an inconsistency in the General Plan (Page 2-27) text and the work plan (Page 7),
relative to Valko Fashion Park Rosebowl, and talk about how Valko is not specifically a
mixed use area; we are not specifically targeting projects as mixed use in the Valko area.
However, we just approved a very large mixed use project; I understand they are coming back
with additional either mixed use or housing at some point, and I think we need to wordsmith
the text.
Chair Wong:
· Called for a straw vote relative to the suggestion for on-street parking on Stevens Creek.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
5
April 4, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Said he did not support the on-street parking on Stevens Creek, as the Chamber had a concern
about removing lanes and also folks coming in and out. Staff wanted to slow down traffic by
having cars parked on the street.
· Expressed concern about safety, particularly when the car doors are opened into traffic and
cyclists. Referred to Bascom A venue in Campbell where there is no on-street parking.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he was concerned about safety as well.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he was concerned about safety as well; however, parking on the street will make it
potentially safer than making it unsafe.
· It will also encourage a more walkable community.
· I expressed my opinion before when we had that item and said I was in favor of the parking.
· Suggested a trial basis for the on-street parking to see if it will work.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concerned about safety also.
· Not opposed to studying the possibility of on-street parking, perhaps on a trial basis.
· Support sustainability; it is important to talk about it to the extent that staff has resources to do
it. A program that creates incentives would be an ideal thing, as well as at a minimum
providing the city to be a source of information for builders thinking about doing sustainable
programs.
· Review of the sign ordinance.
· Revisiting fees and incentives. We should be looking at incentives for retail vs. housing, for
senior and affordable housing and looking at the fee structure relative to schools and housing
projects.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that revisiting incentives was an appropriate topic for the General Plan. up
There was consensus to add senior housing to affordable housing.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding sustainability, I agree with Com. Giefer and received consensus on that.
· Regarding reviewing the fences, especially the automated, received consensus.
· Regarding the signs, the Chamber will present that. Will discuss signs at the public hearing.
· Will continue discussion on parking at the public hearing.
· Valko redevelopment agreement - consensus to discuss further.
· Economic development - I support what Vice Chair Miller said about the in-lieu fees
regarding housing and looking to the FAR vs. commercial and housing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to economic development, he encouraged that the words going into the General Plan
are going to be important in terms of driving what activities we might or might not get
invol ved in terms of economic development. I do not support high cost coordinators and
programs because I don't know if they benefit cities; you would have to bring in a lot of new
growth to compensate the city for their cost.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
6
April 4, 2005
· Said the redevelopment manager could manage the redevelopment of Valko and the dispersal
of the tax increment, and act as a economic development officer of the city doing the outreach
to bring in businesses.
· The Valko redevelopment update has to be done earlier than a redevelopment manager for the
city. The redevelopment manager is about three years away.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to bring back a report on what other CltJes are doing regarding economic
development, who has a manager team, what are they doing, etc.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Orin Mahoney, resident (former Planning Commissioner):
· There has been some background discussion in the Chamber regarding signs, what triggered it
recently was input that the city was about to do an enforcement sweep based on one particular
person being cited.
· Recently many cases of violation brought to light that sign ordinance may be too restrictive.
· It seems there are a number of signs that businesses feel are useful, that are in violation of the
sign policy. Before over 100 people have to change their signs, it would be interesting to see
what the issue is. It also provides the opportunity to look at the sign ordinance in general.
There was consensus that a recommendation be made to City Council to address the sIgn
ordinance .
Mr. Piasecki:
· Commented that a sign ordinance update would cost about $100,000 for about a year. We can
do that if you want to recommend it to the City Council during budget discussions.
· He said the City Council also wants to do a parking ordinance assessment which will likely
cost another $100,000.
RECESS: Chair Wong declared a recess, to be followed by the Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Upon reconvening, the same Planning Commissioners and staff were present.
GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
2. Land Use Element: Major Property Owners, Business Owners and Developers
Chair Wong opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Edward J. Britt, Peppertree Lane:
· Said that when surveys are taken people are in favor of affordable housing, yet speak against it
at meetings. The city is at a crossroads figuratively and financially in the sense that they keep
building more and more housing type of development and converting commercial areas into
residential; which is a negative loss of revenues to the city because the increase in property
taxes do not match the cost of increased services.
· The city should take a hard look and say that any mixed use things proposed should not be a
large housing element with a small amount of commercial mixed in. If they are going to be
done that way, they need to have enough commercial sales tax revenues so that on balance it
comes out weighted to the positi ve side of providing more revenues than cost to the city for the
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
7
April 4, 2005
mixed use for the residential portion. It should be a high bar, a factor two or three times more
revenues, otherwise it is not a good thing for the city to do; it is in deficit finances and it will
be bankrupt if it continues on the track that it is going of continually shifting in favor or
developers to build large dense tracts in exchange for commercial places where they used to
obtain sales tax revenues.
Mike Foulkes, President, Chamber of Commerce:
· Said he appreciated the Public Hearing as many of the General Plan issues that the Planning
Commission has spent time looking at, involve land owners in town and involve the
commercial/industrial owners but in different pieces. It is helpful to have a specific focus for
the Planning Commission and the business community.
· I was on the General Plan task force and spent a summer working on all these issues and I
know that a lot of hard work both from staff and citizens went into trying to see what this
community needs. One of the themes that came up from the Chamber perspective, was the
need to keep our businesses, our commercial, industrial and our retail along with the growing
need we are going to have for residential. .
· As the Chamber, in looking at the General Plan we are looking at protecting and preserving
our remaining three commercial/industrial zones, the DeAnza corridor around Apple, Vallco
North and South Hewlett Packard Property area and the Bubb Road site.
· The reason for this, and again is that in looking at the General Plan, we are looking over many
years in the future of Cupertino, not just what the needs are today; and I think as you have
seen, while we have lost a lot of jobs in the city, Apple has taken over a quarter million square
feet this year to date, and hopefully we will see that change reverberating throughout a lot of
our commercial industrial areas.
· In order for the city to take the empty spaces of commercial buildings around and redevelop
those, it is not taking existing shells but is making changes that are going to allow the new and
thriving businesses to take over the spaces. Nobody is going to invest a huge amount of
dollars that is going to take you without having flexibility on specifically density and height.
· Setbacks are something that is very important for the city, and if you look at a lot of our very
large buildings, they have adequate setbacks to make sure we are preserving the nature of
Cupertino, but at the same time a well designed building with underground parking that goes
to a certain height, is much better for the city in terms of revenue, but also in terms of look
than having some of the existing commercial structures we have. While we are looking at this,
the Chamber wants to work with you to make sure that there is a flexible solution that is going
to allow beautiful creative new buildings to come into this town and replace some of the old,
tired buildings we have that frankly are going to remain vacant as long as we put restrictions
that are so tight that the future owner of the property won't see the benefit in making that
purchase and making that change.
Chair Wong:
· You said that regarding Bubb Road and North DeAnza and North Valko, those three industrial
areas, there is some suggestion in the General Plan amendment to make it mixed use; would
you support something like that? Maybe as an Apple perspective and as a Chamber
perspective?
Mr. Foulkes:
· From the Chamber perspective, we have been looking at projects on a case-by-case basis and
there are unique pieces of property in this town that need to be dealt with on a unique basis;
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
8
April 4, 2005
· But where it comes to large contiguous areas, bisecting them with mixed use can be
detrimental across the board; you are going to lower many property values; you are not going
to get in that rich commerciaVindustrial that those areas are designed for.
· Because we know the need for housing in this community, we would be happy to look at a
site-by-site basis and especially where it makes sense where there is a transition zone between
pure residential and commercial; or where there is a larger development that perhaps could not
be done except for the residential.
· We need to look at those because the community doesn't grow in a vacuum and setting strict
rules that cannot be broken doesn't help any development in our town.
· We support the residential but it needs to be done in a way that is not going to bisect the area
and realistically doom it to be second tier, third tier commercial space as opposed to the first
tier commercial space that we have seen in a lot of the area especially in our campuses,
continue to thrive and to bring business into the community.
Com. Saadati:
· What is the benefit of employees living in the same city and being very close to work.
Mr. Foulkes:
· It is something we encourage; and we have a lot of employees, especially employees that came
to Apple when you could afford to come to Cupertino, who live here. This is a great
community and is a draw to have such a wonderful community to hire folks in.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If we are going to provide housing for people who are working here, is there any preference in
terms of the type of housing or the cost of that housing, or anything to characterize that
housing in general that would work best for employees.
Mr. Foulkes:
· There is a need for entry level housing for the young people who are coming to Cupertino and
want to start families, but who have a hard time within this built up, expensive community.
· I think some of the developments that the Chamber hasn't taken an official position on, but
where you are taking spots that have been commercially not viable that do not bisect a
contiguous commercial or industrial space and then fill that need, you have seen several that
have come by the Planning Commission this year. We see some benefit in that; density is
something we all talk about as a community, but at the Chamber we talk about beauty. We
have a lot of low density, ugly buildings in this town, and changing this out whether they are
residential or old flat apartments or whether they are strip malls, changing those to being what
we have seen along Stevens Creek, much more beautiful, vibrant, more walkable areas, we can
do that. The tradeoff is density, building up, and putting parking underneath which is very
expensive so you have to allow benefits of that, but the fact is it is making Cupertino a much
more beautiful community, and those folks even who have concerns, whether again it is on the
commercial side or the residential, once the buildings are in and people see the benefit and see
how they integrate with our community; I think will realize that strip mall, it wasn't
objectionable until we saw what it could have been, and then once it changes, and we support
those types of development.
· I do not know the future development plans of Apple; we will need to expand in this
community and are continuing to have that need. The location depends on the deliberations
that you and the City Council make, and also understanding the cost; any expansion in
Cupertino, unfortunately because we are built out city, has huge costs to it, so to the degree
that those costs are manageable and that you can get the adequate square footage you need,
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
9
April 4, 2005
that is going to drive redevelopment of existing sites which in this community is what we have
to look forward to in a positive way. On our campus itself I believe there is space depending
on your interpretations to build out, but whether we would do that or not, is a fiscal matter that
we haven't tackled yet.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the hot topics regarding height for the North DeAnza area, two commiSSIOners
suggested going up to 60 feet to give flexibility vs. three, 45 feet; what would your preference
be?
Mr. Foulkes:
· People think 60 feet is extremely high, and it is interesting you go around and look at things
people think are high and not high; a lot of it is the setback.
· I think that 60 feet in this community, especially if you look at those three corridors; with
Valko north there is a freeway on one side, you have a large campus, so you really don't touch
a lot. This community likes stepped up developments, so if you have residential, you don't put
a wall against it, but I do think those areas where you have really contiguous uses, a beautiful
60 foot building is going to look a lot nicer than the current two to three story buildings that
are going into disrepair.
· It seems that the community has already accepted 60 feet and looks at some of the nicest
architecture as being some of those buildings. The Apple campus backs up to single home
residential, but again because of the separation, you don't have the concerns that some have.
Chair Wong:
· I am talking about additional buildings that you think you can manage with 60 foot buildings
plus some additional 45 foot buildings.
Mr. Foulkes:
· Because of the parking at some point, 60 feet is a good number in that you are likely going to
have to put underground parking which is expensive; above 60 you are talking serious
construction.
Mr. Piasecki:
· We have talked about Apple and the desire to keep Apple in the community and keep some of
its options open, and at a staff level we have talked about in the General Plan allocating
150,000 additional square feet of oftïce space to the Apple campus. Maybe you cannot answer
the question directly right now, but if you could at some point ask the City Councilor
Planning Commission if that is sufficient, does it work into the long range plans for Apple,
would that help, or is it 175 or 200, give us some idea of what would be helpful for Apple in
this new General Plan.
Mr. Foulkes:
· Said that flexibility, obviously the fact that we have taken over 2-1/2 times that this year so far,
the needs are probably greater than whatever we could put on campus. Clearly from our
perspective it is better to utilize that space to its full extent; it is good to have ample parking,
but we border up against the freeway and I don't know that those empty parking spaces at the
corner are necessarily that useful.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
10
April 4, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that Mr. Foulkes go back to Apple, and look at whether structure parking works, not
necessarily underground, and what the site could accommodate at a reasonable cost that Apple
could have some onsite flexibility; understanding that there are going to be peak periods when
you are going to consume office space well outside the campus area. That would be helpful to
the Planning Commission.
Art Schultze, Hewlett Packard:
· Said he was a mere messenger as opposed to a content expert listening to a number of
questions asked of Apple.
· Said he would note any questions he was not able to answer and provide the responses later as
the experts involved in the planning process were not able to attend the meeting.
· Hewlett Packard is well versed and vested in the Cupertino community; we have out largest
campus and concentration of people in the Bay Area in Cupertino.
· Our primary areas of interest in the Plan are Valko North and Valko South; that is where we
are located and have a number of different properties. We support higher density in the Val1co
North and Val1co South areas; we would like to see the heights of the buildings maintained at
the 60 foot level, and like to see the setbacks not be increased so that it would further reduce
the potential density of the area.
· We wanted to mention that the notion of putting residential with office, because we do have
the potential to expand on the campus on Valko North, but if we were to put residential on the
campus, that would really be negative; there would be security issues, access issue problems
and would be a detriment to encouraging us to continue to grow in Cupertino and expand
there, because putting the housing in there would probably mean that we couldn't go forward
with that.
· As it relates to Valko South, we support high density residential and Toll Brothers will be
talking about that plan, We think that makes sense for Valko South for the following reasons:
the school system has a capacity to handle more residential and more students there;
· We think that having residential close to the Val1co redevelopment and retail development will
stimulate and increase the probability of success in the rejuvenation of the Valko project, and
a major employer both in Cupertino in Silicon Valley and also not just for ourselves, but for
others recognizing the importance of having housing close to where people work as really
important in terms of hiring people, retaining people. It is definitely a problem, there is a
shortage of housing available close to major employment centers.
Vice Chair Miller:
· In terms of the Hewlett Packard campus specifically, if you could help us out in terms of your
expansion plans, what Hewlett Packard would like to see, what kind of flexibility Hewlett
Packard would like to see in terms of additional square footage of office space, that would be
helpful.
· Asked for comments in terms of the types of housing that the employees would like to see
developed, relative to type, size, price, anything along those lines.
· How would you feel from the Hewlett Packard standpoint if those empty buildings on the east
side of Tantau were converted potentially to housing?
Mr. Shultze:
· Said he would like to see what building they were talking about and get back to them after
that.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
II
April 4, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said that having the corporate representatives at the meeting was a positive step; and he hoped
to continue with the dialog because the Planning Commission wanted more input from the
corporate citizens relative to their needs; because they are stakeholders and it is important to
hear the voice of the stakeholders to try and address everyone's needs.
· Where did the data come from that the school system had a lot of capacity?
Mr. Schultz:
· Said the information about schools was from Shawna Holmes.
Alan Chamorro, representing owner of Results Way:
· Provided a brief history of the Results Way campus.
· Said that the General Plan is important to the property owners as they spend a lot of time
underwriting the assets and understanding what the alternative uses are and potential future
uses.
· Former Honeywell property has been on the market since 2003 with no viable economic users
to come in there. The significant amount of capital required in light of the current market
conditions is not justified.
· This is an example of space that is not going to be utilized for the foreseeable future.
· Said they were appealing their taxes and will continue to do so as property values continue to
decline.
· When purchasing the property in 1998 we took comfort in the fact that there was the future; if
things went bad that there were allocable housing units in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista
areas, and we are in the process now that we would like to use those units; they are in the
General Plan, have been in the Plan for a long time and again this was a significant
justification for us to purchase the property.
· The site is not a retail site; it has no visibility to any major streets, it would be possible to bring
in a large type of big box user; if it was a destination oriented user, but that type of user would
be a Costco or similar which would bring in tremendous traffic to the area and I don't think the
neighborhood would support that. The site doesn't work very well for that type of use. It is
not large enough and the visibility is difficult.
· We strongly oppose reducing any housing allocations to the Bubb Road area and Monta Vista
area in hope that you will support leaving the General Plan's housing allocations in place for
this type of use. It is consistent with the surrounding areas and feel that in this property that it
should remain.
· In response to Com. Giefer's question, he said that out of 365,000 square feet, about 230,000
square feet is vacant; the tenants expire over the next three to four years.
· In response to Vice Chair Miller's question, he said that they had not considered senior
housing on the site; they sent it out to a soft marketing and linked up with Taylor Woodrow
homes about a year ago and they came in with a plan for subsidized market housing consistent
with the General Plan.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the applicant has commissioned a school impact study relative to the possibility of
building homes on the site, looking at the issues of tax generation, student generation and how
to offset those numbers.
· Said that the vacancy rate of the campus is about 63%.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
12
April 4, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· There are some areas, despite the fact that you would like to keep contiguous areas together in
industrial, you also mentioned there was some areas that make sense to revisit. I think that is
appropriate to do, and this is one of them and the one on east of Tantau in North Valko is
another one; but I would reiterat that if it works financially I think one of the things that the
city needs or is light in is senior housing and that seems to be a good spot. It is a difficult spot
from ingress and egress and anything you can do to keep the traffic down is going to work
better there; certainly residential is going to do that, but a senior project would do that even
more, and yet would not impact the neighborhood school system, but would provide housing
and is potentially a workable solution.
Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow Homes:
· Addressed the Bubb Road 94 housing allocations in the General Plan.
· We are working with Grosvenor Corp. on the subject 12 acre site and we have been working
with them for over a year; submitted a development application to the city in December 2004.
· Proposal is for 94 single family detached homes, in addition there are two acres of public open
space, trails and park space.
· Relative to the General Plan, the site is well situated for an infill site and if future businesses
expand in Cupertino, there will be a need for high quality housing for the people who work in
Cupertino.
· This is an opportunity to reduce the square footage of office space, reduce the city's ABAG
housing requirement and produce 94 single family homes, 14 BMR units.
· Said there were 8 units per acre on the site.
Mr. Piasecki:
· In response to Com. Chen's question, he said that the 94 units would end the allocations in the
current General Plan; they would use up the entire remaining allocation.
Mr. Mader:
· Said that the design maximized public benefits of open space, we have two parks; in order to
achieve that we have used a concept of clustered housing and the homes range from 2,000 to
2,400 square feet, range in height from 2 story and some have 3'd story within the existing roof
line; maximum height is 3 stories, 36 feet. Price range is $900,000+ depending on location
and square footage.
· Said they proposed clustered housing, with smaller lots.
· Relative to senior housing, said that they did not envision having 94 single family homes for
seniors; a senior product would lend itself to more of a high density product such as
townhouses or stacked flats. It would require more housing allocations; we have been
constrained with the 94 housing allocations for the site; we don't envision it as a senior site.
· We are providing 14 BMR units and the city could work to restrict some of those BMRs for
seniors and it may be a way to help solve the senior issue.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Is there a scenario under which senior housing would work for you on that site; whether it is
more allocations, more density, or some other configuration.
Mr. Mader:
· We have looked at it as a conventional project and not being senior housing.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
13
April 4, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Vice Chair Miller brings up a good point, as you are deliberating the General Plan, the land
use element, and if you are thinking about specialized types of housing, you probably should
talk about where and what densities would best occur so that when property owners and
applicants are seeking reviews and approvals, they would understand the rules.
· In this case, our current General Plan does not say that we should consider senior housing in
this location or provide any incentive in that direction; so this applicant has receded under the
current rules.
Chair Wong:
· Have you ever considered mixed use on the project?
· Would you consider putting some retail on Bubb Road, with housing behind it, which would
make Bubb Road more contiguous to see some kind of walkability, vitality vs. clustered or
straight housing.
· When will you start your outreach to the Monta Vista neighborhood?
Mr. Mader:
· We have not considered it; the question has been raised when we have met with the public and
neighborhood; we don't see this as being a good mixed project; it would be better for the city
to have the retail component build on the existing retail the city has, instead of trying to
interject it in this basically small number of units. It is not the best location for it; it is better to
build on the existing retail areas of the city.
· We have not looked at any retail on Bubb Road; currently there is a large park and we have put
the park there so it is close to the entrance where the public can use it.
· Relative to outreach, said they met with various people in the community, submitted the
development applications, and are working with city staff and then will have a program for
doing more of a formal outreach; but have done it informally. We have sent people plans, we
have met people at coffee shops, are here to talk to people and have been trying to make
contact with people informally, but there hasn't been a formal meeting.
· The response has been mixed.
Edward Shaffer, Attorney for Taylor Woodrow Homes:
· The first issue the city is faced with regarding the Bubb Road Results Way property is whether
to convert it to residential use.
· In that regard we have heard what the City Council, staff and Planning documents have said
about where you would prefer to see new infill housing developed and one of the important
priorities was to preserve the suburban areas of the city and to focus the new housing in the
urban core area, where it would not have a disruptive effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
· This property fits that bill because of its location tucked away; and having the conversion of
the industrial space having a net improvement in impact to the neighborhood and not having a
visible substantial adverse impact.
· It helps satisfy the ABAG needs that are being dictated to the city without disrupting any
neighborhood.
· Taylor Woodrow's project also satisfies some of the preferences we have heard expressed by
City Council and in the General Plan documents; it is single family detached housing; the
BMR units will be for sale and we know that most BMR units are made rental and the city
does have a desire for more units that would be available for sale to lower income families.
· Replacing the 200,000 square feet of outmoded industrial space should help reduce the ABAG
target numbers for the city which would be a benefit, or alternatively you could move them to
the Apple property discussed a short time ago without having an increase in the industrial
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
14
April 4, 2005
space which would possibly further raise the ABAG target numbers, putting more pressure on
the city, so there is a net benefit for the city.
· The General Plan for the past 12 years has envisioned this property as converting to residential
with the allocation of 150 units for the Bubb Road area; the EIR done for the General Plan, the
traffic studies and such already envisioned that as residential development.
· The capital improvements programs envisioned that type of use of the property and I suspect
that the traffic studies would indicate that 94 housing units would have substantially less
impact for traffic than 200,000 square feet of intensively used industrial space.
· The second aspect to this question is the matter of how many units to allow on the property
and the General Plan had indicated 150 units for the entire Bubb Road area; the Astoria project
used 56, leaving 94 units. For the past year, Taylor Woodrow has been designing their project
based on the expectation of 94 units.
· I haven't seen anything in writing why the task force draft reduced that to 81 units; but urged
the city to maintain the 94 unit number that has been indicated and anticipated by all parties;
and judge the Taylor Woodrow project on its merits when it comes before the Commission for
review. The difference between 94 and 81 units is deminimus; from a land use perspective on
a citywide basis that's deminimus as far as the Planning Commission is concerned, but is
significant for the developers as far as having enough critical mass to finance the two acres of
open space and the trails and other amenities offered to the neighborhood.
· This is not a speculative long range, merely potential housing, this is a project that is ready to
go once it is approved and be built and provide 94 units of housing to the city in the near term
and help satisfy the ABAG goals.
· We think it would be a benefit to the city and we would ask the Planning Commission to allow
the project and that land use to proceed on this property.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Everything you say makes sense; it is good to reduce the ABAG numbers; it does not make
sense as a commercial site; and also you are proposing a project that would fit very well in the
neighborhood in terms of the size of the houses and even the price points of the houses would
fit well in the neighborhood.
· The key issue is the impact on the schools, and is the one you have to address.
Mr. Shaffer:
· We are eagerly waiting for the study being prepared by the city and school district.
· It is recognized that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that it is the city who has hired the consultant that is doing the work and the applicant
is paying for the consultant.
Eric Morley, Morley Brothers, representing Sobrato Development:
· Sobrato Development is the largest owner of real estate in Santa Clara County, with significant
holdings (10) in Cupertino.
· Here to focus on the North Valko area; our firm in conjunction with Sobrato Development is
planning to redevelop the site at 19310, 19320 which is 128,000 square foot functionally
obsolete office building for 131 townhomes and stacked flats for sale, ranging from 1,200
square feet to 1,500 square feet, including a one acre turnkey public park.
· The site already has a General Plan designation which provides for residential; we recognize
that the neighborhood including the Hampton Apartments adjacent to which this site is
includes 400+ apartments, the 101 development nearby, the 149 unit Courtyard Hotel as well
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
15
April 4, 2005
as the Hilton Garden Inn 165 units, along with Valko and Cupertino Shopping Center, create a
wide dynamic mix of residential retail and office space with campus around it as well.
· The brokerage community has stopped showing the building because of its obsolete
functionality.
· We view this as an opportunity adjacent to existing residential in a neighborhood that has a
broad mix of uses today; it is a good candidate for that, and urged the Planning Commission
on two fronts. We recommend and support the 228 unit option that was discussed by the task
force; and also as a note in reading the land use element, we saw that the height limit at 30
feet, that would enable approximately 10 to 12 units to the acre or product type or home types
in that size; and we would recommend something in the range of 35 feet which would enable a
traditional townhouse or otherwise to be constructed in that area, and to maintain flexibility
which I know one of the speakers talked to you before.
· We look forward to working with the city and the Planning Commission and the City Council
on the redevelopment of that site.
Chair Wong:
· Many of the landowners today said that most of their office buildings are obsolete and I know
the economy is not doing too well; would it be better for the property owner to tear down the
building and rebuild it to a Class A office, when the economy picks up?
· We know that housing pays more than offices, and in the near future for the good of
Cupertino, what do you see in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Morley:
· Clearly there are near and long term issues you are grappling with through the General Plan;
that site specifically given its location and the existing building function is functionally
obsolete, and will not be leased. Sobrato is a long term build and hold company and there are
very few properties in which they have redeveloped or sought to redevelop that had no
functional utility today.
· In terms of the market factors that would enable a building today in the near future or in the
mid term or long term, to be torn down, redeveloped to Class A office space is extraordinarily
limited; this space today is probably Class C or C- office space. The economics that would
support that type of redevelopment for an office use do not exist and will not exist for a long
time; and being specific to this area given its access and location and proximity don't support
that; so that is our sense of the market.
· It is coming from an owner who has a long term interest of both Cupertino and Silicon Valley
because their business survives when the job market is strong as they lease to the largest
corporate users.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Does Hewlett Packard support this project?
Mr. Morley:
· We have just begun this process; we have a past relationship and experience with Hewlett
Packard both as a tenant of the building; also we are planning to engage them shortly to have
that dialog about their support for the project.
· I would say that the Hampton Apartments which are directly across the street from the campus
there, have operated and coexisted well both in the City of Cupertino and adjacent to that
campus given the buffer, the interface, extremely well without issue over the last many years.
· We see both the public park and the additional housing complementing Hewlett Packard in its
uses, complementing the adjacent residential and creating a location for that neighborhood to
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
16
April 4, 2005
draw to which currently does not have a public park; and also the corporate users like Hewlett
Packard which can come off the campus to be able to use that public park. It has been located
in an area that is accessible to the apartment residential, our development and the corporate
users in the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Miller:
· In our General Plan discussions, we talked a little about maximum height in that area, and the
general feeling so far is that it would be somewhere between 45 and 60 feet; knowing that,
would that change your plans for the type of project t hat you would build there.
Mr. Morley:
· That's more than sufficient; your objective as noted in the types of densities up to 25 units to
the acre; if there was additional residential there, that is more than appropriate and would be
more than flexible for us to accommodate our development objectives.
· It gives you as a city much more flexibility in terms of the product types we can deliver to the
city, whether it be single family detached, townhomes and flats or tucked under townhomes,
all are in the 34 to 38 foot range, so there is sufficient flexibility there, and we are comfortable
with that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· So knowing that it could go as high as 60 feet wouldn't change your plans in terms of adding
further density or not.
Mr. Morley:
· I think that is something you are grappling with in terms of unit allocations citywide and I
think as we have looked at the adjacent development which is 2-1/2 to 3 stories; we have
looked the surrounding community; we would be open to additional density, but we felt the
product type we have today is consistent and compatible with this adjacent uses.
· With those heights, it gives the flexibility to do more in terms of quality design, not just
density.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the things we are looking at is the FAR for commercial building; please comment on
what kind of FAR numbers you would like to see from a commercial standpoint.
Mr. Morley:
· Our development firm focuses specifically on residential and mixed use development
proposals; I am not here tonight on behalf of Sobrato to speak to that issue.
