Loading...
PC 10-28-08CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED 11~IIN UTES 6:45 P.M. October 28, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMZ7NITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 2008 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson,: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piaseck City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling Assistant Planner: Elizabeth Pettis APPROVAL OF MINL7TES: Minutes of the October l4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the October 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented_ (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Rose and Com. Kaneda absent) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TR-2008-13 Retroactive Tree Removal request to remove 26 trees Brad Larue in a Planned Devcaopment Zone. Planning Commission 10201 Torre Ave. decision fznal unl~ass appealed. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 28, 2008 Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner, presented tL,e staff report: • Reviewed the application for retroactive tree removal of 26 trees in a Planned Development zone around the perimeter of an existing office building located at 10201 Torre Avenue, as outlined in the staff report. The trees were removed without a tree removal permit, and applicant has submitted a landscape plan which proposes to replace the removed trees. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for retroactive tree removal in accordance with the model resolution. Brian Kilian, Baracco Kilian Associates, Landscape Architects: • Briefly reviewed the proposed landscape plan. He stated that the replacement landscaping was aimed at enhancing the building, and adding some seasonal colors and so forth at pedestrian focal points. Generally the trees are replacement trees for the trees that were removed; the count was established both by the mitigation and also from design selections where they wanted to add trees at certain points; the number came up more than what the city required. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Expressed concern about the unpermitted tree removal; and emphasized the importance of contacting the city about the regulations for tree removal, particularly when properties change ownership. Uri Poplovich, MacAdam Lane: • Said he was present on the recent Saturday when the trees were removed; he and another community member approached the crew that started to cut the trees. After asking to see a permit, the tree cutters said they had to contact their supervisor which took about 45 minutes. When the supervisor arrived he waved a piece of paper in front of them saying it was a permit, which was not true. • He said it was an unconscionable violation of :not just small property but all the residents. The tree cutting continued and he said there was no way to contact Code Enforcement as they did not work on the weekends. He said he knew they were not telling the truth, but could not prove it. He asked what action the city was going to take. Chair Miller: • Said he was also called to the site by an upset neighbor. He spoke to the supervisor who insisted he had called the city and was told it was okay to go ahead and cut the trees down. He contacted Code Enforcement and brought them there and they looked through the Code Enforcement book and was told the tree cutter was not operating in the wrong. • Said there was an issue here, and was not sure how to address it because it keeps coming up over and over again; and it is also not clear whether there is any intended fault or any intended wrong. It is clear from the site plans that the applicant is intending to upgrade the site; he is removing some trees that look like they need taking out and there are some that perhaps he should have not taken out. Overall it looks like there is an intent for improvement; however, the city's ordinances were violated and perhaps staff can enlighten some way on why this happened and how it can be prevented in the fiiture. Gary Chao, City Planner: • The tree ordinance does require a tree removal permit be secured for any tree removal on office complex because it was part of the original approved landscape plan. It doesn't mean that the planning department would not support the removal if they applied for a permit. In this particular case, it is difficult to know what happened; it may have been that a contractor or Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 28, 2008 arborist called the city and asked a question about tree removal, and nothing specific. • There is a retroactive process they must go through; they must pay a substantial amount of fees relative to a normal tree removal permit, similar to a penalty for taking action prior to running it by the city, which is why the item is before the Commission this evening. • When incidents such as this occur, the city moist make sure that the trees removed are replaced appropriately. In this case they are going beyond the minimum requirement and a certified arborist has been involved and provided documentation. Staff is relatively comfortable in supporting the retroactive tree removal permit. Roger Snell, Snell and Company: • Said their plan is to significantly upgrade the building which includes adding not only new trees but landscaping all around the project. Their arborist reviewed the site, and looked at certain trees they felt were diseased or could cause damage to the property in the next few years. Their interpretation of the code was that a permit was only required for trees that were on the endangered list. • He said he was later informed that if a plan was submitted when the building was built in 1983, those trees were protected. If they had }mown that initially, they would have gone to the city first. They have kept a number of large redwoods and other trees on the site; they would have preferred to keep more if they had not been diseased or causing damage. They are planting more trees than required because of their desire to upgrade the project. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Steve Piaseclci: • What can be done in the future, is to send a letter informing all three companies that we know do business in this area a listing of what the requirements are so that they are at least put on notice that they need to check not only the protected trees that are in the ordinance, but also check to confirm if there is an approved landscape plan before removing trees. That won't necessarily stop all of the legal or misunderstood removals, but it should help. • Relative to the issue of prosecuting or takin;~ some kind of action, it is not the role of the Commission or staff; a resident of the community can petition and ask that the Council take some kind of penalty clause through the ordinance. Rarely done, it cost more to prosecute those than it is worth to the overall community. We try to get willing applicants to come in and do what this applicant is doing; replace ncore than in kind and upgrade the site. That has been our normal procedure to try to provide v~ upgrade to the community. We are not a court of law and do not have all the facts. Vice Chair Giefer: • Confirmed that on the plant list, there are very specific sizes that confirms what is in the staff report; but under general landscape notes, it re-ads "all trees shall be installed a minimum of 15 gallon size." She asked for confirmation that the tree list, plant list and the gallon size are correct in the specific list and that supersedes ghat statement. Elizabeth Pettis: • Said the 5 redwoods will be 36 inch box, and the 38 will be 24 inch box, which is part of the model resolution. She said it was understood l;y the applicant. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that the tree ordinance is less than a yezir old; and the present situation of cutting down trees with a permit was discussed at length. She suggested that staff notice the people who have pulled building permits. She suggested that a statement be read to people inquiring at the Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 28, 2008 Planning Department, which includes information on the rules pertaining to tree removal and tree protection; such as if they are in a residential neighborhood that is not a planned development, single family home, these are the protected trees; if in a planned development such as Seven Springs, don't touch a tree; if ;you own a business don't touch a tree until you come in and fmd out if there is a landscape approval plan. Regazdless if it applies or not, it appeazs to be the only way to close that loop ar-d staff is encouraged to pursue it. The way we put the fee structure in place for applicants is; if you come in and you are in compliance and ask for a tree removal permit, you are charged one fee; but if you come in for retroactive tree permit as this applicant has, the fee is considerably higher; in essence we aze penalizing them because we have levied a higher fee for retroactive permit than in the beginning; because the city attorney advises us that we could not put a penalty in place to pursue applicants who are out of compliance. We tried to build that into the policy; I don't know if it helps you out. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Brophy, to approve Application TR-2008-13. (Vote: 3-0-0; Coms_ Rose and Kaneda absent) U-2008-01 (EA-2008-07) Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for a ASA-2008-06, TM-2008-O1, master plain for amixed-use development consisting of TR-2008-08. Kevin Dare/ approximately: 147,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial; 500 Forbes, LLC (South 100,000 sq. ft. of office; a 150 room hotel; a 160 unit Vallco) Location: North Side senior (age restricted) housing facility; 145,000 sq. ft. Of Stevens Creek Boulevard athletic club; a four level pazking gazage and a 1.6 acre Between Finch Ave. 8c Tantau pazk/towri squaze. (A project alternative consists of Ave. approx. 205,000 sq. ft. of office and a 250 room hotel In place of the athletic club). Tentative Map to subdivide 3 parcels (approx. 18.7 acres) into 5 pazcels for a master plan for amixed-use development consisting of approx.: 147,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial; 100,000 sq. ft. of office/ a 150 room hotel; a 160 unit senior (age restricted) housing facility; 145,000 sq. ft. of athletic club; a 4 level pazking garage and a 1.6 acre pazk/town squaze. (A project alternative consists of approx. 205,000 sq. ft. of offi~~e and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic club). Tree Removal request to remove ~epprox. 93 trees in conjunction with a proposed master plan for amixed-use development. Tentative City Council dates: December I6, 2008 and January 6, 2009. Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application summary for a mixed use project on a 17.4 acre property incorporating a Main Street concept into the development including retail, office, senior housing, hotel, sports club and public park in Town Squaze located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of Wolfe Road and west of Tantau Avenue. • Originally Hewlett Packard owned the property and the site received approval for a residential condominium project with a retail shopping ~~enter and public park to be developed by Toll Brothers. However, the project approval was overturned by Cupertino voters on November 7, 2006 when Measure E failed to pass during; the elections. Sand Hill Property Company subsequently acquired the property in 200'1 and has submitted the proposed mixed-use development. • Reviewed the South Vallco Master Plan, Options A and B. Option A includes 100,000 sq. ft. of office space; a 150-room hotel; a 145,000 sq. ft. sports club and a 5 level parking garage; whereas Option B includes 205,000 sq. ft. of office space, a larger hotel of 250 rooms; no sports club, and a 4 level pazking gazage. Option A is the applicant's preference. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 28, 2008 • She reviewed the General Plan development ~illocations for the project as detailed on Pages 9 and 1 O of the staff report. She noted that staff is recommending reduction of the office space component to 60,000 sq. ft. because the development is intended to emphasize retail commercial development mixed-use, ,and rather than having an office component overwhelming the development, staff recommends reducing it down to 60,000 sq. ft. and then taking the 60,000 sq. ft. from the allocation from other neighborhoods and centers within the city that have available office allocation. The Planning Commission can look at this option or look at also possibly General Plan amendment or eliminating the office complex completely. • Regazding commercial allocation, Option A would need about 18,000 sq. ft. of commercial allocation from elsewhere in the city or from other means. Staff recommends that the proposed option A retail use with the retail shops and athletic club is preferred with the limiting of the athletic club membership to 9,000 members and using the Fehr and Peers traffic generation equivalent of 98,800 sq. ft. building and drawing this allocation of 18,000 sq. ft. from other neighborhoods and centers wit}rin the city. The Planning Commission can recommend looking at that option or otherwise would have to consider a General Plan amendment to increase those numbers. • Relative to hotel allocations, Option A would need an additional 17 rooms over the available allocation, and Option B would need an additional 172 rooms over the available allocation. Some of the options that the Planning Commission can consider include working with the Cupertino Squaze Mall to release a portion of the eazmazked hotel rooms from the mall, to reduce the number of hotel rooms or to redirect cornmercial/retail space from other azeas to hotel rooms as was done with the Oaks Shopping Center; and the Commission can also look at recommending a General Plan amendment. • She reviewed the staff concerns and cornnients relative to the senior housing pick up and drop off area, the lobby area of the senior housing; the loading dock along Vallco Parkway; the acchitectural design and gazage elevation of ttie parking gazage; and additional landscaping be provided along the frontage to soften the elevation as well. • Relative to the athletic club, they do not have; the detailed elevations of the front and side of the athletic club, and because of that staff wants to emphasize the importance of this portion of the building facing the eastern gateway entrance to the city and would recommend that some thought and enhancements be given to that azea to provide some good architectural enhancement. • Staff also points out that there are two buildings, the hotel and the athletic building that are proposed over the typical maximum height of 45 feet allowed in this area. However, the General Plan allows you to go up to 60 feet iri excess of the 45 feet if you provide some retail along the frontage. These aze the two buildings that will have to take that into consideration and also we will have to look at building sett~acks as well. The building setback requirement along Stevens Creek Boulevard is 1-1/2 feet to 1 ratio, so that the building setback will have to be set back 1-1/2 foot for every foot of height of the building. We would need to ask the applicant to look at that as well. • As previously mentioned, the predominant element in this development to create a more pedestrian friendly environment, is the town square located in the center of the project. The city's acchitectural advisor has looked at the proposal and recommends that the town square be shifted to one side of the parking aisle. Presently the town square is proposed to have parking around the entire town square azound the perimeter. What the city's acchitectural advisor is requesting is that the drive through be allowed only along one side of the town square and allow the retail and restaurant activities to spill out on the other side and to activate that town squaze azea. • The Planning Commission can look at it t:o consider making one of those driveways a pedestrian only access and also to reduce the parking around the town square. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 28, 2008 Briefly reviewed the proposed tree removal for the project which includes the proposed removal of 94 trees. The Housing Commission, Senior Commission, Teens Commission and Environmental Review Committee have also reviewed the project. Tonight's meeting is to introduce the Plamcing Commission to the project, staff answer questions about the project; the next meeting is in early December after the Draft EIR public circulation has ended. At that time the Commission can make their recommendation. Com. Brophy: • Said he was puzzled about the list of staff recommendations; some of them appear to be design details such as where the lobby to the senior housing center is; which seem premature to decide now and possibly even in December; whereas they have slipped over the important question of General Plan allocation. When staff recommends that we not approve more than 60,000 sq. ft. of office space and possibly zero, you are essentially telling us that you want us to reject the developer's application. Gary Chao: • Said that was not what staff was saying; they support the project. Initially when the project was discussed with the applicant, staff was comfortable with 60,000 sq. ft. but mainly because they wanted the project to be synergistic and have the uses feed off each other; and based on the objectives specified in the General Plan and South Vallco Master Plan, this area is meant to be more of a regional commercial draw. So mainly retail and commercial predominant use with the other uses as ancillary and supplement to the retail use they thought that 60,000 sq. ft. seemed to be a good number. In terms of the options that were laid out, those are simply options for recommendation. • The Planning Commission has a variety of ~~hoices in their recommendation; so does City Council; you could ask them to amend the General Plan to add more commercial; you can discuss amongst yourselves whether you are comfortable with 60,000 sq. ft. or you would like to recommend more or not, zero office allocation. Com. Brophy: • As I understand it, if you are saying that this should be predominantly a retail project, we are talking about a large scale retail project. Is there any sense either from this applicant or from anybody else you have talked to, that this site can support large scale additional retail above and beyond what is already in Cupertino. Steve Piaseclci: • Staff is concerned that if you bring in 200,000 sq. ft. of office or 100,000 sq. ft. of office that the dynamics of the center starts to change ,md you probably would want to hear what the public testimony is and you could mix and match this project to suit what you think would be the best fit for Cupertino. • The applicant was put on notice from the beginning that we didn't want to see this turn into predominantly an office center which is why you are hearing those comments. The rest of the components, senior housing, we prefer the larger hotel; we don't have a problem with some office component; we just don't want it to be :t dominant component. Com. Brophy: • For this site, if both the applicant and staff are willing to support the senior housing project at its current size and you are willing to support a hotel at either the current or larger size, the question is what else can be built there, and you would rather not see ofl'ice space there and would like to see retail, but I am skeptical that there is a retail component that can be put there Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 28, 2008 that would fit into this town square appearance that is supportable in Cupertino. The history in this town is not very strong of small shops and to tell the applicant to go out and build it, and if he builds it, the tenants will come; there is nothing in terms of either planning theory or economic theory that would justify that position. Steve Piasecki: • Said they were not asking that they put more retail in; simply reduce the office. Staff feels it is too ambitious on the office front, it is going to appear too dense and it is going to generate too much traffic. Staff approves of leaving the retail size as is, which is located in a way that is proximate to Cupertino Square and the future Rose Bowl site. They are comfortable with those numbers and are comfortable with having non--retail uses on the far eastern side of the site; the hotel, either an athletic club or some degree of office. We are not asking that he convert; the numbers he is showing are fine and I think he is comfortable with those numbers from a market sense. Vice Chair Giefer: • Referring to the site plan, potential loading dock, with the previous Rose Bowl project, one of the things discussed was having an access road that would service a loading dock, and seeing that this project is not active, is that a potential for access for the loading dock so they are not coming from this area. Gary Chao: • It is a potential and is something staff has been discussing with the applicant; and Sand Hill has approached KCR, the owner of the Rose ]3ow1 site to discuss that possibility. There is an access drive that connects to two parking lots, the surface perimeter of Rose Bowl to the driveway leading to the north elevation of the senior housing; to have that component in between the two properties, it would be more ~~omplicated, there are going to be some parking stalls that would have to be displays on the Rose Bowl site and potentially some noise impacts to the condos up above, therefore staff has approached the applicant. Vice Chair Giefer: • One of the big issues with the Rose Bowl project was compatibility and accessibility. On this project I would like to make sure we emphasize that both projects should be able to access one another both from a pedestrian/vehicular fashion. On Page 2.8 of the document, there is a statement regarding building height and ground floor retail presence that the applicant must demonstrate they can create a strong retail base for ground floor. How do they demonstrate that to get that allocation? Gary Chao: • The genesis of that comment is from the General Plan's provision where in this area the height limitation is 45 feet, but it does say that you can go up to 60 provided that you show mixed use development. In this case we wanted to make sure that ground floor retail works were appropriately located; it does have the interfaces necessary to activate the spaces, the plaza and we are relatively comfortable with the retail space provided under the senior housing and also under the office. We are still unsure as to h~~w the ground floor retail of the fitness club is going to work out in terms of how it relates to the rest of the shopping center and that could be for discussion at the next meeting for the applicant to address. Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 28, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • In the E112, one of the comments that is repeated over and over again is that transportation impacts are significant and unavoidable based upon this development, but we are proposing that we remove the bike lane on Vallco Parkway. Gary Chao: • The bike lanes are still going to be there; they are going to be relocated back of the diagonal stalls. Vice Chair Giefer: • I think that is a huge mistake; I forwarded same photos of bike lanes in Montreal where they have sheltered bike lanes between the sidewalk and parking spaces in the lane of traffic and I cannot imagine moving a bike lane behind cars that are parked on potentially a heavy pedestrian mall. Steve Piaseclei: • One of the advantages of having this presented in a couple of hearings is that we can ask the applicant and the traffic engineer to identify alternatives to the conventional bike lane and angled parking space arrangement and bring those back to the Commission and the community. Gary Chao: • Said there will be a condition providing bike parking throughout the project. Vice Chair Giefer: • There was not a lot of detail about the senior housing project. Will that project include personal outside space balconies; is it the same: requirement we currently have for high density housing. Gary Chao: • The senior housing is on the podium; partiall~~ the idea of putting the senior housing building there is for the seniors to be able to use that passive park. Also the podium level is designed to be a podium level courtyard where those are; outdoor spaces serving two functions; one to provide the outdoor space necessary for the seniors; also to buffer the visual mass of the building from the Metropolitan condos so that: they can cascade it back and set it back so you see that U shaped building on top of the podium with the interior courtyard being completely open for use. Vice Chair Giefer: • Another compliance requirement was related to using native plants and low water usage plants; it was marked "somewhat" as opposed to "no issues". Gary Chao: • Said that staff supported that concept; the project landscape architect is present for further discussion if needed. Vice Chair Giefer: • Relative to the requested amount of office :space, she questioned the compliance with the General Plan because the General Plan says it should be a predominantly retail area. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 28, 2008 Steve Piaseclci: • Said it is for the Commission to make a recommendation to the community to comment on. You could look at the project overall and if you look at it as a mixed-use development from a land area basis, it is still dominated by the retail hotel depending on which option. If you go to Option 2, then the office starts to become a <iominant element. General Plan allows you to move allocations around so if you find through this process that that fulfills the intent of the General Plan and the South Vallco Plan, you could approve the 200,000 sq. ft. of office; you would have to move it from other areas. That was the biggest problem we had with the 200,000; even though the Council has authori:~ed an evaluation of additional office within the General Plan it is provided that it doesn't recluire any additional housing above the General Plan. That may solve the issue if there is ~i ground swell support for the idea of a fairly significant office component here. If that does~i't happen, you could have an either/or option. • Our feeling was that under the current General Plan it is too big of an allocation to commit to at this time; we were concerned about other businesses in the community that were relying on that and don't think it should be all concentrated here. Chair Miller: • Asked staff to clarify what they were trying to achieve with the project, from their point of view. Gary Chao: • Said a lot of the objectives of this area are already outlined in the South Vallco Master Plan and touched upon in the General Plan which i:s to create a development that would draw more of a regional crowd in terms of commercial product to activate the streets. The focus of this project in our mind is to how to activate Vallco Parkway as it transitions from the previously approved Rose Bowl site and also across the street north of Vallco Parkway, J. C. Penneys, retail fronts; how can we create and activate th.e Vallco Parkway so that it can become more of a mainstream type of feel and that is all consistent with the intent of the South Vallco Master Plan, and also connectivity of the project to th~~ other developments is a top priority and how it relates from a massing perspective but also from a circulation perspective in terms of interface of pedestrians, bikes and vehicular; those are some of the focuses and objectives that we feel are important in this development. Chair Miller: • Asked if staff was saying there should be some: synergies here between what we have and what we are proposing. Steve Piaseclci: • Said there should be some synergies, there is a struggling mall; Cupertino Square hasn't jelled yet for a variety of reasons. It is hoped that this becomes a bookend that attracts pedestrian traffic along Vallco Parkway, in front of the Rose Bowl project which also has ground floor retail plan as well as on the north side of Vallco Parkway in front of Penneys parking garage which also has retail plans. T'he future retail roughly in the Rose Bowl is another 75,000 or so, so there is an opportunity to use this project, Rose Bowl, Cupertino Square to begin linking these projects together and causing the cross traffic that will make them all successful. Chair Miller: • Suggested further discussion on what the linkages are, both physically and functionally. Cupertino Planning Commission 1 O October 28, 2008 Gary Chao: • This is a plan that is put together by the appli<:ant to show the enhancements that are going to be made to the roadway to achieve the connc;ctivity and circulation discussed. The concept with this diagram is to demonstrate that this development is going to be extremely walkable, it is going to be similar to the city block system with your Main Street arterials, Stevens Creek along the south end and Vallco Parkway and Tantau around the perimeters but within you also have the ability to access the site from different blocks to create an intimate environment. Chair Miller: • Is there going to be any coordination of any nature in terms of the types of stores and shops that go on this side vs. those that go on the Rose Bowl, or is that just happen as a natural course of things as things get developed. Gary Chao: • Said it would be based on market demand. Alci Honda Snelling: • The parking shown on the south side of Arco Parkway does not exist. The idea is to modify Vallco Parkway has 6 lanes, 3 in each direction, so the proposal would have the south side, one lane going in each direction and the southside of Vallco Parkway having these diagonal parking spaces constructed with this project. We are going to narrow Vallco Parkway. Chair Miller: • Staff talked about the possibility of allowing a parking structure but the lower floor has to remain available for retail at some point in the future but not today. Alu Honda Snelling: • Correct; basically the idea is to have the lower floors facing the ground floors facing the town square to be retail to really activate that site as a pedestrian friendly area. It is also consistent with the provisions of the South Vallco Master Plan as well. Gary Chao: • I think the concern is that if you look at the diagram now, there is a lot of parking stalls around that town square and obviously no point in putting a town square there so that space could be activated, it could be used frequently and could have a lot of pedestrian and community activities in there. With all the parking around, it is going to be intimidating for people to be able to walk through the cars to get to that particular plaza. Our city architect made some suggestions from other examples that exist in adjacent cities; where one of the options is you probably don't have to shi8 it but you can do something to one of the drive where it is more predominantly closed off, bollard off with more pedestrian oriented activities. It may involve some shi8ing or deletion of parking stalls, maybe it is a combination of a couple of things, but it is just to ask the Commission to think about that concept and discuss it with the applicant to see if there are any solutions that free up that space more. Steve Piaseclci: • Said there was another iteration of this where -you could have a hybrid where one of the streets or portion of the street could be convertib]e as demand exists, such as Castro Street in Mountain View where if the restaurant locates there and they wish to spill out into what is a parking space, they can do that; they put the bollards in so they have a convertible space. There are a number of different options and what the architectural advisor is saying is it might enhance the area if you had the opportunity for the retail uses to spill into the town square. Cupertino Planning Commission 1 1 October 28, 2008 Chair Miller: • The reason for putting parking there in the first place is because we aze short on parking spaces. What is the pazking issue? Steve Piaseclti: • The original direction was that if you look at c~~nventional town squazes, they tend to be ringed by the travel lanes as well as some kind of parking arrangement; that this is going to be a pedestrian dominated street that the cazs aze going to have to go slow; the theory was that by ringing it, it would not only serve the adjacent uses, the retail, but it would also dominate the area with the pedestrian movement and this is not a place you want to go speeding through. I think it was trying to reflect the old town squares, and I know that the applicant's architect did quite a bit of reseazch when we went through the South Vallco Master Plan and probably could relay different styles of town squares both with and without the parking. It works either way so it is an interesting choice the community gets to talk about. Chair Miller: • Santana Row has no pazking on the streets that go through Santana Row and the traffic does not go through there very quickly. They have the green space in the center and no parking at all. Was a solution considered of not having any parking here; just putting it here in the structure. Steve Piaseclci: • The azchitectural advisor suggested looking at one option that would allow that to occur on one side of the town squaze. We would have to evaluate the parking demand and supply to find out if eliminating the parking is an option. There aze many variations on this theme with or without pazking, lazger, smaller, Healdsburg, Sonoma have town squazes that aze surrounded by parking as well. It can be an enticement to shop there to just pull up and get your coffee and utilize the space. Chair Miller: • Another thought would be that this might be am azea for perhaps some outdoor entertainment; was some thought given to allowing some aze;a here that could be used for perhaps music or some other forms of outdoor entertainment. • The azeas need to be planned for; some space has to be allocated and you need to put electricity to it so that you can hook in microphones. Steve Piaseclci: • The applicant can explain how he would accommodate needs for microphones, electricity, etc. In a number of areas, one of the things you are hearing from us is that we need to drill down on the details of the retail shops, of the town squaze, the details of the athletic club in Option A; there are a number of interesting components to this. Chair Miller: • Relative to the athletic club facility, he questioned why the developer would build a 145,000 sq. ft. facility if they are going to use only 98,000 sq. ft. He expressed that the General Plan does not make any provisions for reducing square footage allocations based on anything, and he was concerned that could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the General Plan and avoid a General Plan amendment. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 28, 2008 • If we aze going to do this and this has come up before, my preference would be that we change the General Plan to make it cleaz as to when we would allow these conditions to happen because I could see this spilling over into other areas of allocations such as housing. Steve Piaseclci: • While it isn't explicitly stated in the General Plan, the city has a long history of allowing "amenity space" to be discounted in various projects, particularly relating to office. Following those precedents one could make a finding that this development or this project, you would have to be convinced by the applicant that this is amenity space; this is a very exclusive type of facility, so they think it is consistent with their marketing scheme; at the same time that they can live with the restricted membership numbE:rs comfortably and still market this concept. It is a question of whether it goes above and beyond in terms of amenity space. Chair Miller: • Relative to allocation of office space, I know that we are talking about office space in connection with the housing element; there is ~~robably going to be a General Plan amendment with regard to office space in any case, is that true. Steve Piaseclci: • We aze talking about it and the Council has authorized a discussion with the housing element. Chair Miller: • From the allocation standpoint as opposed to whether it fits in the project or not, I want to sepazate the issues. I think the allocations are a separate issue that is going to be dealt with separately, and we should look at this project as is, does 60,000 sq. ft. of office make sense there or 100,000 or zero regardless of what the allocation issue is, because I think that is going to be addressed separately. Is that a fair approach. Steve Piaseclci: • I think that is fair; let me qualify that the Coun.cil's authorization to move ahead was the result of being approached by a couple of our lazger corporate office developments, and they are seeking a long range assurance that there is some capacity in our General Plan and that would be probably earmarked for those larger office users in the community. It wouldn't necessarily be available to the other projects in the numbers we are talking about. • Said that subdivision of three to five; was not a substantive issue given the size of the property and the need to parcel out the sites so that the individual developments can occur, because there are separate and distinct uses occurring here. That doesn't mean that they will be independent of one another, they will be highly dependent in terms of cross circulation easements, and parking agreements. This will function seamlessly as a shopping center would otherwise function; that doesn't go away, so the public interest is still preserved even though you are increasing the number of parcels slightly. Gary Chao: • Relative to parking, he said that currently both options have a surplus of parking. Steve Piaseclii: • Tn large portions of the parking garage on the south end, to some degree the southwest side is masked by the retail and office building planned and they have seen recent examples in other communities where parking structures have been designed so that you can't tell they are not an office development, and there has been some desire to have that convertible space on the ground floor into retail should Vallco Parkway ever convert to a retail street. If the applicant Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 28, 2008 can be encouraged to come back and demonstrate or condition it in a way that requires they treat those exposed perimeters similaz to some of these other developments seen, it would be a satisfactory solution. • Said it is not currently shown on the plans to have parking on Stevens Creek and the Council affirmatively took a position when they talked about the Heart of the City Plan that they don't want to see pazking on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Com. Brophy: • I understand there are two options that deal vrith and without the health club, and I presume that the reason for this is that the applicant doesn't know whether or not he can conclude a deal with the health club. Assuming that is the case: and there is an opposition to getting the office space up to 205,000 sq. ft., what use would you suggest to go for where the health club is currently shown. Steve Piaseclci: • Said staff supports up to 60,000 sq. ft. office building with some ground floor retail on Stevens Creek or it could be a smaller format health club which has also been discussed. There was an iteration or version of the plan that talked about indenting in for onstreet pazking and the applicant has since indicated that is not their desire. Ken Rodriguez, Architect for Sand Hill Property Company: • Reviewed a slide presentation outlining the various elements of the proposed project, including the elevations, landscape plan, retail spaces., plazas, and outdoor spaces. As a result of community input, staff input, Planning Commission and City Council input, the design team's input, they feel the proposed project is a downtown-type Main Street mixed-use project with incredible excitement. He reviewed their input on vazious issues which is outlined in the staff report and attachments. Kevin Dare, Sand Hill Property Company: • The project was shaped in many ways by the community and the community outreach that was performed and many of the comments created. helped to form what is presented. If I were to describe some of the attributes or key themes that were discussed; one of those themes is that the community was looking fora `place' place, a place that would serve the community as a whole and that the community can be a place where they can come and gather and be very proud of. The second component is that they want to be representative of Cupertino itself, so Cupertino is not Santana Row, it is not other cities; they want to have something that is unique to Cupertino itself; and the last is that they want to have something that is very successful and is thriving. • The question was asked "why not retail?" To understand the context of our site itself, we are next to Valley Fair which is three miles away :u-id they have over a million square feet of retail and are adding another 600,000 to 800,000 sq. ft. Stanford Shopping Center and Valley Fair are the number 1 and 2 malls throughout the l~ orthern California area; and then there is Vallco or Cupertino Squaze. We recognize that we can add more retail beyond that 150,000 sq. ft. but it would be a very different type of retail than what we aze proposing; more of a power center style retail with traditional parking in front and that is not something that the community voiced they were looking for. We believe the 150,000 sq. ft. of pedestrian oriented retail is the maximum we aze going to be able to put and have it be there successfully. • Relative to the key themes, the community is looking fora `place' place; they are looking for Main Street style retail and a mix of uses. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 28, 2008 • Early on Sand Hill expressed to the community that we didn't want to impact the schools because the impacts to the schools were a hot topic, and not something we wanted to step on those bounds. • Said they were working on creating something that has activity at different times of the day; not just busy at night or during the day; that is why they included the senior housing, the hotel, and the athletic club to bring out those different types of uses at different times during the day. • Specifically office for us in this plan is a viability driver; it is something that is crucial to not only generate traffic and people through the project itself, but also to be a fundamental piece of our puzzle. There are two different alternatives presented, and one of the questions was why do you have two different alternatives. Com. Elrophy said is it because of the viability of being able to get the athletic club. That is one of th~~ key pieces of why we are actually submitting two different plans. • The other component to that is that the athletic club has a higher traffic impact and also has more air quality impact. We think that we ha~/e Alternative No. 1 which is something we are extremely excited about; and a second alternative the office component is something else that would be something that we would support. • We can also look at other alternatives on the eastern portion of the site to have a different set of uses or a mix and match of different types of different sized uses at that location also. More than anything we want to create a place that is a diamond for the city that the community can be proud of, that they can point to this and say this is Cupertino; this reflects us and I think that is what we are trying to go for. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked what the applicant's plan would be if triey were limited to 60,000 sq. ft. of office space to be in greater compliance with the current General Plan. Kevin Dare: • Said that office was an important component to them; it is a major driver economically and also from an activity standpoint. Relative to Alternative No. 1 which is the athletic club versus Alternative No. 2, the traffic impacts and parking impacts aze even much less with Alt. 2 than with Alt. 1. It is something they would have to consider in terms of what the other alternative uses would be or other types of mix and match of building sizes and product types. Ken Rodrigues: • From a planner's standpoint, look at the other downtowns mentioned, they typically had the office built there or have built office in downtown; they have now just added most of them a bunch of residential. We fortunately have projects that are approved here; I think with the senior use, with the Metropolitan and Rose B~~wl site those are great starts to add to this foot traffic, but Santana Row is now adding 60,000 sq. ft. of office; that is phase one; the next phase for them is going to be triple that size. "There is obviously the economics to that; from a planning standpoint it adds foot traffic all afternoon to the retail projects, so that the restaurants do really well, the retail shops should come out of your office, you want a 45 minute break, you go shopping, you sit down and have a cup of coffee, you meet people; all of those things that in the past we did in downto.n~ns, but now these small projects that are trying to be a mixed use haven't thought about it azid I think what you aze going to see at Santana Row is this new addition of office and I believe their daytime foot traffic is significantly going to improve in the week days. • Regarding some other possible uses for the sports facility site if it were changed in the future, he said that the Decathalon Club in the 80s had to have an alternative plan for the facility Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 28, 2008 • before they could get financing; each one of the tenants still has to go through that rigorous design element; it could be used for a lot of things such as office, retail on ground floor, office above; two story retail. Applicant: • Relative to the parcels owned by HP and Apple, those buildings are specifically dedicated for HP and Apple; there is a depth of market that continues to be at this type of location to be able to enjoy the amenities for the project itself. "['here is a different type of office user than just HP or Apple which is purely dedicated for their use and for that single tenant. Chair Miller: • There are two reasons for the office space; on.e to provide feet on the street to help make the retail successful; and whether it is HP or Appb.e or some other company. The other thing you are saying is from a economic standpoint, there is going to be demand for office space right outside of HP and Apple and you want to capture that market. Applicant: • Correct, there is a trend as companies are looking to provide different amenities for their employees, the employees like to be in an environment that is very dynamic and has a mix of uses; such as restaurants or athletic clubs. He said they believe they can bring in Class A type of users to be able to draw on this type of environment. Chair Miller: • How did you arrive at the 100,000 sq. ft. number as opposed to 60,000 or 80,000 or 120,000. Applicant: • I think early on as we are working through our different permutations of the plan itself, we are looking for the types of users that are able to be substantial, whether it is a one user; so we want to have the flexibility to provide a different type of format for larger users, whether it is smaller accountants. One of the draws to this project, as some of the community members said we want a landmark site with landmark t~,~pe of office. A Microsoft or large user are not going to necessarily come and take a 30,000 sq. ft. plate or 30,000 sq. ft. building; they are going to want a larger space, a larger footprint to maintain all their employees to be together. Those are the types of users we want to be able; to attract and I think that having 100,000 sq. ft. minimum is something that can help us get to that goal. Those are elements; that is one example of why we are thinking of a floor of 100,000 sq. ft. Chair Miller: • Asked why they were proposing to build more than 98,000 sq. ft. if the limited membership of 9,000 equates to only 98,000 square feet. Applicant: • When we talked to the Lifetime Fitness, their F~oint is that it is not driven by square footage, 24 hour fitness, they are driven by the number of members they have. Their goal is to limit the number of members, provide the highest quality and then equate the number of members to a traffic requirement. In effect, if you look at i1: from an ITE standpoint, it equates to a 98,000 square foot building. Said in terms of the physical layout of the facility, it is different from a retail store. They have an outdoor and an indoor swim pool, and an indoor pool takes up a lot of square footage, but bodies per square foot are significantly less than a retail component. They are overbuilding because their uses are bigger than they have within the space. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 28, 2008 Steve Piaseclci: • Said it would help to see the floor plans, and e:uggested that the applicants provide a layout of one of the buildings because they have rock climbing walls, day caze centers and expansive spaces. Ken Rodrigues: • Relative to pazking on Stevens Creek Boule~razd, it was discussed a lot at the master plan stage. Said he would like to have some parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard; parallel parking that extends from Tantau down to Metropolitan. It would help the Metropolitan retail as it is still not leased and won't be until there is an adequate amount of pazking and ease of parking. Chair Miller: • Another issue that came up along Stevens Creek was the setback requirements; if they aze adjusted to the height of the building it is likely you will have some buildings set back further than other buildings; is that good. or bad from am azchitectural standpoint. Ken Rodriques: • In the current Plan A which has a three story hotel component, we aze at the 45 foot or lower, so we meet all the setbacks along there. The athletic club is still debatable now; we are trying to get some information from them on wha~. their heights aze. A varied setback, a taller building on the street; it can help to have a little more landscape. If we do a 5 story hotel which is Plan B, and the office building, we would have to have a greater setback or step the building is another alternative. It will be showxi in more detail at the next meeting. Kevin Dare: • Addressed the size of the senior housing units, which vary between 650 to 800 square feet and said they were in the process of creating more detail to show at the next meeting. • We are looking at two kinds of senior; one is for active senior living, which is age restricted, whether for sale or rent has not been decided. The other component would be assisted living type of senior housing, with more services. VVe are willing to look at expanding the size and scope of the units themselves. The standazd size in the industry is 500 to 600 squaze feet for senior housing. We are open to different concepts of making them larger. Ken Rodrigues: • Provided history on some other senior housing, projects he has been involved in building in the past, where they range from 500 sq. ft. and 800 sq. ft. Chair Miller: • The tazget audience is critical. If talking about assisted living the numbers are accurate. If people are assisted living, they aze not going to be getting out to shop as often and won't be using the athletic club and doing a lot of the things that you want to have done there. If you tazget the active senior adult community, that is a different market entirely. If you start going below 1200 or 1300 square feet, you aze no't going to get people going there because it is typically two adults who aze downsizing from larger units and I don't think they want to downsize from 3,000 squaze feet to 600 square feet. They will downsize to something less than they have and want to spend less money, but they aze not going to go down to 600 squaze feet. You won't get that owner in there. • Recommended that the applicants take a more careful look at the demographics and where the demand is and how it better plays into their overall concept. He said that although more assisted living units are needed, he did not feel they were appropriate for the proposed project. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 28, 2008 • Said the more upscale would probably fit in be:tter with what is going on here. If you consider that people are working longer and age restricted starts at 55, I wouldn't be surprised if you got folks that worked at Apple and HP that met that age requirement that would be looking for a place just like that with all the amenities and walking or biking distance from the office. Please look at it carefully because it is an area where you can improve upon this. Kevin Dare: • Relative to the phasing of the project, he said they would prefer to have the entire project up and running at once, subject to the ability to obtain financing. If they had to phase it, they would start with the town square azea and create that frame first; single level retail, and the components moving from west to east, and the parking garage to support the retail being created. Chair Miller declared a short recess. Upon reconvening the meeting, Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Al De Francesco, Cupertino resident: • The two pazks individually aze unusual, and d~~n't understand why they are not combined into one bigger park. Said he was hesitant to give anyone the ability to phase the project because phase zero has been sitting dormant for 22 3~eazs and could have been farmed. I am not a proponent of parking on Stevens Creek Boulez/azd; I think if we ever had a more vibrant city, we would just have more accidents on Stevens Creek; and I don't think we should be pazking on Vallco Pazkway which would create a safety hazard. It is something that could be added at a future time if needed. What we are trying to do is bring the people into the main street off the park; you don't want people pazking outside, you want them to pull in and pazk inside and walk down the main street. The circulation around the park should be circular, one way. It could be blocked off at any given time which has been discussed. Said he would prefer to have the hotel on the end. • My last comment is from a green perspective C would like to be sure that we plan the parking structure such that we could accept the solar panels on the roof. In general I like the concept, I think it has a lot of merit; I think we need to move on and not wait for the rest of the city to catch up to us. If we wait for the other components of the city, we will be in trouble. Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident: • Expressed appreciation for all the public outreach done under very unusual circumstances for them being both an applicant and also somebody who had to develop a master plan for the city. Here is another case where unfortunatel~/ during the community outreach portion of the South Vallco Master Plan, allocations were never discussed. It is unfortunate that Apple and HP did not choose that opportunity to say there- is an upcoming problem that has to be addressed and it is going to impact the South `Jallco Master Plan area, and how are you going to address the office, the hotel, and the commercial allocations, and you discussed this tonight. This would have been something that would have been very helpful to the community to know what was going to be the future problems that would impact the community. All of those increases means there will be an equal housing demand on our city at some point and I really don't see how that is being addressed through ,my of these master plans we have seen. During the referendums, not only was the impact of schools an issue, but specifically in the South Vallco azea it was pazk size and also parking, and people didn't want to have Vallco Parkway and Finch really altered in such a way that traffic would become an issue, and I don't think that has been fully addressed. We see that Finch will be given up for a park which is great, but we still have a problem with is traffic going to be affected and if speeds slow down to 15 mph Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 28, 2008 on Finch, and Vallco Parkway is decreased in size for diagonal parking, what is that going to do to traffic if you have a successful rejuvenation of this area, and maybe any diagonal parking should be considered provisional, as to if it is actually going to work or be needed in the future. It could become a provisional item. Se:tbacks along Stevens Creek Boulevard; some of these buildings aze big, and I think Mr. Rodrigues said they could be terraced; I think that should be considered. He pointed out that Calabazas Creek could be included in some fashion in the South Vallco master plan azea; I don't :know how that would all be Apple or HP could talk about this and you could have a linear park concept which has been talked about many times during the community outreach. The senior housing, people were concerned about making sure there is maybe a zoning ordinance developed to address senior housing specifically, so that if you entitle the property that it will remain senior housing and that if it isn't developed or it is phased, that it will actually be senior housing in the future. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Thanked the project team for working with the community to come up with something that they will be proud to have there for many years to come. • Said it was important to ensure they keep the: full 35 foot public right of way setback along Stevens Creek Boulevard from Finch down to Tantau and slightly beyond. It is important to the citizens of Cupertino to maintain the double row of Ash trees, lawn, and is what is seen as one drives along Stevens Creek Boulevazd. • Another issue is the removal of the 95 trees on the property; there are 80 Ash street trees that rim the property now. She said she was worried that they would lose many of the trees; although the trees look much better than the}~ did about six months ago. Do not remove the Evergreen Ash trees until an azborist report is received; preserve the pine tree that is within the 35 foot right of way that was shown by Toll Brothers. The pine tree is a landmark for the people in the eastern end of town. • The hotel is too tall- we don't want 60 feet down there; we need to terrace it or flip the hotel around; no parking on Stevens Creek or Vallco Parkway and we need to protect the corridor of Calabazas Creek at all costs. • There needs to be security on site; and construction plans need to be known so that traffic is not tied up at that end of town. Robin Su, Cupertino resident/Metropolitan Board of Director: • Said the major concern of the Metropolitan community is security, because when the Metropolitan Condominiums were built, they did not foresee that there would be retail stores nearby. Presently there aze three buildings, and foot traffic of non-residents causes security concerns. Non-residents enter onto the property and infringe upon the privacy of the neighbors, sometimes sitting on their outdoor :Furniture and leaving trash on the grounds. • Pazking is an issue because we shaze the pf:rking space with the office tenants and in the daytime the parking space is not adequate. It would be good if we had the five story parking garage; in favor of the parking structure. Ken Wong, Metropolitan Condominium owner~lVIember of HOA of Metropolitan: • Said he was empowered by the HOA to form a committee for the purposes of working with Sand Hill Properties as well as the Rose Bowl site. Thanked Sand Hill Properties for the good work and time they spent listening to their concerns. • In the last six months the condominium units have experienced theft, crime, and vandalism and they feel that the proposed retail would bring in additional crime as a result of the foot traffic. As mentioned, they would prefer the flow of traffic to go around the project rather than Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 28, 2008 directly through the Metropolitan project. Because of the theft, vandalism, etc. they would prefer to keep the general public and walkability of it to the outskirts of the project and try to keep the internal workings of their project secLire. Presently there aze no functional gates because the understanding is that the city did not want gates at these locations because they try to create connectivity. From our perspective, unless you live at the Metropolitan and have experienced the things that they have experienced, you would reconsider that particular entry or exit point from the Sand Hill Project. Parking - as indicated, we are an advocate for more parking, presently the pazking situation is relatively tight and whenever someone tells us that there is surplus parking, that is a good thing and trying to parking is not advisable from the Metropolitan. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said he attended the meetings Sand Hill held regazding the project; one of the features that was looked for was a gateway feature for people coming into Cupertino up Stevens Creek Boulevard. It does not appear that they accomplished that objective; the feature is not a part of the project. • The other issue is the park along Stevens Creek seems out of place and there should be a way to take the park and spread it azound and also 1:o move the retail where that park is or put more retail in that azea; that may be a more effective design. Jennifer Chang, Metropolitan resident, expressed her concerns: • Truck docking area -Concerned about the noise from the trucks loading. If the truck loading azea is moved and there is senior housing, it affects both the Metropolitan residents and the senior residents. Said she was also concerned about the hours the trucks unloaded. • Parking -Said she did not feel they had surplus pazking, and pazking was one of the issues. She expressed concern about having enough parking when the residents returned to their homes, and that the people shopping in the retail did not always take the residents' pazking spaces. • What are the construction hours, the list of the projects and the noise level and traffic. How will this project affect Metropolitan homeowners. Jon Willey, Tilson Ave.: • Said he attended one of the focus sessions but left disappointed because it appeared the focus was more on Stazbucks versus bagels as opposed to his concern about traffic. He said he was concerned about the magnitude of the project, which from a size standpoint was similaz to Santana Row, and would impact their part of town. • He said there was no discussion about how th-ey would deal with the traffic; and pointed out the traffic nightmaze in the Valley Fair area. The city previously denied the Toll Brothers project because of the traffic impacts. He asked to see a traffic plan if there is one; one that deals with the traffic and how that is going to bye handled. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Staff answered questions from the speakers: Security: • Relative to security concerns from the Metropolitan condominium residents, staff agreed that since it would be a secure center, the center itself will likely have some security and rather than a vacant lot where anyone can enter any time of the day, it will be more difficult for non- residents to enter the area. The residents can propose a low gate to hinder the non-residents from entering the condominium property. Cupertino Planning Commission 2C' October 28, 2008 Truck Loading Areas: • Staff said they have gone through this on a mrmber of other occasions on previous proposals. Staff would like to see enclosed truck docks., where the truck goes into the covered service area, shuts off their engines and unloads them. They are designed in a way that minimizes noise. The Rose Bowl site has residential al:~o adjacent to this location, about 40 or 50 feet away, this location is about 150 feet away. • If we are successful in finding a way to bring a truck loading dock in, it will also be enclosed and there are hours of operation to adhere to, to minimize any of the offsite impacts as much as possible. • He encouraged the speakers to monitor the process and ensure that this is happening to their satisfaction. Construction Hours: • Hours are limited by ordinance• weekday from 7 to 8; weekends more stringent; more accurate information will be provided at the next meetirig. Traffic Impacts at Various Intersections: Gary Chao: • Said there was data available; copies of the draft EIR are available in the Planning Department and online at Cupertino.org/mainstreet. Staff' is not prepared to talk about the details of the traffic because they are still getting input from adjacent jurisdictions, a lot related to mitigation measures, etc. Information on detailed trips being generated and mitigation measures will be available at the next meeting. Steve Piaseclci: • There have been references to Valley Fair and Santana Row and I mentioned that we should get the numbers on Santana Row and Valley Fair because the orders of magnitude there are significantly greater than what has been proposed here; Valley Fair being in excess of 2 million square feet and Santana Row more than .5 million sq. ft. of retail. • Said they thought there should be a gateway fi~ature, but does not know what that would be at this point. The General Plan talks about creating a gateway; we have talked with the applicant about designing the building to be the gateway building as you enter from the east; I am not satisfied and I don't think staff is satisfied that we have accomplished or understand what that is going to be. It could be something both in the right of way and/or in the building; the building should be a great looking structure and we are not convinced we are there yet. Senior Housing being converted in the future: Gary Chao: • Normally there is a covenant that would be recorded on the property that would restrict the type of use; in this case restricting it and limiting it to the usage of senior housing. Concern about phasing the project: Steve Piasecki: • Said it was a good observation and comment because most every project they have is phased to some degree. We would ask the applicant to try to be more specific about when they visualize as the phasing, and present it to the public for a better understanding. Cupertino Planning Commission 2] October 28, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said that phasing was sometimes required b:y the lending institutions, and may be in many cases the driving factor. Steve Piaseclu: • Said that just the practical realities of obtaining loans and then having sufficient capital to write the loans against, requires that they do some degree of phasing. Concern about building commerciaLojfzce space and not addressing the impact on housing: Steve Piaseclci: • The numbers in this plan acre within the current General Plan which does have sufficient housing to provide the offsets required by ABAG. Staff is comfortable that this project is not going to strain those numbers. • The Council has authorized an expansion within the parameters of the General Plan; if we go beyond that, Mr. Murphy's comment is appropriate; in either case, we should be looking at ways to balance the community and provide some housing opportunities along with non- housing opportunities. Question why there was a park at the western part and perhaps it didn't ft Steve Piaseclu: • The point was made by the applicant, and it was agreed that is where the housing is clustered, the Metropolitan condos, the senior units and the future Rose Bowl units; so while the Main Street plaza will belong to the entire community and will be utilized in a vaziety of forms, having some kind of open passive park facility that the residents in the area can use, seems to be a valuable concept. • The placement of it proximate to residential as. well as using it as a buffer for the Metropolitan development and putting it in a location where it is highly visible to the general population was part of the motivation to put it there. It could possibly be shifted; but as you start to move it around, it stau-ts to be in less desirable locations in our observation. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she was concerned about the office squau-e footage that is included in this plan because the General Plan is fairly specific on what type: of activity goes in there, and does not want that comment to be misinterpreted. Said she was not referring to emphasizing additional retail, just that they need to consider what they would do with the plans as presented with reduced squares in terms of office space. There is .a need within our city for some of our major corporate headquarters that are here in tenants, and I don't feel this is a strong enough case because it is not consistent with the General Plan. • Said in general it was a good start; she was not opposed to a larger scale hotel; liked the concept of being developed as city blocks; it has a comfortable distance; and has a good pedestrian circulation plan. • She pointed out that when they discussed the Heart of the City Plan at the previous Planning Commission meeting, they agreed that bicycle lanes and parking on Stevens Creek made sense; however the Council has directed that they don't want to see pazking anywhere in the Heart of the City. She said that if they firmly believe in that concept, they should send it back to Council with that as pau-t of their final recommendation. • Said she agreed that they needed teaser parking and many of the residents aze not going to be happy with that comment. In general, it is a good start in the right direction and it will be interesting to see when we see more detail on the project, what comes back to us in December. Cupertino Planning Commission 22 October 28, 2008 • Said she looked forwazd to seeing their green building ideas as well as their native and drought tolerant landscaping and how they will keep the water on site. • Said she was concerned about the monolithic appearance of the parking structure on Vallco Parkway, and would expect that what gets presented is sufficiently screened so it doesn't look like a pazking structure and then if the growad floor is converted to retail, it can be easily accomplished because the higher levels are alr~:ady screened. Com. Brophy: • Said it was an interesting concept and he appreciated the amount of work that Mr. Daze and Mr. Rodrigues and the members of their team have put into the project. • The type of retail concept is an extraordinarily difficult concept to implement successfully. Any time you try to do retail projects that are dlifferent than the usual standazd shopping center, big boxes or lifestyle centers, the proof is upon. them to show that the concept will work. • If we want to see a concept like this, tike first thing we need to do, is resist the micromanagement of the design. The concept of the town square as currently implemented is great; trying to take away parking by moving ii. would be a mistake. • For this retail to be successful retail, retail that has a lot of business has to have a fair amount of convenient parking to get the initial customers there. The rest of them will go to the pazking gazage, but you need more than the kind of teaser parking that people have talked about. • Notwithstanding what has been said eazlier, -the office use will not provide the support for retail in a sense that the workers in that office building will support a significant amount of retail space. They will probably support between 4,000 and 6,000 sq. ft. only. What the office does is it provides a sense of place, it provides a gateway that this project would provide not as some type of sculpture but rather the fact that it is a unique concept and that having a few lazger buildings will give it a sense of place. • The problem we have with the office space is pressure we aze under in the General Plan where we have a limited amount of space to give, especially if for any reason the difference between 100,000 feet that the applicant is asking under Option A and 60,000 sq. ft. that the staff is recommending, I think that is a workable number. We can come up with a number somewhere between those two numbers that we can live with anywhere in that range. I think the concern is if for any reason the athletic club deal does not come through and then the applicant wishes to ask for additional office space there, we would have a problem. What we need to think about is an alternative use that would be acceptable to both the city and the developer. There aze several possibilities, but I think it would be difficult to do Plan B. • Relative to the hotel, General Plan allocations, that doesn't bother me; the reality is we aze not going to have four hotels built, there will be at most two, more likely just one. • I do have questions about that second park; I know that we had this discussion when I first came on that pazks equals good; therefore, we should put that in. But when I look at that pazk, I see no functional purpose and the only possibility I think is a greater possibility that you will have after school kids hanging out there and creating more problems for the Metropolitan condos. If we keep that pazk, I would prefer that space converted to retail. A lot of good points have been made by our residents; I thinly: we have to work through it. • I would like to see this project go through if possible and I think we, as the Commission, and staff, and city have to work with the applicant to not overburden them with our laundry list of what should be done; but at the same time I thank we need to recognize the constraints that the city is under. Chair Miller: • I have similaz questions whether the park makes sense or is that the best place for it. Also the discussion of the housing and what type of senior housing; whether it should be larger or not; but there is another issue of other property owners in town proposing more office space. Said Cupertino Planning Commission 23 October 28, 2008 he was unsure whether it will be required to do more housing allocations, but use the ones already in the General Plan; the question is where in the city would it be best to put some of that housing which is in the General Plan at the moment, and this might be a good location for two reasons. Firstly, some higher density housing, perhaps two bedroom units for older residents looking for entertainment aspects; or younger couples or persons working at Apple or HP who don't have children or just starting a family. It is located in the school district where Fremont and Cupertino High School are slated for an increase and expansion in the number of students they can support. It is a possible site where the applicant might want to consider not an over-burdening amount of housing, but Borne additional housing if it works and perhaps as an alternative to the office space. Said he did not see a great difference between 60,000 and 100,000 and agreed with Com. Brophy that it gives a sense of place; however, as an alternative, you might want to consider some two bedroom condos that would work very well for people. Said he agreed with the overall concept, but felt they need to think about the element more and see more detail as to how they are going to work together and how they work with the other projects in the area. We look forward to our next meeting in December. Steve Piaseclci: • Noted for the record that Coms. Kaneda and Rose would review the meeting tapes, and if they have any questions, the applicant would receive those questions as well. OLD BUSINESS- None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOiv Environmental Review Committee: • Chair Miller reported that the topic of the meeting was the project discussed tonight, the key issues being traffic and air quality. Housing Commission: No report. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: Meeting was cancelled. Economic Development Committee: Meeting will be held next week. Report of the Director of Community Develonmient: • Steve Piasecki corrected for the record that the community meeting with LeHigh, formerly Hansen Permanente Quarry, was attended by 150 persons, not 50. Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully Submitted: • ~ Eli e o ;~S Approved as presented: November 25, 2008