PC 05-22-00CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300Torre Avenue
Cupeaino, CA 95014
(408)777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WEALD ON MAY 22, 2000
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City
Planner; Michele Rodriguez, Planner II; Raymond Chong, Traffic
Engineer; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney;
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 8, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as
presented
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Chair Harris noted receipt of a letter from M. Kasof relative
to proposed developments as they relate to the General Plan.
POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
2~U-00, 4-EA-00
Johnson Lyman Architects
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit for the demolition of a cinema and retail sp/id~ and the construction of a new 32,160
square foot market and cooking school (Andronieo's) at an existing shopping center.
Continued from meeting of May 8, 2000
Request continuance to meeting of June 12, 2000
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to postpone Applications 2-U-00 and 4-EA-00 to
the June 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 22, 2000
Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 5.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Set joint meeting date for Planning Commission and Telecommunications Commission to
address antenna master plan.
Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that the Telecommunications
Committee requested a meeting be scheduled with the Planning Commission to receive direction
on master planning for wireless communications for the city. Following a brief discussion, there
was consensus that the joint meeting be scheduled for the June 26th Planning Commission
meeting agenda.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to schedule a joint meeting with the Telecommunications
Committee on June 26, 2000, to address the antenna master plan.
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 3.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
6-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00, 9-EA-00
Cupertino City Center Land
Lot 1, Tract 953, corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Use permit to construct a 205 unit, 293,137 square foot multi-family residential building and 7,000
square foot of retail space on vacant pamel (Stevens Creek Blvd. At City Center)
Various exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which may include allowing an
apartment use, maximum eight of building and side and rear setbacks.
General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to penetrate the 1:1 setback
ratio from Stevens Creek Blvd.
Continued from meeting of May 8, 2000
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell presented a brief overview of the hotel application and the
apartment application. She referred to the City Center Site Plan and reviewed the location of the
apartment and hotel. She reviewed the General Plan amendment, and Heart of City height and use
amendments/exceptions. Ms. Wordell noted that tho'-flip/flop placement of the hotel and
apm hnents would be covered in the amendment.
Ms. Michele Rodriguez, Planner II, reviewed the issues relating to the Stevens Creek apartments,
including building and design. She said the Planning Commission direction was to reduce the
overall building height to between 75 and 100 feet to maintain the 1:1 setback ratio from the
Stevens Creek Blvd. curbline; and to add pedestrian access from the retail area into the parking
garage, to upgrade ground floor building materials, complete dock screening, and to limit the
height of the planter around the base of the building.
Relating to the building height, Ms. Rodriguez noted that the drawings on the wall illustrated the
comparison between the April l0th Planning Commission plans and the updated plans submitted
to address issues. She explained that to address the building height concern, the applicant graded
Planning Commission Minutes
May 22, 2000
more to drop the building pad by approximately 4.5 feet, and also redesigned a portion of the top
floor and added mass to other portions of the building in order to reduce the building height. The
majority of the building is 93 feet high, and there has been an addition to the center loft area center
units which reaches 102 feet, which is almost 4 feet less than the overall building height presented
at the previous meeting. Staff feels that the applicant has complied because the majority of the
building height is at the 93.1 feet. To address the 1:1 setback, the applicant has replaced a unit
that was encroaching into the 1:1 setback, and has kept the trellis to balance the elevation.
Because the 1:1 setback states that it is to reduce building mass, staff did not feel that the
maintenance of the trellis was building mass, and is in conformance. Relative to pedestrian access
and dock screening; (architectural design), she said a condition of approval was added to allow the
design to be reviewed more carefully before the Planning Commission. To address the concern of
the dock being buffered, she illustrated the area for planting the evergreen shrubs to buffer the
dock.
Ms. Rodriguez reported that the building materials were upgraded; and a condition of approval
added to allow the detail of all the building materials at ground level to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Also added were findings in the conditions of approval stating that the
highest design material.was being sought, which would allow the Planning Commission to have
leverage in their material review later. They also stepped down and reduced the height around the
entire building and included in the plan set a section showing how they will maintain the height
between 3 and 4 feet.
To address Chair Harris' question regarding the exception for the outdoor space and the issue of
the subsurface garage, on Page 4-4, the two exceptions were reviewed. Relative to the outdoor
space, she ~tuestioned if the Specific Plan delineated between hard and softscape and to what
degree did the project comply with that. She said the square footage comparison per dwelling unit
was included, and the Specific Plan requires that between 70% and 80% of the landscape should
be softscape and the remaining 20% to 30% should be hardseape. She said the applicant cannot
comply with that since they have such a high building coverage ratio; hence it is the outdoor space
exception. Ms. Rodriguez said that another question dealt with the subsurface garage area on Page
14 of the Plan set. She said that the east/west section of the parking garage is substantially above
grade, and the Specific Plan states that parking garages may not exceed 5 feet above grade, and
the proposal exceeds that 5 feet requirement.
Staff recommends approval of the General Plan amendments and the amendment to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan according to the model resolutions and the updated amendment resolution.
Ms. Rodriguez referred to wall drawings and explained changes to building height discussed
earlier. She also clarified that the reduction in retail space from 7,000 sq. ft. to 6,775 sq. ft. was
for the pedestrian access. She reported that Condition 6 requires that a bike rack be made
available near the retail use in the plaza. Alternative wording has also been developed in
Condition 4 to allow additional spaces for bikes.
In response to Chair Harris' questions, Ms. Rodriguez stated that there was no reciprocal parking
agreement with the hotel for the retail users to use the hotel parking. She said that relative to the
issue of security cameras in the garage, a condition required that conduit be installed and if the
sheriff's department determined it was needed, it would be done at that time. It was determined
that the condition should state that the Planning Commission in conjunction with the sheriff's
department determine whether the security cameras were needed. She said that the height of the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 22, 2000
planter box could be stated as 3 feet; the stone tile base for the ground floor has been added, with a
condition of approval for more specific review; and the applicant was requesting that an alternate
material be added for flexibility relative to the clay tile roof. Ms. Rodriguez explained that
although the retail space and height were decreased, the increase in building area was a result of
the flat wallplane which was previously offset, the addition of loft units, and the increase in
building height.
Mr. Larry Cannon, architect, said he reviewed the application in its early stages, and felt it was
well designed with variety. He said that he had not reviewed the updated plans in depth.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the traffic impacts for the apartments, retail and
full service hotel during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, including the week days. He reviewed
intersections level of service, which determined operation at LOS D or better for existing
conditions; for background conditions at LOS D or better; for project conditions at LOS D or
better; and under expected growth conditions at LOS D or better. He noted the only exception
was LOS E+ at DeAnza Blvd. at northbound 1-280 ramp. Mr. Chong said the consultant raised
concerns about queue spiIlbacks, specifically at DeAnza and Rodriguez during a.m. and p.m. peak
hours, and at the eastbound left turn at Stevens Creek and Torte; and suggested mitigation would
be to extend the left turn pocket or increase the green time. Staff's proposal is to increase the
green time for the proper allocation of the left turn movements. He reviewed the summary table
of trip generation estimates, summary of left turn storage queuing analysis, and matrix table of
intersection level of service. Mr. Chong explained that LOS A was free flowing traffic conditions,
and F was gridlock; and that the city maintained that below LOS D was the maximum for the city,
except for DeAnza and Stevens Creek and DeAnza and Bollinger Roads.
Mr. Chong answered questions about traffic impacts, trip generation, and level of service. He
said that the traffic study conducted by the consultant was a fair study. Mr. Jason Pack, Fehr and
Peers Associates, answered questions about the analysis for the traffic impacts.
