Loading...
PC 12-9-08CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. December 9, 2008 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMI;JNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 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: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling Public Works: David Stillman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING• None OLD BUSINESS: 1. U-2008-01 (EA-2008-07) Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for a ASA-2008-06, TM-2008-01, 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 (ag;e restricted) housing facility; 145,000 sq. ft. Of Stevens Creek Boulevard athletic club; a four level parking garage and a 1.6 acre Between Finch Ave. & Tantau park/towr~ square. (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 parcels for a master plan for amixed-use development consisting of approx.: 147,000 sq. ft. of rc;tail 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 parking garage and a 1.6 acre park/town square. (A project alternative Cupertino Planning Commission 2 December 9, 2008 consists of approx. 205,000 sq. fI. of office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic club). Tree Removal request to remove approx. 93 trees in conjunction with a proposed master plan for amixed-use development. Continued from the October 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council dates: Dec. 16, 2008 and Jan. 6, 2009. Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background and summary of the application as outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on October 28, 2008 and expressed support for the project and provided prelimin~iry comments and suggestions for the applicant to consider. At that time the Commission dicl not discuss any of the potential environmental impacts since the draft EIR was being circulated for public comment. • She reviewed the Option A and Option B development options to be considered that provide a variation in the mixture of uses. Details of the options are outlined in detail in the staff report. She then discussed parking and tree removal; it has been determined that both Option A and B provides sufficient parking for the project. Tr,~ffic Impact Analysis, Air Quality Analysis and environmental impacts were reviewed as outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the plans and consider the following options: ^ Review the proposed development options and discuss which option is preferred; ^ Provide direction and comments on the project; ^ Consider a special meeting on January 6, 2009 to allow the project to remain on schedule. The applicant is requesting the special meeting. • She noted that the Commission cannot make a formal recommendation to the City Council tonight because the final EIR has not yet been prepared and circulated. The Commission cannot make a formal recommendation until after the January 2, 2009 circulation period. Staff answered Commissioners' questions relating to the proposed project, Chair Miller: • In considering Option C, what impact does that have on the EIR. Staff: • Option C was not analyzed in this document; it would have to go through its own review process; you can also do a supplemental environmental review for it, but it hasn't been analyzed at all in this document. Steve Piaseclu: • Staff feels it is less than an impact on the surface but it hasn't been analyzed. Staff: • Referred to Table on Page 81, regional air quality impacts discussion; based on the project's vehicle miles traveled, the BAAQM District sets up a threshold of 80 pounds per day of certain vehicle emissions including reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide and PM 10 and the project trip emissions plus that threshold of 80 pounds per day, then it is considered a significant impact. Based on discussions with the air district, it is calling it out as a significant impact; it is not really meant to deter the le;id agency to not approve a project. Most infill projects have significant regional air quality impacts; it just wants to call that impact out and require the lead agency to mitigate it as much as possible. The district would normally be supportive of a project like this because it is i~Zfill, it is near transit, it's pedestrian and bicycle oriented. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 9, 2008 David Stillman, Sr. Civil Engineer, Public Works Dept. • Said with the loading dock, to enhance safe:ty, the key is to avoid as many conflicts as possible. The point was brought up earlier ~~here putting the loading dock facing the plaza would potentially cause conflicts with pedestrians; by placing the loading dock on Vallco Parkway, it ads to that potential conflicts with vehicles and also potentially bicycles, if there is bike traffic along Vallco Parkway. The best way to minimize the number of conflicts is to not have the loading dock facing on public street, but instead into the plaza. As much as an out of the way location as can be found on the site with respect to pedestrian or vehicle travel, would be best from staff s point of view. Ken Rodrigues, Project Architect: • Reviewed a slide presentation showing a seric;s of images and design concept for the master plan application. Said they were attempting; to create a pedestrian friendly outdoor retail shopping and office mixed use environment; a mixed use of retail, office, senior housing, retail would include restaurants and the office would be of a size and scope large enough to not only attract a major corporate user to the site, that i,s the goal of the developer vs. a series of small office users. Discussed changes and updates; the hotel was flipped to save the existing pine tree; any of the existing trees that can be saved is our goal We were also asked to look at the senior housing dropoff and entry point; creating a strong entry off Stevens Creek; town square area with flexible areas, and strong pedestrian ~~irculation through the site. • Trees on the property are also being transplanted as part of the plan. Ken Rodrigues and Gary Leeman responded to comments: • Save the pine tree along Stevens Creek Boulevard: The hotel has been flipped, creating a U-shaped courtyard which could be a very nice space to dine outdoors; the goal is to save the existing tree. • The exterior elevations of the parking garage: Shown in the presentation; added that the exterior landscaping along the Vallco elevation enhances what is already a nice architectural treatment on the building. There are some existing trees that occur all along Vallco; we are going to enhance those, as will be shown in an upcoming photo. • Can the lower level of the garage be converted to retail along Vallco Parkway which both the Commission and Council asked at earlier meetings: Responded that they could; they feel that as Vallco Parkway matures and starts to absorb the square footage on the project, it is a natural location to add some additional retail; adding approximately 9,000 more square feet of retail, losing 43 parking stalls. Activating V allco Parkway over time is important. • Redesign the garage to be flexible both for garage and for retail: Said they punched out the retail elements and extended them 10 feet out in front of the garage. They would all be normal glass storefront that could be added to the existing garage, signage bands would occur up above; it would occur all along the pedestrian walkway along Vallco Parkway. • Optional parking on Vallco; could it be pleased? As retail might get built, and then later add parking in phases; it doesn't necessarily have to go in at once. If Public Works and the developer feel it is the best way to go, the plan is flexible to allow that. • Senior housing lobby dropoff: He illustrated the location of the dropoff in the upper corner; opening up to the courtyard separating the reti~il from housing. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 9, 2008 Mitigation of the major retail loading space: Should the loading space be located inboard or outboazd. We have had thousands of elements we have worked on with staff, stakeholders, the public; I think from my standpoint this is one where I may deviate slightly from staff. I also feel that having the retail out on Vallco c,an be mitigated; it can be screened and it could be handled very nicely architecturally. I can't speak to the safety issues; the Public Works rep already did; I would like to be able to work wi1:h them to see if we could get that to work. The loading zone could be well screened to work. • Members of the Metropolitan complez discussed a security gate for their project. The plan allows a potential location for them where: they could add some security to allow entrance at off-times in the evening appropriate, either ~~vith cazd key access or similar. 'This is a major circulation corridor for them; I understand their concern about security; it was always everyone's direction in both the public hearin€s and workshops held to enhance this walkway piece across here, which would give the opportunity for Rose Bowl to have access; it would give metropolitan access and get you out to Vallco Parkway. Possible parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard: It would work out there; I don't want to go up against City Council, from that standpoint; you asked me to look at it; I did. Here you could see we would have a series of parallel barking stalls that would fit within the right-of- way and be located in front of our project. V~~ould it help our project? Absolutely; would it activate the Metropolitan retail project -without question; it would be a big help to their retail now which is still not leased. It is something worth discussing; I do believe that it is something we should think about. Look at additional senior housing: Where ~NOUId that be located if we were to remove the pazk area? He illustrated an enlazged azea of pazking could be created and screened effectively within a pazking court that would activate all of the retail shops. He illustrated where there would be retail on the ground floor, which is consistent with the Master Plan and other design elements up and down Stevens Creek; there would be a series of pedestrian connections. He showed where there would bE; 30 units of senior housing above retail, which would increase the senior housing unit count from 160 to 190. • Alternative uses on the athletic club: Besides the office, as Gary mentioned underground parking would be accessed via Vallco Pazkway; there would be two buildings with additional parking located across the street being created, that you would walk across for the office. • What would happen if there was no athletic club or office project in that area: Considered adding retail, which the Commission, Council and members of the public asked for. This is a plan that would continue the retail edge along Stevens Creek Boulevard; it would have a small restaurant pad, outdoor dining as well as potential for large major user. It is great from a pazking standpoint, because it provides some surface pazking. • Consideration of green building ideas: It i:~ the client's goal to have the project a LEEDS certified project. He said that the recent Sand Dill Properties Sunnyvale downtown project is 6 blocks of LEEDS certified. Also water efficiency, energy and atmosphere efficiency; looking at materials and resources and indoor environmental quality. • Use of drought tolerant materials: Use of drought tolerant and native type plant materials and incorporating sustainable landscape principles and create exciting environments, such as butterfly gardens, and introduction of elements of ecology. Also looking at sustainable strong water treatment, permeable pavers, and water purification. Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2008 Tree disposition: There are currently 146 trees identified as part of the tree inventory. Of those existing trees, 86 will be preserved and l7 trees will be transplanted, including redwood and palm trees onsite. 60 trees aze scheduled t~~ be removed as part of the project. How many trees will be incorporated into the final plan; 445 new trees, replacing them on a 7:1 ratio. With respect to Ash trees along the street, Nome changes evolved; we have been able to preserve more of the existing Ash trees; double row of Ash trees will be continuous along Stevens Creek Boulevazd, creates a buffer and pedestrian experience and an identity to that part of town which is important. We are also looking at increasing the number of ash trees along Vallco Pazkway, creating double rows where there are currently single rows, and filling in gaps in other parts of the project. Said they have worked with staff for about a year now; and agree with staff on most of the items, with the exception of those following. • The first is the comment regazding the reduction of office square footage to 60,000 squaze feet. Said they disagreed, and said that office is a rrucial, integral part of their overall plan. The plan as proposed provides them with the ability to have landmazk style office buildings that will avail the opportunity to speak with and work with landmark quality office users. This would be a classy office, top tier tenants needing larger format style squaze footage floor plates and also squaze footage. They don't want to be in multiple buildings, there are multi-tenant buildings up and down Stevens Creek presently; but cutting our ability to provide the lazger format users, we aze cutting our ability to work with a lazger pool of potential tenants. • The other element regarding the office squaze footage, what we are building here is a true mixed use project; we need a balance of uses a~ld a balance of scale of those uses also. We are looking for each component to be properly represented and 60,000 squaze feet does not properly represent this particulaz type of use. If the issue is the available office square footage, City Council has initiated the process about the; housing element to potentially incorporate and increase the amount of squaze footage in conjunction with the housing element. Another possible solution is as Apple suggested to consider transferring commercial squaze footage and applying that to our site so that we can use that and apply that toward professional office as described in the project. • Said they disagreed with Planning staff about incorporating retail on the ground floor of the parking gazage across from the hotel. Thev main concern is the lack of visibility along Stevens Creek to that edge; they do not want t~~ build retail just for the sake of building retail, that is not what the plan is about. They aze looking to bringing in quality retailers that can work together synergistically and come together on line at the same time and they do not feel they will be able to do that if that requirement for retail is implemented. • The issue of the loading dock and retail configuration as ascribed in the recommendation from Planning staff; the first recommendation was putting a loading dock off the town squaze, and secondly the retail line to extend the retail li~ie from the western portion of the property to Finch itself. Regarding the loading dock, we believe that a loading dock is better served on Vallco Parkway. We agree with Metropolitan that this is going to be an impact to their lifestyle because of the noise impacts early in the morning. One suggestion was made to move the loading dock more eastern portion of the site. Our concern with that is that if you look at where the entrance to the property is in terms off Stevens Creek, if you move the loading dock any more easterly it will line out and when yoci enter, you will see the loading dock; your line of sight will be towazd that azea; we are concerned about that. There aze numerous issues with the loading dock on that corner edge. • Another issue is the question about enough sufficient pazking for retail along for these users (Site Plan C). We believe that providing sufficient pazking for these users is a valid point and we think that providing pazking outside the front edge of the building alleviates that concern. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 December 9, 2008 We have a lot of street parking that can be weed for multiple different users and it alleviates that issue. • We believe that the configuration associated with Site Plan C makes sense; the retailers we are working with are requiring that we have parking outside the front door. We have to set the table correctly for the right retailers to come. What they are saying to us and we are getting the direct feedback is that we have to give Them every reason to come, if they don't have parking outside their front door, it is a non-prototypical type of format; the Best Buy was a non-prototypical format and it didn't work. Re:tailers see that and say they are not going to get themselves into that situation. What they are looking for is something that makes sense as a whole for our project but will still work for them and something they can be confident, because given the state of the economy, they know that they have to go to something that makes sense, while they love Cupertino, they ~~re not willing to put their neck out and say they will try something new where in reality they know that this is not necessarily going to work for them. I cannot emphasize enough how important this edge for these types of retailers we are working with, that is their voice. If we don't have it, they won't come. I ask you to consider that; we are looking for this format to be implemented in all three of our plans. • Regarding the passive park, our original submittal shows our park space between Metropolitan and our site; the idea was to create a buffer between the properties. Also it creates green space for us to be able to use for this retail. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, we heard suggestions for alternative uses at that perk space; that is what we did. We came up with Site Plan C. The reason why they asked for it 'was, they asked how the passive park fit into the rest of the plan itself. As defined by the General Plan, this is supposed to be a regional oriented commercial center. After analyzing the plans and comments we think that there is merit to this concept; it activates the entire stl•eet edge and makes it more consistent with the General Plan. We understand there are concerns from Metropolitan, but we also think there are benefits. In association with the overall plan, it does fit, taking this format into more of a commercially oriented center and we think this should be implemented not only in this plan, but also the other plans. • Another issue is eliminating the square parking plaza to the east of the town square; the concept is to remove all the parking. This is an element to the plan that we think would be very special and be removing the parking spaces, it will kill that. The vision behind the area is it will be a European auto court, with pavers th~it will close off the entrance and in the evening have valet parking. By making it a street, it be:comes just a street, whereas we are looking at it becoming something very unique. • Relative to the requested January 6, 2009 meeting, keeping to a 12 month schedule is imperative from a standpoint of success and- also from our financing partners' standpoint. Project delays out of our control pushed the schedule back. We are asking that the Planning Commission consider the items discussed, pro~ride recommendation for approval of three plans with changes discussed. Com. Kaneda: • Relative to outdoor seating for restaurants and creation of a lively outdoor dining experience, in some areas it appears to be a 15 foot setback. Is there something magic about the 15 feet that has to include sidewalk and beyond that a private patio area for the restaurants. Ken Rodrigues: • Referred to Santana Row, which he said began as a fashion concept with 8 to 10 feet of sidewalk in front of most of the retail spaces; it has now evolved into entertainment center, restaurants in particular. The tables are crowded; they had to remove some parking which was on the street, which is always a mistake, and it doesn't feel comfortable there. We studied that dimension and said if we had our way the minimum dimension here is 15 feet and 20 feet Cupertino Planning Commission 7 December 9, 2008 between these towers, 20 feet here, and then eve have gained large plaza areas that are in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 feet that occur along other restaurant areas. We have so much more outdoor dining area and we specifically tried to address that. Com. Kaneda: • The town square has double loaded parking, there is parking along the town square and then parking along the perimeter of the buildings; my sense is to put that double loaded parking that is a lot of parking almost blocking off the town square if it is all being used and I am uncomfortable with just lining that town squa~•e with angled parking, and I would like to hear your thoughts. Ken Rodrigues: • Said staff came up with some interesting challenges that we are trying to address; the plaza has to be flexible, be a people space, it should be a circulation space because it is Finch Avenue and should have parking to support some of the retail, but it has to work for any one of those three or all of them at the same time which is .a difficult design challenge; which we may have accomplished together. The entire plaza area will have no curbs; it will truly be a European plaza. He said the Euro pavers used in EuroF~e would work well in the project. I concur with staff on how to make the parking stalls not look like parking stalls; I would not want to paint the Euro pavers, but use contrasting colors to line them; I think they will look like a joint in a sidewalk anyway. It is flexible. I think we h<<ve solved the issue in this case; Healdsburg and downtown Sonoma have double loaded parking around their town square. It is a way to get more cars there, and easier to back out. Steve Piasecki: • One of the thoughts we have had in talking vrith this applicant is this is unique and we don't know how this is going to function in the futw-e; we will know when it is installed and we may find that we don't need one row of parking, ~~r that it is a barrier; in which case the bollards might be yet placed, and the parking is modified to accommodate however the world wants to use this fairly unique space. We need to be .flexible, not unlike when this building was built and this dais rolls back and this becomes a stage or the front plaza. area, it should be flexible enough to accommodate whatever the community ends up doing with the space in the future; that is actually a positive. Com. Kaneda: • Said he liked the idea of using controllable bollards, because it can make a big difference. Ken Rodrigues: • The dimension of 20 feet, plus a 20 foot stall would have a 40 foot seating area. All are big bonuses; it could be spectacular if we don't need those cars; at least it is flexible enough to work either way. Com. Kaneda: • The original design was for an athletic club; presently it is for an office and potentially retail. What are the triggers that would push a change from the athletic club to office space. Ken Rodrigues: • Originally we submitted two plans, one for the office and one for the athletic club. We