Loading...
101-draft minutes.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. May 8, 2012 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 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 Commissioner: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioners absent: Vice Chairperson: Don Sun Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Assistant Planner: Simon Vuong City Attorney: Carole Korade APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the April 24, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting: Com. Lee recommended the following changes: Page 3, Mr. Wisenhunt text: after “and that is the biggest” add word “contribution” MOTION: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried 4-0-0; Com. Sun absent; to approve the April 24, 2012 minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None other than those related to the project. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING Chair Miller: • Explained that both Items 2 and 3 would be discussed together as they are part of the same project with the same developer. Speaker time will be limited to 3 minutes each for either/or Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 2 both projects. He noted that a number of emails have been received by the city with regard to the school district and the city attorney will comment. City Attorney: • The project and the jurisdiction of the city and the Planning Commission in particular relates to the land use aspects of this application, things such as traffic, siting of the buildings, design of the buildings, etc. • She clarified that the city does not have jurisdiction over any of the issues that pertain to either Cupertino Union or Fremont Union High School Districts. The city is not in a position to deal with some of the issues that have been raised and some of the communications such as parcel tax. Speakers may comments on those issues, but the Planning Commission cannot act on anything that relates to matters beyond its jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the city and those issues would have to be brought up with the school district as opposed to the city. 2. DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, Mixed Use Development of 89 apartment units and (EA-2011-16) TR-2012-18 7,000 sq, ft. of commercial space; development permit Mike Ducote (Promethius to allow the demolition of an approx. 20,000 sq. ft. Real Estate) existing commercial building and construction of a 20030, 20060 Stevens Creek mixed -use project consisting of 89 apartment units and a Blvd., 10041 Blaney Ave. 7,000 sq. ft. commercial building. Architectural and Site Approval for a new mixed-use development consisting of 89 apartment units and a 7,000 sq. ft. commercial building; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of approx. 57 trees to facilitate the construction of a new apartment complex; Mitigation Negative Declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date: June 5, 2012 3. DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, Development Permit to allow the construction of 12 new (EA-2011-15) TR-2012-13 residential units at an existing apartment complex; Mike Ducote (Promethius Architectural and Site approval for 12 new residential Real Estate) units within an existing apartment complex; Tree 10159 So. Blaney Ave. Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement (Lake Biltmore) of approx. 5 trees to facilitate the construction of two new apartment buildings. Mitigated Negative Declaration. Tentative City Council hearing date: June 5, 2012 Simon Vuong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application from Promethius Real Estate Group to approve development permits to allow the demolition of approximately 21,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and to construct 101 apartment units and a 7,000 sq. ft. commercial building. In addition architectural site approvals for site and building improvements and associated tree removals are also submitted for approval. • He reviewed the project site and background information for both the Stevens Creek site and the Biltmore Apartment site. In applying the city’s Heart of the City density requirements, the project would need to be reduced by two units on the Stevens Creek site in order to stay within the maximum density allowed, which is 87 units; therefore staff recommends approval of 87 apartment units instead of the proposed 89. On the Biltmore site, 12 apartment units are proposed to be added to the 179 unit apartment complex; the maximum density allowed on Biltmore apartments is 202 units, not 220 as noted in the staff report. The project will not draw from the Heart of the City commercial balance of 105,876 sq. ft., instead a net of 14,000 will be returned to the balance for new net commercial balance of 119,000 sq. ft. However, the project will draw from Heart of the City residential balance of 308 residential units. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 3 • He reviewed the site plan, architecture overview, commercial building and retail viability; circulation; landscape plan; parking, community outreach; and building elevations. • The project has also been reviewed by the Public Works and Building and Fire Departments. A neighborhood meeting was held in March 2012, the city notice of Public Hearing was mailed out on April 18, 2012, to those who attended the meeting and also those within 500 foot radius of the site. The city website was also created and several community members have expressed their concerns about the potential impacts of the project. It was estimated that 40 students would be generated by the project. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the development permit, architectural site approval, tree removal permit and mitigated negative declaration in accordance with the draft resolutions. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions about the project. John Moss, Prometheus Real Estate Group: • Said they were proposing housing at this particular location because the city recently made a concerted effort to go ahead and identify it as a housing site for the State of California. Plans are consistent with the city’s vision as it relates to creating housing opportunities at this particular location. The city’s housing element was put together in 2010 and only 12 sites remain; 3 of which are presented to the Commission for review. • He said the choice to build apartments as opposed to townhomes or condos does not eliminate the impact on schools, but the mix of 55% of the units as one bedroom apartments, and 45% of the units as 2 bedroom apartments mitigates the impact. Townhomes or condos would typically have 3 and 4 bedroom units; instead of 1 and 2 bedroom units, therefore the impact to both schools and traffic would tend to be much more significant than with the apartment development proposed. • Other benefits of project include parks and jobs. If the project is approved, applicant is obligated to pay approximately $800K in the way of parks fees and the city could reinvest those monies or invest those monies into existing parks or attempt to create new park space. Cupertino and its neighboring cities have created a significant number of jobs recently; including the Apple campus with 3.1 million sq. ft. of office space that will clearly create more jobs in this area. The development will provide a very small fraction of the housing demand as a result of all of the new commercial space that is going to be proposed in the city shortly. • Relative to retail, he said choosing a size for the proposed retail was most important to ensure first and foremost that they would propose a building that would maximize their chances of attracting the finest retailers possible, which would include a number of things in terms of quality, location, access, and visibility. They met with retail brokers in the industry to get feedback on what retailers are looking for and the results of that discussion simplified their thinking in terms of size of the retail. • They maximized the length of the retail along Stevens Creek with the two access points that were eluded to earlier with parking on either side of them; as a result maximized that length and were about 190 feet on the length of the retail; and retail experts suggested that 40 foot bay depths were appropriate to attract the best retailers. • The retail building was designed purposely to be 1-1/2 stories in height to create a prominent and iconic aesthetic at this particular location that will catch the eyes of prospective customers but will still retain the classic form of architecture. • He commented on the current retail tenants; Chilis business is not viable and will close within 12 months regardless of whether the redevelopment proposal proceeds or not. The other restaurant has been occupying only one half of the building; the other half remains vacant. The building has had a number of different tenants over the last 15 years; all of which have gone out of business while they were there. The retail building in the back of the property is old and Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 4 • dated. The present retailers in their buildings are invited back when the project is complete and some have expressed interest in doing so, and other prospects are being sought out. • The plans are appropriate both on the retail side and residential side as they are consistent with the city’s General Plan, the Heart of the City Plan and all the zoning ordinances, including but not limited to height, densities, setbacks, landscape and traffic and any and all design guidelines. The Heart of the City Plan was just updated by the Council and Commission in 2010 and they are consistent with the Plan. He noted they were not requesting any variances in their project proposal. • In terms of the two units, he explained that the calculation in their plans for the number of units on the new property allows for two fewer units than what was proposed. They have provided parking for those two units and have not yet gone ahead and redesigned the project to incorporate those two units elsewhere; but they plan to work with their architect to come up with a reasonable proposal on how those two units could be added back to the Biltmore property where the densities are undershot by more than 10 units. Com. Brownley: • Asked staff if the Commission could go forward with the recommendation for 87 apartments and consider the reallocation of two units at another time. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the applicant was informed that all the Planning Commission is taking action on or making a recommendation on is the 87 and the 12; any other changes will have to come through separately with a separate hearing. • Said that a transfer of development rights could not be done because it is two separate parcels and the zoning is different on each parcel. They are proposing it on the Biltmore apartment sites, not on the new mixed-use site; changes are not part of tonight’s discussion. Com. Lee: • Asked if any consideration was given to a two story retail building. John Moss: • Said they looked at providing an additional story on top of the retail; looking at different uses for residential, retail and office; and in talking with the brokerage community and also experience with other projects, it was determined that it was rare to have retail above another floor of retail. The only times it has been successful is in a much larger retail environment where you have a large shopping center and some of the spaces may be on a second floor; but in the smaller retail developments, retailers have found it difficult regardless of what the rent is, to be able to make a success of it and make it viable. It is difficult to get customers to go up to a second level. Also, the retailers on the first level usually don’t like to have the retail up above them at the same time; it creates a deterrent to attract the highest quality retail tenant on the first floor as well. • Relative to office space, they felt that the small square footage would make it difficult to attract tenants. He said they do have a plan to come forward with an office development that would be rather significant down the street, closer to City Center that would be able to accommodate significantly more office space than what they could provide if on the second floor of the building. • Relative to a concern from a resident about the potential use of apartment building rooftops being used for parties and other sources of noise generation, he said there would not be any sources of noise generation from any type of rooftop amenity. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 5 David Johnson, Christiani Johnson Architects: • Said that the goal of the project was to create a collection of pedestrian inclusive gathering places and a positive and memorable experience. The proposed project replaces an existing land use pattern that has the overall impression of an automobile parking lot; and their attempt was to create a more fine grained neighborhood consisting of streets lined with buildings and pedestrian friendly sidewalks focused on open spaces. The use of underground parking enabled the site to be opened up, and provide large courtyards and sidewalks. The project provides the advantages of mixed-use development which offers residents shopping within walking distance. A variety of building heights was considered ranging from 1-1/2 stories to 2; buildings are contemporary style which is compatible with high tech companies in Cupertino. They worked with staff on five submittals and responded to comments, met with the city’s consultant and staff and made a number of significant changes based on the comments; resulting in a fine tuned project. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Chris Zhang, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said the three issues he wanted to discuss relative to the project are schools, traffic and parking. Relative to schools, he said he felt the reason they have not heard from the school board is that the schools are already overcrowded; it is not a question of when or if, and they cannot afford to have more students. He felt city staff has provided a very low estimate of students without elaborating how they arrived at the numbers, which also occurred during the Sandhill project. • Traffic in that area will be impacted heavily with the addition of the new Apple campus at Wolfe and the proposed project. • Relative to parking, there is not enough parking around the particular area and the addition of another 100 units would likely cause a shortage of parking. Ruby Elbogan, Cupertino resident: • Said she felt the project was too dense; just when Cupertino is finally getting more retail, they are proposing to take 21,000 sq. ft. of retail and reduce it down to 7,000 which is inappropriate. She commented that the market was well liked and well used in the neighborhood and said that just because it was not attractive, did not mean that it was not popular with the residents. She also said that it was odd that after updating the tree ordinance, they are now proposing to remove 70 trees, two of them specimen trees, and she felt it was inappropriate. • The traffic is a serious concern especially in the morning when children are being driven to school. There are also safety concerns relative to the children walking to school, and crossing at the crosswalk because of the poor visibility. Parking is an issue because there are 87 spaces for 87 apartments. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased that the applicant respected the Heart of the City Plan; many people in Cupertino have spent a lot of time wanting to make sure that the Heart of the City is retained with the lush green 35 foot setback down Stevens Creek. She applauded the use of underground parking; as the sites get more congested, more density, underground parking is the way to go as it frees up more surface space. • She requested an update on the plans for the street trees and various trees on the project property, as some may be protected trees. • Other concerns include traffic problems; what sort of upgrades will be made to the Blaney and Stevens Creek intersection; what monies are being put in by the developer to upgrade that poor Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 6 compacted intersection. Said she was also concerned about the loss of the businesses and having small retail in the front. She commented about Chilis closing because their parking lot was full when she visited recently. Building A is severe looking; it is modern style and doesn’t fit in with the other buildings. Priya Tiruthani, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the project. • Said they moved to Cupertino because of the excellent schools and are aware of the funding challenges the Cupertino schools face. It is because of this concern that they would like to halt any new apartment community within the burrows of CUSD; starting with this proposal to construct 101 new apartments. She said in her opinion apartments were not a viable way for the community to go, compared to the condos and individual homes developed in the same area; because apartments seldom change hands, rarely gets reassessed which results in lower property tax contribution undermining the contribution to the school system. Apartments are high density units contributing to more students per square foot area; incorrect measures are used to generate student generation report to evaluate the impact; the student generation report talks about student generated per unit whereas the correct measure to use would be to have the students generated per $1,000 of property tax. • She said they need to be more cognizant of the democratic shift to the young families who can only increase the number of students expected per unit; the development fund provided by Promethius can help build additional classrooms, but will fall short on the operational costs of the school district. Besides impact to the school, the high density dwelling units increase traffic and pollution. • On behalf of other parents who shared similar concerns about this development proposal, she urged the Commission to deny the proposal. Murali Gandluru, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • He said he concurred with previous speakers on many concerns, but schools was the number one concern. Although his son was part of a lottery system for Eisenhower School last year, he was not sure he would attend that school because of the over-flooding of the schools because of the apartment complexes. He said there is nothing wrong with having a fix of apartment complexes and homes, but the problem is that it is not sustaining the infrastructure; we are not helping due to the points mentioned regarding the property taxes that apartment complexes pay which don’t change hands often. • The elementary and high school districts in Cupertino are part of the top districts in the Bay Area and if the infrastructure goes down, if Cupertino’s students cannot attend the schools and are shuttled around from school to school because of overflow, that is not a situation the residents want to be a part of. • Said that traffic is a serious issue along with parking issues especially in this part of the neighborhood. Many of the points previously mentioned are significant issues. Apple is building a huge complex; schooling is by far the number one issue. • He urged the Commission to give more serious consideration to adding more apartment complexes as it will cause hardships to many of the current residents of the area. Chair Miller: • Clarified they were not the City Council, but the Planning Commission and noted that the application will go to the City Council June 5th. Mark Moshfegh, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the project. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 7 Said that the proposed project land has been an eyesore for 8 years, and he did not feel the proposed project is the answer. In the past 8 years there have been a number of projects built within a one mile radius. He asked what evidence there was to support more units. He said daily traffic is a mess, and he also disagreed with the statements about number of school children that would be generated by the proposed project. People move to Cupertino mainly because of the schools and families will cram one or two kids into a one bedroom apartment just so their children can attend Cupertino schools. • Said he was concerned about the present number of vacancies in retail and commercial spaces and they did not need more empty spaces. He strongly disagreed that the project would bring more jobs to the area. Shirish Seetharam, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the project. • Said he has been a Cupertino resident since 1999 and his children have attended Cupertino schools. He finds it difficult to believe that there are no negative impacts on the school, as over the years the sections have increased in the school. • Said he concurred with the previous speaker; another issue is that there is an existing large apartment complex and they are building on top of it, creating a ghetto environment. It was also mentioned about 12 different properties that exist so that is 90% still open for alternative development; that should be considered. • Said he uses Blaney Avenue to drive to work and disagrees with the traffic assessment which is inconsistent with his experience of driving in that area for many years. He said he felt that many of the concerns have been downplayed. • Said he was not in favor of the proposal moving forward for the various reasons cited. He urged the Commission to consider the feedback submitted to make the right decision and not approve the proposed development. Ankura Sinku, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said a March Cupertino Courier news article addressed the poor middle school situation; many of the classrooms are being conducted in portable structures. The proposed development will only make the school situation worse. • Many fellow community members have spoken about long traffic lines and congestion. He said he has witnessed many near-miss accidents because of the traffic; and students ride on both sides of the street which is dangerous. • One of the proposed exits from the new development is opposite to the exit from Vander Court; the current exit itself is dangerous; it will only increase the cause for concern about the high potential for accidents. Phyllis Dickstein, Cupertino resident: • Opposes the project. • Resides in Trevenia Villas on the north side; said that the proposed number of housing units is excessive; 25 units per acre is a cap not a goal; whether that number of units should be built on a given site depends on the impact on the neighborhood in question with consideration given to the number of multi-family units already in place. • The intersection of Blaney and Stevens Creek is in balance now, although there could possibly be some more retail and there are some offices. The project would eliminate existing businesses, some of which have been in existence for over 20 years; they may not be glamorous but they provide real services that the community needs; a grocery store, barbershop, dry cleaners; it is not likely that they will move out and then back in again. They may get some high end shopping but not what the community needs. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 8 • Relative to multi-family housing, there are 179 rental units at Biltmore, 46 condominium units in Trevenia and a townhouse development across the street from the Biltmore; this should be considered adequate for the intersection. She said she did not take the conclusions of the EIR and traffic survey seriously; 101 or 99 units and the developer will not even concede two units, which means a minimum of 150 cars. Since the number of school children is being minimized, it means the cars belong to working adults, so the number of trips leaving and coming back suggested by the traffic survey is laughable; the survey should be redone. The traffic is held up when the children go to and from school; how can 150 additional cars have merely a minimal impact on traffic and air quality. There is more traffic now more than has been considered. • She asked when housing is supposed to be a third priority, why the Heart of the City Plan calls for more than double the residential units that already exist in the narrow area; only a block or two on each side. She said if they really need 300 additional units in this small area, the fair way to go is scatter side; it may be more profitable for the developer and more convenient for the city in overseeing development to have one large one, rather than three small ones; but it is not fair to the existing residents. People who have moved to Cupertino and not downtown San Jose expect a less dense way of life and that should be respected. • She urged the Commission not to adopt the resolution, but give it further study. They are not saying there should be no housing, but that the project should be scatter sided; it is too dense for the intersection. • She commented that this meeting was the first opportunity the public had to address the Commission and asked that in future they be informed earlier in the process, to allow more time to provide input. • She commented that there were some sites on the northwest side of the intersection that are apparently being warehoused, and rumors that the landlord is trying to get the third property there. She asked the Planning Commission to look into it and inform the public in advance of the plans for that area. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Said that the project should have had citywide notice; however both Planning Commission and City Council have stopped the citywide noticing. • He said he was dismayed to learn that there is a loss of 14,000 sq.ft. of retail, especially when it is in an area where it could be producing money for the city and the local economy In the near future there will be 12,000 Apple employees in close proximity to the proposed development. He said he would be eager to shop there; however, there may not be any retail shops to shop in. At this point, the project needs to be rescoped to put the retail back to its original size or possibly increase it and figure out a way to do it. Dr. Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident: • Said his main concern is the density calculations; in accordance with the Heart of the City Plan the total land area used to calculate the maximum allowable residential density for the proposed Stevens Creek site excludes the parking and land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the project. • Said in his opinion the density calculations should be based on the actual area of the property which would be the apartments and the Blaney Avenue frontage, which would result in a lower density. It appears that the calculations being used are for a building that has both residential and commercial uses in the same building, not two different parcels. Fari Aberg, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Concurred with other residents’ comments on the project; said that the project was too dense and the traffic study was a joke. She suggested that the people responsible for the traffic study Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 9 drive down No. and So. Blaney Avenue during rush hour to experience the traffic. She read a statement from 2008 regarding the resident survey relating to support or opposition to building housing such as condos townhomes, and apartments in areas along Stevens Creek from Stelling Road to Wolfe Road. Only 35% of the residents responded to the survey, and the majority were opposed to having additional buildings at that intersection. She said the intersection was very dangerous and the traffic was terrible; and suggested that the traffic study be redone. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller: Asked staff to address some of the questions raised during the public forum. Gary Chao: • Said that relative to the calculations for density, Dr. Lum was correct that the Heart of the City document does describe precisely the formula, the numbers, which area you are supposed to calculate and which to exclude. Historically all residential projects in the Heart of the City have been allowed to use half way to the middle to the central line of streets. • In terms of netting out the commercial land area or building area for the purpose of calculating residential and city, the Heart of the City does say that you do have to net out the commercial area but it is very specific. All parking areas devoted to this proposed project have been considered and taken out of the area in the calculation. It also talks about building areas devoted to commercial areas which in this case, 7,000 sq. ft. that is also netted out in that calculation. In addition, in terms of peripheral supporting landscaping, walkways, the Heart of the City assigns a 10% value to that. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the concern about the safety of the school children at the intersection, particularly if there is an outflow of students; she said they could look at the traffic report and see if any specific improvements were recommended; such as new sidewalks at least along the project frontage. She said she was not certain if there were any specific improvements recommended for Blaney and Stevens Creek but would be willing to accept recommendations. • Relative to the citywide noticing; typically the city has done citywide noticing for General Plan amendments for large projects. They are consistent with the new public noticing procedures recently enacted by ordinance, recommended by the Commission as well as passed by the Council. She said it was to encourage neighborhood meetings because it was felt that it would create a dialog rather than just the three minutes that speakers have. Staff encouraged neighborhood meetings and the applicant held an open house where he was asked to invite people to speak at that meeting. All of the noticing was done consistent with the new ordinance; citywide notices go out for large projects. Chair Miller: • Asked what evidence there was that more housing units were needed in Cupertino? • Asked if they would characterize the issue as looking to bring jobs to the city, or that the jobs are there and those that have been created are meeting the state’s requirements to provide more housing for those jobs. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the housing element, the state has issued the statement that there is a housing shortage in California and cities are required to zone and select sites for housing. This is one of those housing element sites and the project is consistent with all city’s policies. As far as the demand for housing, brokers say that the demand is very high for housing in this area. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 10 • Said it was a combination; major companies have lobbied the state to say that if you want us to continue to stay in the state, you have to make housing affordable or we can’t find people to stay here. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is a consortium of companies who have identified housing as a major issue, and it is also heard from many employers. • Said that the decision to put housing and this density of housing was made two years ago at a policy level. Every 7 or 8 years, the city receives numbers from the state which ABAG then divides for cities; one of the considerations is how did they perform last time on their housing element and cities that haven’t performed well will get a penalty. In addition they have to find sites for units that they didn’t build last time, which is added to the new allocation and more sites have to be found than to allocate for housing; that is the policy situation. City Attorney: • Explained that the particular project could be turned down if there are specific reasons with regard to the project in terms of its compliance, or lack thereof with the various codes and rules that the city has. If there are design concerns and other things, those can be addressed in some fashion; but to turn down the projects simply because there is a perception or desire to say that we don’t need this housing when in fact this is one of the designated housing sites, does not work viably from a legal standpoint because it is contrary to everything on the books. Chair Miller: • Said there was a concern expressed that the calculation of potential school children was on the low side; staff indicated that it was the school district that provided those numbers and not the city. There was also a concern expressed that the level of density was too much for this particular location in town. Also a concern was mentioned about an Oak tree and a Black Walnut tree. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff worked with the school demographer and the school district to get the report; staff is not the expert on what the impacts are. When studying the densities, they ask if they meet all the requirements and if the site plan works. The subject project has been reviewed by the fire department, public works department, traffic engineer for the project as well as the traffic consultant who has prepared most of the city’s traffic studies for the last 12 years. • Relative to the street trees along the project site, the arborist recommended removal and replacement of one dying tree; two trees are being removed to create the driveway at the eastern end along the retail, but the remainder of the trees will be retained. Com. Lee: • Staff answered questions about calculations of the commercial land area in comparison to the former chili’s site. There are less retail squares now; Chilis restaurant may be demolished, giving more squares to residential; Chilis parcel was 47,000 sq. ft. and the amount of land dedicated to new commercial under this project is 42,000. • Said she preferred to save every square for commercial, because that is where sales tax revenue comes from; square for square it doesn’t meet, but it meets everything else. The building heights, design, density, number of units, traffic, parking are all acceptable; and she did not have any problems with ingress and egress. Com. Brownley: • Said the project is consistent with the General Plan and with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. With housing element No. 4, it is a designated site for developing additional housing within the city and in addition to that, the design of the space, creating an enhanced walkable commercial area along Stevens Creek is something that they have been trying to do. They used an architectural consultant to come up with the good commercial space that should be Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 11 viable so that whatever commercial space we do have will be good commercial space. They are creating a more flexible area of commercial so that instead of one restaurant, it will become a potential spot for existing stores that are now in an older building and may be able to move into a new building. They are creating outdoor seating in common areas; it is a very walkable area creating separate wide sidewalks along Stevens Creek and Blaney; it is going to be a nice space. • Complimented the enhanced circulation; said they have created a good amount of parking, the 1.74 spaces per apartment is better than comparison complexes throughout the city; the traffic study said that traffic in that area will be acceptable; appreciated that there was a consolidation of the driveways along Stevens Creek and Blaney; there will be fewer entrances on both of those streets. The underground parking will make the area that people are using and living in more pleasing space; the architectural consultant’s suggestions on using different elements have been incorporated or will be before getting permits; tree removal and replacement, removing 67 or 68 trees and replacing them with 158 and maintaining a number of the trees on the site. There was outreach to the community and questions were addressed; in the future perhaps have the community involved earlier in the process. • Said he supported the project. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt they should look at the project in context of the condominium projects that were approved in the previous decade which he would categorize as being physically unattractive and higher densities, and incorporating retail that was physically unattractive and not possible to work for. The proposed project has a lower density; it is 25 units per acre that Cupertino uses in the Heart of the City for multi-family areas; and it should be compared with what other communities are permitting for new rental projects. Mountain View currently has 500 units under construction, and another 1,000 units in the entitlement pipeline; hence a 100 unit project is relatively small compared to a town much the same size and subject to the same economic pressures of a single large user taking up all of the office space. • He added that the retail space is a much more realistic concept and he appreciated that the applicant and staff are bringing something similar compared to what they saw in the previous decade. • He said another issue is their obligation under the state housing element. Cupertino is probably going to approve a 3 million sq. ft. office development before the end of the year to serve as the Apple campus; and it will be subject to public hearings and consideration by the Planning Commission and the Council. For a community to say it wants to build the largest office complex in the Bay Area but does not want to take any housing at all, it will be an easy target for a public interest law group, similar to what happened in previous years. The type of housing that might be forced on the city by either the state or the court would be far less attractive to people in town in terms of physical appearance and in terms of its impact on the schools etc. To ignore that in hope of having a perfect world where no new housing was built in Cupertino is just not realistic. • From an environmental perspective there is a great mismatch even before the Apple campus comes before them in terms of the mismatch between the number of people who work in the community and the number who reside there to the extent that it is a project specifically designed for young professionals who have to make a fairly good income to live in a new apartment complex; that is in the best interest of the community. • Regarding the school enrollment issue, he said he thought the school enrollment projections were done by the school district demographer, not somebody hired by the applicant or the city. The key thing is they are talking about predominantly one bedroom apartments being proposed; this being Cupertino there will be children living in one bedroom apartments, but the numbers will be far less per dwelling unit in one bedroom apartments than they would be in three bedroom condos and certainly far less than the four and five bedroom homes that are Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 12 creeping up in this town as the older 900 sq. ft. homes from the 1950s are torn down and replaced by one and in some cases even two very large homes. • Relative to the impact on taxes, he pointed out that the consultant’s article states that in the case of the Cupertino Union School District, the District does not depend upon property taxes, but rather gets a fixed amount because the property tax base in Cupertino is lower than the minimum set by the state. Given their high student body population, the impact will not affect the total dollars going per student because the state is obligated to fulfill the difference between what is called the basic aid amount. The high school district lives solely on property taxes; however, the projection is that there will be very few high schools students; a total of 6 in the entire district; and that the property taxes paid for by this project per those 6 students will be greater than the average spending for the per average student. • He said he supported the project and proposed two changes. He suggested deleting Para. 7 on Page 23, that prevents parcelization of retail sections apart from the residential section. He said that although he has been opposed to condominimizing tiny retail sections, he saw no reason why assuming they get an acceptable reciprocal easement agreement between the residential and the commercial parcel, that they couldn’t separate them out. • The second change is Para. 9, Page 24 relative to public art. He suggested a second paragraph under Para. 9, that would read: “at the applicant’s discretion the contribution toward public art may instead be met by contributing an equal amount to the Cupertino Educational Endowment Fund and/or the Fremont Educational Endowment Fund for the support of artistic or other cultural programs in the public schools.” This is an amount that the developer is already required to spend approximately $100K for it if he so chose. It would be up to the applicant, and would not change his total expenditures to the community but he said he felt it would be of much greater value than a piece of art that looks like it came from the scrap yard; but that would be the applicant’s decision. He said it was his own sense that the public art he had seen at commercial projects has not been what he considered to be a contribution to the cultural well being of the community, but that is a requirement of the current city ordinance. Chair Miller: • Said his colleagues did a excellent job summarizing the positives. He said that to some extent while the specific project was not approved two years ago, the use of the site and the density of housing on the site was approved two years ago, and at that time there was citywide noticing for the housing element. Some residents took it upon themselves to do their own study and recommend some sites for housing in town for higher density housing; and this was one of the sites recommended by the resident groups. • The problem for the city as others have mentioned is that construction of new office space is going up at a fast clip in Cupertino and everybody wants the additional office