Loading...
PC 01-10-06 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:00 P.M. JANUARY 10, 2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 2006, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chair Wong. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Gilbert Wong Marty Miller Lisa Gi efer Taaghi Saadati Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Public Works: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Aki Honda Glenn Goepfert Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TM-2005-13 James Chen 21713,21731, 21711 Alcazar Avenue. Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre parcel into four parcels, ranging from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 square feet. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre site into four parcels, ranging from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 square feet. The proposal is to reconfigure four existing parcels into four new lots, currently only three of the lots are developed with single Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 10, 2006 family homes; the fourth parcel exists as a driveway access for one of the existing properties. She reviewed the site analysis and tree removal as outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approves the tentative map in accordance with the model resolution. James Chen, applicant: · Said he worked closely with the Fire Department, Planning Department and Public Works when submitting the tentative map. The proposal meets the zoning and Public Work Departments requirements. · He requested that the tentative map be approved. · He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project. Mr. Piasecki: · Noted that Condition 13 on the Tentative Map speaks to the driveway easement; they will record the driveway easement agreement so that adjacent property can also use it. Ms. Wordell: · Responded to Corn. Giefer's questions about public and private roadways. · There is no difference between width of public and private roadways; it is what Public Works Department will approve in terms of adequate access for this number of lots. Glen Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public Works: · Said that Public Works would typically have a wider street section for a publicly maintained road. Generally the city would have a substandard down to 28, typically a street would be 30 or 36 feet, if it were expected to be publicly maintained. There would typically be sidewalks except in an area where it has already been approved by Council as semi-rural area. · In this particular case Public Works would consider a narrower road. In order to have the 29 foot width, Public Works would indicate that they need to make it a private road. The standards for a typical road presently is 36 feet. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Steve Malan, Imperial Avenue: · Referring to an overhead map of the city streets, he illustrated the area around Imperial and Orange Avenues where a drainage problem has existed for 15 years. During major rainstorms the heavy flow comes from different directions and floods his lot and the neighbor's lot. Each year they have cleared it out manually. · He recommended installation of curbs and gutters in the general area and another catch basin installed; and some type of site drainage plan for the entire area to catch it before it hits Alcazar. · The density of the project seems high, but livable. It improves the area. Drainage is the main concern. Sheauu Tsai, Alcazar Avenue: · Expressed concern that the old lots had two street entrances, the new ones only have one entrance; traffic will be concentrated on the one side. The traffic and the car lights will impact his house. · The court set up is another concern; it does not match the neighborhood. · According to feng shui, a court with a driveway directly facing the house is not good for the house owners. The width of the street entrance is also a concern. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 10, 2006 · He is opposed to the project. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Commended the city for requiring bond money be put up for the protection of the trees on the property. It is a very useful way of making sure the trees on the property are not damaged by bulldozers or mysteriously disappear. · She expressed concern particularly with the Walnut trees, stating she would like them replaced on the property with a covenant recorded that two walnut trees have been replaced because they are trees recognized by the city as being of historical importance. Cupertino needs to try and retain big trees; English Walnut trees are a heritage type tree for the city. Suriel Chawla, resident: · Said he liked the idea of newer homes in the neighborhood. · Expressed concern about flag lots. He referred to the adjoining property as an eliminator, meaning that he loses 15 feet of open space. · He said that adding higher density and newer development would create major privacy issues for his property. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Goepfert commented on the drainage issues: · Explained the process followed in reviewing an application for a storm drain. He said in this particular case, he was unsure if they considered the quantity of runoff being added in the area; it is a difficult spot but they would seek a solution on the improvement plans to convey the runoff from the site, not just the added runoff, past what was described as a low point, which is a problem in the area. · It is about 250 feet to Orange where there will be a storm drain main line built by a public system, and is further to go to Imperial to make sure the runoff is conveyed. We will look at how we can safely convey that without adding to the existing problem. The alternative would be that we would not consider denying something of this, it is not a significant contributor on the basis of existing drainage problems. The level of improvement and the cost to extend or pick up the runoff from the roadway is something we could consider. It would not be a total solution to just work on this roadway. In other cases, Public Works would look at detention on the lots; I am not sure if there is an existing problem because there is an existing problem here, if that would be appropriate for one new route. In the new pavement area, but Public Works would look at what it would take to minimize the contribution to the existing problem. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that Page 1-6 and 1-7 contain the Public Works conditions. Curb and gutter improvements a speaker talked about wanting to see curbs and gutters, it does stipulate that they shall be installed in accordance with standards as specified by the city engineer. Condition 6 refers to drainage which is also referring to the drainage system, shall be to the satisfaction of the city engineer. · If the Commission feels there is some additional work that needs to be done in those conditions, you can specify it; you can ask the city engineer to focus on the additional contribution made by this project and to determine if there is a way to upgrade the drainage in the area that he thinks is reasonable that he could require of the applicant. The issue that Mr. Goepfert is referring to is that we cannot ask this applicant to solve the problem for the whole neighborhood when they are not contributing very much to that problem. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 10,2006 Ms. Honda: · Responded to Mr. Tsai's concern about the impacts created by the private driveway direction. · Explained that it was currently a tentative map application; when it returns for development of the properties, they can look at site specific mitigation measures which could include some additional trees at that time. Corn. Giefer: (original text In draft minutes) · There is indication on one of the plan sets that the arborists made their notes on, that they intend to put dry wells on each of the lots. On the other subdivision map, they are lacking. To aide in the drainage with the houses that are there now, she said she understood that the down spouts would tie into those dry wells. Is the developer going to put in the dry wells underground for each home because it would solve some of the runoff problems, and from the rooftops; that water would not collect in the street? The following is text added per Com. Giefer's request: Com. Giefer: (revisions per verbatim tape) · One of the plan sets that we have, it's the one that the arborist made their notes on, there is indication that they intend to put in dry wells for each of the lots; and on the other subdivision map, those are lacking on them. My question is, to aide in the drainage from the houses that would replace the houses that are there now, my understanding is that the downspouts would tie into those drywells to try to meet the runoff from the rooftops. I am trying to ascertain ifthe developer is going to put in the drywells underground for each home, because that would solve some of the runoff problems and at least from the rooftop, my understanding would be that that water would not collect in the street. That is the way my house is; my downspouts feed a drywell. Ms. Honda: · The engineer/applicant is the best person to answer those questions. Mr. Chen: · Our first proposal is the use of a dry well to reduce the water that drain§ into the street; individuallot§ will have their own dry well§s, just like the tree report show§Ð and after Public Works review because the new California Water Quality Control Board has a new criteria, they try to reclaim it~-n dry well seeatlse àf)' '¡¡ell Thewater goes underneath to the new ground and it might affect the under ground water, so we ehaRge route it back to the sump pump and put another pump àraiaiag to try to retaia the water aa the let as lffiIeR as we eaa te reduce the water draining, elit end aloe tIhe entire private street we will use interlock pavers ing. IB that ease all tIhe water can drain and be absorbed into the ground; seme of them eaa ge dewa te tllere ( · Vice Chair Giefer - so that would be a pervious surface that would absorb the rainfall) Mr. Chen: NOT SURE HOW TO EDIT THIS PART. This IS the missiBl! answer to mv Question. I didn't ask about fen!! shut I think Steve was followin!!-up on Marty or the neil!hbor across the streets Question after this para!!raph · Correct, that is my personal opinion; we don't (in shifts ?? ) (insist ??) the drywell or pump out water; it depends on the Public works; if Public works requests us to use dry well, for sure we like to use dry well, so we will work closely with Public Works. Whatever the Public Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 10, 2006 Works will like us to do, we will do. Mr. Piasecki: · It might be beneficial ask the applicant to speak to the issue oflights shining on the neighbors to the south, if the Commission is concerned about that; perhaps the alignment isn't as bad as they anticipated. · He asked Mr. Chen to address the comment from one of the neighbors that lights would be shining into their front windows. He asked him to address it based on his familiarity with the site and the alignment ofthe driveway and if there is any simple fix that would remedy that. · Mr. Chen: · This is very hard issue for me; I am an engineer, not the feng shui scholar, but to my personal understand the Chinese feng shui they always have some other way to correct the bad evil, what temple; the drywell faces to his window and the car lights might shine to his window and we can put the tree in between the driveway and the window in the front yard or in the sidewalk, or street, or sidewalk blinking ?? area, that way the blinking can stop the traffic light; that is one of the ways. But I think the owner could share this problem with the owner to solve some feng shui problems and maybe hire some home fung shui scholar to work out something of the feng shui at home; that is all I can suggest. Based on the engineering points, I don't see any problem with that; that is based on the fung shui, I am Chinese and I hear about feng shui and I know the feng shui, but there are some other ways to prevent the feng shui problem so I think that the owner and the neighbors can work it out together with a feng shu scholar to solve this problem. Chair Wong: · Can we have that private driveway start at 20 feet and then open up to 29 feet, is that possible, so that when they exit from their Mr. Piasecki: · Requested the applicant's comment on the lights shining onto the neighbor the south. Mr. Chen: · Said it was a difficult issue for an engineer. He said personally he understood the concept of Feng Shui which alleges that it is not good for the homeowner to have a driveway that directly faces the house. Relative to the light shining directly into the homeowner's window, he suggested that a tree be planted in between the driveway and the window to block the direct light into the window. · He suggested that the homeowner and developer work together on a solution. Chair Wong: · Suggested that the driveway start at 20 feet and open up to 29 feet; when they exit from the private driveway they will be exiting between the two properties at the existing driveway but when they go inside the private driveway they will opening up to the 29 foot driveway area. Mr. Piasecki: · The 29 feet area accommodates the onstreet parking on the west side of the street; the travel lanes are already limited to about 20 feet, which are after the onstreet parking and before the private curb line in front of the homes. · You already have a constricted driveway. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 10, 2006 Com. Giefer: · Suggested that even if it was just for parcel one. If there was no on driveway parking in parcel one and you moved parcel one to the left, you could save one of the English walnut trees and provide more space between the eastern neighbor who is concerned about their privacy, wich the English walnuts would also add to retain some of the neighbor's privacy. · Said she would be supportive of making the first portion of the driveway "no parking" and limit that size to 20 feet, giving them a larger parcel one, put a covenant on one of the English walnut trees to save one of them to allow more privacy for the eastern neighbor, which would be a win-win for all. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that they could condition that they look at that and try to find a way; that sounds like a good suggestion; just eliminate one or two parking spaces. Com. Giefer: · Asked if the subdivision locked them into the driveway at this time. Mr. Piasecki: · You would still have ample driveway size because you would be actually widening it to the west. Com. Giefer: · We would be widening it to the west but narrowing it to the east; we would have 20 feet with no parking; but does that do anything technically to the subdivision we are asked to approve. Mr. Piasecki: · I don't think it changes; if you condition it, we will look at it to make sure if it has to be 21 or 22 at the driveway curb cut, one or two feet will not make a big difference. Your point is let's see if we can get the exiting cars further to the west so that we are not directing lights right into the neighbors' windows. Com. Giefer: · And also save one of the trees. Mr. Piasecki: · You would need to put that tree on the list of trees to be preserved. Mr. Chen: · That is a good idea; we can work with public works and planning. Vice Chair Miller: · Said he was satisfied that the drainage issue was being addressed adequately and that the applicant was doing his best to address the drainage issues and working with staff, particularly with offering to do interlocking pavers which does a lot to keep the water on site. · There were some other concerns about density brought up, but this is just basically a reconfiguration of existing parcels and taking away a flag lot arrangement and putting in a cuI de sac, which is an enhancement to the neighborhood. He said he saw it as an attractive solution which will upgrade the neighborhood. · Commented that they had done something similar with another project where the issue arose; where they narrowed the first feet of the driveway so that it resolved the feng shui issue. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 10, 2006 · Relative to the concerns about feng shui, he said he felt there was a reasonable solution and perhaps the neighbors could work together to make sure that everybody is reasonably satisfied. · He said he supported the proj ect. Com. Giefer: · Added an additional condition on tree protection; in addition to the ones already listed, we have also indicated that we do not want to allow storage of materials or dirt underneath protected trees, and would also require the conditions of the protection posted. Barry Coates has provided a posting notice in their packet and said she would like to implement that. In the motion, if we are going to narrow the driveway, I would also like to add that at least one of the walnut trees be protected. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application TM-2005-13 as amended; including reconfiguration of the driveway, saving one of the walnut trees, no material storage or dirt underneath trees, drainage to be self sustaining to the maximum extent possible in the new driveway, and a catch basin within the driveway to help alleviate the drainage problem. (Vote: 4-0-0) 2. TM-2005-14 Jitka Cymbal (Jinling and Roger Low residence) 21988 McClellan Rd. Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two parcels, 10,418 square feet and 1,385 square feet respectively. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two parcels in a RI-7.5 zoning district as outlined in the staff report. · He summarized the recommendations for tree retention and removal from Barry Coates, the City's consulting arborist. Mr. Coates' recommendations are outlined in the staff report, Page 2-3. · As a result of the arborist's recommendations, staff has put conditions of approval in the approval of the tentative map, including recording a covenant for the protection of the three trees; obtaining a tree protection bond of $10,000 per tree; hiring a licensed arborist to oversee the tree protection measures during construction. He illustrated the location of the trees proposed for preservation. · Staff recommends approval of the tentative map. The applicant was not present. Com. Miller: · Asked staff why a flag lot was being considered as opposed to a straight subdivision down the middle? Mr. Jung: · Responded that the property is conventionally zoned and the minimum lot width required in a RI zone is 60 feet at the front set back line; the lot is too narrow to split down the center. Com. Miller: Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 10,2006 · Said it was still a workable solution; and an opportunity to not have another flag lot situation. Mr. Jung: · Said it was a situation where the flag lot lends itself to the protection of the existing trees on the property, and was not certain if that would be the case if the lot were to be split down the middle. · He said he thought it would be problematic whether the Oak tree could be preserved with a 50/50 split down the middle. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that if the Commission is interested in pursuing the two lots with the frontages on the public street they could address the question and continue the item. The applicant would likely have to file a request for at least a variance or an exception to the ordinance to allow them to have the less than standard lot width. Com. Giefer: · Said she also felt that the lot should be split down the middle; and suggested continuing the application. Com. Saadati: · For protection ofthe trees, splitting the lot down the middle makes sense. He said it should be addressed further. Com. Wong opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Commended the city for protecting the trees, and considering the bond requirement. · Said she was pleased that the Commission is considering the bond money and that Mr. Coates' suggestions about protecting the trees during construction are being considered. Xzaodonig Zhao, resident: · Asked what stage the project was at, and the purpose of the story pole. The story pole looks into his backyard and he was concerned about a privacy issue. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Jung: · Explained that the pole were story poles. · He said the applicant wanted to submit an application for a two story residential permit for each of the lots; he did not have the lots at this point and staff discouraged him from filing the application right away until he was certain he would get the subdivision. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that the item be continued for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to continue Application TM-2005-14 to the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 10, 2006 3. U-2005-19, ASA-2005-17, TR-2005-8, EA-2005-15 Mike Rohde, Vallco International Shopping Center LLC, 10123 No. Wolfe Rd Use Permit to allow portions of a three story, four level parking garage to exceed the 32 foot height limit. Architectural and site approval to allow portions of a three-story, four-level parking garage to exceed the 32 foot height limit. Tree removal and replanting plan for portions of a three-story, four-level parking garage that exceed the 32 foot height limit. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for a use permit to allow portions of a three-story, four-level parking garage to exceed the 32 foot height limit; architectural and site approval to allow protions of a three-story, four-level parking garage to exceed the 32 foot limit; and tree removal and replanting plan for portions of a three-story, four-level parking garage that exceed the 32 foot height limit. · She illustrated the site layout and circulation, and reviewed the proposed parking garage. · She reviewed the following issues as and staff recommendations outlined in the staff report: Site Layout and Circulation; Height; Lighting; Parking and Traffic. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the applications. Mike Rohde, applicant: · He reiterated that the application was for a Use Permit for a portion of the north parking structure. · Parking is a major component of the revitalization of the mall; tenants always ask how much parking there is and where it is. · The north parking structure is a very important structure for the mall, thereby allowing customers to park on the west side of the campus, on or near Macy's and TGI Fridays. The structure helps balance the property from the west side and east side; and it will allow opening the theater and secure the agreements with Macys and the other department stores. · He discussed the compromises made in working with the city and neighbors, including reducing the levels of the garage; retaining as many trees as possible and replanting trees; removal of the tall elements away from the west side of the garage, including the elevator override, and lampposts. They are also seeking the Commission's input for the upper parapet in terms of the height. · Construction on the garage will also be in a precast manner in terms of limiting the amount of construction that will take place on site. There will be an addition of the green screen which will shield the neighbors of the filtered view of the garage. · In addition, the traffic hours will be limited on the perimeter road as staff mentioned. Kirk Ellis, architect: · He said in the revitalization of the campus, they looked at creating a mixed use campus, focusing on entertainment activity. The mall was built long ago and trends have changed. Relative to campus planning, parking will be spread around the campus and not focused in · one location; there will be different activity areas; create a real streetscape and have the intersection of Vall co and Wolfe become a real intersection that is a gateway into the campus. · He reviewed the orientation of the parking garage and discussed the various features on the different levels. Details are outlined in the staff report. · He reviewed the landscape plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 10, 2006 . Relative to the stacking and elevation of the parking garage, he said they compressed it down as tightly as possible, and tried to accommodate as many of the needs they could within reason. It is a critical part to the success in the development of the mall. . Responded to Commissioners' question relative to the parking garage. Mr. Rohde: · Regarding lighting levels at the roof level, he said they would have the opportunity to put it on a separate breaker. After the mall is closed, the lighting levels in the existing garage get reduced to half. In the top level of the garage they have the ability to coordinate traffic after a certain time on the uppermost level. · Relative to the use o(underground parking, he said that Macys prefers not to do subterranean parking; and they have veto powers. Also there two PG&E transformers located in front of the entrance to Macys as well as a 12 KV line. · He answered Commissioners' questions about the parking garage, including accessing and exiting the structure during operating hours and after hours; lighting; and number oflevels. Corn. Wong opened the meeting for public comment. Sharon Hampe, resident: · Thanked Chair Wong for facilitating the meeting last Friday with the neighbors. · The revitalization of Vallco is an important project because the projected sales tax can help provide quality services to the City. · She noted that in the evening, when walking north to south on Norwich Avenue next to the s · oundwall, she is able to see all the levels of the Vallco parking garage next to Macys, because .the trees are not tall enough to screen it. She expressed concern that with the addition of more parking levels, the height of the parking garage will impact privacy and create security concerns, as well as noise impacts and additional pollution created from the additional cars in the garage. · She suggested, from a win-win perspective, to propose to construct the garage one level lower, which would be in compliance with the 32 foot height, and would also will be compatible with the Macys' structure. Mark McKenna, President-Elect of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: · Spoke in favor the proposal. · Said that one of the missions of the Chamber of Commerce is to enhance the viability of the economics of Cupertino and they feel that the parking garage would increase the viability of the commerce in Cupertino. Nelson D'Souza, Dennison Avenne: · Opposed the building of the parking structure. · Expressed concern that the parking structure has been built up to 32 feet which is considered to be high compared to the existing parking structures in and around Macys and Sears. · Attempts have been made to work with Mike Rohde to design a parking structure that goes below grade level; the main reason that City Council has approved 32 feet is because going below grade level has been ruled out because of the PG&E transformers that claim to be in the way and have been put forth as a major problem. · He questioned whether any Planning Department staff has verified Mr. Rohde's statements that it is impossible to move the transformers. He said that he located both transformers outside Macys and they are 3 by 5 feet and 5 by 9 feet in line outside the Macys' sidewalk. He commented that if some space was given up, it was likely a structure could be built Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 10, 2006 underground. He asked that the statements be verified about Federated not being open to going to the subterranean structure, and also if any documents exist showing that PG&E states that the challenge exists. · He pointed out that Mr. Rohde was not able to provide contact names at Federated or PG&E when residents asked for them at the neighborhood meetings. · He expressed concern about the entry and exit points for the parking structure. One of the entry points is through Norwich Avenue which adds to the congestion in that area. He suggested moving it to another location in the parking structure. Patty Chi, Norwich Avenue: · Said that from her front yard she can view the existing Macys' parking garage. · She suggested that the parking garage be moved closer to the theaters if it was anticipated that the garage would be heavily used by theater patrons. The movie patrons leaving after the last movie would create a disturbance for the close neighbors. · She asked that the Planning Commissioners consider staying with the 32 foot height. Com. Wong: · Clarified that the footprint of the parking structure would not be built on the transformer. · Based on what the applicant stated earlier in the meeting, Macys has veto power, and does not want to have a subterranean garage. Lisa Warren, resident: · Said she attended the neighborhood meeting held in November. She felt not all the persons who should have received notice of the meeting, were notified of the meeting. · Many who attended the meeting felt that the applicant was withholding information and providing incorrect information. · She said there seemed to be a conflict of information between the November meeting and the present Planning Commission meeting relative to the three stores and PG&E, and information relating to the parking garage. · She expressed frustration about the unanswered questions about the tree protection, and parking garage structure. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Relayed a comment from Patti Chi that in the winter time the ash trees lose their leaves, so their may be a bigger problem. The photos were taken in the summer when the trees were fully leaved. · She said the parking garage should remain at the 31 foot height, since taller structures intrude into the neighborhoods. · It would also be helpful to have security guards in the area of the parking garage after hours or went the movies let out. She said at Valley Fair there are security guards in trucks in the Macys area which provided a feeling of security when entering the parking garage. Having them in the area at closing time helps to reduce the problem of purse snatchings. We need to think about that when we have people going into areas of the Vallco mall and the perimeter road after hours, because we haven't had shoppers in the areas around the mall after II p.m. Michael Pyle, Dennison Avenue: . Expressed his appreciation to the city staff, Planning Commission and City Council for being receptive and working to develop some mitigation, rather than move quickly on everything. . Relative to the issue of the row of trees, which is being relied upon as an important part of site mitigation and noise and light mitigation, he noted that the rows of trees are extremely Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 10,2006 uneven in their height and their condition. The tree plan also shows instead of three rows of trees in some places, near the west side entrance of the garage, they are considering removing some rows of ash trees leaving a single row of redwood trees. The city report on housing as opposed to the garage refers to the fact that at least in some portions of property, irrigation is either non-existent or has been cut off which threatens the health of a number of trees. There is also the issue that Vallco cut a number of trees in the north parking lot, which raises the question does the existing development agreement or anything else protect the trees, or do they exist by the grace of Val1co, which his neighborhood does not want to rely on for the health and safety of those trees over time. . He asked the city to address the issue and propose language to ensure that Val1co isn't responsible for maintaining the rows of trees. . The second issue relates to traffic flows. The one thing that is still very much on the west and north where there is abutting residential, is that it is where the entrance to the parking garage would be. He said he would like to see some thought on finding a way to reconfigure all the streets and intersections to have the main focus for traffic into the garage be on the west side of the garage, which is the natural way and the easiest for people to access from Wolfe Road. Sean Huang, resident: · Echoed some concerns of the neighbors; the first one relates to the access to the soundwall itself, which would be toward Wolfe Road, which would have an easy flow. Instead of having the flow towards the neighbors, should it go the other way. · He commented that the top level of the garage would provide only 20 additional spaces, but is going above 32 feet high. He said there was a lot of parking available outside Sears. · Said he found the suggestion for off hours parking outside the mall interesting as it would create a dangerous situation for pedestrians. He questioned whether the parking structure was really for the AMC theaters or something else. · Said he would like to see some kind of warranty for the trees and a maintenance plan for tree replacement. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: · Asked the applicant to clarify Ms. Warren's comments about the veto power of the anchor stores. Mr. Rohde: · Clarified that the speaker was not completely accurate in her statement about the parking structure on the south side of Penneys. · He said they do have the opportunity land a parking structure on the south side ofPenneys and it has always been in the plan. It is not something new. · He said they have had discussions with Penneys about trying to add a parking structure on the north side of the property and it is not on the table for them at this point. Penneys also said no to adding a parking structure on the south side. · He pointed out that the land in front of Macys is owned by Val1co and is therefore the best opportunity for them to build a parking structure on it. It is correct that Penneys and Sears own their own building as well as their pad. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 January 10, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that many applicants are independent and can make choices; however, the present applicants have three major anchor tenants they have to go to every time they have a proposal, and must renegotiate their agreements under their real estate agreements with those anchor tenants. It makes the process slow and cumbersome, and it may appear they are inflexible; they are well intentioned, but they just don't have the flexibility that other independent applicants may have. He said to bear with them and the city, as they were trying to get the best alternative out of the proposals, and it is difficult when dealing with parties who have veto power. Mr. Ellis: · Said that relative to the entrance on the east side vs. the west side of the garage, the biggest concern initially, was traffic safety. Referring to the master plan, he illustrated a flow of traffic to demonstrate turns, stop signs (lack of) cars driving down Wolfe Road, as an example of the safety and traffic concerns at that particular comer. · Relative to a neighbor's concern that there is an entrance on that way, is that needed? It is needed; for the number of stalls, a second entrance is needed; also because the ramping is done on the west side, that is the best location for it as far as functionality and safety. Mr. Piasecki: · Asked Mr. Rohde if it would work to flip the structure so that the ramping comes from the other side and then take two entrances off the north side of the structure. Mr. Rohde: · He said it would not actually work; it is necessary to have the ramping on the far side; once again Macys having REA veto authority; they want to have as clear a view of their front door and their parking for the patrons as possible. It is a stipulation. When you see a ramped edge to a parking structure, you cannot see them quite as freely and they wanted to actually have the full 17 foot high clear lower floor, which we are not able to accommodate. This is one of those things, ramp on the far side gives them the visibility. Once again helps us to keep the flow in the safest point which is on that farther west side, not the east side. Vice Chair MiUer: · There was a question about the trees, and whether they were deciduous, what happens in terms of preservation and replacement, and what are we doing about thinning sections of the trees. · Said that the concern about people walking back from the theater along the perimeter road could be addressed by signage, discouraging them from using that particular area. Ms. Wordell: · The evaluation from the arborist for the trees that are along the west side of the property, the redwood and the ash was in general that they were in good health and they have a significant long life ahead of them. He didn't do an individual evaluation on them for that reason. 1 think if you wanted to direct that there be more attention spent to that, that could be done and we could have that be part the detailed landscaping plan to come back to you and we could look at it more closely. · The deciduous trees get thinner in the winter; additional planting is being considered as part of the new landscaping plan. · There was also the suggestion of trying to allow some interior access; it might be a possibility. The suggested signage may also be helpful. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 January 10, 2006 Com. Saadati: · The areas that need to be addressed when this goes to City Council need to be specifically addressing the level of use for the roof level and reduction of the lighting, clearly identifying the parapet materials. I am not sure if the cable? Would be better than a solid material, I have seen both. If there is no car, the cables will give you perception ofless height; if there is solid concrete, it may not be as attractive. · Looking into possibly eliminating the 20 parking stalls that will increase the height; I think structurally that could possibly be done if that is eliminated; I don't think 20 parking would make a lot of difference. It should be looked at and addressed before the City Council, because I suspect the height Ìnay be an issue that they are concerned with. Item 8 states that a tree protection is bond for during construction, however after the construction is done in the future there has to be some verbiage that the trees are going to be protected and they remain to be well watered and kept in good condition. If they die, they need to be replaced, so that it at least blocks the view of the structures from the neighbors. · A good security plan; I think Mike stated in the past that you have security guards; as Vallco is expanding and more people are going through there, if the theater is closing at 2 a.m. there needs to be a definite plan to ensure public safety. · Good signage with good taste. · With all the conditions and staff condition I support the project. Com. Saadati: · Planters would be attractive. There could also be low lighting put on the inside for security. Com. Giefer: · Said she concurred with staff recommendation to move ahead with the Use Permit and also the environmental, and have the detailed landscaping plan as well as the ASA come back to the Planning Commission. · There are too many inconsistencies in terms of tree removal; several conflicts that need to be clarified, with the specific intent to save as many of the mature ash trees as possible that are in place today. · There needs to be some access from within the second story of the mall to the parking garage, because it gives people a greater feeling of security. · Suggested the top 20 spaces be eliminated with a maximum height of 32 feet. · I concur with Com. Saadati that 20 spaces which we will lose some of them anyway to put in the hammerhead for the turnaround. I don't think that losing 15 spaces is going to be substantial, and I think it will make the neighbors feel much more comfortable if we eliminate that higher portion. · I think that with the tree protection that is in the Use Permit, I would also like to add a few of the points that arborist Barry Coates brought up and those are that we post notices on trees that are protected, on the fencing around the protected tree; that we specifically state that the trees are to be watered and maintained and in good health throughout the construction process. · As Corn. Saadati indicated, that we record a covenant, protecting the trees that are retained. Under the tree protection bond, the second line I put down that all evergreen, ash, coast redwood or any other significant trees determined by the Director of Community Development and the Planning Commission that are not required to be removed, have a construction bond, because there may be other trees that corne up during the landscaping plan that we feel are significant and should be protected. · Said she concurred with Com. Saadati; she would like to see green screen both on the west side of the structure which faces the neighborhood as well as the north side of the structure that Cupertino Planning Commission 16 January 10, 2006 faces 1-280 in the event the condominium development is approved, because there should be some screening in that direction as well. · Said she supported the project; it is an important project to help Vallco get energized again. Chair Wong: · Asked Com. Saadati and Corn. Giefer; regarding the concern about the neighbors and the 20 spots on the northern part, and also recognizing the concern regarding the turnaround; perhaps you could use those 20 spots and have that bigger area for that turnaround; would you entertain that idea? Com. Saadati: · He said he would look into it, and to make sure it works best with the circulation. A portion of it may need to be eliminated but they need to study it more to see what works best. The Director of Community Development may have the final say. By the time it goes to the Council, it needs to be addressed more. Com. Giefer: · Said she would prefer to keep the visual lines of the parking garage; having 20 spaces less the turnaround, is really 15 parking spaces; it seems even from the developer's perspective, and I don't know the cost, but I would anticipate that the cost of adding that is more expensive for Vallco than eliminating it. · It seems to have very low utility value to me; I support the tower for the elevators; I don't have a problem giving them that, it is necessary for the project and it has been located away from the housing, but I see that the expense is more significant than the amount of spaces we gained. Vice Chair Miller: · Vallco has gone a long way to mitigating many neighbor concerns with the green screens, their baffling, and a lowering of the original structure proposal. · He said his perception in talking with the neighbors was that the primary issue was privacy and he felt having a solid parapet wall was a solution to that so that there couldn't be people standing up there looking into the neighborhood. · I also think that is a similar issue in relationship to just how high the structure goes; I think the primary issue is that we screen it from the neighborhood, and if it is adequately screened, then I don't see it as a major issue at this point. · I could go either way on the small section with the parking there, whether we just use that as a turnaround or eliminate it entirely. I would like to hear what Vallco's feelings are on that particular point. Corn. Giefer's comments are well taken; it is not a lot of parking. · My primary issue is that I think this parking structure is needed as Vallco moves forward, we are all expecting they are going to be successful and my primary concern is that the larger problem that we might have is that they are so successful that we are pushing parking into the adjacent shopping center, which in turn would push parking from the adjacent center into the surrounding neighborhoods; and it would be a far worse problem than having a parking structure at the Macys' site. · He said he would like to explore further to ensure that if and when that problem occurs, there is a plan in place long before so that they are addressing the issue so that the neighbors aren't imposed upon and the shopping center next door is still able to do business and not be pushed out by parking from Vallco. · The other issue, there were other solutions we looked at; in terms of knocking down the two existing structures and rebuilding them. I think the problem here is from a timings Cupertino Planning Commission 17 January 10, 2006 perspective; the quickest way to get the parking structure up for the theater is to build it at the Macys; site and in the long run, it would most likely have a structure there in the long run, so for timing issues and because it willlike1y end up there eventually, it make sense at this point to go ahead with this structure here. · Supports the project. Mr. Rohde, applicant: · Said that Vallco has its own security staff unlike some of the other neighborhood centers; and will be able to control their own parking and would do that. There will be 20 officers to help maintain the property day and night. · Relative to the comment about the 20 spaces on top, he said the 20 spaces are very expensive to build; but the main purpose is a structural issue for them. The cost to build those parking spaces is very challenging but the structural part of it is more important for us; we have already reduced that side as much as possible, but it comes down to a structural issue on the parking structure; and that is why the 20 spaces are there and we think that doing a hammerhead there, we would likely lose the maximum of 3 stalls. Mr. Piasecki: · Maybe the question becomes if you built the structural elements necessary, but didn't put parking up there, because once you put parking, you need the baffling, the green screen, and then you have the additional height associated with that additional 6 feet. Could you just build the structural framework elements and not put parking up there? Mr. Rohde: · I still think you are at the same height; you may as well put parking there because it is the same issue; you are at the same height. That is what the green screen is to protect the neighborhood in addition to the three rows of trees. You are still at the same height will the structural element on that side. Chair Wong: · Ifwe don't build those 20 spots; how many feet will it be reduced if we went that way. Mr. Rohde: · It comes back, Kurt may be able to answer that. We have already reduced the height of that structural element on that state; you end up with a bonus 20 spots, but you still have the same height on the parapet. Mr. Piasecki: · Said the difference will be the baffling and the green screen. You will not need that additional 6 feet if it is just a structural element. If that is important to the Commission and you probably don't want the parking up there if you want to reduce it by the six feet; otherwise you will. It is correct, you will have it up to the platform layer of that upper level; you will have that exact height, but you won't need the 6 feet on top of it. Chair Wong: · The 6 feet for the privacy for the neighborhood will only be for those 20 spaces. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 January 10, 2006 Mr. Piasecki: · It is for the entire west elevation and part of the north and south wrapped around, but if you bring that upper level on the west side, than you need to baffle it and greenscreen it. That translates to 6 feet of height. Chair Wong: · I don't understand why you need the green screening facing the condominium; my concern is it is a parking structure; you have carbon monoxide with autos. Mr. Piasecki: · Weare trying to take care of some noise flanking; this is what happens along freeways when you put soundwalls; you have to extend soundwalls beyond the property line because you get flanking corning from the sides. I envision that you would only need to wrap it about 25% of the north and south end to get a pretty good level of avoidance of the noise flanking; after that point it starts to get fairly distant, you will have plenty of airflow and if you decide to greenscreen the entire north elevation, you wouldn't have to baffle it. You would simply do it for an aesthetic greenscreen effect. Chair Wong: · Thanked the neighbors for attending and organizing the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors want Vallco Fashion Park to be a good neighbor; they want good communication from the mall and they are frustrated with the communication from the mall. Tonight we will send a loud message to be sent to the owners; we need better communication as the City Council said in their last meeting. · Said the shopping center would not make money with the parking structure; they don't want to build this parking structure; but it is necessary to have a place to park, and the parking experience should be positive. · I believe that the mitigating factors suggested by staff were positive and will be a win-win situation. I support all the mitigating factors that staff suggested. · We did look into the concerns about moving the entrance at different points. I know that it is not the best interest of the neighbor to have the entrance facing the neighborhood, but based on what the architect said tonight, they need to have two entrances and exits for safety purposes and t1"tat would be the best feature. Also in the agreement it says that the perimeter road will be closed at 9 p.m., so in the evening you will have some relief. Also the top level will be closed at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. so there will also be relief on there too. · I am open regarding the 20 spaces regarding the parking structure. I would like to see it more of a turnaround; but again I am open to that. The bottom line is to have a successful shopping mall. It is in the redevelopment area; I know that folks are deeply concerned and I hear that loud and clear. · Regarding the trees, when we hear the next application, there is going to be mitigating factors regarding the trees; I also support staffs suggestion regarding that we do need a detailed landscaping plan and also I do want to turn around at the top level and not have it dead end. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application EA-2005-15. (Vote: 4-0-0) Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application U-2005-19 with the following conditions: No.7 - tree protection, that it be stated no parking or vehicle traffic or storage shall be under the root zones; information be added to the arborist's report that the notice of Cupertino Planning Commission 19 January 10, 2006 the posted conditions be placed on the tree protection barriers; trees be watered and maintained in good health; and that the retained trees be recorded as a covenant on Vallco. Staff will also look at a turnaround at the top level, and the issue of deciduous trees to make sure there is full color. The height be limited to 32 feet for the parking structure itself. (Vote: 4-0-0) Com. Giefer: (original text in mins) · That we would limit the height to 32 feet where the parking is s!fUettlfeà itGelf. ('lAth the )'!arking s!fUelufe itoelf?) Insert: "allow the sheer wall to exceed this height" - Where does this go??? · We had some discussion about the supporting members of the structure without the parking being built and I am unclear if there was support for that moving forward or what my fellow commissioners were suggesting. Com. Giefer: (new text - verbatim from tape) · There was some discussion with regards to the height of the top story; there was DO resolution. Beg. Of tape 3 (missing text from tape beginning) ..... that we would limit the height to 32 feet for the parking structure itself. · We had some discussion about the supporting members of the structure without the parking being built, and I am unclear if there was support for that moving forward or what my fellow commissioners were suggesting. Chair Wong: · I would have the concern based on what the architect said regarding the structure of the parking structure and that is why I would be hesitant to support it. I know that the neighbors would like it to be lowered, but based on what the architect said, I am concerned about the well being of the structure. Com. Giefer: (this is verbatim text from tape) · Even though they could build the structure without putting in the parking pad, they could build a supporting structure which would exceed the 32 feet, but the actual parked on portion would be eliminated which would also eliminate the height of the green screen, that is my understanding. · Said she was comfortable with that option snggested by staff. I think it is a better solution for the neighbors who we heard from at this meeting. Chair Wong: · Asked if in the future parking was a concern, with the application, could they come back and continue their parking structures. Com. Saadati: · They can always come back as long as adequate screening is provided. · I am receptive to Com. Giefer's suggestion, we don't have enough information as to see how this structure works, but it is something that the staff could look into. Mr. Piasecki summarized: · It is suggested to allow the structure to go through with no parking on the top level; which would eliminate the need for the baffling and the green screen because you wouldn't have privacy impacts, noise impacts, lighting impacts, at the upper level. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 January 10, 2006 . There would then be a process for the applicant to come back if they need the extra parking and they have to do all those other mitigating factors, we can have a public hearing on that. . The recommendation to the City Council is based on removing the 20 spaces. They always have the ability to come back and apply for another use permit as they have done in this instance. Your intent and your recommendation would be clear to the City Council; they can ask that the City Council throw it back in and have that discussion next week. Com. Giefer's suggestion accepted by Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Miller. (Vote: 4-0-0) Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application ASA-2005-17 Vote: (4-0-0). Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Corn. Giefer, to approve Application TR-2005-08 per the model resolution; changed to reflect any tree changes made to the Use Permit ASA Motion: (New wording proposed by Com. Giefer related to the arborist recommendations for the different kinds of protections. Com. Giefer: · In the past if we have approved a tree removal, the applicant is able to go out and begin tree removal and for ours and the public's comfort level, ensure by approving this that we are specifically stipulating that they will corne back with a detailed landscape plan before they start clear cutting Vallco. I am uncomfortable with this. Ms. Wordell: · They have to come back with a specific tree removal and replanting plan prior to any activity in that area. Chair Wong: · The language is that there is a condition of approval that there will be no construction on the site until it comes back to the Planning Commission for specific approval. Vote: (4-0-0) Will be forwarded to City Council on January 17. Chair Wong declared a recess. 4. U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11 Z-2005-05, DC-2005-01, TR-2005-04, EA-2005-10. Mike Rohde (Vallco Shopping Center) 10123 No. Wolfe Road (portion of property On the west side of No. Wolfe Rd., south ofInterstate 280, North of Macy's department Use Permit to construct 139 residential condominium units with an underground Podium parking structure, an associated 1600 Square foot recreation facility, and a 4,000 square foot day care center. Architectural and site approval for the 139 residential condominium Unit complex and underground podium parking Structure. Zoning Map Amendment (Z-2005-05) to rezone a 5.19 acre site from P (Regional Cupertino Planning Commission 21 January 10, 2006 store Shopping) to P (Residential). Modification of a Development Agreement (DC-2005-11) to encompass the development proposed in U-2005-16 and ASA-2005-11. Tree removal for the removal of trees from the project site. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the project, consisting of five applications listed in the staff report. The project site is currently an underutilized surface parking lot serving as overflow parking for the mall, located on the west side of No. Wolfe Road, south of Interstate 280 and north of Macy's department store. · She provided the background of the application, including neighborhood meetings held which raised concerns about building heights and setbacks, landscaping, traffic, school, and noise impacts and relocation of the existing farmers market located on the project site. Because of the concerns raised, the applicant revised the plans. · She reviewed the revised site plan including an underground podium parking garage with 270 parking spaces, and 7 surface parking spaces on the southeast comer of the site; 5 buildings consisting of the condominium units. The three story buildings are Building A on the south side of the project site and Building Band C on the east side of the project site. Building C and E are the two story condominium buildings on the west side of the project site. The 4,000 square foot daycare center is proposed for the southeast comer of the site, surrounded by 8,000 square feet of playground area. The 35,500 square foot recreational area including a proposed 1,600 square foot recreational building. · The site is proposed to be developed at a density of 26.8 units per gross acre. · The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it requires the unit allocations from Val1co Park South and other commercial centers areas of the General Plan allocations. It complies with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, except for the east side yard setback which is along 1-280 off-ramp where a 20 foot setback is required by the Heart of the City Plan and a 15 foot setback proposed by the proj ect. · The project requires rezoning which would make the project consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan already allows for residential uses on the site. · A development agreement modification and use permit are also needed to vest the project as residential use. · She reviewed the parking, architectural design, conceptual landscape plan and tree removal, traffic, school impacts and proposed elevations as outlined in the staff report. · She noted that the city's architectural advisor Larry Cannon reviewed the elevations and supports the proposed elevations, architectural features. She reviewed Mr. Cannon's recommendations as outlined in the staff report. · Reviewed the nine staff recommendations for modification to the plans, outlined in the staff report, Page 4-11. · Staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Zoning Map Amendment, Modification to the Development Agreement and the Tree Removal Permit. Mike Rohde, Applicant: · Said that Val1co must compete with Valley Fair, and Stanford and must become more competitive to stand apart from the other shopping centers in their shopping district. It will need to be more of a lifestyle entertainment shopping center through a mixed use planned development. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 January 10, 2006 · The Economic Development Department of the city has stated that Vallco has the opportunity to increase sales tax from the current amount of $1.1 million to over $4.5 million. When the mall is successful with the new buildout, there is the opportunity to generate over $24 million in low income housing over the next 30 years. · By bringing additional housing to Vall co, the Vallco campus will help reinvigorate the mall. Kirk Ellis, applicant: · Referred to the site plan and described the proposed project, including design changes made in response to some neighborhood concerns voiced. We started off with three levels on both sides, changed to 2 and 3 scheme; eliminated the balconies on the west side of the proposed condominium project; moved the road to give it greater green space buffer on the west side; reduced the units from the original 156 to 139; given greater setback area to the green space on west side; created open space. · Said the plan on the perimeter road is to have it be a tree lined drive, characteristic of the Vallco campus. Our preference had been to have both the pieces, the condos and the parking garage have a unifying characteristic being the tree lined road. We would prefer to see trees on the north edge of the parking structure as well as trees on this side with the required bike paths still passing through. Therefore remove a few of the trees that were basically an islands in a parking lot now; plant them in a green bed where they can live and grow better balanced by trees against the parking structure? Within the site, one of our organizing concepts was to have a connection, a path that led through different open spaces to green spaces at the north end. To address one of the points raised in the report, although the Heart of the City does call out for a 20 foot setback there is a utility easement that runs along here for PG&E to access the transformers. We have maintained that easement in accommodating all of the requests of the city and neighbors in trying to get as much space as possible here. What we are asking for is to see if we could go, 18 foot setbacks from building face to the property line. While that doesn't['t fall in line with the 20 foot setbacks as required by Hart of the City, with all the accommodations we are making at the west, we wanted to ask for that to be an approved variance to that especially because it is up against an ofITamp. · With the 139 units submitted, we started with 156 units, we reduced that. We would like to stick with the 139 units; if we had to lose a few to do some accommodations as far as building mass, if it is 137, we request that it not be taken under 135. Once again the revenue from the sales of the condos is going directly into the tenant improvement spaces in the mall and the mall interior renovation. This is a part of the overall financial holistic solution for the campus. In conclusion we are trying to make it an attractive place to live. We want to put neighbors next to neighbors and keep the cars down below grade. Ms. Honda: . Discussed the noise impact analysis; the study recommended that a 10 foot soundwall along 1- 280 and 1-280 offramp to wolfe Road; that would bring the ground level sound levels to an acceptable level at that point. For the living units, they would be required to have forced air mechanical ventilation which would take care of the noise impacts from 280. There may be some additional mitigation measures that building will have to look at to bring it to down to the acceptable interior levels. Mr. Piasecki: . It would implemented in the design stage. It is called an STC rating, exterior to interior noise that these units are going to have to be beefed up, so that in a closed window condition with air conditioning, it will knock, out about 30 decibels of noise, if not more. Cupertino Planning Commission 23 January 10, 2006 · We would like to ensure when the sound wall is built that we create the opportunity for vines to grow on the freeway side. This has been done before and it avoids the wall becoming a graffiti palette. It has been suggested that they provide planting in the Caltrans right of way. Com. Giefer: . Planter boxes were recommended by the applicant; . Tree report does not indicate which trees will be removed; there is no x through them; there is a coast live oak indicated that is tree 258 and the numbering stops at 256; Ms. Honda: · Said the tree survey is one conducted by the city arborist and had no connection with the proposed tree removal by Val1co. In the packet from the applicant there is a tree removal plan; however, it is not site specific to indicate which trees will remain and which will be removed. · They will be required to bring back a final landscaping plan; however, the Planning Commission could pose a requirement similar to the parking garage that it corne back to the Planning Commission for fmal approval. Com. Giefer: · Without specific information about which trees they want to remove, seeing that the arborist did not mark out the trees that are being removed, we cannot see which trees Val1co is asking to have removed as part of the site. · With regard to finials on top of several of the buildings, did you consider any other solutions. They look like lightening rods. M. Rohde and Kirk Ellis, Applicants: · Answered questions relating to the project including the architectural features, the soundwall, potential issues related to asbestos concrete water mains, and potential mitigation measures related to the project. Chair Wong opened the public hearing Sharon Hampe, Dennison Avenue: · Said there was a lot of housing in a small area; the housing proposal is 139 units; the Rosebowl has 204 units; Mollybrass has 130 units; Toll Brothers may propose 402 units. A lot of development happening in a small area and urged commissioners to recommend the city count back, a more broader view of study. · We need to see the report from the perspective of studying a broader perspective including all the development units and try to think what the environmental impact is; traffic impact, school impact. · We do have lots of other activities going on in this area. Once we have quality data and they we will be able to make a better decision. I would urge you to hold off on the decision until we have more information. · A more thorough study will bring up more information about impacts. Suchen Chang, Mary Drive: · Expressed concern about the high density housing project because it will overcrowd the schools and impact the traffic as well as intrude upon her privacy. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 January 10, 2006 · Residents of the condominiums will be able to see into her front, back and side yards. A line of trees is not adequate to ensure privacy. · Expressed concern that there was only 36 feet between her property and the condos; the spacing is not wide enough to be appropriate to her and the neighborhood. · The condominium residents in the future may request to open the wall between their neighborhood and the proposed site. · Asked the city officials to review the proposal closely and make a wise decision to reject the overcrowded housing proj ect. Yi-Ke Wang, Mary Drive: · Would like to see the project benefit not only the developer, but also the neighbors and future condominium residents. · Suggested that the building wall on Building E have the same setback from the emergency access land to the building. · He said that the window size of the residential units should be limited and be of reasonable scale. Patty Chi, resident: · Questioned why there is a request for another 139 units for redeveloping when 200 units were just granted in the Rosebowl for redevelopment of a shopping mall. · Relative to school impacts, she questioned which grade level the projected 39 students would be from. She noted that it is likely families with high school students would chose single family homes. · She did not feel the 937 projected traffic impacts were logical and asked the Planning Commission to consider waiting another year to study the traffic impacts, school impacts and make a decision. AI DeRidder, AnD LaDe: . Summarized that there were approximately 850 proposed units for the city that would impact traffic and schools. . He urged the Planning Commission to consider the projects together and realistically address the impacts. Mr. Piasecki: · Relative to school impacts, he said it was mysterious to residents when we see a lot of activity in an area, we do make referrals to the school districts, the applicants are required to do school impact studies. · Weare actually preempted from state law from making decisions based solely on school impacts because the state legislature in their wisdom has placed a requirement on developments so they must pay a capital impact fee; they also have revenues for the high school district coming from property tax, what they have indicated is that if we are going to impost that fee on development, that we should not also be making decisions, based on their judgments, that we should rely on the districts to help us out, to figure out what the impacts are and we have referred this to the school districts and what we understand is that there is a projection over time that we are in a bubble now, and we are going to go over the curve and you will have fewer students in the future. People don't believe it until it happens. · There is a lot of interest in this particular area; it is the hallmark of Cupertino; our schools are the hallmark, so it has been focused on over and over again in this community, particularly on the west end of town by Monta Vista High School. It is focused on we rely on the districts to help us figure it out, and ironically we cannot solely make a decision based on that. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 January 10, 2006 AI DeFrancesco, Norwich Avenue: · Said that after the story poles were erected, he realized that his present view would be obstructed from his front window. · Expressed concern with two and three story buildings on top of 4 foot parking partially underground means that they are 2-1/2 story buildings and they will be up against one story area where most of the housing is one story housing. Two and a half stories against one story is unusual in the city. · This is a pocket of high density housing; it is isolated and is an island unto itself. It is 130 people who are going to live some place. · Don't believe that they are living there because they want to walk over to Vallco and shop each day. · Commended Val1co for the new design; and much better than the 156 unit the developer for the updated · Does not feel that Vallco sales tax will increase because they are building housing; · The three bedroom units will attract children. · Suggested half the number of units if anything; a lot of greenspace against the wall. · Suggest that Val1co sell the five acres to someone else; put up a wall and incorporate those five acres into the neighborhood that is there. · Wait a year to see ifVallco needs that space for parking. Howard Trudeau, resident: · Commended Val1co for the new look; the design is very effective and much better than the 156 units shown at the neighborhood meetings in November; they have not been presented to a neighborhood meeting. There may have been more support from the neighborhood if they saw what has happened. · Commended the ERC for the change; staff recommended two more rows of trees and move the units back which was a motivator to look a lot better. · The housing in south Vallco should come with intensive comprehensive review; the project should slow down and integrate with the remainder of the studies. · We all feel strongly about the existing soundwall. · I commented at the ERC that I had a list of neighbors who would throw ourselves in front of the trucks when they come to try to break through that soundwall; but I think someday the neighbors who move into this condominium unit are going to demand that they be able to get through. That soundwall integrity must be maintained and I suggest a city ordinance or something to make it more official and more difficult than just a simple discussion that could break through that wall. · The potential overflow parking beyond the parking structure is gone because of the condominiums. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Said it would be advantageous to keep the density of the condominium complex down; the impact on the high school district with further housing units in the area is of grave concern to the neighborhoods. · With the addition of the housing project on Ridgeview Court, there are over 1,000 units, in the last two years in eastern Cupertino. · The developers should put in money for a new high school to be built. Sunnyvale High School will have to reopen if more housing complexes are approved. Cupertino Planning Commission 26 January 10, 2006 · Agreed with previous speakers who said there needs to be a comprehensive look at what is occurring in eastern Cupertino. · Why is there a daycare center in the complex? · Expressed concern about the long extended buildings that are going to be fronting along 1- 280. Kathy Difrancesco, Norwich Ave.: · Said one of the biggest changes in Cupertino is their need to incorporate high density housing as part of the community. As other speakers have noted, they have incorporated a number of units that are still under construction in one area of Cupertino, and the total impact of any of them is not known. · Said she would like to see again the incredible success that Vallco had in the 70s, and have it retain its glory again. She said she did not feel that the success of the Vallco mall was dependent on high density housing in her neighborhood and next to a freeway. The success of the mall is based on the type of stores there, the ease of shopping, and good management; and other malls have been renovated and recreated themselves. The Pruneyard and Westgate did not require high density housing. · She urged the Planning Commission to extend the inquiry into the kind of development that is being suggested, one that does not fit into the existing small area of single family homes; one that is 36 feet from an area that has had only single family homes in it with the exception of certain second story houses. · She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider and take more time before making their decision and recommendation to the City Council. Michael Pyle, resident: · Said he hoped the ironies of Item 4 are not lost, that talking about Item 3, we are all concerned about parking, and in Item 4 we are going to pave over several hundred spaces of parking so we can build condos. The other irony is that Item 3 we can't possibly go underground to create parking spaces; and here on Item 4 the plan is to have underground parking where it is convenient. · The one thing you will do if you approve this is you will change the value of those over 5 acres of land, because zoned as residential property, they will be worth more than they are in the current market zoned as commercial property. If the city is going to give a gift to Vallco of rezoning this property and increasing the value of all that property, why not have some conditions in the development agreement that require Vallco to use that money to reinvest it in the property to make it succeed as a mall and to ensure that the money just doesn't go into the pockets ofthe owners of Vall co. · There are people who want to see Vallco succeed as a mall as a place where people can shop and do other things that generate sales tax revenue, not to create high density housing. · The issue of school impacts is one that needs some attention; the school report analyzes this as a 156 unit condominium project; the report states that according to their analysis the townhouses generate far more students than condominium units and with the change in this project to involve townhouses and condos, the school report needs to be adjusted. · I encourage reading of the letter from the superintendent of the Fremont union High School District who doesn't give a ringing endorsement for what is going on; he says he wants to express his concern that the cumulative effect of the housing projects especially in the Cupertino High School attendance area, may push our student enrollment figures beyond school capacity. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 January 10, 2006 . One of the big problems with the project, is you create this urge to break open the wall; if there is any effort to break through that wall, you are going to have a tremendous fight for some future City Council because I think the people in our neighborhood value very much the wall and are reminded of the statement that fences make good neighbors. Sean Huang, resident: · Said that mixed use looks good on paper, but it is not agreed upon or welcomed by all the neighborhood. · Asked the Planning Commission to reevaluate the overall planning within the area. If there is a loss of houses in the plan, would it impact the schools? · He recommended staying with it as commercial area, with upscale restaurants. Mark McKenna, representing Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: · Said it should be recognized that they are supporting the residential units; looking at the whole mix, Vallco is bringing in new retail into the city, they are bringing in new residents, and are putting the residents along transit corridors. · Said they felt it was a fantastic mix and looked forward to it. Radha Nagarajan: · The development is being considered in a piecemeal fashion; it has already been emphasized, and should be emphasized more; we have looked at one development and now two today and it goes on; there is no coherency to the plan, although there may be some in the master plan, it doesn't get demonstrated as each plan is approved in a piecemeal fashion. · The case for schools; staff made the case that we always hear this concern from residents; I hope the city wi1llisten. 39 students from 139 units; I really would like to look at the profile of families that live in Cupertino that would actually only generate 39 students from this many units, because we hear these fractions and I am not entirely sure when they apply. This is a question; what is the basis for 39 students out of 139 homes, or in future proposals that are put before the city, I would appreciate if the city could actually justifY, based on the profile of families who live in Cupertino, that this is an acceptable number. · The parking; the irony that was just brought up. We argued for two hours to put another floor on the parking structure when we just demolished a good bit of parking to the rear. Land wise I agree; it is a lot more expensive to give up this space but the irony should not be lost on the Planning Commission. You just approved one because, if this has happened in the reverse direction, it would be more of a lockable matter. · He recommended replanting trees, not replacing with new trees or new multi gallon plans since they take time to grow. He also recommended that the trees not be clear cut. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Miller: · Some speakers brought up some interesting points, that instead of having the residential units on one side of the wall and the neighborhood on the other side, why not change that and incorporate the residential units into the existing neighborhood and then put the wall around Vallco. It might imply that there is less density, but it would make more sense. · Asked for staff s comment. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 January 10,2006 Mr. Piasecki: · You would find that if you suggest to tear down the wall and take the traffic through the neighborhood, whether it was a lower density or not, there would be a number of people objecting to converting their cuI de sac into a street with whatever number of units. · Also the concept of mixing uses, horizontal mixed use in this case, is not foreign any longer, it can be found at Santana Row, and a number of other locations where this kind of mixed use can integrate well with a commercial shopping center. It clearly is not going to be family housing, it is going to be largely empty nester housing. · To put things in perspective, because the issue also came up of there is always the perspective that every household has two children and two adults. In the 2000 census our household size was about 2.75 persons per household and that bears out today with about 20,000 housing units and 54,000 population, about 2.75. What we find is that single family homes make up about 70% of our housing stock, leaving only 30% to the rental, higher density format we have in the community, and that the single family housing household size is in excess of 3 as a rule; and the apartments and higher density are closer to 2. · We are not seeing the large household size that a lot of people fear. · The judgment has to be made whether this proposed project integrates reasonably well with the shopping center, understanding that it is going to be a different animal. It is not a project like every other single family neighborhood. He said he felt it could work. Vice Chair Miller: · Asked if there could be a required condition that the money coming from the units gets reinvested in Vallco. Mr. Piasecki: · This is a redevelopment project area; if we were involved in using tax increment funds to help facilitate this project, we probably could ask them to show us the proforrnas. We could probably have a development agreement that would ask us to demonstrate that they are doing that. Weare not investing with them. You are relying on their testimony to you that they in fact intend to use the proceeds in this fashion. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: · Said that because it is a private property project, she was not aware of any instrument could be used to force them to use their profits from the sale of the property and invest it anywhere. Vice Chair Miller: · The other thing stated by the applicant, when Vallco was fully operational and this is a piece of doing that, that it would generate a very substantial amount of tax dollars for the city, something on the order of $4 million plus. Is it reasonable to ask that is, or as a condition of approval, that the city brings some consultants in to take a look at their project now that it is fully designed and give us some feedback on just how successful this project is likely to be. Mr. Piasecki: · You could ask for an economic consultant to come in and provide you with that. It might be a suggestion the Planning Commission would want to make to the City Council. · Cautioned that the project should not be looked at as a ticket for something else; the project should be in your minds a viable project on its own, whether the money gets funneled into Vallco or not, is it a reasonably good residential project; is it well designed; is this a good use for that north parking lot area. It is a difficult site to design something else into, such as a Best Buy. Cupertino Planning Commission 29 January 10, 2006 Vice Chair MiUer: · One of the residents asked, when Vallco first came for the 204 unit project in the Rosebowl, and the justification was to help pay for the theater and parking. Why is it now required to do another 139 units that is also earmarked for paying for those same things? Emily Chen, Owner of Vall co: · Discussed the difficulties encountered in securing financing for the AMC theaters, and the stringent regulations. She briefly discussed the costs and bonding involved with the theater complex and the parking garage and provided information on the time constraints she is faced with. · Currently we make a huge commitment with the Vallco mall. Our point is not to just make Vallco working, we want to make all the people want a first class mall. In order to do this one, our immediate competitor is Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping Center. After we complete Vallco we will be close to the square footage of Valley Fair and Stanford will be able to compete with our character, which is entertaining. We will have an AMC immediately on the top of the mall and we have landed some other tenants. We are confident this mall will be successful. · The anchor tenants, Macys, Sears, Penneys cooperate with us and they have their own conditions, but they believe we will be able to compete and be successful. Chair Wong: · Asked if it was viable to put a big box such as Best Buy, restaurants or retail in the 5 acres? Ms. Chen: · How can we get over there; we need the funding to complete everything. The other situation, do you think this would help for the anchor that the majority wants; they want first class super original mall; we probably don't need a box, we need the tax dollars. The mall area with entertaining attractions can attract the tax dollar in the city. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that in order to attract major tenants into this center to attract the smaller tenants, the owner will usually have to almost give the space away. Ms. Chen: · Explained that it is easy to get local tenants and they are willing to pay higher rent per square footage, but the national tenants don't care; when they come over here, for the top 10% we have to do whatever they want and whatever we can give to them. The top national tenants we have to offer as low as $.70 per square footage for rent; after we finish everything, our target rent for square footage still cannot compete with Cupertino Village. This is the type of situation we are faced with. Normally it is about $100 to $125 per square foot, but we commit; if we need to do it, we do it. Chair Wong: · Asked Public Works what led them to make the recommendation of no breaks in the sound wall. Glen Goepfert, Public Works: · There was a natural tendency to want to try to connect both bicycle and pedestrian travel both to Wolfe and to the neighborhoods, but for the reasons mentioned, it is not a must do. When Cupertino Planning Commission 30 January 10, 2006 there is a residential use and you are looking at pedestrians' bicycle use, you want to have the best connectivity to the surrounding uses, not just the mall. There should be an alternative, it is logical. · The traffic consultant had that suggestion as well. I think the basic idea is pedestrian connectivity to other services, to schools, as a safer route. I think that is what drives that suggestion. · In talking it over with Planning, we suggested that, but it was not made a condition; it is not something that is needed, but I think anyone would take that as a logical alternative for this sort of area to have at least pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Goepfert: · It is a tradeoff; on the one hand you want to have connectivity for pedestrian vehicular uses, to have good circulation of all types. By the same token you have neighborhoods which have concerns about being overtaken or have security concerns; you have to weigh those things. · Speakers have said they have a concern about having that connectivity because there are potential downsides to it. It would be true in many cases where it might be desirable to have pedestrian connections, bicycle connections that are away from a major thoroughfare, but the downside is there is a beachhead where you are allowing something to happen, or perhaps there is some opposition on the other side. We don't feel strongly about it, but it is something that should always be considered. Chair Wong: · The neighbors' concern is that if for some reason it didn't get passed, the wall stays as is; in the future there may be a group of parents who want it. · Asked how they could put it in the ordinance so that the wall will always remain a wall, and that there will be no pedestrian access to the RI neighborhood. Mr. Piasecki: · Said he didn't know if there is a way of guaranteeing anything; because you are then committing future city councils and planning commissions and even future neighborhoods to a decision you have made in 2006 and in 2013 people may be clamoring for the wall to be tom down. · That is the purpose of public hearings, to get the sentiment of the neighborhood; and I don't think there is any intent on anyone's part until we hear the sentiment change that this may make sense, and only then consider it. There is no burning issue, you do have to walk around the block; it is not a great distance and it is not open now. The concern about the potential of people parking in the neighborhood, overwhelms the concern about let's have the great connectivity. We have to err on this side of the neighbors in this case. · I don't think we should suggest it; you could put it into the development agreement for Vallco which would commit them, but not necessarily commit anyone else; and it would be good for another three years, which does not provide any long term assurance. Vice ChaIr Miller: · The project is a well designed project. · From the standpoint of the neighbors and trying to mitigate the negative impacts on the neighbors on the other side of the wall, going from the 156 to 137 units, they have done a number of things to make that work, including some very large setbacks of whether it is 36 feet or 40 feet, on the side of the wall with the condominium units; in addition to the wall itself and the landscaping that is going to be there as a buffer. The wall is 4 feet into Vallco's Cupertino Planning Commission 31 January 10, 2006 property so that the folks who live on the other side of the wall actually are getting the benefit of 4 feet of Vall co's property as usable space. · The three story units are going to act as a sound buffer to reduce the noise for the people on the other side of the walls. The applicant has gone a long way to be responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood as well as the fact that they earn support of not having a break in the wall just as the neighborhood is. · It is an isolated project, not the best place for housing; however, when we redid our General Plan recently, the old General Plan had an emphasis on housing and it was to some extent that they said commercial was a bonus for providing housing in town. We redid that and put the emphasis on commercial and said that housing was a bonus for providing more commercial because of the fact that the city has a serious budget deficit problem. · Suggested a condition be added recommending that a consultant with expertise in shopping center design be hired. Corn. Saadati: · The project is designed with a lot of concentration on the design due to the adjacency of the single family housing, the two story front rows and two story back from the freeway. To some extent it tries to blend in. · The soundwall is there to help the noise and the site visibility. · Said he felt the project was isolated; and if approved, hoped that it would be used mostly by Vallco employees. He was pleased that there were one and two bedroom units in the project; which might encourage some of the people who work in Vallco to want to live in the new units. · Said he did not like it being so isolated from the neighborhood; it would have been nice to be an extension of the neighborhood; however, there may be some opposition to that also. · Concurred with Vice Chair Miller's suggestion to have a condition of approval for an independent consultant to provide their view of this as far as the effectiveness. · With 137 units, it may not be the best place for a big box unit because of the shape of the lot. He said he was not sure how effective that would be. · Said he was receptive based on the conditions stated by Vice Chair Miller. Chair Wong: · Thanked the residents for staying at the meeting for 5 hours, and thanked the neighbors who met with him the previous week. He said he sympathized with the neighbors; nobody likes dramatic changes, but everyone wants a successful mall. · Relative to the soundwall, there should be no break in the wall into the cuI de sacs. · Said he was not comfortable making a recommendation to the City Council; he said he sympathized with the neighbors but wanted to look holistically at the community and what is best for the community. · Staff did a fine job listening to the neighbors. It may not be what everyone wants, but it is the best proposal. · Relative to the trees, he said he supported the ERC that all the trees need to be replaced. · If it was a different situation, different financing, if Vallco could have created some type of creative financing and found a way to have strictly a retail mall, he said he would support that. However, because of their situation, he supported it based on the architectural design that Corn. Miller said that they tried to mitigate by having two and a half story in the neighborhood. They are trying their best to mitigate by having most of the high density facing the freeway, which is not the most ideal way of doing it. · He said it gives the perception of building to the edge of the city or edge of the freeway, and he would support that part. Cupertino Planning Commission 32 January 10,2006 · I am open to supporting staff's recommendation regarding mitigating it by two housing units are not; those two feet like the architect described, that variance is so small that I can go either way; I am open to that. · It is a difficult decision. One thing not within our purview relates to school impacts; I have been a big advocate for the schools, I am not in favor of portable classrooms; but it is not within the city's purview to address that issue, and I will join the community to go to the districts as well as our school board trustees and ask for better partnerships, because of the development corning down the pipeline, and saying that we are being impacted. · The school reports and surveys are saying that families are getting smaller, but because Cupertino is such a unique area, and no matter the size of the units, children with families are going to corne to Cupertino and it will keep the value of the houses high. Com. Giefer: · Complimented the architects; said she was pleased with the design for the renovation of Vall co and the adjacent properties in the Rosebowl. · Said she liked the design of the project; but was uncomfortable with the location of the project because of the lack of connectivity with the neighborhood. If all the neighbors said open the wall, it would be a simple decision, but there seems like there is a lot of information and historic information about keeping the neighborhood closed which seems illogical, when there is a park and schools on the other side of the fence. · She expressed concern about that the tree retention, tree removal and tree protection regulations were still not formalized and were ambiguities existed in the directions to be followed by the property owner and applicant. She said she was particularly concerned with the one oak tree. am concerned also that the one oak tree, full heartedly saying sure lets approve the tree removal concerns me because I don't feel like it is as thorough as I would like itto be. · Said she would prefer to see a project with the staff recommended 135 units; if two of the three bedroom units could be reduced and moved inward in Section E or D, it would be more comfortable with the potential child generation numbers; you can get more children out of 3 bedroom units than 2 bedroom units. · Having a consultant corne in to help evaluate the plan is a good idea; however, it may be too late, because once we have approved this, what will we do with that information, because they have already got the go-ahead at that point. · Other concern is the vista from the residence in Building A. We just approved a three story parking structure and I am going to walk out of my front door in Building A every day and see a three story parking structure and there is only one row of trees suggested. They are not the tall ash trees that are there today, that would screen it fairly well but I would have some green screening on the parking structure. I would prefer to see a double row of trees for those residents for protection on the vista of those potential residents. I think that would be an improvement in the project. · 18 or 20 foot setback, two feet won't make a huge difference. I would support the applicant on that if they agreed to go down to 135 units, if we reduced some of the three bedroom units; and if we could add a second screening row between Building A and B. · I know staff made some suggestion about Building B on the daycare side, which my understanding is that the daycare tenant that currently is in the mall; the reason they are trying to corne up with this building is to move that tenant out to make more space for retail and provide a better care facility, and I think that is a good idea. I would like to add more space there to make it more of a greenbelt and align the drive as staff brought up in the beginning. · Supports the project; she preferred to open the wall up, but is the only one who wants to do it. Cupertino Planning Commission 33 January 10,2006 Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve U-2005-16, ASA- 2005-11, DA-2005-01, Z-2005-05, TR-2005-04, and EA-2005-10, with the recommendation that a consultant be hired. Vice Chair Miller: · It is an appropriate suggestion for us to make; when we were reviewing the General Plan we talked doing exactly something like this; we would do a specific plan for the Vallco south area; and it may be too late to do a specific plan but it is not too late to get a reading on how the project is progressing and if we are going down the right track or there are some things we can do, and it is not too late to do because there isn't a lot in the ground at this point; but maybe it is still possible to make changes. We can look at this, but we are not experts on what shopping center should or shouldn't do in today's market. Not being an expert, I feel it is appropriate for a project of this size and this magnitude and importance to the city, that we have some independent consultants corne in and confirm what the developers have done. And I am expecting that they will, but until I see that I don't feel completely comfortable. Com. Giefer: · Said she would like to add that condition (Vote: 4-0-0) Mr. Piasecki: · Explained the City Council could not take action at their next meeting as it was not advertised legally. They will be able to hear the parking structure and the applicant could request City Council to have a special meeting. · If it is not heard at a special meeting, it will be heard at their first meeting in February. Chair Wong declared a recess. 5. U-2005-15, GPA-2005-03 TM-2005-04, Z-2005-04 (EA-2005-17) Kelly Snider (Toll Brothers) Stevens Creek Boulevard & Finch Avenue Use Permit for a master plan for a commercial and residential development consisting approxi- mately 115,000 square feet of commercial shopping center, up to 402 residential units and a 3.5 -acre park. General Plan Amendment to allocate up to 402 residential units for the South Vallco Planning Area. Corn. Saadati left the meeting for family reasons. Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report: · Suggested that this is a complex project; we would like to introduce it to you tonight, particularly on the policy side of things, dealing with consistency with the General Plan, consistency with the Heart of the City Plan, past council direction and let the applicant make a presentation and continue it to January 24 meeting. · The project requires a number of changes, including the General Plan amendment. The applicant was relying on the newly adopted General Plan relating to the allocation of residential units and the ability to move units around. It could technically be changed to public recreation if there is to be a public park area. · He suggested that it be tabled it for now, the discussion about that; I will talk to the city attorney; I don't think there is a real major inconsistency issue with the General Plan and I Cupertino Planning Commission 34 January 10, 2006 think he would agree, and if this is something that the city is interested it, we can take it up separately later on. The Planning Commission and City Council could go ahead and act on the project, without the General Plan amendment being taken into consideration, and show it as a park area and tidy up the map on their own time. · The second component is the rezoning to change the uses to allow the residential component, and change it to planned commercial/residential with the public recreation, PR zone. · An exception to the Heart of the City to allow the commercial front yard setbacks to average 35 feet, the Heart of the City requires a minimum of 35; their averaging would go as low as 26 but as high as 57 so that would be along Stevens Creek Boulevard. We have done this in the past with you with Peet's Coffee, Panera Breads applications. Tentative map to subdivide the parcel to accommodate the different uses; use permit to construct the six buildings totally 115,000 square feet of retail space and there is a variation between 369 to 402; we have had people referring to the 402 that is one of the options that the applicant is bringing forward, but not necessarily the only option; and then site and architectural. · He reviewed Option A (402 units) and Option B (369 units) as outlined in the staff report. · Reviewed the project site, surrounding uses, and master landscaping plan. He said it was a hybrid center on the same level at the Cherry Orchard Center in Sunnyvale. · The master landscaping plan as already described; the public park is not only a square which is something that the staff encouraged them to do to get a more functional public park area, it equals about 2.8 acres and that. 71 acre peninsula or panhandle portion which was by design to get us to the 3.5 acres, but also to provide a buffer between the public street area and the west terrace. · He illustrated a site plan/landscape plan for the commercial component showing Finch Ave. to the west sidel Stevens Creek to the south and the east terrace building located to the east of the site and the Villas to the north. It is called a hybrid, it is part main street, part suburban shopping center because a number of the components they have we think are very good and a lot of the things we have talked about creating more of a walkable main street commercial district. · We think that is going to give a nice edge to this commercial development, that will be highly walkable, highly desirable and will give that Main Street feel. It is also a suburban shopping center in a sense that you have the conventional field of parking with the shops located behind. It is a high end center, we think they have done a good job; there is some minor technical, architectural issues that our architectural advisor has raised, but overall this is on a caliber with the Cherry Orchard project in Sunnyvale at EI Camino Real with the PF Changs, Borders and the extensive landscaping and in that project also is a horizontal mixed use as this is. · The Vallco Park south allocating pool we felt that if Vallco had to pull away 35 or 37 units, that they would have a base of 100 and the Toll site would have a base of 300 and depending on where you end up, they will need to either have up to 102 if you do the senior option, or 69 if you accept their numbers or something less than that. · That summarizes the policy issues. Some of the changes we are suggesting is West Terrace: should come down and we can do that more or less by virtue of our purchase of.21 acres and get you up to 3 acres in the rectangle. They may need to take a few units out to get it down to the 35 and it is not a significant number. East terrace; I am concerned about a 300 foot long building, four stories tall, in spite of their efforts ofhreaking the building up, they have done a good job of that, it is going to be a long, big building and I think that the upper floor, we probably need to have an offset and that wouìd likely take out 12 units to have that offset. Also technically we think they need more parking so we think they should take some units out of the north Villas project or the North Terrace to get room to provide the angled parking on Vallco Parkway. We estimate it would require another 12 units, that would bring our parking close to where we need it in terms of the joint use parking analysis. Here is what was Cupertino Planning Commission 35 January 10,2006 allocated to South Vallco area, 400 units commercial; another undesignated area of 300 units; it is your call and the Council's call on how much you think is warranted by the extraordinary public benefits which I think are substantial in this case. · The park area is getting some more commercial and activating the streetscape the way they are in delivering a high quality commercial component and if we can get some of the unit counts down we think the residential can even be an exemplary project. · We have listed the substantial public benefits, the west terrace, if we did buy the .21 acres they would lose 16 units, we would end up with 3 acre square area plus the .71 and their also contributing to improvements for a creek trail along Calabazas Creek from Vallco Parkway to 1-280 providing a pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Tantau Ave. from Vallco Parkway to the north side of 1-280, to the first driveway on the north side to providing the commercial square footage and they could provide additional parking which would again result in a unit loss on the Villas Side. Overall we think you can bring the project closer to what kind of density levels and the view we think is more compatible with what Cupertino has been seeking. · Part of the City Specific Plan, I think the variations they are suggesting provide a lot of interest and are giving you some additional setback benefits that outweigh the slight encroachment for the portions of the building that go into that 35 feet. Kelly Snider, Toll Brothers Housing: · Reviewed the project stating they were proposing to dedicate 3-1/2 acres of parkland to the City of Cupertino. · Said the staff report refers to some of the substantial public benefits and outstanding community benefits, including the 3-112 acre park, of which 2.8 are designated for active playing fields, soccer type spaces, and approximately. 7 acres for passive use, picnic areas, etc. Because of the mixed use nature of the project, in addition to the housing and affordable units that would be introduced, there is also a substantial revenue input into the General Fund in the city of Cupertino. We have hired economic planning Systems (EPS) to do a fiscal analysis on the entire project; they have suggested that over $320,000 is a reasonable conservative estimate that could be provided to the city's general fund, net of any expenses or costs that the city would be incurring primarily due to the sales tax revenue from the 115,000 square feet. · In addition to the public park space, there are common open space, private space, including a community center, recreation building, swim pool, and a community room available to the general public to reserve and use for community functions. · We would work with the city to corne up with a great public art component which would comply with the most recent public art one percent requirement in the recently adopted General Plan update. · Affordable unit; Option A would give approximately 80 units, reserved for seniors in the community, or Option B, which would be more family type housing dispersed throughout the site of 55 units. · A new gateway feature at the east end of Cupertino to replace the sludgestone. · The master planning and landscape designing that have gone into the project as a whole because it is pedestrianlbicycle friendly, providing lots of connections to both the existing uses, the existing neighborhood enhanced pedestrian crossings to Rancho Rinconada as well as connectivity directly with the metropolitan project adjacent to us. · The public spaces we are proposing the existing sidewalks along Vallco and Finch, the new sidewalks along Tantau and the new retail and expanded retail at Vallco as well. · There are formal endorsements for the project from the Sierra Club, the Leadership Group, Housing Action Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce. · Reviewed the history of the project over the last 5 years. Cupertino Planning Commission 36 January 10, 2006 · Said they received the recommendation from the ERC for mitigated negative declaration which allows us to come before you tonight for your support of the project. Jack Bariteau, Keenan Bariteau, Palo Alto: · Reviewed the project plan, stating that tenants will include a major bookstore, drug store and upscale grocery score, several unique restaurants offering sit down table service boutiques. Generous outdoor features, fountains, outdoor seating areas and water features are a trademark of their properties. No drive through restaurants would be in the project. · Said the architecture of the project was similar in quality to Stanford Shopping Center. · The project would contribute over $320,000 annually in sale tax generation for the city. · The key issues recommended by staff can be addressed at the next hearing. · He added that there was significant public benefit being provided by Toll Brothers in bringing us to the fore. The ability of them to produce the donation they are talking about of 3.5 acres as a public park facility, is significant and is directly related to the unit count they are proposing for you. Secondarily, in order for us to be part of this and to have the size center proposed, and we would be purchasing a portion of this property from them after the entitlements are received, they are giving us a beneficial price to produce the shopping center so t hat our rental structure can bring in the right tenants to the town and have them service and be viable members of the community. Kenneth Rodriguez, Kenneth Rodriguez & Associates: · Reviewed the architectural features, architectural materials and landscaping to be used throughout the proj ect. · Discussed the features of the auto court. Jim Yee, architect: · Discussed the features of Option A and Option B. · Said that the average apartment in Cupertino was 1400 square feet, whereas the proposed project is between 1700 and 1750 square feet. He illustrated the floor plan and described the features in the units and the materials used. He noted that natural stone materials would be used for the building base of the east terrace and said that many of the materials used would tie in with those used in the retail. · He reviewed the architectural features of the units. Gary Layden, Guzzardo Assoc.: · Reviewed the landscape master plan for the project. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Hemet Gush, California Cricket Academy: · Gave a brief history of the Academy which opened in 2003, and has an enrollment of approximately 400 students, from 6 to 14 years of age. · He discussed the need for open space and reviewed the playing area requirements. · He reviewed the Academy's proposal and said it was a good opportunity for Cupertino to provide a good facility which is needed. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Expressed concern that the item was heard so late in the evening. Cupertino Planning Commission 37 January 10,2006 · Discussed the importance of creek frontage for the area, stating that there was a need for the creek to be resurfaced. Nothing should be built on it at this time, if the city does not have any money at this time, wait, have the park on it or Finch Avenue. It is too valuable to have a retail building or condominium built on it. It belongs to Cupertino and the people. · She showed photos of the trees she felt should be retained. Marilyn Howard, E. Estates Drive: · Said she lived in Cupertino over 47 years and welcomed the project to the city as it provided housing with amenities for seniors and attractive gateway to Cupertino. · The retail will also be a positive addition for the residents. · Supports adoption of the application. AI Di Francesco, Cupertino resident: · Said he was pleased with the project; commended Toll Brothers for the project. Charlie Aharn, Miller Avenue: · Said he and his wife were looking forward to the new retail tenants, and the park on Stevens Creek. · Recommended Alternative A which provides senior housing and possibly low income housing. · Said it was an excellent proposal for Cupertino. Christine Kennedy Pierce: · She recommended that the senior element be retained within the project, and stated she looked forward to being able to retire in the community. Lisa Warren: · She said she was appreciative that Toll Brothers listened to the residents' input during the neighborhood meetings and made changes to their original proposal. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested that the applicant's video presentation be shown at the next meeting because ofthe late hour. · Provided input on scheduling time and dates for the Toll Brothers, Taylor Woodrow and Marketplace applications. SUBMITTED BY: to the January 24, 2005 Planning ADJOURNMENT: ~ llis, Recording Secretary