Mr. Paul Lettire, Gazzardo and Associates, explained the mitigation for the loading dock, stating
that a 3 foot hedge would be continued for the purpose of blocking out the paving level of cars,
not to make the entire first floor of the building disappear. He said that shrubs could also be
planted across the front. In response to Chair Harris' question about increasing the softscape and
the need for an exception because it does not meet the outdoor landscape requirements for the
General Plan, Mr. Lettire said that he was not certain if they could reach the numbers needed. He
said that the overall landscape plan is designed for a good balance between usable open space and
landscaped areas. He said he did not feel miniscule adj/i~t-ments to the podium plan and increase
of the softscape would materially benefit the project in terms of the appearance or feel of the final
project; but it would only make it less usable.
Com. Stevens referred to the architectural model, and said there was a dominant architecture
starting with the landmark towers and the surrounding buildings, denoting they all have steps; a
uniform stepping consistency all around; in addition to having similar colors and materials. He
said the two proposed projects do not have either and questioned the architect's viewpoint if it
appeared to be something that would look quite different or be acceptable.
Mr. Cannon said that the issue was discussed with staff at the beginning of the project, and he felt
the stepping would not amount to much. He said he felt the quality of the building itself was strong
and he was not concerned that it was not stepping more, as the building located behind is in a
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 22, 2000
certain form. He said he felt the building should be left to be what it is, and let it have its richness,
whether or not it was stepped.
Com. Stevens said that the two proposed buildings would overshadow the landmark building
which is 110 feet high. He said he felt the buildings were too high. Mr. Cannon said that he
wished there was more space between the office and the apartment building. He said he felt the
office building in the background was a standard office building without much richness of fa~:ade;
the proposed building has richness and a lot of form which is one type of architecture played
against the simple form of the office building which is acceptable.
Staff answered questions about the parking requirements, and noted that shared parking was
proposed with the adjacent office building, and because of different peak hours of need for the
hotel, apartment and office building, it would not be a problem.
Chair Harris addressed the condition for the developer to contribute 25% of the cost of a
pedestrian crossing project. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, clarified that at this time there
was not a full plan for it, but it would entail some features of enhancing the crosswalks and
changing the radiuses of the curb returns. Ms. Rodriguez said that Condition 30 specified a
maximum of $60,000 for pedestrian crossing reimbursement, which would amount to the known
of 25% of $60,000, divided between the two projects. Staff said that a bond could be part of the
improvement agreement to ensure payment in the future.
Chair Harris said that the mitigation outline in the Fehr and Peers Associates report should be
completed prior to the occupancy of the building, and asked what it was and what it is mitigating.
Mr. Chong said that the only proposal was to adjust the green time, and is being corrected;
therefore the mitigation condition could be deleted.
Com. Kwok referred to Condition 17 relative to the applicant complying with the Cupertino
Sanitary District's conditions set forth at no cost to the City of Cupertino. Ms. Rodriguez reported
that the Sanitary District is conducting a study to determine if the current lines are maximized or
overused, and if wider lines need to be installed, applicants developing within their sphere of
influence would be required to pay a mitigation fee. It was determined that the condition should
state that the applicant may be required to pay a mitigation fee to provide the required capacity.
Chair Harris asked for clarification on parking - 59 spaces for retail and guests of the apartments.
She questioned if it was a reasonable number or whether a reciprocal parking agreement should be
considered with the hotel for overflow; what the peak tim~ would be; and what type of retail uses
they would be in terms of drawing customers.
Mr. Randall Mackley, Retail Real Estate Group, said that typically retail ratios are 4 parking stalls
per 1,000. He said he saw a parking demand increase, which is an indication of how much food
goes into a project. He said when considering eateries, there are different peak times, such as early
morning for a donut shop, whereas a traditional sit- down restaurant would have greater demand in
the evening. He said he felt the needs would be greater than 4 per 1,000, but certainly less than 7
per 1,000; and with less than 7,000 square feet, it would be important to have the parking as close
to the retail as possible. He said he anticipated 3 or 4 tenants; that 70% of the market is food,
leaving the ability to solicit 30% of the market; and that food essentially becomes thedefacto
anchor, and they were considering looking for more of a lifestyle director, something trendy, but
enduring.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 22, 2000
In response to Com. Doyle's request for clarification on the building height, Mr. Chuck Tang, of
McLarand Vasquez and Partners, illustrated where the building height had been decreased, noting
that the majority of the project had been dropped down 8 feet from the previous profile. He
explained the areas where the building profile had been lowered, namely compressing the building
down in pad elevation; some articulation in the garage podium area to allow lowering one part of
the garage podium area, and minimizing some of the top floor, floor to floor conditions in order to
reduce some of the building heights. He said they literally pushed the building down further in
grade so the new elevations were at 226; the combination of this drop in the podium between the
low rise and the mid rise and the combination of lowering the pad elevation, in addition to
dropping some of the ceiling heights on the 8th floor, created the 8 foot differential between the
previous scheme and present proposal. He said the cave line in the new elevation is at 317.5, a
difference of 8 feet. He said that the unit counts were not increased; by creating some loft
conditions on the low rise condition as well as on the mid-rise condition, it created some additional
square footage into the program.
Mr. Tang explained how the 1:1 ratio was achieved, stating that they set up a series of lines
dictating where the 1:I setback would occur. At the fifth floor, everything is in conformance, and
on the sixth floor, where there was previously an encroachment at this condition, it created a
smaller unit plan, eliminating the encroachment. He said a comparison of the original program to
the present submittal, would realize a higher percentage of one bedroom plans in the current
submittal, as some of the two bedrooms were removed to create the 1:1 setback. The loft
conditions are well beyond the line of the 1:1 setback. He said that the garage was not sunk into
the ground as it is an essential part of retail to have parking adjacent to it. He said he felt the
parking wag successfully screened from the busiest street, with the only areas of exposure on the
south side of the project, and on the east side of the project where planters will enhance the edge.
John Moss, Pegasus Development, said due to the extensive discussion and presentations, he
would not make an additional presentation, but was available for questions.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Ms. Rodriquez referred to Page 14, and said it was important to note that they were claiming that
the 1:I has been dealt with by the units being removed in'llie trellis area being kept or maintained;
but she noticed by their illustration that they were not actually illustrated with a dash, and is
proposed to be maintained.
Mr. Tang said that they were considering architectural projection in order to enhance the corner
icon of the project. He said they were attempting to look at this as architectural projection similar
to what is happening with the trellises, because it does add to the architecture instead of taking
away from the architecture.
Com. Corr expressed concern about how the project would actually look when it is built. He
asked what steps were forthcoming to ensure that the look would be what they were striving for.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 22, 2000
Mr. Steve Piasecki, CommuniW Development Director, said that was the intent of separating the
details encompassed in Condition 6 which is a lengthy list, but that if there were additional
concerns, the list could be added to. He said they needed to look at the large set &plans in greater
detail to the point where they are the design built construction drawings. He saidthe applicant
needs to work the details out. Mr. Piasecki said it was fairly certain that there would be
modifications and changes because once they start putting together the construction drawings, they
will find problems, and the intent of the condition is that they will be seen.
Com. Kwok said that they hoped to approve it in concept and have the architect work out the
details, which could go through the design review process for a final product for approval at the
Planning Commission level.
Chair Harris questioned if it was the architect's intent to have flags on the building. Mr. Tang said
it was their intent to have a unified vibrant theme graphic throughout the project, and those
graphics should tie in with the signage program and building colors and should be compatible with
each other. He said he felt it would add to the project but the graphics were not finalized yet, but
would be addressed in more detail later along with other issues.