· We have worked closely with a number of high tech companies throughout Silicon Valley in
an advisory capacity and what is most critical is having the flexibility for companies like
Apple to be able to grow over time and have a tiered approach to your FAR; where in some
cases a company or property owner may not want to nor will the market support development
to a very high FAR in the near term but be able to grow the FAR as the market dictates.
· Am willing to get back to you in writing in terms of desired F ARs in terms of what corporate
users are looking to today.
· As mentioned earlier, the manufacturing market in that sector with offshoring and otherwise
has left this valley, and the focus is high end office R&D Class A corporate uses, corporate
headquarter uses, research in software, which really dictates a higher FAR for more typical
office environment for today; that is where we see that going in the future.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
17
April 4, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· When we talk about housing, the same issues keep coming up which are that housing doesn't
pay for itself from an infrastructure and services standpoint; and also there is the issue of the
impact on the schools.
· Whenever we deal with a housing project, we are always grappling with those issues. Some
alternatives to that might be in-lieu fees, as a way to offset the impact to the school system and
maybe even to the extent that services are impacted. Could you comment on that.
Mr. Morley:
· We grapple with these same issues in a number of other communities in Silicon Valley in
which we develop property.
· What we are finding today is that certain development proposals in certain locations that are
in fill not only sometimes pay for themselves, but also add dollars to the general fund given the
location that it is in; given the services that surround them; given the fact that infrastructure
such as sewer and water and other are currently stubbed to the site.
· It is not quite completed but that is the initial data we have received and we will provide that to
the commission as we are going through.
· I agree that it is a critical issue for the cities and that is one of the reasons we want to
commission that study.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I would like to understand that more because as far as I can see from the housing project, the
main source of revenue would be from the property taxes and in Cupertino that is an unusually
low percentage that we get back.
· Where else would the revenue come from?
Mr. Morley:
· Your percent is 4% which has been calibrate.
· When it is completed, a copy will be provided.
· There are a series of revenues that the city receives as a result of residential development, and
fees received as refunds from the state.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If the project didn't pay for itself, is finding some other ways to offset the financial impacts of
the project a reasonable thing from a developers standpoint.
Mr. Morley:
· I think that in the area of parks the city has a parkland dedication ordinance and that is
something we have addressed in other communities.
· The City Council has had some dialog on that as well, and I know that the city is looking at
that issue in terms of nexus study and trying to analyze that; we have addressed those issues in
other communities on other specific issues like parks and schools and otherwise; we haven't
addressed that specifically for this site today. We have been made aware of that issue by the
planning director in terms of an issue that you are dealing with.
· In terms of the schools, we will be commissioning a study; we will be funding it and the city
will be managing that process to determine what the student generation is given the product
type of townhouses and stacked flats. They typically generate a much lower student
generation number than single family detached or otherwise; but we wanted to make sure that
both the commission and the Council, staff and districts will have the benefit of that
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
18
April 4, 2005
information going through the process and I know that one of our districts have indicated to us
that there is initially capacity and we are going through that process now.
· Thanked the commission for the opportunity to answer questions and said he looked forward
to working with them on the project.
Kevin Wu, Pacific Resources:
· Owners of 10300, 10400 and 10501 No. Tantau Avenue.
· With regard to the General Plan, the city of Cupertino has spent the last four years on the
issue. The administrative draft as well as the General Plan draft are very good.
· Presently leasing the buildings out as offices.
· Said that the time and effort of the Planning Commission and staff should be recognized
because of the many meetings and long hours.
Fred Chen, Owner of the Marketplace:
· We need to generate enough service, commercial area to support the tax and the people living
here.
· I would like the Planning Commission to consider the mixed use for commercial and
residential use because this is the lifestyle; that is how we can use the land more efficiently,
attractive to both tenants, commercial and high tech companies.
· I think a flexible and reasonable plan for mixed use for commercial/residential could be a
solution for the city, and a support for housing requirements in the city.
Com. Giefer:
· As a Stevens Creek property owner, what is your opinion on setbacks?
Mr. Chen:
· Setback is 25 or 30 feet or they need to be maintained, otherwise the street would be too
narrow; and the height limits are around 35 feet, which is appropriate.
· It is difficult for my tenants; 30 years ago they rented the space for under $1 and now it is $2
or $3. The only way for them to do it is to upgrade the center, bring the tenants up to the street
to attract more business and create certain traffic. We estimate the revenue generated is 5
times per square feet than we have before; it is a good example of how to help the developer
and especially the tenant to attract more business to not only survive and grow but support the
city for all services.
· We are planning to build another building in the front and all my existing tenants in the back
want to move up because they know their revenue will increase.
· They need to have a more attractive location to attract customers and I think mixed use solves
the housing problem and also employees say that they want to afford entry level residential.
· I think a mixed use would be able to provide more attractive affordable housing for a
professional and would not require that much requirement for school and yet increase the
revenue from retail and commercial.
· They plan to build more buildings up front and move tenants from the back, serving two
purposes, create more revenue for them and separate commercial from the residential in the
back.
· Plan to demolish the existing buildings in the back area and replace with housing.
Kelly Sneider, Toll Brothers Housing Developers:
· Urged the Planning Commission to be flexible and to consider flexibility in ranges as they
look at the task force and administrative General Plan draft revisions.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
19
April 4, 2005
· Keeping the height limit from 45 to 60 feet or the FAR range from .25 to 1; keeping those
types of ranges and that kind of flexibility is what will make this General Plan become a good
process for the city of Cupertino for the 10 or 20 year lifetime of this plan and allow for the
unique new use or unique new combination of uses.
· Specifically as relates to some of the items that the invitation asked us to consider, regarding
the proposed height limit, and particularly in the Valko South planning area, we are greatly in
favor of the 45 to 60 foot range that the administrative draft contained and that also some of
you have commented favorably on.
· Commended both the Planning Commission and planning staff who have been involved in
creating the Hot Topics matrix and the background report; it was helpful to see the evolution
of the thought that went from the existing plan through the iterations of the task force, the
minority report and now the background report in its current version.
· Specifically as it relates to the residential unit allocation, we are also in favor of keeping the
700 new units for the Valko South planning area.
· The background report did an excellent job of pointing out some of the cause and effect issues
that can come from the mid and long term if you limit or prohibit a certain use in a particular
area; you can't get the desired use you want unless you create a market incentive for the
economically viable use. If you want the mixed use, the retail or the commercial properties,
you sometimes have to allow the associated residential use or the associated industrial use to
make the economics viable for any particular master plan area or specific plan area. Keeping
the allocation at the higher number of residential units will give you the most flexibility to get
those key desired uses that the citizens and officials in the city of Cupertino would like to see
over the next several years in these areas.
· There are a number of examples such as the Santa Barbara Grill which recently won some
approvals from the Commission and Council, or the Hewlett Packard property at Finch
A venue that showed that the market will determine what the appropriate use is. The properties
in Cupertino even in this growing economy will sit vacant for years and sometimes decades; so
permitting them to a particular use does not necessarily mean you are going to get that use.
· As some previous speakers said, to keep the flexibility and keep the ability to look at projects
on a case-by-case basis, what is appropriate in Monta Vista may not be appropriate in Valko
North, what is appropriate in the Heart of the City may not be appropriate in the City Center.
· She said there are a number of things that can help a residential project pay for itself; among
the first in this state with Prop. 13 guidelines, is the propensity for turnover of any property by
building a large amount of housing in any given area in any California city if you can create
the incentive for turnover and for owners to sell their homes that they have been in for 30 or 40
years and go into a different property. You then have the opportunity to reassess that property,
and when you are building a range of housing such as entry level units, or lofts or stacked
flats, it creates a market for those people to buy in and move around even within the
neighborhood or within a school district. Every time that house sells, that is your opportunity
to reassess and get the money that the school districts and the local funding requires.
· In addition, any new housing that is built is built to life and fire and health safety standards
that are orders of magnitude above what many of the typical ranch style houses in this
community were built at in the 50s or 60s. You cannot just quantify the necessarily the
servicing costs for any particular housing unit, because a new home offers so much more in
terms of life safety, sprinklers, materials used and the longevity of it.
· The best thing for a community like Cupertino is to create an incentive for the people to start
moving around within their houses so that the under-utilized properties that have one or two
seniors in them, can turn over to families who can use them; or different residential groups
who will utilize the 2000 or 3000 square feet in that home and give the opportunity to reassess
that property again.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
20
April 4, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· On the property you currently have a project that you are working with staff on, there is a
creek currently running under a portion of that property, and I was pleased to hear you talk
about flexibility on our behalf.
· There is a park that needs to be allocated as part of building going on in that general area; have
you considered opening that creek up and building a neighborhood around that creek that
would benefit the community.
Ms. Sneider:
· No, we have not given any thought to that; our understanding in preliminary conversations
with the water district and the city of Cupertino is that it is part of a flood control project, and
the opportunity to open it up probably doesn't exist.
Com. Giefer:
· I would like you take a look at it because when I see the creek flowing into it and coming out
on the other side, it is not that large, and unless there is an underground lake that we are not
aware of, it should not be that difficult.
· I would like to see any future plans that come to us have considered that.
Ms. Sneider:
· Said it was a fair question.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Are you planning a park as part of that project?
· Talk a little about what type pf product you are planning for that site and why you chose it.
Ms. Sneider:
· We have not yet submitted a formal application to the city of Cupertino; have had some study
sessions in looking at different conceptual plans that would work. Input from city staff, City
Council, Planning Commission and city officials, indicates that this city would not be
receptive to the in-lieu fee option that goes along with the park ordinance, and the fact it is a
perfect opportunity to put the land there.
· Currently are currently planning for a 3+ acre park somewhere within the master plan of the
site.
· Much of it is preliminary because we haven't yet put a final site plan together that we have
submitted for approval, but what we are looking at can reasonably be called medium density
residentiaVmulti family residential, probably a combination of townhomes and perhaps stacked
flats or traditional condo buildings.
· The reason we are looking at that is because there are many demands placed on the site which
is approximately 26 acres in addition to the parkland which we have touched upon.
· There is a very sizable chunk that we will set aside for a retail and mixed use development on
the order of 8 or 9 acres of land. Once you start to carve all the land off, plus consider the
unusual triangle piece that terminates at 1-280 on the north end, it becomes hard to fit in
anything like a single family home or small lot single family like the previous developer was
mentioning in Monta Vista.
· The best use for the land ends up being a combination of this in different multi family housing.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
21
April 4, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· To clarify that, one of the comments that Apple's rep mentioned was from his standpoint there
was a need for entry level housing for new engineers. Would you characterize this housing as
fitting that characterization?
Ms. Sneider:
· Yes, this would probably fall into the lower end of the spectrum of prices in Cupertino, in
terms of square footage and terms of living in close proximity to your neighbors and not
having a swim pool in the backyard, and also in terms of the price point.
· Relative to the comment on how to offset fees, I commend you on your creativity and that
would work well except that the percentage the city gets is so miniscule. If you work the
numbers; if you were selling a $600K condo, the property taxes and the city's percentage
would equal $288.00 per year per unit, which is an extremely low amount of money; I couldn't
imagine that paying for services for the school system and the other things envisioned here.
While it is a nice way to go, Prop 13 has limited our ability to avail ourselves of that and we
are looking for other alternatives.
· The point of my statements is that it is a very complicated economic picture and it is not as
simple as this house produces this much revenue; there is much that goes into the cause and
effect of where your tax revenue comes from, where the people come from who shop at your
local stores who give you additional revenue; how much the cost of sitting in traffic is for one
half hour a day if you work outside the city.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We are trying to look at all aspects and provide some level of balance, in terms of we are
looking for your input and how to work together and how to make things work; and we are
looking for alternatives; in this particular case, the impacts of the type of development you are
proposing.
· Are there other ideas that you have, and/or how reasonable from a developer's standpoint is it
to consider in-lieu fees for the schools and/or Mello Roos districts, or other alternatives for
generating revenue to offset the impacts.
Ms. Sneider:
· I think some of the suggestions that you just made, an assessment district, or a particular fee
assessed are all excellent possibilities and particularly good in a community like Cupertino.
· Reiterated that this is probably not the time and the General Plan is clearly not the document in
which to mark out a particular assessment or what a particular exaction might be against any
particular land.
· I think much of that is best answered when you see what the proposal is. If it is a multi family
vs. single family, it is going to have a big difference on the school yield, and probably a big
difference on the school impact. Because something is zoned residential doesn't mean it is
automatically going to have a negative or positive impact on something like schools or traffic.
· I think that any housing developer who understands the Cupertino market and understands the
challenges the city is facing is going to be amenable to working with staff and City Council
and the Planning Commission to come up with a way to balance the pros and cons of any
given project.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Sure, but we are reviewing the General Plan right now and to put the mechanisms in place in
the General Plan to allow that to happen is where we are headed.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
22
April 4, 2005
· Going back to a comment that you made and some others made, I think that the more
flexibility we provide in those mechanisms, the better off we are, but I still encourage your
input from a developer's standpoint, in terms of how we can best make this work for us and
you as well.
Ms. Sneider:
· We will talk about that and spend some time getting back to you formally about what some
possible solutions could be.
Chair Wong:
· With the economy not doing very well in Cupertino, we would like to see more retail in
Cupertino; and we were considering some big boxes or medium boxes in our town, and since
the Hewlett Packard property is one of our last virgin territory that we have, have you ever
considered that, or why not?
Ms. Sneider:
· My disclaimer, which is that I know housing fairly well but I am not real familiar with retail.
In our particular case, we came into the city with an idea about a housing proposal and we
were told, why don't you go away and work out some extra retail in it; so we brought some
extra retail in it.
· We brought in some retail partners and we are working currently with an owner, which is
Hewlett Packard, as well as some specialized expert retail developers who would really be in a
much better position to answer that question.
· I am aware of some preliminary conversations made between a particular big box developer
about the land near to or adjacent the Hewlett Packard property and that particular big box
developer wasn't interested in that property for a number of reasùns.
· We have considered it, but based on our partnership with the retail developer, have learned
that the idea retail uses tend to be more smaller lifestyle oriented centers that have a number
of different types of retailers in one center as opposed to just focusing on one or two uses.
Chair Wong:
· Your location is in the middle of town; and there is a lot of concern regarding what should be
on the Hewlett Packard property.
· How are you dealing with the community outreach, and when you have your plans ready, what
is your outreach going to be?
Ms. Sneider:
· Have not started community outreach because we haven't submitted any plans and it would be
unfair to go to the community now and say we are thinking about 300 houses and then have it
turn out we are only talking about 150. We want to wait until we have submitted something
and are asking for a formal approval or amendment to the General Plan before we talk with the
community members.
· We are looking forward to working with them; any project is enhanced by feedback from the
community. Already I think the project we are working with has benefited from some of the
public meetings we have had with Planning Commission and City Council and hearing some
of the input about the types of retail that people want, the types of parking lots they like to use.
· We will embark on a major and formal outreach campaign, community meetings, a series of
public hearings in these chambers as well in more informal offsite locations such as coffee
houses and homeowners associations and neighborhood groups.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
23
April 4, 2005
Chair Wong:
· City Council set a guideline of 300 homes for the property and a 3 acre park, and the General
Plan that we are recommending is 35 per acre which would put it over 300.
· As Mr. Foulkes said, there is a caveat that if you want more, you have to give back some,
maybe put underground parking, a little more commercial. If we were to be flexible up here,
perhaps considering Com. Giefer's concern about extending that trail park all the way through
that. If we extend the height, density, etc. how flexible will you be?
Ms. Sneider:
· Guarantee we will be just as flexible as possible; we have already seen our park size grow by
about 100% from what is actually required for the property based on some of the preliminary
unit counts.
· I think we have demonstrated our willingness to work with the Planning Commission and City
Council on the community to balance out the pros and cons.
· I am not sure about the guidelines of the three acre park and 300 units, if you are talking about
informal feedback that we have gotten at previous studies.
Chair Wong:
· What was the City Council's directive regarding that?
Mr. Piasecki:
· You are correct that in the original pass through, the City Council indicated they would
consider up to 300 units; but since then the Council has eliminated the gatekeeper function in
our ordinances which opens the opportunity for this applicant and other applicants to propose
for General Plan amendments whatever they feel they can accommodate on the property and
then the Planning Commission and Council can evaluate that in a full public hearing format
with everybody's input. They are not bound by those earlier numbers.
· They can propose in excess of 300 under the new rules.
Ms. Sneider:
· Your point is well taken, that there can be flexibility, but it has to be on both sides of the table,
and I agree with respect to that.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· Thanked all the corporations present, developers from the residents point of view and from the
land owners; mentioned that Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce said that the reason the
buildings are going out is because they are getting old; well I seem to remember it was not too
long ago that there was a huge downturn in the economy and I believe that was a greater
reason for the corporations leaving the area than the buildings getting old.
· The second thing was that there was talk about 60 feet in the Apple loop and that there might
be a possibility of that or higher. I hope the Apple people outreach to the neighbors behind
them because they are still angry about the heights there now.
· Invited all to come tomorrow night to get the correct figures on the high school district
numbers; there has been misinformation that has been given out, and I think everyone will be
enlightened to what the true impact is and what is going on.
· We talked about the need of 3,533 housing units due to a longer period of time that we are
going to be talking and the shortage of numbers that were addressed up front. But in asking
questions like how are you going to accommodate the greater amount of housing when the
primary drain is on our education system and city services. Are we going to get wider streets,
I don't think so. I think the streets are pretty much laid out. Are we going to get more services
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
24
April 4, 2005
for the library, more sheriffs; I don't think so because those systems probably aren't going to
be paying for themselves by a whole lot of more housing.
· [am not opposed to housing; but [ think smart controlled growth is much better than
unlimited; losing more retail potential with damage seems to damage the city's financial base
that we so desperately need. We talk about building the schools more; where are we going to
get the money to do that, likely from the residents in property taxes.
· We have been told that more and more housing drains financial services of the city instead of
enhancing it.
· I was a member of the task force and I remember 3 things among many that came out of the
task force last October. We wanted our neighborhood kids to go to neighborhood schools, and
I was fortunate enough to visit a house next to Regnart today where the lady told me how
upset she was because of all the traffic because Regnart is a filler school for all the
overcrowded elementary schools that don't have room for them, so they are funneling them
into Regnart.
· The more emphasis on retail and less emphasis on housing, where is our See's Candy; where is
our stationary store; where is our Office Depot and where is our bookstore? We want to retain
our openness and our vistas instead of becoming a more huge urban area.
· Please don't continue to damage our quality of life.
Beverly Bryant, ~ PhD., Executive Director, Southern Division, Homebuilders Assn. of
Northern California:
· Thanked staff for the excellent noticing of meetings.
· The HBA represents about 1000 members, 100 of whom are builders and many of them build
in Cupertino; we encompass 14 counties in the greater Bay Area of Northern California and
we have been in many cities encouraging the cities to do the kinds of things you are tackling
today; to consider the issues of the housing situation in California which lacks 20,000 homes
per year in the Bay Area alone. The market cannot keep up with the demand for homes. It is
not necessarily new people coming in; it may mean people; we are getting more people in
California because it is growing of its own accord.
· We believe housing also dri ves industrial growth and growth to communities because
businesses cannot locate in communities unless there is adequate housing.
· In the past Cupertino has been successful in doing a lot with commercial growth and some of
the speakers are testimony to that with corporate headquarters in the city. You are fortunate;
we also believe there is an opportunity to have housing in Cupertino and have housing in a
creative and good way that will work for the companies here and will work for the citizens
who reside here.
· Some of the things we were thinking about in many cities is the whole issue of
industriaVresidential conversion and the people who spoke before me are far more expert on
that particular area than I. The general theme being that our builders are prepared to build
infill housing. Traditionally housing in California has been thought of as what Cupertino has
much of, single family homes, large acres of land and so on. I think there is a realization in the
country as well as in the Bay Area, particularly among California builders, that what we need
to do is think creatively to think outside of the box to try to build a higher density housing, to
build housing with an ability to accommodate more people and more different kinds of
housing than has been done traditionally in the past.
· Encouraging also creative thinking about height and setbacks and density issues and FAR, all
are being considered by the cities around Cupertino and I know you are tackling them too.
· The deficit is important to have for all cities to consider and ABAG has put some constraints
on the communities to try to encourage more housing; affordability of housing which is going
off the charts in California, is driven by the availability of housing; as housing becomes more
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
25
April 4, 2005
available and different product hubs become available, housing becomes more affordable and
therefore we can get more of our citizens in shelter appropriate for them.
· Thank you for looking at the density issues, please consider being creative; the builder
representatives in front of you today, many of whom are HBA members are prepared to listen
to what your needs are and to build; and we hope that you will consider doing that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· What has been said is accurate; we understand the need for housing, but we also have the issue
of the cost of the services and schools in dealing with the additional housing, and perhaps as a
representative of many builders, you have seen some solutions that are workable in other areas
that can help us out in Cupertino.
Dr. Bryant:
· Creativity is at the root of the whole issue and there have been studies that housing not only
pays for itself, but indeed is paying more than commercial, and if you have an under-
performing commercial building that goes under, certainly housing coming in is more greater
than the non-existent revenue that comes from that.
· Also I think the fact that the person who spoke from Toll Brothers gave some suggestions and
examples, and I know you ran the numbers and I know that Prop 13 in California does
constrain the communities.
· We are thinking about this because it is a statewide question; and we hope that we will have
more data. We need to prove and demonstrate that housing indeed can bring wealth to a
community in ways that haven't been thought of in the past.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Expressed concern about the loss of the tech buildings in Cupertino.
· Said that high tech would return in 3 to 5 years and questioned where the companies would be
placed.
· Said she hoped some of the tech buildings could be maintained to be available when the need
exists in the future.
· Also concerned about the height and density of the proposed housing that will be built on
some of the former tech properties; and the impact on the schools.
· Questioned if more schools would have to be built for more students; would like to see what
the impact on the current schools will be.
· In closure, I hope that everyone can look at the concerns of the residents and what this impact
will be.
· Please save the high tech buildings.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked staff for getting the large corporations, developers, land owners, Chamber and
concerned citizens to the meeting. On April lth there will be a land use wrapup
recommendation and then preliminary decisions on May 10th and May 24'h
Com. Saadati:
· It will be a difficult decision, but the bottom line is to try to have a balanced community, and
to have a balanced community you need to have future eeÐRÐIHY economic vitality.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
26
April 4, 2005
· I believe mixed use may be an option to apply to some of the senior housing if it is done right;
you cannot put mixed use everywhere and expect the seniors to move in unless there are
nearby amenities they can walk to.
· Overall the housing may help the economy some if the residents use the shops within the city
of Cupertino, but we have many residents who live on the west side of DeAnza Boulevard and
they shop in San Jose. We need a better outreach to inform people what impact the shopping
will have.
· I have seen many smaller stores such as auto shops and appliance stores in Cupertino that
closed in the past few years. It is nice to have some of the smaller stores back in here and
hopefully we can provide incentives to have them move back.
· Overall if you look at the balance in the community, there are areas we can build higher
buildings, even 60 feet if it is done nicely, with proper color, height variation, it will look nice.
· In the past meetings we have commented on different area as far as height and in general we
are very close to most of the comments that were made here, but as far as adding housing, the
question would be what is the limit and that needs to be in balance with the jobs and
everything else in the Cupertino and help the future vitality. That is not going to be an easy
thing to do.
Com. Giefer:
· Appreciated the input regarding the densities and height; I concur with comments by Com.
Saadati and I think we struggle as we sit up here because we are hearing more and more
requests to convert and rezone commercial into residential.
· I can't help feel at some point we are going to need that commercial land and tax implications,
and the upside for the city is unless we can come up with a way to make the city whole for that
money, adding additional housing helps us provide additional living units for people who work
within our city limits, reduces traffic and potentially makes the city more walkable.
· We need to be cautious as we are looking at rezoning some of these projects and converting
the commercial to housing. It is a balancing act and we need to consider every one of these as
we move forward.
· Thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts with us this evening.
Com. Chen:
· We heard repeatedly that we need more housing, there is need, with all the indication of
housing shortage on the current market now. I am not opposed to housing increase or
increasing the density, but am concerned that the type of housing we get does not address the
need of Cupertino and also the increased impact of additional housing units to this community
in terms of cost; and also the quality of life and the level of public services that can afford to
be provided to our current citizens.
· I concur with Com. Giefer's idea of preserving commercial land and I think we are hoping for
a balanced community, which is with residential, industrial/office and commercial. I think we
should preserve the commercial/industrial and office spaces; but should be really careful in
converting them to residential units, but also agree that we should review the projects on
parcel-by-parcel basis, based on the location and on the design and need of the community.
· Based on many general comments, I would suggest that we should encourage mixed use
wherever we can and encourage our assessment district and maintenance district wherever we
can so that it would relieve some of the financial burdens from the city, and also maintain the
quality of life that we all deserve.
· I think height and setbacks should be reviewed as one component, not separate issues. For
certain height, there has to be enough setback and for certain setback, we can afford to give a
little more flexibility on height.
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
27
April 4, 2005
· We should encourage mixed use whenever we can, the main reason being that the residential
units owners can support the commercial business around their neighborhood and also within
walking distance which hopefully will reduce the traffic impact of the large development unit.
Vice Chair Miller:
· This was a productive meeting and a good start; we heard individual property owners come up
and talk about their individual projects, we heard from our residents, but we don't very often
hear from the property owners and the business owners all together in a collective fashion like
I believe we started to do tonight. We are all stakeholders in this room and all should be
looking for solutions that fit not only for ourselves but our neighbors who are stakeholders as
well.
· It helps all the commissioners to understand what the property owners are looking at and
hopefully it helps the property owners as well as the residents understand what we are looking
at. I think this is a good start in a dialog that continues; I would be looking to more input
from the property owners on the problems we are facing as we move forward in doing further
development and some of them have promised to come back here with information; I hope
they follow through on that.
· I heard over and over about how do we finance the impacts and we talked about a few and then
about some conversion and about the need for balance in the city. One of the reasons we are
being pressed for more housing is I believe that the ABAG numbers would indicate that there
still an imbalance, we need more housing to balance out some of the commercial; so it is not
clear that commercial conversion at this point is necessarily a bad thing. If it proceeded too
far, it could be a bad thing in my view. The other side of that is if there is commercial
conversion; I don't want to particularly pick on Hewlett Packard, I don't know how much tax
revenue they give to the city but if Hewlett Packard was interested in doing some
development, maybe there is some way they can generate some additional sales tax dollars
based on the products they build and sell out of the Cupertino facility.
· In summary, would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to work together with the
residents, the landowners and businesses and I hope we will continue this dialog.
Chair Wong:
· I echo what my colleagues are saying, especially Com. Giefer; I am concerned when we
convert commercial to housing that we have to be careful with the balance. Mr. Whitaker had
a good comment that we don't see See's Candy going out of town, a missing bookstore, a
missing office supply store that were all leaving town. Right now what is generating is
housing. There has to be a balance, and the community really wants to see retail and sales tax
dollars to support services in our community. I hope landowners will consider that as well.
· Mr. Foulkes brought up that there has to be a give and take; if you are going to ask something
from us, that if we give something more, we want something back as well; there has to be
some flexibility and as we go through this process I will also look into that flexibility as well.
· I also agree with some of the comments made by the landowners that everything is dependent
upon location. I would take into consideration also we should look into where it can be mixed
use or smart growth and if it doesn't work out some other things; there has to be a balance
between the community's needs as well as landowner's needs that we want to make it into a
win-win situation.
· We want to preserve our hillsides and our R I neighborhood as the urban community in
Cupertino is precious to us. The community is also building in that we want the growth, but
we also want to preserve our quality of life. Traffic and schools are very important to me and I
want to make sure they are addressed; I know that the city pays for the consultants, but still the
Planning Commission Study Session/ Public Hearing
28
April 4, 2005
community perception is that they see it likewise; so we need to have better outreach to the
community.
Ms. Wordell:
. Reviewed the upcoming meetings
~ Land use and the draft EIR at the April lth meeting.
~ Preliminary recommendations from the Planning Commission on April 26th
~ Final recommendations to the City Council on May 10th or May 24th.
~ May 24th to allow turnaround for all the changes.
Chair Wong:
· Suggested keeping May lOth meeting open if there are other things in the General Plan that
were not covered for staff to review; and give final recommendations on the May 24th
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the April lth Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
ar~
Ilis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: May 10, 2005.