Loading...
PC 06-13-05 CTTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUI'ES 6:00 P.M. JLJNE 13, 2005 MONDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Special Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CaliFornia, by Chairperson GilbeR Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gilbert Wong Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Angela Chen Commissioner: Taaghi Saadati Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. GPA-2004-O1 General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan. EA-2004-17 Subject: Preliminary recommendations City of Cupertino Tentative City Council date.• July 19, 2005 Citywide IocaNon Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report and noted the discussion items for the meetiug: • Jobs Housing Balance, revised tables that that were distributed to commissioners • Wording on criteria for converting office, commercial azeas to either residential and mix use. • A list of revised preliminary recommendations tha[ incorpora[e Com Giefer's recommenda- recommendations. We indicated on that document which ones we would suggest as consent items and which ones would be discussion items. • Reviewing the list of preliminary recommendations, there aze 67; 43 aze suggested as consent, 24 for discussion and some could be dealt with in a group. 0 8 relate to FAR policies; 0 6 deal with mixed use; Cupertino Planning Comxnission 2 June 13, 2005 . Sally Lazson is present and may wish to speak. Ms. Sally Larson: • Said she did not have a prepared presentation, but was willing to answer questions. Chair Wong: • Invited Ms. Lazson to speak on general statements regazding the General Plan Task Force as one of the community members on the task force. Com. Giefer: • Asked Ms. Larson to speak on mixed use, and shaze observations on behalf of the task force, the general observation and consideration regarding mixed use was. Ms. Larson: • In the greater group and the smaller group, the members were very pro-retail and anti- conversion of retail or commercial to residential thereby permanently removing it from revenue producing potential. • Mixed use in all the greater and smaller discussions, the people who opposed it felt it was the least desirable of the housing choices. The people coming into an azea, their first choice would be for a family home. People particularly came to Cupertino to have a family home and to send their children to schools here and live in a suburban setting. They felt that dense housing and mixed use would be people's last choice; that you would come to a place where it was available, but it was not the chazacter of Cupertino. • We were told and directed from the beginning that the whole purpose of this look at the General Plan was that the citizens and residents could say how they would like to see the city shaped in the coming ten yeazs, and it was not to acquiesce to anyone else who wanted to profit or change the look of the city or anything. It was for the citizens to say what they would like and by far and away more people said they wanted it to retain its suburban feel. They felt as I do, that mixed use is not desirable. • I would not want to live over a shop of any kind, not a nail shop, Quiznos, anything you could name, I would not want to live above that. It is not desirable and if I did I would go to San Francisco or might now go to Mountain View, or even Campbell. But, Cupertino was not thought of in that way and is not by the residents who hold it very dear and think of it as paradise and don't want it paved over and made high-density. It sounds like it might be a very emotional subjective view but it was incredibly pervasive in that room, you heard it at every table gathering, at every different configuration when there were chances to discuss, and in particular in the land use group, wluch again that part of it was self selected, people gravitated to topics they had a feeling for but the greater group, there was not at all, there was no organized beginning movement or goal or anything other than to help have a say in the character and the look of Cupertino. • So many of the people who were saying that they want mixed use and higher density and more housing were people, who had something to gain by it or who already live here in a nice home on a shady street in a place where there could never be mixed use. • It threatened the people who are in border azeas where it might be an encroaching change that would forever alter the skyline and the look and feel and even the smell of the azea you live in. If it is going to have cooking smells, and traffic eachaust fumes, it changes every[hing. If we become urbanized in that look whatever part of the city you do that to, then again you change, any area that is ever over-populated cannot remain the same, the quality of life changes. If people are coming for the schools, there is only so many kids that can be held in the schools. We talked repeatedly about that. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 13, 2005 • Said there was a general opposition to conversion of commercial. Everybody turned out to be pro-retail, which was a happy surprise for me. • Relative to conversion of office, people tend to merge the two terms commercial and retail, and were not sophisticated when we went into this. They also had a strong Feeling, I know at my table there were people sent from their companies. There were people from Apple, and some other companies; who wanted to retain their previous rights held to develop their property, and that was lazgely supported. • There was not a broad spread opposition to tall buildings just for the sake of that, there was a sense that they did not want anymore of the infill where you would just take every little space remaining and fill it in with higher and denser housing. • A strong feeling is about the BMR program the city already has, that it should be maintained and perhaps reinforced a Little. Granted, you have to trade that off with density but if you really follow that and use the gross number of units in your calculation then it shouldn't be too much rapid growth, it should be more or less appropriate. • Many people were very cynical about the use of the term "affordable" since we well know that there is no such thing and never will be as affordable housing. No one here is willing to sell their property for an affordable price; they ue going to get market value for it and so they felt that was a euphemism being banded about by people who want to tug at the mom and apple pie heartstrings; but affordable housing is never going to be possible and we already seen that in the two years since the task force started. We are seeing people come in and flip their units, they are buying units and selling them for almost twice the price. That is what is going to be on, you set up a frenzy and this place was not meant to be that way and the people who live here and are invested here in a really strong familial way dodt want it to be that kind of place. • These are my feelings, but it was very pervasive which surprised me as I went in as a completely private citizen without an agenda. I have my privately held thoughts and feelings about a shady tree filled city, but I was very surprised to see how many other people felt the same way. Ms. Wordell: • Reviewed revised Table 2A, which contained some new numbers related to conversion of office to reduce the amount of office and increase the amount of housing in order to improve the jobs/housing balance, which was at the previous meeting. • The two changes that we made in the reduction of office were in Vallco Pazk South, where any potential office was removed, and buildout would be at what is existing now, 708,000 squaze feet, there is a gain of about 300,000 square feet there. The other place where office potential was reduced was City Center and that was also reduced to the existing built or to be built in City Center, so build actually; which amounts to 484,000 square feet that we reduced by, not the million discussed last night. One thought about that would be that as we get into the conversion discussion it might be that would be additional squaze feet of office that would be reduced through conversion that we have not identified here so that is a possibility unless you want to look at any of these other azeas and see how that might be done. • Relative to buildout for residential in the faz right column, we added 400 units in the neighborhoods and that is just for the neighborhood buildout which is the 17,976 in the red. We added another 100 units to Vallco Park South which would be difference of about 400 units, one could imagine that that would be Toll Brothers and Vallco Fashion Pazk which they are talking about doing some additional residential development and that is not out of the realm of possibility. • Homestead was reduced by 200 because they had about 500 units or a little bit less that were projected there, that was actually majority opinion of the Planning Commission, so you would need to look at whether you felt you wanted to do that. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 13, 2005 . Other azeas is 100, which is an undesignated category for the commercial azeas thaY is a floating number. Employment centers added about 100 to North DeAnza and Vallco Pazk North 200 and that would correlate with some of these conversion ideas tha[ were previously discussed. If you want to allow for conversion there, we would need some housing units to go with that. • Bubb Road is 100 and that is fairly azbitrary so those numbers come up to actually a little bit over 2,000 than what you talked about last night. Mr. Piasecki: • When we tried to cut back on the office and we went to Apple and realized that we need to be flexible for the Apples and Hewlett Packard's of the world; which was one of the discussion items the Planning Commission had, attempting to have the ability or the expandability in some of the tech pazks. • We think it is a function of how do we treat existing buildings, and how do we treat the new square footage. • We still encourage the Planning Commission to have a structured policy that addresses changing out some of the functioning obsolete buildings as another way of leaving the numbers for new a little higher, but encouraging the removal of buildings that aze no longer functioning for this community. • It allows you to keep Apple, HP, and North Vallco whole or closer to whole and still cut back on some of We industrial in tertns of the overall numbers For the city. It will occur over time we will have to monitor it but I think it is a good way to go. Vice Chair Miller: • When we did the numbers yesterday we discussed the reduction of 500,000 for the office and I noted the fact that in the `committed' on Vallco there was already 500,000. If we look at Vallco Park South from buildout from 2000 build to 2005 build, we have already done those 500,000 in there and that is where the million came from. • It is not clear why we are at +2251 instead of just 2000, the way the numbers I thought were going to come out yesterday. Ms. Wordell: • Yes, Vallco Pazk South 1,652,000 includes 535,000 for Vallco Fashion Park. Vice Chair Miller: • Discussed the calculation of numbers and said he would expect to see 23,097 for buildout for residential. Ms. Wordell: • Explained that they came in high because they put in numbers that seemed like the azeas could carry those numbers, but it does exceed what was asked for; it could be paired down; we would just have to make a decision how to pair that down. Mr. Piasecki: • A lot of the housing numbers come on developed lots, underdeveloped lots, existing neighborhoods, where the triplexes go to fourplexes, duplexes get built, single family homes get built, and hillside lots. • We tried to cut that number back, realizing that is dangerous because these are existing sites that are expected to build out, but again we can look at that in greater detail if you would like to explore ways to bring those numbers down. Cupedino Planning Commission 5 June 13, 2005 Com. Chen: • I just want to confirm that other azeas azen't undesignated units that can be assigned to anywhere in the area; for example the increase between the neighborhood 17,576 units vs. 17,976 units; those 400 units can be assigned anywhere in the city. Ms. Wordell: • The first priority would be the neighborhoods and for [he 100 other areas and commercial the first priority would be commercial. • There is a policy in this task force draft that says the numbers are flexible; if a project came along and didn't have an allocation from anything, you could chose to borrow from the pool, but it would be a conscious choice that you were taking from a different azea. Com. Chen: • Can the 400 unit increase for a neighborhood be assigned to Vallco North or Bubb Road? Ms. Wordell: • It likely would take more detailed analysis because it has always been protected; if there was a potential to develop in the neighborhoods somebody could split a lot; you wouldn't say that they came along too late and their units have already been given away. • If any project did try to bornow from that, we would have to look very closely at what the exact potential of the neighborhoods was, and would somebody be deprived of the ability to do a small subdivision. Mr. Piasecki: • One approach for the Planning Commission is to focus on the azeas and if you have the question about the neighborhood or other azeas, let us bring in a map and point to where those sites are; I think some of those are up in the hills; I am not sure if they include the quarries or not. It may be 50 years before anything happens on those properties. The numbers get bloated when you look at the conversion of quarry industrial space to very low density residential; 50 units on one site looks like a lot at these numbers. Ms. Wordell: • It wouldn't only be the other azeas that could be borrowed from; you could look at Bubb Road in a few years and say this just not going to happen there; and you could bonow from that if somebody came along where you felt it was appropriate. • ~iad-ae-eee~eeE. Ms. Wordell: • A commissioner asked what the 2,397 was compared to the ABAG number. • She said it was 2,325 over 20,032; and commented that it was more than enough. Mr. Piasecki: • Keep in mind the ABAG number is good through next year; you will be getting new ABAG numbers in the neaz future, two to three years, and they will likely want you to bring in another couple of thousand. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 13, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • Said it did not make a big difference to have a round number vs. 97 units; it can be adjusted downwazd. Chair Wong: • To follow up with Com. Chen's comments on the other azeas; staff is suggesting 400 units more in other neighborhoods. (Answer: Yes) This will be to allow citywide, if there were areas that were divisible. My concem is that I would like to cut that in half to 200 to preserve the neighborhood and this is the needed input from my colleagues to protect the neighborhoods; I would like to see that at 200. I also agree with Vice Chair Miller regazding, I see where staff is coming from, but I think, since we all agreed to go an additiona12,000 based on the 2005 numbers, that we should stay closer to 23,000 if you want an even number as Com. Saadati suggested, is to stay even at 23,000. • If you want some flexibility to make up with the 200, we can always put back those 200 in Homestead Road. • Vallco Park North - where did you get the 551 and then the 751? Ms. Wordell: • The 551 is built and 200 more would allow, in case there were conversions there, since that has been talked about, so that there would be a resource for those. Chair Wong: • What I suggest is looking at the Hot Topic matrix; there are three commissioners who said that they wanted no housing, that might have changed; that might be something that would take that number down. Also on the Bubb Road, I was also concemed about that number too; but where did you get the 100? Ms. Wordell : • Arbitrary; to allow for some. • Said the Bubb Road area is rouglily McClellan to Stevens Creek, the freeway to Imperial. Mr. Piasecki: • Every one of these areas has azeas built out and it is possible if the city was to go along with the applicant on the Results Way property, there is a piece of office next door; and if they said that is not going to work any longer, can we put 100 units on it. You don't have to put those in there and if they wanted to they could ask for either a General Plan amendment or to move them out of another azea. That is your call. • Said the current General Plan does allow the Results Way project to go through, and an additional 100 considered on top of that. • We would encourage you to look at the policy wording we did for the criteria for maintaining a cohesive commercial areas and office areas; office pazks, because that might give you some insight to, if it happened under these conditions, would it then be more palatable to people. Chair Wong: • There was a suggestion of Bubb Road being tumed into mixed use because I thought that was where the 100 was going to go. • What is the difference between Heart of the City and City Center? Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 13, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • Said it could. • Heart of the City is along Stevens Creek Boulevard, City Center and it does not include the part that touches Stevens Creek Blvd. so starting at City Center at DeAnza and SC South, that has its own area and it encompasses the new Civic Pazk project down to Pacifica. Chair Wong: • City Center has a little over 100 units that we can build; I am curious which infill projects could be for those 120 units. Ms. WordelL• • It would be any of remaining of the City Center or Civic Park area that might redevelop in the future. Town Center across from City Hall could accommodate 120 units; Heart of the City will be along Stevens Creek Blvd. between Highway 85 to Lawrence Expressway. Chair Wong: • I suggest since we just saw this revised, the Planning Commission should think about it ovemight and come back tomorrow with the suggestions. Ms. Wordell: • Suggested reviewing the conversion criteria; it may not need to be signed off tonight, but it might be good to talk about it. Vice Chair Miller: • I was going to suggest that it might be worth some discussion about some of these numbers at this point because I agree that it is not clear where we are going to fit all these units in, and if we had a brief discussion on each area, then we could go back and look at it some more. • In Monta Vista we aze adding in 87 units; my understanding that is infill, there aze spots in Monta Vista still available that 87 units could fit into. (Response: it is infill) It is low residential Rl units. • The next one is Heart of the City, the proposal is for 327 units which states that all along Stevens Creek Blvd there will be mixed use with commercial below and residential above. Mr. Piasecki : • To give a sense of scale, the Travena project was 46 units, so you have potentially 4 sites of that size; I think what we are anticipating is many more sites of much smaller size where you might have 10 with 10 units, or 4 units or 6 units or 20 units instead of having an accumulation of that many. If you go to maintaining cohesive commercial azeas, you would also focus on the individual sites, look at them case by case, to make sure they work. Vice Chair Miller: • It is not cleaz that we can squeeze that many units in or that it makes sense that we break it down into smaller projects where we can have three or four units above commercial, as to how viable that is as opposed to taking some of those units and collecting them into some of the other centers where we are doing this concentration to begin with. • Vallco has 311 committed and another 489 proposed. Does that fill out based on the densities that we are committing to that area? Are we at the top at that point or is there more room in Vallco; does it make sense to add more units there, reduce the units? • According to my calculations, we are already short; perhaps we need to think about it more and revise those numbers. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 13, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: • Either that or they would need to pull them from other azeas which is acceptable. It would mean that your total would not change. • If you think those aze projects worth doing then you would be willing to do that. Vice Chair Miller: • If people came in with city bonus units, we pull them from other azeas as well. Ms. Wordell: • You would or you could set aside some units exclusively for that. Vice Chair MiRer: • Relative to Homestead, he asked for an explanation on why the reduction went from 977 to 777. Ms. Wordell: • Some possibilities include the expansion of Villa Serra, the other would be a PW super azea to redevelop as mixed use and maybe even the Brunswick Center might redevelop. It would mean less fewer properties would develop or they would develop at lower densities. Chair Wong: • Asked if there was a plan for a 4 story building about two yeazs ago with the site next door. • There were plans ready to go and the economy dipped. I am sure there were some numbers there. Mr. Piasecki: • Responded that there was a four story plan; almost 50 units to the acre. He recalled that it was staff's sense that it was too dense and from the property owner's sense, if you do go down to 35 units to the acre or less, nothing will happen. • He said a Biltmore Apartments type renovation was acceptable for the Villa Serra site as well. Staff felt they were loading that theory up too much, that it is an area of high congestion and impacts no different than anywhere else in town, and there is no substantive open space to be had in that azea. Vice Chair MiRer: • The next one is other azeas that were discussed, which is a type of undesignated pool that potentially density bonus units could be pulled from. • North DeAnza Boulevazd has not had much discussion, but is similaz to North Vallco to some extent. He said they were adding 104 units, and it was not clear whether the only way to add those units is if they were doing fiuther conversions in that area. Ms. Wordell: • It would be about 100 over existing, and perhaps it would be Bandley since the Bandley area is already zoned for residential. It is more likely on the west side of DeAnza than the east side. . Mr. Piasecki: • Relative to the discussion yesterday about edge properties, there aze some edge properties there. You may conclude that no, Leave it alone, it is fine the way it is, but that is what the Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 13, 2005 thinking was. That would be a candidate area if you wanted to remove them if you weren't interested in seeing that renovator changed out and you could do that. Vice Chair Miller: • Moving down to City Center, it is an edition of 157 units at City Center; I am not sure where we fit those units in. Is that the further redevelopment of that parcel? Ms. Wordell: • Yes it is. There is even some potential on the intersection side, at Armadillo Willy's there is a parking lot that possibly could redevelop. Vice Chair MiRer: • Said the site was so heavily developed to begin with, with the Montebello. We have akeady talked about Vallco North, and don't have any further questions. Chair Wong: • Regazding Vallco Park North, North DeAnza; if we used the conversion policy there seems to be a majority. Perhaps we could put those numbers in the other areas and then take those numbers out and put it there rather than use an azbitrary number; would that work for staff. • The goal is get to 23,000; it is difFicult to arbitrarily designate. • It is a good idea to take out North DeAnza and take out the Vallco Pazk North and put into undesignated other azeas for employment centers. Ms. Wordell: • The employment centers don't have `another area.' They don't have undesignated so that would be one way to go, to create a pool for the employment areas and if you wanted to take it from a specific area. Com. Giefer: • Suggested discussing the housing allocation. • I think it is a good idea; we need to reduce this number down to azound 23,000. Even supporting mixed use, I have a problem visualizing where we are going to put all these homes. • I would be pleased if staff took the first run at that, in reducing the numbers; I support pools of housing units because it allows flexibility and I think Vallco Park North is a good candidate for reduction because I am concerned that we aze creating too much density in that area, as well as many of the other centers that my fellow colleagues have talked about. Chair Woug: • (To Com. Giefer) Relative to Homestead Road and the Vallco Pazk South, do you support higher units to accommodate for taking some stuff out in the Monta Vista, Bubb Road azea; keep the Homestead Road at 977 as Vice Chair Miller suggested; there is Vallco Fashion Park Mall project in the Hewlett Packard site; I think that 800 is low, perhaps increase to 900. As Vice Chair Miller said, we have to put these units somewhere. Com. Giefer: • The other strategy may be to increase the other to give us greater flexibility, but I would support the reduction in either manner. • I think Homestead perhaps could be, because there aze a number of dilapidated retail centers that potentially mixed use may work for, or if they increase density on some of the current apartment buildings on the Cupertino side, there may potentially be an upside there, but I am Cupertino Planning Commission 10 Jtute 13, 2005 less familiar with potential development in that area. Com. Saadati: • I am leaning toward favoring to reduce and put it in the undesignated, but following up Ms. Wordell's comment regarding the NoRh DeAnza of 100 additional which would be Armadillo Willy's; where would the parking be; would it be underground? Mr. Piasecki: • The pazking would be underground, three stories high, similaz to the Pazk Center, three stories ~ over a podium. Com. Saadati: • Said it would be a challenge in that area to provide adequate parking. • I support reducing Vallco North and putting it in the other areas to provide flexibility and reducing the total numbers, and moving it toward the other area, and providing a pool as Com. Giefer stated. Ms. WordelL• • We did mention the remainder of the Town Center area also as a possibility. Some of those properties aze larger. Com. Chen: • I support the 23,000 total units, we are looking at the 348 units reduction, and a further reduction, I agree with the neighborhood reduction of 200 units; however, for commercial centers, I am concerned about this area being over-crowded, and would like to see Vallco South being reduced or go back to the 700 units or even less; and the units, if we are looking at 100 unit reduction, that will bring us down to 48 units of discrepancy. • For employment centers, I am not opposed to seeing additional units being put into a category called bthers' which will allow some flexibility for We distribution of units in the azea. • For additional 48 units of reduction, I would like to see the reduction of commercial centers because I think we are allowing a lot of units for what we think is a potential development from the developers, but we are looking at overall planning for the area. I am concerned about the overall quality of life and our ability to provide quality of life for people in the azeas such as traffia l am very concerned about the traffic with the additional units in those centers. It would be good if we can reduce the unit without adding anything back into the other azea. Ms. Wordell: • You would want to identify some other azea to take the 48 units out of. Com. Giefer: • Take it from Vallco South commercial; back to 700 or even take less, make it 652. Chair Woug: • (To Com. Chen) You want to see a lower density in the commercial center, especially Vallco Park South because you aze concerned about the traffic and that mitigation? (Response: Yes) Vice Chair Miller: • There are too many units in Heart of the City and in the City Center azeas. I would like to distribute those to other areas; there is already a concern about the density neaz the corner of Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 13, 2005 DeAnza and Stevens Creek and I am hesitant about making it worse. That is one of our critical traffic intersections • I think we should reduce the numbers back to where we were yesterday at 2,000; whether they come out of the other azeas or take some out of the Heart of the City and the City Center, that is fine. • I think that looking at what the commitments that we are making in terms of what is going on in Vallco South, I am not sure; we have more commitments going in there at this point according to the eazlier comments than we have units there. We can discuss whether it makes sense to force the commitments down or not, but it needs further discussion. • Whether we leave units in Vallco NoRh or we put them in an undesignated area, I don't know if that matters to me that much as long as if we do agree on a conversion policy, which I think we will discuss shortly, that regazdless of where the units aze, we can pull them from the undesignated azea if it meets the requirements for doing a conversion; that is fine with me, and doesn't matter if we actually have albcations there. • The same comments would apply to North DeAnza Boulevazd as to whether we take the allocations out of North DeAnza Boulevard and pull them in if there is a project worthy of doing a conversion. Ms. Wordell: • One concem mentioned by Com. Giefer about a lazge pool vs. the smaller designations, was that if you get a very large number of units, and a general pool, then the Draft EIR might have a hazd time analyzing the impacts from that; therefore, I was being cautious about creating too large of a designated pool, that is why these aze fairly small now. • If you are going in that direction and your other areas become lazger, we will have to present that to our consultants and ask how we are going to deal with it. Chair Wong: • Said that Table 2A is going to be more complicated, so if you can summarize everything; we need to see the delta between 2005 and the buildout, in order to see the additional units and discuss it further at the next meeting and get closer to 23,000. It would be nice to go under that amount but I think we aze comfortable at 2,000 and no higher. Conversion Criteria: Mr. Piasecki: • Staff was asked to come up with some wording that may be incorporated into the General Plan covering the concept that we want to maintain cohesive commercial centers and office pazks. This language has a preamble which talks about why that is important in terms of maintaining healthy sales tax base and retaining opportunities for existing businesses to expand and response to changing business trends. • Staff identified the major retail centers, major office parks and said that when any projects come with residential or quasi-public components because we have seen that along Bandley Drive, the proposal to replace some or all of the existing industrial office and commercial uses on a site in these areas, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are complementary to the overall business pazk or center, or otherwise do they meet Criteria 1 through 9 as outlined in the staff report. Vice Chair Miller: • Said it was comprehensive. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 13, 2005 Com. Chen: • Said it was very comprehensive; suggested bringing out the principles, what they are trying to achieve and present the list of things to review in order to review it • Paint a picture with some guiding principles and then the details. Mr. Piasecki: • The preamble was attempting to do that and you may want to play with the language in the preamble to articulate how you would like to see it develop. We talked about maintaining a healthy sales tvc base, retaining opportunities for expansion, for changing business trends; if there is something else you would like to add to that, it might be helpful. Com. Saadati: • I think it is comprehensive; I would like to put emphasis on underlining the case-by-case basis. Mr. Piasecki: • They tend to be complex sites and issues and we wanted to provide very cleaz direction to the applicants and property owners about what it is going to take to do this; it is going to take a lot, we want great projects that aze well integrated, that can demonstrate that they work economically, fiscally to the city and school districts; and that they improve things. • From my standpoint, it is a misnomer that we should freeze frame evecything the way it was in 1977, and leave them vacant or under-utilized; but this is an opportunity with stringent criteria outlining exactly what the community is looking for to say that there will be a few cases and it is probably only a half dozen edge properties where we might entertain those ideas. Com. Giefer: • You have listed a nuxnber of different locations within the city; different zones. What if someone comes to us who is not in one of these described azeas. Mr. Piasecki: • The presumption was going back to the title of it, maintaining cohesive commercial centers and office parks; so we looked for where we have them; you do have a smattering of commercial here and there, and the office here and there and everywhere that don't rely on the strength of cohesiveness with the surrounding area. Com. Giefer: • Does that mean we disallow anyone who is not in one of these areas to come £orwazd, Mr. Piasecki: • Not necessarily; you could expand this to the others and use the same criteria if you wished; you could say we aze focusing on these or any conversion will be looked on a case-by-case basis. • We make the decisions in the General Plan, currently the General Plan has a fle~cible land use designation and allows residential as long as there is residential left in the pot that you can draw from; you can actually propose that to the city. Otherwise applicants can request or suggest General Plan amendments which they can do under this rule as well, to increase the pot or to allow residential where it may have otherwise not been anticipated or allowed. Those are the primary two ways; apply under the current plan where it is allowed; change the plan where it is not allowed. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 13, 2005 Com. Giefer: • By having a policy on this, wouldn't we in fact be encouraging people to seek a land use change and conversion? Mr. Piasecki: • The criteria is so specific that it would be very difficult for every site to demonstrate that they are functionally obsolete; that they would fill out a land use pattem; that they can make them the fiscal and economic realities work for the city. If you read through the words, the words then become very important about distinguishing and you could say if you wanted to, and it is set in the reverse, but you could say that, for instance if you are in the center of an office park, forget it; it isn't going to happen. I think the words say that the other way around by saying you have to be pretty much an edge property. Com. Giefer: • I am concemed that by having a specific policy we would be encouraging land owners to come forwazd and request a change in their property use. The policy cusent exists in the General Plan today and if we decide to allow someone to convert office to residential, that is there today; we are not doing anything to not allow that to happen if it makes sense. I think that if we spell it out as prescribed here, I am concemed that this may be construed as spot zoning, or giving preferential treatment to landowners who are specifically in these areas that we describe, and discouraging landowners who are not in those places. I don't see this as a level playing Field because it is very specific to whom we aze targeting with this. • I like the case-by-case, but beyond that I have a problem supporting this. Chair Wong: • I know where some of the commissioners are going with this; while staff is to revitalize the city and some of the industrial azeas, they are not being used, and there is a vacancy glut as one of the commercial owners said last time; I think you tried to describe that in the preamble; but I still have hesitation and concern regarding this. • The other thing I want is, we can bring it up for a motion tomorrow, and the reason why I want to do it, is I want to ask staff if they had a chance to outreach towazd the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce to see what their input is. Mr. Piasecki: • No, we were responding to Planning Commission direction yesterday; and had no time to talk to other people or agencies. Cheir Wong: • What I suggest is that if you can email this tonight or tomorrow moming to the CEO at the Chamber of Commerce and I am sure they will have feedback on this because they were concerned regarding spot zoning on Bandley Drive, even though the majority of the Planning Commission voted for it, I would like to heaz their input, I think we should be proactive in getting their input. • Have you had a chance to look at the economic impact as we lose some of our industrial azeas; does Cazol Atwood in Admin. Services feel comfortable about this? • He asked the directors and finance manager what the economic impact to Cupertino is by doing this. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 13, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: • Staff will refer it to Carol Atwood, but the presumption is that it will be very positive; that these sites are functionally obsolete and are non-performing, ugly, empty buildings; and there has to be sites to demonstrate that they would make the fiscal and economics work. Chair Wong: • I agree with Com. Giefer; the policy that currently exists does allow flexibility, you can get a General Plan amendment already; I think that adding this policy won't make it too easy, defmitely the city is not going to allow to have a redevelopment in the middle of a tech park, but if you go from the east and the west, eventually you won't have industrial tech park anymore, and it won't happen overnight, it can happen in 20 yeazs; but that is my concern. • I am willing to look at it case-by-case; I am not shutting out that we cannot rezone it. If there was a big box wanting to come to Vallco North, I would be open to that, but any other areas would have to be on a case-by-case basis. Vice Chair Miller: • On Bullet No. 9, it looks like it says we don't want to talk to you unless it is mixed use, and I think that is somewhat restrictive. Maybe that is the case on some sites, but there might be some sites where mixed use doesdt work, but yet a conversion to residential might be appropriate. Mr. Piasecki: • That is not the intent of No. 9; if you go back to the eazlier language, it said projects with residential or quasi-public components propose to replace some or all of the existing industrial/office or commercial, will be evaluated on a case-by-case, and then it says it must otherwise meet the following criteria. If you did have someone proposing a partial change out, they would need to demonstrate under No. 9, that they can deliver an upgraded significant commercial or office component. • It is assumed that if they didn't have that they would still have to show that there are sufficient local revenues, that it is a Iogical development pattem for the area; so it didn't mean that it was trying to say only do mixed use. There may be better language we can identify. Vice Chair Miller: • To take an opposing point of view from the one about spot zoning and level playing field, is that I think that we are saying we aze not going to do spot zoning anymore; we have done spot zoning and there has been an outcry from a lazge number in the business community and the Chamber of Commerce from those applications. By lending some clarity to what we aze willing to do and not do, I think we are making it cleu that spot zoning in fact is not going to happen any more in CupeRino, and I think that is a good thing. • In terms of the level playing field, I am not sure I want to give people the opportunity in the middle of an industrial zone to have a chance to rezone, [o change the use. It is the intent, I think, that you can take the other side of this and say this is essentially doing exactly that, we are not going to be chopping up those industrial zones because our requirements aze that it just won't happen. • What I like about this policy is when we think forwazd to what is going to happen here, there are going to be some sites that might make sense to move from an office to a commercial center; there are some other places where a strictly residential might make sense and the nice thing about putting it in North Vallco is we are putting it closer to the jobs. • One of the things we heard from the reps from Hewlett Packard and Apple was that they would like exactly that, the lower cost housing close to the centers of employment. There is a Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 13, 2005 crisis looming out there that everybody sees but nobody recognizes the impact of, and that is the cost of gasoline and oil is going to increase progressively. It is not outlandish to suspect that in Five or ten years, it will cost as much to drive from Tracy to here and back each day as it does to make a house payment; and then being close to your employer is going to very critical, and we aze not going to be talking about balance, we aze going to be talking about self-sufficiency and to the extent that we can achieve that as a community. This is a good policy and we should move forwazd with it. Com. Chen: • Concurred with Vice Chair Miller; and said she supported his comments. • She emphasized two points; the policy does provide clarity to the conversion which will keep us away from spot zoning. I like this policy with some wording changes and I suggest as the first step we start putting the numbers down in this priority order. • Bullet Nos. 7 and 8 should be the first priority; you have to show that the building is functionally obsolete before you can do anything about it, followed by the specific criteria, what you can do about it. I support this policy. Com. SaadaH: • This one helps to make the decision easier at a later date when someone comes £orwazd, for that reason I think it would be good to include it. Chair Wong: • In money I usually agree on most things; but want to make some comments. The only concern I have is that a little bit of what Com. Chen said, is that obsolete buildings, there aze some obsolete buildings in CupeRino that have to be updated in our office/industrial park, but if we implement this policy and make it easier, there will be no incentive to update our office buildings. If there is a new bio tech coming in, what is the incentive to upgrade the building. • Another azea is the environmental cleanup for the properties. • An example is the gas station on Homestead and Maxine Drive it was cleaned up which took 10 years; it went up for sale, and our guess is that perhaps the bank won't build on a site that was contaminated. The same occurs with industrial parks. It will take a long time for cleanup; it is not impossible but those aze the things that need to be taken into consideration. • If we move toward not doing conversion, there is the downside that we would have to have higher density and taller buildings towazd the center of town since we don't want to go into Rl hillsides, or other ueas. What some of the Planning Commission is suggesting is how can we take some of the housing units in. Preliminarv RecommendaHons: Ms. Wordell: • One of the,fundamental proposals would begin with numbering each of the changes starting with Change 8, Page 3; there would be 8 similaz changes. The FAR in the Administrative Draft was .IS and it was put in the draft as low so that it could be raised for mixed use. The Task Force draft left the FAR low and then took out the potential for mixed use, it had to be addressed one way or the other. • The proposal is to not use an FAR, currently the General Plan doesn't use one for commercial; but has one for office/industriaL This would eliminate a FAR and just have development intensity determined on true development review. Commercial is 25% and office/industrial was either 33% or 37%. In the Administrative Draft it was dropped down; that would be a fundamental decision on No. 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 13, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: . Part of the issue is the numbers will start to climb if you increase it to .25 or .33; you will start to see much lazger deltas between current buildout and potential future buildout, even though that is unlikely to happen. Vice Chair Miller: • The wording is not the same across all those numbers and in some instances there is wording, higher FAR may be allowed for well designed mixed use developments. Ms. Wordell: • Asked the commissioners how they wanted to discuss mixed use and suggested that the different references to mixed use could refer to the overall policy and do away with the other referencesto mixed use. • She said she was focusing on the FAR aspect of it and how to talk about mixed use would be part B of that discussion. Vice Chair Miller: • I would like to keep the FAR separate, and not tie the FAR of commercial properties to mixed use. There may be someone who wants to come in and do all commercial or all retail and not want to build any houses and [ dodt want to force them to build houses. We said we were going to let people build houses as an incentive to do commercial, because it is the only way we are going to get anything in town, because of the way the market is. At some point the mazket will probably change and residential will be out and commercial may be in, and we cer[ainly dodt want to force them to build houses at that point if they dodt want to. I would like to sepazate those two. • We are hearing from the commercial developers that they want us to leave it as flexible as possible; and I would rather not put a number in; I would like to leave it based on a case-by- case basis, based on the review we do when they come up with their application as to what FAR will allow based on the quality of what they are putting in and what the community benefits aze. • I would treat each one of these in that fashion. Com. Saadati: • In general, when we take the FAR, take Item 8, .15 twelve units per acre; how do they compare. Is it substantially more or less? Ms. Wordell: • I don't know that you can because you don't know what the FAR is of units per acre; units can vary in size. Com. Saadati: • Relative to residential, as Vice Chair Miller mentioned previously, we indicated that we wanted to encourage commercial builders to build with residential incentives, and provide flexibility and somehow the language on these items is slightly varied based on the quick review of it. Ms. Wordell: • The mixed use language does vary from area to azea and I think you could eitherjust leave that and use an overall ]ist or overall criteria for allowing mixed use or conversion. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 June 13, 2005 Com. Saadati: • Mixed use is good; perhaps we should have general language that encourages people who work here to live here. • Leaving the FAR flexible would also be preferable. • The language is well designed. • In general, I am in agreement, but have to give it more thought. Chair Woug: • In looking at the General Plan, it says development intensity, therefore it was in the 1993 plan. Please explain why you put a minimum or a maximum of 15%. Ms. Wordell: • The 15% was an administrative drafr and that was to encourage mixed use so that it wouldn't be much of an incentive for someone to develop at 15 FAR for a commercial or office building; so if they wanted more development, they could either do mixed use and get more value from their property and they could also get a higher FAR possibly. It was an incentive for mixed use. Chair Wong: • It is not necessary that they have to do mixed use if they want to do all commercial or all housing they could have done that too. Ms. WordelL• • It would be very difficult at that FAR; one of the problems as Steve said if you drop tying it to mixed use, it doesdt stand alone because it is not a realistic FAR for commercial or office. You either need to raise it or make it flexible. Com. Giefer: • I agree with Vice Chair Miller that we need to position this as the housing is an incentive to develop good retail in commercial sites. As a quick read in reading the varied language throughout the different policies that are described here, the language is repeated in different azeas, but No. 14 reads: development intensity developments..." • I support that we aze specifying the specific number of units per acre, the buildout and the height. I like the wording in that because I think that is the strongest wording that describes what we are trying to accomplish which is allowing you potentially greater FAR for the retail or commercial portion and that the housing is on top of that. It is the bonus for developing the strong retail so that we don't get token mixed use. Com. C6en: • I agree with Vice Chair Miller and Com. Giefer that we should take out the language that restricts the FAR, as recommended by staf£ Regazding the other language, once we make our decisions on the housing units and height, it just needs to tied up. • As to the encouragement of mixed use, we are making the assumption that all the developmental is focused on residential therefore we want to add in the mixed use language. • Is that the reason, so we can ensure some commercial units will be put in while the residential is developed? Cupertino Planning Commission 18 June 13, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • There was a feeling at a previous meeting that residential was to be used as a incentive to do commercial development; it wasn't supposed to; I don't think it was the other way around; if you needed residential for your commercial development, then that would be a reason to do mixed used; that you wouldn't do the mixed use to get the residential and then throw in some commercial. • We need to convey that; there was a consensus on that. Com. Chen: • I agree with that. Mr. Piasecki: • As a side note, that has been done successfiilly here as well as in a number of adjoining cities. We think it is a good strategy. Chair Wong: • I agree with staff that we remove the FAR 15%. • Agree with Com. Giefer's observation that with the different neighborhoods each of the changes is different and is not consistent; we need to have consistency that what one special center gets, they all should get; it should not be different except for the density and the height. • I agree that it doesn't necessarily have to be a mixed use, some can be housing, some can be commercial, some can be mixed use, of course we are leaning toward mixed use but it should be location and case by case. That is very important. • You named 7 different neighborhoods from the Crossroads to Bubb Road to North DeAnza to Vallco Park South and where we can get consensus that is broad is good but each of these neighborhoods is very distinctive. You can't make too broad assumptions that there are some azeas that have strong concerns that should not be mixed use and there aze areas that would be conducive to mixed use and one area that will be conducive to mixed use would be Vallco South, height, higher heights, more density, vs. Crossroads. • I would like to see the Crossroads and this is looking at a conversion into mixed use that would be more of a commercial retail center. • I refer to the Hamilton Plaza in Campbell where there is a Whole Foods, and shops similaz to the shops in the Crossroads. I encourage my colleagues to visit Hamilton Plaza; they have a large pazking lot, and have some buildings that externalize out. • I would like to hear from each of the different neighborhoods where you would like to see more housing, where you want to see commercial and where you don't want to see commercial. It is important to hear from the different neighborhoods • I would also encourage the public to provide input during the public hearing. Ms. WordelL• • The mixed use is the other big topic and I think you will need to look at each center and see if you want it; otherwise we already talked about the criteria. Chair Wong: • Suggested a discussion about mixed use and the individual neighborhoods, get public input and continue the discussion. • It is hard to make a decision tonight on a consent item. • There should be discussion about division of each of the special centers and mixed use. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 June 13, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • No. S- Policy 2-24: Com. Saadati pointed out that at least here, there could possibly be some specific language about mixed use. An example where mixed use would go is the old house on Granada that was demolished and replaced with a dental office and living unit. • The mixed use is the other big topic and I think you will need to look at each center and see if you want it other than that I think we have already talked about this criteria. Mr. Piasecki: • Said it would be helpful to go through the consent items to see if agreement could be reached, which would eliminate a great deal of discussion. Ms. Wordell proceeded wit6 the review: • No. 8- Policy 2-24: Com. Saadati pointed out that at least here, there could be some specific language about mixed use. An example where mixed use would go is an old residential house on Granada that was demolished and replaced with a dental office and living unit. Another example was on Pasadena about 5 years ago, that had two office tenants on the first floor and [hree units above. • It is a fairly typical pattem for Monta Vista to have commercial below with some units above. Chair Wong: • Asked if there was a way to encourage Monta Vista to be more like downtown Los Gatos, with ice cream shops, coffee shops, small specialty stores. There aze some in Monta Vista area, but it is more like a work-live environment and hasn't really blossomed. Mr. Piasecki: • Pointed out that there is a small cafe at Pasadena and Stevens Creek that functions in that role, also an Indian market that just opened up on Imperial Avenue, and some other restaurants, and the falafel shop on the north side of Stevens Creek. • He said they would like to encourage more retail on the ground floor. He noted the church that went into the office building, where there was a requirement that they had to convert some spaces into a retail shop, which was not well done in staff's opinion, as it was not conducive to shopping. • An excellent example of ground floor retail is the village of Mendocino. Monta Vista has some of that, but it has not jelled yet. Ms. Wordell: • In looking at the Monta Vista policy on your decision matrix your recommendations aze just a portion of that policy. If you look at the whole policy it does talk about mixed use with residentials encouraged; we are already covered there. You may not need to say anything on Monte Vista. • Some of the industrial used can be cleaned up and go into otherwise conventional commercial districts successfully. • Campbell and Los Gatos have auto shops in the downtown area; they aze hidden and obscured, but they provide a necessary service. She encouraged CupeRino to follow that path. Chair Wong: • I want to get some of the old feeling back in Cupertino. • It is good for the residents of Monta Vista and Cupertino to be able to go to an area that is economical to get a tune up or buy supplies at a plumbing store. We aze seeing many of the Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 13, 2005 stores such as Mintons Lumber and the mom and pop stores disappearing because of the big name stores like Home Depot or the chain tuneup shops. A Planning Commissioner: • Asked for clazification if Imperial Avenue was part of the Bubb Road plam~ing special district. • Would mixed use be allowed on McClellan Road? Ms. WordelL• • That was up to Imperial and the way the map was drawn it does not show that. It shows it up to the railroad tracks and I thought the intent was to have it up to Imperial. • Imperial shows on the map as Monta Vista. Mr. Piasecki: • There is a major shifr in different mazkets for di£ferent reasons; Home Depot is a prime example of outbidding or competing with Mintons Lumber. Granite Rock is coming in and is another excellent business for the community and will probably produce a lot more sales tax than Mintons was able to do with the looming Home Depot in the azea. • Cautioned against trying to engineer the private mazket place. It is a great mechanism and you want it to do what it can do. You can have language like this, try to encourage it, but if fundamentally the market shifts and the people on Imperial cannot make a go of it, you have to be responsive at some point to the fact that there are these shifts going on. • He said his tendency is to stay out of engineering that level of detail; it has not worked very well when cities attempt to do that. Ms. Wordell: • Concluded discussion of Monta Vista and continued to the next area. • Page 4, refers to 224 of the commercial centers; it is general text and conveys the concept just discussed. In general, the commercial, residential mixed use would be acceptable if it presented incentive for retail development and it adds some specific uses that you encourage. I think that you specifically asked that those kinds of uses be stated in the General Plan. • Are there any problems with that change? • There is a pattem among all the centers that says much the same thing, that it is allowed if there's an incentive and some of them say when there's community amenities and it is pedestrian oriented. Crossroads has a different meaning so each one has its own twist. I think you might have to look at them individually. Vice Chair Miller: • I would like to add a requirement that would say that the combined project would be revenue neutral or better, so that the mixed use doesn't end up wsting the city money, but would in fact net money for the city. • There aze azeas where it is appropriate to add language that we pay attention to the fact that finances aze a little tight in the city and we don't want to get involved in projects that are going to make our finances further stressed. • Said it was a generic comment to apply to all mixed use. Chair Wong: • We should be cautious because of No. 8. There is language including some three story elements in Monta Vista in No. 8. • Would like my colleagues' feedback as I dodt think Monta Vista should go to three stories. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 13, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • We have dropped the three story elements to 30 feet. Com. Giefer: • Relative to commercial azeas, No. 9, said she was comfortable with the language. • Said she appreciated Vice Chair Miller's comment about being Fiscally responsible. Com. Saadati: • Said the commercial included service stations, auto repair shops, etc. and that he used the mechanics shop. He said they need to encourage the owners if they move out of there that they locate somewhere within Cupertino. Ms. WordelL• • Said it was the introduction to all the commercial centers which are part of the city Crossroads and remainder of neighborhood commercial azeas which aze isolated small commercial azeas. It is refening to those specific azeas. Com. Saadati: • Said he would support Vice Chair Miller's suggestion for revenue generating language, that they will add to it. Com. Chen: • Said she supported Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Miller and supported the language, and adding the revenue neutral or better with the development. Vice Chair Miller: • Said not at this point. Chair Wong: • I agree with my colleagues, particulazly Vice Chair Miller regarding revenue generating. • We do not want to tie the applicanYs or developer's hands with mixed use; hence would recommend removing the word "mosP' to give them flexibility. • I want to encourage bookstores, coffee shops, restaurants, electronic stores, office and fumiture stores. Ms. Wordell: • Clarified that the word "mosY' was added to distinguish it from "all". • Asked if "selective" would be more appropriate. Chair Wong: • Said he would prefer the word "selective". Mr. Piasecki: • Noted that there was Planning Commission consensus on the discussed changes. Ms. Wordell: • The next azea is Heart of the City, No. 11. Do you want the standard revenue language in all of them? Part of the existing language says "mixed commercial and residential development Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 13, 2005 maybe allowed when they provide community amenities and aze pedestrian oriented" and we added the wording at your suggestion, "if the residential units provide an incentive to develop retail use and iF the development provides community amenities." • It is the concept of providing an incentive; they are allowed if they provide an incentive. • In response to Chair Wong's whether the language tied them to doing the mixed use type, staff stated that it did not, it just states that `they aze allowed.' • She said they would leave in the preceding sentence "a majority of the commercial development allocation Com. Giefer: • Said it was acceptable. Crossroads• Chair Wong: • Relative to No. 12, he said he would abstain since he had not made a decision yet. Vice Chair Miller: • Relative to No. 12, Heart of the City, as stated before, I think the number of units we are putting into that area of town is high; this should be revisited. Chair Wong: • Summazized that he abstained on No. 11 HeaR of the City; he asked for more discussion on No. 12 Crossroads. Mr. Piasecki: • He clariFied that the Crossroads streetscape plan is simply a streetscape plan; it talks about pedestrian amenities along the sidewalk, it talks about buildings being pulled up whatever setback you decide upon; it does not require residential over, it could be office or retail. • The question of whether you want to allow any residential into the Crossroads area is the one that is up for discussion. The concept of getting off the streetscape plan, was that it would be extremely limited in the Crossroads; not many oppodunities for residential. If someone came in on the Anderson Chevrolet site and said they would deliver a great retail center, but needed 12 units, the question of the Planning Commission is would you even entertain that idea; would you insist that you are not going to give the 12 units under any circumstances; or would you say, we are not going to put the residential units on the Crossroads, but if you really needed that, you could try to pull it from another azea. • The reason this came up was the owner of the Stevens Creek Office Center came in and said he had some one story offices he wanted to take down and put residential in the back. That has changed; he is no longer pursuing that; the question of the Crossroads streetscape is different from the question of whether you aze going to allow residential; and the question of whether you are going to allow residential than becomes a function of at all, under what c'ucumstances, and how much. Chair Wong: • My vision is what it got back two years ago, was the community to not want to see the housing element there and I use Hamilton Plaza as an example, we could see a very vibrant retail center in some parts and what you suggested is mixed use vs. in Vallco South. • It is part of the visioning that the Planning Commission has to give input. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 June 13, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: • Clarified that the only reason it had it back then is because your current Plan allows it. • It was intended to be a streetscape plan focusing on an attractive shopping district. Ms. Wordell: • The reason it is highlighted here is you do need to discuss it and decide wluch way you want to go on this area. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he agreed with Chair Wong, it does not make sense to have residential in that azea. . I am pleased to hear that from the staff standpoint, they were only looking at a small amount; the question is whether or not there is one or two sites that we would possibly entertain at the Chevrolet site. We want to keep it primarily as a commercial center in that azea. Com. Chen: • Agree with Chair Wong and Vice Chair Miller that it should remain as a commercial azea. Mr. Piasecki: • Clarified the azea was Stevens Creek Boulevard north and south side from DeAnza Boulevazd to Stelling Road. • Recalled that a residential project was approved behind Panda Express; it is also part of this district; there is also an affordable handicapped housing project on Bianchi Way and a few residential units tucked back in that azea. If you create an absolute in those kinds of circumstances, they will not have the residential option unless they can convince you to pull it from somewhere else. Com. Giefer: • I support the language; I have no problem allowing mixed use with selective housing elements, provided we aze getting the retail use we want there. I think that is the most likely place for us to develop more of a downtown for Cupertino, in the azea between DeAnza Boulevazd and Stelling Road. We have the majority of our current shopping that is not at Vallco in that area, and the more people we can get out of cars walking along that area, using the restaurants and retail; so I support adding mixed use in that uea. Com. Saadati: • A couple of yeazs ago when we discussed this azea, I was in favor of mixed use, but now that Anderson Chevrolet has been brought up, it is a big site, with a church in the back. • 1 dodt see why a commercial developer cadt develop the front and put some residential next to it. If it becomes rental, it is great for the students at DeAnza College. I think the azea has potential and we need to keep an open mind. It would be ideal to have an active area; people could shop there, the area is developing with more shops and restaurant. It will be an improvement, especially with the streetscape plan we have in the azea. • I am in favor of it. Chair Wong: • I agree with Vice Chair Miller and Com. Chen; it seems there is a 3:2 vote. I agree with strictly commercial and be selective or limited regarding the housing units; and it should be something special, such as senior housing or handicapped housing. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 June 13, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • I would have to rethink if that was a good site for senior housing; I think if I might interpret Chair Wong's thinking; I am not sure we want to see first floor commercial with housing units on top. • If there is commercial in front and housing development in back; they are sepuate and we have kept the commercial district. Chair Woug: • On the Anderson site it makes sense; on the south side of Stevens Creek it doesn't make sense. Mr. Piasecki: • Said that `9imited" was a good word, with predominantly retail limited residential that supports a retail project. Chair Wong: • Strike out the words "mixed use" and have limited residential development Ms. Wordell: • Discussed Stevens Creek Boulevard; said that it allows mixed use. • The Heart of the City is broken up into sub azeas; Heart of the City has an overall allocation and Crossroads and Stevens Creek Boulevazd are sub azeas of it; they don't have sepuate allocations, just separate policies. • No changes were suggested for economic development or Stevens Creek Boulevard. Vallco Park South - No. 14 Ms. Wordell: • Vallco Park South in the Task Force Draft says this area specifically is not intended as a mixed use center; but rather as a hub for future city revenue producing uses. If you assign some residential units to that area, then you would not be able then you would not be able to say that and you would need to say that it would be a regional commercial office and entertainment center with supporting residential development. You would then need to delete the sentence "This azea specifically .......mixed use center." Chair Wong: • Also you said if not mixed use you want a height limit; do you think to be consistent on Stevens Creek Boulevazd it looks like our matrix said 45 feet; would that suffice? • Another discussion item is that we need a height, and I would suggest 45 feet. • Divisioning for Vallco Pazk South is that we already have one development which is the Rosebowl, and I would like to continue that as a policy to continue that vision down Vallco Park South since we have a last piece of land to develop in that area. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he was confused because they were doing mixed use there. It is a mixed use center. It is a reality and the words should fit the reality. Ms. Wordell: • You could assume that is the only case. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 June 13, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: • Said he supported building heights to 60 feet. • SuppoR Chair Wong's idea to continue the theme in the Rosebowl azea down the rest of Vallco Pazkway streetscape. Chair Wong: • Suggested the wording "Vallco Pazkway streetscape" similar to what Crossroads streetscape was envisioning. Com. Chen: • I agree with the 60 foot height; it makes sense to continue the mixed use type of development further east. • I am concemed about the number of units that will be allocated to the azea and I would like, if not mixed use, to keep the sentence in there to not confuse people with the predetermined idea about what the land should be used for. Mixed use can be in there; if not mixed use, I think it is to be commercial retail; and I see that is supported by the Planning Commission. Chair Wong: • Would you rather see more, if it is not going to be mixed use; do you want to see more retaiUcommercial or more housing. Com. Chen: • [ don't want to see more housing. Com. Giefer: • Many meetings ago when we were discussing the Vallco development azea and it was about the time we were deliberating about the Rosebowl, Com. Chen made a comment about how she would like to see a Master Plan for this azea. I have consistently gone to that and thought it made sense because then we dodt have development that doesn't relate to one another in that area; so I would favor trying to come up with something that at least unifies the street. • I don't believe I was one that said 60 feet at Vallco; but I would agree to continue to leave a height limitation in there for items that aze not mixed use. I would like to have a non-mixed use height limitation of 45 feet in here as well, if I have the support of fellow commissioners. • I support the language for mixed use. Com. Saadati: • The language is appropriate with the streetscape added. • What Com. Giefer raised could be a valid point; is it possible that somebody could come and try to build something without mixed use? Ms. Wordell: • I think we are assuming that certain developments are set and if they and if they fell through there could be a change Com. Saadati: • I don't think there is any harm to it, mixed use with 45. It reinforces the mixed use language. Chair Wong: • I agree where Vice Chair Miller is coming from; is that if you give the 60 feet encouragement you will encourage the people to come in, because there is not that much space, and we have Cupertino Planning Commission 26 June 13, 2005 to meet the housing needs in Cupertino. • If the developer comes in and knows that the community won't support a certain height, they wodt come in to 60 feet. We need to give that flexibility and also give the flexibility on the mixed use or not having mixed use. • That is why I believe we should not put a limit of 45 feet. • As a follow up to Com. Giefer's comment about the Master Plan; how could that work because I feel it is a good idea. Other new communities in Central Valley are doing a mas[er plan on vacant land. If this application falls through, could we do that. Com. Giefer: • The original idea was to have a master plan for the entire azea, Vallco Pazk South, Vallco Fashion Center, my concem is we aze adding a lot of people in that azea and we have independent developers who aze developing what we aze approving and that we are potentially having sites that will have no relationship to one another, such as trying to provide a stauway from the Rosebowl site to the Menlo Equities site. Chair Wong: • Said that it was a good example; Menlo Equities came in fust, followed by Rosebowl, and the Hewlett Packazd applicant third. Since they developed last, that was the only vacant area to develop a park and they felt they were penalized for putting in a pazk. • If we had a master plan for that entire area bordering Stevens Creek, Vallco Fashion Park, 280 and Lawrence Expressway, I think we will develop a plan that the community can accept and have connectivity, pedestrians deal with the infrastructure, and who is concerned with open creeks, traffic.... Mr. Piasecki: • Suggested that the wording be added to the Plan. • Clarified that the permanent road around Rosebowl is at grade, and the equivalent to the grade of the adjacent metropolitan; so there is no stairwell in that particular case. Com. Giefer: • Recalled as they were approving Rosebowl because there is supposed to be a supermazket there, that we wanted there to be some connectivity at above grade for Menlo Equity, or at least at that ticne we were told it was above grade of where Rosebowl was. Mr. Piasecki: • Said it was about the same grade. • Put the language in, and it may or may not be relevant depending on what happens with the Hewlett Packard/Toll Brothers application. It could still be, even if they were approved, that you would ask why not knit this area together now that you have the various parts. Vice Chair Miller: • Stated his support; adding that it was an outstanding idea and he wished they had discussed it before the Rosebowl and before Menlo Equities came in, because there could have been a better project site. • Recommended that the language be added. Com. Chen: • Said that she appreciated the support. • Said she understood that each land was owned by individual propeRy owners and may be Cupertino Planning Commission 2"J June 13, 2005 difficult to develop the master plan. • She said she would be happy to support the master plan and remove other restrictions as to the pieces of concems she has for the azea, such as traffic, and will be addressed as a whole and not as individual spots. • Specifically we are not addressing housing units; it is not an independent issue any longer, it will be an overall issue for the Vallco South area. • Would be pleased to see the language in the General Plan. Ms. Wordell: • Summazized that a majority of the commission favored adding 45 feet for non-mixed use. Mr. Piasecki: • Clarified that staff was comfortable with 45 feet across the boazd; but it is acceptable. Homestead Road Ms. WordelL • Said that Homestead Road had the same wording as Vallco Park South. Chair Wong: • I want to make certain that the builtout stays at 977. Ms. Wordell: • We can use Table 2A when we revisit it again to plug in the correct numbers. • I am focusing on the development intensity. It is the same wording and assume it is acceptable. C6sir Wong: • Regarding the flexibility on the site, asked commissioners for input; Vallco Pazk South is similar to Homestead Road, that to allow mixed use and to give an incentive to have mixed use is to allow 60 feet for mixed use; and if they dodt have mixed use, 45 feet. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he supported it. • Clarified that the FAR was sepazated out for the commercial. • Suggestion is that we allow 60 if it is mixed use, and 45 if it is not mixed use. Chair Wong: • Relative to the 45 feet, he said he was reopening it to allow incentive for doing mixed use. Developers need that flexibility to include more housing; it helps with the jobs/housing imbalance and gives areas that we dodt want more housing in the hillsides, Rl neighborhoods; and since it is on the edge of the city, it won't be affected. • That particulaz azea is dilapidated and needs to be revitalized. I live in the North Cupertino area and the traffic will affect me the most. I think that we can take that intensity in that azea. Com. Chen: • At one time we agreed on 45 feet and I will stay with that. I like the language as it is in the paragraph; the housing units will be reviewed. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 June 13, 2005 Com. Giefer: • I am comfortable with the language; I am not comfortable with the units because the majority of the builtout would be between Homestead Road and 280 and fundamentally I don't like the idea of putting mass amounts of people on the freeway because of the noise and pollution issues. • I would be willing to go over the Table 2A, 777 but I am not comfortable going as high as 977. I would not go higher than 45 feet I think that it would be too different from what is across the street in Sunnyvale. Com. Saadati: • I support 45 feet. • Not certain of what the impact of a 200 unit difference. • I think any development that will take place there, has to have a traffic study and impact needs to be evaluated. Based on that a decision will be made at a later date. • It is too eazly to make a decision as to what is going to develop, how much and what would the impact be. • I support it, and we can reduce it to 777. Vice Chair Miller: • I agree with 45 feet. • I am concerned if we have too much intensity; I wanted to explore staft's comment more whether the area can handle or how much it can handle. • In terms of the number of units, we aze getting into the challenge of having the units we are trying to fit, and some of us don't want too many of them in North Vallco, and some of us don't want too many in South V allco and now some of us don't want too many in Homestead. It will be a challenge to see where they will go, but they will have to go in one of these three places and we will have to come back at the next meeting and try to balance it out. • There isn't anywhere else to place them; the alternatives aze worse. I would rather not see them on Stevens Creek Boulevazd or in City Center • The question is where do we see them; or altematively do we go back and look at the numbers that we have agreed to for how much additional commercial space we aze going to build and how much additional office space we aze going build andjust cut them down further and then we would not have to deal with it. • We are faced wiW the challenge of making them all balance. Chair Wong: • Suuunarized that the majority was 45 feet, and Table 2A will be revisited. • I agree with Vice Chair Miller; on this commission, we dodt want them here, or in this neighborhood, so each of us have different azeas of putting them. Chair Wong called the meeting to order following a recess. Jennifer Gri~n, resident: • Resident of Rancho Rinconada. • Said it would help if the ABAG projections for housing were reported yearly; the current numbers being used for the housing planning are likely out of date; the actual numbers may be much lower. I am somewhat dubious about the ABAG numbers in general and why we have to use them. Cuper[ino Planning Commission 29 June 13, 2005 • Why is CupeRino to blame for everything? It was just a rural agricultural back water until 30 yearsago. • I am amazed at some of the discussions about building houses at the PW shopping center, the Armadillo Willy pazking lot and the Brunswick Bowling Alley. The only reason I shop at places like these in Cupertino is because there is available parking; why do we have to fill up every square inch of land in Cupertino with some type of building? • I don't want this to be San Francisco; I don't want to be forced to shop in other cities because I can't even park in old shopping areas in my own city. I worry greatly about the huge accumulation of traffic and congestion at the Lawrence/Tantau/Stevens Creek end of town. • Please dodt fulfill the ABAG housing numbers at this end of town; it already has a large number of problems of its own; impacted schools, traffic from 280 and Lawrence Expressway, even potential flooding of the Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek intersection. People forget that some winters homes and businesses along Stevens Creek from 280 up to Finch had to sandbag because of two feet of water from flooding. • The population of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estate was 5,000 at annexation five yeazs ago; plus three apartment complexes on the corner of Stevens Creek and Calvert totaling another 1,500 people; amounting to 6,500 people at the corner of 280, Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek, a very small chunk of Cupertino, but a very vital area. • I want to shop in CupeRino but if it is hard to get there and takes one half hour to find pazking spaces in the pazking garages, I am probably not going to. I love Cupertino deazly, but I hate to see every squaze inch of this beloved city become another high rise city like San Francisco. Warreu Mine, Linet Lane: • The area I will focus on is on Vallco Park NoRh; looked at as an industriaUcommercial area there is some property near Wolfe and Blaney bordered by Homestead and 280; there has been apar[ment buildings, two hotels and also apartments, seven residential units with a park behind Linet Lane. • Our family has some residential area there that we would eventually like to develop and have an opportunity to put residential next to adjoining residential. • I notice in No. 19 that you aze not allowing residential in North Vallco Pazk and we want you to think of this as a residential azea also. Ned Britt, resident: • Relative to the ABAG calculations, he questioned whether they were taken by looking at the amount of floor area in commercial activities and applying some sort of formula ratio to it. • He pointed out that if you took a survey of the number of jobs in Cupertino, it would be a lower number and there would be less pressure from ABAG. • We should do anything we can to try and ameliorate that oppressive mandate, and if in fact a real census oFthejobs would be different than the formula, leYs do it. • When you refer to functionally obsolete buildings, if you aze applying the formula to the functionally obsolete azea, those are not really generating the same number of jobs; they aze going to be depressed and there won't be very many jobs in that area. • When speaking of conversion, that is not a realistic calculation in those azeas. • Agreed with Vice Chair Miller's comment that the mixed use should be revenue neutral; that criteria should also go in your criteria for conversion of commercial into residential and it should be something that says life cycle revenue neutral meaning the cost of building the extra infrastructure, not simply an instantaneous revenue neutral; that is the criteria that should be used for any mixed use or any conversion. • The traffic ratings method discussed at a previous meeting, the slower it goes, the fewer cazs pass through, the better We rating of the intersection. That is insane; it should be related to the Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 13, 2005 delay and the total number of cars that you have to spend waiting at the in[ersection to go through, and the total number of cars that go through in a day. Otherwise when it gets completely blocked, and nothing can move, it would be a perfect intersection. • We need to get realistic in the calculations, because all of the discussion tonight indicated that people don't really believe that you can fit the amount of units we are talking about, and put pazking in the infrastructure that is necessary but they feel compelled to do so because they are forced by ABAG. Joaune Tong, resident: • Referring to the Imperial Road azea in Monta Vista, she said that the shops aze there because of the rents and it would cost more to move; the city needs to stop pushing out the long term business owners to big time developers. • The old Measurex property on Bubb Road, the proposal of building residential there, keep in mind the heavy impact on our schools, especially Monta Vista High School, and the serious traffic problems it would cause. • The Crossroads area - the residents would like to maintain the vistas of the surrounding hills; keep in mind the 36 foot height when you are talking about buildings along Stevens Creek. • The Chevrolet site - I would strongly urge Wat it be saved for retail; it is anothe~ treasure in CupeRino which can't be replaced once it is lost to residential. • Keep the azea a retail area for [he income that the city could get. • Please remember to protect our city's infrastructure; keep our schools from being heavily impacted and retain our suburban chuacter in our special city for our residents. Norm Hackford, Tonita Way: • I would like lower heights, 36 feet, 45 feet, and reasonable setbacks. • You mention changing the FAR, I have seen it many times, but never the proposal in the General Plan. It seems like at the last minute someone is making a change and you need to know what kind of an impact it will have; and the citizens need to know. You cannot just go ahead and change something without any public input or awazeness of what you aze doing. • You shouldn't be doing that at this point; 4 years after starting it. • The Crossroad streetscape plan is referenced in the General Plan; about three yeazs ago we had several hundred signatures saying people in the community were not happy with that plan with a 20 foot setback and a 36 foot wall. I am not aware of what the streetscape plan looks like now, but unless you speci£cally reviewed it, it shouldn't be referenced in the General Plan. • You are referencing mixed use in the General Plan and it seems to be counter to what was suggested to the Planning Commission as not to mess with the free enterprise system; you are encouraging people to do something they might not otherwise do by providing specific incentives for them to do that. • I appreciate your effoRs in trying to reduce the number of housing but there are some surprises in here that the citizens have not been made awaze of through this process. Chair Wong: • Staff suggested to remove any limitation on commercial FAR; we are encouraging more commercial retail. Ms. Wordell: • It is really open; you could go either way; and I would say that one of the first documents that came out with the task force draft was identifying this as an issue, that the 4.15 FAR was something that was going to have to be addressed. Cupertino Planning Commission 31 June 13, 2005 • The community has had 6 months to know that was a problem. We are now getting down to the solution. Mr. Hackford: • Said they need .40, .35 will not work. It is being lefr open and it could be whatever the developer says he needs; there aze no guidelines now. Either leave them in there as they aze or put in something that is justifiable. • If the streetscape plan is in the General Plan then you should look at it and review it and it should have public review; it should not be a referenced item. Chair Wong: • Clarified that the streetscape plan had changed; it is no longer 20 feet, it shot out to 30 feet, we discussed that earlier today. We can have staff give you that information. It has been changed from the original concept. Vice Chair Miller: • In terms of the FAR, the developers have asked us for as much flexibility as possible, not that they automatically get something, but if they come in with a project that makes sense, they aren't restricted by some artificial number that we are only pulling out of the air. • In general, most people in the city want more commercial development and the intent is to allow the flexibility to make that happen. Not that we aze allowing people to come in and do anything they want, but we ue giving them the flexibility to come in with good design and possibly get a little more and yet not have to do a General Plan amendment in order to get that. • We are not talking about residential or office, it is just in terms of commercial. Mr. Hackford: • I am uncomfoRable that the FAR doesn't apply to any residential azeas. Vice Chair Miller: • No it is separate. • I don't think this is a last minute change and this is the way it used to be in the General P(an, then it was changed to 15% and now we aze going back. Ms. Wordell: • The current General Plan has no FAR for commercial, and it has 33 and 37 for office/industrial. The Administrative Draft was proposing .15 in conjunction with mixed use and then the Task Force Draft removed the reference to mixed use. Mr. Hackford: • Relative to mixed use in the city, their appearance is not that great; more time should be taken to make sure they look good and are successful. Vice Chair Miller: • I think your comments are well taken and one of the things we did tonight was to de- emphasize and remove some of the wording that required mixed use in order to get commercial done. Our direction was moving in line with your comments. Tom Hugauin, La Roda Court: • Item 16 - This is a neighborhood commercial azea; I reside at LaRoda Court which is close to the Tin Tin Market/Walgreen's complex. Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 13, 2005 . Recommended thatthe following phrase be added "should be designed notto block scenic vistas." He said that in prior dealings with some neighbors when Walgreens was put in, Walgreens blocked a large amount of the scenic vistas in that azea, and some neighbors were very unhappy. Walgreens is a fine addition to the community, but it did block the scenic vistas; therefore he was recommending that it be kept low rise in that area. • Calabazas Creek, that is one mean creek; in a wet rainy season it tends to overflow its banks; I know the Santa Clara Valley flood control district has worked on it a lot. When it goes over its banks, it drops right down Stevens Creek Boulevard and flows all the way to Lawrence Expressway. • Imperial Avenue - I hope that you can set up the General Plan to preserve the businesses on Imperial Avenue, specifically the plumbing wholesale supply store, and the automotive shops. Many Cupertino residents use them to get work done; the contractors who develop things in the community use it instead of going to Home Depot because they can find altemate sources for plumbing materials. • Height and density - I prefer a lower to a higher density. • The azea at Portal and Blaney - Having grown up in that area, I would recommend that you try to keep the densities and heights low in that azea; there are many neighbors who do not want high density, high development in that part of the city. They are not in favor of it, they are not here at the meeting giving input which is unfortunate; so I will provide input for them. Chair Wong: • Regarding mixed use, they said they would leave the flexibility in, so that everything did not have to be mixed use. • Staff to respond to Mr. Britt's concem regarding ABAG and also Ms. Tong and Mr. Huganin's concems regazding views and vistas. Ms. Wordell: • I don't recall the part of the formula on how the ABAG numbers related to the non-residential; I remember the residential part. I don't recall how they factored in jobs or square footage for non-residential. . • There is one page handout with a formula which staff can provide. Chair Wong: • Expressed concern if a building was built and it bbcks a neighbor's view or another office view. Asked if there was a solution for that? Ms. WordelL• • There are public hearings and renderings where the issues can be addressed. • Said that the citywide policy referred to earlier was on Page 2-14; Item 6, View Preservation "Devise and implement a policy to encourage developers to limit building heights in order to preserve hillside views throughout the city." Mr. Piasecki: • Buildings do block views, depending on how close you get to them and from some perspectives, so do trees. It is appropriate to say in your plan that we are trying to preserve views where possible, feasible or reasonable. Not every angle has a view of a mountain. • In your hillside planning you have identified prominent ridgelines, you could throughout the plan come up with an identification of prominent views and say that we would like to restrict buildings in these prominent view areas. Again if you are going that route, you should notify the propeRy owners that they are going to have a 20 foot or 30 foot building instead of a 45 Cupertino Planning Commission 33 June 13, 2005 foot building so that they can talk to you about whether that is reasonable or practical. • It is something you can approach; it is complicated; there is nothing wrong with the concept that we want to preserve views; but it is not an easy thing to do. Com. Giefer: • I dodt recall what page it is on, but it was in the matrix mailed to you today. I believe the task force did add some language with regards to views as well, which is in the General Plan. Chair Wong: • Asked staff to provide what Com. Giefer emailed regarding heights, that might address some of the community's concerns. There was a brief discussion about the schedule for hearing the applications at the June 14 meeting. Chair Wong summarized the discussions held: • Jobs/housing imbalance - staff will return June 14 and revise the Table 2A and give a delta oF the difference and the different allocations • Also covered the Maintaining a Cohesive Commercial Center and Office Pazks - staff will give it to the Chamber for feedback and ask Carol Atwood for a written response if there is an economic impact for us, and we can make a motion and decide on that. • Today I[ems 1 through 15 were covered; will begin with No. 16 at June 14 meeting, 67 items total, many of them consent items. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. SUBMITTED BY: e ^ ~ ~ Eliz eth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as ainended: July 26, 2005