101-Draft Minutes 3-27-2012.pdf
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. March 27, 2012 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2012 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Don Sun
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
City Attorney’s office: Gary Baum
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of March 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Sun, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve the March 13, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as
presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Gary Chao, City Planner, noted items received relative to
Item 2 and the final recommendation from the ERC.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
• Referred to Ordinance 11-2085, passed in November 2011, wherein a friendly amendment was
approved by City Council for a new website link to a Director of Community Development’s
page showing all applications that the CDD would be reviewing.
• He asked for an update on the progress of the website and said that there were community
members willing to volunteer their services.
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff to follow up with Keith Murphy on his request.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
2
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
2. TM-2012-01, V-2012-01 Tentative map to subdivide an approx.
(EA-2012-01) 1.14 acre parcel into five parcels ranging
McClellan Development from 7,040 to 11,096 square feet; Variance
(Lands of Jauch) to allow reduced lot widths for four of the
western terminus of Bollinger Rd. five new lots surrounding the proposed
proposed cul-de-sac that do not meet the
minimum lot width requirements Environmental
Review: Negative Declaration recommended
Tentative City Council date: 05-01-2012
Chair Miller recused himself from discussion of the application as he said he had prior dealings
with the applicant. Vice Chair Sun chaired the meeting.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 1.14 acre lot into 5
parcels, and variance request for reduced lot widths for four of the five new lots surrounding
the proposed cul-de-sac that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements, as outlined in
the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council adoption of the Negative Declaration, approval of the tentative map in accordance
with the draft resolution, and approval of the variance in accordance with the draft resolution.
• He noted that the residential development of the properties was not the subject of the
discussion; the houses being proposed will likely be two story homes. If they meet all the
other R1 zoning regulations there will be a two story residential permit required which
involves review of the house design with staff and also noticing of adjacent neighbors for each
of the lots, giving neighbors an opportunity to comment on design, including issues of privacy;
but those are handled with the provisions of the R1 ordinance regarding privacy landscaping.
Marta McClellan, McClellan Development, Applicant:
• Agreed with the conditions set forth and said he looked forward to the buildout of the project
in conformance with the agreements.
Vice Chair Sun opened the public hearing.
Vincent Hsieh, Bollinger Road:
• Opposed to the application; resides 3 houses away from proposed construction.
• Expressed concern about traffic relative to the schools; the present conditions are challenging
because one has to detour toward McClellan or the adjacent street to reach either Lincoln or
Monta Vista. The future entrance for the construction is on Bollinger Road side; it will
increase the present traffic which has worsened for the school children and is also inconvenient
for those families to send children to school having to detour.
Stan Tsing, Vernie Court:
• Said he had the same concern as the previous speaker, and was opposed to the opening of a
Bollinger Road entrance because of the traffic and the new home that will be adjacent to his
home; the builder plans to build the garage facing a fence which he felt would adversely affect
their living standards. He said he hoped they would consider having an entrance to the five
properties from another location.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
3
Umesh Toprani, Orline Court:
• Said he was not opposed to the builder building there, as long as the neighbors’ concerns and
needs regarding privacy have been met, but he was reluctant to start compromising on the
exceptions discussed with respect to the sidewalk, etc. He said whenever he did anything for
his house, he had to get a permit, meet the code, etc., rules need to be followed and there is a
minimum standard for each house which gives everyone a chance to have more space.
Arthur Dong, resident:
• Opposed to the project, because the proposed new homes will increase the traffic and during
construction, the workers will park in the neighborhood crowding the streets even more.
Opening up Bollinger Road will destroy the quiet neighborhood which was an attraction when
he purchased the home 7 years ago.
Munir Voola, Orline Court:
• Expressed concern with the possibility of removal of 45% of the 65 trees which are 60 to 70
feet tall and take about 30 to 40 years to grow. He questioned whether the developer would
replace the trees with trees of the same height and that would meet code.
• Said he felt the request for variance could be adjusted to accommodate four lots and not break
any of the code and compliance. He said Cupertino was becoming a concrete jungle and the
project would set a precedent. He said the excess traffic, and amount of people would be at the
neighbors’ cost. He requested reconsideration of the application and the possibility of
revisiting or redesign to four lots.
• He said he was not opposed to dividing the lot, which the owner has the right to do, but it
should be done within the boundaries of laws and codes.
Judy O’Brien, Orline Court:
• Said she has lived in her home 25 years, at which time the builder was considering putting in a
street going through from Stelling, Jollyman through Bollinger and it was denied. The builder
had to build two houses on the opposite sides because they thought it would create too much
traffic to open up another corridor to get to DeAnza College which was a huge problem. She
asked that they not open it now to have that occur.
• Said that when her one story home was built it was imperative that the houses built around the
existing homes on Kerwin be one story also; and she hoped that the thought process would be
maintained to keep the houses built behind them as one story to protect their privacy.
• She expressed concern that the excavation of the property behind her home could possibly kill
the trees planted along her property line. She noted that there were two trees on the Jauch
property that are dying and the arborist report calls for maintaining them. However, one fell
over and landed on her home two years ago in a bad storm.
Vice Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Com. Brophy:
• Said one of the issues raised was the question of choosing to exit by Bollinger as opposed to
what would be the alternative street to the south.
Jim Yee, Architect:
• Said the question is relative to access to the site; currently there is only one access because of
how the parcel was subdivided, there is no potential access to the other parcel.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Said the question is, if it is possible, why is it off Bollinger as opposed to Jollyman. Referring
to the aerial drawings which indicates both possible access points, one of the objectives that
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
4
the original property owner and developer had in mind is to preserve the existing house on the
site on the southwest corner of the lot. It renders the access point off Jollyman infeasible from
that perspective in order to keep the house where it is.
• Also in reviewing the circulation and also the driveway widths and access points for
subdivisions, the fire department would comment and evaluate safety measures for turnarounds
and access point for fire engines and you can’t accomplish that in having access off Jollyman
to be able to have fire service to service the new lots being created.
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director:
• Added that the project is a dead end with no connection to other streets and staff felt it was the
best way to accomplish the lot pattern, which is what they have to do when reviewing a
project.
Com. Brownley:
• Asked if there was a plan for replanting some trees once the lots are subdivided.
Colin Jung:
• Trees on the property are not subject to the tree protection ordinance; tree replacement is
defined in the sense of privacy tree planting for all second story views into adjacent properties,
that the applicant will be subject to and also street tree planting for each of the lots. There will
be tree planting with respect to the residential development applications for this property.
Gary Chao:
• Noted that although it appeared to be many trees, in reality most of the trees are non-specimen
trees in terms of the protected species that are listed in the ordinance; most are fruit trees and
small firs and spruces. To that extent, under normal circumstances if the property owner
without a project wanted to take care of some of the trees now, some of them don’t require tree
removal permits for that replacement.
Com. Brownley:
• Asked if there was any discussion about subdividing into five lots rather than four and what
impact that would have on the variance required.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The lots are bigger than most of the lots in the neighborhood and lot widths complied with
almost every cul-de-sac in town. Cul-de-sac lots tend to be bigger, and because of their
configuration, they tend to have narrower front widths. By the time it passes the driveway, it is
close to compliance with the lot widths. Staff felt it met the typical pattern in the city and that
is why staff could support it.
Com Lee:
• Said some residents are concerned about noise, traffic, and littering due to construction. Asked
what steps can be taken if that occurs; and is it outlined in the Construction Management Plan.
Colin Jung:
• Staff expects at the residential permit stage that the applicant will be addressing construction
concerns with respect to where they will store materials, locating the contractor vehicles. If
the subdivision is approved, by the time the residential construction happens, there will be a
full cul-de-sac there; they will be places for construction workers to park, and locations for
building materials to be stored. The applicant can address the construction phasing but
typically they would not build more than one or two houses at a time. All that can be
addressed with the residential development permits issues for each of the lots.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
5
Marta McClellan:
• Said the construction phasing had not yet been determined.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that there is a process for the building of the homes where neighbors will be noticed; at
which time the phasing will be squared away and neighbors can weigh in on the phasing. The
typical mode of operation is for the applicant to have a construction phasing plan so that
neighbors know where they are parking. There are requirements for dust control, hours of
construction, and noise, and those will be applicable to this project.
