Loading...
PC 01-11-05 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES JANUARY II, 2005 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of January II, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ~OLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: V ice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: T aghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 26,2004 Planning Commission meeting: Chair Saadati: · Page 1: Attendance should include Com. Angela Chen (remove second reference to Com. Wong) · Page 10, second buOet under Chair Saadati; line 4: Insert "of" before "tree" Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve the October 26,2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) Minutes of the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: · Page 1: Attendance should include Com. Angela Chen (remove second reference to Com. Wong). Com. Giefer: · Page 9, second last bullet, change "in" to read "on" · Page 13, third set of bullets, Com. Giefer: last line: Change "to its" to read "from its" Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January II, 2005 . She reviewed the hot topics, including building heights, setbacks, development allocation, commercial FAR, and economic development plan. o Said the Planning Commission may want to focus on residential at the next Planning Commission meeting since the Housing Commission will be present at the meeting. Mr. Piasecki: o Illustrated a graphic of the Crossroads commercial district and Valleo Park, which are the two commercial focal points of Cupertino. o It is not so much a matter of whether it is 20 or 30 feet of setback or 35 or even 40 feet of height, it is more an issue of what kind of economic engine will be necessary if at all to enable the areas to develop to a desired vision. In particular Valleo, it can be seen on a rose bowl that the city has approved the 200 units over 140,000 square feet of commercial and the look and feel of Vallco Parkway will take on more of a main street look with the sidewalk becoming a major pedestrian corridor. o Valleo is looking at putting some commercial on the Penney's side of Vallco Parkway as well, which may result in a critical mass of commercial on both sides of the street that will allow that street to be complementary to what is happening at Valleo Fashion Park. It is clearly a market driven decision; this is the property owners coming to the city asking to provide this mix of uses in a much smaller format but very similar to Valley Fair and Santana Row; it is a consistent concept. o For the Crossroads district, similar issues exist, because in the case of Valleo it clearly is the residential that is driving the redevelopment of that area. If you were to eliminate that use entirely, you probably would not have seen the rose bowl redevelopment in the near term because there would be no incentive. Ten years ago it might have been office that was the hot market item; so the question for the General Plan is how flexible do we want to be as a city, how important to us as a city to ride the economic waves that are coming to us, however restricted that might be or however confined it may be; or do we just ignore those waves and not ride them at all. o It comes down to what does Vallco need to be, what is a reasonable level of development acceptable to inspire them to provide the theaters, expand the commercial, provide a new market, connect things and reinvigorate Vallco so that it can get in tune with the 21" century, because clearly it is not there yet. o Crossroads district may be on a smaller scale, same issues; mixed used can be allowed only under certain conditions, and the city gets the objectives that it is after, a predominantly retail, walkable type of community. The question is should any other alternate uses be allowed in the Crossroads to enable some of the redevelopment that may be envisioned for the Crossroads to happen. In the case of the Crossroads, you can be much more restrictive, it clearly is a commercial district, predominantly it can continue to be that. o Anderson Chevrolet site for example, people have been talking about possibly redeveloping it, staff has stressed the commercial focus which is needed on that property. o Some inquiries have asked if they could do some residential, have some enhanced commercial, would the city entertain that, and we have cautioned them severely because there doesn't seem to be a sentiment in favor of it. Nevertheless, people are looking at a variety of options. It is good to look at land use as a means to an end, the end product is trying to be achieved, what do you need to do in the marketplace to achieve that; we simply do not have the ability to sit back and wait until we get a Barnes and Noble bookstore if the market isn't going to give it. o It is factual that if all you offer is the same level of intensity of commercial development that currently exists on the property, you probably are not going to get it redeveloped; it is hard for property owners and applicants to tear down buildings just to reconstruct the same amount of square footage. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 11, 2005 · The topics to discuss include the question of building heights, setbacks, development allocation, commercial floor area, and economic development; the development allocation being the most important. · If we close up shop, in the case of residential, there is nothing left; people are asking if they can convert an old manufacturing building to residential; there are no units remaining. Even if you are willing to pay an in-lieu fee to the city for the sales taxes, or green plating it or gold plating it, there is no option. It is a question the city has to grapple with as other cities do. . Ms. Wordell: · Reviewed that the next steps will be the Housing Commission focusing on housing, the Fine Arts Commission is invited to talk about the 1 % for art recommendation, even though it wasn't identified as a hot topic, it is something people need to be aware is in the draft and whether you want to keep it as is or not. · Proposed that following each element, a meeting be held for land use; as well as a study session for open discussion to allow the Planning Commission and the public to have an interchange of questions and comments. Com. Giefer: · Referred to the current draft General Plan on Page B-27, regarding land inventory and available land for redevelopment; and asked if it was updated, and did staff do another inventory of land available for redevelopment in the city and try to forecast forward based upon the units recommended by both the task force and staff's recommendation how many units that would yield. · Was the analysis changed in terms of the yields, or did they look at what the prospective yields would be if it was based on the task force recommendation and staff's recommendation, or the modified compromise recommendation. · Said that what was there in terms of possible development and yield of new units, didn't meet the needs then and wouldn't meet them now. She said she had the impression there was no land available to meet the ABAG numbers no matter what was done. Ms. Wordell: · Said that the section was not changed. · The analysis was not changed and they did not look at the prospective yields. Mr. Piasecki: · Because the task force draft adopted the same numbers that are in the 1993 General Plan, it is assumed there is land available to accommodate those units. Ms. Wordell indicated many of those units are filtered throughout the neighborhoods; they assume a triplex may be torn down and a fourplex built, not a likely assumption in some cases. For purposes of the housing element, they wanted to impress to the State of California, that the capability is there, as the task is to find available sites, hence every available site was identified. · The other part of the question is that the buckets as they are called, of residential units that have been allocated to North DeAnza Boulevard, Bubb Road, Vallco, and Heart of the City, are emptying out. The current General Plan has used up all of those units. In this new plan, you could try to reallocate some from other areas into the Heart ofthe City or Vallco. · Said the other part of the unit question is the issue of affordability and jobs housing balance, and are those valid concepts? Com. Miller: Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 11, 2005 · Questioned if it was the intention to put residential in the Apple complex and the Hewlett Packard complexes, or is ¡tjust a function of trying to make the numbers. Ms. Wordell: · The Hewlett Packard north doesn't have any; the task force draft does not propose any housing there and the new option does not propose any housing on the Stevens Creek Hewlett Packard property. The color on the map shows residential; there is no allocation there. Relative to the Apple complex, the whole north DeAnza area has several hundred nnits proposed so it could or could not be Apple. · In response to Com. Miller's question, she said that it is not a requirement at this time. · She clarified that in the task force draft; some language was inadvertently left in that said that new non-residential development must have residential attached to it, and the Council had originally directed that it be struck; a corrections document will remove it. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that the concept of allowing residential mix at north Vallco, north DeAnza Boulevard came out of the 1993 plan; a certain amount of nnits to north DeAnza and a certain amount to the Valleo planning area, which Ms. Wordell referred to; the bucket in Vallco is empty, the Hamptons is one project that built out there, Aviary Apartments built out, some people did take advantage of that allocation; it is empty now. · The question is should it be left there; there is every indication that there is no intention on the part of those larger industrial or office developments to put in residential, but it would be possible if you refilled the buckets and provided some allocation to them. Developers are saying again that some of the industrial stock is no longer marketable; they can't fill buildings, they are at a point of having to tear them down. Com. Miner: · There are commercial properties that are not competitive in the marketplace; they are likely to stay vacant and there is an issue of jobs imbalance of jobs and housing. It may make sense to convert properties like that to another use, and use creativity in looking at the marketplace. · There have been a number of applications from religious organizations so it may be appropriate to reclassify some of the properties as quasi-public. · Said that the senior citizens are not well represented in town, and providing housing for them would be a win-win situation because they need the housing, and don't impact the schools or traffic and they would balance out the neighborhood. · He said he hoped they could generate some discussion on other creative ideas about possibly looking at the land use map and looking at areas that might make sense for reclassification; and then attempting to consider what kinds of uses would make sense and fit in with the city and yet not severely impact the services offered. Ms. Wordell: · Agreed that it was a good topic for discussion. Vice Chair Wong: · Said there were many differences from the General Plan task force and the administrative plan; it would be helpful in the next meeting to have them in writing in a matrix of what the General Plan task force does and what the administrative plan says. · Asked if the General Plan task force and other non-profit groups were notified about the meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 11,2005 Ms. Wordell: · Everyone who signed up at the community meetings were notified and it was also on the website. The task force was not notified; a half page ad was placed in the Courier as well. · Said that many of the comparisons were in the hot topics document. Vice Chair Wong: · Said that Mr. Piasecki had an excellent comment regarding the economic engine of what is driving the new development in Cupertino, and in regards to percentage of housing relative to mixed use, what is that right mix, and is it driven through the General Plan or is it left open currently; what is the best way to drive that, or does the Commission make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Piasecki: · Said there was not just one answer; from the Commission standpoint, if you articulate that your vision is you are open to allowing some limited mix under certain circumstances to drive the kind of development wanted in the Crossroads or in the Heart of the City or in Vallco; and if you have a question about how much is needed, the acreage analysis can be done and different density looked at, and the data provided; but first it needs to be identified as a question that has to be explored. · There is no need to get extreme with the densities, again unless trying to drive senior housing which tends to be smaller units, higher density, or you are trying to provide empty nester housing and you are insisting that it be more smaller units as opposed to fewer larger units. More family housing is going to create many of the impacts discussed. · That is a good point and can be addressed if the Commission wishes. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to the slide shown on stories, three four and five; noting that the first color is the task force recommendation and second color is what the administrative draft plan recommended. Ms. Wordell: · It is a new option in the staff document that City Council saw in the Fall before they sent the task force draft out. They asked that the document go out with the task force draft. · The hot topics document included a new option, which stemmed from the task force discussions held during the three months of meetings, where they asked if staff would reconsider some of their positions based on the input from the task force. · The new option is trying to reflect something different from what the administrative draft recommended and it takes into account some of the interests of the task force as well as other reasons to consider an option; examples such as considering more height and more storage than the task force recommended due to street framing, or economic incentives. Vice Chair Wong: · Said it appeared that staff recommends the possibility of four stories in the Crossroads, four stories in the Town Center, four stories in the north Vallco area and four and five stories in the north DeAnza area. Ms. Wordell: · Said that when it is one number, it is not an option proposed. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 11,2005 Mr. Piasecki: · The task force recommendation reflects that single number; where there are two numbers, what we wanted to do was engender some discussion, do you want three story buildings and limitations in north DeAnza next to four to five story Apple buildings; does that make sense to you? It wasn't necessarily a recommendation from us that you should go that way, but we wanted you to have the discussion. · Similarly, Valleo Fashion Park is a good example where they want to put the cinema building on the top of the existing mall which will get it up to 65 or 75 feet; which will translate to a four or five story building. Is that acceptable? Does that make sense?? In some cases the perception of height and floors can be a misnomer, because depending on where it is located and how it is integrated, it can be done well. Ms. Wordell: · Referred to Page 2-12 of the Land Use Element document, which shows the heights recommended by the task force, which would help to correlate the task force recommendation with the numbers shown on the slide. Com. Chen: · Asked if the draft land use map was prepared based on the task force recommendation. Ms. Wordell: · Said they did not get into the land use map; and there are some changes there that they did not address at all, such as some lands zoned Rl that are actually hillside lands, and are showing up as being changed to hillside. They did not get into that level of detail. · Not aware of anything else in the land use map that would be in conflict with what the task force recommended. · Said that a study session after the February 8 meeting was tentatively scheduled to allow time after each element to summarize discussions and have interactive meetings with the community. In response to Com. MiUer request, staff said that they would provide the results of the community survey from Spring 2004. Com. Miller: · Said that the discussion should include a revisit of where mixed use IS or IS not most appropriate. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked for clarification on the terms used, such as north Vallco Park special center, and Heart of the City special center. Ms. Wordell: · It is just a usable moniker, previously they were called planning districts; the Heart of the City Specific Plan is the only specific plan, so it is unique and it is a separate document based on the general policies that are in the General Plan; the other areas do not have supporting documents for them; they are broken out so you can assign development potential to them. She said the goal for having a special master plan is to set a goal for that particular neighborhood. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 11, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: · Relative to senior housing, he said that the concept was an excellent suggestion to look at for Cupertino, and strongly recommended that senior housing be put in areas that have services. Com. Miner: · Said that there were opportunities in another submarket of seniors, the active senior adult market, such as the Del Webb communities, who are retired and in good health and looking for a different lifestyle where they can congregate with people with similar interests. He said about 22% to 25% of the senior population falls into this group and Cupertino does not have any senior housing community to address that particular need. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Requested that the building heights of the new construction be held down to 3 stories particularly in the Vallco area, where it is primarily a residential area. · Expressed concern with the setbacks particularly along Stevens Creek; she considered the greenbelt down Stevens Creek as part of a parkland around her area of Cupertino and would like to see the setbacks along Stevens Creek maintained. · Commented that the Elephant Bar restaurant and new two story going in at the shopping center encroached into the greenbelt said she hoped they could discourage that type of infringement. · Wants to maintain the tech parks and protect them. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that the Elephant Bar restaurant was consistent with the Heart of the City Plan at 35 feet of setback. A section of the building at Panera Breads was granted an exception to go as close as 30 feet. Beverly Bryant, No. First Street, San Jose, representing the Home Builders Association of Northern California/Southern Division: · Said she appreciated the work that is being done on the General Plan in Cupertino, and encouraged communication with the association members, many who build in Cupertino. · Said she hoped that there weren't limits put on heights, setback and density, but allow the builders to come with some creative designs because there are lots of possibilities in Cupertino for mixed use, industrial/residential and for innovation, such as the senior housing. Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino: · Asked staff to review what was in the pipeline then, what was being built, and already approved when they last met as the General Plan task force in October 2003; and what has happened since, such as Valleo. · Questioned why schools were not discussed at the meeting; · Said that Westgate was a good example of something that had gone and come back; and one of the reasons it has come back is because it is full of parking and wonderful stores not mixed with anything else. · He said it was said in the past that if the industrial stock is replaced with residential, it counters the argument that if places keep being removed, there won't be anywhere for the big companies to come to. · Discussed the votes taken at the recent task force meeting on development allocations. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 11, 2005 · Commended Com. Miller for his statement about senior citizens. More units like one and two units should be talked about, more than the three or four units, because three and four units will invite more problems for the schools and more high rise, high growth. · Said he disagreed with the prior speaker; she is not a resident of Cupertino; while he is very protective of the views and schools and everything else the residents of Cupertino hold dear. Mr. Piasecki: · Said there was a development activity report on the city's website with the pending and recently approved development; Mr. Whitaker identified several of those that are obviously active. The Toll Brothers application which is going to the City Council next week is a request to allow them to pursue a General Plan amendment; at this point staff is not recommending that they move ahead with that particular project for a variety of reasons. Ms. Wordell: · In addition to some of Mr. Whitaker's points, she referred to the hot topics document; Exhibit D, which lists all the housing projects built or approved between 2000 and 2004. · There is also information about school impacts in the hot topics document; there will be some similar information in the EIR; those impacts can be discussed at any time but they can also be focused on either at the Housing meeting or during the EIR. · Relative to number of stories, the task force draft used heights of 35 feet. Chair Saadati: · Said that one of the school board members has different information than what has been received in the past. For each new development, information ITom the school district claims that it won't impact the school capacity. · It would be helpful to get more comprehensive information as to what the capacity is and is there room to expand, because with time we are going to have a change in a cross section of people who are going to live in Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki: · Said he understood that the high school district is doing a separate study of their own. Statewide 26 schools have closed because there is a phenomenon, not in Cupertino; it is a school magnet. · They are all valid comments; it should be something that can be identified, it allows you again to be strategic, whether it is senior housing or empty nester housing. It would be strategic and selfish about the interest of this community, because long term that is what will build the community; that is the kind of plan you are going to be happy with in the long term. Com. Miller: · Asked if a developer is going to do something to impact the schools, why can't they be required to mitigate in some way the impact they had, either through fees or through donations of property or something else. Mr. Piasecki: · There is no reason there cannot be a mitigation process; a lot of that area has been usurped by state law with the improvement fees that they charge any new development or new project; residential or non-residential in some cases. Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 11, 2005 · There is also the property tax that goes to the high school district and if there is an identifiable impact above and beyond that, there is nothing wrong with requiring mitigation. · Most developers would be willing to mitigate; they can price it into the land. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding the building heights, asked how staff interprets the height of the four stories. Mr. Wordell: · In the hot topics document, there is a chart that compares height to stories, hence 30 to 35 feet for commercial would be one to two stories; for residential it would be two to three stories; 45 feet is comparable to 3 stories for commercial office and 4 stories for residential because you have a lower floor to ceiling height. 60 feet high would be comparable to 4 stories commercial office, and 5 stories residential. Bob McKibbin, Cupertino: · Opposes the proj ect. · Said Mr. Whitaker covered many ofthe issues he was going to address. · Referred to the matrix Vice Chair Wong mentioned, the desire to have a matrix in terms of General Plan task force elements, and also the new options recommendations. · Recommended that the three initiatives placed by the CCC become part of the matrix; there is a good chance that will go before the voters either in a special election or in November of 2005, and that would give a clear picture to the City Council and also the Planning Commission of what many of the citizens of Cupertino are looking for in this city on the short term or long term basis. · Relative to the speaker who spoke about the aesthetic value of having builders come in and give designs, said he had a concern with what happened at the corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza. He said he felt the builders are of a different mindset than the citizens of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission and City Council should be aware and represent the citizens of Cupertino and not the outside builders whose main emphasis is profit. · When the General Plan task force was instituted in 2003, it was said that there was very little future development coming down the pipeline. In reality, there has been two major approved developments already; the Pinn Brothers are looking for other major developments; the 40+ acres that were over on Stevens Creek is being gobbled up before this process is finished. Some of the concerns that the citizens of Cupertino have is that this process is being stretched out which is valuable for citizens input, but it also allows these exceptions, these major developments to occur through the old process. He urged the Planning Commission and City Council to keep that in mind. Shishir Mukherjee, Cupertino: · Was pleased to be involved with the 1993 plan; the vision of 1993 has been carried through more or less on the whole in this current plan. · Why did the 1993 revision of the Heart of the City and city center concept not get implemented; it has been only partially implemented. · What is keeping it behind. · The city should be more proactive and act as a catalyst to bring more in. The usual practice seems to be that a developer buys a piece of land and depending on his economic business plan, develops some land and comes to the city for approval; the city goes through the rules and restrictions and the design of the project and approves or disapproves it or modifies it; but the developer cannot come with the vision that the city has. The city has to develop those visions and try to implement them. Cupertino Planning Commission II January II, 2005 · The city has no characteristic; the city can take the catalytic approach of defining a project and then ask for a request for proposal. · Suggested that Cupertino have an educational center. · Transportation system is poor and getting worse, and Cupertino is far from the public transit system. · Suggested a free shuttle service and create a transit center. · Said the city should become more of an activist in the environmental energy in these areas; save much of the energy costs which will provide fimding for other proj ects in the city. · Would be happy to work with the planning department in defining some of these ideas to become proactive. Ms. Wordell: · Noted that the topics of sustainability and energy efficiency will be scheduled for the February 22 meeting. Chair Saadati closed the public hearing. Com. Miller: · Said if he had support from the remainder of the Commission, it would be a good exercise if staff good identify some commercial and/or industrial buildings that are perhaps on the fringes of the residential area not currently in active use that might be considered for reclassification. · There is a large contingent of people in Cupertino who want to keep the growth down and one of the obvious ways to do that is to take structures out of commission that generate jobs because it is the jobs that generate the development and the subsequent housing development. This is a way to slow growth down and also reduce the ABAG requirements if they are based on space whether vacant or not; that would reduce their requirements and if some of this property is put to housing, then that benefits the other side of the equation as well, so that we get some housing going on, we get a reduction in our industrial base, and we balance things out that way. There was Commission consensus to continue the application to the January 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: None Housinl! Commission: Com. Giefer reported the meeting was postponed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the January 25, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: f sf Elizabeth A. Ellis Elizabeth A. EUis, Recording Secretary