PC 10-11-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. October 11,2005 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of October II, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Angela Chen
Taaghi Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin lung
Aid Honda
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Wong noted receipt of emails relative to continuing
Items 4 and 5.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
4. M-2005-04, Bret Moxley
(Knopp Residence)
21925 Lindy Lane
Modification to a Tentative Map
(TM-2005-03) to provide access for Lot 2
from Lindy Lane. Request postponement to the
October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone Application
M-2005-04 to the October 25,2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
5. M-2005-05
(EA-2005-12)
Frank Snn
21989 Lindy Lane
Tentative Map to subdivide a 26-acre parcel
into three lots. Request postponement to the
October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone Application
M-2005-05 (EA 2005-12) to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission
Meeting. (V ote: 5-0~0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
6.
U-2005-18, TM-2005-08,
Z-2005-06 Rockwell
Homes, 10716 Stevens
Canyon Road
2
October 11, 2005
Use Permit to demolish 15 apartment units and
construct 15 townhomes. Tentative Map to
subdivide a 1. I-acre parcel into 15 lots plus one
lot held in common. Rezoning of a 1. I-acre
Parcel from Apartment (R3) to Planned
Development Residential (P Residential) for
15 townhomes. Tentative City Council date:
November 15, 2005. Request postponement to the
October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone Applications
U-2005-18, TM-2005-08, Z-2005-06 to the October 25, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident, and President of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino,
Save Our City:
· Respectfully requested the citizens of Cupertino to have their vote before any other General
Plan exceptions or amendments can be made. They have been waiting since April/May of
2004; the initiatives were filed September 2004.
· Requested that the Planning Commission table anything that takes a General Plan amendment
to be tabled until the election is completed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Commented that relative to tonight's agenda, there was a General Plan amendment but it is not
affected by the three November ballot measures. It is a request to refill one of the buckets for
some residential units in the Vallco area; the zoning is an action to put the appropriate zoning
designation on the property. The election will have no impact on whether that is approved or
not; otherwise the project conforms to the measures. Relative to Vallco Fashion Park, the
tentative map and the development agreement; one might argue that the development
agreement is impacted by the measures; which can be discussed when that item comes up.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
U-2005-03, ASA -2005-05
GP A-2005-01, Z-2005-02,
TM-2005-07, TR-2005-06
(EA-2005-03) Eric Morley
(Morley Bros. LLC)
19310-19320 Pruneridge
Avenue
Use Permit to demolish two office buildings totaling
approximately 126,528 square feet and construct a 130-
unit townhouse development and a .937-acre public park.
Architectural and Site Approval for a 130-unit townhome
development. General Plan Amendment to allocate 130
residential units for a proposed townhome development.
Rezoning of an 8.5-acre site from Planned Industrial Zone
to Planned Residential Zone. Tentative Map to subdivide
an 8.5-acre parcel into 31 lots for a 130-unit townhome
development with a public park. Tree removal and
replanting of approximately 81 trees. Tentative City
Council date: November 1, 2005.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
October II, 2005
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for General Plan amendment, rezoning, Use Permit, Tentative Map,
architectural & site removal, and tree removal request to permit the demolition of two office
buildings in the Vallco Park area, and allow the construction of 130 residential units in a
proposed townhouse/condominium format, as outlined in the staff report.
· Briefly reviewed the background of the 1993 General Plan because of its bearing on the
General Plan amendment request.
· He said the current General Plan under review now would fill up that pot for Vallco as well as
other parts of the city; that are still under review by the City Council. The applicant has
provided a number of justifications for the General Plan amendment, among including
documents in the staff report that document the obsolescence of the existing office building.
The applicant has met extensively with local neighborhood and business groups surrounding
the property and has received a certain number of letters of support, not only from local people
but from those who have a regional interest. The applicant has also submitted a study prepared
by a real estate consulting group as well as an economic consulting group, which used data
from the city's adopted budget, its factors, census data and other sources of information and
concluded that given the amount of taxes that would be generated by this proposal and the
expected general fund expenditures in terms of staffing, staffing costs and maintenance costs,
that there would be a positive net outcome to the city's budget of about $32,245.
· Reviewed the project data as outlined in the staff report, Pages 1-3 to 1-5.
Environmental Review and Hazardous Materials:
· Mr. Piasecki reviewed the data relative to the environmental review and hazardous materials.
The building was formerly used for agricultural purposes and industrial office uses. Phase one
and phase two studies were conducted which concluded that any levels of residual hazardous
materials a potential resident would be exposed to were well below California State health
standards. Details of the studies are outlined in the staff report, Pages 1-6 and 1-7.
Noise:
· It was determined that there were noise impacts because of the close proximity to Highway
280. The applicant would be required to erect a sound wall and staff would prefer to look at it
during the construction phase to address it in terms of screening it which is a General Plan
policy as well as where it is placed so that it does not harm the redwood trees that also border
that area. Also solid materials placed on the upper balconies of the southerly most units would
mitigate noise; and the interior noise can be mitigated with construction materials that have a
higher sound transmission quality. Details are outlined in the staff report, Page 1-7.
Traffic:
· Residential generates less traffic than the industrial development; there is going to be
significantly less trips on the order of 600 to 700 trips on a daily basis during the peak hour,
upwards of 150+ in the morning and the peak hour which will have an improvement on the
level of service which is the city standards for how signalized intersections perform in and
around there.
School enrollment and fiscal analysis:
· School enrollment and fiscal analysis with respect to how the project might affect the fiscal
health of the school district was reviewed, as outlined in the staff report, Page 1-8.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
October II, 2005
Tree removal and replacement:
· He reviewed the trees proposed to be removed and those proposed to be retained as outlined on
Pages 1-8 and 1-9 of the staff report.
Air Quality Study:
· An air quality study was prepared by an air quality consultant, addressing the DPMs relative to
the diesel particulate matter and based on the modeling that was done for this project. The
concentrations of those hazardous air pollutants would be below California health standards, as
documented.
Project Description:
· He reviewed the existing and proposed site plans as outlined in the attached staff report, Page
1-3.
· Reviewed the architecture of the units, which included two story buildings, with individualized
entrances for each unit; two other building entrances on the sides, two stories when facing the
front; parking is tucked underneath, from the garage side you will see three stories with the
garage at the basement or ground floor, with two living floors above that. The development
varies in height, from about 30 to 38 feet, depending on the architectural style of the building
itself and what they wanted to do with the roof pitches.
· Reviewed the proposed landscape plan as outlined in the staff report.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
· Grant a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
· Adopt a General Plan amendment; the recommendation is slightly modified from the
applicant's proposal; where in addition to allocating the 130 residential units for the project,
staff is recommending to change the General Plan land use designation of the proposed park
from its current industrial/residential to parks which is a designation for all parks.
· Rezone the property, from planned industrial park to planned residential and a park zoning for
the proposed public park.
· Approve the Use Permit to demolish the buildings and construct the 130 unit townhome
condominium development.
· Provide for the provision of a one-acre park and allow the tandem parking spaces for a portion
of those units.
· Approve the Tentative Map to subdivide the property into 31 lots for the condominium
development.
· Approve the architectural and site approval.
· Approve the tree removal request to remove and replace 90+ trees with about 500 more new
trees.
A video was shown which illustrated the applicant's proposal.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions:
· The project will provide 15% BMR units, 19 units.
· Some of the buildings have been vacant 5 to 10 years; Hewlett Packard was the last tenant and
likely had a long term lease.
· Accept the concept that the building is a functionally obsolete building and the square footage
goes back into the officelindustrial pool to be used in the future when the market demands are
there for a brand new class A office or industrial building that fits the market needs.
· A discussion ensued regarding the school enrollments and fiscal analysis wherein staff
answered commissioners' questions.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
October 11, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Said the capacity of students at Cupertino High School was at 21, and he expressed concern
that they were building so much housing in the city, yet not collaborating well with the school
district.
· Said he was hesitant to vote in support of it if the data they received at the meeting did not
include the two items Com. Chen brought up earlier.
Ms. Murray:
· Said that the application could be continued until they find out from the school district; the
concern would be traffic mitigation, not the school impact.
· Said she concurred with the opinion that school impact has been preempted by the state. It is
covered by the charge per student and it is very specific in the state law that it is the only
impact fee that can be charged. It has been discussed several times, and is difficult to accept,
but if you want to look at traffic and other issues that are more of the city's purview, the state
has used the words "preempted" and there will be no other fees charged for school impact.
· Pointed out that if the city was over-built and the schools had not caught up with it, it is not
within the purview of the Planning Commission, but is a school district and state concern. The
schools have been notified of each of the developments and since it is their responsibility, it is
assumed they are handling it and are comfortable with it and that the impact fees will cover the
impact.
· She said that traffic and public safety is the concern ofthe Planning Commission.
Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern about the quality of education if the school put the students in modules.
· Asked staff to comment on the sentence on Page 1-4, General Land Use policy paragraph, the
first paragraph says that "although the general plan .... The application does not have an
inherent right to develop this property into the residential project".
Mr. Jung:
· The longer term land use plan for the city states industrial/residential; to build the housing in
that location you have to have both the General Plan and the zoning that says it is residential.
In the past there were pots of residential assigned to different geographic areas, different types
of projects throughout the city, and an applicant could apply. They didn't need a General
Plan amendment, and could apply for a rezoning if needed and a Use Permit, and if the project
was approved an allocation would be assigned to them. What has happened in Vallco, is that
there was an allocation some time ago, with a certain number of units assigned to Vallco Park
with the Heart of the City running along the front of Vall co Park where Menlo Equities is; and
some other things where you could dip into the undesignated units. By and large everything
that could possibly have been assigned to Vallco that an applicant could apply for, has been
exhausted.
· That is why the applicant is making his General Plan amendment request for you to fill the pot
per se, so that he can do a residential redevelopment properly.
Eric Morley, applicant, reviewed a slide presentation:
· Morley Brothers and Sobrato are proposing to redevelop the site that currently has 127,000
square feet of functiorially obsolete office space into a new for-sale condominium and
townhouse community including a one-acre turnkey park it its existing mixed use
neighborhood.
· Concurs with the staff recommendation to approve the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
October 11, 2005
· Showed the site, said it was included in a mixed use neighborhoods in the North Vallco
planning area and as staff indicated, the land use plan and General Plan designation for the site
already provides for residential use on the site. As discussed, the City Council is currently
considering up to 400 units in the north Vallco area and at the October 4 meeting the Council
preliminarily recommended a 400 unit allocation to this area. The area is distinctly different
from the south Vallco area in the General Plan planning process which is south of 280
· As staff indicated, if the City Council doesn't adopt the new General Plan and includes units in
the area, the applicant will withdraw the General Plan request.
· The neighborhood has a mix of uses including a residential retail employment and other uses.
The project is also buffered from existing non-residential uses by use of public and private
roads, landscaping and parking areas. In addition, no heavy industrial uses are in the area.
· The site is extremely well served by existing commercial and retail tenants; list of tenants.
· The building was constructed in the mid 70s and has become functionally obsolete; vacant for
a number of years, it is no longer suitable, appropriate or marketable. Sobrato has invested
millions of dollars in renovations to the building and made every effort to market the property
to the commercial real estate industry; however, there are intrinsic aspects of the building
which have concluded that they are functionally obsolete. The overall building layouts, the
internal infrastructure which is mostly original, the outdate infrastructure as well as floor to
ceiling heights that are extremely low, limited glass and limited natural light, lack of dock
loading and grade level loading; no warehousing or forklift availability has all contributed to
the building's condition.
· FaciliCorp provided a physical assessment of the building confirming the conclusions, and five
major real estate brokerage firms toured the buildings and provided their assessment, which
concurs as well.
· The commercial real estate community has stopped showing the buildings because of their
condition.
· The project complies with the comprehensive General Plan elements, proposed growth control
initiatives and also the criteria for maintaining cohesive commercial parks recommended by
the commission.
· The homes orientation, park location, architecture and other elements of the project have all
been carefully executed and designed with all the guidelines in mind. The plan was previously
proposed for 139 units, and subsequently reduced to 130 units at the request of staff through
multiple site plan revisions.
· Reviewed the architectural details; the project also includes a one-acre turnkey public park
which will provide a gathering place for the neighborhood and create a sense of identity for the
neighborhood, which will be funded by the residents of the project through a landscape and
lighting district with no cost to the City's general fund.
· The project complies with more than 75 stated goals, plans and policies of the existing and
draft General Plan and complies fully with the spirit letter intent of the proposed initiatives in
terms of height, density and setback.
· The project will pay for itself and will also add approximately $32,000 annually to the city's
general fund.
o There will be 20 BMR units integrated throughout the project priced between $208,000 and
$306,000.
· Proposing to retain the green veil of trees along Pruneridge Avenue and Highway 280 and
propose to plant in excess of 500 new trees on the site.
· Residential in this location will result in less traffic than the office use; the school study
commission indicated that the schools will have capacity for the students.
· We have done comprehensive community outreach and community outreach and community
meetings with our immediate neighbors, surrounding property owners and businesses. Letters
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
October II, 2005
of support are in your possession.
Mr. Morley responded to earlier qnestions from the commissioners:
· Discussed the potential of a community room, swim pool and/or Jacuzzi on the premises. He
said from a market prospective, historically the for-sale environments differ from the rental
environments; and they found they are under-utilized in a number of communities. HOAs
once they take over the project will seek to remove them or fill them in and create passive and
active open space areas. Pools and other water features such as Jacuzzis, often become
significant liability issues in terms of maintenance, insurance and security coverage.
· Recreation room is 50/50; most developments of this size, if they have one, it is typically
smaller in nature and has a kitchenette, a smaller gathering area. If there were one to be located
on this site, it would most likely be located in or around the half acre private recreation area.
· Relative to Com. Giefer's concern regarding site circulation and access, ingress/egress, the site
has the three points of access - Pruneridge, Ridgeview Court, extension of Ridgeview; in
addition to access for the Hamptons. We do not have, and we are confident that we could not
obtain access through the Hamptons' development.
Mr. Morley:
· There was also a question regarding the organization and the layout of the parlor. By way of
background, SB1225 was enacted into law last year and came into effect earlier this year,
which requires that the 10% of the units, the ground floor units in any development have
access available to the handicapped, and that means not only those who reside there, but
someone who may visit there. It requires that there be a space for someone to go sit and also
use the facilities.
· As it is not set up for a bedroom, the space is 12-1/2 feet by 8-1/2 feet; the area that was
perceived as a closet is a way to walk into the bathroom. Had we intended that to be a
bedroom, we would organize that substantially different. It has more value as a bedroom and it
would also include a full bath.
Com. Giefer:
o Would that legislation preclude you from having a ground floor bedroom with those amenities.
The reason why I am bringing this up as a difference, is I believe it will be used as a bedroom;
it looks like a bedroom and it impacts our child generation numbers for the schools. I think we
need to count it as a bedroom and increment our child head count for the school systems.
Mr. Morley:
· Said the space could conceivably be a bedroom.
· Said if it was considered a bedroom, there would be approximately 13 additional bedrooms of
a total of 310 bedrooms in the development. The child count is based partially on
bedroomlbathroom count and square footage count and the two projects identified by the
consultants and utilized had larger square footages than this development and had more
bedrooms than this development as well.
Chair Wong:
· Questioned if the survey took into account that Fremont Union High School District and
Cupertino Union School District are two growing school districts. While other school districts
are going down in enrollment, people are moving to Cupertino because of the schools, with
four excellent high schools in the district.
· Said he respectfully disagreed with the report because people want to live in Cupertino because
of the school districts. Developers would not be coming into the city of Cupertino if they
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
October II, 2005
could not see that they can look at the bottom line to build the houses.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it would be a good idea to have Town Hall Services come and talk about their studies and
how they do this. They are retained by the school districts as well.
Mr. Morley:
· Clarified that Town Hall Services was engaged by the city for the high school district. They
utilize all of the enrollment data and projections that were provided by both school districts in
the analysis. All of the data included in the report is for those two school districts' specifics.
It is average-cost based vs. marginal cost base, which addresses the question about why the
discrepancy. The report is overly conservative; if you look at the two districts' actual student
generation rates that they have published today, the project would generate about 41 students.
We recognize that it is conservative in terms of student generation and also in terms of the
physical components of that, and we concur with you that the schools are wonderful.
· As staff noted, there are 56 to 76 student capacity increase as a result of both the existing
capacity in the FUHSD as noted in the report.
· Relative to considering locating the public park near Highway 280 to provide additional sound
buffer from the housing units, he said they looked at a number of locations on the site and
evaluated that. The location was identified in coordination with staff primarily because it is an
important recreational and public policy objective to make sure that for this neighborhood
which doesn't currently have a park, both office users and neighbors would have the ability to
access and see and use that park from a very prominent key corner. Our concern about putting
it in other locations, is that it would have been further away from the major public roadways;
· The homes and buildings located at the corner will have sound attenuation and mitigation; in
addition, they also serve as a sound attenuation buffer for the remainder of the site. Those are
the reasons we felt it was important to have that out on the corner so that it could be maximally
visible and accessible to the public, not just our residents and/or the Hamptons.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said an open space feature in the area wouldn't diminish the sound impacts from the freeway,
and he agreed that they wanted to showcase the open space to the public
· He cited Memorial Park as an example of a showcase of open which reduces the appearance of
density in the community.
Mr. Morley:
· Said they proposed a clear glass backboard for the basketball court to direct the ball so that it
would not go into the street.
Chair Wong:
· Commended Mr. Morley for following staff's direction by showing the excellent and
informative video presentation. It helps the community and the Planning Commission to see
what the project is about.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Shiloh Ballard, representing Silicon Valley Leadership Group:
o Said at the beginning of the year a survey of members, specifically at the CEO level, was
conducted asking what were the biggest impediments to doing business in Silicon Valley were
and they responded housing, which is a key issue for recruiting and retaining a quality work
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
October II, 2005
force in Silicon Valley.
· In addition, recently at the annual projections conference, the sole focus of the panel was
housing; and the fact that we need housing to continue to make Silicon Valley a great place to
live, work and do business.
· We reviewed this proposal recently and from the group's perspective, some of the key issues
for us are, when are you converting industrial land to residential, and what do the neighbors
think, especially the neighboring businesses? Weare pleased that the developer/applicant
informed us that the neighbors are either neutral or are supportive of this in terms of the
compatibility of the uses there.
· Said that the group supported the proposal and encouraged the support of the Planning
Commission.
Mark McKenna, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Said the Chamber was opposed to the proposal as it takes 127,000 square feet of commercial
office space out of use.
· A big concern is if it goes into a pool, where is the pool built?
· The city keeps rezoning land and making it residential; there are building heights and other
restrictions that they cannot build out other areas of the city, which is the major concern.
· The Chamber has a no net loss policy; it doesn't like business going out of Cupertino whether
it generates tax dollars or not. They feel that any business is a good business because it
supports other businesses in that their employees need services and their businesses use retail.
Dennis Whitaker, resident of Cupertino:
· This is a well designed complex especially in relation to the location of the Hamptons. With
Vallco, Menlo Equities, Adobe, the possible future additional Vallco housing, the Toll
Brothers, the concerns of traffic and schools arise.
· Recently had a discussion with a neighbor about how important it is to have housing near your
place of work, but with the Town Center project there, where all the housing is coming in and
all those businesses have gone out, and then by the removal of more business sites, you are
taking away a variety of stock for large and small businesses in the future; and you are
eliminating potential job sites for the people who live in Cupertino.
· One of the biggest concerns I have is in general you have the Hamptons, the two hotels, the
shopping center, and now you have more housing, and you say another park. Mr. Piasecki and
I have gone back on forth on this, it is less than an acre of park but thankfully there is some
green space around it; but you cannot guarantee that with everything around it, the green space
will be as large as the other parks that Cupertino has. This area deserves the same. You cannot
use schools as an excuse for not allowing something to go in, but you can use a valid
infrastructure or a lack thereof.
· Go back to the General Plan; the majority of the General Plan task force passed by a vote of 65
vs. 35% to emphasize more on commercial and less on housing. Abide by the rules and let the
vote happen November 8th and use the General Plan of 1993 until the new General Plan is in
place.
· Said he supported housing, but asked where the studio, one bedroom units and handicapped
housing was. They by themselves will allow affordable housing to occur without having to use
the BMR fake proposition of getting affordable housing because with those types of things you
get equity in your house and you are not obligated to anyone else. I have yet to see an
emphasis on studios and one bedrooms so my kids can come back and live in Cupertino. That
is affordable housing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
October II, 2005
Lynn Salazar, Cupertino resident:
· When they purchased their home 22 years ago, they moved to the east side of DeAnza
Boulevard because they could not afford to live on the west side; they did not expect the City
of Cupertino to provide them affordable housing or work.
· Questioned where all the single detached homes were; there is so much cramping together.
She said she was not trying to degrade certain housing, but said she looks at the concepts as
glorified apartments vs. the traditional home with it still being built in outlying areas.
· Expressed concern about the quality of life in Cupertino with the multitude of projects. They
may look good independently, but they are too concentrated with some green and trees tossed
in; but she would like to see a little more of the home environment and less density.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Does not feel it is appropriate to convert technology parks into housing units; Cupertino needs
to have its tech parks protected and there is no need for further housing in this area. Is
Cupertino going to become a bedroom community? There is a big push to convert tech land
into housing; San Jose has built condominium units in every conceivable open space
· Said she was surprised at the number of housing units built in the last six months near Curtner
and Highway 87. She said that Mountain View has had so many requests for condominium
complexes in their tech parks that they have had to protect certain tech park areas that have
traditionally been tech areas in Mountain View.
· I believe the new ABAG numbers coming in the next year, are going to indicate that there is
no need for additional housing; I don't see a lot of the population of San Jose or Cupertino
going up; Cupertino has increased because of annexation but those were homes that already
existed in the area. I believe San Francisco has lost a tremendous number of people and I
don't think San Jose's population has increased, so who is going to live in those condominium
complexes.
· She expressed concern about the section of Cupertino becoming a concrete jungle, and also
about the number of students who are supposed to be going to Cupertino High School. She
said she was planning on having a family and was not willing to give up places in her school
district for other people's children; it may require the city to build more high schools because
of the new complexes being built.
· I am also concerned about the number of trees lost at this property.
· I hope that you will not have this tech land converted into housing.
Pat Sausedo, Executive Director, National Assoc. of Indnstrial and Office Properties of
Silicon Valley (NAIOP):
· Urge you to favorably consider the request before you. We support public policy decisions that
facilitate improved economic development opportunities that will provide for the long term
fiscal soundness of the local community.
· NAIOP encourages the conversion of obsolete office and industrial properties where
redevelopment can be supported by nearby support services and the requisite public
infrastructures such as schools, traffic, parks, water and sewer.
· The Pruneridge residential projects allows for the removal of functionally obsolete office
buildings while creating the opportunity for much needed infill housing that will be available
for potential future Silicon Valley workers, a critical objective Silicon Valley companies look
for in making the decision whether to increase their jobs opportunity in the local community or
expand their employer base.
o The utilization of Cupertino's economic development strategy and General Plan policy of
pooling square footage from demolished, obsolete, non-productive buildings for reallocation to
establish emerging companies and those that wish to grow within the local community is a
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
October II, 2005
very pro-active positive economic development strategy by the city of Cupertino and one that
is also being studied by several surrounding communities.
· In summation, the proposed development furthers Cupertino's economic development, housing
and smart growth objectives by recycling obsolete industrial property, locating new housing
close to jobs in established mixed used neighborhoods with adequate city services and public
infrastructure. A proactive land use answer for the conversion of obsolete industrial properties
within your community.
· We ask that you consider the request before you and find favorably on their behalf.
Dennis Martin, Land Use and Public Analyst for Home Builders Assoc. of No. California:
· Said he supported the project because it is consistent with prior H Bank positions on industrial
residential conversion that we have iterated to the city of Cupertino and the Cupertino City
Council in relation to the General Plan updates that are now under consideration.
· H Bank encourages the city of Cupertino to adopt industrial land use conversion as a policy to
enable the productive reuse of land in location where infrastructure for housing already exists.
We believe that an adequate housing supply for Cupertino's workers and their families is the
lynch pin of dynamic economic growth for the community. Presently there is a positive
convergence of economic and community forces which support industrial/residential land use
conversion in Cupertino; demand for housing is high and people are desirous to live close to
where they work. Interest rates for both builders and buyers are low. Homebuilders are
willing to construct infill housing; communities are benefiting from more productive reuse of
land in locations like Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose.
· H Bank's position is that housing here in Cupertino is essential to the community's economic
growth; that with an adequate supply of housing, new businesses will be encouraged to locate
in the community. With an adequate supply of housing, the community benefits, and families
benefit because workers commute shorter distances where housing is available nearer jobs; and
as a result economic prosperity and the community are improved through the conversion of
industrial land to housing.
· Please consider approval ofthe project.
Ned Britt, Cupertino resident:
· Recalled a statement from Councilmember Chris Wang some time ago who pointed out when
the development is completed in that area from Wolfe Road to Tantau, there will be 5,000
people living there and 10% of the population if all projects under consideration go through.
· He asked when looking at schools, to take the entire picture into account; perhaps allocate
some more residential units for this particular development and amend the General Plan
· Said he heard at another Planning Commission meeting some discussion that the infrastructure
including the sewers in that region is inadequate and would likely have to be rebuilt. The
issues should be considered in life cycle costs; the cost to build up infrastructure and supply
services for new residents as well as the loss of opportunity for other tax if we get rid of the
commercial property, and that some square footage returned to the pool is really only a
bookkeeping move; the actual land is gone. This should be done with great care.
· If they do build the project, and you are not a member of the housing unit and you want to use
the park, where would you stop if you drove down the street; there doesn't seem to be any
place to park and go into the park. If they do, I hope they leave it open for dogs.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· The project has a lot of positive aspects to it, considering there is no four bedroom proposed;
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
October II, 2005
just two and three bedrooms which in my view is positive. If this project is approved, my
preference would be the park would be situated where shown, because in the back it is closer
to noise.
· Traffic aspects of this project as far as the impact is less than an office building, and the school
is not in our purview to comment on because that is dictated by the State.
· One aspect of this that I consider positive is that the buildings have been vacant for five years.
There are some other buildings down Tantau that are posted for lease. Based on that one
would think this is a good project to move forward with; but on the other hand we need to look
at the overall residential allocation in North Vallco; and if this project is approved we need to
take the reduced numbers down.
· One option that would be possible is to continue the item for two weeks to get more
information so that we can reach a consensus.
Com. Giefer:
· Concur with most of Com. Saadati's comments; however, I do have a different view on the
public park which is also different than staffs suggestion. When walking the site from
Pruneridge toward the freeway, it was noisier by the freeway and if additional housing is
considered, it is a sensitivity receptor and there would be a noise issue with the project that can
be mitigated.
· Said consideration should be given to reducing some of the noise impacts by heavily planting
on the northeast edge of the project and moving the units closer together.
· I fully support and understand that having the park up in front on Pruneridge, there is a nicer
greenbelt fill with the berms across from Hewlett Packard. I understand design-wise why it
was put there and it makes sense; but from a common sense perspective, the people visiting the
park are visiting the park; the people in the condos, flats, townhouses, live there. You may not
go to the park every day; that is one issue I have with the project.
· The biggest issue with the project is that we are so close to finalizing the General Plan, I find it
difficult to understand why we would move forward on this project instead of continuing it at
least until City Council has made their final votes and decisions and reconsider this even
perhaps before the final reading of the General Plan.
· Weare so close at this point and I would like to understand where the housing is going to be
because we will have a collective issue if we are adding too much housing in the North Vallco
and the South Vallco area. We need to think about those densities and where we are going to
put the housing because it will have a cumulative effect on traffic and although ruling on
schools is not part of our purview, I think we need to understand what is going to happen with
CUSD and FUHSD.
· She said that CUSD's advisory eommittee se".'eral )'eaFs 111:0 CUSD did not anticipate the
present and for 20 years they were able to forecast per student. They anticipate they will all
work through our school system within the next 8 years but I am worried about that and I am
worried about many of the cumulative factors between this project and other projects, and I
would feel much more comfortable once we have Council's final comments.
Com. Chen:
· Complimented Morley Brothers and Sobrato Development for bringing forward such a well
designed project.
· I concur with all the good reasons for supporting the project, but do share Com. Giefer's major
concerns about the General Plan being so close to being finalized. Until it is finalized, we
cannot address the cumulative impact of all the issues brought up. Even if the General Plan is
finalized which allows the 200 residential units for the area, without the master plan we are
still going to be puzzled as to where to put the 200 units that would be added to lots of values
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
October II, 2005
and the quality of life to the Cupertino residents.
· For those reasons I don't think I can support the project.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concurred that it was a well designed project from an architectural standpoint, from a flow
standpoint it is very nice. It is also nice from the standpoint of being across the street from a
major employment center. If there was every an opportunity to reduce traffic by having
employees live within walking distance, this is it.
· However, there are as stated, some key issues. The first is that the Planning Commission only
suggests 200 allocations in the new General Plan and the City Council has not made a decision
on what way to go, whether that should be the right number or not. The other issue is the
Council has yet to make a decision on conversion policy; therefore because of those issues, I
also concur that it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to be making changes to a
General Plan that is about to go out of existence until we hear some direction from the City
Council.
· In reviewing the General Plan it was suggested that during the review of the Plan that it would
be the appropriate time to do some forward planning and look not only at the applications as
they come in, but try to do more forward planning in terms of what overall applications are
going to come forward and how they fit into a larger scheme of things before moving ahead
with projects like this.
· For those reasons, I cannot support this project at this time.
Chair Wong:
· Complimented the applicant on their presentation and good outreach toward the community,
and working closely with city staff in implementing all the things staff was looking for.
· I understand where Ms. Salazar was coming from, is that in the good old days, there are a lot
of single family homes that are around Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley and the trend is to
have high more density housing because we don't have that much space to grow. Mr. Morley
is just following smart growth principles and I think that the park and greenspace you offer and
the type of variety of housing is a good start.
· Said he would support the project if it was at a different location, as he has supported other
high density projects, but has concerns about this particular one. As echoed by Com. Giefer,
relative to the General Plan; we are in the process of reviewing our General Plan, and the
Council has not taken a certain direction. Regarding the conversion policy, I don't see eye to
eye with Mr. Whitaker or the CCC, but agree with the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce that
the no net loss of commercial property is a huge concern to me.
· We did pass a Planning Commission suggestion on a conversion policy and I would like to see
what the City Council has to say about it before I can rule regarding conversion. I am open to
conversion, it is based on the location, but again I want the City Council's direction on that.
· I know it is not within our purview regarding the quality of life at schools; I believe that this is
something we need to work in collaboration with the school district and the city. We are
definitely growing, it is direction on how do we want to grow. We need to engage more with
the school district; I am disappointed we did not get a good feedback from the school district,
and I hope the staff can be more aggressive with them.
· Having a master plan will help developers and applicants in the future know what is on the
minds of the Planning Commission and City Council relative to whether they want mixed use,
straight housing or shopping. What is driving it now is market force factors, and Shiloh
Ballard had a good point, that housing is the number one concern in our valley and how we get
to that goal is a huge question mark.
· There are other impacts regarding traffic; it goes beyond the project, but through the city of
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
October II, 2005
Cupertino; and as we address those concerns within the General Plan, hopefully we will get
answers.
· At this time, it is difficult for me to support the project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested asking the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance assuming that it will
help with the decision making; they would probably need at least a month if they wait for the
City Council to resolve the numbers and make a decision on the Plan. The applicant mayor
may not be able to do that, it may ask that a decision be made, either positive or negative.
· Commented on the master plan concept because it came up in the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the City Council in June. He said that three months ago the Commission
decided it would be good to have a master plan. He pointed out that some of the applicants
have been in the pipeline for nine months or a year. He said it would be fine to have a master
plan on the books, but to stop now spend a year developing a master plan, is unfair to them.
For anybody else who comes into the pipeline should the Council adopt your strategy, it is a
good idea. It would be catching some people short who have been working under the old plan
and have been trying to bring projects forward under that concept and/or asking for
amendments.
Mr. Morley:
· Said they were not in a position to have a continuance on the item; they recognize the
comments and appreciate them, but request a vote on the project this evening.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application No. 1.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
The item is scheduled for the City Council on November 1,2005.
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
Chair Wong noted that Items 2 and 3 would be discussed together.
2.
TM-2005-09 Mike
Rhode (ValIco Fashion
Park) 10123 No. Wolfe Rd.
Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.05-acre
parcel into two lots. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Continuedfrom
September 27,2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on Item 2:
· Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a 6.93 acre parcel into two lots at
the Vallco Shopping Center, to create a new parcel for a future hotel site.
· Applicant submitted an updated Tentative Map which more clearly delineates the underlying
boundaries of the parcel to be subdivided and excludes the J. C. Penneys parcel which is not
part of the application.
· She reviewed the project description as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Honda:
· The applicant has submitted to us this afternoon a copy of the Certificate of Compliance which
they believe shows that this is one entire parcel; however, the Public Works Department has
reviewed the Certificate of Compliance and there is some discrepancy as to what the existing
parcel consists of. From the city's standpoint, we believe that this parcel may be a separate
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
October II, 2005
parcel, Alexander Steakhouse parcel from the rest of this parcel; however, the applicant states
that they believe it is part of the underlying parcel to be subdivided.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the Certificate of Compliance was a certification of the city engineer at the time
specifying that they have complied with the provisions of the subdivision map act of the State
of California. He is saying, and the owners of Vallco showed us the certificate that you do
have a legal parcel on here. It was confusing to us as well because it goes through a part of the
mall; it separates Penneys out, and typically you don't have property lines running along
openings in commercial buildings.
· We will continue to research that but we think for your purposes tonight the idea of splitting
this northerly portion is secondary; that is the primary issue and exactly how that lot is
configured is not as germane to the issue should you subdivide off that northerly 2.11 acres.
We will confirm they will have to demonstrate and we will have to confirm it further that this
is a legitimate lot; we think it is; everything they showed us seems to be accurate.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said the Chair was suggesting that Alexander Steakhouse is currently on a separate parcel;
however, when checking the computer records today, it shows it as being on its own separate
parcel and not contiguous and part of the large 4.82 acres.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That may be the case, however, the assessor's office has created assessor parcels all over the
county and they show up on computer records as there is a different assessor parcel. The
reason they did that in the past is that property owners wanted to have the property tax bill go
to that tenant so they created assessor parcels; they were not legal lots. It does not change the
fact that do you want to subdivide 2.11 acres for the hotel whether Alexander's is on a separate
parcel or not; do you want to have a separate parcel for the hotel?
Ms. Honda:
· It appears that the discrepancy between whether or not the Alexander Steak House parcel is
part of the underlying parcel is really not relevant to the objective of the subdivision you are
considering.
· Staff would recommend that a condition of approval be added that states "prior to final map,
the applicant shall provide verification of the boundaries of the parcel underlying the
subdivision to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director."
· The project for consideration is only a request to subdivide at this time for the future hotel site,
no other application at this time is for development. Based on that, the city attorney advises
that the use of the property cannot be regulated by the subdivision laws and the map by itself
cannot require future development of the hotel. However, an amendment to the development
agreement prior to final map would be required to designate Lot I as a hotel site, and a
condition to that effect has been added to the model resolution.
· Staff also recommends an additional condition to be added to the model resolution that states
"should the development agreement expire prior to the development of the site for the hotel,
another instrument guaranteeing the hotel development on the site shall be agreed upon by the
applicant and the city." This is being added, given that the Planning Commission is also
considering the extension of the development.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Map in accordance
with the model resolution and with the two additional conditions recommended by staff.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
October 11, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· Asked what were the benefits and the negatives for having the Vallco area under separate
ownership; why would we want the parcels to be under separate ownership.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The applicant can also respond. He said he understood that they are working with a hotel
company who insists that they are going to build a hotel, they have to have ownership of the
property. It is a financial arrangement they have to make with the hotel to bring them in, and
they don't feel they can retain ownership and/or lease the land for 100 years.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· That is the reason we are suggesting that additional wording so that ordinarily we wouldn't
want to encourage a separate parcel, but if in fact it is needed for that, then we would like to be
sure that it is used for that.
Com. Giefer:
· In the model resolution, there is no language that would assure that a separate parcel if a hotel
is built on it, stays in step with the mall, whatever the facelift Vallco has. Examples are J. C.
Penneys and Sears; those pads are under individual ownership and regardless of how Vallco is
redeveloped they are still going to have the nice 1960s or 70s look to them and there is nothing
we can do about them because they own their pads. In 30 years from now when Vallco is
having another facelift and being modernized, my concern is we may have a frumpy looking
hotel, and how do we control that as part of this subdivision.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The applicant can address your concern. The only advantage we would have is that this is a
detached parcel and the other two are integrated into the mall. It is important that they stay in
step with the mall, and we don't believe that they have. I believe you are going to get the
latest state of the art looking hotel and that is something we can look at and make sure that it
has a timeless design as opposed to one that is going to get dated in the near future or 30 year
timeframe you mentioned. That is a design challenge.
Com. Giefer:
· Is there any way for us to control height or size as part of the subdivision; or is that all
encompassed in the development agreement.
Ms. Wordell:
· The staff report for the map pointed out that the city attorney advises us that we don't control
the uses through the map, but you can control the uses through a Use Permit for the hotel. The
development agreement says that you have to have Use Permits for hotels; even if that were
not the case, there is architectural review at staff level through the development agreement, so
there are still controls.
· If the parcel were subdivided, a hotel purchased it and was going to be built, they would have
to come before the Planning Commission for a Use Permit.
· It occurs to me that perhaps something could be a condition of the use permit to require review
20 years that they would come back for architectural review for updating.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
October 11, 2005
3. DA-2005-02
Mike Rohde (Vallco
Shopping Center) 10123
No. Wolfe Road
Vallco Development Agreement Extension
(5 year extension to 2011) Tentative
City Council date: November 1, 2005.
Ms. Wordell presented background on the development agreement (Item 3):
· The 15 year development agreement was signed in 1991 by the City Council and agreed to by
the owner at that time; it expires in August 2006. Why did the city and applicant enter into the
development agreement? The development agreement ordinance, lays out the purpose of a
development agreement which is that the government code found that the lack of certainty in
the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of
housing and other developments to the consumer and discourage investment and commitment
to comprehensive planning, which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at
the least economic cost to the public. Furthermore, the City Council finds that under
appropriate circumstances development agreements will strengthen the public planning
process, encourage private participation and comprehensive planning by providing a greater
degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic cost of development, allow for the
orderly planning of public improvements and services and the allocation of costs; therefore in
order to achieve the maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development
process. That is what is behind why the city and the property owners wanted to enter into a
development agreement.
· The development agreement is between both parties, the property owner and the City Council;
unlike many of the discretionary approvals that you consider such as zoning or use permits,
while the Planning Commission and City Council have the final say on what goes into the final
resolution, this is something that the other party as well as the City Council must agree to
before it goes into effect. Therefore, in this case the applicant seeks agreement from the city to
extend the expiration date and as we said, we felt it was in the city's interest to have the hotel
use built into the development agreement and they have agreed to that in concept.
· She reviewed the key provisions of the development agreement as outlined in Exhibit C in the
staff report. There is a provision that ifthere are future codes and plans that are not in conflict
with the development agreement, those can be imposed and we determined that years ago
when the Jacobs Group was coming forward with their plans. The only General Plan regulation
that was different from what was vested was the setback ratio. We have been imposing that,
we did impose that on the Rose Bowl site and in the Heart of the City area that would be
imposed. Another example is the residential density from Heart of the City; it wasn't any
density mentioned in the prior entitlements and so the Heart of the City density is also
imposed.
· Another provision of the development agreement is that if one of the exhibits in the
development agreement shows where future development would be and if development is
proposed in the areas identified for future development, all that is required is architectural
review. Non retail uses in hotels are different and they do require a use permit, but retail uses
in these locations, those are the future development locations.
· Regarding the hotel or housing, it has to come back to the Planning Commission; regarding the
retail, it will not come back to the Planning Commission; it is approved at staff level.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Exhibit E in the development agreement listing what are considered to be retail uses include
hotels. It is arguable that in fact you can put a hotel here with just staff level review because
it is a retail use; retail uses are allowed up to the maximum square footage. You may have a
different review process; it doesn't change anything; it doesn't change your decision making;
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
October II, 2005
it is what it is and we are continuing to have discussions and will be seeking counsel from our
city attorney's office and they will be working with their attorneys and we will try to
understand if in fact they need to get a use permit or not.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council at their
October 18th meeting, that the extension be approved to August 15,2011 and that the hotel be
the future use for the property at the northeast portion of the property. We are recommending
adding the same wording that was added to the tentative map as far as if it expires, that some
of their instrument would be found for guaranteeing that use.
. Staff feels it is important to do this to provide the certainty that the development agreement is
supposed to provide and that if it expires within a year, and they have not exercised the
project approvals that have already been a part of the agreement, they would be not able to
plan for the long term future of Vallco.
Mike Rohde, Applicant:
· Currently there are no plans for development in the area next to Sears. It will remain an
existing surface parking lot.
· Referring to the site plan, he answered questions about parking areas in the center.
· He presented an overview of the rebirth of the center. Currently they are building the AMC
theater; almost completed structural work for the lower level of the mall; escalators will be
built to the third level of the mall; excellent potential of tenants; focus on the center will be
lifestyle and entertainment center with a dining component. Current tenants will be upgraded
with various features; the applicant is spending about $5 million to help the tenants upgrade
their facilities as part of their agreements.
· The reason for the request for a tentative map is the hotel owner wants to be on his own
property; they don't want to share property with part of the mall; in addition they need to have
their own tax base. It will be an upscale state of the art hotel.
· It was noted that the park and ride lot was a condition of the Rose Bowl site.
· He emphasized that the applicant was committed to make the refurbished center a success and
asked for the Planning Commission support as the city and community would benefit from the
redevelopment.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Relative to the tentative map application, she said that the division of property should not
occur before the elections; there is a lot of building proposed for this site; a hotel and
condominium complex and there is a five story parking garage on an adjacent property.
Further study of the impact of this building on schools and traffic should be studied. Would
the condominium complex require a General Plan amendment? The Rose Bowl project seems
to have taken up all the building for this area. The testimony tonight has shown that there are a
lot of unknowns about the buildings proposed for Vallco, the Tantau, the Pruneridge, the
Ridgeview areas. The impact on the schools has not been determined.
· There is an upcoming election. The housing allocation for the Val1co area has been used up;
5,000 people living in the corner of Cupertino severely impacts traffic, city services, and
schools. Why is there so much density proposed for Val1co when there are so many unknowns?
It is better to slow down the further development here at Val1co, so I do not see any reason to
have this division of property at this time.
· Said the item should not be addressed until after the election. It appears the city would have no
control over excessive building at this site if this agreement is extended. There should be
further noticing citywide of the item and the future impacts and building implications it
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
October 11, 2005
represents. There is a high density of building proposed for this area; movie theaters, hotel,S
story parking garage; two condominium complexes; we had another developer seeking to build
at Pruneridge. I think it was a beautiful project but unfortunately the housing allocation was
used up and they were having to ask for a General Plan amendment to get housing for their
purposes.
· The residents should be aware of the potential impact of 5,000 people living in their corner of
the city.
· Please don't allow the building and do not extend the service agreement.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed frustration that the two items were combined for discussion purposes.
· All developments need to be treated equally. Vallco has been going on for a long time, but so
have the signed petitions and the elections. Two things are coming up soon, the election and
the General Plan. The General Plan is for 20 years, to be reviewed in five or ten years, but it is
now changed and within the last years from 10 years to 20 years. I am inclined to accept the
hotel as long as it goes and abides by the petition of 4700 signatures that said we will allow
unlimited whatever they want to do within 500 feet of the center of Wolfe Road, so if that 8
stories is within 500 feet that is fine; if not, then things need to be reconsidered.
· I am also concerned that this hotel might be changed to something else down the road;
therefore lock in that this cannot be a casino until the city has a chance to look at it to go later,
since everyone else seems to be going that way.
· Said he did not agree with the purpose of the Planning Commission being removed and taking
away the right of people to receive a public hearing and the City Council to be removed by a
planned development agreement.
· We found out from Mayor Kwok that we have no say so with what is happening with Val1co
now until August 6, 2006. We don't want to be put in that circumstance again. This is
supposed to be a democracy where the public has a right to be heard; not one development
railroading something through to get something done.
· We have all been patient and taken a long period of time to get where we are going; we have a
huge puzzle to put together of schools, environmental impact reports. Let's go slow and easy,
not to stall them; I want Vallco to succeed, but we are also looking at 20 years down the road
with the General Plan; we are looking at a lot of things at one time. Be careful; don't do what
Seven Springs did that forced the students from Jollyman and Faria and be forced further away
because of lack of insight for future planning.
N. Radher, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed concern that the general agreement which dates back a decade, hasn't been acted
upon and we are in a process of renewing it and we would lock ourselves into things that
weren't true ten years ago. I don't think we should carte blanche it, especially when it is not
certain what structures would be up for approval. If you ask us to extend the agreement with
all the uncertainties, I don't think it is a fair proposal.
· If you subdivide this parcel and label it as a hotel and it comes back for a use permit, what is
bothering me is a lot of it is "trust us, we will do a good job." I think they would eventually,
but I am not comfortable, and am not ready to give that up.
Norm Hackford, Cupertino resident:
· I agree with previous speakers on the overall concept of the building; it needs more review.
The short period of time to review it was not adequate; the citizens are not fully aware of what
. .
IS occurnng.
· Facts are needed before proceeding; too many things are vague. We need to have things
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
October 11, 2005
written down before it is approved.
· With respect to the extension of the agreement, it is 15 years old; in 15 years things have
changed; I agree that we need to hold this up for at least ten weeks; they still have time to
extend it; to see what the General Plan is going to look like and how it is going to fit.
· There is no rush to do this; in 15 years this agreement hasn't done anything for the mall, and
owners probably purchased it at discount because this was going to expire in a year or so. We
need to be concerned to help them come up with a good project that the community will enjoy
and they will benefit and profit from it.
· We do not have to give them a carte blanche and give them an advantage over any other
developer by extending the agreement for another five years.
· We need to treat all developers fairly; we should start now; it is not imperative to have the
agreement extended, especially we should not extend it before the changes we may see over
the next ten weeks. We are hoping for a General Plan, for new council members and I don't
think we need to rush into this. We need to look at it carefully and look at the facts.
Ned Britt, Cupertino resident:
· Would the Val1co development agreement conflict with Measures A, Band C. If it does, and
they pass, what happens?
· Is the proposed hotel within 500 feet of Wolfe Road, center line, so that it would be exempt
under those measures, or would it be in a location subject to a height limitation?
· Would the extension of the development agreement conflict with the new General Plan update
and how would we know, since the update is still pending and we aren't sure what the terms
are going to be.
· Where can we get an analysis about the effects of these things and the interaction, if there is
any, with the General Plan update and/or the Measures A, B and C and some explanation of
the scenarios depending upon how the elections comes out and what is done with the General
Plan update.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
· Val1co Fashion Park was built in the 70s and was successful until the advent of the other malls
competing with it, when it declined as a sales tax revenue generator for the city.
· I am hopeful that we will be able to revitalize the mall and once again regain our sales tax
capture we had before.
· Expressed concern that the development agreement was signed when the mall was on its
decline and the deal was struck at that point in time. The deal expires next year; I know that the
applicant has a hotel proponent that wants in there, but wants the development agreement to
make the decision. Perhaps we can only make the development agreement valid for that map
and only for that mapped partial, as a compromise.
· The other thing I am concerned about is that the Planning Commission has spoken about a
special planning area for Val1co, you wanted to have a plan here together, what do you want it
to do? I am sure you would work together with the Vallco Fashion Park and other property
owners in the area to come together with a grand master plan for this area that would benefit
all of Cupertino. I believe this development agreement would forge?? that master plan so my
take would be to have some sort of compromise where maybe you give them some sort of
agreement only on the mapped parcel they are trying to lure a hotel developer in while the rest
of it, you do not.
Chair Wong clarified that the two item were discussed together to help facilitate the decision
making and timing wise, and each speaker had six minutes speaking time.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
October II, 2005
Emily Chen, representing the ownership group:
· Said there were two items before the Commission; the subdivision map for the tentative map
for the hotel, and the other a development agreement. She said she would address the question
''why now?"
· Regarding the hotel, she said they have an excellent candidate for the four star hotel, who is
successful and wants to come to Cupertino. Vallco is a very big project and presently the
applicant wants to separate the legal parcel. Vallco already has 8 legal parcels; it does not
matter whether the parcels are separated or not, since everything has to be governed by the
REA agreement, and the three anchor tenants must give their approval.
· She said that it was critical to get the reputable tenants into the mall and get Vallco back on the
map so that the community is aware that it exists. She noted that Sunnyvale mall was signing
on anchor tenants
· Relative to the progress of the theater, it is already under construction, and it is crucial that the
roof be closed by the end of the year. We cannot afford a delay on the theater; without AMC
Vallco cannot change.
· Regarding the upcoming election, there are a lot sensitive issues on the ballot. We feel we can
wait for next year for the standard development agreement.
· The major pressures include the concern of the three big anchors that the city may not have the
commitment of the community before the handover of the development agreement. They feel
that without the extension of the development agreement, they will not sign an agreement
because they feel insecure about the commitment from the community.
· The bank is concerned because of the over $150 million investment; they want the extension.
She emphasized the need to move forward with the project and get the necessary anchors in the
center to attract other tenants.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked what was the shortest reasonable amount of time to extend the development agreement
to get the hotel?
Emily Chen:
· She reiterated that it was difficult for the bank to understand how important the RDA was for
the community, because the community does support it. They also do not understand why it is
so difficult to get an extension on the agreement, with no term change.
Com. Giefer:
· Summaarized that the subdivision is more important for signing a hotel as opposed to the
extension of the development agreement.
Emily Chen:
· Said a two year period would be sufficient for the development agreement; if it moves fast
legally and if everything is in the ground for the foundation, they could continue.
Theoretically, the development agreement is going to stop in October. If the RDA agreement
is signed, it would hopefully convince the bank; without it signed, she said they could not
continue.
Chair Wong:
· Ms. Chen's concern is that if you don't get the RDA approved for either two, three or four
years, the three anchor tenants could stop their project including the AMC theaters.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
October 11, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Emphasized that the Vallco redevelopment effort is very complicated; and you are hearing
issues about financing and getting buildings under construction, etc. The development
agreement expires in ten months; and they have about five different components that they are
trying to line up including the hotel, the Rose Bowl, retail next to Penneys, and the parking
garage north of Macys; the residential and the farmers market site, and the hotel, and possibly
some restaurants on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
· The new ownership has had the property for about two years; the upshot of this is they want to
operate under the same rules for some extended period of time. They have asked in the
application for up to five years, talked about two, but I think they will need at least three.
· The development agreement grandfathers retail uses; hotel is one of the retail uses we talked
about elsewhere. It doesn't grandfather the residential, the residential has to get a use permit;
that is why the Rose Bowl got a use permit and that is why they are asking for a use permit
approval for the farmers market site.
· The development agreement takes precedence over any measures provided it is approved and
the conditions are set before the measures go into effect, and provided it doesn't conflict with
those measures. If the development agreement is in conflict with the measures after the
measures are adopted, then the measures take precedence.
· The property, the hotel in particular, is within 500 feet, most of Vallco is within 500 feet.
However, there is another area defined in the measures, called Val1co Park area from Wolfe to
Tantau, Stevens Creek to Homestead. It is arguable that the 45 foot height limit established in
the Vallco Park area may take precedence over the exemption that is discussed in the Wolfe
Road area. Hence Vallco is saying they can't take the chance that it is arguable, we have to
ask you to let us have the rules for a period of time. We think the intent was clear that they
wanted to exempt Vallco but the wording is arguable, and hopefully the Commission
understands that there was a 45 foot height limit established in one and no limit established in
the other. It appears to be only the height measure that has a conflict.
· I don't think there is anything in the General Plan amendment that has been discussed that
would preempt what Vallco wants to do under the development agreement; the Council would
have to allocate the residential units and they need a use permit for the residential units.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Specifically with respect to the condominium unit in the farmers' market area, if they receive
an extension on the development agreement and the initiatives pass, is that project governed by
the development agreement or the initiatives.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Residential is not a vested right under the development agreement, so the measures would take
precedence in that instance.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Questioned if the city attorney looked at the development agreement and made a satisfactory
determination that it is consistent after 14 years.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· As consistencies have arisen the development agreement has been amended; there have been
some amendments since the earliest development agreement which goes back to 1974; this one
came into being in 1991; along the way there have been amendments and it will continue to be
amended as the inconsistencies arise.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
October 11, 2005
· Said the development agreement was voluminous, and she did not detect any glaring
inconsistencies in it.
· She clarified that the development agreement was in effect prior to 1993. The point of a
development agreement is if you want a development that is large and going to take a long
time to develop to make it possible for the developer to do it, and it benefits the city to do it
also, you have to enter into an agreement. As the rules change, they know from beginning to
end what they are in for; you can't constantly change the rules as you go along.
Mr. Piasecki:
· One of the points raised earlier by staff, is that this is an agreement between two parties; the
City Council representing the city and the previous property owners and now the current
property owners. As an agreement, anything that gets changed has to be agreed to by both; the
owners have come to you and said we want to change one aspect and are willing to change the
other to lock in the hotel; it is a complicated agreement.
· There are probably things we would like to iron out if we had the luxury of time. Because of
that arguable application of the height measure, the property owner feels they don't have the
luxury of time; it would take a long time to go back through and renegotiate and iron out and
have a fresh agreement. They may be willing to do that at some later date and perhaps we can
start that kind of discussion, because I think it is a good point; but probably it is not the time to
try to find those things and try to iron those out.
· If the hotel is a retail use and it is grandfathered under the development agreement, the answer
is no; it was considered in the 1991 development agreement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· This is 14 years later. Is there a way we could provide some approval for them but yet get the
right to do some environmental impact analysis on it to make sure it fits in with what we are
doing there and what is changed there?
Mr. Piasecki:
· I don't think the owner would agree with that as a condition; you could ask her. It would delay
them to go through that analysis. Hotels are not usually the major generators. I am not sure it
would be of paramount concern.
Vice Chair Miller:
· From a due diligence standpoint, it seems like we should be attempting to do that and that is
good if they are not a large generator of traffic, then we know the outcome will be favorable.
· If we approve the subdivision, but not necessarily approve the development agreement at this
point, does that give us the opportunity to look at a traffic study for the hotel?
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you don't approve the development agreement extension and if the arguable height measure
is passed, you won't have the opportunity to extend the development agreement in the future;
because it would potentially be in conflict with the measure that would then become law.
Ms. Wordell:
· As Mr. Piasecki mentioned, we still need to make a determination whether the hotel needs a
use permit or not. Ifit doesn't need a use permit and it just has architectural review, then there
is no environmental report done on that; it is just design. If it needs a use permit, I think it is
possible that the attorney would know now; if not we could find out later. Perhaps since it is
discretionary, it would be subject to environmental review.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
October II, 2005
Ms. Murray:
· I don't think the hotel needs a use permit; it is classified as a retail use and its permitted use
there; we would like that to get a use permit.
· We should negotiate on the hotel if you are not going to give them an extension, we want to be
sure that this subdivided area is still going to be a hotel. We don't want to subdivide off that
area and then not extend the development agreement so there is nothing controlling that parceL
You want to be sure that if you don't have a development agreement, that you have some other
instrument that guarantees the hotel, or guarantees it as well as you can.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Requiring a use permit for the hotel would take the other party's concurrence, and they may
perceive it as a delay. They already have a hotelier lined up and that would be a monkey
wrench into the machinery of their agreement with the hotelier.
Ms. Murray:
· Recalled a similar situation with a hotel that was not under a development agreement, but
needed to be divided off as a parcel so the hotel could get fmancing. She said it may reoccur
later, and they may have to subdivide off the parcel so that parcel can quality individually for
financing to build the hoteL If we want a hotel, it would be wise to do it now, rather than later.
· The other issue is that this is under the Subdivision Act, you have 50 days to make a decision
on this; we wouldn't want to delay the decision; you are either for or against it, but if you put it
off for 50 days, then it will automatically be subdivided so you have to remember that this is a
subdivision and there is a timeline. If you continue it and continue it, it will automatically be
subdivided after a certain amount of time once the application is completed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The hotel is likely grandfathered under the development agreement, but if the development
agreement is not extended and if by August 2006 Vallco hasn't vested the hotel, they will no
longer have a vested interest in building it; they would have to come back through a process.
If the measures pass, they may not be able to build it because of the 45 foot height applicable
to the Vallco Park planning area may apply.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that the environmental review for the proposed General Plan included Vallco buildout; it
included the square feet and the hotel rooms of 700 units that were vested by Vallco. Although
it is not fine grain detail as we know we do sometimes, even though we have a General Plan
EIR on traffic, we do traffic reports for big projects.
Chair Wong:
· For the hotel only, if the tentative map gets passed and if the development agreement gets
extended for two to five years, he summarized that there will be no public hearing on the use
permit; there will be no environmental report; it will only go through an architectural review
through staff.
Ms. Wordell:
· The attorney is saying in terms of resolving that difference, that her opinion is that it is a retail
use that would require architectural review only.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
October 11, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· The comment that there would be no environmental review is not entirely correct, because
what we are saying that it has been encapsulated in the General Plan analysis. There would be
no requirement for a use permit. Under the current development agreement the maximum
height limit is 8 stories.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that an environmental review was not done just for the hotel site; it was done for the
General Plan that included all the buildout including the hotel. The current EIR was last year.
· There are 200 hotel rooms in the proposed hotel.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I want Vallco to be successful; my concern is with the process. When we first started two
years ago, the new owners came to us and said they had a window of opportunity and
everybody did everything they could to make that happen. We gave whatever was asked for -
the AMC theaters, the condominium units and the parking structure. That was appropriate at
the time to take advantage of a window of opportunity.
o I feel the city should be partnering on this and what I perceive happening, is we are seeing a
piece at a time and I would rather see the whole thing first, and then proceed on the pieces one
at a time, having agreed on the entire plan first. Given the timeframe over which development
has happened or not happened, it seems reasonable that we should take some time to say to
Vallco to show us the whole plan and say this is what we plan, and study it and make sure it
makes sense.
· From a process standpoint, the development agreement is a contract that has been in place for
14 years, and from a fiduciary responsibility, we should be looking at it more carefully and
spending more time up front. I am not saying we wouldn't agree to it or we wouldn't do the
extension, but I feel like we are not doing our homework and I hope that Vallco would come
earlier rather than at the eleventh hour and say you have to do this or else our project is going
to go down the tubes.
· I am asking ifthere is some way that we can work this process and share with us what is going
on from a master planning standpoint, because one of the things in June that the Planning
Commission said when we passed a General Plan onto the City Council, was we really think it
is appropriate to spend a little time doing an overall plan. It makes sense that we plan and plan
together and then we move forward in agreement as opposed to the process that is happening
which is one step at a time, and not fully appreciating what the whole plan is.
Com. Chen:
· I agree with Com. Miller's opening statement about wanting Vallco to succeed and we do want
to provide our full support to Vallco. I agree that I don't see a complete plan but the plan can
be changed based on the market condition as well.
· I am not opposed to the subdivision request; however, I am concerned about giving an
extension for the development agreement due to some potential conflict that might be with the
proposed General Plan and all the measures that are being on the table.
Com. Giefer:
· I don't disagree with anything that my colleagues have said so far; I think I am concerned
about how we ensure that the subdivision property would be used for a hotel, because I am
more confused now on how we ensure that a subdivided lot can only be used for a hotel. I
would need clarification before I would support the subdivision for the site as a hotel; I need a
refresher on how we think we are going to make that happen.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
October 11, 2005
· I want Vallco to succeed; I feel as though we have an owner who is finally getting some
traction after 14 years of inactivity on the Vallco redevelopment plan, we are finally beginning
to see some change there; and I would concur with Mr. Piasecki that if the owner of Vallco
feels they need a two year extension on the development plan, it would more realistically
would be three. I don't feel that it is an advantageous development plan for the community; it
has inherent weaknesses in it that I would like to see corrected and I agree that we need to have
a master plan for this property that works for both of us in partnership.
· I am still vacillating on the development plan; I would not support a five year extension to the
development agreement; I would support a shorter period of time to try to aid in the success
and gaining finance for the development of Vall co. If! can be made to understand how we can
ensure getting a hotel on the subdivided parcel, I would support that; but I am very concerned
that it would not come back to us for a use permit.
· Relative to the tentative map, if the language recommended by the city attorney is the best way
for us to proceed with this, and it would support the property owner's negotiations with the
hotel, I would support the subdivision.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that there was a covenant recorded on the Drexel Heritage Furniture site that said it shall
always be used as a furniture store because they had inadequate parking. It is still there today,
and when the market changes occur they are potentially going to come back and say it doesn't
work any more; it has been there for 30 years, but doesn't work.
· The city attorney's language is the best there is presently to ensure that it will be a hotel use for
the site.
· Relative to the extension of the development agreement, I suggest three years; I don't disagree
that we have to lift the development agreement; every time Vallco comes in asks about a use,
we have to go through and make all the connections and connect all the dots to make sure all
the wording literally allows that use. That is the process we go through each time.
Com. Giefer:
· If we did approve the development agreement for a shorter period of time, and if Measures A,
Band C passed, then we would have no opportunity to extend it for an additional period, is
that correct?
Ms. Wordell:
· Not if it is in conflict with those past measures; you could extend it, but it couldn't conflict.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It should be addressed from the standpoint of given today's circumstances, is there a
reasonable period of time that you feel comfortable extending the somewhat convoluted
agreement and then ask the owners to sit down and see if you can get one that everyone will
agree on.
· They may argue that they have a master plan; you could take issue with that as well and say
you would like to understand the master plan better. I support the good concept; the problem
is that redeveloping a shopping center this size is complicated.
· Presently they are very ambitious, they have some very good plans and have spent a lot of
money developing some really good ideas. We would like to have the opportunity to reopen
everything, but under today's circumstances, our suggestion is give them some period of time,
and three years is a reasonable period. If it can't be done in three years, then you would
probably want to do a comprehensive review of the whole thing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
October II, 2005
Com. Chen:
· Relative to the potential conflict with height, is residential density a potential conflict also?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Because the residential needs use permits, no. Ifthe measures pass and the 15 unit per acre is
established on the west side of Wolfe Road, that will govern it.
· Relative to the possibility of extending the development agreement only with respect to the
hotel and not the rest of Vall co, he said it was a two party agreement, and Val1co would need
to agree. If they agreed, that type of action could be taken.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said it would give them what they need with respect to the hotel, but allow the city to negotiate
the rest of the agreement.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Unless they could get the Rose Bowl in the ground and potentially the retail in front of
Penneys in the ground, those might be preempted. If the height limit of 45 feet is applicable to
the east side of Wolfe Road, that would set precedence and if you didn't extend it, that portion
would not be grandfathered.
Emily Chen
· You don't need the development agreement extension for the hotel; all you need is the parcel
split.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I am inclined to support the hotel given that we have an environmental impact study that says
there aren't any issues as staff pointed out. I am still concerned about moving ahead with the
development agreement without having some extended discussion about where it is, where it
should be and perhaps there are some other things that the city might want to talk about as part
of any extension to the development agreement, and we are being asked to move on it quickly.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he supported the subdivision; it will enable the hotel agreement to move forward; without
it, it wouldn't be possible.
. Relative to time extension, to be successful, the potential tenants need to have some assurance
that they have some solid base to go on; without an agreement there is going to be a lot of
doubt in their minds. I support an extension of at least three years because if we want the
center to be successful, we need to rely on those who know how to make it successful.
· It is good for the community; the agreement has been in place for many years; it has been
amended and will continue to be amended; it doesn't mean that we cannot discuss negotiating
with the owners. Their best interest is our interest. We cannot dictate every inch of Val1co
what is going to happen; it is their business and they will make it successful.
Com. Chen:
o Need more information on the potential conflict of height. The three anchor stores are looking
at further improvement on the building it self, or just the garage structure that is going to
exceed the 45 feet.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Potentially garage structures if they want to have a two story retail component on Wolfe Road,
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
October II, 2005
potentially that 45 foot limit that we talked about, and certainly the Rose Bowl, it is taller and
if they can't get that in the ground and if the 45 feet is applicable to that site, then that approval
would dissipate.
Com. Chen:
· The Rose Bowl cannot be on the ground before August?
Mr. Piasecki:
o That is a complicated project; we did not have building plans in front of us, and it would be
about 6 to 10 months just to get to the building phase. I don't have a problem with the concept
that we should look at it again, and in cooperation with the owners, see if they are willing to
work with us. They are not totally enthralled with this agreement, it has a lot of cross
references; there are some things where they have to pay different fees to the city, they would
like to see removed. They would likely willingly come to the table and enter into what would
be a protracted discussion. It would take about a year to discuss and renegotiate this.
· At the same time same you need to give them some breathing space, it is coming too fast and
my experience is it will likely fall apart and Vallco will be caught in the middle; there will be
some facet of their master plan that they have shown you that they will be in the middle of.
· It is your call; the important thing is they need to move it onto the City Council next week.
Com. Chen:
· With the clarification from staff, if the density is not going to be a conflict, I am willing to
support a three year extension.
Chair Wong:
· To have a local owner purchase Vallco Fashion Park is important to us; dealing with two
previous owners from out of state, large companies, it was difficult. As you can see, the
owners made due diligence by having successful restaurants, they have started the AMC
theaters; the mall is not doing too well, but because of construction, it will pick up. The three
anchor stores are doing well, they are staying here; unfortunately they are a hindrance to the
owners to revitalize the mall.
· Our recommendation on the development agreement is just a recommendation to City Council;
the City Council will make the final decision.
· Relative to the tentative map on the hotel, we want a successful hotel. I will support the
tentative map on the hotel; I am leery about not having a public hearing on the hotel; I know
that it will be a very good four or five star hotel in our city, but it could possibly affect our
other hotels. I am going to give some trust, because I do believe in the market controlling
anything, that there is always room for good competition.
· Regarding the development agreement, I am concerned that I don't like the initiatives
controlling the Planning Commission or City Council on our decision process making. I feel it
is unfair. The owners are in a bind now; if we don't make a decision now, the decision might
be made for us that will not help revitalize Vallco Fashion Park. I believe that the intent of the
writers of the initiative is to have a successful mall; however, I don't like being put under the
gun. I believe Vice Chair Miller had some good suggestions regarding the development
agreement; we would like to renegotiate with Vallco Fashion Park owners, but because of the
initiatives, we are forced to make a hard choice. That is a junction for the owners of Vallco
Fashion Park mall.
· I will support the development agreement extension for only two years. The reason is I think
that hopefully everything can be done; it is more of a push on the owner's part to get things
done, and I believe that the two years would be extended from August and not from now.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
October II, 2005
· I want Vallco to be revitalized; I ful1y support Vallco and again, the development agreement is
only a recommendation to City Council, and City Council has the final decision.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application TM-
2005-09 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application DA-
2005-02 with modification of three years extension of the development
agreement, and including staff recommendations. (Vote: 3-2-0) Chair Wong
and Vice Chair Miller voted No.
Chair Wong:
· Noted that he would vote No; not because I am in disagreement with the mal1; I think the
owners did a very good job; I just prefer looking at it two years vs. three years.
· Noted that it would be forwarded to the City Council on October 18,2005.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
None
None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Meeting was cancelled for lack of business.
Housinl! Comission: No meeting was held.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners: Next meeting is October 12, 2005
Economic Development Committee Meetinl!: Quarterly meeting scheduled for following week.
Director of Communitv Development:
Mr. Piasecki:
· Reported that the City Council was taking straw votes to progress through the issues of the
General Plan. They will be discussing it again next week and hopeful1y will go through the
remainder of it and will be in a position soon to adopt the General Plan.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that Option I was to be completed by November.15th. If they are able to make a decision
next week, there will be a one week turnaround before bringing back the General Plan.
Option 2 is later; if they continue it to November I, it would be a month from then.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting
meeting at 6:
was adjourned to the regular Planning
p.m. on October 25, 2005.
~
Commission
SUBMITTED BY:
. Ilis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: November 8, 2005