Chair Harris said that a key issue was building height and asked for input before outlining the
other issues. Com. Doyle said that it was still too high, and should be more in the range of 40 feet,
1:1 setback, and then up to 75 feet if 2:1 setback. The General Plan and Heart of the City state 40
feet, not 100+ feet, hence height is a problem. Com. Kwok said that he supported the current
proposal. Com. Stevens said he felt it was too tall; 70 feet instead of the Heart of the City 40; he
concurred with Com. Doyle's comment on the 2:1 ratio; and said he wanted to see the buildings
behind thent, and the architecture should reflect those buildings. Com. Corr said that in terms of
the stacking, the building behind was taller, and the north elevation of the Sun Building was a flat,
uninteresting structure, and the new building would cover it up. He said because it was stair
stepped, he was not opposed to it.
Chair Harris said that she concurred with Coms. Doyle and Stevens that the building was too high.
She said that she was previously involved when a consultant on the Stevens Creek Plan said that
the towers needed to have an intermediate building placed so that it steps to it, and the proposed
building takes the tower and moves it forward. She said there was an issue with the back building
and it was too high; the front building is ok; the tower element is too high and she said she would
prefer to have it dropped a floor at 75 feet. Chair Harris said she liked the addition of the slightly
higher area in the one tower section and would be amenable to that being reduced
commensurately, but could not approve the proposal. 'gl~e said that if the height could not be
reduced by sinking the garage into the ground, it would have to be accomplished by reducing it by
a floor. She said it was dense and would impact the traffic and create a giant mass at the
intersection. She said it did not depict the character seen in the last General Plan; she liked the
present towers and the way they step and are set back with lawn area. She said the character of the
city would be changed and all the buildings would be that high; and although there was a need for
housing, the project was too dense.
Chair Harris said that a specific plan was written for the area that said 40 foot height at the
intersection, and 75 feet in the General Plan for landmark buildings in the city. She said because
of the overriding need for apartments, she was willing to approve 75 feet and the staff
recommendation for changing the Specific Plan, since she could not make the required findings in
the Specific Plan if the change is not made. She said she could not make the required finding that
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 22, 2000
75 or 90 feet is the least modification of a 40 foot requirement, whereas changing the Specific
Plan to allow exceeding it, would not require making such an absurd finding.
In response to Chair Harris' question of how much of the building has an encroachment in the 1 :l,
the architect said that the two trellises on the mid-rise portionwas the encroachment. He said they
overlooked that a portion of the low-rise portion is also an encroachment of the 1:1, approximately
15 feet.
Chair Harris asked for input on the 1:1 setback.
Com. Corr said that he felt the I:1 setback was appropriate to keep the continuity of the building
and the tower. Com. Kwok said that it was appropriate, as the concept of the encroachment was to
enhance the appearance of the building; and he did not want to penalize the applicant because they
want to enhance the building. Com. Doyle said that he felt it was too high. Com. Stevens said
that since the trellises were not considered part of it, he was willing to support it. He said the
tower was unique, was located on the comer only next to the park, and is on the outside L and
gives uniqueness, which he supported. Chair Harris said that she liked it and would support it.
Chair Harris said that 3-EXC-00 would amend the Specific Plan to allow an apartment use and
exceed the 40 foot height limit, and allow high density on Lot 1, Tract 7953. She said they would
have to make a finding that said that whatever height was decided, was the least modification of
the 40 foot requirement. She questioned if there was any dissention to the amendment.
Com. Doyle said there were issues relative to the development other than height. Chair Harris
said that it ~vas to change the Specific Plan for height and to allow high density housing because
previously in the Specific Plan there was not housing at the intersection. She said there would be
two issues in the exception, and would change the Stevens Creek Specific Plan for the one parcel
to change the height requirement and to allow high density housing. Ms. Rodriguez clarified that
under Condition 3, since a G had been added (1:1), an H would be added to X feet. She said an
amendment to the General Plan would also be required.
Com. Kwok said he would prefer to grant the exception. Com. Stevens said that he would support
6 floors or 75 feet. Mr. Piaseeki said that it would need to be specified what the acceptable height
would be, and whether it would be the one floor referred to earlier or the 75 feet. Later, Chair
Harris said that she would support 75 feet which is the landmark size specified in the General
Plan. Follo. wing a brief discussion, Coms. Stevens and Kwok said they would support 75 feet.
Com. Kwok stated for the record that if Cupertino is goih~ to have affordable housing, sometime
and somewhere things have to give. If the height goes to 75 feet, two floor units would be lost and
would add to the cost of the buildings and also the cost of each unit. He said he would prefer the
height of 102 feet as proposed, but it was important to endorse affordable housing in Cupertino.
Chair Harris said that the city has made great strides in the housing and there has to be a balance
between the needs of the community and the needs of the existing residents for traffic and mass,
and the observance of the General Plan.
Mr. Piasecki said that he felt the applicant would prefer a decision so that the application could be
moved along.
Com. Corr said he concurred with Com. Kwok's comment that reducing the number of units cuts
out the number of affordable units. He said that he preferred that if they choose to support 75 feet,
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 22, 2000
that it should have been done the last time around, rather than give a wider range and have the
applicant return time after time. He said he felt the applicant should be given a number to work
with. He said he would support the 75 foot height. There was consensus that reducing the height
to 75 feet would eliminate other issues of concern.
Mr. Moss said that he preferred that a vote be rendered, with conditions, and not a continuance,
assuming it would be conditioned on the height.
Ms. Rodriguez summarized the proposed changes to conditions for 6-U-00. Condition 5: adding
that the loading dock shall be screened with evergreen shrubs; Condition 6: (residential) roof
material to be authentic clay tile, mission style, or material that looks similar, or other roofing of
an equal quality that has the same appearance as clay tile, to be approved; Add planter box height
and details for review; Design Review: architecture and landscaping to be approved (unit mix and
total number); Condition 9: Change to 10% of the number; Condition 17: Add "Prior to obtaining
a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall pay the appropriate mitigation fee to provide required
capacity."; Condition 21: Add to second line: "The City in consultation with the sheriff's
department may require installation of cameras;" Condition 34: A bond required in the
improvement agreement for 25% of ...; Condition 35: delete the condition; Use of wording
"based on the concept of the plan;" Delete size of residential and state "high density;" Delete No.
206, and state "residential unit shall have designated parking;" Item 10: amend as needed.
Relative to Heart of the City amendment, Mr. Piasecki clarified that under Item 3, Heart of the
City amendment, it should state: "This approval grants an amendment to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan to allow up to a maximum building height of 75 feet."
Ms. Rodriguez clarified that the remainder of the items would move to the exception.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to recommend approval of Application 9-EA-00
Com Corr
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to recommend denial of Application 2~GPA-99 as it
relates to the apartments
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved to recomm~-~c] approval of Application 6-U-00 as
amended and 3-EXC-00, an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow up
to 75 feet
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris declared a recess from 10:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
4. Application Nos.: 5~U-00, 4-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 8-EA-00
Applicant: Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group
Location: Lot 6, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center
Use permit to construct a new 217 room, 130,580 square foot hotel, restaurant and bar on a semi-
vacant parcel and operate 24 hours.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 22, 2000
General Plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet.
Heart of the City specific plan exception to exceed the 49 foot height limit and allow hotel use.
Continued from meeting of May 8, 2000
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell illustrated the perspective, which differed from the previous
rendition, She reviewed changes made by the applicant, including pitched roofs, higher north
tower, lower south tower, restaurant raised roof, and increased offsets in the guest wing. Ms.
Wordell also reviewed architectural changes including belt courses around the building, increased
balconies/awnings, windows simplified and inset, wooden trellises, colors and materials, and a
horizontal sign rather than vertical sign. Landscape changes included parking structure planter
box, trees on west property line, and relocation of the fountain. She said that the architect wants
more design interest on the second and third floors to make it more distinctive; the main tower and
restaurant tower elements needs more detail; restaurant trellis next to the plaza could be better
integrated into the facade; south elevation mentioned earlier; and other elements such as
landscaping, lighting, Call Avenue signs, etc. coming back for review. Staff recommends
approval of the General Plan amendment, the Heart of the City amendment and exception, and
mitigation negative declaration.
Ms. Wordell noted that the remaining issues to address were: building form/mass;
architecture/design; parking; landscaping; and signs.
Mr. Cannon reviewed the updates and changes to the hotel proposal. He said the treatment along
the top combined with the awnings and balcony fronts was positive; the consistent cornice line and
the way it kicks out and the continuity it provides seems quite positive and the treatment of this
which is cohsistent with the detailing that is going on in other places also seems to be positive; ~he
building now has a classic breakdown of a top, a middle and a bottom. He said he was still
concerned, and staff had eluded to, the fact that the building still does not seem to have enough
variety and richness in the window treatment. Mr. Cannon said that the building was beginning to
get back to the integrity that the original design had, but was still boxy with things attached to it,
and there are some minor things to be done that would begin to make the trellis seem more
integrated into the basic restaurant box. He said the architect and developer want to make the
restaurant appear different from the hotel, so it does not appear to look like a hotel restaurant, but
he said he felt the portion above the meeting rooms could have more richness of detail on the
lower portion since it is a rather plain building. He expressed concern about the signage panels
and said he would like to work with the architect. Mr. Cannon indicated that more work needed to
be done to make the entryway a more welcome area. He reiterated that because of the prime
location, the building needed more richness in design.
Mr. Jim Lepitich, resident, expressed concern about the issue of escalating noise in the downtown
area. He said there were problems with noise from pickups at nighthours, and deliveries at 5 a.m.
He said that he has reported the concern previously, however, no sound meters have been
available to measure the noise level. He said he felt that the General Plan goals were not being
met in light of the problems that existed. He urged the city to address the issues.
Mr. Cannon addressed staff's comments on the height which does not conform to the Heart of the
City requirements. He said the building sets far back from the street, but the height would be a
Planning Commission judgment; he said it still was not a superior design but had potential. He
said that his preference would be to have an entry from the hotel into the park, otherwise it would
require a lot of landscaping to soften up the wall.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 22, 2000
Mr. Jim Whelan, Kimpton Hotel, requested that a decision be made on the application. He
summarized the changes made since the last presentation, which included making the hotel design
more complementary with the apartment; the fagade was more interesting and less boxy; reduction
of the building height; keeping the 1:1 ratio to 40 feet, and the 2:1 ratio at 75 feet; stepped the
structure north to south; moved the penthouse to the south; made the entryway and roofline more
interesting; color; signage; and parking. He noted the addition of one level of parking below
grade; said the overall height of the project varied slightly; it is below a 1:2 setback although
above 75 feet, since it is so far back from the street, it is well within the 1:2 setback; there has
been significant articulation along the side of the building and he said he felt it would be the most
attractive hotel built in the Bay Area this year and next. He reported there were 3 foot and 1-1/2
foot offsets along the western fagade; 1-1/2 foot offsets along the eastern fagade; increase in the
use of cornice materials, horizontal bandings, balconies and awnings; main entryway has been
completely reconflgured, it is pedestrian oriented; restaurant fagade has warmth and interest; the
arbor along northern fagade and western fagade are intended to be of substance; the wooden
columns and beams across the top reminiscent of the Mission campus of Santa Clara University
are taller and allow for interaction between the restaurant and park, providing a sense of action;
there are a significant amount of entries to the park; all doors cannot open to the outside since it is
a high end hotel; significant landscaping; major changes to the roofline; reduced the height of the
cave on the crown, but peak went up to create a better design. Mr. Whelan said that the 75 foot
height limit would impose a loss of 3 floors out of 7 of the hotel. He said it was fundamentally the
same design presented in November when they asked for an indication of whether or not they
should continue with the process. He said he felt they were responsive to the comments, and they
intended on presenting and operating the highest caliber hotel, and conference center, and
restaurant in the area.
Mr. Bob Wheatley, Ginsler, addressed Mr. Cannon's earlier comment about requiring more
articulation on the building. He said that they were concerned about putting layer upon layer
because he recalled that they earlier had articulation on two stories around the elements and
because the consensus was that it was inappropriate they moved away from it. He said they
increased the depth of the window so they are now 6 inches, and are getting strong shadow lines
around them; there are sills as well as head cornice pieces on them, and sills on all the other
windows, garbage and receiving services are directly opposite the receiving area and the adjacent
City Center building. Porticos also have been added; a portico loggia front entry has been added
to the front of the building; the bike rack area will return to the lower level; a full level of below
ground parking has been added for an additional 30 parking spaces; addition of awning on the top
floor. He continued to outline the modifications and cl~&~es made since the last presentation to
the Planning Commission.
Chair Harris explained the importance of the project to the city, and getting public input from the
community. She apologized that the item would have to be continued to another meeting in order
to provide the time necessary to review and discuss the proposal.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to continue Applns. 5-U-00, 2-GPA-99, 4-EXC-00
and 8-EA-00 to the June 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 22, 2000
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Corr reported on his attendance at the
recent Housing Committee meeting, discussing the impending issues relative to the Santa Barbara
Grill and its redevelopment. He reported that the City Manager's position was down to 2
applicants and should be filled by mid-June. He reminded everyone of the community event at
Blackberry Farm for Don Brown, retiring City Manager on June 17th. He also reported that
Mayor Statton would be convening a community congress in late fall to deal with community
issues. Com. Corr reviewed other reports provided at the meeting including Public Safety, Parks
and Recreation, Fine Arts Commission, and Telecommunications.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki
reported on two appeals to City Council, including the denial of the oak tree which City Council
upheld; and the appeal on the electronic security gate on Balboa Road which the City Council
upheld the Planning Commission decision, and denied the appeal.
Com. Kwok requested that staff look into the setback requirement for the daycare center by the
YMCA.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to the special Planning Commission
meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, in Conference Room
C/D.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: June 26, 2000
Planning Commissi� ilinutes '- I�tay 22,2000
Chair f lnrris moved the agenda to Item 5.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Set joint meeting date'�or Planning Commissio� and Telecommunications Commission to
address antenna master pla ,
Staff presentntion: Ms. Ciddy ordell, City Planner, explained that the Telecommunications
Committee requested a meeting be heduled with the Planning Commission to receive direction
on master planning for wireless com nications for the ciry. Following a brief discussion,there
was consensus that the joint meeting e scheduled for the June 26th Plunning Commission
meeting agenda.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to sche le a joint meeting with the Telecommunications
Committee on June 26,2000,to ddress the antenna mnster plan.
SECOND: Com.Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris moved the ugenda back to Item 3.
3. Application Nos.: 6-U-00,2-GPA-99, 3-EXC-00,9-EA-00
Applicanr Cupertino City Center Land
Location: Lot I,Tract 953,comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Use permit to construct a 205 unit,293,137 square foot multi-family residential building and 7,000
square foot of retail space on vacant parcel(Stevens Creek B►vd.At City Center)
i Various exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which may include allowing an
apartmcnt use,maximum eight of building and side and rear setbacks.
General Plan amendment ro esceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to penctrate the I:1 setback
ratio from Stevens Creek IIlvd.
ContinuedJroui meetinb ojhfny 8,1000
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell presented a brief overview of the hotel application and the
apartment application. She referred to the City Center Site Plan and reviewed the location of the
apartmcnt nnd liotel. Slie reviewed the General Plan amendment,anJ Heart of City height and use
amendments/exceptions. bis. Wordell noted that the flip/flop placement of the hotel and
apartments would be covered in the arnendment.
Ms.Michele Rodriguez,Planner 11,reviewed the issues relating to the Stevcns Creek apartments,
including building and design. She said the Planning Commission direction was to reducc the
overall building height to bebveen 75 and 100 feet to maintain thc I:I setback ratio from thc
Stevens Creek Blvd.curbline;and to add pedestrian uccess from the retail arca into the pnrking
garage, to upgrade ground floor building materials, complete dock screening, and to limit the
height oFthe planter around the base of the building.
Relating to the buildin�height, Ms. Rudriguez nut�d that tl�c dra�vings on thc«�all illustrated the
comparison between the April 10�h Planning Commission plans and the updated pl�ns submitted
to address issues. She explained that to uddress the building height concern,the npplicait graded
Planning Commissio .inutes 3 h1ay 22,Z000
more to drop the building pad by approximately 4.5 feet,and also redesigned a portion of the top
floor and added mass to other portions of the building in order to reduce the building height. Tlie
majority of the building is 93 feet high,and there has been an addition to the center loft nrea center
units which reaches 102 feet,which is almost 4 feet less than the overall building height presented
at the previous meeting. Staff feels that the applicant h�s complied because the majority of the
building height is at the 93.1 feet. To uddress the l:l setback, the applicant has replaced a unit
that was encroaching into the l:l setback, and has kept the trellis to balance the elevation.
Because the 1:l setback states that it is to reduce buitding mass, staff did not feel thnt the
maintenanca of the uellis was building mass,and is in conformance.Relntive to pedestrian access
and dock screening;(architectural design),she said a condition of approval was added to ullow the
design to be reviewed more carefully before the Planning Commission. To address the concern of
the dock being buffered, she illustrated the area for planting the evergreen shrubs to buffer the
dock.
Ms. Rodriguez repoRed that tlie building materials were upgraded; and a condition of approval
added to allow the detail of all the building materials at ground level to be reviewed by tlie
Planning Commission. Also added were findings in the conditions of approval stating that the
highest design material was being sought, which would allow the Planninb Commission to have
leverage in their material revie�v later. They also stepped down and reduced the height around the
entire building and included in the plan set a section showing how they will maintain the height
behveen 3 and 4 feet.
To address Chair Harris'question regarding the exception for the outdoor space and the issue of
the subsurface garage, on Page 4-4,the two exceptions werc reviewed. Relative to the outdoor
space, she questioned if the Specific Plan delineated behveen hard and softscape and to what
degree did the project comply with that. She said the square footage comparison per dwelling unit
was included,and the Specific Plan requires that between 70%and 80%of the landscape sliould
be soRscape and the remaining 20%to 30%should be hardscape. She said the applicant cannot
comply with that since they have such a high buildinb coverage ratio;hence it is the outdoor space
exception.Ms.Rodriguez said that nnother question dealt with the subsurface garage nrea on Page
14 of the Plan set. She said that the easdwest section of the parking garage is substantially above
grade,and the Specific Plan states that parking garages may not exceed 5 feet above grade,and
the proposal excceds that 5 fcet requirement.
Staff recommends approval of the General Plan amendments and the amenJment to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan according to the modcl resolutions and the updated amendment resolution.
bis. Rodribuez referred to wall drawings and explained changes to building height discussed
earlier. She also clarified that the reduction in retail space fram 7,000 sq. R.to 6,775 sq. ft. was
for the pedestrian access. She reported that Condition 6 requires that a bike rack be mnde
availablc near thc retail use in the plaza. Alternative wording has ulso been devcloped in
Condition 4 to allow additional spaces for bikes.
[n response to Chair Flarris'questions,Ms.Rodriguez stated that there was no reciprocal parking
agreement with the hotel for the retail users to use the hotel parking. She said that relative to the
issue of securiry cameras in the garage,a condition required thlt conduit be installed and if tlie
sheriffs department determined it was needed, it would be done at that time. It was determined
that the condition should stnte that the Planning Commission in conjunction with the sherifFs
department determine whether the security cumeras were needed. She said that the height of the
Planning Commissic linutes -� Mny 2'_,3000
planter box could be stated as 3 fzer the srone tile base for the ground Floor has bcen added,with a
condition of approval for more specific review;and the applicant was requcsting that an alternate
material be added for flexibility relative to the clay tilc roof. i�is. Rodriguez explained thnt
althou�h the retail space and height were decreased,the increase in building area was a resuit of
the flat wallplane wl�ich was previously offset, the addition of loft units, and the increase in
building height.
Mr.Larry Cannon, architect, said he reviewed the application in its early stages, and feit it wus
well designed with variety. He said that he had not reviewed the updated plans in depth.
Ivlr.Raymond Chong,Traffic Engineer,reviewed the traffic impacts for the apartments,retail and
full service hotel during the a.m. anJ p.m. peak hours, including the week days. He reviewed
intersections level of service, which determined operation at LOS D or better for existing
conditions; for background conditions at LOS D or better, for project conditions at LOS D or
better, and under expected growth conditions at LOS D or better. He noted the only exception
was LOS E+at DeAnza Blvd.at northbound[-280 ramp. Mr.Chons said the consultant raised
concerns about queue spillbacks,specifically at DeAnza and Rodriguez during a.m.and p.m.peak
hours,and at the eastbound left turn at Stevens Creek and Torre;and suggested mitigation would
be to extend the left turn pocket or increase the green time. StafFs proposal is to increase the
green time for the proper allocation of the left tum movements. He reviewed the summary table
of trip generation estimates,summary of leh turn storage queuing analysis, and matrix table of
intersection levet of service. Mr.Chong explained that LOS A was free Flowing vaffic conditions,
and F was gridlock;and that the city maintained that below LOS D was the marimum for tlie city,
except for DeAnza and Stevens Creek and DeAnza and Bollinger Roads.
Mr.Chong answered questions about traffic impacts, trip generation,and level of service. Fle
said that the traffic study conducted by the consultant was a fair study. Mr.lason Pack,Fehr and
Peers Associates,answered questions about the analysis for the traffic impacts.
Mr.Paul Lettire,Gazzardo and Associates,explained the mitigation for die loadir.g dock,stnting
that a 3 foot heJge would be continued for tlie purpose of blocking out the paving level of cars,
not to make thc entire Frst tloar of the building disappcar. Hc said that shrubs could also be
planted across the front. [n response to Chair Harris'question about increasing the softscape and
the need for an exception because it does not meet the outdoor landscape rcquirements for the
General Plan,Mr.Lettire said that he was not ccrtain iFthey could reach thc numbers needed. He
said that the overall landscape plan is designed for a good balance between usable open space and
landscaped areas. He said he did not feel miniscule adjustments to the podium plan and increase
of the softscape�vould materially benefit the project in terms of the appearance or feel of the final
project;but it would only make it less usable.
Com. Stevens referred to the architectural model, and said there was a dominant architecture
starting with the landmark towers and the surrounding buildings,denoting they all have steps;a
uniform stepping consistency all uround; in addition to having similar colors and materials. Ile
said the two proposed projects do not have either and questioned the nrchitect's viewpoint if it
appeared to be something that would look quite different or be acceptable.
Mr.Cannon said that the issue was discussed with staff at the beginning of thu project,and hc fclt
the stepping would not nmount to much.He said he felt the quality of the building itself was strong
and he was not concerned that it was not stepping more, as the building located behind is in u
Planning Commissic linutes S May 22,2000
ccrtain form. }le said he felt the building should be left to be what it is,and let it have its richness,
whether or not it was stepped.
Com. Stevens said that the hvo proposed buildings would overshadow the landmnrk building
which is 110 feet high. He said he felt the buildings were too high. Mr. Cannon said that he
wished there was more space between the office and the upartment building. He said he felt the
oCfice building in the background was a standard office building without much richness of fa�ade;
the proposed buitding hns richness and a lot of form which is one type of architecture played
against the simple form of the office building which is acceptable.
Staff answered questions about the parking requirements, and noted tliat sharcd parking was
proposed with the adjacent office building, and because of different peak hours of need for the
hotel,apartment and office building,it would not be a problem.
Chair Hnrris addressed the condition for the developer to contribute 25% of the cost of a
pedestrian crossing project. Ms.Carmen Lynaugh,Public Works,clarified that at this time there
was not a full plan for it, but it would entail some features of enhancing the crosswalks and
changing the radiuses of the curb returns. Ms. Rodriguez said that Condition 30 specified a
maximum of$60,000 for pedestrian crossing reimbursement,which would amount to tlie known
of 25%of$60,000,divided between the two projects.Staff said thut a bond could be part of the
improvement agreement to ensure payment in the future.
Chair I-larris saiJ that the mitigation outline in the Fehr and Peers Associates report should be
completed prior to the occupancy of the building,and asked what it�vas and what it is mitigating.
Mr. Chong said that the only proposal was to adjust the green time, and is being corrected;
therefore the mitigation condition could be deleted.
Com. Kwok referred to Condition 17 relative to the applicant camplying with the Cupertino
Sanitary District's conditions set forth at no cost to the City of Cupertino. Ms.Rodriguez reported
that the Sanitary District is conducting a study to determine if the currcnt lines are maximized or
overused, and if wider lines need to be instnlled, applicants developing within their sphere of
intluence would be required to pay a mitigation fee. It was determined that the condition shoulJ
state that the applicant may be required to pay a mitigation fee to providc the required capaciry.
Chair Flarris asked for clarification on parkin6-59 spaces for retail and guests of the npartments.
She questioned if it was a reasonable number or whether a reciprocal parking agreement should bc
considered with the hotel for overflow;what the peak times wauld be;and what type of ret�il uses
they would be in terms of drawing customers.
Mr.Randalt Mackley,Retail Real Estate Group,said that typically retail ratios are 4 parking stalls
per 1,000. He said he saw a parking demand increase,which is an indication of how mucli food
goes into n projcct.He said when considering eateries,there are different peak times,such as early
morning for a donut shop,whereas a traditional sit-down restaurant would have greater demand in
the evening. He said he fclt the needs would be greater than 4 per 1,000,but certainly Icss than 7
per 1,000;and with less than 7,000 square feet,it would be important to have tlie parking us closc
to the retail us possible. He said he anticipated 3 or 4 tenants; that 70% of the market is food,
leaving the ability to sulicit 30°ro uf Uw market; and that food essentiall�� becomes thedefacro
nnchor,and they were considering looking for more of a lifestyle director,something trendy, but
enduring.
Planning Commissic,. .linutes 6 May 22,2000
[n response to Com.Doyle's request for clarification on the builJing height, Mr.Chuck Tan6,of
hicLarand Vasquez and Partners, iltustrated where the building height had been decreased,noting
that the majority of the project had been dropped down 8 feet from the previous profile. He
explained the areas where the building profile had been lowered,namely compressing the building
down in pad elevation; some aRiculation in the garage podium area to allow lowering one pnrt of
the garage podium urea,and minimizing some of the top iloor,floor to floor conditions in order to
reduce some of the building heights. He said they literally pushed the building down further in
grade so the new elevations were at 226;the combination of this drop in the podium between the
low rise and the mid rise and the combination of lowering the pad elevation, in addition to
dropping some of the ceiling heights on the 8�h floor,created the 8 foot differential between the
previous scheme and present proposal. He said the eave line in the new elevation is at 317.5, a
difference of 8 feet. He said that the unit counts were not increased; by creating soma loft
conditions on the low rise condition as well as on the mid-rise condition,it created some additional
square footage into the program.
Mr. Tang explained how the 1:1 ratio was achieved, stating that they set up a series of lines
dictating where the 1:1 setback would occur. At the fifth floor,everything is in conformance,and
on the sixth floor, where there was previously an encroachment at this condition, it created u
smaller unit plan,eliminating the enc�oachment. He said a comparison of the original program to
the present submittal, would realize a higher percentage of one bedroom plans in the current
submittal, �s some of the two bedrooms were removed to create the I:I setback. Tlie IoR
conditions are well beyond the line of the 1:1 setback. He said that the garage was not sunk into
the ground as it is an essential part of retail to have parking adjacent to it. He said he felt tlie
parking was successfully screened from the busiest street,with the only areas of exposure on the
south side of the project,and on the east side of the project where planters will enliance the edge.
John Moss, Pegasus Development, said duc to the extensive discussion and presentations, he
would not make an additional presentation,but was nvailable for questions.
Chair Harris opened thc meeting for public comment there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Ms.Rodriquez referred to Page 14,and said it was important to note that they were claiming that
the 1:1 has been dealt with by the units being removed in[he trellis arca being kept or maintained;
but she noticed by their illustration that they were not actually illustrated with a dash, and is
proposed to be maintained.
htr.Tang said that they were considering architectural projection in order ro enhance the comer
icon of the project.EIe said they were attempting to look at this as architectural projection similar
to �vhat is happening with the trellises,because it does �dd to the architecture instead of taking
away from the architecture.
Com. Cort erpressed concem about how the project would uctually look when it is built. He
�sked what steps were forthcoming to ensure that the look would be what they were striving for.
Planning Commissio, iinutes � May 22,2000
Mr. Steve Piasecki,Communiry Development Director,said that was the intent of separating the
details encompassed in Condition 6 which is a lengthy list, but that if there �vere additional
concerns,the list could be added to. He said they needed to look at the large set of plans in greuter
detail to the point where they are the design built construction drawings. He saidthe applicant
needs to work the details out. Mr. Piasecki said it was fairly certain that there would be
modifications and changes because once they start putting together the construction drawings,they
will find problems,and the intent of the condition is that they will be seen.
Com. Iiwok said that they hoped to approve it in concept and have the architect work out the
details,which could go through the design review process for a final product for approval at the
Planning Commission level.
Chair Harris questioned if it was the architect's intent to have tlags on the building. Mr.Tang said
it was their intent to have a unitied vibrant theme graphic throughout the project, and those
graphics should tie in with the signage progrum and building colors und should be compatible with
each other. He said he felt it would add to the project but the graphics were not finalized yet,but
would be addressed in more detail later along with other issues.
Chair Harris said that a key issue was building height and asked for input before outlining the
other issues.
Com.Doyle snid that it was still too high,and should be more in the range of 40 feet, I:I setback,
and then up to 75 feet if 2:l setback. The General Plan and Heart of the City state 40 feet, not
100+feet,hence height is n problem.
Com.K�vok said that he supported the current proposal.
Com. Stevens said he felt it was too tall;70 feet insteaJ of the Heart of the City 40;he concurred
with Com.Doylc's comment on the 2:1 ratio;and said he wanted to see the buildings behind them,
and the architecture should reflect those buildings.
Com.Corr said that in terms of die stacking,the building behind was taller,and the north elevation
of the Sun Building was a Flat,uninteresting structure,and the new building tivould cover it up. He
said because it was stair stepped,he was not opposed to it.
Chair I-Iarris said that she concurred with Coms.Doyle and Stevens that the building was too liigh.
She said that she was previously involved when a consultant on the Stevens Creek Plan said that
the towers needed to have an intermediate buildin�placed so that it steps to it,and the proposed
building takes the tower and moves it forward. She said there was an issue with the back building
and it was too liigli;the front building is ok;the tower element is too liigh and she said she would
prefer to have it dropped a tloor at 75 feet. Chair Harris said she liked the addition of the slightly
higher area in the one tower section and would be amenable to that being reduced
commensurately, but could not approve the proposal. She said that ifthe height could not be
reduced by sinking the garage into the ground,it would have to ba uccomplished by reducing it by
n floor. She said it wns dense nnd would impact the traffic and create n giant mass nt the
intersection. She said it did not depict the character seen in the last General Plan; she liked the
present towers and the way they step and are set back wiUi lawn urea.She said the ch�racter of the
city would be chunged and all the buildings would be thnt high;and nithough there wns t►need for
housing,the project was too dense.
Plan�iing Commissio. .inutrs R May 2'_,2000
Chair Harris said that u specific plan was written for the area that said 40 foot height at the
intersection,and 75 feet in the General Plan for landmark buildings in the city. She said because
of the overciding need for apartments, she was willing to approve 75 feet and the staff
recommendation for changing the Specific Plan,since she could not make the required findings in
the Specific Plan if the change is not mnde. She said she could not make the required finding that
75 or 90 feet is the least modification of a 40 foot requirement, whereas chnnging the Specific
Plan to allow exceeding it,�vould not require making such an absurd finding.
In response to Chair Harris'question of how much of the building has an encroachment in the I:I,
the architect said that the nvo trellises on the mid-rise portionwas the encroachment. He said they
overlooked that a portion of the low-risa portion is also an encroachment of the 1:1,approrimutely
I S feet.
Chair Harris asked for input on the l:l setback.
II
Com.Corr said that he felt the 1:1 setback was appropriate to keep the continuity of the building
and the tower. Com.Kwok said that it was appropriate,as the concept of the encroachment was to
enhance the appearance of the building;and he did not want to penalize the applicant because tliey
want to enhance the building. Com.Doyle said that he felt it was too high. Com.Stevens said
tliat since the trellises were not considered part of it, h�was willing to support it. He said tlie
tower was unique,was located on the corner only next to the park,and is on the outside L and
gives uniqueness,which he would support. Chair Flarris said thnt she liked it and would support
it.
Chair Harris said that 3-GXC-00 wo�ld amend the Specifc Plan to allow an npartment use and
exceed the 40 foot height limit,and nllow high density on Lot 1,Tract 7953. She said they would
have to make a finding that said that wharever height was decided,was the Icast modification of
the 40 foot requirement. She questioned if there was any dissention to the amendment.
Com. Doyle said there were issues relative to the development other than height. Chair Harris
saiJ that it was to change the Specific Plan for height and to allow high density housing because
previously in the Specific Plan there was not housing at the interscction. She said there would be
two issues in the exception,nnd would changc thc Stevens Crcek Specific Plan for the one parcel
to change the height requirement anJ to allow high densiry housing. Ms.Rodriguez clarified that
under Condition 3,since a G had been added(I:I),an FI would be added to X feet. She said an
amendment to the General Plan wouW also be required.
Com.Kwok said he would prefer to grant the exception. Com.Stevcns said that he would support
6 tloors or 75 feet. fvir.Piasecki said that it would nced to be specified what the acceptable height
would be,nnd whether it would be the one Iloor referred to carlier or the 75 feet. Lntcr, Chair
Harris said that she would support 75 feet which is the landmark size specified in the General
Plan. Following a brief discussion,Coms. Stevens and Kwok said they would support 75 feet.
Com.Kwok stated for the record that if Cupertino is going to have affordable housing,sometime
and somewhere things have to give. If the height goes to 75 feet,two floor units would be lost and
�vould add to the cost of the buildings and also the cost of each unit.He said he would prefer the
height oE l02 feet as proposed,but it wns important to endorse afforJable huusing in
Planning Commissic tinutes � May 22,2000
Cupertino. Chair Harris said that the city has made great strides in the housing and there has to be
n balance behveen the needs of the community and the needs of the existing residents for traftic
and mass,and tt�e observance of the General Plan.
Mr.Piasecki said that he felt the applicant would prefer a decision so that the application could be
moved along.
Com.Corr said he concurred with Com.Kwok's comment that reducing tlie number of units cuts
out the number of affordable units. He said that he preferred that if they choose to support 75 feet,
that it should have been done the last time around,rather than give a wider range and have the
applicant return time after time. He said he felt the applicant should be given a number to work
with. He said he would support the 75 foot height.
There was consensus that reducing the height to 75 feet would eliminate other issues of concern.
Mr.Moss said that he preferred that a vote be rendered,with conditions,and not a continuance,
assuming it would be conditioned on the height.
�Is.Rodriguez summarized the proposed changes to conditions for 6-U-00. Condition 5: adding
that the loading dock shall be screened with evergreen shrubs; Condition 6: (residential) roof
material to be authentic clay tile,mission style,or material that looks similar,or other roofing of
an equal quality that has the same appearance as clay tile,to be approved;Add planter box height
and details for review;Design Review: architecture and landscaping to be approved(unit mix and
total number);Condition 9: Change to 10%of the number;Condition 17: Add"Prior to obtaining
a permit for occupancy,the applicant shall pay thc appropriate mitigation fee to provide required
capacity."; Condition 21: Add to second line: "The City in consultation with the sheriffs
department may require installation of cameras;" Condition 34: A bond required in Ihe
improvement agreement for 25% of ...; Condition 35: Jelete the condition; Use of wording
"based on the concept of the plan;"Delete size of residential and state"high density;"Delete No.
206,and state"residential unit shall have designatcd parking;" Item 10:amend as needed.
Rclative to Hcart of the City amendment, Mr.Piasecki darified that under Item 3, Heart of the
Ciry amendment, it should state: "This approval grants an amendment to the Fleart of the City
Specific Plan to allow up to a maximum builJing height of 75 feet."
bts.Rodriguez clarified that the remainder of the items would move to the exception.
MOT[ON: Com.Kwok moved to recammend approval of Application 9-EA-00
SECOND: Com Corc
VOTE: Passcd 5-0-0
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to recommend denial of Application 2-GPA-99 us it
relates to the apartments
SECOND: Com.Kwok
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
MOT[ON: Com. Corr moved to recommend approval of Applicatiun G-U-00 as
umended and 3-EXC-00,an amendment to the Specific Plun to allow up
to 75 feet
Planning Commissio. �inutes �� May 22,2000
SECOND: Com.lCwok
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris declared a recess from 10:00 p.m.to t0:15 p.m.
4. Application Nos.: 5-U-00,4-EXC-00,2-GPA-99,8-EA-00
Applicant: Kimpton Hotel&Restaurant Group
Location: Lot 6,Tract 7953,Cupertino City Center
Use permit to construct a new 217 room, 130,580 square foot hotel,restaurant and bar on u semi-
vacant parcel and operate 2A hours.
General Plan umendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet.
Heart of the City specific plan exception to exceed the 49 foot height limit and allow hotei use.
ContinuedJrom meeting ojMay 8,1000
StaFf presentation: Ms. Wordell illustrated the perspective, which diffcred from the previous
rendition. She reviewed changes made by the applicant, including pitcheJ roofs,higher north
tower, lower south tower, restaurant raised roof,and increased offsets in the guest wing. Ms.
Wordell also reviewed architectural changes including belt courses around the building,increased
balconies/awnings, windo�vs simplified and inset, wooden trellises, colors and materials, nnd a
horizontal sign rather than vertical sign. Landscape changes included parking structure planter
box,trees on west property line,and relocation of the fountain. She said that the architect wants
more design interest on the second and third Floors to make it more distinctive;the main tower and
restaurant tower elements needs more detail; restaurant trellis next to the plaza could be better
integrated into the faFade; south elevation mentioned earlier; and other elements sucli as
Iandscaping, lighting, Cali r�venue signs, etc. coming back for revicw. Staff recommends
approval of the General Plan amendment,the Heart of the City amendment and erception, and
mitigation negative declaration.
Nis. Wordell noted that the rcmaining issues to address were: building form/mass;
architecture/design;parking;landscaping;nnd signs.
Mr.Cannon reviewed thc updates and changes to the hotel proposal. He said thc treatment along
the top combined witli the awnings and balcony fronts was positive;the consistent cornice line and
the wny it kicks out and the continuity it provides seems quite positive and the treatment of this
which is consistent with the detailing that is going on in other places also seems to be positive;the
building now has a classic brenkdown of a top, a middle and a bottom. He said he was still
concerned,and staff had eluded to,the fact that the building still does not seem to have enough
variery and richness in the window treatment. Mr.Cannon said that the building was beginning to
get back to the integrity that the original design had,but was still boxy with things attached to it,
and there are some minor things to bc done that would begin to make the trellis seem more
integrated into the basic restaurant box. He said the urchitect and developer want to mnke thc
restaurant appear different from the hotel,so it does not uppear to look like a hotel restaurant,but
he said he felt the portion above the meeting rooms could have more richness of detail on the
lower portion since it is a rather plain building. He expressed concern about the signage panels
and said he���ould like to���ork��•ith the architcct. Mr.Cannon indicated thnt more work needed to
be done to make the entryway n more �velcome urea. He reiterated that because of the prime
location,the building needed more richness in design.
Planning Commissia �finutes �� hlay 22,2000
Mr.Jim Lepitich,resident,expresscd concern about the issue of escalating noise in the downtown
area. He said there«ere probiems with noise from pickups at nighthuurs,and dciiveries at 5 a.m.
He said that he has reported the concem previously, however, no sound meters have been
available to measure the noise level. He said he felt that the General Plan goals were not being
met in light of the problems that existed. He urged the city to address the issues.
Mr.Cannon addressed stafFs comments on the height which does not conform to the Heart of the
City requirements. He said the building sets far back from the street,but the height would be a
Planning Commission judgment;he said it still was not a superior design but had potential. Fle
said that his preference would be to have an entry from the hotel into the park,othenvise it woulJ
require a lot of landscaping to soften up the wall.
Mr. Jim �Vhelan, Kimpton Hotel, requested that a decision be made on die application. He
summarized the changes made since die last presentation,which included making the hotel design
more complementary with the apartment;the fasade was more interesting and less boxy;reduction
of the building height;keeping the 1:1 ratio to 40 feet,and the 2:1 ratio at 75 feet;stepped tha
structure north to south;moved the penthouse to the south;made the entryway androoFline more
interesting; color; signage; and parking. He noted the addition of one level of parking below
grade; said the overall height of the project varied slightly; it is below a 12 setback although
above 75 feet, since it is so far back from the street, it is well within the 1:2 setback; there lias
been significant articulation along the side of the building and he said he felt it would be tlie most
attractive hotel built in the Bay Area this year and next. He reported there were 3 foot and 1-I/2
foot offsets along Qie western fa�nde; 1-I/2 foot offsets along the eastern faFade; increase in the
use of comice materials, horizontal bandings, balconies and awnings; main entryway has been
completely reconfigured, it is pedestrian oriented; restaurant fasade has warmth and interest; the
arbor along northem fa�ade and western fa�ade are intended to be of substance; the wooden
columns and beams across thc top reminiscent of the Mission campus of Santa Clara University
are taller and allow for interaction between the restaurant and park, providing a sense of action;
therc are a significant amount of entries to the park;all doors cannot open to the outside since it is
a high end hotel;significant landscaping;major changes to the roofline; rcduced the height of the
eave on the crown,but peak went up ro crcate a better design. Mr.Whelan said that the 75 foot
height limit would impose a loss of 3 tloors out of 7 of the hotel. He said it was fundamentnlly thc
same design prescnted in November when Niey asked for an indication of whether or not they
should continue with the proccss. He said he felt they wcre responsive to the comments,and they
intended on presenting and operating the highest caliber hotel, and conference center, and
restaurant in the arca.
Mc Bob Wheadcy, Ginsler, addressed Mr. Cannon's earlier comment about requiring more
articulation on the building. He said that they were cuncerned about putting layer upon layer
becausc he recalled that thcy carlier had articulation on two stories around the elements and
because the consensus was that it was inappropriate they movcd away from it. He said they
increased the depth of the window so they are now 6 inches,and urc getting strong shadow lines
around them; there are sills as well as head cornice pieces on them, and sills on all the other
windows.garbage and receiving services are direcdy opposite the receiving area and the adjacent
City Center building. Porticos also have been ndded;a portico loggia front entry has been added
to the front of the building;the bike rack nrea will return to the lower level;a full level of below
ground parking has been added for an additional 30 parking spaces;uddition of awning on thc:Wp
Floor. FIe continued to outline the modifications and changes made since the lust presentntion to
the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissio. .Iinutes �Z May 22,2000
Chair Harris explained the importance of the project to tlie city,and getting pubiic input from the
community. She apologized that the item would have to be continued to another meeting in order
to provide the time necessary to review and discuss the proposal.
MOTION: Com.Doyle moved to continue Application 5-U-00,2-GPA-99,
4-EXC-00 and 8-EA-00 to the June 12,2000 Planning
Commission meeting
SECOND: Com.Kwok
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUS� SS: None
REPORT OF HE PLANNING CObiMISSIOIV: Com.Corr reported on his attendance at the
recent Housing mmittee meeting,discussing the impending issues relative to the Santa Barbstra
Grill and its red�elopment. He reported that the City Manager's position was down to 2
applicants und shou be filled by mid-June. He reminded everyone of the community event ut
Blackberry Farm for�on Brown, retiring City Manager on June 17th. He also reported that
Mayor Statton would be�convening a community consress in late fall to deal with community
issues. Com.Corr reviewed other reports provided nt the meeting including Public Safety,Parks
and Recreation,Fine Arts CQmmission,nnd Telecommunications.
.�
REPORT OF THE DIREC�'OR OF CO'Vi1�lUN1TY DEVELOPNiENT: Mr. Piasecki
reported on two appeals to City�ouncil,including the denial of the oak tree which City Council
upheld; and the appeal on the ele�tronic security gate on Balboa Road which Ihe City Council
upheld the Planning Commission de�ision,and denied the appeal.
Com. Kwok requested that staff look\to die setback requirement for the daycare center by the
YMCA.
D[SCQSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPIN S: None
ADJOURNMEIVT: The meetins adjoume�t 11:20 p.m.to the special Planning Commission
meeting at 6:00 p.m.on Wednesday,May 24,2000,in Conference Room
C/D.
Respectfully Submitted,
. Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary