Loading...
PC 05-27-08CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 27, 2008 TUESDAY ROOM 100, FORMER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10350 Torre Ave., Cupertino The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in Room 100, of the former City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planning Director Glen Goepfert APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 13, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting: Correction: Page 8, first paragraph: Vice Chair Giefer: Change "solar rays" to read "solar arrays" Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the May 13, 2008 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Kaneda abstained) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Voiced her concern about having a City Council meeting and Planning Commission meeting on the same evening, which creates a conflict for persons wishing to attend both meetings. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 27, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 1. CP-2008-01 Review of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program City of Cupertino (FY 2008-09 to 2012-13) for conformity to the City of Citywide Location Cupertino's General Plan. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • He explained that the review of the 5 yeaz CIP program, is for General Plan consistency as required by state law and city ordinance. Each year the city adopts a 5 yeaz spending program for capital improvements throughout the city and the CIP is critical as it prioritizes significant city expenditures on capital projects of importance to the city. Funding in general is not fixed or committed during the 5 yeaz term except for the first yeaz; typically the funding may shift through the second to 5 years as priorities change on projects, schedules accelerate or decelerate through the lifetime of the project. • The list of CIP projects was put together by the City Council and staff has reviewed the projects. The projects and General Plan consistency notes aze outlined in Exhibit C of the staff report. • Aside from the lazge projects continued from previous years, the projects are considered maintenance and restoration type projects for the city for its existing infrastructure; items such as pavement resurfacing, repairs to buildings and refurbishing to playing fields irrigation systems. • One building is a storage facility at the service center, which replaces some cazgo containers on the property; the building will go where the cazgo containers were on the asphalt pazking lot. • Anew project is a feasibility study of moving the County Corporation Yazd from its existing location so that the city can lease the property and build a park in the Rancho Rinconada area. In addition to that and related to that aze the funds for the design and construction of the SterlingBarnhart Pazk. • Staff finds all these projects consistent with the General Plan and requests the Planning Commission to make an environmental determination. These projects have to do with relatively minor refurbishing enhancement of existing infrastructure and feasibility studies, work at the library; and staff is recommending a categorical exemption to that. Staff recommends approval for General Plan consistency and the fmding of categorical exemption for the CIP program with the understanding that the larger projects were previously assessed in previous CIP years last yeaz-and the yeaz before that. Vice Chair Giefer: • The first yeaz out the projects aze all very tactical, is this a comprehensive list of all the different commissions and committees their work programs rolled up to support this document for the next 12 months; or aze there additional projects that are below a certain spending threshold that aren't listed here? Glen Goepfert, Assistant Public Works Director: • Those that are not listed would not be operational; there aze some projects that if they do not hit a threshold of $SOK or $100K; would not be looked at capital improvements, but usually those would be the nature of ongoing operations or maintenance, smaller maintenance type projects. Cupertino Planning Commission Chair Miller opened the public hearing. May 27, 2008 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • She said she spoke at the City Council meeting earlier and wanted to express her appreciation for the consideration of the Sterling/Barnhart Park the Lawrence and Mitty Park. She said they were very important recreational areas for the city of Cupertino and will be well utilized and appreciated by the neighbors. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: • Referred to Exhibit B and asked why the first four items were highlighted in bold lettering. Colin Jung: • Said that the projects in bold lettering are not categorically exempt from environmental review. They were placed at the top of the matrix and bolded to indicate that the environmental analysis was already completed in previous years by previous Commissions and Councils. The Santa Clara Valley Water District was the lead agency on the Bollinger bike lane project. It indicates that those are separate and already addressed projects. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve Application CP-2008-O1 (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. U-2007-04, ASA-2007-06 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to (EA-2007-06) TM-2007-09 demolish a theater and 2,430 sq. ft. of commercial EXC-2008-07, TR-2008-02 space and construct a 4-story, 122 room hotel, a 3- Karen Ngo (Oaks Shopping Center) story 56,194 sq. ft. mixed use retaiUoffice/convention 21265 Stevens Creek Boulevard center building over an underground parking podium and site improvements in 2 phases at an existing shopping center. Tentative Map to subdivide an 8.1 net acre parcel into 2 parcels of 3.0 and 5.1 acres, with one parcel to be further subdivided into 4 commercial condominium units and a common area lot; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reduce one side- yard setback to 15 feet for a proposed 4-story, 122 room hotel and a 3-story, 56,194 sq. ft. mixed used retaiUoffice/convention center building; Tree Removal request to remove and replace approx. 47 trees that are part of an approved landscape plan for an existing shopping center. Tentative City Council date: June 17, 2008 Colin Jung, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval, and tentative map for Heart of the City's Specific Plan, exception for side yard setback and tree removal permit, as outlined in the staff report. The project is to demolish an existing parking lot, a vacant theatre and approximately 2,430 square feet of commercial space in one of the existing commercial buildings; develop a 4- story 122-room hotel and a 3- story approximately 56,200 square foot mixed use building which would be composed of retail on first floor, office on second floor and conference center on the third floor. All would be built over an underground parking podium. The applicant is proposing this be done over 2 phases with the ls~ being the hotel, the exception would be a request to reduce the side yard setback on the highway side from the required 18 feet to 15 feet and the Heart of the City Exceptions required for that. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 27, 2008 There is also a request to subdivide the 8.1 acre property into two parcels and further subdivide the one parcel where the redevelopment would occur into four commercial condominium lots and a common area. It also includes removal of up to 47 trees which are parking lot trees but are all part of the improved landscape plan for the shopping center and replace them with 67 new trees. • The project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation, and needs the exception to the side setback for the Heart of the City Plan. The tallest building would be the hotel at 44 feet, 10 inches, and the mixed use building is a 3-story building. Steve Piasecld: • Explained that staff had recommended that the item be continued for 30 days and recommendation was on the premise that it could benefit from some additional architectural work. Staff does not have a problem with the siting or layout of the building, but do with the skin and the way it looks and would like it to be upgraded. This has been done with the Cypress and Hilton Garden and they were required to submit the upgrade. Staff is also comfortable with a condition of approval that the applicant be required to revisit the architectural detail on the hotel building. He said they were trying to avoid the introduction of three types of architecture in the old Town and Country, the new commercial and the hotel building. It is doable but they can upgrade with minimal expense. He said they have had a brief discussion with the applicant's representatives today. • He said they were concerned about the phasing, and would rather not have phasing of the parcels. The concern is if they built the hotel and not the front building, you end up with a hole and you are looking at a truck loading dock and its going to be a very large building compared to existing building. Said in his opinion they needed to have the commercial building in the front to balance the site and provide a framework for Stevens Creek Blvd. • He said an option would be to continue the discussion, namely suggest a condition that phasing not be done; and if done, you are to build the commercial building first and then give the applicant the opportunity for some use flexibility for his concern that the retail market may be saturated and he may not be able to fill it up. I think that if we tell them that if they aren't able to lease them after a certain amount of time, they have the flexibility to put commercial offices in that space, not retail. It would not be our preference, but at least you get the two buildings built, you get the balance and get the hotel upgraded. Colin Jung: • He reviewed the General Plan development allocation; traffic circulation; parking; subdivision; subdivision easements; street improvements; trees; site design, setback and architecture; development phasing; and public noticing, as outlined in detail in the staff report. • Staff does not favor the development phasing; they feel the lack of the Phase 2 development would leave a hole in the development pattern in the shopping center. Their preference is that the development of both buildings move forward at the same time, and if that cannot happen, that the mixed use building be built first; and another option that the plan itself be revised and the building be pushed forward to the front of the property. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction to staff and applicant of what you would like to see done and continue the application for 30 days to give the applicant a chance to address any outstanding concerns. • Reiterated staff concerns: the building official wants to review the tentative map again, to ensure there are no conflicts of the building code which would prevent it from being constructed if it was approved. Staff would like to see the Heart of the City landscape improvements put in along the entire length of Stevens Creek Boulevard less the area next to Highway 85, with a feasible modification for sections where the right of way is not wide Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 27, 2008 enough; staff is in favor of limiting the development phasing; or another option to provide for the construction of a building closer to Stevens Creek Boulevazd first; and a re-referral of the architectural plans to city azchitect Larry Cannon to enhance the appeazance of the building comparable to the mixed use building. Com. Brophy: • Commented that the contribution for the bridge improvements has nothing to do with the construction of the project. It is a demand for $100.000 contribution above and beyond building permit and impact fees. Colin Jung: • The city's General Plan calls for the enhancement of pedestrian connections, which is engrained in everything when the development review is done; and whenever we see a pedestrian connection that can improve the city and improve the quality of the project itself, and bring more customers to the Oaks Center. He said they would like to see that happen and believe there is a reasonable nexus between them to ask for that improvement. Com. Brophy: • He questioned if that logic would say that the tennis court resurfacing at Memorial Pazk should be the responsibility of the developer because the visitors to the hotel may possibly use the tennis courts. He said his concern was that the nexus seemed thin in his mind between the construction of a hotel and a multiuse building and redoing the bridge over Hwy. 85. He said he could not imagine that there was not much traffic there now and it's not going to be changed by whatever is done at the Oaks Center. Colin Jung: • Said they would like to see more pedestrian traffic; currently it is a very inhospitable bridge to cross, and they would like at some point to see that happen whether the Commission sees fit to include the contribution, or at some point be part of the capital improvement program. • He said the proposal of converting 48 spaces on Mary Avenue was staff's recommendation, and the applicant made it part of their proposal. It has the consent of the Public Works Department, but the public may have some concerns with it. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked for an explanation of the nexus between traffic and reduced squaze footage from the General Plan. Colin Jung: • Explained that the development allocations system originally conceived was a traffic intensity based system which when they did top down modeling of the traffic in the city they determined what the level of development was that could occur in the city. They allocated in three separate categories, commercial, and office and hotels, and each was assigned based on ITE standazds a different peak hour generation factor. • What results is different types of uses such as a warehouse which doesn't generate as many traffic trips as an Apple Computer, an example is that the peak hour generation of 1000 squaze feet of commercial space is 2.8 trips per 1000 squaze feet of general retail space; but for one hotel room it is only about .8 peak hour trips per hotel room. If you don't discount the square footage in this particular case, then the city is shooting itself in the foot by taking out development and the traffic generation that comes with it out of the General Plan and we have surplus capacity there by recognizing that a hotel generates fewer trips and should be changed at a hotel rate rather than commercial rate, You would restore that balance. The city Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 27, 2008 recognizes that there is a difference in traffic generation between the two and then you don't have future redevelopment activities on Stevens Creek Boulevard that would not otherwise occur if we didn't have a development allocation. He pointed out that hotels are not the type of building easily converted to another type of commercial use and if they did, they would require a use permit for that; which would allow factoring in that additional allocation if need be for a different use of that building. Vice Chair Giefer: • Regarding the conversion of 48 parking stalls on Mary Avenue to landscaping, has that been done in other parts of the city, because that it public land. Are we converting it to part of the, site landscaping? Colin Jung: • The city parking that has been converted in other locations hasn't been for landscaping, it has been for wider traffic lanes or a feasible bike lane. An example is the loss of onstreet parking in front of the old Chevrolet building which was removed by the City Council direction in order to ensure that people getting in and out of Whole Foods are not unreasonably put in a congested position. • He noted that Mary Avenue is extra wide, and years ago the anticipation was that there was supposed to be a vehicular bridge across Mary Avenue, which is the reason it is so wide now; as it does not that width for the amount of traffic that goes in and out. • Said that the primary users of the parking spots are subsidized parking for DeAnza College students on weekdays during the school year. It also provides some parking for Senior Center users who don't have a parking permit. It is also parking that is used for city events in Memorial Park which happen about 5 or 6 times a year. • He said he did not know of any business condominium complexes in Cupertino other than the one on Pacifica Drive. Com. Brophy: • Clarified that the `commercial condominium proposal' discussed tonight is not condominiums in the sense they are not separate buildings; the land is being `condominiumized' Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it had the same long term impact once the land is condominiumized. She asked if Public Works would consider making a legal U-turn at Bubb Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to enable motorists to make a U-turn if they miss both driveways into the Oaks Center. Currently there is no opportunity to make a U-turn until the post office location. Colin Jung: • Said it would have to be discussed with Public Works, Traffic Operations. • He said that if the project is built in two phases, there is apprehension that Phase 2 may not go forward, because the applicant already has a hotel client signed up for the building. The developer is considering building additional commercial square footage on the east side of town; they are involved in the Vallco and former HP properties and committing themselves to building commercial square footage over there; and the developer has intimated that he doesn't want to be over exposed in Cupertino as far as having this much square footage under construction with no current tenants. • He said other indications are that the floor plans are not well detailed on how the space is divided; the commercial building elevations are much less detailed, and for the office there are not any points to indicate the height of the buildings. There are subtle signs that it is not a fully formed idea at this point that they would move forward on. . Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • Questioned whether the applicant had any plans to do cosmetic updates with the existing Oaks Center that will remain, or will there simply be focusing on the development side of that property and everything else will remain as you see it today. Colin Jung: • Said that except for some site improvements they were asked to make relating mostly to the parking lot and circulation, the applicants don't intend to do any cosmetic work on the existing building; their primary interest is the new buildings. Chair Miller: • Asked staff if the applicant had come in with the hotel only, would staff be in favor of it. Steve Piasecki: • Said staff would support a hotel if it was properly placed to balance the site. They would not want it pushed in the corner as it is designed. • He said the 48 parking spaces to be eliminated are city owned. Chair Miller: • Relative to the parking easements, the intent of the easements is to clarify; however, there have been 2 applications in the city where the easements have done the opposite of clarifying and in one case resulted in a lawsuit at Wolf Camera and the other case where the applicant was involved with another. Are we making an effort to ensure that the easements really do clarify and not confuse? Colin Jung: • Said that was his intent; the easements mentioned were not required by the city; he said he was interested in the fact that there would be reciprocal parking and circulation of the two lots as it was a single development. • He said he did not ask the applicant to give the veto authority of one property owner over another over parking lot design. He said he would never suggest that; it was something that the applicant put on himself to perhaps to make it easier to sell the property. Chair Miller: • Said it was unclear that the applicants intended to do it to themselves. Steve Piasecki: • It is thought that it took place when the property (Wolf Camera) was originally subdivided and one property owner sold to another and said they wanted 30 of their spaces. The city was not involved with that. Chair Miller: • Clarified that they currently have 310 spaces, it states that Condition 3 allows 800 spaces. Staff is suggesting a lower number of 500 seats; what is the justification for the original 800 number and the recommended reduction to 500? Colin Jung: • The justification in reduction in numbers is that there was an understanding that all the parking was shared among the tenants as the site is presently constituted now; everyone shares the Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 27, 2008 parking and everyone has access to it. The applicants are suggesting they aze going to build a parking garage and are taking 165 spaces out of the total inventory and making it exclusive use for the hotel guests. I'm not sure how they are thinking about it, but the tenants of the mixed use building would not be there; staff is concerned about there being such a blanket ceiling of 800 restaurant seats. If it ever approached that number would not work if you have 165 parking spaces less to work with. Karen Ngo, Sand Hill Properties: • Reviewed the projects that Sand Hill Properties was responsible for in Cupertino, including Cupertino Village Center, Hilton Garden Inn, Whole Foods, and Cupertino Landing. • She commented on staffls four recommendations. The first recommendation related to the issue of the condominium subdivision. For background purposes, the Sand Hill Properties does not own this center now and are in talks with the property owner to purchase. They are proposing to subdivide into two parcels, of Parcels 1 and 2. Parcel 1 is proposed to be subdivided into 4 condos. The reason for subdividing into 4 condos is that in order to finance the project the hotel lender and the retail project are different lenders; they could not obtain financing on this project if they did not subdivide it into two separate parcels. - • She said they had a meeting with the building official to do another parcel map to further subdivide Pazcel 1 into two parcels but because this project will shaze an underground parking garage, they cannot do a property line subdivision there. The decision was made to do a condo mapping on the project; condo 1 would be the hotel, condo 2 retail, condo 3 and 4 would be for the pazking garage. The building official was agreeable with the concept; he wanted to ensure that the new building codes would not affect this proposal. • The second recommendation is to modify the landscape improvement plans along Stevens Creek. Parcel 1 will be sepazately owned and the developer does not own Pazcel 2, and it doesn't make sense to try to get the investors and lender to do improvement on a pazcel that they do not own or do not develop. Working with the staff she said they arrived at a compromise to improve the section in front of Shane Company. • The third item of the proposal was to phase the project into two phases, originally they wanted to build both but because of the downturn in the market, it is difficult to get financing especially if there is no tenant. However, they still want to proceed with this project; and because Marriott is agreeable to building the Residence Inn, it is feasible to get the hotel financing, but not the retail financing. • The fourth recommendation is to improve the azchitecture of the Marriott building. Because the Marriott buildings have a brand identity, so that people can instantly recognize the Marriott building when they drive by, it is difficult to modify the architecture too much. • The typical Marriott is gray siding; and she said they worked hard with Marriott to come up with this modified elevation, changing the wood siding to a stucco color similar to the Hilton Gazden Inn, but some of the roof elements and windows and elevations as the Marriott brand standard. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said the applicant commented that part of the reason they were going for the condo map is that they will have underground pazking under the retail and hotel. Karen Ngo: • Phase 1 would build half of the parking directly under the hotel, and then do a `knock down panel' for when the retail is actually developed; to knock down the panel to allow for extra parking. Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 27, 2008 Com. Brophy: • Asked the applicant why the pazcel was being divided into four condominiums instead of two; and why are the pazking lots being treated as separate parcels. Karen Ngo: • Said when they build the hotel, they will build half of the parking garage, in order to get financing for the hotel and the gazage. If it is not converted to condos, they cannot build half of the gazage. Com. Brophy: • Expressed concern about the concept of separating, although he did not have a problem with cutting the pazcel in half as proposed. He said his concern was with creating four condominiumized sites within that one pazcel because in the future they would be left with a relatively small pazcel. There are 8 acres being cut into five different pazcels, which may in the future make it difficult to modify this sign as development trends change and future owners wish to modify it. Is there any alternative to condominiumizing the parcel; can a reciprocal easement agreement be done among the vazious owners? Karen Ngo: • Said they could not do a reciprocal easement agreement among the vazious owners because it is a lender issue; hotel financing is very difficult and it is a completely different group of lenders than it is for a retail building. We have talked to a lot of hotel lenders on this project and that was one of the requirements that we completely separate the hotel from the retail. Com. Brophy: • He said his understanding was that if all other matters are resolved between the city and the applicant, this issue would be a deal breaker, there is no way around this. • Said he was having a difficult time understanding the concept, and being comfortable with it. Karen Ngo: • Correct; it is a different group of investors. Said they had talked to several lenders and they aze very specific on their requirements and want it to be on its own pazcel and don't want it connected to the retail business. Com. Brophy: • Relative to the mixed use building, it is not under in the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to decide if an applicant's proposal is a good fmancial decision or not. • He said he visited the Oaks Center and it was apparent that it was a very weak center, and he said he was pleased that someone is looking at revitalizing it. Given that very little of the retail space is now occupied by quality tenants, he questioned the ability to lease the additional first floor. He said he also was worried that the second floor office space did not appeaz to be Class A space when putting office space over a retail shop. • Concerning the convention center, he said he had not heazd before of a free standing convention facility that makes money on its own. • He said he was curious how the application envisioned making the building work. Karen Ngo: • Said they talked with several leasing people and it is very hazd to lease a two story retail building, that is why they decided to have retail on the first floor only, some office on the second floor. The owners also looked around and found there was a lack of suitable Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 27, 2008 convention space. They feel there is a need for it which is the reason for proposing a convention center on the third floor. Com. Brophy: • Said he wanted to follow up to see if there is any example of an independent convention center that is a profit making business. He said he was not familiaz with one. Karen Ngo: • Said the developer has researched it and he feels that with the retail on the ground floor and the office on the second floor and hotel next to it, the hotel itself does not have a lot of meeting space, so some of the requirements of a larger convention center coming to the hotel could be directed to the convention center. Steve Piasecki: • Said that an example of a conference facility over a pazking facility is behind the Sonoma Chicken Coup in Campbell. The facility caters to some corporate events and social events such as weddings, bat mitzvahs and large gatherings. Com. Kaneda: • Asked for clazification on why the parking under the hotel is a different parcel to that of the hotel and retail. • Said he understood that there aze four parcels, and the hotel is one piece and the pazking underneath is another piece. If the hotel needs that parking, why is the parking sepazate from the hotel? Karen Ngo: • Said that the hotel needs to support their own pazking, if there is separate parking the hotel needs to have its own pazking for the hotel only. • Said they were building half of the pazking right now, and need to subdivide that garage into a second condo that belongs with the hotel. The condo cannot go vertical down, that's the way the condo mapping works. • Condo 1 is the hotel, condo 2 is the retail building, condo 3 is the pazking for the hotel, and the condo 4 is the pazking for the retail. Steve Piasecld: • Said the question was why can't you treat it like a townhouse instead of condo where they have fee ownership all the way down to the base of the pazking gazage treated as one parcel, hotel and parking. Karen Ngo: • Normally in the condominium, the garage is one condominium and sells like a common area. The lender on the hotel would like the hotel to have its own dedicated parking area, and the hotel to own the parking garage. If the garage is one parcel we could not build half of it. It is a financial problem; the lender wants to own the hotel and the garage; they want us to build 100% of the garage. • The retail is not being built in Phase I, that is why we aze doing it in two phases. The first phase is the hotel and the hotel garage and we told the lender we are building the hotel and we are building half of a garage; it doesn't make sense to them. Said that all the gazage needs to be part of the hotel. Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • Said her questions were answered by others. Chair Miller: • Staff had some other options in terms of phasing, such as moving the hotel forward. He asked for applicant's comments on the alternatives. Karen Ngo: • Said that if they were to build retail, it needed to be on Stevens Creek because it needs the visibility; the hotel does not need the same visibility that a retail would need; that is why the hotel is positioned in the back and the retail in the front. If the hotel was built on Stevens Creek Boulevard, that would eliminate the possibility building a retail in the future, because if we put the retail in the back, nobody will see it and no retailer would lease it. Chair Miller: Asked what the likelihood was that the retail will get built. The present concern is the center is not fully leased; more office space will be added and they will be adding more retail space. It seems like a challenging situation to be adding additional retail space, unless there is a larger plan that is not understood at this point. Why is a combined project coming forward at this point, instead of just coming with the hotel now and the retail later? Karen Ngo: • Said if they had a tenant, it would be built, the owner is actively looking for a tenant now. It seems that staff's concern is that there is a hole in the front where Stevens Creek is; if you look at the center now, it is all parking in the front which will not change if the retail is not built. They feel a full parking lot would look better than an empty retail building sitting there. • Said they were coming forward as a combined project because they are actively seeking a tenant; they would prefer not to have to go through a long process to come back and get the retail approved in the future. The plan is that the retail is in front, hotel in the back; they would like to get both approved. As soon as a tenant is found, they will build it. It works best for the applicant and for the city as well. Chair Miller: • Read an email into the record from a resident. The most expensive thing in a hotel is an empty room and this resident was questioning how the applicant amved at the 122 as opposed to 100 or 150. • Cupertino is on its way to becoming a small city destination; it would be more appealing us to have a higher end hotel with a Marriott flag than a Marriott Residence Inn. One of Cupertino's tourism attractions is having a theater; this hotel would be directly across the street from Flint Center, giving the hotel a chance for theater packages, and it is also a short distance from wineries. Why not build a higher grade hotel? Karen Ngo: • Said the consultant HVS studied the market and felt the 122 rooms were a good fit for the market. • Said the city had the Cypress Hotel and there is no other long term stay hotel in Cupertino; that is why the hotel consultant HVS recommended the Residence Inn. • Said she did not have an issue with the number of restaurant seats. Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 27, 2008 Chair Miller: • Was the possibility of making the conference center a part of the hotel explored? Karen Ngo: • Said they considered at one point, with a bridge connecting the hotel to the convention center. The hotel does have meeting rooms, and Marriott does not want a separate convention center linked to them; it is not part of their design, which is the reason the bridge was removed. Chair Miller: • Relative to the condo, is there any way to present the project as two separate parking lots and then the bank would not have a problem with the parking underneath; it would be just a wall separating the two and that wall could be torn down later. Karen Ngo: • Said it would be inefficient to do two separate garages since it would have two separate ramps; presently it is a shared garage and gives them the number of required parking spaces they need. A lot of parking would be lost if they did two completely separate garages. • Relative to considering some energy efficient green aspects of the building, she said that Marriott has a green program for the operations of the hotel that their operations team will consider. She said they have not yet looked into LEEDS certification for the project. • Said that tonight's mention of the $100K contribution for the bridge improvement was the first instance she heard of it. She indicated she would check with the developer on the issue. • Said they were in favor of the elimination of the parking spaces on Mary Avenue. Chair Miller: • Relative to the architecture and the relief; he said he looked at the Hilton Gardens and the Marriott Courtyard, and both of them seemed to have more interest, show more relief than this building, although the revised plans shown do look better. The Marriott Courtyard looks very much different than this one; why can't they see more interest in the building itself? Karen Ngo: • The elevation itself is a typical Marriott Residence Inn, which is different than the Courtyard. The original Residence Inn was a wood siding; by changing to colored stucco it is an upgrade and Marriott had to approve the change. The reason for the change is that it is being moved closer to the retail building and also to blend in better with the existing Town Center. The roof elements are more difficult to change since they are part of the Marriott Residence Inn identity. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griflfin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was familiar with the Oaks project; before the center was built, there were a lot of beautiful oak trees on the property, and the city has done a lot to preserve the oaks present now. She said she was pleased to see no oak trees would be sacrificed in the project. • She reiterated her concern that the meeting was not held in the regular meeting room, as she felt it has compromised the presentation of the project. • Said she was disappointed about the density of the project on the Oaks site; the shopping center traditionally has suffered from too high rental prices; Sand Hill owned the property recently and there is confusion about why they are purchasing back a part of it. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 27, 2008 • She said she concurred with staff that if they go with the Residence Inn, it needs a lot of work; it looks like it is a virgin piece of property and it is not up to the standards of Cupertino. • Expressed concern that the Residence Inn Extended Stay on El Camino in Sunnyvale recently went to condos; and she hoped that if the city does approve this project, there will be some stipulation in the use permit that there will not be condominiums for sale; housing condominiums on this property, because if we do have that, there is no park space dedicated when you have a hotel. She said she was concerned that it would cause a General Plan amendment; concerned about the 15 foot setback all the way along. Hwy. 85; it is a high visibility project; everybody coming into Cupertino will see this. • She said it was a good idea to have a convention center, but they need more space. She suggested they put it on the former Koll Brothers project on the eastern properties. • Said she was also concerned that it would compromise DeAnza College who was interested in purchasing this property; and was concerned about the traffic impacts. DeAnza has currently 34,000 students and it may increase. We want to make certain that we keep the future of the college. If we do it, it needs a lot more study. • Please be sure to put the trees back. It is a big ticket item for the western end of Cupertino. Debra Jamison, Cupertino resident: • Said she resides near the center; and goes to the center daily. The structures are too large to be visually integrated with the smaller existing retail buildings, but also the neighborhood. They will look out of place, and being orange doesn't help matters. • Relative to the traffic flow, with the Mary Avenue bridge there will be more bicyclists coming through Mary Avenue into that homble intersection; The more we build up the corner, the more difficult all that is going to become. • Said she was not in a position to evaluate the economic viability of another hotel in Cupertino. The Oaks Shopping Center isn't filled to capacity and that should be a higher priority than building more retail space. The reasons the retail space doesn't get filled up should be investigated. • Removing 47 trees is regrettable; hopefully the trees to be replanted are native California trees and native California plants. We need to create islands of native habitat in our concrete jungle to give the declining wildlife a place to live. • Taking away 48 spaces; those spaces are used for all of the big events and the Senior Center; you cannot get into Memorial Park to park there because so many of those spaces are reserved for the Senior Center. Park users park up and down Mary Avenue on a regular basis, which is the reason spaces are taken up. • If you require the applicant to do anything, how about replanting instead of removing spaces, replanting the plantings along the sound wall which are dying in part due to the practices of the city, in maintaining or not maintaining those plants. • I hope that the residents don't spend too much time living there because it is unhealthy to live next to a highway and to breathe that air; especially at a highway interchange. I am glad to see that this proposal does not have to do with long-term residents. Please assure us that nothing is going to happen to 24 hour fitness center. Dick Weaver, Cupertino resident: • The development would block the last view of the mountains from Mary Avenue. Mary Avenue parking, the new Senior Center decimated the parking in Memorial Park and much of it is now on Mary Avenue. Mary Avenue is a community asset, heavily used for a variety of purposes. Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 27, 2008 Said that building next to a freeway is a polluted site; the State of California will not let you build a school on this site. He alleged that the form in the staff packet was inadequate since it addresses questions about air pollution in terms of air pollution that a site construction might generate; not in terms of building on an already polluted site. He distributed vazious reports from vazious countries; the essence of those reports is if you live or work at this site, there will be negative health impacts and the death rate for those residents will be twice the normal average; whereas for other people not living in that azea, the death rate would be 1.5 times. If you were to convert land use near freeways, you would convert it from human activity, to non-human activity, not the other way azound. The medical costs and insurance benefits, we look at and say it is too high. It is meetings like this when you turn that azound or not. Delores Carson, resident of the Commons: • Said a hotel in that azea is a good plan compazed to the other options presented. • Said she agreed with some of the pazking issues on Mazy Avenue; but said a past proposal suggested that many of the activities at Memorial Pazk not be held there, but held by the Mazketplace where attendees coming into Cupertino would see the business, open space, etc. She suggested blocking off the street either on the north side of Portal or on the south side of Portal similaz to other cities and have it so the people coming into Cupertino see our businesses; aze next to the mall, aze next to Mazketplace, instead of hiding all the businesses from them when they go to Memorial Pazk. That is the pazking issue. • She said she did not feel that traffic was a problem. The city put in that lighted walkway which isn't perfect, but it is a good addition, and she recommended one at Stelling between the Commons and Whole Foods. • Relative to the use of the azea, she commended Marriott; stating that it was a good plan with a good location. • She said that she felt the right questions were being asked. Chair Miller closed the public heazing and called a short recess. Vice Chair Giefer: Regarding pazking; if we were only considering a hotel and looking at the staff report on Page 2-4, it appeazs that with the proposed parking with the underground portion of the pazking structure for the hotel, that if they built that single story underground, they would have enough parking based on their pazking demand. Is that correct? (Staff responded that it was correct) If there was no Phase 2 and no condo and I wanted to be cleaz about what was understood; if there was no condominium map associated with any of these projects, and they built the underground pazking for the hotel; they would meet the demand for the hotel. (Staff responded that it was correct) Colin Jung: • Said that noticing of the meeting was sent out to one-half mile radius, and he also did an interview for the Cupertino Courier about the meeting. Com. Kaneda: • Asked if there was a deficit of 93 spaces. Colin Jung: • That is what is built in the use permit; they aze allowed to have uses that would allow upwazds of 93 pazking deficit; the way that it was understood in the past is that each of the individual uses had a sepazate pazking requirement and they then added those up and compazed it to the Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 27, 2008 existing pazking, arriving at the 93 pazking spaces. In reality, presently there actually is probably a surplus of pazking spaces for a number of reasons. The number of restaurants has decreased from the past, which is why they had the ceiling of 800; the Pacific Fresh used to be in the corner building and now that is the Shane Company and that was a big load off the parking requirement for that center, replacing a couple hundred seat restaurant with a jewelry store that doesn't generate a lot of traffic. The pazking requirement assumes that the theater is in existence, and normally theaters have a fairly high pazking requirement and that is not there also. He said that the reaz pazking lot on the westerly side is for all intents and purposes, a vacant lot for the present time. Com. Kaneda: • One of the things that is brought to mind is that if some kind of development such as this goes ahead, it is reasonable to assume that the center could be revitalized. If it starts performing up to what some of the other centers performs, will it bring on serious parking problems. Steve Piasecki: • Said one of the distinct advantages of the site if there is the overflow pazking on the street; as pointed out, it is there for festivals, it is used by college students, used by everybody at different times; retail tends to be off in terms of the cycle and use of it, so it is a nice asset to have, and it goes quite a ways down Mary so you could conceivably absorb a successful shopping center; we hope to create a successful shopping center. This may be the catalyst that does it. Com. Brophy: • Said that in the past, when the theater was in operation, as well as Clean, Well Lighted Place for Books, there was not a pazking problem there. Com. Kaneda (to developer): • Is there a possibility to do this project in a single phase, assuming a tenant is signed up. Has there been any thought to air quality and management of air quality? Karen Ngo: • To build both at the same time; if we were to get a tenant very quickly, yes. It is not possible for us to get financing on a spec building with the present mazket. • We have not looked into it; there aze some hotels along the freeways and I believe we can check with Marriott, they may have done studies on air pollution. Com. Brophy: • Regazding procedure, staff has recommended that this matter be continued. If the majority of the Commission decides that certain issues can be resolved tonight, or at least as faz as the Commission feels, can they go ahead and do that without the benefit of a resolution? Steve Piasecki: • You don't have the sepazate model resolution, but you could work through a series of conditions that would apply to this project. Karen Ngo: • Said that relative to a possible continuation, they have been working with staff for the last six months on this project, with many recommendations; they have changed the elevation and the site plan and tonight request that the project not be continued; they aze asking for either an approval or denial of the project. Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 27, 2008 • There aze lenders who have been waiting for months to know whether or not they will be able to get an entitlement from the city for this project. • Said they would prefer a decision, not a continuance. Steve Piasecld: • Clarified that the two major issues of phasing and architecture could be handled by conditions. Said he was comfortable if they wanted to use specifically worded conditions on those issues. The one on phasing could simply say you don't have two phases, you have one; and they would have to go back and figure out whether they can make that work; that is getting a tenant and obligating it; and/or giving them the flexibility to have some office uses. • He said the applicant has not been asked if it would help them if they had that flexibility after they have made a concentrated effort to lease that retail space, if they could go to office space. If the Planning Commission wishes to go that route, it would mean the applicant would have to come back through the process but they will be able to start lining up their lenders and getting the project financed and ready. He said he was comfortable with that. • Architectural changes could be relatively simple; a stone veneer or some kind of masonry material on that lower azea to break the building up would be appropriate. It needs to be broken up and that could be put in the condition; that they have to go back to the azchitectural advisor, come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council with the fmal plans. Staff could draft that for the Commission. Colin Jung: • Said that azchitect Larry Cannon has looked at the plans, yet he focused very little on the azchitecture of the buildings; he spent most of his time revising and updating the site design of the project. They went through some iterations of the site design; but he did not spend sufficient due diligence on the azchitectural detail of the building. Chair Miller: • Said that a concern of the Commission was that there was no model resolution; and they aze not certain what additional conditions staff might have wanted that they haven't seen yet. Steve Piaseclu: • Said staff could draft the essential ones that could go forward to City Council. If there aze standazd ones that should have been included, the City Council would be advised of those. Com. Rose: • Asked the applicant what conversations they have had with Marriott about sustainability plans; to what degree did they explore that topic. Does Marriott have a solaz building plan; did they talk about any types of positioning of the building to make it more efficient; water usage. Karen Ngo: • It is something they aze still implementing now; they don't have a fully stepped up program; they said they did not have a program to follow on materials and elevations. It is something they aze working on, but not developed enough to be presented as a package. Com. Brophy: • Suggested that they heaz from someone from Marriott in terms of both design issues and operational issues. Cupertino Planning Commission 17 May 27, 2008 Karen Ngo: • Said that Marriott was asked whether they have a program developed that they could follow, and their response was that they did not have a program on materials and elevations; it is something they are working on. Chair Miller: • Said a concern raised by a speaker was that the hotel structure was overpowering to the center itself. Steve Piasecld: Recalled, that while it is four levels, it is four low floor to ceiling plate height so you get up to 45 feet; there is the potential for that and is one of the reasons that Phase 2 must happen at the same time Phase 1 happens, because with the two buildings, it will provide a context for each other that will be roughly the height of the Flint Center, so you have a building across the street that is of a comparable size. He said without Phase 2, it would look like a small building in front silhouetted by the hotel in the back which would not be pleasant to look at. He said they felt the retail building should be in front and they also need to soften the building with architectural detailing. Perhaps this building should have a clay the roof as well and it should have some of the mortar built into it so that it matches not only the planned second phase, but also the existing buildings as long as they are there. That has to go through a process and would need to come back to you and we could craft a condition that requires that. Chair Miller: • Relative to the parking on Mary Avenue, there was a comment that the parking was used for Memorial Park and to take it away would create an issue with respect to Memorial Park and the current shortage of parking there. Steve Piaseclci: • The feeling is that there are times when all that parking is used up, and it is usually when there is a large festival going on. The rest of the time, it is not all used up and it might push some of the students or park users further down Mary Avenue; but the number of spaces being taken up better serve to offset this building and the hotel and provide attractive landscaping, then if they were reserved forever as a surplus and sitting out there. That is one of the reasons why we supported that idea originally, to have a bigger buffer and bigger setback along Mary Avenue for the front of the hotel. • If in the future the parking was needed, would staff recommend going back and taking the landscaping out and putting the parking back? He said he would not recommend it; for the few number of spaces it is more valuable to buffer this hotel. If they don't have that landscape area, they would have to try to reduce the size of the hotel or move it further south to get the better setback. Chair Miller: • Said he was surprised at the square footage allocation. He said his preference if they were going to do this and make it a policy, is that it be explicit in the General Plan, as opposed to doing it as an application, because to some extent it is work around the current General Plan. • There is a certain amount of square feet in the General Plan for commercial, residential and industrial, and there is the overlay formula which makes it all confusing. He said he was concerned from that standpoint. • The second concern is trip generation, I am not sure that captures all the impacts; what about the impacts on other vital services as well as the impact on the number of jobs that this Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 27, 2008 particular use creates. I could see the justification a lot easier for storage because there are no employees and very little trip generation; and basically no or little use of city services. Anything other than that, it is difficult to see why we would do a separate calculation. Steve Piasecki: The numbers that are put into the General Plan are very specifically trip driven. They are used so that the traffic engineer can model all of the planned growth in the city and ensure that they maintain the projected levels of service over time. When you come across a use such as this, and the storage was an extreme example, this one is also in that category on a per square foot basis, it does not generate nearly what retail would and you are using the retail allocation. It is legitimate to do that, you can err on the side of not giving them as much and to be careful or not, but when staff did the calculation for the staff report, he did it straight off a trip calculation. It fulfills the intent of the General Plan and short of; this is a category of use we normally would not allocate by district, we wouldn't say there is going to be 42 hotel rooms there and 156 over there; we have only done that in the Vallco Park south area where we have given them a straight forward allocation which came out of a development agreement that we previously had. It is a funny one and I think it is okay to do it and it is consistent with the intent, but again, the Commission can call it any way they wish to. Com. Kaneda: • The street parking, do you have any idea when it is most heavily used. Is that weekend use or is it used during the week also with DeAnza students. In my experience there, the times I have seen it packed was always on the weekend. Colin Jung: • Said it is busy during the festivals when it is close to 100% utilized because Memorial Park doesn't have a lot of onsite parking. Other times it is just during the school days for DeAnza College that you find just along the commercial frontage itself and not really beyond that. I am sure it gets weekend usage from residents who cannot find parking otherwise near Memorial Park. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt the loss of 48 parking spots would be a mistake. He noted that on a weekday at 1 p.m., approximately 25 to 48 spots were filled. He commented that in the past, even on non- festival weekends, there was a high demand for parking at Memorial Park. Com. Kaneda: • Said that if it is primarily weekend use, is there some ability of the city to negotiate use of the spots. He assumed the hotel uses the parking primarily during the week for business purposes, not on weekends, so that the hotel's use of their parking would be on weekends would be less, so the spots might be available. Colin Jung: • Commented that users of the park would not likely want to park in the parking garage. Steve Piasecld: • Said they could ask that they explore additional parking on the other side of the street, and if they increase the angle and double load Mary Avenue, you could come out with a net of no difference. Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 27, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: You do not own the entire center, but some of the businesses in the Oaks currently need a quieter environment for operation. There used to be a day spa; ; Peak Physical Therapy remains there. Do you know what arrangement the current property owner has made with their tenants who do require a more peaceful environment where living through a construction site may not work for them. Are they willing to let them out of a leases, help them with relocation? Karen Ngo: • We haven't got that far along into the project. As far as the construction goes, it is on the side of the property where there is parking and not being used by any of the tenants now. We will be working with the contractor and the existing owners and tenants to come up with a construction plan that will have the least impact on the tenants. We will restrict construction activities to Parcel 1. Chair Miller: • Said the first question to deal with is the expectation and also the request by the applicant as to whether to continue the item or decide on the application tonight. He asked the Planning Commissioners to state their feelings on whether or not to continue it for 2 weeks or 30 days or move on the application tonight. Com. Rose: • Said she felt it was important to continue the application; with all due respect to the project, she said she felt it would not be a significant delay, and with a project such as this, one would expect a 30 day delay to come up somewhere. • The area is the entrance to Cupertino, and when you come up to Highway 85 and the proposed building, which is an exciting addition to this area of the city, it is quite large and will be noticeable immediately by everyone that drives past it and lives in the community. • It is important that everybody who is going to be seeing this building, feels that they had an opportunity to participate in the conversation held tonight. Because the meeting room was different from the standard meeting room where people can watch the meeting from their homes, the community has the right to have this be the first conversation and then another second conversation at an additional meeting, in which anyone may have additional comments but have a chance to say something. • Said her struggle on the project isn't so much the actual building itself, but the architectural look of it. She said the appearance of the building has to come back to the Planning Commission before it is approved. Com. Kaneda: • Said he would like to see the application continued as it is a major project and it appears staff is not quite ready and there are a lot of issues that need better answers. Com. Brophy: • Said he was reluctant to continue the application. Perhaps it may be impossible to go ahead since we don't have a resolution to work with. What has happened here is this project has been before staff for six months now, and as I read the recommendations from staff, there has been an impasse between what the applicant wishes to do and what the staff believes needs to be done. If it is continued without any direction or decisions on any of the issues, nothing will be accomplished by moving it to another one or two meetings. He suggested as a compromise, they give direction as to what is needed in a resolution and try to address the issues to get a majority of the Commission to decide where they stand on those issues. Cupertino Planning Commission 20 May 27, 2008 • Staff recommends certain items, the applicant has chosen not to agree with staff; and the interpretation is that the Commission is being asked to make a decision. Presumably if there is a disagreement between staff and applicant, that is what the Commission is for. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed with previous comments from Commissioners; there are a lot of suggestions to give the applicant. She said she would prefer to have the item continued for two weeks rather than thirty days to try to compromise with the applicant. She said she also received a number of emails stating concern about the project, issues with noticing; several citizens said they thought it would be citywide noticing on substantial projects. There is a lot of interest in the project because of its size and scope. • She said she has seen many Marriott Residence Inns in many cities and she understands their brand identity, but the buildings themselves look quite different depending upon their location. They do not have one universal footprint of the building they apply throughout the U.S. She said she felt the building was not as good as it could be; the hotel could evolve further with some specific direction provided to applicant. She said she would make specific comments about proposed retail as well. • She said she supported continuing the application for two weeks with some very specific direction to be followed up on and brought back to the Planning Commission. Chair Miller: • Said that there was a majority for continuing the application for two weeks. He said they will provide specific direction with the hope that in two weeks that with discussions between applicant and staff, they will reach resolution with most or all issues. He said the issues include architecture, phasing, parking, the primary ones being the phasing and the architecture. Karen Ngo: • Said she understood that the major issue was the architecture. • She said the owner would prefer to have a decision rendered, not a continuation of the application. She said they could develop the architecture more, but not sure what could be done on the phasing. Chair Miller: • Said the applicant had not had input from the Planning Commission before, and they will receive it tonight, which is the difference in the equation. Comments on Phasing: Com. Brophy: • Said an issue which hadn't been discussed but needed to be dealt with is that the Oaks Center is depressed economically and aesthetically in its current condition. The applicant is proposing something that will help make a major improvement. • The complexities of funding a project of this size, especially under current financial conditions is such that I think we have to reflect on a laundry list of things we might like to see on the project and focus on what is important in order to make it the most positive contributor to the community as possible. Hotels are probably the best contributor to the city's general funds. • The contribution that the project would make in that matter needs to be considered when looking at the various issues. Since the question started off, what about the phasing; you have to recognize the realities of doing two separate buildings and it is unrealistic to request the applicant do it in one phase. • On this particular issue, he said he would support the applicant's request for a two phase plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 21 May 27, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Said it was an interesting comment and she looked at the phasing as what she supports being built there. She said she supports the hotel, but felt the retail as proposed would not work. Cupertino Village had a second floor to an existing restaurant years ago which they tried to rent out for excess conference space, which did not work. A 14,000 square foot conference center is too small to do a users' group or a sales conference, and other than a wedding or similar social event, which kitchen facilities would be needed for, it would not be functional. • She said she did not support the retail as proposed. • Said she did not support phasing, because she felt that the retail as proposed is not going to work for the area. She preferred to see something else; there is underutilized retail there, so why add to it with a building that is in excess of approximately 38,000 square feet. • She expressed concern that the retail is proposed as the wrong application for this area, and said she felt the hotel will be an economic engine to revitalize the center; and she would prefer to see that up and running quickly. Com. Kaneda: • Said he would prefer the project in one phase, but it may be an unrealistic requirement. He agreed with Vice Chair Giefer that the hotel is important and could revitalize the center. Com. Rose: • Said her concern about phasing is that she felt the proposed buildings are very large and it is going to have a negative impact in the beginning when it starts. Phasing it will seem like construction is going on forever. It will take time for the neighbors and residents in the area to realize that the hotel will be a positive addition to the Oaks Center and if there is ongoing construction, that is going to be a problem. • Vice Chair Giefer brought up some good points, 122 rooms will not fill up 14,000 square feet of meeting space; they will then be having events where people just come for the day to a seminar, etc. and that will impact traffic. She said the second phase needs to be carefully thought out; what will be a better fit. It is better to know what they will be getting, and get it in one action. • She said she supported it being done in one phase. Chair Miller: • Asked Vice Chair Giefer if her suggestion was that they not build the second phase at all, or build it at the same time as the first phase. Vice Chair Giefer: She clarified she would prefer they build one subdivision initially for the hotel and if the applicant is obligated to buy all of the land they call Phase 1 and Phase 2, that is an economic issue that is not really in the Planning Commission's purview. If they wish to further subdivide that, then they have the opportunity to come back to the Commission, once they have secured a tenant or have a plan for that business, and they can further subdivide. She said as it stands today, she did not see two different parcels coming out of that. Responding to Com. Brophy's question, she said it would be appropriate to allow them to build the hotel without putting up a second building. She would prefer to have a comprehensive plan that was complementary in both uses, and have them both built in one step at one time. If they only built the one structure, and we have one subdivision, I understand their point of view that they want to have their retail fronted along Stevens Creek, but it may not be the right answer in that corner; perhaps the hotel should be pushed forward Cupertino Planning Commission 22 May 27, 2008 more. That is their choice. She said she did not see a comprehensive second building plan there now, and was not motivated to act upon that. Com. Brophy: • Said he was skeptical of the building as proposed, but there was no reason the two building floor plans could not be approved, give permission to build a hotel and if and when they have to change what they propose doing there, they would have to come back to the city to accomplish that. • He said something would eventually be built there; in the meantime, the hotel would work by itself. He did not see how having that space serving as a pazking lot or landscape, would detract from the project. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said that another factor in her deliberations, was the applicant's comment regazding financing both parcels. She was uncertain whether it was easier to secure financing for one pazcel, one that is developed in the azea where the hotel pad is, or if it is easier to obtain financing to purchase the entire parcel considered as Phase 1 and Phase 2. Chair Miller: • Said he did not feel it was a good idea to move the hotel forwazd as it would make it difficult to do anything with the back space. If the hotel is moved forward, the back space would not be filled with retail; housing is not a preference of the residents. He said he would prefer to see the center revitalized at some point. We all have our concerns about the economic viability, but we aze second guessing the developer and he is the expert on this and this particulaz developer has a good track record. I am also not willing to second guess the developer on whether his commercial building is going to be successful or not. I have to take it at face value that he cannot get financing to do the project as one entire project. • Said also liked Com. Brophy's suggestion that if they aze going to change the front project, they would have to come back before the Commission. Based on that reasoning, I support the phasing of the project because of the constraints involved seem like that is the best of the poor number of choices. • Summazized that three Commissioners were in favor of phasing. Comments on Condominium Ma Com. Kaneda: • Said he had concerns, but what aze the options; what can be done about it? Chair Miller: • Said it was a viable option from the applicant's standpoint; but it is not cleaz that it is a viable option from the Building Department. Steve Piasecki: • Said it is a hurdle they would have to demonstrate in terms of meeting building codes; it is not a substantive issue. Com. Brophy: • Said he felt it was a substantive issue; if there aze legal concerns that the Building Department has with it at this stage, he said he would agree to subdivide it into two pazcels, but would vote to deny the further subdivision of the one pazcel. He said he had not heazd a convincing Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 27, 2008 argument for creating a very complex legal ownership pattern that might affect long term viability of the center. Vice Chair Giefer: • The earlier example of the business condominiums across the street, because those are under separate ownership, what exists across the street on Pacifica and Torre will be there in 30 years from now; it is very complex ownership. It is very difficult if the market changes, there is no use for it; there is no impetus for multiple building owners to improve that and unless we really like what we see tonight, because it will be there longer than we are here, I would not move forward or support that either; I feel the same way as Com. Brophy. Chair Miller: • Said he felt the same way; and would prefer to see it as a two- parcel subdivision. Comments on Architectural Elements/Massing~of the Hotel: Com. Rose: • Said there was another proposal several years ago that didn't get approved. The community supports business in the center, but they cannot fully support a hotel there and a fully occupied hotel could really top off what is needed to revitalize the Oaks. • She said a review of the drawings shows a hotel like so many off any interstate, and Cupertino deserves a more upscale building. They owe it to the neighborhood to come up with a hotel that has a look and feel that fits in with what Cupertino is about, and an a good architect could come up with that to soften the impact. She said she would like to give direction on that or at least set the standard so that when it returns to us, we can feel comfortable showing the Cupertino residents that although this is a big hotel, it is going to be peeking over the sound wall and looking into our community, it will have a nice look to it and will be a welcome addition to the retail presently in the Oaks Center. Com. Kaneda: The applicant needs to direct the architect to work within the Marriott guidelines, but to work on the massing of the building, especially on the Highway 85 side; there appears to be very little attempt to break up the massing. There are architectural solutions that the designer can come up with. The front side of the building is a little better, but as staff said, there are some things that can be done with fmishes to reduce the mass of the building. That is something the architect should be able to do and still stay within the guidelines that Marriott has. Com. Brophy: • I am not sure how much you can change the massing; staff asked for enhancing the architectural detailing and building finishes; I am in the minority on this particular issue, but I am not a big believer in that if we get enough architects and enough people to review a project, that somehow we are going to magically make it better. • The quality is comparable to the Marriott Courtyard and the Hilton Garden Inn; it is significantly better than the Cupertino Inn. He said he was not certain a lot would be gained by having an extended process of everybody making their own personal suggestions on how best to design this. Cupertino Planning Commission 24 May 27, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed with Com. Kaneda, and suggested that Larry Cannon look at it; there may be some subtle differences in colors vertically down the building that might give it more of a townhouse look. • She said she felt it could be improved upon. Com. Brophy: • Relative to the azchitectural appeazances, there is a resistance to allowing landscaping of the Mary Avenue parking spaces and the question to the azchitect or staff, is if that were the direction of the Commission, how would it affect the azchitectural review process. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was needed in a soft landscape azea given the massing of the building. He said he would vote to deny it if the Planning Commission disagreed. He said he did not feel the building could sit 15 feet away from a parking space with the height it is. • In terms of the discussion about the architecture, the extreme example is if it looked like the Los Gatos Hotel, it would blend in with the existing azchitecture; and would look closer to the planned retail building. Something in between the high end of the Los Gatos Hotel and what they are proposing would be appropriate to provide some of the relief that the building needs. Com. Brophy: • Said that he would likely vote to deny if the parking spaces are taken away. Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked Com. Brophy to comment if they looked at adding parking space to the opposite side of Mary Ave and did head-in parking rather than pazallel pazking along the other side to make up. Com. Brophy: • Said he would look at is as long as there is not a significant loss of spaces, if there is as it currently stands I would vote to deny. Chair Miller: • Said he did not see any harm on having the architect work with Larry Cannon to see if there aze some adjustments that could be made. He said that the renderings shown tonight show a lot better than the ones received in the meeting packet. Issues -Roof Elements Chair Miller: • Said he would like the roof elements between the two buildings to be similar. Steve Piaseclu: • The hotel has a asphalt shingle and the lower part has a metal roof, and then the other one has Spanish style. Parking Issues: • Com. Brophy provided comments earlier. Cupertino Planning Commission 25 May 27, 2008 Vice Chair Giefer: • Regazding pazking, she said she was willing to give up those 48 spaces for what is assumed to be city-owned landscaping maintained by the hotel provided that the following worked: (1) Consider striping the opposite side of the street with head-in parking to make up the deficit; if that can be accomplished she said she would support it. (2) Use native plants in the landscaping, native trees, California Buckeye, Oaks, Redwoods, etc. If that cannot be accomplished, she said she would not support it. • Relative to traffic, have someone investigate a legal U-turn at Bubb and Stevens Creek so that if someone needs to return, they don't have to drive all the way down to the post office before making a U-turn. Com. Kaneda: • Said he did not feel quite so strongly about parking but could support the pazking if they can restripe the north side of the street to provide additional pazking. Com. Rose: • I look at this and I think that the purpose of the trees is to soften the mass of the hotel, to residents across the street, because across the street is all windows of the apartment complex that look straight into the hotel, so I think that is the purpose. What about an option of keeping some of the street but also small islands of the trees in that same azea. Lisa, would that be something to consider where you add some pazking in there but there is still trees dispersed in the area? Or are you really concerned with the number of spots? Vice Chair Giefer: Said she was concerned about the number of spots and if it is not done distinct from the adjacent apartments, then the hotel may need to be smaller, which is uncertain whether Marriott or the applicant would like. Said she was seeking a compromise which accomplishes both the screening and the preservation of as many pazking spaces as they can come up with. She said she was also flexible to other ideas. Steve Piasecki: Explained that it will be a difficult issue to get through, and if the applicant is willing to go with the two week continuance, they can study it further. There are hundreds of spaces along this street and you may find that the 48 on the basis of 200 or 300 is not significant, and staff can explore the issue of if we can get the other side of the street pazked. When you do that, because of this application, you don't restripe the other side of the street, but you have to open it up to a hearing process and let the owners around there know what you aze doing. It may not be something that the applicant can even control entirely but at least it can be explored to ascertain if it is possible or not. Com. Brophy: • Said that the spaces aze used; senior residents don't want to park up Mary Avenue. He said he felt it would be a mistake to give up prime spaces there; it would be taking away a public benefit for a private use. 'The aesthetic benefits of converting it to landscaping is not worth the loss of pazking spaces. • Said he did not object to losing some spaces, but 48 was too many. Cupertino Planning Commission 26 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • She said she felt the aesthetic benefit is great to have some of those trees in front of the building, but it does go a long way down the street. She also likes the idea of parking at an angle on the other side of the street, • Said she preferred to keep the trees directly in front of the building itself, and from that point out letting that be returned to pazking. Com. Kaneda: • Referring to the drawing showing two rows of trees, he asked staff for an opinion on cutting back to one row of trees so the parking wouldn't need to be taken out. Steve Piasecki: • Responded that the concept is to give the pedestrian some separation from the building in a sense that they aze walking under a tree canopy. If eliminating trees at all, he suggested eliminating them towazd the north end where the pool is, or have alternating space and trees. You may be able to reach a compromise but it is something staff can explore with the applicant to come up with something that better satisfies the Commission. Chair Miller: • Said that the Commission has some concerns about reaching a compromise between the number of trees and preserving as much of the pazking as possible; and staff is going to work on that. Issue: Exception to the setback ordinance • No objections were voiced from the Planning Commission. Issue: Improvements on Stevens Creek Boulevard Com. Kaneda: • Said he did not see the point of doing the improvements in front of the Shane Company when the project is over by the entrance to Highway 85. He suggested if doing any work at all, try and keep it closer to the project. If considering something on Stevens Creek if that azea between the driveway and the entry ramp is off limits because of CalTrans or utilities, then try to look at doing something at the next azea along the front of the property. The azea is not pedestrian friendly and it would be good to do something there. The azea in front of the Shane Company doesn't need any more work since it appeazs to be attractive and well kept already. Com. Brophy: • Said he agreed that the azea in conflict between the applicant's and staff's request, is between the two driveways. From the highway it is not attractive, there is a small cyclone fence which was probably put there for insurance purposes; and the problem is it is a very narrow azea between the curve to where the pazking begins. • Said he was uncertain where the concept of spending the money to put in an undulating sidewalk really provides public benefits that aze anywhere neaz what the cost to the applicant would be. • Said his preference would be to approve the landscaping proposal by the applicant as it is. He said he did not see how one could do anything that attractive. Cupertino Planning Commission 27 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • Said she concurred with many of Com. Kaneda's comments. • Said that she frequented the area and it is very outdated with the cyclone fence. Although the Residence Inn has kitchenettes, she said it would be ideal if the residents of the Inn walked down Stevens Creek to Whole Foods to purchase food. She would like to see the area enhanced and made safe for all pedestrians. • Said she would like to think that when something as big as that is being done for the overall benefit of the community, it goes beyond just the hotel and the developer having a profitable building put in. • She agreed that the Shane Company looks great and said they maintain the corner very well; but pointed to another area that was not appealing and had a funky driveway which was outdated and not well maintained. Anything that can be done in that area that's not putting a financial burden on the developer but might be some way to give back to the community that you are going to be a part of that, would be something she would support. Chair Miller: • Asked for clarification if the issue was not whether the applicant does something, but the timing of when it is done. Whether it is done in the first or second phase, is that what we are trying to decide on, or whether it is done at all on Stevens Creek? Steve Piasecki: Suggested that they propose to the applicant a more elaborate extension of the sidewalk improvements along the remainder of the front. The applicant said that when and if the rest of the Oaks Center is done, they would re-do the rest of the frontage refer: ed to. The reason the Shane Company came up was it is part of the Heart of the City Plan which states that you should have separated sidewalks, and you have double rows of trees. As you are going to the west side of the driveway there is another small flat area, where you could also do a separated sidewalk relatively inexpensively. The difficult area is the area you are focusing on in front of the parking; it is very disruptive and the suggestion to fulfill the intent of the Heart of the City Plan, is to put a Panera Breads-type of solution where you have a couple of cut outs trees and get double rows of trees and pedestrians at different points separated from the travel lanes. That was the philosophy, and the applicant may have tipped the scale. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she agreed with Coms. Kaneda and Rose, and was pleased it was tied to Phase 1. Issue: Contribution to Bridge Improvements: Com. Brophy: • Said that in principle he was opposed to the idea. Through ordinance there are a series of building permit fees, impact fees, by which all developers or any development is expected to contribute to the city. He said he felt the idea of asking for a contribution for a public project that has little or nothing to do with the applicant's project is distasteful. Aside from the philosophical discussion, he said one would have to look at the difference between this proposal and the housing project that was at the Oaks previously. • The reality of development in Cupertino is that people who propose building homes are in better position to respond to requests for contributions than those who wish to build hotels. Under those circumstances, he said he felt it was unrealistic to ask for a contribution, and felt it was wrong in general. Cupertino Planning Commission 28 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • Said there are people walking down there all the time, and it is an unsafe and uncomfortable area to cross. She said she looked at it as an opportunity to better the experience of Cupertino residents and of the hotel guests. • Whether or not in principle this practice should happen of asking people who are building or improving to actually do something that improves the area around them; I know that from homeowners in Cupertino that they have had to do this with home building projects so we have to be careful about who we require this of or ask this of and who we don't. • Many residents are putting in streetlights, hydrants, sidewalks etc., when they are improving their own properties and it seems ironic that we would not consider asking the Marriott to do the same. Vice Chair Giefer: Said she supported having some contribution to the bridge improvement because it is consistent with past rulings as a group. There could be discussion whether $100K was an appropriate amount or a lower contribution considered, depending on the project. Com. Kaneda: • My thoughts are that, as Vice Chair Giefer says, I have seen this on other projects in the past and so I can go along with this, my biggest concern is that we are even handed on how we apply this requirement for additional funding. • Said he was also concerned if the project is getting dinged because they happen to be next to Highway 85, and if this project was one or two blocks away, nobody would have asked them to contribute $100,000. If that is the case, then it is unfair; if you happen to be geographically located next to something that needs improvement, are you going to be hit up for money; whereas if you are not in that area, nobody will ask for anything. • Said he was concerned about fairness; and has seen the issue come up before on other projects; hence he could support it. Chair Miller: • Said he did not see the nexus for it and did not support the contribution. He said he felt it was reasonable to do if one could justify it with a nexus; the improvements would to some extent benefit this project but it also benefits others who are not asked to contribute. He said although he did not support the $100K contribution, consideration of a lower contribution amount would be appropriate, depending on project. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff to explain how the decisions are made; how the numbers are decided; and who gets asked to contribute. Steve Piasecld: • He said the theory is that there is a significant benefit, as the project is the most immediate project to what is an unfavorable walking experience and with the hotel and increased retail activity, the hope is to see more people walking to and from Budd Road to the hotel. Utilizing that facility, how much of that is arguable, he said he did not have a problem with that. • The other part of the theory is that this is more like seed money and $100,000 will not get the project, but provides an incentive so that the city can look at a capital improvement program and then provide matching city funds, which are generally city wide, to enhance this overpass. It is an overpass that needs railings, lights, better bike lanes, it needs enhancements and you have some benefits to this applicant. They are probably just seeding what the city will end up Cupertino Planning Commission 29 May 27, 2008 having to come in and complement it with. We have done it in the past, the other two projects were residential projects and we got considerably less because that was a much smaller overpass configuration and was deemed to be less expensive to try and provide some lights and they already had a railing on the Stelling Road overpass. Issue: Landscaping, tree removal and tree replacement. Com. Rose: • Said she did not like to see trees cut down, but felt the trees being cut down can be replaced. Vice Chair Giefer: • Said she didn't object to removing the trees that are proposed because none of them are oaks. For the replacement trees at the Oaks Center, she suggested native trees which are more sustainable; they grow better here, taller, they don't need to be watered as they are naturalized to the area. She also asked for assurance that per staff's recommendations, the trees be replaced with Oak trees. Com. Brophy: • Concurs with Vice Chair Giefer. Com. Kaneda: • Concurs with Vice Chair Giefer, but has reservations about putting redwood trees on the site. Vice Chair Giefer: • Clarified she meant native trees, not redwood. Her earlier reference to redwood trees related to tall screening trees. Issue: Green Builidng/Solar/LEEDS Certification Vice Chair Giefer: • Asked that when moving forward, consider recycling of demolition materials; require inclusion of solar PVs on any of the buildings constructed; and stipulate they produce X amount of their own energy onsite, instead of saying that they have to have X amount of feet of PV for the entire room. • Regardless of Marriott's corporate standard, she suggested the requirement that they not use VOC (Volatile Organic Chemicals) interior or exterior paints. The remainder are tentative with landscaping and sustainability. Com. Kaneda: • Air quality is a big issue on this particular project as people will be living in this building. The thought is to handle it in the same manner as architectural issues which is to ask the architect to decide what features to put in. She also suggested putting in a requirement for a level of LEEDS certification and then let the architect choose from the menu. • Relative to renewable energy, she said she would like to see something in the project, since it is a residential project and they will have a need for hot water year round. It may make better financial sense to go with a solar hot water system, but if we are going to do something, I would condition an amount of renewable energy and then let the designer decide what the best way to do that. Cupertino Planning Commission 30 May 27, 2008 Com. Rose: • Said she liked Coms. Giefer and Kaneda's ideas about sustainability and would like to heaz other opinions. • Said she supported it, but wanted to be cautious about not putting any undo financial burden on the developer. If we don't start this way, we will never get started. Com. Brophy: • Said he agreed with Com. Rose in terms of trying to balance the need to move to a more sustainable form of development codes versus making the development of the hotel possible. He said he was concerned that they would be making ad hoc decisions on projects that come before them with a different set of standards; and should be dealing with the question of sustainability and energy conservation on a general basis rather than who comes before them at any given meeting. Com. Kaneda: • I think we are going to be asked to come up with some recommendations along those lines. I guess one of the issues is until that happens and standards are adopted aze we going to do nothing or aze we going to try and do something? Chair Miller: Said that they all want to see the city move ahead with some type of green program but aze not there yet, and he was concerned with the fairness issue, but would like to see the applicant do something. There appeazs to be some general agreement; for example for Photo Voltaic systems, it is financially viable to do that, particulazly with a hotel. There is an example of Macy's doing it in town and several other people aze voluntazily putting in systems because it is financially beneficial. Steve Piaseclci: • Said that the Commission has required that developments with a pool put in solar heating. . • What can be said, you have indicated your intent to let the applicant come back, and we will craft condition, whether LEEDS silver or a combination of things, to see if the applicant will agree. Chair Miller: Suggested that the applicant work with staff and consider it before they come back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Giefer: • Recommended that the use of energy staz appliances be required in residential applications as well as hotels. Com. Kaneda: • Said there was also some interesting work being done in lighting control in hotel rooms that have proven to save significant amounts of energy. Hilton was a pilot and there aze some projects in Sacramento, and the manufacturer was called the Watt Stopper. Cupertino Planning Commission 31 May 27, 2008 Issue: Square Footage Allocation Calculation Steve Piasecki: • Said it is a concern to the Planning Commission in the future because as the squares get whittled away you want to preserve as many of the commercial squares within the intent of the General Plan and that is what we are suggesting you try to do. Chair Miller: Said they were stretching what they did for the General Plan and he would rather see an amendment to the General Plan that says how they are going to deal with it, or go back to the General Plan and say they were undershot and need to add more squares in. It is hard for specifically the process we went through to get to the General Plan and the discourse that it caused; and the concern that I heard over and over again was that the city is not following the General Plan. To do something like this just looks like another way around of following the General Plan; that is the argument that you are going to get. So I can see if you can apply it to commercial space it isn't that long of a jump to say that you are putting in senior housing and seniors don't have children so they don't use as much services and therefore every senior house we won't reduce one for one on a senior unit as we would for a non-senior unit. This just doesn't have a good feel to me. Steve Piasecki: • Said the irony is there are plenty of hotel rooms in the General Plan, Vallco cannot possibly put in all the hotel rooms that aze allocated there and staff will look again at the development agreement in one year. The timing doesn't work but it would be ideal to take the 100+ units and re-allocate them from the Vallco area to this azea. Chair Miller: • Said he understood that the current General Plan allows reallocation to a general azea of town. Steve Piasecki: • Said it could be done, except those are locked in by development agreement. Issue: Commercial Allocation Vice Chair Giefer: Said she concurred. Issue: Restaurant Seats Chair Miller: • Staff recommended 500 seats, and the applicant agreed with that. Com. Brophy: • Said he understood that they could go above 500 seats but would have to come back to the Planning Department. Steve Piasecki: • Said it was correct, and that it is driven by parking demand more than anything. • Said that there were some issues; but the applicant is willing to go with the two week continuation to iron them out. He cautioned that it would be difficult for them to get Marriott to buy into a revised design; the best thing they will be able to bring back here in two weeks is Cupertino Planning Commission 32 May 27, 2008 a condition of approval that says they will readdress the architecture with some specific direction. Karen Ngo: • Said she was agreeable to a two week continuation. Steve Piasecki: • Said he wanted to clarify an issue. He said that there may be an impression that staff have been sitting around for six months having discussions and not getting anywhere. In fact the plan has evolved, changed and modified site elevations etc., and they only recently got the most recent plans sent in. The phasing was also a recent issue and staff tries to be responsive; sometimes it is give and take and staff can always do better, but it is not just a matter of standing around for six months. Chair Miller: • Said that it was a fair comment; and apologized if that impression was given. He said the Planning Commission acknowledges that staff works hard, and they are also short staffed. Steve Piaseclci: • He said that he knows the Planning Commission and applicant understands it; and the statement was made also for the general public who were not part of the earlier process. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to continue Item 2 for two weeks. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS• None NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayors Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. Report of the Director of Community Development: No additional report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 10, 20 ~ r Respectfully Submitted: Eliza llis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: June 24, 2008