Marta McClellan:
• Said they did neighborhood outreach and visited the surrounding neighbors, sent a letter prior
to visit informing them when they would be there. Addressed neighbors’ concerns at the
meeting. She said the issue of a compromise between 4 or 5 houses was not discussed at the
meeting with the neighbors.
Colin Jung:
• Clarified that some residents asked why the subdivision wasn’t oriented toward Jollyman
instead of Bollinger Road. He referred to the aerial photo which illustrated two parcels, one of
them 10760 address developed with a single family house and the vacant property. Both
properties are under different but related ownerships. The owner if 10760 does not have any
intention of developing her property and the vacant one was intended for development as the
inheritance of the remaining children.
• Relative to Ms. O’Brien’s concern about the excavation of the trees next to her property, the
arborist report went into significant detail about what should be done to protect the trees not on
the property; there are root structures that he believes encroach into the adjacent lot and those
include at the time of demolition, grading and subdivision, specific setbacks for each of the
trees where there should be no grading or development. If the subdivision is approved there
are additional conditions that have been recommended by the arborist that include conditions
on the type of construction, how the fences are put up to protect all of the trees that are
crowded on the common property line. In addition the arborist also recommended that the
applicants hire a separate consulting arborist to look at the conditions in the field at the time
once the houses are proposed, and to suggest his own plan for protecting the adjacent trees. He
said he did not think the applicant wants the liability of damaging any neighbors’ trees.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the only access to the property was through Bollinger as referenced in a letter from the
owner of the 10760 property. The lot sizes are significantly larger than other lots, and
significantly larger than the minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. Relative to the variance on the
front, the minimum front footage, the variance is standard on cul-de-sac lots for the reason that
the Community Development Director explained that by definition it is a pie shaped lot with a
wider than average backside and a shorter than average front side. In this particular case, you
end up having to make the lots larger, even if a developer would wish to make them closer to
the minimum size.
• Said it is important that in the process of reviewing any proposed residential permits they give
special concern as they have done in the past in a city mostly built out, to look at the privacy
issues, whether fencing, planting, etc.
Com. Brownley:
• It was stated that the entrance from Bollinger is necessary because entrance from Jollyman is
not feasible given the existing home on the property; the fire department review said Jollyman
was not as good an access as Bollinger. Similarly, because of the different ownership of the
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
6
properties, there isn’t access off the other road so they have to go through Bollinger.
• Relative to the trees, there is an arborist plan for those; when the lots are subdivided, there will
be privacy tree plantings and street tree plantings, and the current trees are not covered under a
protection ordinance. Because of the shape of the property, the variance is more directed at the
front of the properties close to the cul-de-sac relative to the back of the property. For those
reasons, the items being requested and recommended for approval seem reasonable.
Com. Lee:
• Addressed the six speakers that she hoped their concerns were addressed, and encouraged them
to include or give their email addresses to staff so that they would be kept updated on
information about the project, including the construction management plan, phasing, etc.
Vice Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Brophy, and unanimously approved
4-0-0 (Chair Miller absent) to approve Application EA-2012-01, V-2012-01 and
TM-2012-01
Chair Miller returned to the meeting.
3. M-2011-09 (EA-2011-18), Modifications to a previously approved Master
M-2011-24, TM-2011-04 Use Permit (U-2008-01), Architectural and
Kevin Dare: Dare, 500 Forbes LLC Site Approval (ASA-2008-06) and Tree Removal
No side of Stevens Creek Blvd. Permit (TR-2008-08) to amend the master plan
On both sides of Finch Ave. & for a mixed use development to allow for a 180
West of No. Tantau Ave. room hotel; 78,700 square feet of retail space;
289,750 sq. ft. of office space; 143 senior age-
restricted condominium units; 60,000 sq. ft. of athletic club and/or additional retail space;
and an alternate plan for a 105 unit market-rate apartment complex in lieu of the 60,000 sq.
ft. of athletic club/retail space; removal of a total of 84 trees and relocation of 13 trees; and
modification of the master Architectural and Site Approval; Architectural and Site approval
to allow the construction of two office buildings consisting of a total 289,750 sq. ft. ten retail
buildings (shops 1-7 and Pads 1-3) totaling 62,200 sq. ft., a parking garage with underground
parking and four levels of above ground parking; and a 5 story, 180 room hotel as part of the
Main Street Mixed-Use Development Project; Tentative Map Permit to subdivide 3 parcels
(approximately 18.7 acres) into 6 fee-simple parcels and 143 senior age-restricted
condominium units; Negative Declaration. Tentative City Council date: 05-01-2012
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application from 500 Forbes, LLC to amend their previously approved 2009
mixed use development for Main Street Cupertino. The applications include a modification to
a previously approved Master Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Tree Removal
Permit, as well as architectural and site approval, tentative map to subdivide 3 parcels,
modification to Condition 5, and extension of permit to expire five years from date of approval
of this modification, and addendum to the 2009 Final EIR, as outlined in the staff report.
• She also noted that staff was requesting the Commission’s direction on seven key issues,
which will be discussed in detail later in the meeting, including:
1. Parcelization
2. Mix of retail and residential uses
3. Office use and allocation – Major companies General Plan requirement
4. Parking garage for the office development
5. Retail pads in Town Square
6. Hotel – type, size and amenities
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
7
7. Alternate site plan and park relocation
She discussed the issues and staff’s recommendations as outlined on Pages 117 through
121 of the staff report.
• She reviewed the following as detailed in the attached staff report: the 2009 approved Master
Use Permit, the alternate development options approved, the Plan 1 Scheme and Plan 2
Scheme in addition to the Schemes 3A and 3B; site, traffic and parking analysis; proposed tree
removal; architectural and site review; and student generation analysis which was conducted.
• An environmental review was conducted on the project and an addendum prepared to the 2009
final EIR; the addendum found that the proposed project and all alternate schemes to be
reviewed will not create new or additional significant impact than what was reviewed and
approved in the 2009 final EIR. On March 23, 2012, the ERC reviewed and recommended the
addendum.
• Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission is to recommend approval of the draft
resolutions for the modification application, architectural and site approval and tentative map
approval and the addendum to the final EIR with the following requirements:
1. The 2012 addendum to the final EIR be recommended for approval
2. The modification to the previously approved Master Use Permit, Master
Architectural and Site Approval and Tree Removal Permit allow for a hotel of up to
250 rooms, 138,700 square foot of retail and athletic club; a .8 acre town square, up
to 289,000 square feet of office; 143 senior housing units, or 33 market rate
apartments, .75 acre park, and removal of 61 trees and relocation of 17 trees
3. Architectural and Site Approval for the 10 buildings
4. Tentative map of 6 lots (combining office lots and no condos)
5. Approve Modification to Condition No. 5 to replace the requirement for a 400
person banquet facility with a 6,500 sq. ft. restaurant and meeting space
6. Extension of permit expiring 5 years from the date of approval of this modification
7. Correct Condition No. 4 to reflect the 2009 Council approval which requires the
project to be LEED certified or meet the new Green Building Ordinance if
applicable.
Gary Chao:
• Relative to the replacement of the requirement for a 400 person banquet facility, he said the
previous condition from City Council had a requirement that if the hotel was to exceed 160
rooms, that it provide a significant banquet facility able to house up to 400 persons. Part of the
request from the applicant is to modify the condition to use the restaurant component on the
base level of the hotel as a way to address the condition.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Asked that on such large projects, the Planning Commission be given more time to study the
materials before it is presented to them. He asked what consequences the applicant would face
if they are not receptive to the recommendations by staff on the 7 suggestions to the applicant.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that staff was presenting the 7 issues which are recommendations that differ slightly from
what the applicant is asking for. The Planning Commission has the option of making their
own recommendations to the Council, and the Council can make its own decision; staff will fill
in where necessary to inform if any of the decisions goes beyond the limits of the EIR study.
Com. Brophy:
• In the original approval it stated that the retail would be a maximum of 10% restaurant; the
applicant proposed and the staff recommendation proposed that 6 and 7 be combined as a
single office project. Also there is opposition to having a senior housing project that consists
of condos; he asked for explanation of concern with condos as opposed to rentals.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
8
Aarti Shrivastava:
• One of the big issues the Council went through when looking at Heart of the City was their
experience on parcelizing properties previously, e.g. Vallco and the Oaks. The Heart of the
City discourages parcelization because it recognizes that these are prime parcels in the city that
need to be retained for future economic development. Going to condos, parcelizing into more
than necessary lots creates a host of owners that makes redevelopment very difficult and
operation of uses very difficult; these projects have very intricate and complicated sets of
conditions, CC&Rs and as these properties are sold and resold, it is very difficult for all the
multiple parcels to get together and comply with the requirements. Staff agrees with the
premise of the Heart of the City because operationally they realize there is an issue as well.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he understood the concern about too much parcelizing and they have discussed it on some
small projects where people were cutting up two unit buildings into condos; however, the
project is a 143 unit project and he did not see how it constitutes parcelization. Does it mean
there is opposition to any condominium projects built in the city now?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• There are issues with condo projects built on parcels of great economic value to the city.
There are many parcels in the residential zones that are intended for nothing but residential
development and staff has no issue with those going to condos. It is only on parcels which are
either mixed use or mostly retail that staff has some concerns because they are concerned
about operation and the ability to redevelop them in the future.
• Parcel 5 is its own parcel; it is the intent that the garage will be used for retail and the hotel,
and one of the conditions requires that this parcel be tied to retail and hotel parcels and it can’t
be sold or developed separately.
Com. Brophy:
• Relative to office use and allocation, it is understood that the language as drafted previously
was the idea that it would be for a fiscal benefit to the city; is there a clear cut definition of
what that is or to the extent that this is not a free standing office building as might be found on
DeAnza Boulevard, to the extent that it is part of a mixed use project, would that be considered
a fiscal benefit.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• No, it is specifically office allocation and as written in the General Plan was supposed to be
reserved for major companies that either have sales tax offices or corporate headquarters; and
that new office development must demonstrate that it positively contributes to the fiscal well
being of the city. It specifically refers to any project that requests this particular allocation that
the office development contributes; and it is interpreted as sales tax revenue. There is wording
that says “retainer pool to be drawn down by companies with sales office and corporate
headquarters” and it says new office development must demonstrate that the development
positively contributes to the fiscal well being of the city.
• Said the term “market rate apartments” was a misnomer, and did not imply that the city
considers senior housing to be subsized housing; a more appropriate term should have been
called “unrestricted apartments” so there is no age restriction as senior units.
Kevin Dare: 500 Forbes, LLC:
• The plan presented does not request any variances and reflects the design guidelines associated
in the Heart of the City guidelines. It reflects the original plan objectives which include
creating a pedestrian oriented downtown environment; incorporating a mix of uses to energize
the project; providing a town square and open plaza areas with active open space; mix varying
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
9
architectural styles with rich detail and materials; create an environment where you will go for
an experience, not just a place to eat or shop.
• Said since their last presentation to the Planning Commission a few years ago, there has been
one of the worst economic downturns in modern history. That period of time was actually a
blessing in disguise; giving more time for them to reflect, speak with tenants and to study how
to improve Main Street even more. The revised plan not only is responsive to the tenants, but
also improves the overall circulation, parking and pedestrian accessibility for the overall
project. He said they feel the revised plan is that much better and something they can move
forward with. When the original plan was submitted several years ago, they purposely did not
submit any traditional type of housing units, because of the sensitivity to schools. Since then
they have received requests from numerous community stakeholders to study a project
alternative to incorporate studios and one bedroom units.
• He said the logic behind that was it may help the city meet the state’s mandated residential
requirements and provide housing for Cupertino’s growing community while creating a plan
that has low impacts to schools.
• Said it was not their intention to frustrate anyone with the introduction of the plan concept; nor
were they trying to sneak anything by anybody. In the most recent meetings with some
community leaders and community members, there was significant concern and sensitivity to
the issue. Based on those meetings, he stated he would like to remove from their application
the consideration of the concept of the traditional apartments.
• Said that he was hopeful that over a period of time, they built strong goodwill with the
community and they wanted to keep their word and make sure anything they do is embraced
and supported by the community.
• Expressed concern about two conditions of approval and one recommendation in the staff
report. Condition No. 4 requires that prior to the issuance of the building permit they must
demonstrate that the office tenant provides fiscal benefit to the city of Cupertino. That in and
of itself is not a component in the General Plan; while the statement is very broad they
understand that the requirement is defined and is interpreted that the tenant needs to be able to
provide sales tax revenue in order to qualify and be able to take space at Main Street. He said if
that is the interpretation of the policy, they will not be able to compete effectively in
a market place to attract office tenants, because it would mean that they would have only a
small scope of tenants to pursue. He pointed out that tenants don’t commit three years in
advance; the tenants are very big tenants and are growing so quickly they have to take space
that is presently available. Secondly, there are many tenants in Cupertino that would not even
qualify and not be able to come here because they do not produce sales tax revenue in the city.
There are also companies outside of Cupertino that would be interested in moving here, and
other large institutions that may be able to create fiscal benefit; they may not create sales tax
revenue and therefore would not be allowed to come to Main Street. He said this particular
condition shackles them with requirements that no other city puts on new projects. Cupertino
will lose tenants in town and will lose tenants that would come to town to neighboring cities
such as Santa Clara and Sunnyvale because these other cities are very development friendly
and they don’t put those types of requirements on their tenants.
• Another condition causing concern is Condition 29 related to the hotel; regarding the
requirement to provide usable balcony spaces rather than faux balconies. A 5 story hotel with
balconies becomes a liability issue for them and is something they cannot commit to.
• Another concern is staff’s recommendation to limit the office parcels to one parcel, which
severely limits them the ability to pursue different tenants in the market place. They cannot
build office projects at different times because both buildings would be under the same
collateral; they would have to build both 300,000 square feet at once, which means that even if
a single tenant wanted to be able to occupy space but take that space over a period of time, it
could not be done because of the limitations associated with that condition. There cannot be
two different lenders which would eliminate many tenants who would want the ability to
purchase their own building.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
10
• He also expressed concern about Condition No. 4, requiring the ability to produce sales tax
revenue which limits the scope of tenants they could pursue.
• He summarized that he felt the proposed project is actionable, one that they can move forward
with, as they have retail tenants, the hotel and office space.
Ken Rodriguez, Applicant:
• Reviewed the background of the project and a slide presentation which outlined the previous
proposal approved in 2009 and the proposed modifications to date.
Gary Layman, Lnndscape Architect:
• Continued the slide presentation, including a review of the proposed landscape plan
Com. Brophy:
• Asked applicant to explain why they felt they had to be able to parcelize the two office
buildings separately.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said the logic is several fold. Presently as they continue to pursue the plan, they want the
flexibility to build both buildings at the same time for one tenant, which is not always the
option available; as they may have two 150,000 sq. ft. tenants. He provided an example of one
tenant who was not going to take all 300,000 sq. ft. but only half of that. One of the things
important to them because of their time and investment, is the ability to have the long term
option to be able to own their own facility.
• Under the proposed scenario they would not be able to own their facility which was the one
significant inhibitor for them to come if the city could not provide them the ability to purchase
further down the road. He said they would not be able to build over time because they have to
have the same lender; there cannot be a construction lender and a permanent lender.
• Having two parcels still does not preclude the option of bringing one tenant to take both
buildings, but it gives the option of pursuing multiple tenants and be able to bring in multiple
tenants at different times as well. Also those tenants have a requirement that in the future the
option to be able to purchase and own their own facility because they invested so much money
and time into these locations.
• Explained that the parking garage would be a shared ownership between the two office
buildings; they were trying to limit the number of parcels and could practically separate that as
a third parcel by itself, but opted to include that parking as part of that parcel. The other tenant
that didn’t have ownership of that parking would have a cross easement to be able to use that
parking lot.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked if they could work out shared ownership of the garage, why does having it as a single
parcel prevent them from selling off one of the buildings, without separate parcelization.
• Asked if they were now proposing to move the park inward and the senior housing onto
Stevens Creek or is it the original configuration.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Alternative 4: Through some of the community meetings, some residents suggested moving
the park off Stevens Creek. He said he was not in favor of the park being on Stevens Creek
because of the safety factor and he felt that retail should be along Stevens Creek to promote its
pedestrian friendliness. It was suggested to move the retail with a slight amount of parking,
move the senior housing up slightly and place the park in the rear area. Another win/win was
the two retail buildings and the connection through to town square.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
11
Chair Miller:
• Said that what was presented at the meeting was different from what was in the agenda
packets, and he was pleased that the retail was back in the northwestern quadrant.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Chris Zhang, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was pleased to see the sensitivity to the community.
• Cupertino does not need a second Santana Row; this has been agreed upon by many
community members, Cupertino needs to have something unique.
• Small apartments and monster homes alike will send more students to the schools; consider
that in future planning meetings. The schools are under constant budgetary strains and good
school areas keep a low residential density and it is what makes Cupertino great and special.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was not in favor of the market housing element even though the applicant said it was
taken out. He wanted to make sure it was stamped in there; except for the senior housing.
• Said with regard to additional considerations for future housing, they need to keep in mind that
outside influences be considered on the infrastructure from homes recently built in west San
Jose near Hwy. 85 and the homes that will be built in the IHOP area in Santa Clara along
Stevens Creek. Traffic is now a problem with major pressure on DeAnza Boulevard; Wolfe
Road will be hugely impacted when the new Apple campus is completed. Traffic and schools
are a major concern.
• Relative to housing in Cupertino, he said he supported sensible growth, with a strong desire for
retail growth in Cupertino, but was not happy spending his tax dollars in Westgate, Valley Fair
or El Paseo. A former councilmember said they lost their chance to have a downtown back in
1962; this is potentially their last chance to have a greater impact on retail for Cupertino and he
does not want to see the great chance minimized by additional housing.
• Possible additional housing spaces will place more impact on the infrastructure, traffic and
schools. There are other upcoming housing projects and their impact will be seen. He said he
was aware that school impacts cannot be considered by the Commission or the Council but
pressures on adding more students without limits, as happened in the past, force their property
owners, schools and city to face more bond issues and potentially greater property taxes.
• He complimented Sand Hill for the exemplary project.
Stuart Chessen, Cupertino resident:
• Said overall he liked the plan but was concerned that they were asking for a five year extension
after the lot being empty for such a longer period. He questioned if it would delay plans
another five years and noted that Cupertino would likely go through many changes in the next
five years. He said he hoped the project wouldn’t be delayed further because of the present
problems with Vallco because it is so broken up with many owners.
• He voiced concern that the retail pads on the center of town square were too close to the creek;
and said he liked the location of the park and retail on Stevens Creek Boulevard, but
questioned whether there would be a problem with parking near the park.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said the community, staff and the city have a lot invested in this project and she felt it was
important to protect the integrity of the corner of Stevens Creek and Tantau which is the
gateway facing Loree Shopping Center. She said the buildings should be stepped, not too high
and ensure that there is green space along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
• She said she did not support having the park disappear back into the project; it then would
become a park for the Rose Bowl and the Rose Bowl was approved with no park. The park
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
12
would be more appropriate along Stevens Creek Boulevard across from Cupertino High
School; because she does not feel there should be a 4 story senior housing unit next to it. .
• She urged the Commission to keep the Ash trees along Vallco Parkway; Apple cut down the
Ash trees across the street and replaced them; the Rose Bowl cut down all their trees across
Vallco Parkway; there are no trees by Penneys, leaving the end of Vallco Parkway looking like
a devastation front.
Steven Scharf, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to project.
• Thanked the applicant for considering input heard at a recent meeting regarding the housing.
• Said he disagreed with Ms. Griffin about the park; he felt that Stevens Creek was not an
appropriate location for a park as parents would not want their children playing next to a six
lane divided highway; it should be back behind the senior housing, if there at all. He said he
would rather have more retail than a park.
• Expressed concern about the percentage of restaurants, 10% being very low in comparison to
Cupertino Village, Marketplace and Santana Row. Although parking is an issue, the parking
rules were disregarded for the other centers resulting in people parking in the neighborhoods. The
restaurants do make shopping centers successful; he would like to see the percentage higher than 10%.
• Said he also hoped that the Commission would require that bike facilities be added.
Robert McKibbin, (representing Barbara McKibbin, Janice and John Ishii, Cupertino
residents:
• Opposed to project.
• Said the first plan ran smoother than the second one because they had extensive meetings with
the public and were able to work things out, whereas the second one did not have any. Said it
was important in the future that the developers meet with citizens in a community meeting and
work out the details.
• Said he also represented Concerned Citizens of Cupertino and CARE which are the two
organizations who presented referendums about six years ago opposing housing on this site
and another site, because of the potential impact on schools and also the elimination of retail
land needed for tax dollars. Said he was pleased that the residential portion and the market rate
issues were no longer on the table. He encouraged everyone to read the report which
highlighted the impacts on Eisenhower and Sedgwick Schools.
• Said there was a need for senior housing in the community; however, staff recommended that
they not be changed to condos which would result in 150 parcels individually owned, not just 6
to 7 parcels. He suggested that the issue be studied further.
• Retail: the 2009 plan was for a maximum of 195,000 sq. ft. of retail, some of the elements in
these proposals reduce that down to 70,000 sq. ft. of retail which is totally unacceptable. He
emphasized that the 111,000 sq. ft. Marketplace is a successful neighborhood shopping center;
and they need a lot of retail in the proposed development and not less.
• He said the concept of having 10% maximum restaurant for the retail is unacceptable; Santana
Row almost failed because they didn’t have the restaurants there; now their restaurant space
takes up 50% to 70% of Santana Row. He said he felt it was important that staff is directed to
go back and look at the parking element in relation to 50% restaurant retail space and not 10%.
Much of the present and future development in the retail market is going toward restaurants
because people are dining out more. The city needs the sales tax, more retail is encouraged.
• The initial proposal for office space was 100,000 sq. ft., now asking for 300,000 sq. ft., with
requirements attached to 200,000 sq. ft. The city attorney said the in-lieu fee was illegal under
the scenario that we have with the city. It needs to be addressed and discussed further.
• Suggested that they have as much underground parking as possible; and review the retail
restaurant portion in relation to the parking.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
13
• City staff proposed Scheme 3A and 3B which is viable; no market rate housing; maximize
retail; maintain office space bonus criteria so there is an economic benefit from that specific
development. The cons of senior housing becoming condos needs to be reviewed and review
of the parking element regards to 50% ratio of restaurants.
Mike Charon, Cupertino resident:
• Said he resides on a street that ends on Finch Avenue and was concerned that their small
community would be used as a thoroughfare to get to the proposed development. He asked for
more information on what was being planned for traffic in the area, particularly in the area of
Highway 280 and Wolfe Road.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
• Said he concurred with Mr. McGibbon and Dennis Whitaker, and believed the philosophy if
you build quality retail, the customers will follow. The big commercial businesses are
expanding and there will be people to fill the seats in the restaurants and shop in the stores.
Said he was pleased that the housing issue was being addressed with the community outreach
by Sand Hill Properties.
• Said a major concern was what to do about the office. If you have a corporate campus
description in the General Plan that states you have to meet certain criteria and yet you can’t, it
calls for a General Plan amendment to access that extra office. If you do an in-lieu fee, it is a
one time payment; but if you have a campus come on board for years, you would set up a
development agreement with a specific amount of money over a period of years. It has to be
analyzed carefully and justified to the community that if you take an in-lieu fee what are you
giving up; especially if Apple moves into this and you have had a chance to get a retail
component and it is missed; Apple is there and no other corporation can come in and perhaps
be an asset to the community. He emphasized that it needed to be addressed.
• Relative to fiscal impacts, he said he agreed that the city has to be concerned about the fiscal
impacts and ensure there is enough retail to support infrastructure improvements over time and
not just rely on the big corporations in town. There needs to be a fallback plan; Market Place
has been successful and Main Street could be just as successful if it is supported.
Ruby Elbogen, Cupertino resident:
• Said she had been on every focus group since the project started and she appreciated that the
applicant has honored what they said they would do and they have amenable to what the public
wanted. He said the residents aren’t focused on the office space because Apple has two million
square feet coming in; and the people want retail at Main Street.
• He said he was not concerned about the park space and would rather have a bigger island of
green in the middle and more stores than a park.
• Said that if the hotel is not going to be four or five stories, there would be many families with
children and there would be a safety factor with the proposed balconies.
• Said she did not like the pads on the open space but it was not crucial.
• She does not support a five year extension and preferred them to start building soon.
Ned Britt, Cupertino resident:
• Said he concurred with most of the previous speakers.
• Thanked Sand Hill for meeting with community and taking into account issues regarding the
apartments and making changes. The previous dispute over the referendum of getting rid of
retail space and turning into residential space was answered clearly by the community 2/3
votes, and that spirit needs to always be considered. Said that he felt the issue of impacts on
schools is serious; and they understand why it is.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
14
Doug Frieson, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said he had a concern about the apartments and the impact on the schools; and the traffic
around Blaney Avenue and Lassen and Portal where he resides, but felt it was resolved. He
commented that it took one-half hour to go down Blaney Avenue around 8:30 a.m. when there
is heavy traffic to the schools.
Jason Lundgaard, (representing Apple):
• Opposed to the project.
• Expressed Apple’s opposition to drawing from the major company office allocation for this
project. When the square footage discussed today was added to that specific allocation in July
2009, at the time the Council did it specifically for the goal of facilitating the growth of major
companies currently in Cupertino and their future growth proposals and plans.
• The Council at that time specifically discussed an option to take some of the square footage
and put it in a different bucket for general office space development; they rejected that
proposal, and also rejected amending the definition in the General Plan to remove the word
“existing” from the existing major companies’ explanation; hence he felt that the proposal is
clearly contrary to the intent of that decision made in 2009, the proposal presented would take
190,000 sq. ft. from that allotment and tie it up for a period of 5 years with uncertain results.
• It was heard earlier that the company cannot necessarily commit they will be able to deliver a
company that will locate a sales office here. Furthermore, it is doubtful they can commit that
they are going to deliver any companies in that time. In the meantime, that allotment from this
major company office pool is going to be unavailable for any of the other existing companies
in Cupertino to use for their expansions. It is clearly a use that is not consistent with either the
language in the General Plan or the intent behind that decision in 2009.
Chair Miller:
• Asked Mr. Lundgaard whether Apple plans to use the entire allocation of that space.
Mr. Lundgaard:
• Said they would draw on the space in their current plan, but he was unclear to what extent,
partly because of ongoing negotiations with the city regarding how space is defined. He said
they were uncomfortable with the idea that the city would be using the square footage
allotment and giving those squares to a project that was not consistent with the intent when it
was laid out; and that would potentially jeopardize some of the projects down the line.
Patrick Kwok, Former Mayor and Cupertino resident:
• Was no longer present at meeting; staff conveyed his sentiment that originally he attended to
express concerns about the apartment complex and after learning that it is no longer the case, it
was no longer a concern.
Lisa Warren, Cupertino resident:
• Said she sent in an email earlier about her concerns.
• Said she did not fully understand the 10% maximum from retail for restaurant; regardless of
whether there is an athletic club or grocery or other retail in the back corner, is the athletic club
still considered retail; would the whole mix bethe same? Said that Sand Hill said that they
have many restaurants lined up; if 10% is not going to fulfill what they have tenants for, it
seems a shame to limit it to that.
• The auto court and under-office parking is a good idea from staff but it was not addressed by
the applicant. She would like information on that and would like to limit the stacked parking.
She did not support considering the parking around town square as part of town square; it is
parking. Town square has not changed since last time.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
15
• If the park is put behind the senior housing away from Stevens Creek and the retail is split
apart similar to the way staff drew their schematic, it opens it up to one bigger space.
Removing a dozen parking spots between the two would make a better connection. She said
she felt it was a good plan.
• Said she felt that both retail pads were not needed for town square; limit it to one small pad
and not two stories tall as it overpowers town square; portable kiosks could also be brought in.
• Said she was concerned about signage and lighting and would like to be involved when they
were discussed, since she felt unattractive signs and neon could destroy something otherwise
beautiful. She agreed with staff’s comment that the garage should look like a building, not a
parking garage; and she felt it was doable.
Hella Bluhn Stieber, Cupertino resident:
• Said she felt they were missing an opportunity for a big pedestrian zone around town square;
there is a connection to a park that could be, if the park is set back, and she agreed with
previous speaker that it would be sad to have the small retail buildings between the park and
the town square. It would also provide an opportunity to have a big open space for events. If
it is not possible to have a pedestrian zone all around town square, at least have it between the
park and town square.
• Said she felt there was a need for community meeting rooms and having retail buildings in the
town square or the park would be a suitable alternative. The applicant also mentioned a
possible creek trail, yet it was not shown on the schematics.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Said that relative to office allocation, the Apple rep indicated that the space was primarily
designated for a different purpose; he asked for staff’s interpretation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that staff’s understanding was that when the Council reserved 633,053 sq. ft. in the
General Plan their intent was to encourage major companies in Cupertino. There was interest
in helping existing companies, Cupertino sales offices and corporate headquarters to expand
using that square footage; and the interest was in attracting new companies of the same caliber
to Cupertino. She said that was their understanding and interpretation of how the square
footage should be used.
• Said the 633,000 sq. ft. would be available to existing companies to be drawn down; the
intention was also to encourage new companies to move in. A portion of it could be Apple, a
portion of it could be new companies; again of the same type, i.e., major headquarters, sales
tax, to bring fiscal revenue into the city.
Gary Baum, Special Counsel:
• Clarified that the Planning Commission does not have the power to exempt the applicant from
General Plan conditions; the Commission can recommend a change to the General Plan but
does not have the power to say they do not like the particular condition.
Chair Miller:
• Said he understood for the project to be built in a reasonable time frame they need that office
space or will lose the entire project. He was seeking a way around the conundrum so that the
project can be built, since it seems to have resident and community support and do it in a way
that everyone is reasonably comfortable.
• Said that many residents suggested that the park was not nearly as important as additional
retail. He asked staff to address if they considered using the park for retail instead of a park.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
16
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Responded no, the project was approved by Council with a .75 acre park and staff did not
question it.
• Relative to raising the restaurant limit from 10%, she said that it wasn’t staff’s specific
limitation, but a question of traffic and parking issues based on what the applicant could
provide in the project. The 10% is 10% of the 138,000 sq. ft. staff is recommending; if the
square footage of retail is a little lower because they put in the grocery store, staff would have
to look at what that mix means; and it would be a study of the traffic and parking impacts.
Raising the restaurant percentage with increased traffic and parking impacts, the applicant
would have to lower something else and they were not willing to lower the office, the units or
the hotel. Staff is not opposed to it in any manner; it was the applicant’s with based on
everything else they felt they needed.
Staff answered additional Commissioners’ questions about traffic circulation, parking, building
design, lighting, signage, and creek trail.
Chair Miller:
• Asked if the comments from residents that they would like to see more retail than what was
originally proposed in the initial plan, implied it would go beyond the boundaries of the EIR.
• He asked if staff felt that maximum amount of retail square footage is more important than
creating viable retail space?
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it would if the office square footage stayed as is. Staff recommends that the retail go up
to 138,700 which would maximize the amount of retail on the back northwest corner allowing
for all the retail small buildings as well as retail around the garage. Going beyond that would
exceed the boundary of the existing EIR.
• Staff would like it to be viable; they recommend the maximum amount of retail as proposed by
the applicant, and not beyond that.
Kevin Dare:
• Explained why they were requesting a five year extension even if they received approval to
build the project immediately. Following the original approval, no one expected, nor could
anyone predict the financial meltdown that occurred in the next three years. He said they don’t
have control over many things, and have the tenants they are working with today; and could
move forward with building; however they are seeking an extension in the event they need to
accommodate unforeseen circumstances.
• Said that if they did not get the amount they requested, the project would not go forward.
• Said he was pleased to hear that Apple may apply for retail space and they would welcome an
Apple store in Main Street.
• He questioned how it is defined in the General Plan, that new office development must
demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well being of the city. He
said they were not requesting a General Plan amendment, because of time constraints and they
want to be able to capture the market to where it is today.
Jim Randolph, Cornish and Carey, retail specialist:
• Said they were comfortable with the Stevens Creek frontage and its placement. He noted that
it has always been difficult how to plan the Vallco Parkway site because of the distance to the
parking garage when dealing with shopping carts, strollers, and children. The latest plan
showing some surface parking gives the greatest chance of being successful there.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
17
• He said he was happy to learn that the Commission was studying the 10% restaurant issue as it
is important to the project. He said that Cupertino would be an attractive place for the type of
food services and was hopeful that there would be some flexibility there.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said they have been working to develop different plans and would rate the locations as an A+
location on Stevens Creek Boulevard; A+ location in the middle of Town Square; and A
location around Town Square. They are presenting two plans, and including a third with the
athletic club, all viable plans; anything more than 130,000 square feet is going to be difficult.
Kevin Dare:
• The expectation is that they need more restaurant and that has been staff’s understanding as
well. Part of it is because there are so many moving parts and it is just a baseline condition
which they will continue to ensure with staff’s help that they maintain the traffic as well as
parking; whether that means they get to 15, 20 or 25% more square footage of restaurant, that’s
the intent.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Condition No. 7 says that base amount is 10% but staff can look at the restaurant square
footage based on the final mix as long as they meet the traffic and parking; which is the same
as the condition provided in the last report.
• Said there is nothing to prevent them from approving additional restaurant percentage as long
as the overall EIR is not breached, which is not different from the condition in the past. If they
increased the parking to justify the higher percentage of restaurant space, it would breach the
EIR limits if the traffic was increased.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said he agreed with the majority of the community members that the project is for a vibrant
downtown area, and in any downtown there is additional restaurant space typically more than
10%. He said he would like to see more vs. less.
• Said they had considered an auto court with underground parking, proposing a five level
garage and a four level garage, with one level of underground parking. He said that retailers
do not like to park in the basement and go shopping; therefore they have to be careful about
how much underground to put in and reserve it for office space. An above-ground structure
costs about $20,000 to build, and below ground is $48,000 per stall, which impacts the
viability of the project if they do that. He said they were willing to explore ideas with staff, the
Commission and the Council; but would like staff to consider the ramifications; if they add
another level it would have to be retail parking.
Com. Lee:
• Asked Kevin Dare if in their market research they considered having more than one anchor
tenant; did they consider putting an anchor store in the different locations instead of grocery
stores. Santana Row has three anchor tenants, Valley Fair has three anchor tenants. She
reiterated the need for some luxury retailers instead of grocery stores.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said for two years they have been out in the marketplace, and from a planning standpoint, he
felt the plan in the area could handle an anchor tenant.
Jim Randolph:
• Said when they started on the project, and how to make the retail work, they considered getting
one or two anchor tenants. Said they have to take into consideration the competitive forces
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
18
that exist on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Valley Fair is not just Santana Row, it is a
combination of Valley Fair and Santana Row and when you start to add number of tenants and
square footage, you are at the magnitude that is in the top ten nationally. Said the problem
with Vallco is the anchorability because they cannot compete with the other regional centers.
Crate and Barrel would be an ideal anchor, but would not go into a location in Cupertino.
Com. Lee:
• Said she understood that, but said there were other luxury upscale retailers that would come
here, the sister companies designed for the younger market may locate in Cupertino. Barneys
New York has no locations in the Bay Area, and five in Southern California.
Jim Randolph:
• Commented if those Com. Lee mentioned were looking at the market, they would look at
Union Square, Valley Fair or Walnut Creek; all the luxury stores have to be together in a
critical mass.
Com. Lee:
• Said they need a critical mass and that is why they need some anchor tenants; Santana Row is
26 acres; Main Street is 18 acres; there is enough space but the applicant is putting in so much
office. When Santana Row was built up it didn’t have that much office, only 55,000 sq. ft. She
said the mixture was all wrong, not enough retail, no anchor tenants; if the anchor tenant is all
the way in the back, people drive through Stevens Creek and don’t see the anchor tenant
because it is in a bad location.
Jim Randolph:
• Said that the last project Santana Row completed was to add office to their project; their
newest project is adding more office. They see the wisdom in cross shopping and see the
wisdom in having bodies there from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. who go to lunch and shop and that is the
reason they are adding those.
Com. Lee:
• Said they have been open for over 10 years. Have 55,000 sq. ft. of retail, and now are only
adding 55,000. There is a one to ten ratio; what are our ratios.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Initially in the Master Plan at Santana Row they had office; and are now increasing the office;
and decreasing the major tenants because they are not doing well. Jim Randolph is correct,
one can look at the numbers Best Buy does, the book store is closed and they have tried to
backfill that space for 18 months. He emphasized that 2-1/2 years of work of what he felt is a
very good commercial brokerage company shouldn’t be discounted.
Scott Sharp:
• Referring to the Santana Row office issue; said he had worked on the project since its
inception in 1998; it is basically a Master Plan and is market driven and they had flexibility.
They originally had two hotels and got rid of one to add more restaurants, all traffic driven.
They are now looking at two more offices of significant size because of where the market is
now; they could not have supported the office when originally built.
Com. Lee:
• Because they had all the anchor tenants first; they put all the anchor tenants on the corner of
Stevens Creek and Winchester to draw people in. Said they were not trying to replicate
Santana Row, but to be a successful center they needed more anchor tenants.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
19
Kevin Dare:
• Early on in the 22 meetings, they looked at the project as something unique and special to
Cupertino; and recognized the actual market realities that one of the country’s ten largest
successful shopping centers existed only 3-1/2 miles away. The successful elements of
Santana Row are the walkability, restaurants and small shop space. The center transformed
from selling high end designer merchandise to an area where the traditional average consumer
would shop. He said their goal was not to replicate Santana Row, but to have something
better and different. From a revenue standpoint, the hotel will generate over $1 million dollars
a year in revenue; from a restaurant standpoint, and retail standpoint, it will be better than
Santana Row. The mix of uses is going to be the right fit; the community feels it is a right fit.
Com. Brophy:
• Said when working in Chicago 25 years ago, in aftermath of Prop 13 he would be contacted by
cities wanting to have regional malls because of the desire for sales tax. What he quickly
learned was that the anchor tenants, whether in a standard size regional mall or luxury center
only want to go where it is already successful.
• As Jim Randolph stated, if you have a high end luxury brand like Barneys New York, No. 1
would be downtown San Francisco, No. 2 probably in the Valley Fair area, and if considering
a third store, in Walnut Creek. There is no way that they would come to Cupertino and in his
opinion they have to deal with the world as it is and not as they would like it to be.
Jim Randolph:
• Retailing today is changing drastically because of the internet; everything available in stores
can be purchased on the internet; stores are downsizing and getting smaller and smaller. The
internet is not going to kill the grocery business any time soon; they might encroach on it but it
is still a very important draw and that is why you see so much segmentation in the grocery
offerings. The real anchors of today are the food uses, the restaurants; and in any new center
there is probably going to be food uses that are attracting people, because there are no real new
retailers that are willing to take a chance to go as outside the proven retail market.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said the new plan could change and it is worth thinking ahead for 10, 20 or 50 years on the
success of the center and also what kind of anchor, either restaurant or luxury store should be
brought in. He said they may need more time to consider the plan, discuss the parking garages
and possible apartment or retail space changes. The City Council will discuss the new plan on
May 1st; perhaps there can be more options to consider to build a successful Cupertino Center.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said that since the January 2009 approval they have been talking to tenants, trying to attract
and create a plan to present. In the current proposal, they are building and committing to build
more that what was previously approved. Comments from the community indicate their
support of the plan except for the apartments, which has been taken off the table. He said he
agreed with the suggestion to have one more community outreach meeting between now and
the City Council meeting.
Com. Lee:
• The project claims there will be shopping and dining destinations, which is what they wanted,
but the project as presented does not have a chance of succeeding as a mixed use, vibrant
downtown environment. Said there was not enough square footage for retail; there is no major
luxury department store or anchor tenant; the anchor tenant is going to be hidden in the back
and it will be a disappointing market. She stressed the importance of having an anchor store for
a successful project; other centers have two or three major anchor tenants. No one commented
that they needed a market in the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
20
• Some people said that they don’t like it that their sales tax dollars are going to neighboring
cities; there is a loss of sales tax revenue and it is affecting Cupertino. There are potential
department stores that would do well; Santana Row has 70 stores, and 26 acres, and the
proposed project is 18 acres.
• Said the agrarian themed architecture leaves much to be desired and is very uninspiring. She
said they could pay homage to Cupertino’s past without everything look barn-like. She
referred to some centers with European architecture and use of imports from European
countries used for building décor, facades, etc. She said the Residence Inn Hotel was not the
hotel they were looking for; the architecture is uninspiring even if colors were changed. She
pointed out that Santana Row has a trendy boutique atmosphere and is named after the street
that runs through the project.
• Referring to the site plan, she said that it was a disadvantage that shoppers would have to cross
the street back and forth many times to shop in different stores. It could be more continuous
with a better retail presence along one side similar to Santana Row. Relative to the proposed
development; instead of the second office building she illustrated where an anchor store could
be placed, with one in the middle, at the southwestern part of it and another anchor in the back
which is the least desirable because it is away from Stevens Creek.
• She did not support the idea of having an athletic club because the Bay Club already existed
and will open shortly. Other comments were that the apartments were a done deal; and the
senior housing should not have an age restriction on the apartments. She suggested that if the
apartments were limited to 800 square feet it may discourage families with children from
moving in, resulting in contributing to the overcrowding school problem. Younger people
could take advantage of living in the mixed use development.
Com. Brownley:
• Referring to the Phase 2 site plan, said he preferred the park location more north, not along
Stevens Creek. Said he liked the amenities for the growing community; it is a good mix of
retail, senior housing, office and park space. The financial benefits for the city provide good
opportunities for both the city and the school system. While there is a lot of parking and areas
for cars to move through there was a lot of emphasis on the facades of all the areas
encouraging walkability and pedestrian activity. He said he did not support strips of grass in
the town square, but small pads would make it a walkable area.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the site is not Santana Row, Valley Fair or Vallco, but just a faux small town downtown;
no more, no less. He said he felt there was no point in discussing trying for something grander
as it would not get off the ground. There may be sales tax leakage out of Cupertino but there is
no way of stopping that. The key point of tonight’s discussion was that there is a strong desire
for retail and this is the only chance for a downtown, since the chance was lost 50 years ago. If
there is going to be a downtown, it is going to be in the proposed location or nowhere else.
• He said he felt they have to come up with uses that create a quality downtown experience in a
small town way, but it is not going to happen unless they get a development that makes
financial sense for the developer, who will not build out of philanthropic desire.
• Said he had hoped at the beginning of the discussion that they could accept two office
buildings under the special cap on the grounds that unlike a typical office building on DeAnza
Boulevard, what they are providing to the community is not only financial benefits in terms of
sales tax revenues from the connected uses such as the hotels, retail space, but creation of a
downtown that in many ways is worth more than many corporate headquarters are.
• Said that relative to Apple’s opposition, they should be sensitive to Apple’s needs, and he
would like to see that problem resolved.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
21
• Because of the late hour, he said the focus should be on whether or not they want the project,
and if they do, come up with concepts that make economic sense rather than just have wishful
dreams that are not going to go anywhere.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said his general comment is the same as mentioned earlier in the meeting; for this critical part
of the development, perhaps consider a different alternative to make it a better concept which
is the definition of success of the Cupertino center. If they put two office buildings there, he
said he did not agree with Com. Lee that they need the anchor luxury store but perhaps some
other store such as an Apple store. There may be more space to redo the layout and make it a
more walkable area.
Chair Miller:
• Said the objective in the South Vallco Master Plan was to have a downtown area where
residents could congregate and socialize as well as have a place where they could do some
additional retail shopping. This project achieves that objective. The second objective was to
have some significant amount of retail that would serve the residents as well as the city from a
financial standpoint and sales tax. The third key objective was connectivity to the other
projects, the Menlo Equities project, Rose Bowl and if possible to some extent to Vallco. He
felt the project is making a good attempt at doing that and the plan shown tonight is improved
and moves it a lot further along.
• Said he was pleased with the presentation and agreed that given the size of the center and what
surrounds it, that it made sense to have a very strong restaurant component there which would
drive the center and make it more successful. The applicant indicated that the city could
receive about $1.7 million per year in tax revenues from the project which would be an
immense benefit to the city in the struggling economy. He said he would like to see a way
where the restaurant component is improved from what it is. He said he was not certain of the
need for the anchor tenants in the proposed project; he felt the anchor tenants belong in the
regional center at Vallco.
• Said he was pleased with the project and would like to see it move forward and not stalled
again, as they have been trying to build the site out for at least ten years. It is time to move the
project forward and do the best job they can.
The Commission addressed the following questions:
1. Parcelization
2. Mix of retail and residential uses
3. Office use and allocation – Major companies General Plan requirement
4. Parking garage for the office development
5. Retail pads in Town Square
6. Hotel – type, size and amenities
7. Alternate site plan and park relocation
1. Parcelization:.
Com. Brownley:
• Appreciated applicant’s comments about the managerial difficulties of taking care of it if they
become combined, but also felt that staff’s recommendation for operational simplicity going
into the future and for redevelopment made sense. Said he supported avoiding parcelization
for both plots and supported staff recommendation on senior housing condominimizing.
Com. Lee:
• Said it was important to keep the six parcels; she supports staff recommendation on the senior
housing condominimizing.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
22
Com. Brophy:
• Two separate issues: Said he saw no reason they should not allow the development of the
senior residence as condos as opposed to rental units. It is a standard form of housing and
stating it is splitting up the parcel does not make sense. There are many senior condos that will
be around for 50 years or more. Said that if they have to live by the terms of major company,
it sets a much higher bar for them to develop and under those circumstances, he would be
willing to change his mind and split the office into two parcels.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said it doesn’t make sense to force them into one parcel; two parcels is still appropriate and
helps them run business easier. Relative to the condos, you cannot force the business owner or
land user to put them into rental units or home ownership; let them decide whether they should
be condos or rental units.
Chair Miller:
• Said he concurred with Coms. Brophy and Sun; the desire is to give the applicant the best
chance of making this project successful and it makes sense that the two separate office
buildings are two separate parcels. Staff wants to be able to redevelop it, but it won’t happen
for 50 or 60 years. Menlo Equities and the Rose Bowl have done condos next door and he
would support condominimization of both items.
2. Mix of Retail and Residential Uses:
Aarti Shrivastava
• Staff’s recommendation was to allow a maximum of what the applicant proposed, which is
138,000 sq. ft. and to approve one residential project; it is a moot point.
3. Office Use and Allocation Major Companies General Plan Requirement
Aarti Shrivastava:
• It is a Council policy; staff recommended approval of the office square footage; does the
Planning Commission agree.
Com. Brophy
• Given the opposition from Apple, he said he felt they should take the position that they are
going to have to deal with it, with staff’s interpretation of the term.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said he agreed with Com. Brophy.
Com. Lee:
• Said she did not support further office space increase in square footage.
Com. Brownley:
• Said he agreed with the allocation of office space square footage for the project.
Chair Miller:
• Said he would like to see the increased allocation of office space; it needs to be supported if
the project is going to be built. He said he would leave it up to City Council to decide where
the office space comes from, whether from the major companies; General Plan office space or
some other place, as the Council put the original restrictions on it. From his standpoint, he
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
23
recommended that the Council find a way to increase the allocation, without telling them how
to do it.
4. Parking Garage for the Office Development
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The concept was to find a way to reduce the amount of garage partly because it has an impact
on Vallco; the other part being the front of the two office buildings from the garage; staff felt
that if a major corporation was going to come in, they wanted to provide them with something
that would feel more like a campus, but yet in a downtown and not have a garage facing them.
The applicant is open to exploring some options to add a level of garage on the other garage, a
fifth level originally approved as a five level garage; and staff would prefer to see that and a
three level office garage in the front of the two office buildings.
Chair Miller:
• Asked if it would leave them one level short.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it was her understanding they could make it work and the surface could be used as surface
parking partly; it doesn’t always have to be an auto court. They are doing an underground
level on both; if you take two of the levels, staff feels that the auto court level can make it
work. Referred to the site plan and illustrated the current underground garage levels, and
outlined the proposal for the underground and above ground level parking garage.
Com. Brownley:
• Said he supported the idea of putting more parking beneath ground level. To the extent that
each garage could be designed, the outside could be designed to be appealing or look like a
building which would be a step in the direction of what is being proposed to make the two
office buildings an appealing façade for anyone coming into work in those buildings.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said from a planning standpoint, if they added one level above and one level below they could
continue to park a project as shown. The front of the project is on Stevens Creek Boulevard;
he said he might consider moving the office building back to try to get more retail out on
Stevens Creek which would help the plan. He would like to work with staff and explore that
option. He commented that if two levels are below grade, the retailers will not park down
there; they have to be cautious not to do too much underground parking. The office building
will park below grade since they come in once and leave later in the day. Two levels below
grade would work for the offices; the result would be a five level garage above grade.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that Kevin Dare brought up a good point about moving the building back; staff would like
to study that if the Planning Commission is interested; it would be a four story building hiding
a five story garage. She said they like the concept of the buildings hiding the view of the
garage as you enter. She said staff had concerns about moving the building back.
Com. Brownley:
• Said he supported the idea that the garage has been changed to conform to the area and made
smaller; and was open to exploring different parking garage options if that is being proposed.
He said if it is still going to be some form of one or two level parking garage, they needed to
ensure that the outside is designed well.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
24
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the applicant was considering eliminating the garage entirely and building one extra level
above and one extra level below, so it would become a 7 story, two below and five above.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Santana Row is an example of 7 level parking with no basement parking. He said they must be
cautious about not putting too much underground parking there. It is significantly more
expensive to put it in the basement than above, the numbers double. He said they need to
explore with staff and make sure it can work for both the tenants.
• The market called for that; which is why they presented a proposal for a four level garage and
a five level garage and no basement parking. Said after discussions with staff, it became
apparent that they would like to have more underground parking. He stated for the record that
he felt the original proposal was the best one which had two garages above grade.
Com. Brownley:
• Said he would leave it as is, since it was already modified to conform to the area. He said he
was not so concerned about underground parking in terms of voting tonight, but with a strong
recommendation that they meet with staff and discuss any alternatives for adding additional
levels beneath ground; and also for any area that is above ground, looking at what the exterior
of the structure looks like.
Com. Lee:
• Pointed out that the regional shops on Stevens Creek are just one story and the garage is four
or five stories; there is not such a difference adding a story or two; the retail shops aren’t going
to hide anything, unless you put senior housing over the retail shops, resulting in a couple of
stories in front and a couple of extra stories for the parking garage. She said she would like
more retail along Stevens Creek and would support five or six stories of parking to get the
applicant some options to explore.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Relative to the parking issues, said he supported staff’s proposal, but also liked applicant’s
proposal for an office building off Stevens Creek Boulevard to leave some space for retail. He
said he did not support the two levels underground two levels, which would cost the people too
much money; the other option being one floor on the top of four that becomes five, and one
floor a parking lot. He asked it was possible to put one in the other office building underneath
or in the hotel underground.
Ken Rodriguez:
• Said they studied it extensively and did not propose it because it takes so much longer to build
the building; adding about 9 to 12 months to the project and significant costs. They thought it
better to concentrate the parking into one area. Staff said to make it look really nice and many
of the commissioners concurred.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he supported the parking proposal currently planned.
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported the current parking arrangement that the applicant submitted tonight and
would be willing to give them the flexibility to explore other options, including moving the
building back and putting more retail on the street. Said he would support a five story parking
garage.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
25
5. Retail Pads on Town Square
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would like to see a design in the town square as it is a central feature. Staff should
work with the applicant to come up with a concept that makes the town square the key of the
project. He noted that Union Square in San Francisco was a good example of putting buildings
into a square that was previously a dead zone; it now has a café with seating areas on the east
side and a theater ticket booth on the west side, which has made it a lively area.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said he did not agree with the applicant on comparison with Santana Row. During the year the city
may not have more than 20 big events in the town center square; if comparing benefit and cost, he said
he would support staff’s recommendation to remove the retail pad.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said staff’s recommendation was not to remove them entirely but to reduce the size and/or
possibly take out the one in front; not certain what retail would go in 1500 square feet space.
Kevin Dare:
• Said a Starbucks or coffee shop would go in a 1500 to 1800 square foot space.
Com. Lee:
• Recommended reducing the pad size one to 1500 square feet and eliminate pad 2 which is the
southern pad building.
Com. Brownley:
• Supports keeping the retail pads as they are.
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported keeping them there as well, and also agreed with Coms. Brownley and
Brophy that the goal was to build the best design possible and work with staff on that.
6. Hotel type size and amenities:
Com. Lee:
• Would prefer a boutique trendy hotel instead of Residence Inn; 200 rooms is appropriate; the
community and City Council want a banquet hall with 400 person capacity.
Com. Brownley:
• Agreed with Com. Lee about the quality of the hotel, should be representative of Cupertino, 5
star high quality/high class. As presented today, the banquet hall was also banquet
hall/restaurant/flexible use and flexibility was an enhancement. Would support a flexible use
space within the hotel.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said he agreed that the hotel should be 5 star high class; no objection to proposed site for hotel;
would support a 300 person capacity banquet room requirement.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the Commission could recommend that; staff is recommending what the applicant is
proposing; instead of the 400 person banquet hall that he be allowed to provide a 6500 square
foot restaurant/meeting facility. Staff feels the proposal is appropriate.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
26
Kevin Dare:
• Said that there is currently not a full service extended stay hotel in Cupertino; their Los Altos
Residence Inn was 88% full last year vs. 60% to 70% occupancy of other traditional hotels; the
room rates for their hotels are higher than what other full service hotels are in other areas
which will benefit Cupertino. The hotel will be a high end, trendy, high quality five star hotel;
and it will have all the restaurants and amenities on hand.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he supported whatever hotel the applicant can get to sign up for the project.
Vice Chair Sun:
• Concurred with Coms. Lee and Brownley to upgrade the hotel.
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported the applicant as it is a marketing decision and one for the experts; the
applicant stated that the hotel will bring in $1.2 million in sales tax revenues. The hotel will
provide services primarily for the companies in town for business during the week, not
primarily for people visiting on weekends for guest stays.
Kevin Dare:
• Commented that the point about the $1.2 million per year T.O.T. is dependent on this
particular hotel. He said there are 2,000 hotels in America in foreclosure; they cannot build a
full service trendy type concept.
7. Alternative Site Plan and Park Relocation
Com. Brophy:
• Said it should be moved back; it is a block away from a high school with 1600 students.
Suggest that it be moved back into the corner where it serves more of the project and the
adjoining residential projects, and frees up land that is better used for retail.
Coms. Lee, Sun, Brownley:
• Support moving it back off Stevens Creek
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said the applicant recently showed a site plan that staff had not seen, but looks similar to the
site plan they were recommending with some amendments; and staff was not opposed to it.
Misc Issues:
Issue of Ashes vs. Pear on the back.
Com. Brophy: Supports Ash trees on the back.
Vice Chair Sun: Supports Applicant’s choice.
Com. Lee: Make it continuous; get rid of Ash trees.
Com. Brownley: Make it continuous; leave it to City Council to make a final decision.
Chair Miller: Keep the Ash trees.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 27, 2012
27
Real Balconies vs. Faux (Juliet) Balconies
Faux Balconies: Com. Brophy, Sun, Brownley, Miller
Real Balconies: Com. Lee
VTA passes for seniors
Eliminate Condition: Chair Miller; Coms. Brophy, Sun, Brownley
Supports VTA passes per Council direction: Com. Lee
Chair Miller: Said that the applicant dropped the market rate; suggested removing it.
Com. Brophy: No. 4; said they decided to split the office lots and allow the apartments to be sold
.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Brophy, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Lee
voted No; to approve M-2011-09, ASA-2011-24, TM-2011-04 and the Addendum
to the Final EIR, with the modifications regarding market rate apartments and
Item 4 combining office lots and condos, have been modified and also other items
addressed, including Items 1 through 7 with the modifications
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No report; tonight’s item covered
at meeting.
HOUSING COMMISSION: No Meeting.
MAYOR’S MONTHLY MEETING: No meeting.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 10, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: ____________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary