draft minutes 4-14-2009
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
APRIL 14,2009
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Lisa Giefer.
6:45 P.M.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Commissioner absent:
Staff present:
TUESDAY
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Lisa Giefer
Paul Brophy
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Planning Intern:
City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao
Vera Gil
George Schroeder
Carol Korade
Minutes of the March 24,2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
March 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
(Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Giefer noted receipt of items regarding Item No.1.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2009-02,
ASA-2009-02
Muthana Ibrahim
(Atam Sandhu)
1699 So. DeAnza Blvd.
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for
the construction of a new automated car wash tunnel,
a new trash enclosure, enhancements to the parking lot,
and new landscaping features at an existing gas station.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
April 14, 2009
George Schroeder, Planning Intern, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval for construction
of a new 846 foot automated car wash tunnel at an existing gas station, a new trash enclosure,
landscaping enhancements to the site and sidewalk and driveway improvements at the
intersection along Prospect road, as outlined in the staff report.
· He reviewed the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the safety hazards
caused by the two driveways nearest the intersection by closing the self-driveway on DeAnza
and modifying the east right driveway on Prospect to ingress-only. The proposed location of
the car wash is ideal for queuing and will not create any traffic hazards. Vehicles will enter
the car wash from DeAnza Boulevard and will exit onto Prospect Road. The applicant
proposes to improve the landscaping along Prospect Road, providing a landscape parkway and
attached sidewalk consistent with the Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan. The
applicant is also proposing to extend existing planters on site and plant several trees as well as
new shrubs and groundcover; and to add decorative trellises with vines to all sides of the
tunnel to reduce building mass. He reviewed the parking requirements; the project proposes
six parking spaces.
· A noise study recommended a 9 foot high sound wall and a noise reducing drying fan be
implemented in order to comply with the Cupertino noise ordinance. Staff requests that the
Planning Commission add a condition for the Planning Department to approve the final design
of the sound wall prior to the issuance of building permits.
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit and architectural and site
review in accordance with the conditions in the model resolution.
Applicant, 2960 Camino Diablo, Walnut Creek:
· Said they worked hard with the Planning Dept. to reach the current layout of the site plan and a
design of this project and agree with conditions set forth. No questions were asked of the
applicant.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Ting Kao, Cupertino resident:
· Resides directly behind the current Keiko Sushi restaurant and said the main concern was
potential noise problems in the evening. Asked that the Planning Commission and City
Council consider limiting the hours of operation of the car wash so they would not be exposed
to loud music from car radios and they could leave their house windows open at night without
negative noise impacts.
· Said that based on the guidelines, there should be a concrete wall separating the residential
area from the business area, to mitigate the noise problem; and the wall does not exist.
. Opposed to the application.
Philip La Barbera, Owner of Liquor Store next to Service Station:
· Expressed concern about potential traffic jams. He said he had no objections to the operation
of the car wash if the traffic jams were addressed and minimized.
Upi Rekhi, Owner of Liquor Store next to lot:
. Said he was concerned about the driveway being blocked as the Fire Department needed
access. He suggested that the Fire Department be consulted before approval of application, as
there was a previous incident where access was blocked during an incident.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
Apri] ] 4, 2009
Pat Kennedy, Cupertino resident:
. Opposed to the application because of noise from the car wash, which is about 100 yards from
his home. He questioned the need for another car wash in Cupertino since there were four in
Cupertino and two at Westgate.
Patricia Wandry, Prospect Road:
. Questioned the need for another car wash in Cupertino.
. Concerned about traffic congestion; and the effect it will have on the entrance and exit to the
Coach House Center which already gets congested. People use the area in the back of the gas
station as a way to get into the center; the only other option is entering by the restaurant in the
back or from Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road.
. Concerned about safety for the customers of the smog business. Previously it had two bays,
with room for the customers to sit inside on chairs; recently they have only one bay and
customers are sitting on folding chairs in the parking lot, where the new ingress-only entrance
is, and where the other cars are going to be exiting.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing, and summarized issues for staff review.
. The hours of operation for the car wash.
. Review of the proposal by the Fire Department to determine if they have full access.
George Schroeder:
. Responded that the applicant proposed to have the car wash opened from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,
7 days a week.
. Convenience store hours are 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., 7 days a week; service bay is open 9 a.m. to
6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
. The Fire Department has reviewed the plan for full access and don't anticipate any problems.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
. Said the Prospect driveway is not being touched; it currently exists as a two-way in/out
driveway and will be maintained as a two-way in/out. The one previously discussed is the one
closest to the intersection, and will be reduced to an in-only because of traffic issues or hazards
related to the current situation. With the enhancements to that driveway and also the enclosure
of driveway along DeAnza, closest to the intersection, Public Works feels that it will be an
enhancement to the overall circulation at least around the peripheral of the project site.
. Said that Public Works is concerned that the cars do not get backed up into the street and is
comfortable with the proposed layout along the northerly property line where five cars could
queue up.
. There was a brief discussion about noise impacts, Gary Chao said that the sound wall is
primarily to protect the office complex next to it, because of its close proximity to the car
wash.
Applicant:
. Said the source of noise from the car wash is toward the exit, not the entrance, where there is
nothing to make noise. The sound study determined that the sound decibel would be below the
city ordinance at 55 north of the entrance which is why they don't need a wall at the north
property line to protect the shopping center. Prospect is noisy enough that a wall is not needed
to reduce the decibel on the street.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
April 14, 2009
Com Brophy:
· Said that the issues of the public concern have been addressed by the applicant; staff has done
a good job of identifying them and resolving them with the various departments.
. Supports the ordinance as drafted.
Com. Lee:
. Concurred with Com. Brophy's comments.
Com. Miller:
· Said he concurred with Com. Brophy's comments. There is adequate alternatives should this
become an issue later on resulting in complaints. There are some choices to be made to
improve the situation.
Chair Giefer:
· Concurred with the suggestion about hours of operation, No.3 on use permit; that the facility
should not operate between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. She suggested that the hours of operation for
the car wash be specifically stated, since many people are concerned there may be an increase
in noise from the site.
Gary Chao:
· Staff suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition that requires that the final
design of the sound wall be reviewed prior to the issuance of the building permit.
· Suggested that the hours of operation for the service bay be limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and
the convenience store limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Hours of the car wash are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Lee, to approve Application U-2009-02,
ASA-2009-02 as drafted by staff with following modifications: No.3, hours of
operation; hours be listed as drafted in staff report rather than language
currently used, and language be added that the 9 foot sound wall design be
reviewed by staff, and approved prior to the issuance of the building permit.
(Vote: 3-0-1, Com. Kaneda absent)
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to revise the agenda order and
discuss Item 3. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent)
3. ASA-2009-03
Barre Barnes
(Pasricha
residence)
10450 Serra St.
Appellant: Leigh and Tim Stevens
Appeal of a Design Review Committee decision approving an
architectural and site review for a new 5,202 square foot, two-story
new residence in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
George Schroeder presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the appeal of the DRC's decision of Architectural and Site Approval of a new 5,202
square foot, two-story, single-family residence, located at 10450 Serra Street, as outlined in the
staff report.
. Leigh and Tim Stevens, the appellants reside south of the project site and feel that the project
will change the neighborhood character; the current location has potential safety and welfare
concerns; and that the current location of the house will potentially decrease property values.
· The applicants feel that rotating the house will help alleviate the concerns. They are not
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 14, 2009
requesting changes to the design or size of the house. The applicant is not required to rotate
the house since the current situation is within the prescribed setbacks and other developmental
regulations. The applicant's home is within the required development parameters set forth by
the Oak Valley Planned Residential District and is consistent with the mass and bulk of other
homes in the area. Staff is not aware of any health, safety or welfare concerns with the current
site of the house; the city geologist reviewed the project and his recommendations were added
to the conditions of the original DRC approval. The applicant still has to submit detailed soil
reports and structural calculations during the building permit phase. Staff is not aware of any
factors associated with the property values as far as decreasing them.
· The Planning Commission may consider the options; uphold the appeal, uphold the appeal
with modifications, or deny the appeal and uphold the DRC's decision.
· He explained that the application was sent to the DRC because it is in the Oak Valley Planned
Development District, and the use permit that applies to that site states that all new houses
have to go through the DRC.
· Explained that the homeowners association no longer exists, and as stated in the CC&Rs, the
procedure after the homes are built is that it defaults to the city as the authority for reviewing
any new proposals or any modifications. That is why it is being reviewed by the DRC and
before the Planning Commission.
Tim Stevens, Appellant, presented rationale for his opposition to the application.
· Said they appealed the DRC decision because of threat to health and safety, and property
values; the major issue being that the proposed project will change the character of the
neighborhood. Homes in Oak Valley have been master planned to have a certain consistency;
one that complements the size, shape, harmony and balance of the underlying properties. The
current house is not centrally placed on the lot; it is pushed over to one side, with setbacks of
35 feet on one side and 96 on the other side. The house is squared to the cuI de sac as opposed
to shaped around the cuI de sac. They feel the project does not conform to the Rl ordinance
for this respect.
. Said he felt the solution was to move the house to angle it to complement the curve of the cuI
de sac. They are not requesting that the house be redesigned, are not objecting to the overall
design of the house or the size of the house; but feel that the orientation and placing of the
house where they have placed it is going to create a big gap and will be inconsistent with how
all the other houses in the development are situated.
. He said they have tried to resolve the matter with the homeowner; the first contact with the
homeowner of the project was just a few days before the DRC, with a notice that they approve
or concur with the designs. He reviewed the subsequent discussions and meetings with the
applicant, real estate agent and builder. They were informed that no changes could be made
and no accommodation without having to change the overall design and overall project. They
suggested moving it over and angling it which would be sufficient for them to support the
project. There were follow up meetings with the real estate agent, but they were informed that
the applicants did not want to make any changes.
· Said that the property owners are trying to sell the property.
· Said they were in agreement with all the other issues except the angle of the house on the
property. If the house is moved a few feet and angled, that would be enough for them to
support the project. In doing so, it would alleviate the perceptive mass and scale of the house;
it is one of the largest homes in all of the Oak Valley development.
P. J. Pasricha, applicant:
· Said throughout the 14 month process period, they have been good citizens, and followed
every rule and directive given to them, went through multiple iterations at considerable cost to
them, not only to comply with city law, but also so their house would conform to the shape
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
April 14, 2009
and feel of the neighborhood as instructed by the city. All the neighbors with the exception of
the Stevens have signed approval of the plans. The desire of the Stevens is to have an
unobstructed view from the side of the house; clearly stated by Mrs. Stevens when she
appeared in front of the Planning Commission before. He said he felt the Stevens have dealt
with the issue in a hostile manner, threatening them with lawsuits. The city has to decide
whether the city designed review system will be allowed to be hijacked by a single person with
clearly very selfish motivations.
. He said he felt they were victims in the process because they were faced with difficult
monetary consequences because of the delay. He said they put the house up for sale because
of the possibility of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the loan if the project was not
completed by the end of this year.
· He clarified that the setbacks were not 35 feet and 96, but 50 feet and 35 feet; and said it was
not the biggest house on the street; and was designed in accordance with city law.
Com. Miller:
. Asked the applicant if there was further cost and delay involved to re-orient the house.
Mr. Pasricha:
· Said the reasons he would not want to do that was that they don't feel that the orientation of
the house is incongruous with the neighborhood; it would compromise the design of their back
yard; and according to their builder and the sketch that the Stevens made, the site is not valid
and is not safe as part of it is close to the canyon. He said he did not want to spend more time
going back with design review.
Gary Chao:
. Said that the area has been built out and the original design guidelines were followed with
some exceptions. The guidelines were meant to give staff and property owners guidance; he
recently walked the site to make sure that the proposal isn't repetitive product and it adds to
the diversity which is the intent of that document.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that on Page 3-4 of staff s report, there is a site plan of the house and a shaded gray area
to the left with a label that says "private open space easement". Who put that easement on,
and is it actually private property. What is the definition of that and how can that property be
used?
Gary Chao:
. In the Oak Valley CC&Rs, when the area was subdivided and entitled, there were open space
easements that were required and are not public spaces. In this case they would be part of the
back yard of a private property, but it is intended to keep open, and be unobstructed from
structures to keep that visual openness to it, to preserve the rural feeling of the area. It is part
of private property but it is easement, so it is more intended for view to be openness; the
property cannot encroach into that area.
. Said the shaded area shown is easily confused with the cone of vision for privacy protection;
there is some overlap of the cross hatching; staff can clarify where the easement actually lies
which runs parallel to the rear property line.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she would like another site plan to refer to be clear where the easement is to make sure
they are not building into that envelope.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 14, 2009
Gary Chao:
. Said that the pie-shaped darker shade of the area, is the cone of vision for privacy protection; it
happens to be in the same area, it is not the open space easement. The open space easement is
like the rear yard setback that runs along the back. If the applicant decides to rotate the house,
it is not going to encroach it to that open space easement referred to.
Com. Miller:
· Said the appellant argued that the current orientation was inconsistent with the Rl ordinance,
and Com. Miller said it was the first time he heard that orientation was something addressed
by the Rl ordinance.
Gary Chao:
· Clarified that the property is zoned Planned Development Residential; unfortunately the Rl
ordinance is not applicable in this case. All the findings that the appellant raised aren't
applicable.
· In terms of orientation, it is correct that to the extent that the setbacks control the minimum
distances that the proposed house had to be away from the property lines, those are the extent
of the orientation discussed. Within the boundary of the buildable envelope, usually the
appellant can maximize that or optimize that to whatever extent they may be maximize the
functionality of their yard.
· He reiterated that the house meets all the Planned Development requirements.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Anne Walker, Cupertino resident/real estate agent:
· Said she was the real estate agent representing the applicant in the purchase of the lot at 10450
Serra Street a year ago. She attested to their outstanding character and their diligent efforts to
follow the zoning ordinance for building on their lot. They communicated with 40 different
neighbors in the interest of maintaining good relationships with the neighbors and all
neighbors except Tim and Leigh Stevens have been positive and supportive. The Stevens are
the only opponents of the project. She said they tried to address the Stevens' objections and on
March 25th the Stevens said they would support the home so long as the home was moved to a
position they suggested. She said she felt the reason the Stevens wanted the house moved to a
more centered location was that they wanted it further away from their house, as they have
lived next door to a vacant lot for the past 7 years and simply wanted the neighbors' house
further away from them.
· Asked that the Planning Commission support the DRC's approval of the home and deny the
appeal. The City of Cupertino benefited from the sale of the lot in 2005 when it sold for $1.2
million in the style and location that the Pasricha's designed.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller:
. Said he felt from the discussions, there was no justification or legal basis for an appeal. It is
clear that the applicant has met every city requirement and has followed everything. He
voiced concern that the process took so long; one of their goals is to be as accommodating as
possible, and help people through this process as painless and expeditiously as possible.
. Said he would support denial of the appeal.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April 14, 2009
Com. Lee:
. Said she noted in the DRC meeting that she felt it would not be practical to rotate the house as
proposed by appellant because it would likely make the entrance into the garage awkward.
. Said she would uphold the DRC decision and deny the appeal.
Com. Brophy:
. Said one issue to address is the notification process on site approvals. In this case one of the
concerns the appellant made to the DRC and tonight, was that they were not cognizant of what
was being proposed until quite late, even though from the applicant's perspective, the project
had been in the hopper for over a year at the time. Regardless of the outcome of this case, he
suggested that when applications come in, the notification 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 the requirements, the code, and all regulations regarding the
planned development at Oak Valley.
. Said she supported the denial of the appeal.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to deny the appeal and to
uphold the DRC decision of approval on Application ASA-2009-03. (Vote: 3-0-1;
Com. Kaneda absent)
The agenda was moved back to Item 2. Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
2. GPA-2008-01 (EA-2009-05),
GP A-2009-01 (EA-2009-03)
City of Cupertino, Citywide
Location.
(A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing
Element update and; (B) General Plan Amendment
to increase the office allocation. Tentative City Council
Date: May 5,2009.
Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics (BAE), Consultant on 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 and zoning in place to accommodate their RHNA
planning goals and other city planning goals for 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 website. Recently the Housing Commission was
presented with an administrative draft containing all the fundamental elements of the Housing
Element update that need to be provided to the State Department of Housing and Community
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
April 14,2009
Development for certification. The Housing Commission has reviewed the draft and
forwarded 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 final 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 at 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 list of sites, to focus on just those sites that are most appropriate for
residential land uses that are 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 areas of the city; the
Heart of the City, South Valko, perhaps some others that have the highest redevelopment and
development potential over the next planning period.
. Reviewed Table Fl, available sites inventory, which includes the 370 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 accommodate 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 Valko Park,
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
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 least one zone in the city that can accommodate an
emergency shelter for homeless persons or 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 State 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 committee 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 city 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 where the new school facilities are being built; which
schools are already very impacted, which schools may be able to accommodate future
development; so the policy makers both at the 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 Commission 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 housing 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 Valko 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 redevelop 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 an opportunity to look at jobs housing balance, to
look at the community's stability and quality 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 meet the community needs. The item is partially
informational and partially action item; the Planning Commission can elect to forward to the
City Council on May 5th and show them an edited draft, or have the consultant return on April
28th, taking into account the feedback received tonight and see another iteration of the draft.
Com. Miller:
. Said they were also being asked tonight to consider an increase in the number of square feet of
office space in the General Plan, approximately .5 million square feet. Asked that in all the
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 a jobs/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 additional 500,000 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 around 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 zoning; it could be increased depending on
what their policy goals 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
Vall co in the Main Street area where Toll Brothers had proposed about 484 units, was also
voted down 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 it the need for the housing to follow.
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 Valko has a number of desirable 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 all of North Valko 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 land costs $3 million per acre, there it cost $250,000
per acre. If we are serious about building affordable 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 DUA 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. Valko is 35 DUA and the Rose Bowl may be
even higher.
Paul Penninger:
. The maximum allowed under the General Plan was 35 DUA.
Com. Miller:
. If density is increased, there is a concern that more houses are going to bring 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 about 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 a project-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 four years makes the most sense, and increasing the density is
something that if serious about doing any of this housing, needs to go along with it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
April 14, 2009
Com. Brophy:
. Question regarding 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 prevent the city from
requiring a special use permit within that zone?
Tessa Munakeo, BAE:
· Said the law requires they have one zone that allows 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. Be 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 particular that are clearly
meant to dissuade a viable sponsor from locating in the community, BCD will identify those
and likely ask for them to be addressed.
Vera GiI, 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
II un sheltered 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, particularly 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 BCD
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 BCD 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 particularly affordable
housing, rather than an extensive inventory of sites that mayor 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. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a larger list of
possible sites rather than a small list.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
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 other uses that mayor 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 one 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 the 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 from 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 years ago trying to put in place a more flexible
planned development overlay on many commercial properties to make it easier for someone to
come forward, and give the property owner greater flexibility in terms of the type of project
the property owner may chose to redevelop or build.
. Said in reviewing the list, she was looking at the compatibility between zoning and General
Plan; 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 legal 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 the 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
that you are wanting to take a residential parcel, and zoning it for open space because you
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 Com. 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 impact 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 HP 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 in 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.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
April 14, 2009
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 sites 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 allocation 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 Valko from the standpoint there is not nearly as strong an argument 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 and 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 transportation. 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 office 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 points; but tonight's agenda is to move
forward the housing element to the State by June 30th, and it is not the appropriate time and
place to open up the issue of what to do with North Valko and how that relates to the
intentions of HP and Apple.
. He said it was an important issue and hoped they 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 locations in that general area that are not either in the
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
April 14, 2009
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.
Paul Penninger:
· Said "feasible" was more accurate; they could look if there are specific sites in the North
Vallco area, particular 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 Valleo, 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 are 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 are not on Apple's or HP's asset list. Then there are also
some lands on the west side of Wolfe that are 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 location; 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 forward 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.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
April 14, 2009
Paul Penninger:
· Explained the review process at HCD. When they look at the list of sites, they look at sites
according to whether they are vacant or under-utilized. For the vacant sites they decide does
the vacant site have the right infrastructure 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 not 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 whether or not the improvement to build structure
on the site is worth less than the appraised value of the underlying land. If looking at sites that
currently have a structure and particularly where 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 analytical 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 sites 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 simply proposing changing the zoning.
. Asked if the Commission wanted to comment on the sites identified in the Bubb Road and
Monta Vista areas and in the North DeAnza areas. Are there concerns and issues that the
consultant should be aware of.
Com. Miller:
. The Monta Vista site; the school system is most seriously impacted in the Monta Vista district,
therefore any site designated in the Monta 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 parcel 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 are acceptable as residential development over the next planning 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 of the City Plan.
Com. Miller:
. Reiterated that the site behind Macys could be removed from the list.
. Said Valley Green properties currently has existing office buildings on them.
Com. Lee:
. Said she had no questions or additions; and agreed with Com. Miller regarding looking at
more sites for the North Valko area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
April 14, 2009
Com. 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 GiI:
. 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 look at those and try to come up with some perspective in terms of how 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 comer 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 environmental 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 OVA; 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.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
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 year. In some cases 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 housing, 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 problems already existed, as well as overcrowding in
the schools. Office allocation: Said the city spent a lot of money on the North Valko Master
Plan project and meeting after meeting said no housing in North Valko. Several corporations
wish to increase the office allocation which is fine. North Valko 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 was if they increased the office allocation; but if it
means pulling in extra housing units, and piling them up on HP, 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 Blackman, 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 the 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 look 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 have any additions or changes, but Apple and HP
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 into the plan; and it relieves a lot of people that there
was that opportunity.
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 2007/08 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.
. Jobslhousing 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.
Torn 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 still zoned residential.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
April 14, 2009
Keith Murphy, 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 kinds 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 interested how the city is going to be doing that and if
that somehow plays into where the sites are going 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 responsibility 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 want to have a lot of the housing allocation put in
North Valko.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Vera GiI:
· 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 Plan 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 for absorbing new residential development and
presently there is a balance of about 2800 sites.
. 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 absorb over time; and one of the ways that will come
out is when you see the environmental analysis that our subconsultant is going to complete
where they evaluate what the real impact would be if this proposed residential development on
water, sewer, other infrastructure and environmental 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 for above and above-moderate
incomes; hence you have already approved a great many housing units for above and above-
moderate income households. They need to be 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 still 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 GiI:
. 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
15% of all new development and rental is targeted for low and very low; and ownership is
targeted to medium and moderate.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
April 14, 2009
Paul Penninger:
. The way that HCD considers inclusionary housing ordinances analytically is as a potential
government constraint on development. We are obliged under the review standards to
consider all of these government regulations as a potential constraint on development.
Attempting to meet your RHNA 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 land owner on an arrangement that can make it happen. It is not going to
happen through the BMR program at 15%.
Paul 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 67%
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 somewhat 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.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
April 14, 2009
Com. Miller:
· Said he was opposed to sending it onto the 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 speakers 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 Vallco where those extra squares could go for housing to meet their goals and
objectives. That is the main reason for pushing North Vallco, and if they choose not to
develop because the economic environment is 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 shouldn'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 he 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
toward the current period accomplishments. They had also heard there was another viable
proposal for office space on the same site, and 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 rezone it and will not likely reverse the zoning.
· Said there are at least two Commissioners who felt there needs to be greater exploration in the
North Vallco 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 greater 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
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 Valko 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 all 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 Valko site.
· In the current matrix there is the current zoning, current land use designation, and
recommendations for making 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 Commission to make
appropriate changes.
Com. Miller:
· Relative to North Valko, 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.
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 housing; do we want to move forward on the B section
which is the General Plan amendment for office allocation.
Com. Miller:
· Said he was willing to move forward provided that there is language stating that it comes with
the responsibility for additional housing.
Com. Brophy:
· Said he agreed, but wanted to see the specific language as the letters from HP and Apple are
asking for the additional space for their own use. He clarified that the additional space is for
the use of the corporate campuses and not 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. ABAG 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 mayor may not count at that time. For 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 will go into the General Plan) build it or find some other location where it gets built, they
have a responsibility to consider and to be part of the solution.
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 finding 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.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: With Commissioners:
Com. Lee summarized reports given at the meeting:
. Dog park discussion.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
April 14, 2009
· Fine Arts Commission: building at Tantau across 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 April 30; May 16, 17 - Bike to Work Day; Revising Bike transportation plan;
· Public Safety: April 22 - Walk, Bike and Carpool Day; working with Teen
Commission/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
· Parks and Rec: Future use of Simms property and Stocklmeir property
· TIC: Working with Environmental Coordinator on video about solar panels.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava:
· 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 so 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 Parliamentary 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 final action, and no reconsideration opportunity exists;
the item is closed and the action is considered final.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 28, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary