Loading...
17b. General Plan Amendments office allocation~. a COMMUNITY DEVELOI~MENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE: • CUPERTINO, CA 950143255 C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (4.08) 777-3333 Stxrn a Agenda I#em No: ~~ Agenda Date: Tune 2, 2009 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2009-01, EA-2009-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide {continued from May 5): b) Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that: the City Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add an office allocation of 483,053 square feet analyzed in the 2005 General PIan Environmental Impact Report (EIR}. The ne`v office allocation should be reserved for major companies. The Council will need to decide on the following actions: 1. Approve the General Plan Amendment for the additional office allocation in July when the Initial Study is complete. 2. Approve the General Plan Amendment for the additional office allocation along with the Housing IIement after Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review (tentatively expected in September/ October 2009). BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2008, the Council authorized staff to proceed with the review of increasing the office allocation including the following components: 1. Review additional office allocation uI~ to 400,000 square feet, on a parallel track along with the Housing Element update, provided that the final amount does not impact the City's overall housing demand {far the 2007-2014 Housing Element period}. 2. Review additional office allocation in addition to 400,000 square feet on a parallel track with the Housing Element update. 17b-1 CP-2009-01; EA-2009-03 2 June 2, 2009 The potential shortage of available office allocation in the 2005 General Plan was raised by Apple and HP at the September 16, 2008 City Council meeting when the South Vallco Master PIan was approved (Attachments A & B). At the time, staff noted that a total allocation of 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of total office space would be required in the General Plan to meet these and future needs. Currently, the remaining allocation for office development in the 2005 General Plan is 355,612 square feet of which 150,000 square feet is reserved for major companies. Any future office projects will further draw down on the total remaining allocation. Please refer to the attached April 14th Planning Commission staff report and the October 21St City Council staff report and their respective minutes (Attachments C - F} for the detailed background discussions. DISCUSSION: Residual Office Allocation from the 2005 General Plan Staff reviewed the 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and found that there is 483,053 square feet of residual office allocation available that the City previously analyzed but decided not to put into the 2005 General Plan (Attachment G). This xemaining office allocation is critical to satisfy the current market demand and allow for future growth. Given the fact that a comprehensive environmental analysis was done previously and all of the mitigation measures associated with the most intense scenario have been included in the certified EIR document, the City now has the option to add the residual office square feet back into the office allocation. Currently, there is a total of 345,612 square feet available including 195,612 square feet in the various planning areas, 150,000 square feet as the pool for major companies (Attachment H). Adding the office allocation of 483,053 square feet will increase the total pool to 828,065 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended adding all of the additional 483,053 square feet to the pool for major companies. This would increase the total available for major companies to 633,053 square feet. Staff agrees with this recommendation since this would reserve office allocation on a City-wide basis for companies that provide a substantial benefit to the City in terms of employment and revenue. Relationship to the Housing Element The City is updating the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2007-2014 planning period. By utilizing a complex projection modeling system including land use, transportation, demographics and other factors at a regional level, ABAG has already determined the Cit~s Regional Housing Needs Assessment {RHNA} allocation towards meeting the regional housing needs for the 2007-2014 planning period. The City expects to meet the goals set by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and RHNA allocation pxovided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG}. Adding the residual 483,053 square feet of office square feet back into the General Plan will not affect the City's RHNA requirements for this planning period. 17b-2 CP-2009-O1; EA-2009-03 3 June 2, 2009 ABAG is looking to revise their Projections :modeling system and will be providing cities with new RHNA numbers for the next planning period. While staff expects the City's land use pattern to be a factor in the next RHNA allocation, it will be one of many factors that will be included in ABAG's future modelinf;. ABAG's new modeling has not been decided at this time and staff will continue to monitor the process. Environmental Considerations It is common for EIR documents to analyze multiple alternatives, allowing decision-makers the flexibility to choose from a range of options. The most recent example was the EIR for the Main Street Cupertino project, where two alternatives were evaluated. The Council was able to pick from both alternatives, while stiiying within the scope of the EIR. Likewise, the 2005 General Plan EIR analyzE~d the environmental impacts of various major Land use categories in the City (i.e., commercial, office, residential and hotel). More specifically, the EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts of a maximum office build-out at 9,320,005 square feet. However, at the time, due to efforts to improve the job/housing balance and weak market demand for office developments, the City Council approved a maximum office build-out of 8,f~36,952 square feet. Consequently, there is a residual office allocation of 483,453 square feet that could potentially be added into the General Plan (see Attachment G). The Housing Element environmental consultant, DCE (Design, Community & Environment), is also preparing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the additional office allocation. Although no ad'.ditional or significant environmental impacts are anticipated, an initial study is still neces:>ary in order to comply with CEQA regulations. The initial study is expected to be completed in June/July 2009 and could be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the City Council for consideration as early as July 2009. Alternatively, the Council may elect to review the environmental documents for the Housing Element and the office allocation at the same time a#ter HCD has reviewed the Housing Element proposal in September/O~~tober 2009. Hotel Allocation Staff originally recommended that the Council also consider adding hotel allocation. However, since the Council did not provide clear direction on whether the hotel allocation should be reviewed, the environmental review currently being completed for the office allocation does not include increasing the hc-tel allocation Please refer to Attachment C for previous discussions. Similar to the office al_Iocation studied in the 2005 General Plan EIR, the City Council approved a maximum hotel build-aut of 1,429 rooms, which was 149 rooms short of the 1,578 rooms analyzed for environmental impacts. If the City Council wishes to add the residual hotel allocation of 149 rooms into the General Plan, the environmental review will have to be revise~~. 17b-3 CP-2009-01; EA-2009-03 4 June 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 14, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed this issue and recommended (4-1, Miller voting no) that the City Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add back the residual office allocation (483,053 square feet) analyzed in the 2005 General Plan. The Commission also recommends that the new office allocation be reserved for major corporate campuses in the City. Please refer to the Apri114, 2009 Planning Commission minutes {Attaclunent E) for the detailed Planning Commission discussion. Submitted by: Cry Chao Aarti Shrivastava ~- City Planner Community Development Director Approved by: David Knapp City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letter from Apple -October 7, 2008 Attachment B: Letter from HP -October 2, 2008 Attachment C: Planning Commission staff report - Apri114, 2009 Attachment D: City Council staff report -October 21, 2008 Attachment E: Planning Commission meeting minutes - Apri114, 2009 Attachment F: City Council meeting minutes -October 21, 2008 Attachment G: Table of Alternatives studied in 2005 General Plan EIR Attachment H: Remaining Office Development Allocation G: ~ Ptanning~ PDREPORT~ CCU 2009 ~ GPA-20D9-01 Office AIlocafion CC 6-2.doc 17b - 4 Attachment A ~ October 7, 2008 The Honorable Dolly Sandoval Mayor City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 9501'4-3255 Dear Mayo ~ S v~l: l write to respectfully request that you place a discussion of increasing the office space allocation in Cupertino on the next City Council agenda. Apple has been headquartered in Cupertino since 'sts founding, and has forged a unique and close ~reiationship with the ~~ity. As you know, Apple has decided to invest and grow in our city, and has purchased over 50 acres in the Vallco area to build our new campus. We hope to move this process forward but have identified a few issues that are impeding our progress. One factor is ensuring that adequate square footage is available to build.out the new campus. Unfortunately, the current General Plan does not have enougfi 'commercial square footage allocated toy meet the needs of Apple and the other growing businesses of Cupertino. Fortunately, the city will be amending its General Plan next year as part of the housing element update. We believe that t-~e city can address both its housing needs and its commercial needs through this process. It vi-ill greatly aid not only Apple's future needs, but also those of the other businesses in Cupertino. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Ve truly yo rs, .~ ' . Mic ael Foulkes 5r. Manager State and Local Government Affairs 15-4 17b-5 Attachment B ® ~ ~ ~~ „ . . ~so1 r~,uoa>~a t'olo Ako, [A s43o4 vrww.hpmm Bill Roberts October 2, 2008 Director Real Estote The Honorable Dally Sandoval Hewlett-Porkard Camparry Mayor 650.857.2183 Td City of Cupertino ,.. esass7•sazo ~ 10300 Torre Avenge _ •bsN.robe~ls~hp.eoro Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 ,. . Dear Mayor Sandoval: - ~ I am sending this letter on behalf of the Hewlett-Packard Company to request chat you agendize a discussion with.your Fellow council members related to the amount of office space currently allawcrble in Cupertlno's General Plan. HP has been a member of the Cupertino consmuntty for nearly forty years. During this time, the nature of our Cupertino operations has changed significantly and thus several of our current buildings no longer meet our workplace requirements. Over the coming months we will be defining how to upgrade and improve our facilities. During the same period we will also be defining our long-term.growfh plan in Cupertino as watt as other iocalions. It would be very important for us to understand how much capacity we will be able b elf iciently create at our campus location over time. HP respeclFully requests the opportunity to work with the City of Cupertino to determine how our corripany can secure additional sgUcire Footage on our North Yallco campus in an open and expeditious manner. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Rego ~ds~ Bill Roberts Director, Reol Estate Hewlett-Packard Company _.. ' i 15-5 17b-6 l s Attachment C COMMUNITY DEVELOPIIRENT DEPAi2TMENT CITY HALL . 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (406) 777-3333 CUPERTINt7 SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~~ Agenda Date: April 14, 2009 Application: GPA-2009-01; EA-2009-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide Environmental Determination: Negative L)eclaration Application Summary: General Plan Amendment to increase the office allocation RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council amend the 2005 General Plan to add back the residual office allocation of 483,053 square feet analyzed in the 2005 General Plan Environmental. Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND: Currently, the remaining allocation for offia~ development in the 2005 General Plan is 355,612 square feet. This reflects all reductions to date for completed and/or entitled projects. This number includes the 150,000 ~:quare feet set aside for "corporate headquarters." See Exhibit A for a breakdown in the amount of square footage by area. Any future office projects will further draw down on the total remaining allocation. There are several potential office projects that could draw down on the existing 355,612 square feet in the near future. These include: • Apple's new campus in the North Va11co area • HP's potential expansion of their existing campus The potential shortage of available office allocation in the 2005 General Plan was raised by Apple at the September 16~ City Council mE~eting when the South Vallco Master Plan was approved. At the time, the Council was not ready to refer this issue for discussion along with the 2007-2014 Housing Element update. Please refer to the attached October 21, 2008 Council staff report far the detailed background (Exhibit B). At the time staff had noted that a total allocation of 800,000 to1,000,000 square feet of total office space would be required in the General Plan to meet these and future needs. 17b-7 CP-2009-01; EA-2009-03 2 Apri114, 2009 On October 21, 2008, the Council authorized staff to proceed with the review of increasing the office allocation including the following components: 1. Review additional office allocation up to 400,000 square feet, along with the Housing Element update, provided that the final amount does not impact the City's overall housing demand; and 2. Review additional office allocation in addition to 400,(?00 square feet on a parallel track with the Housing Element update. DISCUSSION: Residual Office Allocation from the 2005 General Plan In an effort to explore solutions to the office allocation issue, staff reviewed the 2005 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and found that there is 483,053 square feet of residual office allocation available that the Council previously analyzed but chose not to put into the 2005 General Plan (Exhibit C). The 2005 General Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of various major land use categories in the City (i.e., commercial, office, residential and hotel). More specifically, the EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts of a maximum office build-out at 9,320,005 square feet (equivalent to 994,693 additional office square feet from the 2000 baseline condition). However, in order to improve the job/housing balance and due to weak market demand for office developments at the time, the City Council approved a maximum office build-out of 8,836,952 square feet (equivalent to 511,640 additional office square feet from the 2000 baseline condition). Consequently, there is a residual office allocation of 483,053 square feet that could potentially be added into the General Plan. It is common fox EIl2 documents to analyze multiple alternatives, allowing decision-makers the flexibility to choose from a range of options. The most recent example was the EIR for the Main Street Cupertino project, where two alternatives were evaluated. The Council was finally able to pick from both alternatives, while staying within the scope of the EIR. Now, this remaining office allocation (483,053 square feet) is critical to satisfy the City's current market demand and allow for future growth. Given the fact that a comprehensive environmental analysis was done previously and all of the mitigation measures associated with the most intense scenario have been included in the certified EIR document, the City now has the option to add the residual office amount back into the office allocation. This will increase the total amount of office allocation to 82$,665 square feet. This includes 195,612 square feet available in the various planning areas, 150,000 square feet available as the pool for corporate headquarters and sales offices and the newly available 483,053 square 17b-8 CP-2009-01; EA-2009-03 3 Apri114, 2009 feet. The Council will ultimately decide where this new office allocation will be assigned. Staff believes that this amount will be sufficient to meet the City's future office needs. Relationship to the Housing Element The City is updating the Housing Element cif the General Plan. As part of that process, the City will be meeting the goals and objectives set forth by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation provided by the Association of B~Ey Area Governments (ABAG}. By utilizing a complex projection modeling system including land use, transportation, demographics and other factors at a regional level, ABAG has already determined the City's RHNA allocation towards meeting the regional housing needs for the 2007-2014 planning period). If the P1annulg Commission recommends adding back the residua1483,053 square feet of office square feet, it will not affect thE~ City's RHNA requirements for this planning period. ABAG is looking to revise their Pro.iections modeling system and will be providing cities with new RHNA numbers for the next: planning period. While staff expects the City's Iand use pattern to be a factor in the next Rf1NA allocation, it will be one of many factors that will be included in ABAG's future modeling. ABAG's new modeling has not been decided at this time and staff will continue to monitor the process. Hotel Allocation Staff oxiginally recommended that the Council also consider adding Hotel allocation. However, since the Council did not provide clear direction on whether the Hotel allocation should be reviewed, a hotel analysis is not ~~rovided. A hotel analysis may not be necessary since the 600 plus hotel rooms earmarked for Cupertino Square (Vallco Park South planning area) through a development agreement (DA) will be returned for consideration on a the City-wide basis when the DA expixes in August 2009. Even if a development agreement extension is requested, a significant portion of the hotel rooms is expected to be returned to the City-wide po~~l. Either way, once the earmarked hotel rooms are returned, the commercial square footagF~ that was converted to hotel rooms with a few of the recent hotel approvals (The Oaks Shopping Center, Shashi Hotel, Main Street Cupertino} could be backfilled. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Remaining Office Development ~~Ilocation by Area Exhibit B: October 21, 2008 City Council staff report (with attachments) Exhibit C: Table of Alternatives studied in 2005 General PIan EIR Prepared by: Gary Chao, City Planner ~(~y Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development ~fj' 17b-9 Attachment D City of Cupertino 103D0 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 9501 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CE]PERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. ~... ~~ Agenda Date: October 21, 2008 SUBJECT Consider taking up the question of increasing office space and hotel allocation as part of a General Plan Amendment. RECOM]VIENDATION Initiate a discussion on how to best proceed with analysis related to a potential increase in office space and Hotel room allocation numbers. BACKGROUND Attached are two letters from Apple Inc. and Hewlett Packard, asking the City Council to. initiate a discussion related to the cap on office allocation in Cupertino. This issue was brought up by Apple at the September 16th City Council meeting when the South• Vallco Master Plan was approved.. At that time, the Council was not ready to refier this issue to the Housing Element process. General Plan Policy 2-20 establishes development allocation to "Provide sufficient clevelapmenfi opportunities far these areas in order to enhance their distinct character . and functions, while maintaining the desired transportation levels of service." The Cupertino General Plan, adopted by the City Council on November 15, 20051ists six strategies to achieve that goal, including #5, "Allocation Review". It states, "Review allocations of the development priorities periodically to ensuxe that the development priorities meet City needs and goals." Cuzxently, the remaining allocation for office development is 46(,627 square feet. This reflects all reductions to date for completed and/or entitled projects. The number includes the 150,000 square. feet set aside for "corporate headquarters". See attachment . D for a breakdown in the amount of square footage by area. 15-1 17b - 10 Office Allocation Page 2 of 3 ' ANALYSES .Any future office projects will further. draw down on the total remaining allocation. For projects in areas with no allacation remaining, drawing from other areas is allowed by the general plan, but must be approved by the City Counc_iL This would likely occur as a proportional reduction across all of the az~eas v. just one area. Currently, there are several potential office projects that could draw down on the existing 466,627 square feet over the next few years. They include: 1. App1e's new campus in the North V~ilico area 2. HP's potential expansion of their existing campus ~ ~ . 3. Sand Hill Property's "Mab.~. Street'' mixed project which_ includes 100,040 to . 200,000 square feet of new office spa~.e. , While precise numbers far additional officE. allocation needs for these and other future projects have yet to be determined, staff believes that the number in the range of 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet: Currently there is approximately. 7.2,000,000 square feet of commercial/office development. Consequently, this change would equal approximately 6 to 8 percent increase in building area over the remaining twelve year built-out of the current General Plan. ' Additionally,~there is very little hotel allocation'remaining (78 rooxns) beyond the b00~- rooms earmarked for Cupertino Square through a Development Agreement. Future hotel projects can proceed using a formula that converts commercialJxetail space to hotel rooms. This was recently done with t:1e approval of a hotel at The Oaks shopping center. However,'it would be useful to anticipate future hotel needs for other parts of the city that don't draw down an the City's retail allocation. Retail allocation overall sits at over 377,521 which should be adequate until the next General Plan process. Future hotel allocation needs are likely to ~~e in the neighborhood of 600 roams. ~ There are currently two hotel projects in the planning phase -10165 N. De Anna at Alves with 138'xooms, and as many as 250 roams at Mz:irt Street Cupertino. It is generally true that hotels generate less peak- hour trips, and have the additional benefit of generating Transit Occupancy Taxes for the City. Having the discussion about development allocations within .the Housing Eieznent process ~ appears to make sense because increased office allocation has an effect an the amount of housing that ultimately needs to be considered. Tt 'also consolidates the riunlber of general plan amendments, makes the community process more cohesive, and streamlines environmental review. 15-2 17b - 11 Office Allocation Page 3 of 3 COTJNCTt OPTTOIVS The City Council may consider the following alternatives: 1. Include this discussion as part of the Housing Element process, already underway. 2. Itzitiate a separate General Plan amendment to address this issue. 3.. Do not authorize review of the office and hotel allocations. Regardless of the alternative chosen, theee will be significant costs related to environmental review, including traffic analysis, which should be borne by the three major potential applicants listed above. Costs are estimated to ~at $200,000 to $300,000. Staff believes that this. review can be conducted within the timeframe set aside for the T Touring Element Update. ~ ~ . Enclosures: Exhibit A -Lefler from Apple Inc. ~ • Exhibit B -Letter from Hewlett Pac_kazd Exhibit C -General Plan page 2-16 Exhibit D -Remaining Office Development Allocation by Area_ Prepared by: Gaxy Chao, City Planner ' Director of Community Development G: \ Plann ing\PDRII'ORT\ CC\2008 \ OfficeSpaceAllocationDOC Approved by: David W. Knapp ' City Manager ;; • 1 . ~ ~~~' i .~ 15-3 17b - 12 Attachment E Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2009 l Com. Lee: • Said she noted in the DRC meeting that she felt it would not he practical to rotate- "~~ use as proposed by appellant because it would likely make the entrance into the gara~e';~ ard. • Said she would uphold the DRC decision an~~ deny the appeal. %' Com. Brophy: • Said one issue to address is the notification process on site approv~ ~ . In this case one of the concerns the appellant made to the DRC andl tonight, was that~t were not cognizant of what was being proposed until quite late, even though from th~~ ~ cant's perspective, the project had been in the hopper. for over a year at thE: time. Reg ~ ss of the outcome of this case, he suggested that when applications come in, the notifi~ ~ n go out at an earlier stage before the story pole stage. • Said he supported denial of the appeal. Chair Giefer: • Said she felt the project met quirements, the code, and all regulations regarding the planned development at Oak ey. • Said she supported the d ofthe appeal. Motion: Motion Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to deny the appeal and to up the DRC decision of approval an Application ASA-2009-03. (Vote: 3-0-1; . Kaneda absent) was moved back to Item 2. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. 2. GPA-2008-OI (EA-2009-OS), (A) General Plan Amendment for 200'1-2014 Housing GPA-2009-O1 (EA-2009-03) Element update and; {B) General Plan Amendment City of Cupertino, Citywide to incree~se the office allocation. Tentative City Council Location. Date: llfay S, 2009. Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics (BAE), I~onsultant oa General Plan Housing Element: • Explained the housing element is part of the General Plan that deals with residential land uses; it is one of the 7 required elements of the General Plan and as it is adopted, it needs to be made consistent with the other parts of the General Plan, such as land use element, circulation element, etc. It provides a look at where housing is in Cupertino, where it could be in the future and to set down programs and policies to guide your residential development over time. • Said they were also guided by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which is the process whereby the Regional Council of Governments ascertains how much housing each jurisdiction in the Bay Area needs to build, over the particular planning period being considered. When looking at the housing element update, they are also looking at the goal for planning and looking at the available sites both designated in the General Plan as residential land use sites and have the appropriate zoning. Along with that, they will recommend some key land use and policy changes to make sure that they do have all of the programs, policies, land use designations anal zoning in place to accommodate their RHNA planning goals and other city planning goals i'or housing over the planning period. Provided an update on the process, which included a very lengthy public outreach process and update process, somewhat more extensive than might be the case in other communities. Meetings were conducted with various Commissions and stakeholders and four focus group meetings, which are on the Cupertino wel~site. Recently the Housing Commission was presented with an administrative draft contanung all the fizndamental elements of the Housing Element update that need to be provided to the State Department of Housing and Community 17b - 13 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 14, 2009 ,~' Development for certification. The Housing Commission has reviewed the draft and forwazded it to the Commission tonight for their consideration. After your review, the Planning Commission will decide whether or not to forward it to the City Council; the City Council will have the option of forwarding an approved draft of the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The HCD will assign a reviewer and it will come back to the Commission again and they will have the option to comment and forward it to City Council for fmal adoption. it is a careful and extensive process, because this becomes part of the land use constitution; it is the framework by which all land use planning decisions are made. It is a good process to go through to make sure you get a document the community can believe in. • He explained the benefit of having certification from the HCD; it can be viewed as an opportunity to take a fresh look a# residential land uses and decide if there is enough housing and the right type of housing to meet the community needs. It is also a way to make the city competitive for different types of state funding; there are certain bond programs that are only available to communities that have certified housing elements. Under the law, if you don't have a certified housing element past a certain period, you expose yourself to the risk of lawsuits. By having a certified housing element, you make yourselves competitive for funding and you avoid any potential risk of lawsuit going forward. • He reviewed the RHNA as outlined in the staff report. Page 2/3 of staff report, Item 2. • Consultant is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on what direction staff and the consultant should take; should they look at the maximum number of sites as suggested over the course of this update process; to identify all of the potential sites in the city that could take residential land uses and provide recommendations for those. That is the maximum envelope; or look at a more scaled back number of sites that are particularly appropriate for residential uses and very likely to develop as housing over a shorter time frame. • Said he would recommend the latter route; working over the course of the next week or two, paring down the Iist of sites, to focus on just those sites that are most appropriate for residential land uses that aze likely to meet the minimum density standards of 20 DUA and that are likely to meet community support over the planning period. • Said there was a benefit of having an extensive inventory; it is a full list of potential residential opportunity sites to continue to work on; but in terms of what is forwarded to City Council and what gets presented to HCD, he recommended forwarding a narrower list of sites, and asking for more indepth work on a specific set of sites; and in particular those azeas of the city; the Heart of the City, South Vallco, perhaps some others that have the highest redevelopment and development potential over the next planning period. • Reviewed Table F1, available sites inventory, which includes the 3'70 already appropriately designated in zone sites at 20 DUA, plus an additional number that have commercial, industrial, other types of zoning in place that would need to get changed. The land use changes that would need to happen to acconunodate the full 1500 involved some rezoning on 3 or 4 opportunity sites in-the Bubb Road and Monta Vista area, increased residential densities in the Heart of the City and City Center districts, and zoning changes to permit residential development on designated parcels in the Homestead Road, North and South Vallco Pazk, South DeAnza Boulevard and other non-designated areas. • Consideration may be given to shifting around some of the residential allocations; there is an overall residential allocation that the city has in mind and presently that is about 2,800 total residential units across the city divided by district. The City Council has at its discretion the ability to move around those allocations from district to district. You may want to decide to memorialize that shifting around of residential units between districts as part of this housing element; it is not something you necessarily need to show to HCD; what matters to HCD is that you have parcels of land that have the right land use designation, the right zoning and the right infrastructure in place to accommodate a housing proposal. We wanted to put this policy 17b - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 14, 2009 change in front of you in case you wanted to consider that as part of memorializing that as part of this housing element update. Two other key policy changes, one of the benefits of having the housing element updates occur on a regular basis is that your Last housing element with the exception of the sites inventory is up-to-date and has a comprehensive set of policies regarding most of the issues that housing practitioners and HCD in particular look at. There are two other areas beyond the residential development sites that require attention; one is that under State law there needs to be at 1+:ast one zone in the city that can accommodate an emergency shelter for homeless persons oi• families by right. Presently there is a rotating shelter allowed in the BQ zone and that responsibility is shared for the rotating emergency shelter with neighboring jurisdictions. The :hate law requires that the city identify at least one zone in the city that can accommodate an emergency shelter for homeless individuals and families by right. That is one significant change and is something that would need to be incorporated into the city's update in order to secure certification. A proposed optional change is to propose closer coordination with the local school districts, specifically that a new committee is formed of key staff from the city and the two school districts that serve the community of Cupertino; that the cormnittee meet on a regular basis to review city planning initiatives, specific development proposals and also school capital facilities and operating plans. One of the goals is to ensure that as the cit)~ considers new residential development, and also as the school is planning for its future needs, that they work together and carefully consider where the housing goes in relation to wher+; the new school facilities are being built; which schools are already very impacted, whicl•+ schools may be able to accommodate future development; so the policy makers both at tt~e school district level and the city Level have that in mind when they are considering planning :Initiatives and proposals. It is a good best practice idea going forward to help the city consider what is arguably one of its most important resources, its schools and high quality of public education offered. This is not required by HCD, it is optional, and something they feel is a good idea for the city, and which came out of the community process to date. The direction they are seeking from the Cormission is whether to focus on the least number of sites needed to meet HCDs requirements or on a more expanded inventory of sites. What are the city's key areas and sites for new 1•iousing development; looking at all the different areas in the city, we think that probably .given current development trends and land use characteristics, that the Heart of the City and North and South Vallco are probably the areas that have the most capacity in terms of land to accommodate new growth. He said he would not necessarily concentrate efforts on rezoning industrial parcels of land in other parts of the city, particularly those that are unlikely to reclevetop in the short term. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to coordinate with the local school districts. Going forward, this process will likely change; they are in the midst of some legal changes statewide where SB375 was recently passed that will change how housing element updates take place, hopefully for the better. It is az~ opportunity to Iook at jobs housing balance, to look at the community's stability and qualit;r of life and how through this document you can bring together the joint needs of keeping your economy healthy and making sure you have enough and the right type of housing to m+:et the community needs. The item is partially informational and partially action item; the Planning Commission can elect to forwaxd to the Cit~ Council en May 5th and show them an edited draft, or have the consultant return on April 28 ,taking into account the feedback received tonight and see another iteration of the drat. Com. Miller: • Said they were also being asked tonight to consider an increase in the number of square feet of offtce space in the General Plan, approxima#ely .5 million square feet. Asked that in all the 17b - 15 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 14, 2009 • calculations done, did they consider the increase in square footage of office space, or how it would change the equation. Paul Penninger: • Said that HCD requires ajobs/housing balance analysis. Currently Cupertino would be considered a very jobs-rich community which is a positive thing given the overall state of the economy. It has strong high tech businesses in the city that are doing relatively well; however, are out of balance given the number of residential units, vis a vis its employment characteristics. An additiona1500,000 sq. ft. of office if it were to be approved, would impact the jobs housing balance in the way of providing more jobs and growing that disparity. Com: Miller: • If we don't address it now, the next time we come azound to the housing element, we are going to be forced to address it. If we don't plan for it, we are going to be in a more difficult situation the next time around. Paul Penninger: • Asked the Planning Commission to at least identify sites or ask the consultant and staff to identify sites to accommodate 364 units under new caning; it could be increased depending on what their policy goats were. Com. Miller: • When redoing the General Plan in 2005, much time was spent on the numbers and office space allocations available were lowered in order to make sure that they were in balance. They are now being told that because the method of calculation has changed, there is more office development than housing development. Paul Penninger: • Said that Cupertino had more jobs than before. The framework in the General Plan is useful in the sense that it looks at where over the long term from a general goal perspective, new housing should occur, where new office and retail should occur. What is different this time around in the housing element, is they have to look parcel by parcel, and when you get to that level, the analysis changes a little; it doesn't necessarily add up to the same number of units. Com. Miller: • Said that many of the comments made were very good and to the point. He said that in looking at the inventory of sites proposed, there were some that did not seem practical, such as the site behind Macy's in the South Vallco area, which was voted down by referendum and the likelihood of it being developed was very low in the short term. The site identified in South Vallco in the Main Street area where Toll Brothers had proposed about 484 units, was also voted dawn by referendum. Some of those units were supposed to be senior housing. • The remaining 300 looks like it is identified for two sites that have industrial buildings on it that Apple recently purchased and plan to continue to use in an industrial manner. He said he was not sure there were realistic sites there. If considering the 500,000 square feet they are being asked to put back in the General Plan, most of it will go into North Vallco. If serious about building more housing or more affordable housing and we are serious about balance, it is not building more housing in town. • Said if they weren't building more office space, he did not see the need to build more housing, but since they are building more office space, there are two major corporations in town who will be building more office space; that brings along with i# the need for the housing to follow. 17b-16 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 14, 2009 One of the comments made was to focus on sites with the highest development potential which is North Vallco. It may make sense to tie the housing requirement to the business development requirement because that is what is going to drive the need for more housing. North Vallco has a number of desirably: characteristics and a number of undesirable characteristics. If we focus on the desirable ones, it is far away from residential development in general, and lends itself to more intensity. Not aII of North Vallco is in the Cupertino School District, so the impact on the schools of having some housing development there is considerably less than putting it anywhere else in town. The next point is if we are just talking about housing in general, that is one issue; if we are talking about trying to address some of the affordable housing, 20 DUA is ludicrously low; it makes no sense whatsoever; it is the samE; requirement that San Benito County has. San Benito County has less population than Cupertino and maybe ten times the land mass and they have the same requirement as here. Here laa~d costs $3 million per acre, there it cost $250,000 per acre. If we are serious about building ai7~ordable housing, we either need to get someone to donate some land or we need to increase the density or some combination of the factors. Paul Penninger: • Said the densities are referred to as the Mullen densities and are based on metropolitan areas; Cupertino is part of the San Jose Metropolitan area and the 20 DUA applies to all of Santa Clara County; the standard in San Mateo County is 30 DUA. The comment is well taken, the development economics .are such that 20 D1JA is actually difficult for sponsors of affordable housing and other types of housing to make it work without a lot of subsidy. Com. Miller: • He said, if serious about it, they should be increasing the densities; they should be at least as high as some of the other higher density; So. Vallco is 35 DUA and the Rose Bowl may be even higher. Paul Penninger: • The maximum allowed under the General Plum was 35 DUA. Com. Miller: If density is increased, there is a concern that more houses are going to being more kids to the schools; I would also want to limit the size of any units that are proposed to minimize the impact on the schools. Your comment about working the schools is appropriate. I also think that in the. last reiteration that the school was planning of their development plans; Cupertino High School which is the one that might be affected by any housing in that area that does go in is actually slated for an increase in capacity. Paul Penninger: • Expressed caution in the policy document shout specifying whether or not particular sites can accommodate certain units of particular bedroom sizes; there is a fair housing consideration regarding large families. In general, on aproject-by-project basis, it makes sense to look at what the distribution of bedrooms and the types of housing being proposed. He said they could consider eliminating the square footage and not mentioning bedrooms. Com. Miller: • Said it was difficult to meet everyone's objective in the city, but balance is important; location makes a lot of sense and tying the development to areas where new development is likely to happen in the next two to foux years makf:s the most sense, and increasing the density is something that if serious about doing any of 1:his housing, needs to go along with it. 17b - 17 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 14, 2009 Com. Brophy: • Question regazding the need for zoning by right for permanent emergency shelters; if there is a zone in which emergency shelters are an approved use, does that preven# the city from requiring a special use permit within that zone? Tessa Munakeo, BAE: • Said the law requires they have one zone that ailows by right a permanent emergency shelter without any other additional discretionary permits. Paul Penninger: • Said that there were requirements in terms of insurance, liability, etc. on behalf of the operator of a permanent emergency shelter. They would provide further details. He said-there would be a standard of reasonableness; if you have reasonable requirements that a typical project sponsor of an emergency shelter or more likely a transitional housing development for people who are transitioning from homelessness, that they will used to working with to make their project work. • if there are extraordinary standards built into the housing element particuIaz that are clearly meant to dissuade a viable sponsor from locating in the community, HCD will identify those and likely ask for them to be addressed. Vera Gil, Senior Planner: • Said it would be highly unlikely for a project sponsor to try to locate a large capacity emergency shelter in a city like Cupertino, since last homeless census showed there were only 11 unsheltered homeless people within the city limits. Paul Penninger: • Said he agreed. Many non-profit developers and service providers are looking at temporary and permanent supportive housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, rather than building new shelters, particulazly high capacity shelters in suburban jurisdictions, remote from services. Com. Brophy: • Asked if sites zoned for residential but also for other uses, are acceptable from the HCD calculation purposes? Paul Penninger: • As long as the General Plan land use designation and the zoning are consistent and the infrastructure is appropriate. • You can have zoning that would allow office, retail or housing; it just needs to be a viable site for housing, if that were to be the development proposal in front of you. • Said his recommendation given the current round of HCD comments on other housing elements they worked on in other communities, would be for a short list of high quality sites that are suitable for residential development and could accommodate particulazly affordable housing, rather than an extensive inventory of sites that may or may not have problems. Com. Brophy: • Said that in Cupertino, it is not that the sites are unsuitable for residential, but that the economics make it difficult to work. WouIdn't it make more sense to have a lazger list of possible sites rather than a small list. 17b - 18 Cupertino Planning Commission ;.4 April 14, 2009 Paul Penninger: • Said the issue is that some of the uses on the 45 sites that are on the list are currently in operation; they are commercial and/or o#her uses that may or may not redevelop over the next planning period. They are underutilized land on these parts in the form of parking lots or just land not utilized, but there may be a viable economic use there already, In providing the owner of the land with the option of doing residential development in the next period, that is one way to go; but from HCD's perspective: it isn't likely that it is going to redevelop. is it what would be considered an under-utilized site from a strictly economic perspective right now? That is the analysis that has to be done. Paul Brophy: • Said it seems a lot of the sites described are ane story tilt-up buildings from the 70s; while they are perfectly useful as an office building in a physical sense, economically a great number of them could potentially be converted to residential use. Paul Penninger: • • Said there may be opportunities to do better quality mixed use development with higher design standards and more appropriate retail on some of these sites that are higher quality commercial and flexible types of commercial uses. Are the owners of those properties realistically going to look at turning those over in the next planning period. Are there viable development alternatives; are they in the right places in t}ze city that are likely to receive support from the community? Com. Brophy: • Said that Bandley Avenue has one-story tilt-ups that would potentially be a source where the owners might wish to convert property fi-om residential development if they could get permission; R&D buildings, looking at tearing down and replacing. Com. Lee: • No questions or comments. Chair Giefer: • Thinking about the longer list which suggests that if there is incompatibility between current zoning and the General Plan, she recalled gears ago trying to put in place a more flexible planned development overlay on many comrrcercial properties to make it easier for someone #o come forward, and give the property owner greater flexibility in terms of the type of project the property owner may chose to redevelop o;- build. • .Said in reviewing the list, she was looking at the compatibility between zoning and General PIan; if we move forward on that and make a recommendation to rezone, what are the legal implications with regard to suggesting manipulating zoning for a specific purpose so we are in compliance with our housing element; would we need to be conscious and aware throughout that process? Carol Korade, City Attorney: • Said that they had to be aware of spot zoning., which is the Iegal conclusion where you identify particular parcels that have a particular motivation. A general overlay in order to provide flexibility, would not be presumed to violate ~:he legal standard for spot zoning. Caution has to be exercised in looking at a particular parcel and giving it a particular zoning characteristic that the owners could claim violates the legal. standard of inverse condemnation, which means tha# you are wanting to take a residential parcel, and zoning it for open space because you 17b - 19 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 April 14, 2009 • wanted some free recreation area, that would be a typical example of what would be found as spot zoning. She said her initial review does not reveal any type of legal standard or problem. Chair Giefer: • As Coin. Brophy suggested, Bandley Avenue may have some potential; the present buildings have struggled in terms of having tenants. Another area is the Edge property along Stevens Creek; there was a fire on some properties across from target; hopefully they will be redeveloped; not certain of zoning. • Perhaps what we might do is either suggest looking at some additional areas or removing some areas that are on the proposed map. • Com. Miller brought up a good point with regards to looking at adding additional commercial squares to the General Plan which we understand why it is highly desirable to do that and we do want to service our commercial headquarter companies here, but it does have an unpact on the amount of housing that we need to approve. We need to reconcile that as part of this and see what implication that will have on this plan. I do agree with that. Does that make sense for us to Look at the lengthy plan and either eliminate sites we know that are not going to be coming forth for redevelopment before 2014, or potentially add items to the list and then direct staff to look at the high potential sites. Vera Gil: • Said the Planning Commission can add sites for the City Council's consideration and make recommendations to remove sites, and staff would take the list to the Council. Chair Giefer: • Asked if there were any other areas that should be considered. Com. Miller: • North Vallco from the west side of Wolfe Road to the east side of Tantau, on the east and west; and highway 280 on the south, and Homestead on the north. Suggest they look at the HP campus; it is highly populated with buildings, most of the I-iP campus is not in the Cupertino School District, and it has to be considered a potential site for housing. HP has come in and asked for an increase in square footage, which is an indication they may seriously be thinking about adding commercial or office space. Com. Brophy: • Said it was an important issue, but he was not sure in the context of having to do a housing element, that it would move them forward. • Important to have continued informal discussions with HP and Apple about their plans; start placing units on property that is controlled by two industrial corporations, • Said since they have no ability to force them to do that; if they are informed there may be some interest ui it, to disassociate that issue from the housing element would seem to be the preferred way to go. Com. Miller: • Said he struggled with the intent to build more office space in that area which will trigger a requirement on the city to produce more housing units somewhere else. If that is the area that is going to cause the need for more housing units, from a logical standpoint it seems like that is the area to designate. Whether the housing units end up there or not is the separate issue, but tying the housing units to the construction of additional office square footage is good logic. 17b - 20 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 14, 2004 Chair Giefer: • Asked staff if they felt the HP campus or new Apple campus would be built in the next five years before the current plan expires. Aarti Shrivastava: Said both Apple and HP have expressed an interest in coming in within the plan period; staff will follow up with them regarding any site:; the Planning Commission would want to send to Council once known. They do know about the Vallco Parkway site, Apple, and they are fine with the recommendation from staff that they have the residential overlay on that. Presently the zoning isn't there; the General Plan aIIocation is there so it would have to be zoned to allow residential in addition to the office. Com. Miller: • It is a good site for housing; however, the :problem is that they have already been through a referendum where the residents have voted against putting further housing there. Said he would like North Vallco from the standpoint there is not nearly as strong an azgument from a residential standpoint to oppose housing, and there are also some sites that are not on either the HP campus or the proposed new Apple campus that also could be very desirable for housing there and some of them are not in the Cupertino School District either. • Apple purchased the Morley Bros. housing project with a unit count between 120 and 140 units in the middle of their site which is currently zoned and approved for a housing project. The reason for building new housing is that housing does not drive office space; office space drives housing; if someone is going to build more housing, he liked the idea of tying the housing to the office space. Chair Giefer: • Asked Com. Miller if he was suggesting that when they approve an office space project, they insist on building housing or that they come with housing as part of their overall project; or was he talking about in the zoning. Com. Miller: • Presently they are talking about zoning acid locations in town; and from a smart growth standpoint, all the smart growth principles talk about putting the two together, near infrastructure, near avenues of transportatior~ What is nice about that area is it is at the edge of the city; it doesn't impact the housing areas in town; it is close to transportation; and has a lot of the attributes that make it a good place for housing, if we are going to build further housing in town. If HP and Apple never decide to do that of#'xce space there, that is the only trigger that generates the need for housing in the first place. Com. Brophy: • Said that Com. Miller has discussed very important ~oints; but tonight's agenda is to move forward the housing element to the State by June 30 ,and it is not the appropriate time and place to open up~ the issue of what to do with North Vallco and how that relates to the intentions of HP and Apple. • He said it was an important issue and hoped ':hey could work with them to let them accomplish what they need to do as important businesses, but to open that up in trying to finish a housing element, would be counter-productive. Com. Miller: • Said the purpose was to identify the sites, not to require the housing be built, and he suggested that it is a viable site and there are also loca:ions in that general area that are not either in the 17b - 21 Cupertino Planning Commission I7 April 14, 2QQ9 lands that HP and Apple would develop on, that are potential sites as well. There are a significant number of locations here, whether we talk about them on the HP campus or Apple campus, or outside that, where additional housing could very easily be accommodated. Chair Giefer: • Said she heard that it needs to be probable that the units would be moved on within this plan period. Pau[ Penninger: • Said "feasible" was more accurate; they could look if there are specific sites in the North Vallco area, particulaz parcels, addresses that bear further examination, as part of their analysis and he felt it was a viable way to go. Some sites may need to be subtracted, such as the ones that have been on referendums. He said they were willing to add some sites in the North Vallco area to make it a more balanced planning document. Chair Giefer: • Said she was comfortable looking at North Vallco, not HP and the Apple lands because she did not feel they are realistic in terms of development. If there are other parcels that might be developed that are not part of the toxic mitigation in the area, that is fine. Com. Miller: • There are other lands, but I would also suggest that it is hard-to see, if we zoned an area for 35 units per acre on HP property, we are not forcing HP to do anything with that. It is hard to see how they would object to increasing the value of their property with a residential zoning of 35 units per acre. I cannot imagine them coming down and screaming no, we don't want that; because we are not taking anything away from them, we aze adding to what they already have. That said, all the lands on the east side of Tantau are the ones that Apple hasn't already purchased, are potential sites that aze not on Apple's or HP's asset list. Then there are also some Iands on the west side of Wolfe that aze similarly so designated; one may be included in this list; that is where the 22 comes from. We haven't considered the ones on the east side of Tantau at all at this point. Chair Giefer: • Said she felt it would be futile to anticipate that HP or Apple would move forward on housing within this plan period. Com. Miller: • Said they do not know who is going to move forward with what in what Iocation; all they have is an indication they have asked for more density, more square feet of office space, which is a reasonable indication they are going to move forv~~ard in the near future. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that if the Commission wanted to take action on another list of sites they want us to look at, we are happy to do that; and then we can provide the follow up once we provide the pros and cons, and leave it up to the Council to decide which one of these sites they would like to go with We are willing to forward the Planning Commission recommendations but we would like a motion on the list of sites so we are clear which ones we need to review. We can, if we are not clear, bring back some of the sites, such as Bandley, just to make sure we have the right sites. 17b - 22 Cupertino Planning Commission t 8 April 14, 2004 Paul Penninger: • Explained the review process at HCD. When they look at the list of sites, they Iook at sites according to whether they are vacant or under-utilized. For the vacant sites they decide does the vacant site have the right infrastructuT~e in environmental characteristics and planning controls in place to provide feasibility for residential development in the next period. For the proposed under-utilized sites they require some analysis of whether or no# the existing commercial or other use actually constitutes an under-utilization of the sites; so they will look at improvement to land value ratios; that is ~~vhether or not the improvement to build structure on the site is worth less than the appraised v~iiue of the underlying land. If Iooking at sites that currently have a structure and particularly ~~vhere there is an occupied structure, and we are attempting to show evidence that it is under-utilized, we need to have some objective criteria. • Said his only concern in this discussion would be if they are looking at office uses in particular that are fully occupied that have employees working in them and that are viable, particularly in the current economic climate. It is a hard a~salytical hoop to show economically that they are under-utilized at least today, based on objective criteria. From a review perspective there will be more raised eyebrow when looking at sii:es we are showing as evidence of your ability to accommodate the RHNA in the next period if there are under-utilized sites with the existing viable commercial uses, where we are simple proposing changing the zoning. • Asked if the Commission wanted to comm~:nt on the sites identified in the Bubb Road and Monts Vista areas and in the North DeAnz:a areas. Are there concerns and issues that the consultant should be aware of. Com. Miller: • The Monts Vista site; the school system is most seriously impacted in the Monts Vista district, therefore any site designated in the Monti Vista school district is going to be next to impossible to do anything with. Paul Penninger: • Said he inquired in particular about this neighborhood because there isn't any parcel that stands out as a vacant pazcel and are clearly severely under-utilized that has the right zoning land use designations and infrastructure in place. Some of the parcels may be a stretch to prove that they aze acceptable as residential development over the next plaxuung period. Com. Miller: • Said the other area of town which has a relatively high number, 396 units along Stevens Creek, might get .argument that it conflicts with the Heart of the City Plan. There is a lot of opposition. Paul Penninger: • Said it was consistent with the Heart ofthe City Plan. Com. Miller: • Reiterated that the site behind Macys could be removed from the List. • Said Valley Green properties currently has e~:isting office buildings on them. Com. Lee: • Said she had no questions or additions; anti agreed with Com. Miller regaxding looking at more sites for the North Vallco area. 17b - 23 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 14, 2009 Cam. Brophy: • Bandley Drive is similar to Bubb Road, except it also has the advantage that it is adjoining existing multi-family development, and in most parts it is not adjoining single family. The structures are sufficient; they are the one story tilt-up from 30 to 35 years ago which might be logical. Vera Gil: • Clarified that Sites 21, 22 and 23 were the shopping center, which because of the age of the center and the property owner has approached the city, have the potential to redevelop as a mixed use project in the future. • Said that Villa Serra Apartments is still on the list at a lower density with a lower unit yield because there are still some open spaces and they are considered under-utilized. They could propose constructing new units in certain areas. Chair Giefer: • Commented on some of the Bubb Road addresses. A number of the tilt-up older buildings on Bubb Road are currently leased by Apple. When Apple does move into their new facilities, some of those buildings may become vacant and potentially available for redevelopment. • Said they should Iook at those and try to come up with some perspective in terms of haw likely that will happen. There are tremendous school implications in that area to be considered. Measurex has pulled permits to redevelop the commercial site in the area; when it came to us before as housing, it did require rezoning as well. • Relative to the corner of Monta Vista, she recalled that when Measurex proposed housing, one of the adjacent parcels had a toxic well on it; there were some issues relating to the mitigation of the contaminants on that site and the effect of that specific parking lot. There may be some problematic environrnental issues. Gary Chao: • Said that Measurex has submitted a request which will go to the Planning Commission soon, to extend their use permit to prolong the approval pending current economic situation. Com. Miller: • Said that a proposal on the Measurex site came up for 100+ housing units and it brought out a tremendous amount of residential opposition and the City Council ultimately voted it down; these sites are right across the street, or in one case, on the same side. The likelihood that in the near future that somebody is going to come in and try that again is next to zero. Gary Chao: • Sites 29, 30 and 31 are the sites in between offices along DeAnza and apartments in the back adjacent to the Oak Park Village and the storage facility. Given its proximity to multi-family uses sandwiched in between, there should be some potential in those areas. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they are zoned for 4 to 10 DUA; if adjacent housing is zoned too much higher, the proposal was to rezone it about that much to increase it from 4 to 10 to 10 to 20. That is the specific action that would be taken. They currently have office structures on them. Paul Penninger: • They do currently, but the zoning would accommodate residential development at a lower density. 17b-24 Cupertino Planning Commission :~0 April 14, 2009 • Said it would be a city initiated rezoning within a particular period of time after the housing element is adopted, about a yeaz. In some eases it is just a clarification because you already have the General Plan land use designations that provide residential Land uses; it is just bringing it together making it consistent. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • She expressed her opposition to more housir.~g, especially at the eastern end of Cupertino. She pointed out that there were no grocery stores, gas stations, car washes or other amenities in the eastern end of the city; and that traffic pro);~lems already existed, as well as overcrowding in the schools. Office allocation: Said the city spent a Iot of money on the North Vallco Master Plan project and meeting after meeting said :no housing in North Vallco. Several corporations wish to increase the office allocation which :is fine. North Vallco is traditionally a strong tech park; we need to make sure we protect the tech parks in Cupertino; we don't want housing on them. • She said she did not know what the plan w;is if they increased the office allocation; but if it means pulling in extra housing units, and piling them up on lIP, HP is going to decide that they are going to move their corporate headquarters across the street to Sunnyvale and sell that land for housing. • She expressed concern about what was being done with the General Plan amendments and increasing the office allocation. She said that in her opinion, Cupertino was high tech and housing was secondary. Requests for office allocation need to be managed in a sensitive practical manner. If the plan is to carve up the city, there needs to be another year of public input. She said they do not want more housing at their end of the city down Stevens Creek Boulevard. Susie Slaclo~an, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: • She thanked the city and consultants for the opportunity for the Chamber to participate in the process, She attended the focus group meetings, and there were also reps from Apple and HP at most of those meetings; and they also spoke privately with the consultant and other groups. Not only did they represent Apple and HP in those discussions, but we had a rep from each of those companies on the Chamber Board of Directors. It gave a broader vision for the Chamber's interaction. • Said she felt the discussions were vague on where the building was going to take place. Tonight reviewing that and hearing some of i:he comments, once you start putting addresses in places into the process, it changes some of the discussion and it changes the way people begin to cook at it. • Staff has done a good job of working with the consultant in identifying the needs that we have and encouraging that broad based input from. the community. The Chamber supports that the process must move forward. • Said she was not certain if the board would leave any additions ar changes, but Apple and I-Il' would probably have some concerns about Housing being built either on their property or in close proximity. She said they would like to support the list in whatever additions or changes the Commission recommends and that it move forward to the Council so that the next stage can take place. • Regarding the office allocation, that was a very big deal that came up during the housing discussion for our businesses in town and she was pleased to see that there was an opportunity for the 500,000 square feet to be put back intcs the plan; and it relieves a lot of people that there was that opportunity. 17b - 25 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 14, 2009 It is clear that comes with a price which is additional housing. The consultant stated that there is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to identify the minimum number of houses needed to meet the standard report for 07 to 14, as well as going up to as many as 1500 housing units. It might be a way of looking at it to say that we look beyond the minimum, but we don't quite go to the maximum 1500 square feet, so we have a broader range of places to choose from. It also sounds like the Commission had some additional ideas on where those places might be. Said the Chamber supports the recommendation to move forward with the additional office square footage. It is an important concept for the two largest companies in the community who have invested a great deal and plan to stay in the community; it gives them a certain amount of assurance which is an important concept as well. Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident: • Said he was not anti-development or anti-housing; the problem is that the State keeps pushing down on the city with their demands, and they have little control of what they can ask for. • He questioned the purpose of a General Plan; three years were spent reviewing it, followed by six months of meetings and another six months of committee meetings; and then faced with a housing requirement; and being informed that the General Plan is supposed to stay for ten years and now twenty years. What good is the General Plan if the State keeps throwing different angles on the city. The city and residents have to get control of themselves. He suggested that the city charter a bus to go and speak to ABAG. • Said that the Cupertino population of 28,000 in 1985 has increased to 55,000; where is more water, more electricity, and more school sites? People move to Cupertino because of the schools. • The high school population has grown; a study was paid by the city 2003/04 and at that time the population of the high school was 8,400 and they said in 2007/0$ the population would go down. In 2007, the population exceeded 11,000 and it is well above 10,000 now. More housing, greater impact on schools. Elementary school district, they get paid by adding more students; if they add more students; we have a parcel tax now, they are going to have to come up with another parcel tax to allow to rebuy the sites and build on them and then another parcel tax to staff and administrate those schools. • Jobs/housing balances will change over and over again; can we guarantee HP and Apple will stay here. When you are planning for the future, can you lock that in concrete; I can't. So when you plan for things, plan for everything, not just that. Plan for retail, we need it desperately. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Referred to a slide presentation to indicate potential areas for housing, including the HP site; the Currier building is for lease and was not identified in the survey; quasi-public sites such as the hall and the DeOro building; available locations across from Villa Serra; the former skate park office could be used for housing 'but is not marked as such_ Granny units are also affordable housing possibilities. • The schools are overcrowded; Cupertino is a jobs rich area but the surrounding community of San Jose has a lot of housing, but is jobs poor. • Office allocation; It would be reasonable if we are going to add the office allocation to find a way to also add the housing at the same time. There is also a correction; on Table 4, Point 2, we are missing the Morley Bros. development; it is 130 units and it should be there because it is still on the books as being zoned residential. I don't know what Apple is going to do with it, but it is stilt zoned residential. 17b-26 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 Apri114, 2009 Keith Marphy, Cupertino resident: • Said he felt the Vallco RDA had some conflicts of interest about goals and although the State of California and ABAG require certain kir-ds of low income housing and things to be built, the city itself also has issues that if it wants to free up incremental tax dollars in the RDA, at some point they have to provide some low income housing. They must provide that before they get their share of the taxes. I am inter~rsted how the city is going to be doing that and if that somehow plays into where the sites are ;;oing to be chosen; where the low income housing is going to go. • Relative to the Chamber's CEO statement that businesses have been polled about them wanting to support the current housing element update, he questioned whether they would be willing to take on some of the responsibilit}~ of which Apple and HP want to push on smaller businesses and property owners in the community; and are they willing to take that on for what they think will be a fair trade from Apple and HP for the development they will bring to our community; especially if they don't w~mt to have a iot of the housing allocation put in North Vallco. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Vera Gil: • Clarified that there are 2,000 units left in the current General Plan available sites; out of that they are being asked to provide 1175, which is a small reduction from what is currently in the General Ptan as far as number of sites. Paul Penninger: • Said he felt they were parallel but separate processes. In the General Plan update, the overall capacity as a community was identified :or absorbing new residential development and presently there is a balance of about 2800 sitars. • It is a different exercise than what is being done which is looking parcel by parcel; what is being done fits within the overall context of your General Plan in terms of the maximum number of units that your community can ab:sorb overtime; and one of the ways that will come out is when you see the environmental analysis that our subconsuitant is going to complete where they evaluate what the real impact would be if this proposed residential development on water, sewer, other infrastructure and envirotunental issues. They are separate but related. • A certain number of sites have to be rezoned to accommodate 364 additional residential units with viable proposals. Most of the approved units have been fox above and above-moderate incomes; hence you have aheady approved 3 great many housing units for above and above- moderate income households. They need to lie sites that are zoned at a minimum of 20 DUA. Chair Giefer: • Asked if they need to look at their housing manual and look at the ratio in high density housing. If zoned at 20 DUA, will they :~tilI get the yields in categories where they are attempting to get that; or do they need to increase the ratio very low, low income and moderate income yields out of the housing manual. Vera Gil: • Said she was referring to the inclusionary housing program and she may be talking two different things. In this case all we need to do is get them at 20 units per acre for them to be considered meeting the requirement and providing low and very low income housing; whether it will realistically occur or not» In the case of the housing mitigation program, we require i5% of all new development and rental is targeted for low and very low; and ownership is targeted to medium and moderate. 17b - 27 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 14, 2009 Pant Penninger: • The way that HCD considers inclusionary housing ordinances analytically is as a potential government constraint on development. We aze obliged under the review standards to consider all of these government regulations as a potential constraint on development. Attempting to meet your 1tHNA goals for low and very low income housing production through the inclusionary ordinance is not what I would recommend as your consultant. The other thing to say is that we are focusing a lot on sites and on densities; that is because you have a lot of other programs already in place to support affordable housing development. You have a staff person, you have a housing planner who works with project sponsors to make sure that the city is supportive of viable developments which meets the community's needs. You are doing financial and regulatory support already for viable affordable housing development; so you have those programs in place. • Said there were some developments discussed such as Habitat for Humanity, and some particularly for people with special needs in very low income brackets that have been supported by the city in recent years. The missing part of the equation is land; which is the reason for the focus on programs and policies. Com. Miller: • Said the only way to get a serious effort in terms of truly affordable housing is to work with an affordable housing developer and rezone some of the property to a high enough density and work with some Iand owner on an arrangement that can make it happen. It is not going to happen through the BMR pxogram at 15%. Panl Penninger: • There has been the suggestion in certain communities across the state that in order to meet the legal requirements, they would increase the number of inclusionary units required up to 679'° or 70%, which will clearly not be satisfactory. There was another issue about accessory dwelling units; the city does have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance and does count a certain number of the ADUs toward the RHNA goals in every period. We are looking at that; they are somewha# difficult to quantify and it is not always clear that they are accommodating low and very low income households but we do our best to count those up and include them in your targets. Chair Giefer: • Said they must determine the direction they want to take; does the Commission want to give direction to go out and do some more legwork; or is it comfortable making recommendations to pass onto Council at this point. Com. Lee: • Suggested that staff look at North Vallco area to see if there is more numbers there. Com. Brophy: • Said he preferred to send it to City Council. He said he felt it was an imaginary exercise done because the State requires it, and people should not be confused in thinking it relates to affordable housing or fair share of housing. If the issues are important to the city they should be part of the Planning Commission's work plan. They should work to get housing element passed, send it onto City Council and get it approved by the State without having any adverse effect on the city. 17b - 28 Cupertino Planning Commission :>.4 April 14, 2009 Com. Miller: • Said he was opposed to sending it onto she City Council without Planning Commission recommendations. The two issues at hand are the RHNA requirements and the increase in density in housing. He said as stated earlier, he was not necessarily in favor of more housing, but was in favor of balance, and they were not in control, but forced to go through the exercise. The additional allocation of square footage is going to put more pressure on the Commission; possibly not in this planning period, but in the next; and preparing for it is better than just closing our eyes to it and letting someone else deal with it, because the same Planning Commission and City Council won't be around at that point in time. • Said they want to accommodate their corporate citizens and help them to be successful and to grow. He said he supported increasing the square footage in order to allow them to build what they think they need. However, as spE;akers said, the extra squares come with the responsibility and it is not sufficient to say we want the extra squares but the housing is your problem to put somewhere else on somebody else's shoulders in Cupertino. The correct response is to say they can have the extra. squares, but let' work with you to make your projects what they are. In return, the city has the additional requirement because of your request for extra squares; and that is an accountability to share some of the responsibility. • Said he supported extra squares, but felt in return it is appropriate to zone some of that area in North Vailco where those extra squares could go for housing to meet their goals and objectives. That is the main reason for pushing North Vailco, and if they choose not to develop because the economic environment :;s not conducive to that at this point in time, there is no need to go ahead and do the housing either. It is only when they actually do the development that it triggers the housing; and whether or not they do it, it is still under their control because it is their land. There are also some lands that are peripheral to the HP and Apple lands that there is no reason shouldr-:'t be zoned for more housing; and that includes every property on the east side of Tantau from Highway 280 on up to Homestead. ~ Said be felt they provided further guidance in terms of what other sites to consider and those not to consider; staff can call some of the property owners involved in the discussions and bring something back to the Commission. _ Chair Giefer: • Said the majority wanted some more legwork to be done on the list, either by adding or diminishing addresses from the list and determining which are most likely to come in for redevelopment. She said the 138 units of the Morley Brothers project that have not been rezoned should be included in the calculations. Paul Penninger: • Said they would look into it; they understood the use permit had expired and didn't count it towazd the current period accomplishments. They had also heard there was another viable proposal for office space on the same site, <<nd they need to find out what is occurring there and whether or not it is a viable residential site. Chair Giefer; • Said that the fact remains that they did rezonf; it and will not likely reverse the zoning. • Said there are at least two Commissioners wlio felt there needs to be greater exploration in the North Vailco area, and she was not opposed to evaluating sites that are not HP or Apple owned. • She said that it is good if they can get a gre~iter yield than what is currently on the map. She agreed that if they are adding more squares of commercial, they also need to figure out how to incorporate supporting that in housing. She said she did not want to diminish the success of their corporations that are some of the largest. employers in the area. She did not support tying 17b-29 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 April' 14, 2009 it to their redevelopment as they move forward. • Said her concern about North Vallco is they completed the North Vallco study area where the community said they don't want housing there; that has to be part of the evaluation of the site, since it is equal to the referendum done on the Vallco edge property where there was housing as well. It is not a fertile site when it relates to housing. Chair Giefer: Said additionally in that area she heard that Cupertino Village is holding back on their redevelopment of some of the intensification of that, so perhaps they are also looking for other possibilities, which might merit additional review. Said she did not object to the properties on the east side of Tantau; one site is being redeveloped. There may be potential properties on Bandley; it merits looking into. They also expressed some concerns with regard to some of the areas that were identified with potential problems. Paul Penninger: • To the extent that the North Vallco plan is already in place, that guides development in that area, and they are proposing something different, it is part of the housing element update. He asked what the procedural issues related to that were. Carol Korade, City Attorney: • Said that Cupertino is a general law city and all documents have to be consistent, so staff will have to take a hard look at atl the different master plans, specific plans, general plans, etc. and ultimately down to the zoning. Paul Penninger: • That is what we have done for all the other sites on this list; that is what we will have to do for the North Vallco site. • In the current matrix there is the current zoning, current land use designation, and recommendations for makiaag those consistent. If there is an overlay or a specific plan in place, it is referenced. To the extent that there is any other plan in place on site that has not been identified, they will look at those, analyze them and asked the Conuxussion to make appropriate changes. Com. Miller: • Relative to North Vallco, he clarified that three public hearings were held as well as three or four committee hearings; and while some members of the committee expressed a concern about housing there, the topic was never fully vetted because time ran out. There was never a full discussion on that and there was never a vote or anything of that nature taken in terms of housing; it was not addressed. Paul Penninger: • Said that as part of their work, they would look at the General Plan land use designations, zoning, and see what needs to be changed, to make any sites they are analyzing suitable for residential development. Aarti Shrivastava: ' • Staff is recommending that you separate those two only because HCD has its own timeline and there may be additional discussion the community, the Planning Commission and the Council might want to have in this office allocation. To meet the timelines staff felt it was appropriate. 17b-30 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 April 14, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Is there a desire to move forward on (B) this; evening. We got public testimony supporting it, recognizing the adjacent issue with housin€;; do we want to move forward on the B section which is the General Ptan amendment for office allocation. Com. Miller: • Said he was willing to move forward provid~~d that there is language stating that it comes with the responsibility for additional housing. Com. Brophy: • Said he agreed, bu# wanted to see the specific language as the letters from HP and Apple are asking for the additional space for their owri use. He clarified that the additional space is for the use of the corporate campuses and no# to be used as third party lease space. • Said he was not opposed to Language stating that in the future, the city recognizes an obligation to deal with the housing challenges faced, and there is hope and expectation that when the proposals come for the city utilizing this additional square footage, thought be given by the applicants about the housing challenges the city faces. He said he was not looking to throwing down the gauntlet to them. Com. Lee: • Said she agreed. Chair Giefer: • Page 3 of the staff report states specifically that if the Planning Commission recommends adding back the residual of 483,000 square feet of office, it will not affect the city's RHNA requirements for this planning period. AB~?,G is looking to reverse the projections modeling .system, so their system has changed. She said she was not sure they need to include the language suggested by Com. Miller, because it specifically states that it will not have an affect on it; is that because it is already in the General Plan? Aarti Shrivastava: • The office allocation may or may not count pit that time. Por this planning period, we have the numbers from HCD, but if the Planning Commission feels like a balance is important, they can forward a recommendation to Council. Com. Miller: • Said he felt they were just postponing the problem and he was not in favor of doing that; the issue is present today and to say you can have the office square footage but you are not required to do any housing along with it, is the wrong way to go. It is setting up for future failure; the right thing to do is address it now while it is before them. Chair Giefer: • Said she was not comfortable including any language that says if squares are added and their corporate sites take advantage of it, they must build housing. Com. Miller: • Clarified he was stating that whether they (the companies that make use of the square footage that wilt go into the General Plan) build it or find some other location where it gets built, they have a responsibility #o consider and to be part of the solution. 17b - 31 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 14, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Summarized two suggestions of what might be included in (B) if they choose to move forward on that. One is to specify that it is specifically for corporate headquarters use by companies that have headquarters in Cupertino, although HP is technically not headquartered there. The other is that for those taking advantage of it, they have to help solve the problem by specifically fording a place for the residents. Gary Chao: • Said the Council will ultimately make the decision if the allocation will be specifically earmarked for HP or Apple or if it is just a general increase in the allocation. The Commission can make recommendations to them in terms of where they think the pot should go. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there was a pool available and that may be a place where the Council can allocate it later and Planning Commission as projects come forth. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Chair Giefer, to add the additional square footage of 483,053, limiting the additional square footage to major corporate campuses. {Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Miller No; Com. Kaneda absent} Com. Brophy: • Said that while he was concerned about the housing issue, he was not willing to add that as a condition at this time. • Said he would support it if they needed 480 in addition to the 150; but was not in favor of adding more for the reasons that Com. Miller pointed out, by allowing the additional office space just for the sake of building it if it is not part of the specific campuses that provide substantial financial benefits to the city. The agenda was moved back to Item 2A. {A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element update. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to continue Item 2A General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element update, to the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent} OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housine Commission: No report. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Lee summarized reports given at the meeting: • Dog park discussion. 17b-32 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 April I4, 2009 • Fine Arts Commission: building at Tantau <<cross from HP behind Kaiser; lighting in front of sculptures; needs to be LEED • Bike and Pedestrian Committee: Ribbon. cutting ceremony for Mary Ave. pedestrian footbridge Apri130; May 16, 17 -Bike to V~ork Day; Revising Bike transportation plan; • Public Safety: April 22 - Walk, Bike and Carpoo] Day; working with Teen Comrnission/contacted all schools to coordinate event • Feeder streets issue: speeding • Library: No. 1 in US for circulation; Art wall display in reading room; late fee for videos is reduced; National Library Week; End of Oct. 5 yr celebration of Library opening • Pazks and Rec: Future use of Simms properly and Stocklmeir property . • TIC: Working with Environmental Coordinator on video about solar panels. Economic Development Committee: No meetir-g. REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMITNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Sbrivastava: • Said she was pleased to be working with the City of Cupertino again in her new position as Community Development Director. • She provided updates on Heart of the City, Modification to Use Permit on Town Center Lane; Matrix permit process. MISC: Com. Lee requested that Item 2B be reopened sa that she could change her vote on the item. City Attorney Carol Korade explained that the item would have to be reopened, and a motion made for reconsideration, followed by a revote. She advised that the application would have to be reopened 'in a public hearing, since the public has left the meeting and the matter has been closed. She said that under Roberts Rules and Pazliamentary Procedure the request would have to have the support and a motion with an affirmative vote in order to reopen the item before discussion of the item. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, to reopen Item 2B. (Motion died for lack of 3 affirmative votes to reopen Item 2B) The city attorney clarified that because there were not three affirmative votes, the item is not reopened. She explained that there was a fmai action, and no reconsideration opportunity exists; the item is closed and the action is considered final. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned tai the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Apri128, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recordvlg Secretary Approved as presented: April 28, 2009 17b-33 Attachment F actober 21, 2008 Cupertino City Council Keith Murphy said that he wants to see plans from Apple and HP first before giving any increase in office allocation. He noted that he is a member of the Housing Element update . group and this it was unclear to that group whether the responsibility would fall to the lesser property owners to put in the Housing Element to offset the office ratio. Shawna Homes, on behalf of HP, said that they had subrpitted a Letter asking Council to look into the issue of office allocation. She clarified that HP is asking-to consider what is possible so that they can decide what investment to make in Cupertino and other communities regarding their growth while developing Tong-term plans. Mike Foulkes, on behalf of Apple Computer, said that the last time the General Plan was looked at was during the "dot.com" bust when office space was vacant. He explained that at that time, Apple had enough office space. He noted that there are probably. enough office allocation squares in the General Plan to take caze of both Apple and HP, but not enough to take care of anyone else. He said Apple wanted to be sure the City had enough space for future needs. Kevin Dare with Sandhill Property Company said t);at discussing office allocation is an opportunity to plan for the fitture and have smart gmwth. He noted it opens a dialogue within the community to discuss concerns as a whole, find out what are people's plans and goals, and how everyone can work together. Santoro/Wang moved and seconded to include the question of increasing office allocation as part of the Housing Element process acid limit it to 400,000 square feet or whatever number doesn't impact the housing. The motion carried with -Santoro, Wang, and Wong voting yes and Sandoval and Mahoney voting no. Sandoval/Mahoney moved and seconded to explore additional -office square footage through its own General PIan Amendment process on a parallel track with no specific number, Mahoney made a friendly amendment that the parallel track would only include the additional study of traffic and other environmental impacts for more than the 400,000 squaze-footage. Sandoval accepted the friendly amendment and asked that the data come ~t~tl~City G~un~`il: o'tro~-~~rri~d u~a~rousiy. . Adopt mid-year bud eg t adjustment No. 1. moved and seconded to continue carried 17: Receive a report on the Plan. to November 3. The motion moved and seconded to continue this item to' Consider the Cit~Manager and Citv Attorney ordinances: (ADA) Transition ber 3. The motion 17b-34 October 21, 2008 Cupertino City Council page 7 then consider all the conditions that S~mtoro suggested. The motion died for lack of a end . The fo wing original motion made by Santoro, with his added amendment, carried with Mahoney, oro, and Wong voting yes and Sandoval and~Wang voting no: Remove 19.28.06. tion 2; Replace 19.28.060 section G.3. and section a, with the following language: heights over 12' that are over 20" long require relief. Acceptable methods of relt ate: extended or wrap around porches; pop outs and bay windows; material and color c ges;.. wide overhangs with projection brackets; julliet balconies; window boxes and pQt elves; landscaped trellises and lattices; or other similar architectural features deemed t~ a appropriate by the Director of Community Development." Also include design pri.ncip adjustments, and guidelines from staff; Look at the process for how the new method wo be applied to second floors; look at other ratios that have some limit as well; and bring bac sample to Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Receive an update on the investment polite. ,~~' Eouncil concurred to receive the report. . ~:~ ~. NEW BUSINESS 15. Consider taking up the question of iner~,asing office allocation as part of a General Plan amendment. Written communications included the following: • An amended page from staff sho,,ving Table 2-A titled Development Allocation • A hard copy of the Power Point presentation from stafF • A handout of hotel plans from one of the speakers T~Fn-l~agi~n-said that-he-~van#s--~.pple-.Computer_.to~ho~the~lans~foztheizpro j_e~t before increasing the office allocation. Jennifer Griffin urged Council to proceed cautiously to see what Apple and I-iP want to do with their properties first before increasing the office allocation. " Dipesh Gupta said he has already put in an application to the City for ahigh-end hotel on De Anza Bivd. replacing the existing ~;as station. He noted that it would include 138 rooms, conference rooms, a street cafe, and an interactive lounge, and that it is a green building LEED certified. He explained that the project would have less traffic than the existing gas station. He requested Council to move rapidly on the hotel allocation increase request. He distributed the project plans. . 17b-35 Table of Alternatives and City Council & Planning Commission Changes to the Task Force Draft General Plan . V Q W r~ax . Qe~o~~ ,~~-~~ ~'k~l~a~ J ~ "' r 1 ~~oc.~C. CQI~tK.C I P V o Ya--Q Land Use Existing ~ Task Force Existing Administrative City Council & Category Conditions. Draft General Draft ~ Plan. Commission (Baseline Yr. 2000) General Plan Changes to Task Plan Force Draft he Pro'ect ~ General Plan Commercial (Sq. Ft.} 3,317,426 (Sq. Ft) 4,431,000 {Sq. Ft) 4,431,000 {Sq. Ft) 4,174,136 (Sq. Ft.) 4,431,000 (Sq. Ft.) 4ffice/lndustrial (Sq. Ft. 8,325,312 (Sq. Ft) 9,320,005 (Sq. Ft.) 9,428,000 (Sq. Ft.) 9,320,OOS (Sq. Ft.) 8,$36,952 (Sq. Ft.). Residential (Dw./Units) 20 032 (Dw/Units) 22 369 (Dw/Units) 22 369 Dw/Units) v 24 647 (Dw/tTnits ~ ) 23 294 ~T p (Dw! V ntt~7) Hotel Rooms 411 (Rooms) , 1429* {Rooms 1 027 (Rooms) 1,578 {Rooms) 1,429 (Rooms) Source: City of Cupertino Commumty Development Department *those in the pipeline plus the Vallco potential n Z CD (~ 1 Attachment H Remaining Office Development Allocation by Area Monta Vista 25,780 Heart of the City 1,456 N_ De Anza 75,185 Bubb Road 15,790 Vallco North 95,532 Vallco South 0 Homestead Road 0 City Center 0 Other Commercial Centers -18,131 Major Corporations 150,000 345,612 17b-37 ~UPERTINO EXHIBIT ~~ i~~ c~/~IoY .~ ~~-~' v /~ L ; CtIP~RTINp;' .land Use Existing Task Forre Administrative:. Final Council sCategory Condition (Yr. Draft General Draft Approval 2000) Plan (The (Maximum (2005 General Project) potential Plan) anal.. zed) Commercial 3,317,426 4,431,000 4,174,136 4,431,000 (Sq.Ft.) Office/Industrial 8,325,312 9,320,005 9,320,005 8,836,952 (Sq.Ft.) Residential 20,032 22,369 24,647 23,294 .(Units) Hotel (Rooms) 411 1,429 1,578 1,429