were supportive of either plan; it is a Planning Commission or City Council decision, which is better for the community. Com. Brophy asked if vve don't support the office because it is too much office square footage; let's say you can't given the state of the economy, you can't get Cupertino Planning Commission 8 December 9, 2008 Lifetime Fitness, what do you do. That is a fair question; and is why we came up with Site Plan C. What we were looking for formally was that we have before you two formal plans, one with the athletic club and the other is the office building. We believe that going forward and asking for formal approval of these two flans, makes sense. If we cannot get Lifetime Fitness, then we will have to re-submit for the: change of that as use. That is why, as part of this discussion, we are bringing it before you now, what is your feedback and is this something you can support. Applicant: • Added that staff has a condition in there, whether it is office or retail, that the design of that corner at Stevens Creek and Tantau be a gateway element with some architectural feature; we agree with that. • The streetscape down at the pedestrian level has some type of plaza, with bench seating, artwork; we agree with that. We would work in any case to zone in or condition in these elements now so that whichever plan the market drove, we had the basis of good design elements. We agree with staff in that condition. Steve Piaseclci: • We agree with Mr. Rodrigues that this needs to be a gateway building, use some of the artwork, depending on whether we include the open space on the west end; put some of the open space into a plaza on the east end; there aze a number of options. I think it is important, the use should be less important than the form in this case, where the form is, this is the gateway to your community, it needs to pop azid be exciting. Now the fitness building does not seem like it is achieving any of that yet, but they aze willing to have the conversation; I would suggest if you allow that option or even the office building would be easier to design, but either one that you have a condition that says the proof is going to have to be in the pudding; show us why this is going to be a great building and a great gateway; we haven't seen that yet. I don't think they have really performed to that level yet. Applicant: • Said he agreed with the condition; we think that going forth through the process, the gateway features aze an important element, but we would ask for approval with conditions as Mr. Piasecki mentioned. Ken Rodrigues: • The last thing I would like to add to that is that we typically come before you with a project; there is so much uncertainty in the mazketplace presently, I am grateful for Sand Hill Properties to do this project. I think we need to allow the developer some flexibility; one great thing about Cupertino, Kelly understands her Muff; she knows what she is talking about and it is great to work with a city who is sympathetic to not only just design and planning, but also the economics. It is prudent on Sand Hill's point to look at all the uses, so that we have a project that is full and thriving. Jim Randolph, Project Leasing Agent: • Said it was his responsibility to ensure that the buildings were leasable; he has been involved with the components of the site plan from the beginning and seen the evolution. I was the one who warned Sand Hill Properties and Ken Rodrigues that the space was his biggest concern, in Schemes 1 and 2 it is unleasable; I can't get a tenant in there. I understand what staff wants to do but when we start to break down the project and come up with who aze the anchor tenants for this center, how is it going to work; we looked at that azea as being a prime spot for a specialty market, who could probably live with the lack of identity to Stevens Creek Cupertino Planning Commission 9 December 9, 2008 Boulevazd, but the accessibility to that site is very good. You have to be able to accommodate a shopping cart and the fact that the density w~~ had before made you cross Finch Avenue and go into that pazking structure. A tenant is going to turn us down on that; they will not look at that. Personally I believe the solution on the loading dock off Vallco Parkway is a good one and would be one that works for t he tenant also, because it is not only that they have some surface pazking; it is important to realize it, this; is sometimes referred to this type of pazking as teaser parking; it is not enough, but is enough to get enough customers in the store and at the same time people who could use the parking g;u-age, can. When you make the comment about when you enter Stevens Creek and you see the parking lot; one of the things you would see is; you see the town square; it depends on the trees and the architectural elements you have but I also think your eyesight would focus on architectural elements of the build designed there. There is gateway entrance function that you c;an see from the street. I feel comfortable with this layout; that it is leasable and we can attr<<ct a very high end market user there. I already commented that we aze thinking of a specialt}~ mazket type of use and that is a good location for it, because it would energize the town squau-e. Commented on the plan; when we went out ~u~d tested the plan with some major users, one comment we received was that if we go on this project, we have to be on Stevens Creek otherwise we loose a competitive advantage to our competitors up and down this street. That is why we put this major retailer on the cornc;r with the pazking field behind it and we think that is what will be successful in finding a maj~~r retailer for that position. Steve Piasecki: • This was focused on again by the acchitectural advisor in our discussions with him, could the specialty mazket be in this location. Jim Randolph: • Said yes, it could be in that location, but he wouldn't advise it because it is a waste of that use; because the alternative is to support this amount of retail and when you deal with a tenant that is 25 or 35,000 feet or above because you cannot just keep filling it up with small tenants, the only place that a regional or national type store is going to go with visibility to Stevens Creek Boulevazd. That's why it is the best of bot}r worlds because a specialty market, would be easily to get to; it would have some teaser parking, it still could access the garage, and it spills over into the town squaze. Vice Chair Giefer: • With regazd to LEEDS certification, what level of certification is the goal? Applicant: • Because this is a campus style setting, we casmot necessazily pinpoint each of the buildings right now; for example we built the Apple t~uilding down the street and we ended up with LEEDS silver certification. In this campus style setting, we were going for a threshold of certification and then will take on a building by building basis, what we can maximize and implement all the green building initiatives an~i concepts and get as high as we can get. Vice Chair Giefer: • Can you refresh my memory, how many square feet is the building that is leased to Apple? (answer 60, 000 square feet) Cupertino Planning Commission 10 December 9, 2008 Jim Randolph: • Said that Apple takes a lot of small square footage up and down that area because it is across from their campus. It is a unique situation an~i why they are seeking to consolidate into their other campus. Vice Chair Giefer: • I don't know if this is for you or staff; with the proposed senior housing, we do require 6 square feet of personal outdoor space. I am not seeing that in any plans, and would like clazification on that. Com. Brophy: • Asked Mr. Date what they were being asked to approve. Mr. Dare: • The request is for formal recommendation to the three site plans proposed this evening, and subject to other comments made, in particular walk through them briefly, the first being the office squaze footage; that it doesn't get reduced down to the office squaze footage and some of the other comments. Com. Brophy: • Said his understanding was that they could not even consider Option C; are you asking us to approve more or less either Option A or Option B depending on what happens with the fitness center. Mr. Dare: • If we cannot submit a formal request for approval of Site Plan C, at least provide some substantial comments to which we can then subject to later and come back with an approval around that; at least we will have received your comments. Com. Brophy: • Can we in January recommend approval for the developer to do either A or B; how would there be a change if the modifications that Mr. Randolph says is required in order to lease that space; how is that perceived? Staff: • Said it depends on which component C that you are going to incorporate into the plans. If you were to just take the one component that deals with the north piece we are discussing along Vallco Parkway and Rose Bowl. It is correct. that if the squaze footage is less than what was originally proposed, it is the same use; you might be okay in terms of pulling it off as an appropriate modification to the plans, which }you could always tweak within reason within the scope of the EIR. We might have to look at circulation, traffic and get back to you and have Fehr and Peers take a look and Public Works take a look as they haven't really evaluated the circulation aspects of this pazking lot relevant to everything else, with pedestrian safety and bicyclists and all that staff, so we have to loop: at that and come back with recommendation on those aspects. Applicant: • To provide some context, with the evolution. of the plan itself, initially the plan as you see proposed, in Site Plan A and B originally wa~c driven by the request to include retail along the entire edge from where our property started on the west side to Finch itself. In doing so, we have received comments from the community about having sufficient pazking for retail area, Cupertino Planning Commission 1 I December 9, 2008 along with saying they understand the city's request is to make this a pedestrian oriented edge along Vallco Parkway; is this really feasible? It is sequential in a sense that we have to come up with a plan that makes sense to staff and also to the city and then we can take to market. What we are getting feedback from is that is why this is a very organic process and that is why we are reaching the conclusions we are reaching. Com. Brophy: • Does the staff s idea of putting retail along agent; does that make any sense? Vallco Parkway, in your experience as a leasing Chair Miller declared a recess. Upon reconvening, Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Chair Miller: There has been a discussion about housing vs. office space; what is happening in town is two of our major corporate citizens are asking for more office space. What happens when you build more office space, Sacramento says you have to build more housing to house the people who are going to be working in the office space. Part of the discussion that has been going on here tonight has been about whether there should be more housing on this site, perhaps and less office space perhaps to offset some of th~~ office space that we are going to provide for others in the community. If any of you have a comment on that, we would certainly welcome it because we are always having this discussion about housing and the potential impact it has on the schools. Christine Kennedy Pierce, Senior Commission fir City of Cupertino: • Applauded the presentation and development as I saw it this evening. Many of the elements of it, the pedestrian focus, the mixed use development; they meet many of the criteria of an aging friendly community, the curbless approach works for all the age spectrums from strollers to wheelchairs. I am appreciative that the senior housing has been located in the area with good access to transit and I do want to suggest that the developer provide additional details about the proposed housing, I am grateful to hear being addressed. From comments made, at the Senior Commission there is an interest in lo~~king at a spectrum of housing for seniors in Cupertino and personally I want to point out that seniors going forward are going to look very different than we have known seniors to be in the past; the aging boomers are going to be hitting 78 million of them and different configurations of housing are going to be of interst including live/work space and lofts. I suggest that we look at a spectrum of housing that accommodates people 50 years and older. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commended Sand Hill Properties for their work and their outreach to the community. It is a What a extraordinary time for the residents of Cupertino to be able to master plan one of the last remaining holdings in the city. We didn't have that ability through the history of the city for the last 70 years. Let's hope that this thing that is going to be on this site is going to be something that lasts, it is beautiful, it's a benefit to the community; it is going to make people in the eastern areas want to shop there, take their relatives to, etc. • Said she favored Plan A; and was grateful for the attention given the trees; there are a number of very hardy Ash trees that have survived around the perimeter of the property, they look like they are in good shape. I think the community is hopeful, there will be no clear cutting of those Ash trees on the perimeter of the property; there is a great sensitivity to the neighborhoods; that is the only landscaping wc; have to look at day in and day out over there. If we have to replace any of them, make sure they are 36 inch box, maybe 48 inch box. She expressed appreciation for attempting to preserve the Allepo pine tree; it is within 20 feet of Cupertino Planning Commission 12 December 9, 2008 the sidewalk. The hotel looks fantastic; thank you for stepping the front of it. Traffic is a problem; I think we are going to need to look at the 280/Stevens Creek/Lawrence interchanges. Make sure there is a construction management plan in place during construction. Jeff Schulken, Calvert Drive: • Expressed concern about the traffic impact to Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates neighborhoods based on limited access via Tantau and Finch to the south areas of Stevens Creek. There are numerous accidents at Stevens Creek and Calvert Drive; although it is in San Jose's sphere of influence it impacts the neighborhood; we are Cupertino residents and something needs to be done especially with this new development. There will be a lot of cut- through traffic. We cannot prevent them from coming into the neighborhood, but we expect it to be safe; no worse than it already is. It is important that steps are taken to ensure the neighborhoods are safe and protected. Stephen Lim, Cupertino resident: • Relative to Plan C, removal of the park area will not serve the benefits of having Metropolitan homeowners to be able to look at a big parkin; lot. It doesn't fit in with the town atmosphere of the development. I strongly advise the Plarm~ing Commission to make sure that Metropolitan homeowners property values are not devalued. There is a solution that will benefit both; Sand Hill Properties their retail as well as Metropolitan users. I don't think that we have fully explored all the different uses of that space outside of Metropolitan. • The lack of focus that Chair Miller brought up earlier to several properties on the senior residential housing and that they didn't know if it was going to be active or assisted living. Given the fact that we want it to be an upscale area and we also want to attract a higher level of clientele who can spend money and revitalize the economy. I am sure everyone's property values go up and we need to ensure that we h;~ve a good revenue base that we can charge out of the project. We want to have units that refliect that; having assisted unit living, only about 600 sq. ft., is not in line with what the division of this project is. Emily Shieh, Cupertino resident: • Said that she was a Metropolitan owner and. also architectural designer. She said she was concerned about what is going to be next door to her. She suggested some grid changes for a more workable arrangement. Jennifer Chang, Metropolitan resident: • Supports Sand Hill's position to put the loading dock on Vallco Parkway, since it will affect the Metropolitan residents and the future residents of Sand Hill Properties and Rose Bowl residences. • Shared some experience about noise; last year when Cupertino Square was built we had AMC they were building an underground sewage system; truck loading noise at 3 a.m. Make sure it will not occur again. Robin Su, Cupertino resident: • Propose to put the park back. • Keep truck loading dock on Vallco Parkway. • Referring to Plan C, they don't have any green space, except for town square. Elaine Chong, Metropolitan resident: • On the board of the Metropolitan homeowners. • It is fine to follow the application mechanism to try to remove the easements along pathways through their community. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 December 9, 2008 • Said it would be good to follow the application mechanism to try to remove those easements; it would be good to tie the removal of the easements the approval of the plans, because we would hate for the plans to move forward and riot have the easements removed. Terry Lydon, Cupertino resident: • Metropolitan resident: • Divider between the Metropolitan and remainder of the unit; there wasn't much discussion on it; there aze a lot of units facing out to the complex and as somebody brought up eazlier, there are stairways and steps right out of their units. One thing being the park. • The other side is keeping the pazk in place; keeping the people in the pazk longer, probably get them to shop more. Theodore Hwa, Metropolitan resident: • Reiterated the importance of keeping he park ~~t its present location; it is of benefit not only to the residents of the Metropolitan, but to all of the future residents of the Rose Bowl project, proposed senior housing. • It may be important to the success of the project as a whole because people may be attracted to the area by the presence of a pazk there. Winston Chen, Metropolitan resident: • Suggested that they keep the park, in the spirit of more green, for Rose Bowl and senior housing and surrounding neighborhoods. Ron Jou, Metropolitan resident: • Home overlooks Sand Hill development and windows in his house face that way. The Planning Commission likes alternatives and you like more than one option. Keeping the pazk might be a solution, but an alternative might lie what Chair Miller described to pull back the buildings away from Metropolitan so it doesn't feel like urban jungle, with buildings up against buildings, looking at the back of retail :;pace. Angeline Lim, Metropolitan resident: • The pazk is a good idea to serve as a buffer for the Metropolitan and remainder of the units west of the development. Public green space and urban pazks have demonstrated again and again what a positive impact they have on the physical and mental health of community residents. Forwazded a copy of a magazine article discussing health benefits of pazks and green space. Ken Wong, Board member of Metropolitan: • Agreed with many things Sand Hill Properties said today, particulazly as it relates to the loading dock. The safety concerns discussed eazlier aze significant, the trucks come in eazly morning and late evening. • Truck deliveries are better served on the Vallco Parkway streets instead of the town square. • Shazed other residents' concerns. Shawn Kim, Metropolitan resident: • Reiterated that the pazk should be preserved. • Make pazking spaces under the retail spaces underground. Kent Vincent, Cupertino resident: • Expressed concern that much of the retail built in Cupertino has been unsuccessful. One thing Cupertino Planning Commission 14 December 9, 2008 to consider with the Main Street property is to make sure it is very competitive with other retail establishments like Santana Row and V~illey Fair. The place needs to be a `happening' place where people go for the experience; go to shop and be entertained. Attracting the best restaurants and night clubs are important. It needs to be a festive place to attract people to. Rachel Yuen, Metropolitan resident and board member: • The town square attracts families and the park ,area is needed. The following persons completed speaker cards,, but did not speak: Ming Li, James and Rene Yeh, Gun Turi, and Gene Sonu. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Staff responded to concerns stated by the speakers: Jason Nesdall, Fehr and Peers: • Relative to cut through traffic, he said they conducted the traffic study for the project and analyzed locations down to Miller, Bollinger, Tantau as well as the Calvert area. Conducting the study of roadways, resulted in 10 peak hour trips per hour on any one roadway, which is not a significant impact to the roadway system. Parking right up against Metropolitan: • Steve Piasecki said the concern spoke for itself; if there is parking across from one's front door, there could be some disturbances. References were made to plugging the park back in or some type of buffer area to soften it. Shifting the grid for a different arrangement: • Ken Rodrigues said the grid was established on a walkable block between 280 and 300 feet, which is a normal city block. There were abc-ut 10 meetings which laid out the various uses and the pedestrian connectivity in the block. Said he was comfortable with the current design; and would not favor moving or shifting the blocks. Putting back the park area: • Steve Piasecki said the park was originally placed in this project along with the town square because with the RoseBowl and Metroplitan and senior units being added into the project, there is a larger population occurring in a neighborhood that doesn't have any parking. • The General Plan calls for a park standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population; staff felt it was a necessity; if it as to be relocated, reformed into plazas at the corners or green spaces elsewhere, it could also be a buffer zone as described. Request from Metropolitan to remove public easements: • Would have to be handled through separate ap~~lication; although one board member asked if it could be included as part of this project. This project the use permit deals only with this particular property. If Metropolitan wants to request removing those public easements, they would have to modify their use permit. • Steve Piasecki pointed out there was a conscious reason to have those in their location since it was believed that Metropolitan and whatever happened on this property should be integrated with one another and they should not exclude people or not have that kind of integration. If people are seeking to achieve a greater level oi'security, they can provide that at their balcony, and they could have a gate they control access to. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 December 9, 2008 Truck loading dock located on Vallco Parkway: • Both the applicant and a number of Metropolitan residents have suggested that it might make more sense on Vallco Parkway. The concern for safety, during the middle of the day there may be an issue, but if truck loading and unloading hours were restricted, it could mitigate the concerns. Staff said the applicant could explore other options including limited hours for that particulaz loading dock if it is off Vallco Park~Nay; and show a diagram to show truck turning movements. • The other concern was that there is a driveway serving the Rose Bowl, and even if it is empty most of the time serving the truck loading dock, it creates a 50 of 60 foot wide gap that a pedestrian would have to walk past to go from the shops at the Rose Bowl to the shops fronting on Vallco Pazkway which is not good retail design. • The other option is the loading dock could be designed similaz to some in San Francisco that are well hidden. The applicant could also consider an east side loading dock or front loading if there is a specialty mazket designed. Putting Senior housing next to town square would potentially create a noise issue for the seniors residing there. • Staff said the Commission should scrutinize the conditions cazefully to make sure that if there aze highly active evening uses located not too proximate to any of the living quarters, including the living quarters associated with the Rose Bowl, Metropolitan and the seniors. • The applicant said they would not have food uses in the retail directly underneath the seniors' housing. Putting parking under the retail, which would a low more green space on top: • Staff said that it would be a question for the applicant since it is a lazge money factor to build over pazking. • The applicant said they would not consider doing it as it doesn't work from a security standpoint. Dealing with retail during inclement weather: • Said there were azcades designed into the building, as well as canopies. Importance of having the retail contiguous: • The applicant said that they have a series of :retail components by block, which will start to evolve about types of uses, one that works ~~vell next to other uses. Restaurants would be grouped and other azeas could be soft goods or fashion. He said he was comfortable with the walkability of the plan. Chair Miller: • Referred to past discussion of a pedestrian path between North Vallco and South Vallco, and questioned if it was in future plans. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was considered and is still in the plan for the long term. That particulaz site is not part of this parcel; we could ask staff to contribute their proportionate share to whatever that might be in the future. Since Apple has purchased the two adjacent properties and the properties to the north, they have security concerns about having the public access Calabazas Creek. They may have some comments about implementing; that at this stage. • Provided a summary of the Rose Bowl site, w}iich is immediately to the west that is 4+/- acres that Evershine group has purchased as part of the out parcels including the Rose Bowl site, the two sites next to Highway 280 they currently own. They aze actively developing the plan sets Cupertino Planning Commission 16 December 9, 2008 for development of the Rose Bowl site; made s~~me modifications to address some of the issues that Mr. Randolph raised earlier about the easier plan being too ambitious and they scaled it back to make it more conventional retail deptl;~s. They fully intend to move ahead with it in 2009. Com. Brophy: • Said that they need to save the park; the resider-ts expect that from the applicant. • The square is the central part of the project; th~~ project needs to have as much surface pazking as possible if retail is to work. Said he w:is opposed to reducing the amount of surface parking as proposed by the city's architectural ,advisor. • Given the demand for future office space, 1r~e said he was concerned that office space is inappropriate for the site because of the state requirements that we produce yet more housing to support the additional office. Said he hoped that they could look at the possibility of replacing some or all of the proposed office space with appropriate residential structures, no more than an average of 2 bedrooms per unit, and squaze footage equivalent to the proposed office space. • Relative to the loading dock issue, said it made no sense either from a safety or aesthetic perspective why the loading dock would come through the squaze where there is a large number of pedestrians. There would be less of a problem having it on Vallco Pazkway, although there are questions as to whether or not Mr. Randolph's comments were not sufficiently pessimistic. He said he had doubts whether retail could work on Vallco Parkway given the lack of traffic there. • The easement for Metropolitan that is not pzu7: of this issue, but I disagree with Mr. Piasecki, we should look at eliminating that easement if' and when Metropolitan proposes it, I don't see how having that easement, it creates a problem for Metropolitan without producing any offsetting public benefit. • Senior Housing on the squaze; there is a lz~rge living facility adjoining Santana Row on Winchester that is up against a parking lot and there are no problems there. Com. Rose: • Said she supported keeping the park and would like to have it be a multi-age designation, not just grass with park benches. It will be a mag~iet toward the retail that isn't going to be in that area as well. • Move the loading dock over to Vallco Parkway; not opposed to pazking on Stevens Creek. • Regarding the use of the Tantau/Stevens Creek corner, I don't have a strong opinion about what goes in there, but I think I would lean tovrazds either something retail or a health club. • Regarding the proposed major retail on Vallco Parkway, in the third plan it includes a better parking scheme. My concern is that it eats away at the whole idea of having Vallco Parkway be some of the Main Street feel itself. The final plan eliminates some retail that was going to be on the Pazkway. Com. Kaneda: • Said he liked Plan A and B; Plan C is questionable with the chief concern being with putting parking lots along Vallco Parkway as opposed to keeping it fairly contiguous retailing. • The concept of taking out all the office spacc;s and converting it to residential is interesting, and if a developer was interested in entertaining that, it has merit. I presume that a significant amount of office space is one of the key parts of this project and I do not feel it is critical. • A comment was made about not having green space for the retirement community. In addition to the town squaze, the azchitects designed a ~~een roof structure on the top of the podium, so that people living in the units will have access to and would be able to see out their windows if Cupertino Planning Commission 17 December 9, 2008 they are facing the west. I am also in favor of keeping the park but have a concern because I feel that the park is for public use and one of the chief beneficiaries I would have thought are the residents of Metropolitan. I am concerned that they want to have that public access to the park, but they don't want to give public access to the other parts of the community for the right-of--way which connects as part of this design where as a master plan there is connections between this project and the Rose Bowl and the Metropolitan and other areas. The right-of--way and park should stay there. Said he was in favor of parking along Stevens Creek. Also comfortable with the truck loading dock as seen onto Vallco Parkway. I have heard some comments about how retail can't survive in Cupertino and I think it is rubbish. I think retail can survive easily in Cupertino; it is a matter of the quality of the buildings and design of the buildings. There is thriving retail in different areas and everyone has the potential to do well. Vice Chair Giefer: • Supports a major retailer on the Vallco side wil:h surface parking. • With Apple's acquisition of properties across the street, I don't know that it will become a long term retail. I don't see the entire street progressing into a flow of retails. • Supports truck loading dock, either loading as far east along Vallco Parkway from Rose Bowl or if it is a specialty market, we can front load offFinch through the surface parking area. • Supports the street parking along Vallco Parkway. The park should remain where it is; it makes sense to group residential and recreational spaces in the same area. It is a good valuable noise buffer. • With regard to Stevens Creek Boulevard, have always supported having parking on Stevens Creek; in order to have successful mixed use, there needs to be teaser parking or some amount of parking available to the retailers up and down Stevens Creek. • Would prefer to see the three story athletic club on the corner in Option A, or the retailer in Option C. Relative to Com. Rose's comment ~ibout having the vista of that retailer, that needs to happen and be presentable. My earlier comment about Finch Avenue, I would not want to look across town square and see a loading ba:y or parking lots; there would need to be some screening. I like the idea of the jewel box building at the edge of the town center. • No opinion about the European auto court; it appears to be a good idea and look forward to seeing more on that. • Expressed concern about the ABAG number, our housing to commercial square footage and would not want to invest our commercial balance in this project. If we go with office, I would prefer smaller proportion of office space in this project. I feel we should be adding more professional townhouses and condos in this area to have a true mixed use type, which is not being presented to us tonight. • Would like to see Finch Avenue aligned with the creek trail head across the street; realign Finch Avenue over the box culvert. • Would like to see senior housing adjacent to the residential use, but need to see more detail on that in terms of unit size; if the units get bigger, do the quantity of units available get smaller; we wouldn't want to see that reduction either. • In thinking through the hotel use in/and the adjiacency to the parking structure, if the developer is okay and whoever they are approaching with the hotel is okay, I am alright not having token retail facing the hotel, because when you stay <<t a hotel and there is no specific parking for that use, you want to have proximity to your parki~lg as close as possible; I was trying to visualize finding the entrance into the parking structure and what type of retail might be there. I think that the parking structure is adequately screened now and I am comfortable with what is being proposed. Cupertino Planning Commission 18 December 9, 2008 Chair Miller: • Said he was sensitive to the applicant's comments and Mr. Randolph's comments that if they want retail in town and we want it to be successful, so we should within reason be doing everything we can to make it successful If it makes this project more successful to have pazking on both Stevens Creek and Vallco Parkway, it makes sense. • There were comments about not having it Facing the hotel, and if it is not going to be successful there, I would rather not have it there; we have enough examples in town of retail that is sitting vacant. • The comments about Plan A, the retail structure 11,564 feet at the southwest corner of the project which was pointed out would be a problem. That needs to be reworked in Plan A. The rework for Plan C puts the parking structure; the retail is pazallel to the other retail in Metropolitan; however, the parking surface area comes too close to the retail. I think there should be more effort put into, can we put :;ome park in that corner, even is smaller than initially designed and still have some parking and keep the buffer between the Metropolitan and this project in tact and still have some amount of park area there. • In Plan A, the large 40,000 square foot retail is not going to be very attractive on Vallco Pazkway, and perhaps a specialty market might be given that we put some parking over there; I would ask that staff and the applicant retook at that piece and see if there is some way to accommodate some parking and provide an attractive walkway through the area from the Rose Bowl into the rest of this project. • In terms of the amount of office space, putting 200,000 squaze feet of office here and not an accompanying amount of housing to me is the wrong way to go. I would not support more than 100,000 square feet. • It is important we put more housing here; if the number of bedrooms is limited to 2 bedrooms, it will not generate a lazge number of children going to our schools; it is not a conducive area for children. In this particular project, I woul~j look at the number of students that are being generated and see if that fits in with the numbc;rs that the school system is projecting. I would look at those numbers again and see if and where we could put some housing; everybody wants office and nobody wants housing and th~~ State says we cannot do that. • Asked the applicant to consider putting more housing in, perhaps it would be a mix of housing that has some lofts and studios, or some other version of housing. I believe that 2 bedrooms is not going to generate a lot of kids in the middy; of a shopping mall. • I like the European auto court concept; it has varied uses. I would not be opposed to either the athletic club or a major retail tenant on the corner of Tantau and Stevens Creek as emphasized by Plans A and C. Applicant: • Said they would take the comments into consideration. Said he understood there was a concern about having office space at this location. There was a discussion about the special January 6, 2009 meeting. Gary Chao noted that no special notice was required for the special meeting. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Expressed concern that the application was not: ready to go forward to the City Council and her objection to scheduling a special meeting during the holiday season. Chair Miller closed the public heazing. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 December 9, 2008 Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to send City Council a Minute Order regarding the Sand Hill project, suggesting that the next City Council meeting be informational only since the Planning Commission has not completed their deliberations or recc-mmendation on the project. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller expressed his appreciation for the well attended meeting, and thanked the speakers for their input, and their patience with the lengthy process. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting on January 6, 2009. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Brophy abstain) The application was continued to the January 6., 2009 Planning Commission meeting. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOr1 Environmental Review Committee: Chair Miller reported that the topic of the meeting was the Sand Hill project. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: Report given at previous Planning Commission meeting. Economic Development Committee: No report. Report of the Director of Community Development: Mr. Piaseclu reported on his attendance at a League of Women Voters meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting on January 6, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. "Chere will be no Planning Commission meeting on December 23, 2008.- ~- --~~ • - • - Respectfully Submitted: • BlY< ~ 3 SeG~' ~ Approved as presented: Ja~ua,~•.6, ,Zll(AAx:~. ~~;<-~ ... _ ... , ., .