space for Apple Computer; and the additional office space that is being built in some other areas in town. • The state says you have to adhere to a balance between the amount of jobs provided and the amount of housing provided; and their view is that if you don’t do that, you are increasing the traffic on streets and making them more dangerous because people are not just coming and going locally, and walking or using bikes to a greater extent, but they are all driving on the highways and around town at similar times and the city is the worse for it. Other neighboring cities are addressing this with much higher density units; Mountain View is on the order of 45 or 50 units per acre in downtown Mountain View. • In terms of the retail, we have struggled with retail at little sites like this in the past; and you can look at the retail under La Trevenia and how that struggles; the Metropolitan and how that struggles, and on DeAnza Boulevard where Ameche’s Pizza is; those little clusters of retail just do not seem to work. The key thing is not the quantity of retail but the quality of retail that really matters and there are doubts about how successful this site is going to be. We got smarter this time and had a retail consultant come in and help design the retail at this site so that it had a better chance of success. Some of the things done were to make the parking Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 13 visible from both sides of the building so if people driving by on an impulse could see there was an easy way to pull in. Another aspect was they were careful about how deep the building was, keeping in mind the kind of uses that would be located there and the amount of space they would need in terms of the depth of the building. Said although not a retail expert, he understood that retail begets more retail, and the best way to design retail in town is to condense it all in closer locations. That is why the Marketplace is so successful; there is lots of retail there and people don’t just make one stop, and one of the reasons we are so concerned about Main Street and making sure we want to get more retail into Main Street, is because getting that retail together in one spot is critical to getting what people consider getting critical mass. While we did lose a little retail there, if in fact that retail generates more interest and more business and serves the residents better, we will have succeeded in that. • In general, the project is well designed and he noted that the applicant was careful not to stretch the limits that the city would allow; he has not asked for a single exception, and for all those reasons and the others expressed, he said he would support the project also. • Said the main one is the parcelization of the retail vs. the apartments. Com. Brophy also suggested some changes; also look carefully at a way to make sure that children crossing the intersection at Stevens Creek and Blaney are safe. Aarti Shrivastava: • Condition 7 says that a lot line is not approved at this time; it says that it is not supported and the Heart of the City discourages it. If the Council wishes to remove that, she noted that a parcel is not being approved at this time, but the last sentence is needed because there are three lots that need to be consolidated in order to build the project. The existing lot is still a condition of approval; you cannot build over lot lines. • Relative to the public art; it is a creative thought, but it is an ordinance that cannot be waived. The applicant is free to donate to any organization he wishes outside of the ordinance requirement. It is an ordinance requirement, so the applicant doesn’t get a choice; he gets to donate if he wishes. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt it was a separate project and want the applicant to build it and lease it out; but in terms of separating it, did not see a problem. • Relative to Para. 7, he said he understood staff’s point, and was not opposed to keeping No. 7, but would first remove the wording “nor is it supporting” which implies they are opposed to it. He said he disagreed with the concept of the second sense, which says “the policy discourages the subdivision of commercial parcels” so technically it is a subdivision of commercial parcels. He said he interpreted that language to mean the condominimizing seen in a number of projects on Orange Avenue; in this case referring to a single separation of retail from residential. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the statement can be removed, but noted there is a sentence in the Heart of the City that strongly discourages parcelization. The idea was to keep them consolidated and as large as possible so they were able to be redeveloped and there was more flexibility; but the Commission could take that out; it does not remove the Heart of the City policy. There was not support for Com. Brophy’s suggestion for text modification. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Brophy, and carried 3-1-0, Com. Lee voted No; Com. Sun absent; to approve Application D P- 2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 and EA-2011-16. Cupertino Planning Commission May 8, 2012 14 Com. Lee said she voted No because she felt every square foot of Parcel 4 (Chili’s parcel), should have been dedicated to commercial use. She said she supported the other three parcels being completely dedicated to housing as delineated in the housing element. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Lee, and carried 4-0-0, Com. Sun absent; to approve Applications DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13, and EA-2011-15. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Chair Miller reported the committee reviewed a house on a 30 degree slope on Rainbow Drive; it was approved from an environmental standpoint and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future. HOUSING COMMISSION: Next meeting is May 9, 2012. 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 on May 22, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary