Loading...
PC Packet 10-28-2014CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Draft minutes of October 14, 2014 Recommended Action: approve or modify the draft minutes of October 14, 2014 Draft Minutes 10-14-2014 2.Subject: Draft minutes of October 20, 2014 Recommended Action: approve or modify minutes of October 20, 2014 minutes memo These minutes will be a desk item WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Item #4, applications for a Hillside Exception and Tree Removal have been postponed to a date uncertain ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 3.Subject: Use Permit for a bar at Whole Foods Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO October 28, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA Recommended Action: approve application per the draft resolution Description: Application No(s): U-2014-06 Applicant(s): Dwane Kennedy (Whole Foods) Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd Use Permit to allow an interior bar within an existing grocery store Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff Report 1 - Draft Resolution U-2014-06 2 - Business Plan 3 - Plan Set 4.Subject: Hillside Exception and Tree Removal - Rainbow Dr Recommended Action: recommend approval per the draft resolutions recommend approval of a Negative Declaration Description: Application No(s).: EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 (EA-2014-07) Applicant(s): Daryl Harris (Yao/Li residence) Location: 21730 Rainbow Dr Hillside Exception to allow the development of a 5,213 square foot single family residence with a 1,412 square foot basement on slopes greater than 30%; Tree Removal permit to allow the removal of three specimen size Coast Live Oaks This item has been postponed to a date uncertain Planning Commission deciosn final unless appealed OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners Economic Development Committee Meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5.Subject: Director's Report Recommended Action: accept report Director's Report Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO October 28, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632). Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408 777 3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org. Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. OCTOBER 14, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:  Page 2, second paragraph, reference to parking stalls; change “low” to read “allow”  Page 10 second bullet point, change “occupational” to read “occupancy”  Page 8 heading that reads “Marriot Rep” should read “Hyatt Rep”  Page 10, two comments made by Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, one of them says Vice Chair Lee and the other one below said Com. Gong. Change to include comment by Chair Brophy as well.  Page 9 and other references, change “Dr. Lun” to read “Dr. Lum” Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Minutes of the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:  Change spelling of names of the Apple representatives who spoke at the meeting: Mike Foulkes, Jason Lundgaard Motion: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Noted distribution of written communication related to Item 3 Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 2 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01 Certification of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan GPA-2013-02, Amendment, Housing Element Update and Associated Rezoning; MCA-2014-01 General Plan Amendment to establish citywide development SPA-2014-01 allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses and EA-2013-03 development parameters for key study areas (including Vallco City of Cupertino Shopping district); General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Citywide Location Housing Element as required by State Law; Rezoning of certain Parcels in conjunction with the citywide General Plan Amendment; Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law and the Housing Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for clean-up and consistency; Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to maximum residential yield calculations and an updated map to conform to the General Plan. Tentative City Council hearing date November 3, 2014. Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:  Summarized the format of the presentation; the city’s planning consultant on the project from MIG will present the project, followed by staff’s recommendation and a brief presentation on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the city’s environmental consultant Place Works, followed by staff’s closing remarks. Dan Amsden, MIG:  Provided an overview of the General Plan Amendment process. The General Plan is the city’s guiding policy document; it is the overarching land use environmental sustainability policy document for the city required by state law and acts as the blueprint for future change and growth in the community. The focus of the General Plan is to establish a citywide vision for the future, supported by more detailed goals, policies, and strategies. All cities specific plans, master plans, and zoning requirements must be consistent with the General Plan; however, the General Plan itself does not improve or entitle any specific development project, property owners have control of when they wish to propose a project, and all final decisions on future development are manned on a case-by-case basis by other city staff, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. In the last 1-1/2 years, through the General Plan Amendment process, we have had 22 community workshops, meetings, study sessions, with the various commissions in the city along with the city council. This extensive community input process has led to 3 different alternatives on future change in the city.  He reviewed in detail Alternatives (Alts.) A, B and C as outlined in detail in the attached staff report. Alt. A maintains the policies of the 2005 General Plan, with some increases to office and hotel development allocation by a modest amount, it does not increase residential allocation; it combines So. DeAnza and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Blvd into one area. Alt. B assumes more development allocation and more growth than Alt. A, it is the modest growth alternative for a 25 year period from 2015-2040. Alt. C includes the highest amount of growth and development allocation. It includes enough future residential allocation to be consistent with Plan Bay Area through 2040. Similarly with increased development allocation it also envisions a redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Mall into more of a shopping district or downtown for the city of Cupertino. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 3 Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner:  Reviewed in detail the State and Regional regulations and best practices, including the Climate Change, Land Use and Transportation; Complete Streets and Connectivity; Performance Measures for Mobility, and Housing Element, as detailed in the attached staff report. She then reviewed the community ideas and best practices, as outlined in detail in the staff report, including: community benefit, walking and biking to schools, parks and shopping; design of mixed use projects; Vallco Shopping District; and calculation of residential density. The way the Community Vision 2040 has been laid out is at the beginning a new chapter has been added called Planning Areas which divides the planning areas into special areas and neighborhoods.  Planning areas are already part of the 2005 general plan, whereas neighborhoods are partially discussed in the 2005 general plan. This chapter highlights the special characteristics in the community vision for each planning area and special areas are generally consistent with the 2005 general plan with minor changes as discussed. We also included major mixed use corridors where changes are expected in the future specifically in the heart of the city along Stevens Creek Blvd, Vallco Shopping District and North Vallco Park. Neighborhoods are mosty residential where everything will be preserved with improved connections to parks schools and other services. Piu Ghosh: Elements:  The Land Use and Community Design section includes general policies as well as specific policies for the Planning Areas. It retains the policies in the 2005 general plan of urban design, connectivity, and pedestrian-orientated design. Further detail is contained in the staff report.  The mobility element contains policies with a vision to complete a “complete streets approach” which acknowledges the need for streets that are designed to be used by pedestrians , bicycles and transport modes, not just automobiles. It also incorporates mitigation measures that are identified in the EIR such as the implementation of the transportation impact fee to mitigate transportation impacts  Recreation and Community Services section primarily retains the existing policies while including principles of sustainability and master planning of parks and recreational programs. More comments are a part of the staff report. In the infrastructure element, policies have been consolidated from the land use and environmental resources sections it has been updated for content with current information and it also includes principles of sustainability and master planning. The sustainability section has been updated to comply with regional requirements and to reflect the city’s current policies in the Climate Action Plan. The Health and Safety section has been updated per new local and regional requirements. Balanced Plan Please refer to the staff report wherein the following was read into the record: Development Allocation; Economic & Fiscal; Office; Hotel; and Residential; Key Question 1: Development Allocation 1. What should the City plan for in terms of Development Allocation for office, commercial, otel and residential units through 2040? Community Benefits Program  As mentioned before the community benefits program came about through community input and is considered to be one key tool to help finance and achieve amenities that will be necessary to maintain the livability in the community and it also will maintain and increase the communities quality of life. This program will allow the community to get amenities in return for allowing additional specified Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 4 heights within specified areas of the city. It also provides certainty as to what these additional heights might be, and where they can be placed. It would require development agreement which would mean the city would have to agree to the benefits and amenities provided. Changes to reflect this program have been incorporated to the proposed municipal code amendments. Key elements include (that are highlighted on the slide) include: 1. The proposed level of benefit is equivalent to at least 15% of the project valuation attributed to the increase in height (decided through preparation of a project proforma) 2. Projects must provide a ground floor retail component; and one or more of the following benefits: a. Transportation and Mobility Improvements b. Public Facilities (land or space) c. Senior Housing d. Public Art and Cultural Facilities e. Parks and Open Space Key Question 2: Community Benefits. 1. Should Cupertino have a Community Benefits Program? 2. If yes, does the Planning Commission have any revisions to: a. Value of the community benefits? b. Specific program items – retail requirement or other items? Refer to attached staff report Page 9 “Heights” wherein speaker read content into the record. Key Question 3: Building Heights: 1. Does the Planning Commission have any recommended changes to the Balanced Plan heights recommended in the Special Areas? Refer to Page 13 of the attached staff report “Vallco Shopping District” wherein speaker read content into the record. At this point the city has two basic options: The first being to basically do nothing, which would not provide any incentive for a developer to redevelop the site. The other alternative would be to introduce more profitable uses on the site which include office and residential uses Key Question 4: Vallco Shopping District: 1. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Specific Plan and “town-center” concept with a mix f retail/entertainment, residential and office in the Vallco Shopping District?  The city has also received a request from Sandhill Development Property Company re garding the allocation of the Vallco Shopping District. The letter indicates that Sandhill is amidst acquiring the Vallco properties for potential redevelopment and in order to develop a feasible plan they would like for Vallco to be allowed a development allocation of 2million square feet and additional heights consistent will alternative C as reflected in this slide. The city’s retail strategist states that residential and office are highest and best uses for this site and because the BAE market study found that new demand of 2.4 and 3 million sq ft of office that up to 2million sq ft could be reasonable and necessary in make the project viable. Staff recommends that if the commission does recommend increasing the amount of sq footage in the Vallco Shopping District that the excess square footage be replenished in the city wide office allocation in order to retain some office allocation for the city wide pool.  Part A of this question is what should Vallco Shopping District allocation really be? Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 5 There were other revisions made to the general plan including some land use designation changes at the PG&E and Mirapath Site to add commercial uses and other revisions have been made to ensure the general plan land use designation and zoning are consistent. The housing element is the only element that actually requires state approval and authorization. State law requires that the city plan contain a housing element and that it be updated on a regular basis established in the government code. READING REPORT  Please refer to staff report Pag 15, Housing Element Content Requirements which was read into record by presenter.  Please refer to staff report, Page 15, Housing Resources & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) which was read into the record by presenter.  Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element: Page 16 of staff report read into record by presenter.  One recommendation that has been proposed with regard to Housing Preservation Program the current housing preservation program for redevelopment of sites which cause loss of existing rental units requires that at least two of the following 3 conditions be met as identified on the slide. It also requires for the inclusion of a tenant relocation plan with provisions for relocations of tenants on site as much as possible and usually that has been interpreted to meet to CBGP? Requirements or greater. The staff recommends that the conditions that redevelopment may be approved be eliminated however to retain the requirement to provide mitigation for impacts on displaced tenants but to clarify the size of development in which such mitigation is needed, which is four or more units. HOUSING SITES The potential sites for housing elements was developed through public workshops study sessions with commissions and city council. The potential sites have been studied at varying densities in each alterative from minimal change in alternative A all the way up to Alternative C where the densities were studied at the developer proposed amounts and at the maximum densities proposed. HCD Criteria for site selection Considers the existing use on the site, the realistic potential for recycling of a site, the site size, the minimum site size that HCD requires is roughly 2 acres, and ownership patterns. Additionally the affordability factor of 20 dwelling units per acre at 85% of the maximum density whether a site meets that criteria or not. OTHER Other criteria both regional and local criteria that include identification of sites within ½ a mile of a VTA PDA, locate housing close to employment and activity centers. Verify whether they are corner lots with large frontages which are preferred so that the sites can be developed in an esthetic manner. Whether housing is needed as an incentive for redevelopment. Housing Element  The overhead presentation includes the sites that are being recommended. While 19 sites were studied in the EIR based on existing available housing element sites, sites proposed by property owners and based on developer interest and sites proposed by workshop participants only 18 sites were available for selection. This is because the largest property owner associated with one of the sites sent a letter to the city expressing their desire not be included in the housing sites inventory. The density and sites recommended in the balance plan are based on the goals listed in the staff report and read by presenter.  The rezoning of this properties that are recommended for inclusion has been structured so that zoning goes into effect at such time as the HCD approves the site as a housing element si te. And should HCD not approve a site as a housing element site, staff recommends an alternative list be authorized Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 6 for use. The Hampton sent in a letter and that in their letter they indicated that had expected to be studied at 100% of the density that they had proposed, but since HCD only allows85% of the realistic capacity at a site, they were not studied at the maximum densitity that they had expected to be studied. In order to allow the Hamptons the ability to develop the desired unit count the den sities for their site would have to be at the low end, 76 dwelling units per acre, and at the high end 129 dwelling unit per acre. However the EIR did not study the 129 du/acre. So the bounding factor is the 110 dwelling units per acre that that site was studied at.  This slide represents the alternative sites in the priority that it is listed in the table. The last slide shows the low priority sites and scored low in the meeting criteria that were discussed previously, and are recommended to be removed from the alternate housing sites list. It should be noted that the density of these sites in Alternative A even if all of them are included that is including the low priorty sites, does not meet the upper end of the 25-40% surplus recommended to meet the RHNA. Key Question 5: Housing Element Sites 1. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Housing Element sites list and densities? 2. Does the Planning Commission agree on the Alternative Sites List and priority? Please refer to Page 20 of staff report wherein presenter read material from staff report. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS  There have been several other amendments made with regard to conformance with the Balance Plan. A change has been made to the General Plan in the residential density from gross acres to area of the lot, as a result of request from the Council. The zoning map has been updated to reflect General Plan conformance; changes to the Municipal Code have been proposed as a result of the housing element, including the density bonus ordinance. Also non-substantial clean up changes have been made to the Municipal Code; and the housing element analysis found a constrictive development due to a requirement in the HOCSP where the residential density mixed use development is calculated net of the area dedicated to non-residential development, and as a result changes have been made to the HOCSP text to address this. Changes have been made to building plane line in the So. Vallco area along Stevens Creek Blvd. to reflect the General Plan recommendation. Steve Noack, PlaceWorks:  Provided an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state’s primary environmental protection law that requires that public agencies disclose environmental impacts that have physical effects on the environment as follows: effects found to be not significant, significant impacts, ways to mitigate or avoid impacts, effects that cannot be mitigated, and alternatives. CEQA does not dictate that the project approval or denial.  The EIR looked at a 2040 buildout horizon, because the General Plan is a large scale and long range planning document. The buildout of potential future development is based on the year of 2040 and the EIR is analyzed growth occurring between 2014 and 2040 which is a 26 year buildout horizon. It should be noted that 2040 is consistent with Plan Bay Area. As a program EIR this document addresses large scale long term projects encompassing a broad scope of physical development issues including General Plans, specific plans, master plans, and zoning ordinances. A program EIR analyzes full buildout scenarios that accounts for all development allowed under General Plan. The EIR allows for subsequent project level environmental review for future development to tier off the program EIR. Individual projects under the General Plan that warrant further analysis under CEQA are reviewed including identification of impacts and mitigation measures at time of project proposal. It should be noted that because we are looking at cumulative impacts over a long term scenario we are looking at some levels regional in nature such as air quality impacts and traffic impacts and those are factored into the impact analysis. To the extent feasible, where environmental impacts are identified, Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 7 CEQA requires that impacts be avoided, minimized, rectified, reduced, eliminated, or compensated. CEQA also permits incorporation of mitigation measures designed to protect preserve and enhance environmental resources as goals policies and strategies; in this case the General Plan includes goals, policies and strategies that help to address potential environmental impacts identified in the EIR.  The EIR looked at a full range of impact areas, found that there are no impacts or less than significant impacts in a number of areas; focus will be more on the areas where we did find potential impacts. The EIR did find there were a number of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation and some were found to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. The EIR carefully looked at a range of project alternatives and these mirror the alternatives in the pla n itself. The majority of the impacts were less than significant or were able to be reduced to less than significant with the mitigation. However even with implementation of feasible of mitigation and compliance with mandatory regulations including General Plan policies, impacts to transportation and noise and air quality would be found to be significant and unavoidable at the General Plan level. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior in this case because it would not allow for new development to occur beyond what is planned for the 2000-2020 general plan which would result in the least amount of development in the city and therefore reduce the consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources and would place fewer demands on public service providers which would require new facilities and would also fewer roads sewer energy and water infrastructure improvements and would generate less waste. However in accordance with the CEQA guidelines, if the environmentally superior alternative is found to be the CEQA required no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.  In this case the next environmentally superior alternative was found to be Alt . A since less development would occur over the projected buildout for the plan itself. Each alternative was analyzed at the same level of detail independent of the proposed project and CEQA requires that the lead agency identify mitigation measures and alternatives in order to avoid or substantially lessen impacts, but they don’t always lessen the impacts to bring them below the significant thresholds. It should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would apply to all the alternatives that were studied and compliance with mandatory federal state and local regulations including both existing and proposed general plan policies designed to reduce environmental impacts . Six comment letters were received from public agencies, 19 comment letters from members of the general public; most of the comments did not pertain to the adequacy of the draft EIR; the city has received a number of late comments raised subsequent to the closure. Piu Ghosh:  The Development Allocation recommendation in the Balanced Plan are generally between Alts. B and C; however, the recommended heights are similar to or lower than those studied in Alt. B. The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the proposed project which is Alt. C or any of the other alternatives due to the fact that the office/commercial to residential balance is better than that in Alt. B which has the lowest VMT of all of the alternatives studied in the EIR. It will continue to have significant unavoidable impacts where traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.  Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the key questions posed in the presentation for its recommendation to the City Council.  Said Alts. B and C allow them to meet the housing element for this cycle; because in Alt, A you would have to select all the sites that were studied in the EIR in order to meet the housing element and it would not meet the higher recommended number of units with consultation with HCD. Vice Chair Lee:  Even though Alt. A is before us, it wouldn’t meet the housing element; they cannot select Alt. A as an alternative. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 8 Aarti Shrivastava:  Alt. A by itself yes, you could modify the alternatives in terms of height and other things; it is correct in that if Alt. A was chosen, the sites that were selected at the densities selected don’t get up to the 1400 number being recommended. Adjustments to the housing element sites would have to be made. For an alternative just to meet the housing for this cycle, in terms of the RHNA number, it is 1002 residential units; but based on our consultant’s recommendation, it is 1400. If the number is not met, when cities have residential allocations, and they are not common, they are seen as growth restrictions and there have been lawsuits such as Pleasanton and other cities where people or advocates have seen these as being restrictive; our recommendation is if you meet Plan B area you would keep the resident allocation system. Another alternative is to take out the allocation system entirely and just allow the densities allowed in the General Plan. If you kept the allocation system, staff recommends keeping it but meeting Planned Bay Area so that at least if anyone had to securitize our General Plan we could say we have met regional targets. What we have done is in order to manage growth in the future we are recommending some changes to the General Plan so if mixed use sites are not housing element sites, residential can become a conditional use and that way residential development on such sites can be scrutinized more carefully. Vice Chair Lee:  Does that mean, one of our handouts and maybe consultant said before, that in order to meet our Planned Bay Area we would have to increase residential to 1,405 units. Does that hold true. If we add residential units of 1,400 it will meet the housing element, it will meet the Planned Bay Area thing. Aarti Shrivastava:  We have said generally 1,400 so we don’t have to get that specific. Said it would meet the RHNA allocation but it wouldn’t meet the Planned Bay Area target; in this case it would be 4,400 through the 2040 period, which is three housing elements worth; it is a 25 year plan. We are recommending that we do meet Planned Bay Area. It is not a mandate, but it could Chair Brophy:  It would not be an issue if we removed the residential allocation Aarti Shrivastava:  That is an option, we could remove the allocation system entirely and let development happen based on the densities provided in the General Plan. We have always had an allocation system which is why we had one in here, continued with it; it doesn’t have to stay.  Said the most effective way to conduct the discussion and question and answer portion of the hearing, in the past a multi layered approach, e.g. the Green Building Ordinance was followed; wherein it was recommended that the Commission take straw votes on each question; and then decide on the final recommendation. Staff has organized the discussion in the form of questions to make it easier for the Commission to discuss it is the Commission’s decision on how to best move forward. Com. Gong:  Asked staff how they can ensure if they go with the housing allocation, a mixed use project actually built out the residential units? Could they propose it or could it be allocated, as we know it doesn’t always happen. Aarti Shrivastava:  The city has the ability to say this is a housing element site and we want a mixed use project; there is always that ability because it is a discretionary permit if they come in with non-residential uses. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 9 Com. Gong:  How can we ensure that if we recommend the allocations we recommend tonight, how that those projects do go forward if the developer chooses to. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said the city has control over two things; zoning the property and reviewing project when it comes forward; through that process the city has the ability to manage the approvals; beyond that it is up to the developer to decide what they build or don’t build and it depends on the economy. What is under the city’s control, we have an approval process that allows the city to control it. If they came in with a proposal to build a mixed use without the residential allocation, the Commission might say this is a housing element site and we want to see a mixed use project with residential. In choosing the recommended site, said they go through a criteria including HCD criteria and other criteria discussed over time with City Council, Planning Commission and Housing Commission. Com. Gong:  Why did staff choose to go with similar or lower heights than were recommended in Alt. B? Aarti Shrivastava:  We heard a lot of community input; partly there was a lot of consternation about too much height in the city; we wanted to be thoughtful about where that height could be located; that is why we created the nodes and gateways and we created a community benefits program so that if additional heights were given, the community would get something. We wanted to balance economic and fiscal growth and stability with the community’s concerns about height and the character of their city. Com. Takahashi:  Referring to the discussion about allocation vs. density, he said he wanted to clarify that they currently have an allocation system and are looking to replenish that allocation based on the preferred sites, etc., but the other option is to abandon allocations and strictly go based on density at specific preferred sites. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said the allocation system referring to the option to remove the allocation system is only for residential, not for non-residential; the city has always had an allocation system to say this is how many units you could build in a given period. The other option is to not have an allocation system because the density can control it; we already have density controls. Presently for non-residential we don’t have FAR controls which is why we have the allocation controls. In the residential we have the belt and the suspenders, you don’t need both if you choose not to. Based on a discussion with the EIR consultant, our assumption in the project is that regardless of whether there was an allocation system or not, for residential projects we would develop based on the Planned Bay Area, which is about 4,400 units over the 25 year period; that is the assumption that we have made and it is a reasonable assumption since it is based on some regional targets. Com. Takahashi:  With regard to the 15% community benefit calculation, I understand we would allow more height with a community benefit and the valuation of that is 15% of the added value associated with that height. What was the general thinking behind that concept and how do you actually go about calculating the true dollar amount with that added benefit? Aarti Shrivastava:  Thought was given and programs were researched; there isn’t a discussion of what that value needs to be, it talks about some community benefits and it lists things and in the end it is similar to the concept Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 10 of horse trading; but we felt was not a good idea because we wanted some level of certainty, which is why we have a number. Other communities had a per square foot cost but that really doesn’t keep up with the economy and market at the time, so we felt the best way to do it was using market valuation and perform an analysis as a fairly true and tried common method when you look at things.  The ordinance for public art is based on a percentage of the performa; our own ordinance recognizes that, which is why we felt it was the best way to work. We had a discussion with our consultant who said this is the range you want to stay in, added benefit; which is why we came up with it and we wanted to be specific about the amount, very specific about location of where these heights could be, and very specific about what those additional heights could be; we didn’t want them to be open ended. Com. Sun:  The entire planning is based on the city’s future growth, including population and economy. Is there any particular number to share with the public? Aarti Shrivastava:  We can look at those numbers and give you the increase in population estimated with each alternative. Com. Sun:  Yes, but that’s the fundamental for our entire planning, next 25 years. Second question; when we allocate the land use commercial/office/residential, what is the base to our located office, the square footage … one million, two million, three million .. for me I want to know where the base, how you calculate that one; a lot of business is going to move there. Aarti Shrivastava:  A market study was done that said that the market based under analysis can support so many square feet of office, so many hotel rooms, so many residential units and that number is generally consistent with Alt. C. The future economy could support the kinds of numbers that were studied in Alt. C. In terms of staff’s recommendation, staff wanted to recommend more of balanced plan that balanced office and residential, so our numbers are lower, our office numbers are more consistent with Alt. B. The numbers were studied in the market study and they say that the economy can support over the long term about so much office in the city. Dan Amsden:  The EIR did look at what it would take to mitigate those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable and there were a number of reasons specifically for each intersection as to why it was found that the mitigation was not feasible; and it would range from the need to take private property to expand a intersection; there are jurisdictional issues where some intersections could not be completely controlled by the city of Cupertino. It was outside their jurisdiction therefore they could not implement the mitigation measures and there were some issues where it would affect operation of the intersection as well, so you are building intersections that don’t look at pedestrian and bicycle movement to the same degree and that would be found to be unfeasible. Com. Sun:  Question about the community benefit, we know Cupertino is famous for its school system, we cannot touch school issue; any way when city working with new developer, consider the new development will generate extra traffic and put into the contract part of the mitigation for the entire city traffic including the school impact is possible. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 11 Aarti Shrivastava:  Because of state law the mitigation that developments pay to schools is the impact fee; they already pay the impact fee; so we cannot add more mitigation in the EIR, however, the community benefits program has a cash in-lieu option and should the Council want to avail themselves of the cash in-lieu option, they can choose to give it to another entity which could include schools. It can be done through a development agreement; it won’t be done through conditions on the project; it is more of a development agreement issue as part of a community benefit program. Com. Sun:  For the community benefit program there is only condition about the height. Can we put another criteria when the city is working with developers to put in the community benefit there? Aarti Shrivastava:  As part of the EIR, once they know what the final plan is, they will draw up a transportation plan for the entire city that implements all of the mitigations, and then projects will be charged a transportation impact fee so that they would pay that amount so the city can go ahead and make those improvements. In the case of large projects they will mitigate their own impacts; there is a plan to do that; set up a program and a fee to do citywide mitigation. Com. Sun:  Next issue is regarding allocation of the housing element; for the first six we put the priority to meet the requirement; for the next level it is an alternative; the first year of priority the six locations the developer didn’t develop. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said no, the idea is to get through HCD; if HCD is happy with the first six sites and they have no questions, then that is the final list; if they have questions on some sites or they feel like certain sites should be taken off, that is when we go to the alternatives list; our recommendation is we just have enough sites to meet that 1,400 amount and once that list is finalized by HCD, we will bring it back to the Commission and Council for final approval and those are the only sites that will be housing element sites. The Commission and Council can choose to add more sites than required if they wish. Com. Gong:  If the HCD approve the six that are recommended, none of the other sites are able to build residential units. Vice Chair Lee:  No. 14 and how it doesn’t meet the affordability criteria and what can be done about that. The Villages were previously recommended as high acceptability. Aarti Shrivastava:  The villages has a density of 20 dwelling units per acre and if you then go down to 85% of that capacity you are down to 17 units; you need to meet a minimum of 20 in order to qualify as an affordable housing site; which is why the Villages don’t meet the affordability criteria. It could be rezoned, although increasing the density of the Villages was not analyzed. It was a site in the last housing element; at the time it had 13 sites and a good part of them met the affordability criteria; now there are 6 sites and Glenbrook Apts does not meet the affordability criteria. Reviewed the HCD Criteria for Site Selection, Other Criteria for Site Selection, Housing Element Sites, and discussed the details of Table 3 in the staff report. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 12 Aarti Shrivastava:  Defined Balanced Plan, which signifies the preamble to the discussion to try to balance the city’s future economic fiscal stability with a need to maintain the community character. It also speaks to the balance of land uses when comparing office to residential, trying to make sure they make regional targets so it hits a lot of issues. Chair Brophy:  In the EIR when looking at our residential labor force and number of jobs that were within the city of Cupertino, there were more jobs located within the city, as there were people living in the city and working. That was done before, and did not reflect the fact that last year we approved 3.5 million sq. ft. for the Apple 2 campus. My point is that when we approved the apple 2 campus last year we knowingly went to a very un balanced split between residence in the labor force living in Cupertino and the number of people who will be working within the city limits. Aarti Shrivastava:  Yes, and the balance plan tries to bring the housing more into balance. Chair Brophy:  We are putting in housing because the state requires us to, but the proposal, what I am trying to focus on is the office recommendation of the Balanced Plan where you recommend adding an additional 2 million feet in addition to the 540,000 feet that are already in the general plan. The question is that 4 people per 1,000 which is a reason able estimate for the office space, 2 million feet is another 8,000 emplolyees , in a city where we will be vastly out of balance or will be once the Apple 2 campus opens up, how do we call a recommendation that has 10,000 more employees coming into a fully built out city; how does that become “ balanced” Aarti Shrivastava:  If you put it that way it is not completely balanced but we are looking at trying to provide a balance between get the units and it’s semantics but if you were to completely say we want to house e very person who is employed in the city, then you are right. Chair Brophy:  Said he was concerned that when they approved the Apple 2 campus, they knowingly accepted a substantially out of balance set of numbers between the number of people working within the city limits and the number of people in the city who are in the labor force. They are now volluntarily suggesting that they throw in another 8,000 employees who will come into the city every day through some means, mostly via private car. Said he was befuddled why they are going even farther to the imbalance and calling it a “balanced Plan”. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said she could not respond; but felt they tried to balance a number of city objectives. Chair Brophy:  Asked what were the benefits/objectives that staff sees from putting in another 10,000 jobs into the city, given their limited ability to add housing? Where do we envision all the jobs being created in Cupertino; where will all the people live? Aarti Shrivastava:  Staff felt that by meeting Planned Bay Area the city met its regional obligations in terms of housing. In terms of job growth, Planned Bay Area does see some job growth in the city; it doesn’t see zero, so Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 13 they felt that somewhere in that range was generally acceptable. If you compare the 8,000 jobs they are adding with the population increase that would be accommodated with the housing. She said they were doing well, and are in the 9,000 range not counting the 14,000 working at Apple. Chair Brophy:  Part of the RHNA and one of the issues I have made in one of the study sessions, was that there is no part of planning theory that says that all cities have to exactly balance their residential labor force and the number of jobs within the city. The problem is that every other city in our neighborhood is doing exactly what you are proposing tonight which is adding vast new office complexes. Aarti Shrivastava:  Regionally there is a lot of office being added. We were trying to be a little more responsible. Chair Brophy:  When we talk about sustainability and meeting SB375 and we are worrying whether an apartment complex is on Stevens Creek or a few blocks away, that has nothing to do with sustainability but where people live does have a great deal in terms of vehicle mile travelled. Said that one of the most important issues facing Cupertino in the upcoming election was the traffic problem in the city; would they agree that the more development that is approved in Cupertino, the worse the traffic will get, which is a significant and unavoidable problem. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said if they look at the data and traffic analysis, it is question of degree and the degrees don’t change so much; primarily it is the regional growth and the economy that determines the traffic. In our No Project alternative where we don’t envision growth beyond the current General Plan, there is still a significant unavoidable impact as far as traffic, noise and air quality and the differences aren’t much between that and the other alternative, so it isn’t vast degrees of change. The alternative isn’t a whole lot better, so we tried to balance the issues. Com. Lee:  Even though the units are already spelled out, whatever gets approved, the number of units, if 600 units get approved for this parcel, then can Council say we will approve the 600 units but we wanted all studio apartments or one bedroom; does it have to be in a mix and how restrictive can it be later or does it need to be in the housing element? Aarti Shrivastava:  Said they don’t talk about the type of units generally, they try not to be too restrictive but in the past they have been amenable to looking at smaller units; they have talked about trying to house the workers and their needs. Com. Gong:  As part of the community benefit plan could we add an incentive to a developer to build a certain type of unit that we would prefer or that would be attractive? Veronica Tam:  Said in order to get to their objective of having some of the smaller units, it is a much better approach to incentivize that by providing community benefits of a range of housing. Perhaps they could put in the provision that if they include a larger proportion of smaller units they would get some kind of incentive. It is much better to incentivize that vs. restricting it to only studio units because you would probably run into fair housing situation where you are precluding families and restricting it to just studio units. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 14 Chair Brophy:  On any given site in order to meet some of the goals for very low and low and moderate income housing, can we condition the housing element allocation for a given site that it have a given percentage of very low or low income housing? Aarti Shrivastava:  Said she thought cities had done that; Cupertino has not done in the past and is something we can ask our consultants to help with. We try not to combine the community benefits with affordable housing because then you start getting into density bonus issues and we figured we would keep that separate but if the city wanted to designate sites for affordable housing, can they do that? Veronica Tam:  Said they normally don’t like to do that because there are only six sites and if you designate a particular site for affordable housing projects, you have to commit to having funding to make that project into an affordable housing project because you cannot require a private property owner to commit to doing that particular site and turning into an affordable housing project. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Chair Brophy noted that because of the late hour the meeting would be continued to the next meeting, tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 20th. Jeff Paulsen, Randy Lane:  Clarified that he was speaking as a private citizen and not in his role as Vice Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission. Said he was excited about the direction the Plan was taking; the Balanced Plan is a lot of what they worked for over the years and it includes a lot of wonderful elements. Highlighted some points; said they should not be afraid of height; height can be made attractive; no one wants to live in the urban canyons of Manhattan; nonetheless certain architecture elements, certain setbacks as the building steps back to a higher height, can be attractive; they should not limit themselves to a certain height.  He suggested there be more coordination between the various types of planning, the EIR talks about transportation levels of service dealing with only traffic, whereas the Balance d Plan talks about incorporating newer requirements for considering other levels of service such as bicycle and pedestrian. It is important to make sure all the different elements of the planning process agree with each other although not always possible because of various regulations and stipulations.  Said he would like to put in a good word for the trees, which can add a number of elements to a city, not just aesthetics but add to property values which translates to increased tax revenue; they can relate to decreased urban runoff; and also improve air quality both through production of oxygen and the filtering of particulates from freeways; and also can reduce the urban temperature; the problems with trees is they don’t fit in one place; a lot of times they are considered a Public Works issue; in another sense they are an economic development issue because they do increase property values. I would encourage that to be a part of the plan and keep up the good work; you are doing a great job. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:  Said it was the second housing element since the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood annexed in 2000 from the County and brought 5,000 residents in to Cupertino. Said it was a large complicated snowballing project; with a General Plan Amendment mixed in with a housing element, rezoning housing element sites which all seem to be shopping centers. She said she was now a No Project Alternative type of person and didn’t like where the Plan was going. She does not like the One Bay Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 15 Area Plan, it doesn’t fit into Cupertino’s future; it means other people who don’t live or work in Cupertino are planning its future; most of those people end up in other areas of the state but have no comprehension of what it is to be in the South Bay or the Peninsula. She said No Project Alternative and no community benefits; this thing keeps seeping back in every time we have changes to the R1; it is like let the developers run whole hog and let them build as high as they want because what we are going to do is, we give them; in fact the term was density bonuses, every time we go into this, this thing creeps back in; we are going to let them have reduced, they can go higher if they pay more money , they don’t have to have as much parking, they can have higher density on the housing; let’s don’t go there. Also, I am confused as it sounds like Vallco is on the list for a housing site; how did that happen? When did the Oaks go on? I heard Marina is gone on too; does that mean that Vallco is being considered for a housing element site; that is outrageous. Could you please verify that; that means that we are rezoning that entire center for housing; I am concerned about that, plus the Oaks. Let’s don’t go there. Carlene Matchniff, Irvine Co.:  Said that Irvine Co. submitted a letter, stated that they appreciated the job staff has done, but they al so have to look at some of the criteria that HCD places on the idea of redeveloping sites and one of them is to provide enough units to give the incentive to redevelop. I think we have to look at the economics of that. In the case of the Hamptons site we have 342 units existing there and to come in at the numbers where staff is it doesn’t make sense to invest in an assessment district for the Wolfe interchange for example and all of the other public improvements and community benefits, the park fees, school fees, everything that goes along with a development of that magnitude and we want to offer a first class development, first class architecture, class A apartments, we want to come in and provide Cupertino with an excellent project. In order to do that we need about 400 more units added to the numbers that where staff is to make sense out of this. I wanted to go over a few of the benefits for the public to really know what we can offer at this site. It is rather unique in that it is adjacent to the new Apple spaceship campus as you mentioned earlier, it is going to provide a lot of employment to Cupertino and we can offer housing that people who live there can walk to work; they can bicycle or walk to work; it is very connected; it is sustainable and it would be built to a high level of green standards and reduce the VMT for those people who live there and those people in the region who want to live a little closer to Cupertino. In addition, we told you last time we were here that we were working with Apple on some language for a General Plan Amendment; we have reached that agreement and have given that to staff, as well as we have provided a cooperative agreement for the redevelopment of the Hamptons to Apple for their review; so currently we are working on a cooperative agreement that would be a private party agreement that would guide the development, deal with issues such as security and privacy and those issues that are important to our neighbor. We have also hired an expert landscape architect to look at the issues of interface between the properties so that we can insure their privacy, incorporate some of our large redwood trees that are 70 to 80 feet already on the site and keep those and keep them in the plan. In addition, we will be contributing to the Wolfe interchange and we have been told by staff that some form of assessment district is going to be created that will take in that area; we and going to contribute to that and we know that from the get -go. In addition we are not in the Cupertino School District, but are in the Santa Clara School District so we do not impact Cupertino schools in terms of students in Cupertino schools. We are working out a mitigation agreement with the Santa Clara School District; and have begun an analysis of that and begun communication with them.  She pointed out that the Irvine Co. doesn’t sell their assets; it is a 150 year old company, which stays in the community and builds in the community; they are the landowner, the developer and the property manager; they guarantee their brand will stand behind the project and will deliver a high quality project. When allocating units across these sites, you really need to understand; are they going to be built in the future; are they really going to help that jobs housing balance because I do h ave an out of balance situation here as you mentioned, and there are other cities now that are saying maybe we Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 16 should build housing closer to the job so that people can get off t he freeways and spend more leisure time with their families and I think we can offer that in this case. Chair Brophy:  Said as he read the Irvine letter, it said that if offered 344 units in the housing element, that simply is not enough to make the project work. Ms. Matchniff said it would be 686 with their existing 342; in order to scrape those units and start over it doesn’t make economic sense; they would have to have about 400 more. Said essentially at 344 they would have to drop Irvine Co. from the housing element. Carlene Matchniff:  Said they wouldn’t have to drop them, if that was their choice. She said at this time redevelopment would not be feasible given the 344 figure. Chair Brophy:  Said given the letter, it would be hard to imagine if HCD would see the letter or hard to envision them accepting this as a housing element site. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said they would have to have a discussion. Albert Wang, representing Marine Foods and Marina Plaza:  Said they have provided service to the community for over 30 years and are aware that with the addition of a new hotel and the Apple campus, they have to update their site . Their vision is to have a mixed use village and want to bring back as much retail space as they currently have; and have Marina Foods return as an anchor tenant to provide continued support to the other retail stores and community. He felt their site was located along the corridor of Stevens Creek; if they make a deal at the center for residential and retail activities, the residents can generate the foot traffic needed to support the Heart of the City retail activities.  Said it was important for them that the project be a success, and have brought the Dahling group on board as their architect to design a project which they will blend adequately with both the original corridor and also along Alice Drive. They will work with the city to make their project the best ever for everyone in Cupertino. Said they feel their location is an ideal site for housing in Cupertino, located at major crossroads of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd. which is the financial area of downtown Cupertino. The Marina site is adjacent to both the major transportation corridor and retail corridor in the city. The Marina commuter has easy access to Hwys. 85 and 280 and the bus stop in front of Marina goes to the new Apple 2 campus to the Caltrans station and as far as downtown San Jose. They will better serve the community with outdoor seating area, beautiful landscaping and retail offering that will be for all the citizens of Cupertino. He said the Marina site fits all the criteria that a city is looking for regarding the housing allocation, and they hope to bring something special to the Heart of the City. Chair Brophy:  Commented that Marine Foods is a successful grocery store; one of the concerns of putting housing in the Marina area, is will that undercut the ability of the grocery store to serve the current customers. Albert Wang:  Responded they have adequate parking and will have underground parking also. Glen Simmons, Dahling Group:  Architect with Dahling group; has done mixed use projects in and around Cupertino and has been working with Marina Plaza people to develop some conceptual designs for their site. Their site is a Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 17 perfect one for housing because it already has a supermarket, banking office, restaurant and support services on site; they plan on trying to maintain those and adding residential to create a complete urban village. According to Balanced Plan it looks like there could be 200 units allocated for that site; they have looked at studies which include underground parking and above ground parking garages which would free up the site and make for a walkable neighborhood and create some community open space and plazas. They are listed currently as an alternative site; would like to be on a recommended site because they are located in HOC and makes a good fit for the housing element. They are highly motivated and would like to turn a 60s shopping center into an urban village. Chair Brophy asked Mr. Simmons:  In your conceptual work so far is it possible, one of our concerns is maintaining strongly performing shopping centers and not giving them up for housing; in your opinion and experience, do you believe that you can add housing and still have the same kind of strength that the center currently has? Would it work productively in terms of customers having ingress and egress and still want to shop there? Glen Simmons:  Said yes, they are currently looking at about 50K square feet of retail which is about what is there now, and they want to maintain that amount of retail on the site. Yes, not just retail; there are some food services there; dry cleaners, eye glass store, etc. It is not just direct retail, it is also services that wil l help the people who are living there. Com. Gong:  Questioned Mr. Simmons, he is working with the owner Mr. Wang now; if the property were not placed on the housing element site would he continue with redevelopment of the plaza in whatever capacity he is envisioning it? Glen Simmons:  Said the question would best be answered by the owner; he is interested in trying to do something different with that site. Albert Wang:  Responded that without the housing, it would not be economically viable for them to pursue. Glen Simmons:  Currently for their design, they are using a module of 2 bedroom units, it could range from studio to 3 bedroom; using a general module now because it is very conceptual. Claudio Bono, representing DeAnza Properties and Cupertino Inn:  Said they planned to build a hotel next to Cupertino Inn; 300 rooms, 4000 square feet of meeting space; underground parking; valet. He thanked staff for their recommendation of 90 feet for the hotel; but said they were requesting 110 feet instead of 90 recommended by staff, in order to make the commitment of 300 rooms as well as over 4000 sq. ft. of meeting space, convention area. It would be a full service hotel and are asking for the Commission’s consideration on it. Com. Gong:  Asked staff what was the special consideration for including convention meeting spaces and what is the criteria for it to be determined convention rather than just meeting spaces? Aarti Shrivastava:  Said they did not get detailed about it; but those areas were along Wolfe Rd by Cupertino Village and Cupertino Inn. It was specific request for hotels; said the recommendation in the area of Cupertino Inn Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 18 the base is 45 feet 60 with retail and going all the way up to 90 if there is a hotel or major convention center for community benefit. Claudio Bono:  Said the meeting space can vary to the convention being requested; the convention would be part of the plan that we currently have over 5000 square feet of meeting space which means it would allow 400+ people within those rooms which currently the largest one is the Cypress Hotel which can only commit up to 200 to 225, which would add an added value to the city of Cupertino. The new hotel would generate hotel taxes revenue for the city of Cupertino as well as over 100 new full time jobs. Robert McKibbin:  Said the process doesn’t reflect the wishes and desires of the Cupertino citizens; it mainly reflects the desires and wishes of the builders, developers and property owners. There is blackmail going on too; 3 developers and owners got up and spoke about it; Marina is talking about 208 housing units; keep in mind that Rosebowl reflects 204 housing units; they are looking at taking a structure that size and putting on that site. There is Cupertino Inn, now at 45 ft. elevation they can build; their proposal is 90, they don’t want that; they want 110, otherwise they will go home and somewhere else. Said Irvine Company’s density is where it is and the proposal from the city was a lot higher and they won’t accept that; they want something bigger, otherwise they will pull out of the process and I think Com. Brophy showed the letter that said if you are proposing this and we don’t give it to you, then they will walk out and we will have to go back and redo our housing unit.  Look at the audience, this is not an amendment to the General Plan; it is a major revision to the General Plan and Cupertino’s general public is not at the meeting; the process is so convoluted and complex, it has mainly been taken over by the developers, etc. It was a better process 10 years ago when we went through the housing element. Going out 26 years and talking about that is unimaginable; most will be gone in 26 years. If they go with the proposal of a 4500 housing units that is like taking Rosebowl at 204 units and building a Rosebowl at least one a year for the next 26 years; that gives us perspective and keep in mind the city of Cupertino essentially built out; a speaker said don’t worry about height and density; you do; people are already talking about the concrete canyons of Cupertino; that is what we are developing now.  An example is go to the Rosebowl and Vallco and see what is going on; at meetings the citizens got up in regards to Vallco and were dead set against housing at Vallco; dead set against anything but retail and what we do is get the proposal that talks about 600 housing units of Vallco which the citizens of Cupertino do not want and who knows how much office over there; the idea when the citizens had the chance to speak was to keep that 100% retail. You talk about maintaining retail space; it is not going to happen; the retail is going to disappear as already happened with Promethius, it went from 21,000 sq. ft. retail down to 8,000 which is an example of what will happen if this is proposed.  Said his recommendation for the housing is disregard the 26 units and the 4500 units, disregard the 1400; the recommendation is 1002; go with that and plan what we have for the next 5 or 10 years, not out 26 years with this example; same thing with regards to office space, etc. they can come back to the City Council and Planning Commission and ask for exceptions to the General Plan if there is a need for higher density and more square footage. It is getting ridiculous where they are giving 2 million square feet here, 3 million here, 100 million here; Cupertino is built out. Com. Sun:  Said he expected that more residents would have attended the meeting, and expressed frustration why more people were not attending. Do the residents not care anymore; is the plan too complicated? Robert McKibbin:  Said they came to the Planning meetings where they voiced their opinion and thought they would be heard; instead they weren’t heard. The Commission came back with a report from staff with high Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 19 density and it caught many people by surprise; the plan that they are talking about is huge. They don’t understand the process and don’t understand how huge this is and what a major impact it will have on the city of Cupertino the next 10 years. It is about 4500 housing units over that time period; one Rosebowl being built for the next 26 years; every year; where is it going to go? Com. Sun:  He said his understanding was to fix the problem, get more people involved in the city’s development; only thing that they can improve on is go through the procedure, extend the notice from 300 to 500 feet or more. Will it draw more people to the meetings? Robert McKibbin:  Said it is a breakdown in the process; there are major revisions to the General Plan, and they are not amendments, and somewhere in the process there is a breakdown where you and staff have not reached out effectively to the citizens of Cupertino in regards to the major impact it will have on the city, schools and traffic. It is hard at this point because it goes from you to the City Council on Nov. 3; how will you reach out to the public between now and Nov. 3? He said he did not have the answer but knew it reflects a major breakdown in the process if you can’t get the public out here for this major impact on the city of Cupertino.  There was a discussion on how to get the people to the meetings. Mr. McKibbin said at the earlier meetings, one of the options for Vallco should have been to keep it retail; that wasn’t given as an option when the meetings were held; that is not comparing it to what the citizens really want, and many of the citizens at those meetings said they wanted 100% retail. It i s not brought up at the meeting. He said it was a frustrating process, the citizens feel they do not have a say in it. Mark Tersini, K T Properties:  KT Properties is a commercial and residential development company in Cupertino for over 25 years; the land was purchased in late 70s with visions of office environment; building built in 1984; have been around the Stevens Creek Corridor and in and around the Oaks Shopping Center all that time; Oaks Center is in contract and currently in escrow scheduled to close shortly. He commended staff for their work on the General Plan and Housing Element update. They are currently in early stages of considering what to do with Oaks Shopping Center and how to redevelop it to its highest and best use. It is a commercial center comprising 55,000 sq. ft. commercial/retail space, some successful and some not in the center over the years. Said he viewed the Housing Element as one that could help energize the center, a mixed use opportunity for not only viable retail but housing and potential for hotel or office use. Said they have a long way to go before any formal application to staff and look forward to working with staff and the Planning Commission and City Council for the ultimate redevelopment of the property. Beverly Bryant, Ph.D:  Disclosed she was working on behalf of KT Properties. Congratulated staff for putting the program together; it is a huge commitment, a GPA and EIR, including all of the different elements. Other communities in the Bay Area are well aware that the growth in California in the next 20 years is going to be incredible; but the growth in the Bay Area is going to be significant; 2.1 million people was projected in addition in 2010 and the growth and jobs in that same period of time will grow by a million or over a million. When we are talking about growth we have looked at Cupertino tonight and Com. Takahashi had some great charts about what the percentage in the city would be, Bay Area 30% if it is 22% in Cupertino it is going to be somewhat less than the overall Bay Area, but I feel Cupertino will feel the impact of growth and jobs and need new housing no matter what it wants to do as will every other city in the Bay Area.  She urged the Commission to be as forward looking as possible and really think about the future planning because it is going to happen, and the Alt. C meets 100% of the targets and looking at that Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 20 alternative it is realistic. The people who have done the work on the housing particularly as well as the office and whatever else might come with that, really have considered the possibilities. The Oaks site does lend itself, it is on a transportation corridor that’s very important; it is really within bicycle range of Bubb Road and the Apple building is on that facility; also it is in bicycle range of crossing the bicycle bridge and getting onto the campus on the other way so there is opportunity for transportation in that way as well as the transportation on a major corridor of this community. The property lends itself to building high and using the heights and perhaps an increased height just because of its proximity to this freeway and putting buildings that are not going to be impacting a lot of neighbors in that particular area is important. Cupertino has an opportunity to be a leader not only in jobs but in housing, and we hope that you will do that. Phyllis Dickstein, resident:  Said she agreed with previous speakers Jennifer Griffin and Robert McKibbin. One of the reasons more people don’t turn out at the meetings is because in Silicon Valley people work until 11 p.m. and the other reason is people who are not retired cannot attend approximately 22 meetings. It is hoped that the process is not just some type of fig leaf to pretend to have consultation when all the decisions will simply be taken by the Planning Dept., Planning Commission and City Council who may have had some ideas to begin with as to what they wanted,. There is a certain disconnect as pointed out by a speaker between what the residents want which is not Alt. C development and what planners tend to want. The one thing that most struck me trying to read online today, there is one thing fundamentally I disagree with, which is that in order to preserve all the other neighborhoods in the city, those of us who live in the Heart of the City area, in the areas of Cupertino or Wolfe Rd. or DeAnza are going to be the sacrificial lambs. Why is it that all development has to be concentrated in one area and even now try to drive on Stevens Creek and getting out onto Blaney; the traffic problem is not going to go away and I think that concentrating development in one area and trying to develop at Level C or even between level b and C is overdoing it. Todd Dewell, Kimco Realty:  Property owners and operators of Cupertino Village at Wolfe and Homestead Rds., have been working on redevelopment at the site for 7 years and opened the parking garage last week, signifying the end of the first phase. It took 7 years because of the recession, to get through and get to a point where they could realize their project they first saw 6 years ago.  Commended staff for their work and trying to foresee where Cupertino will be in 10 to 20 years and they are pleased to have been a part of it; and leaving options for the future with heights, density; gives them an opportunity to see what they can do with their site 15 years down the road. Said they support staff and will continue to do so. Chair Brophy:  Cupertino Village is an extremely productive center and one of our concerns has been to give additional zoning to productive shopping centers that might undercut their role as a shopping center; maybe from the owner’s perspective might work out better if you could do mid -rise offices or apartments or things like that but from a city perspective we are concerned about protecting, not doing things that would undercut the viability of the existing center. Todd Dewell:  Kimco operates shopping centers, and does not veer from that; they would look at a mixed use project. Said the existing tenants may change over the years but Ranch 99 being the anchor is the mainstay of that center and that is going to stay in any kind of development they look at. They may go to a low- rise or mid-rise, adding some office, looking at potential housing but the core retail will still be part of the center today and in the future. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 21 Chair Brophy closed the public hearing and declared a recess.  Regarding community benefit discussion; one of the questions posed to the Commission is, should community benefit be allowed to extend heights of specific projects and the community benefit be funded by the benefit that the developer gains from those heights? Funding community development does allow community improvement; said he was hesitant from the standpoint of some of the heights getting to be too high, which is a concern. Said in general he supported community benefit. Chair Brophy:  Said he was skeptical, have some experience and some knowledge about how community development benefits have worked in other communities and the answer is what happens inevitably with the best of intentions going in is that you wind up having discreet negotiations between would-be developers and the professional staff and with individual City Council members, and then what happens when an agreement in principle is reached and the matter is offered to the city, everybody is shocked when the residents rise up in anger. If you are in a community such as Cupertino where the number one issue is traffic, by very definition adding more building space makes the problem worse and no community benefit can change that. Said he felt in the interest of openness and transparency they should just say no to it. Com. Gong:  Said in general she felt that the community benefit can be structured such that they can incentivize the developers to provide a community benefit. Said she did not support the cash in-lieu of contribution; it is an easy out to just pay for not providing the benefit and putting the burden on the city to provide the benefit. The developer should take the responsibility if they are getting the benefit and also there should be a provision in the development agreement that the benefit is maintained with the property not with the owner if it changes hands. The subsequent owner must maintain the community benefit at the level as dictated at the time of the development agreement. Vice Chair Lee:  Said she did not support the community benefits program; the project should benefit the community itself. Chair Brophy:  Summarized that there were 3 votes in favor of community benefits but more formal polling will be done. He cautioned some developers who are anxious to start spending the few hundred thousand dollars of their money on the expectation they will negotiate a community development concept with the staff, there is a long history in this area of them finding out that what the staff felt was a good idea and what Council members privately told them was a good idea turned out to be very different when the people showed up.  Commented on the issue Com. Sun was raising with Mr. McKibbin about the reasons why no community members were at the meeting, other than interested land owners. He said the General Plan and housing elements are not treated by the average citizen as a real project because it is a conceptual thing in most minds. A couple of years ago there was a request to add 80 or 90 units at Biltmore, and there were about 15 unhappy neighbors here; tonight it is a request for 600 units at Vallco and there are no other public commenting other than Jennifer Griffin. He said he would guarantee that when an application comes forward 2 years from now the room will be packed with very unhappy residents; only the future Council will have to state that the decision was made in 2014; and that goes for all the sites. Given that the Cupertino citizens don’t focus on conceptual issues such as the General Plan and housing element, it is all the more incumbent on the Planning Commissioners and for the City Council as well to make sure that decisions are made are not ones that will come back to bite the community. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 22  Said he has been a Planning Commissioner for almost 7 years and felt he has had good personal and professional relationships with staff and as a result of that it is painful for him, although not always obvious, that when he was questioning them earlier, he was doing it not because he doubted their skills, integrity, but felt the direction that the General Plan Amendments are going and to a lesser extent some of the housing element decisions are fundamentally wrong, which will lead the community to a deterioration of the quality of life. He said there was a phrase in one of the conversations where somebody said that the purpose of things like community benefits are to maintain the livability of the community. He said he would rather not approve projects that screw up the livability of the community and then ask for something back to make it not quite as bad; and to the extent that Cupertino is a suburban community, it doesn’t have a core downtown like San Mateo or Palo Alto where you have a traditional downtown where it could be created to more of an urban type setting, Cupertino is defined by two six lane strip highways; and doesn’t have the ability to be an urban community; and to the extent that they start injecting urban type densities into the community, certainly unnecessarily in the case of additional office space but even in the case of residential, we don’t have to go in the direction we do, it is extraordinarily important for us to stand up for the citizens who aren’t here tonight who I am confident don’t support this ki nd of urbanization. Nothing in the public hearings I have attended indicated that is the case; now occasionally you can frame questions in a way that give you the answer you want; what benefits would you want in exchange fo r higher density? When you frame it like that, people come up with their Christmas list.  Mr. McKibbin said that people are not looking for high density, they expect us to maintain, to recognize that buildings get old, they need to be changed; there will be locations that can be improved in zoning but the residents are counting on us not to approve the kind of changes that staff is recommending. Again I just want to re-emphasize that I have the highest regard for staff, in my professional career I have dealt with probably 3 dozen or more planning departments throughout California and our Planning Department is well above average in terms of competence and response to citizens, but in this case the philosophy they are proposing is simply wrong. Com. Takahashi:  Directed the following statement to Chair Brophy: You have had a lot of opportunity to express your strong opinion on this which is a good thing, but the rest of us have been silent on the whole general element with regards to where we stand on this, and there is an element of equal time needed. I want to start with Vallco because from a resident’s perspective I think there is a very widely held opinion that the current course of that shopping center is not acceptable; it hasn’t been for quite some time and keeping it as a retail only is not a viable solution in terms of any large scale redevelopment of that center, and to make it viable does need other elements to make it succeed; and the staff worked very hard in terms of trying to assess what would the community vision of Vallco look like in a successful environment. I think it is important for the Vallco project that mixed use, adding residential and adding office to that site is imperative for it to succeed, and so I definitely recommend we go that path for the Vallco center. Hotels have been pretty quiet and I wanted to express my opinion on the hotels; I feel like it is a significantly under-serviced area for the community and that it poses especially Paul to your point in terms of adding office when you add office it tends to attract business travelers to the region and the business travelers need a place to stay; when they stay in the city it generates revenue for the city; it generates revenue in terms of taxes but also they eat near the hotels they stay in, so there is further revenue that comes to the city with the re staurants. I haven’t heard any dissenting opinions on the hotel rooms but that is to be heard, but I fully support the decision with regard to the staff and the hotel room allocation.  With regard to the Balanced Plan and the staff’s attempt to generate this plan that really balance is a very strong word from the standpoint of trying to weigh varying opinions into a solution that in this case you have got effectively nobody happy with it in terms of developers wanting more and reside nts wanting less, so what is that balance that can be achieved. I commend staff for their efforts in trying to reach that balance because two competing factions really generate different requirements and Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 23 demands of the staff; I think from the standpoint of the outlook that staff has taken, I think it is the right outlook. I don’t necessarily feel qualified enough in terms of my own knowledge of the areas and the heights to make a strong opinion about the heights other than the maximum heights that are currently specified a 160 feet really seem to stick out as a very tall building in the city; likely the tallest building we would have if allowed to go to 160 feet; so that is something I would be concerned about. Clearly heights are sensitive near residential and the plan looks to mitigate that as best as possible, I think that is positive. We already have an established height at Vallco that is driven by the movie theater and allowing heights over that should just be evaluated based on what does that look like, and what does the site look like from a clearly economic viability standpoint . Sandhill is going to want to maximize those heights and so I think it is to Chair Brophy’s point setting those guidelines in the General Plan and not having it discussed further, I think is a little risky.  Marina seems like it is a good site with regard to its location; if it indeed can be a well architected site and planned with access; so I am not sure why it didn’t make the cut, especially having a willing owner is helpful and it is in the Heart of the City and it could fit the model and allow for achieving some of the goals we have. The challenge that everybody has had with this plan, or that I have had with this plan is the horizon is very far, 2040 and what I have tried to imagine is what can be done to really keep the elements of the city we hold dear, so neighborhoods and schools are clearly high on our list of things we want to maintain; and I think the plan as written attempts to address that; the reasoning for growth is clear from the standpoint of you have to allow some level of growth. I think Beverly Bryant was quoting some in terms of population and office growth, those are real numbers that will occur around us and as a community making sure our plan take s into account what those are and what we can comfortably work in and plan for and be at points of access and minimize impacts as best we can is important. I am a proponent of controlled growth. If we try to choke it off completely, that has ramifications downstream that are not healthy for a city. There has to be some level of growth just to maintain a city’s vibrancy.  The densities that are the housing and the housing densities proposed, my preference would be between B and C in terms of the number of units because of the impact on population and the impact on schools, but I feel like the growth as planned in terms of the locations and densities are where the growth needs to happen to facilitate access to where the jobs are. With the office growth doing things to promote housing near those offices is in the best interest of the community. I look forward to seeing how this plays out and how the city balances the needs of the residents and property owners and the community. We have the opportunity to continue to make Cupertino a great place to live and a better place than we have now; the staff is really focused on applying urban development in a way that will give us something resembling places to gather vs. the fragmented things we have now. A lot of the development that has occurred lately is in line with that and will promote better access and a good place to live. Com. Gong:  Said in line with what Com. Takahashi said, the only constant is change, and so to have a forward vision, a strategic vision to manage the change in how we want it to be, to manage and create a vision of incorporating the growth while keeping the essence of the city we love is necessary; we can’t have a vision that is three years out that’s even 8 years out, 2040 vision, it will be here sooner than we know. It is a vision, not set in stone; it’s not said that these are the elements, these will be built. It is a well thought out plan that they hope to present. It is difficult to look out at 2040 and the elements of it, but we have to know that there is change and she said she felt the development is somewhere in between the zero growth voices and the Alt. C voices.  Said she has spoken to residents who are attending some of the meetings that staff has had as well as those not attending and there is a lot of appetite for redeveloping Vallco; no one wants to see a dying property there; how it is developed has varied opinions; there is zero growth, zero change we have heard, and there is total forklift, mow it down and start over. Said she felt it is in between; we know it has to be revitalized; it can’t remain as is. Deny it and we can’t move ahead without addressing it and Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 24 without having a forward vision for it; it is only in our best interest so that we can maintain the city and essence of the city that we love. Com. Sun:  Just want to clarify, you prefer Alt. B or just zero growth. (Com. Gong said no, there are elements in all of it). Said he wanted to address procedure, public involvement which is very important. Said he was surprised that more stakeholders were not present at the meeting and he was deeply concerned on how to get people involved with conceptual discussion. He suggested for future meetings they give the public more time and more intense outreach to emphasize how important it is so they can get more public involvement.  Said he respected Chair Brophy and was surprised that the study session for the General Plan has been going on for so long. We can at the beginning express some of concerns at the beginning and the general philosophy may be wrong but at this stage we can say you prefer zero growth; most people in this room for the business they want to make money, drive property values up, probably go to Alt. C. Most of the citizens in Cupertino want to maintain the balance, the urban life; they want to enjoy the city services but want to keep quiet neighborhood; we need some balance.  He said Cupertino is in the center of Silicon Valley; and they cannot simply ignore the development; people flood in regardless if there is a standard of zero development or not; students come in to the schools, for city staff or Planning Commission we still think about something happening in other jurisdictions which is why he strongly supports community benefit for bringing extra funding to the city and solve the traffic issue. Vice Chair Lee:  Said she was concerned about jobs and housing imbalance in Cupertino and just looking at recent developments and approvals, really concerned about Cupertino’s future, fairly concerned about air quality, traffic that comes along with more jobs in Cupertino; do share Chair Brophy’s opinions on that. Said she did not support a lot of increase in office; as a health care provider there are a lot of propositions she has strong opinions on and are talking to residents; residents are asking why there are so many housing developments; said the citizens count on the commissioners to look out for their best interests.  The residents are concerned about the quality of life issues and she feels it is her responsibility to represent them. It is difficult to sit on the Planning Commission discussing additional housing units since it is not okay with the resident, which is a reason she does not support a lot of increase in office. Said she does not support any increase in office squares; does support some hotel rooms, supports 1,000 hotel rooms; residential because of a lot of public outcry and residents’ concerns and traffic issues. Said she was supportive of increasing enough residential housing to meet the housing element. Chair Brophy:  Said he agreed that Vallco is a terrible center and will get worse; there is a secular decline in brick and mortar shopping and two of the three anchors are clearly in a secular decline. Any revitalization of that property will require some other uses. Said he was not opposed to the concept of housing at Vallco, but extremely opposed to putting units into the housing element at Vallco because once you put it in the housing element, you have basically agreed on the number of units and it is just a question of details. Said he was willing to put in strong language about the need for Vallco to be revitalized with a mixture of uses containing a strong retail component, but would like to see rather than give a commitment to a developer, see a process something similar to what was done with Sandhill on the Main Street project where they worked as the community with the developer and discussed what the economic realities facing the developer were; but also recognized that there were limits as to what the citizens were willing to accept. Said he hoped they could separate a statement of intent for Vallco as opposed to making a commitment. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 25 Com. Gong:  Asked how they address the HCD requirement. Chair Brophy:  We are going to have to find 1400 units elsewhere; we will find a way; it will not necessarily be the priorities staff had but a lot of the ones they set were based on preferences based on city policy not on state policy. We have to respond to state policy but we can pick a different set of priorities as the advisory citizen committee, but I understand that we have to find replacement units. Chair Brophy:  Said he could respond as he had been here since the last housing element; the answer is No, we had 12 or 13 housing elements sites last time; one was developed for housing; approving housing element sites does not mean that they will all be housing 8 years from now. Said there was a letter from Sandhill properties saying that staff recommendation of 1 million square feet at Vallco is not sufficient for them to redevelop it and they would like to have 2 million square feet. Vice Chair Lee: Stated zero earlier. Existing General Plan which is 540,000 Said she would be open to taking the 523K of that currently in major company and making it part of a general pot. Com. Gong:  In the near term A, 500,000 sq, ft, but we are looking out for 25 years, not just for 8 years; support the 2 million extra to get 2.540 million; there is no specifics that 500K must be built in the next 8 years; this is just a broad stroke 25 years. Said she would support it being one big pot on all the numbers Com. Takahasi:  Said given the time horizon he was looking at something in between A and B; would accept B but a little apprehensive as to the total, for lack of coming up with something in between for now, Alt. B. Chair Brophy:  Said he would prefer to agree with Com. Lee and keep it at the existing 540,000; however to get 3 votes I will vote with Com. Sun and go for Alt. A with the hope that Com. Lee would consider casting the deciding vote for A rather than B. Aarti Shrivastava:  Said it could be dropped; no ramifications other than units with conditional uses might bump up against a General Plan Amendment issue; but residential uses are conditional based on staff recommendations. Our feeling is if it had to be a number it shouldn’t be such a restrictive number that we make ourselves vulnerable; we meet the regional target. It would be saying we met our regional target; I think that would be a much more defensible number; the alternative would be to take it out. Said they could choose to have it; they have recommended keeping it or taking it out. Com. Gong:  Said she would prefer to remove the cash in-lieu contribution and also to have verbiage to enforce the community benefit in perpetuity of the property rather than owning with the owner; Chair Brophy:  Said typically the community benefit is a one-time project; it is not ongoing. Cupertino Planning Commission October 14, 2014 26 Com. Sun:  Three conditions; one is no cash; the service remains attached to the property, continuity regardless if it transfers ownership; my proposal is to put a transparency procedure into the negotiation about the community benefit; that means it is not the Council or city staff’s power to negotiate the community benefit; it is going to have a public hearing procedure. Is that possible? Com. Takahashi:  Said he was changing his vote to No.  Said they had not touched on the topic of community shuttle which he felt was somewhat pervasive in a lot of the community outreach meetings. It is a concept that other cities have tried and no idea how successful they have been. Is there a reason that the smaller contract with the VTA couldn’t be worked as opposed to creating all this infrastructure; has it been looked at? Aarti Shrivastava:  The Public Works Department has had conversations in the past with the VTA, but staff could have another one with them. They likely look at why would they change the current program and what is in it for them in terms of profitability. If a case can be made for it, they may want to do it. It would require conversation with the VTA and it has not yet been done. The topic of heights and densities is deferred to the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No report. Housing Commission: No report. Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No meeting. Economic Development Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Motion by Chair Brophy, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to adjourn the meeting to the continued Public Hearing on October 20, 204 at 6:45 p.m.  The meeting was adjourned to the continued public hearing on October 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary These minutes will be available as a desk item PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: October 28, 2014 Applications: U-2014-06 Applicant: Dwane Kennedy (Whole Foods) Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard APPLICATION SUMMARY: Use Permit (U-2014-06) to allow an interior bar within an existing grocery store (Whole Foods). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Use Permit (U-2014-06) in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 1). PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Commercial / Office / Residential Zoning Designation: P(CG, Res) Commercial Building Area: 68,214 square feet Bar Area: 480 square feet Number of Seats: Indoor Café: 68 Outdoor: 84 Parking Spaces: Required: 326 Provided: 376 Hours of Operation: Unchanged - Daily 8am – 10pm Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 U-2014-06 Whole Foods Market October 28, 2014 BACKGROUND: Existing Center and Surroundings The proposed project site (existing Whole Foods Market), is located on the north-east corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road. To the west of the site is the Cupertino Sports Center; offices uses to the east; Abundant Life Assembly of God to the north; and retail and the Union Church of Cupertino to the south. The nearest single-family residential property is approximately 260 feet away from the site. Application Request The applicant, Dwane Kennedy, on behalf of Whole Foods Market California, Inc., is requesting a Use Permit to operate a beer and wine bar within the existing Whole Foods grocery store. The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission review and approve requests for eating establishments with separate bar facilities. DISCUSSION: Operational Details Whole Foods is a full service grocery store that currently sells alcoholic beverages for offsite consumption. Their proposal to extend onsite consumption of beer and wine will be within a small (480 square feet) designated area of the grocery store currently being used as a juice and soda bar and the associated indoor/outdoor dining area. The project will occur completely within the interior of the existing grocery store and will not involve any expansion of the dining area or building. Wait service will not be provided within the service area. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the applicant’s detailed business plan. Parking The existing 68,214 square foot Whole Foods Market is required to provide one parking space per 250 square feet of retail use (including any ancillary eating/seating area without a bar). By converting the existing food and juice bar area to an alcohol serving food area, additional parking will be required at a rate of one space per three seats plus one parking space per employee based on the City’s Parking Ordinance. Consequently, the project will be required to provide a total of 326 spaces and the site currently provides 376 spaces. Ordinance Parking Requirements Parking Surplus On-Site Existing Condition* 273 spaces (1 space per 250 square feet of grocery store) 103 spaces (376-273) Project (Existing Grocery + Bar) 326 spaces (1 space per 250 square feet of grocery store + 1 space per 3 seats + 1 space per employee) 50 spaces (376-326) *The existing grocery store is 68,214 sq. ft. in size and provides 376 on-site parking spaces. The indoor/outdoor seating area includes 152 seats. U-2014-06 Whole Foods Market October 28, 2014 Proximity to Residential Use The project site is not immediately adjacent to any residential uses. The closest single-family residential property is located approximately 270 feet to the south and 260 feet to the north. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause any significant impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Security The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office has reviewed the project and does not foresee any security concerns or negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. A condition of approval has been added to require the property owner to address security concerns in the event that they arise and pay for additional Sheriff’s enforcement time if required. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed use occurs within an existing facility and minor alterations will be made within an urban, developed environment. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH: The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda  Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)  Legal ad placed in newspaper  (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  Notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the project site (300 foot)  (10 days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to the hearing) PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT: This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. Project Received: August 11, 2014 Deemed Incomplete: September 10, 2014 Deemed Complete: October 1, 2014 Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until December 1, 2014) to make a decision on the project. The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision. U-2014-06 Whole Foods Market October 28, 2014 Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Draft Resolution for U-2014-06 2 – Business Description 3 – Plan Set U-2014-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INTERIOR BAR WITHIN AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE (WHOLE FOODS) LOCATED AT 20955 STEVENS CREEK BOULVARD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2014-06 Applicant: Dwane Kennedy (Whole Foods) Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Plan ning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; The proposed wine and beer bar will be within the existing Whole Foods Market which has operated at the site since 2007. The closest single-family residential property is located approximately 260 feet from the proposed interior bar. Adequate security measures are incorporated into the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. The proposed use complies with the Cupertino General Plan and Municipal Code requirements, including but not limited to, parking regulations, hours of operation and security measures. Draft Resolution U-2014-06 October 28, 2014 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof: The application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2014-06 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. U-2014-06 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 28, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 11, 2014 consisting of 3 sheets, labeled A1.0, A2.3, and A-CUP entitled, “Whole Foods , 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Field Paoli; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. EXPIRATION If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for two year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit application must be applied for and obtained. 4. OPERATIONS a. Beer and wine service from the bar shall only be operated within the area delineated on the site plan exhibit. b. The total number of seats shall be limited to 152 within the delineated service area. c. Exterior doors shall be kept closed at all times. 5. MODIFICATION OF BAR LAYOUT AND OPERATIONS The Director of Community Development is empowered to make or allow adjustments to the operation and/or layout of the bar to address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may occur or changes proposed by the restaurant operator that are determined to be minor. 6. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the judgment of the Director: a. Substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use permit hav e not been implemented, or Draft Resolution U-2014-06 October 28, 2014 b. Complaints are received related to the tentant under this use permit, and the complaints are not immediately addressed by the property management and/or the tenant, or c. Where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code. 7. LAW ENFORMENT SUPPORT The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the satisfaction of the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from documented incidents in the development at the City’s contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident. The City reserves the right to require additional secu rity patrols and/or other measures as prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement. 8. STOREFRONT WINDOW DETAILS The storefront windows shall be kept open and transparent to the greatest extent possible. The final floor plan, storefront design and window display shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 9. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. 10. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE The applicant shall obtain and adhere to the appropriate California Alcoholic Beverage Control License(s) in conjuction with the proposed service. 11. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other de partments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 12. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 13. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, Draft Resolution U-2014-06 October 28, 2014 reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW Prior to preforming any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED The new structure shall be equipped with a fire sprinkler system. SECTION V: CEQA REVIEW The project was determined to be categorically exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it relates to interior improvements to an existing facility in a development, urban environment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission 13 ' - 4 " 2 ' - 8 " 2 2 ' - 8 " 2 ' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 2' - 8 " 8' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 3' - 4 " 4' - 0 " 2' - 8 " 5' - 4 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 6' - 4 " C.L. TRUCK BAY 44 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 6'-0"3'-4" (1 7 ) ( 2 ) (2 ) (1 0 ) (2 ) (2 ) (6 ) (4.5)(2.5) (3 ) (6 ) (2 . 5 ) (3 ) ( 2 ) (4 ) (4 . 5 ) 2'-8"16'-0"2'-8"3'-4"2'-8"3'-4" (2)(16)(2.5)(2)(2.5)(2) 6" 5 ' - 0 " 6 " 13 ' - 0 " ELEV. -0'-1" ELEV. -1'-0" ELEV. -1'-0" ELEV. -0'-3" ELEV. 0'-0" ELEV. 0'-0" ELEV. -4'-0" ELEV. -1'-0" ELEV. -1'-0" ELEV. -4'-1" ELEV. -1'-8" ELEV. -1'-9" ELEV. -1'-3" ELEV. -1'-11" ELEV. -1'-8" ELEV. -0'-5" RAMP 1:12 MAX SLOPE ELEV. -1'-8" ELEV. -0'-3"ELEV. -0'-1"ELEV. -1'-8" ELEV. -1'-7 1/2" ELEV. -1'-8" 4' - 9 " 1 4 ' - 6 " OP E N I N G W I D T H 4' - 8 " 1 4 ' - 8 " DO O R W I D T H JAMB DETAIL 4'-0"3'-4" (3)(2.5) 17C C 33 15 C C 15 C 16 15 C C 15 15 C C 15 17 13 15 14 14 14 14 17 18 18 18 18 18 12 H van H H H H H H H 4 4 4 4 4 4 9'- 1 0 " 14'-11" 6" 31/4" ELEC. WIREWAYSTUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT CASE FRONT ELEC, MECH, PLUMB. , STUB UP AREA ELEC, MECH, PLUMB. , STUB UP AREA CA S E F R O N T EL E C , ME C H , PL U M B . , S T U B UP AR E A EL E C , ME C H , PL U M B . , S T U B UP AR E A ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ST U B U P A R E A CA S E F R O N T WA S T E O U T RE F . O U T EL E C O U T ELEC. WIREWAYSTUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STU B U P ARE A WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAY STUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ELEC. WIREWAYSTUB UP AREA WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT ST U B U P A R E A CA S E F R O N T WA S T E O U T RE F . O U T E L E C O U T EL E C . W I R E W A Y ST U B U P A R E A WA S T E O U T RE F . O U T EL E C O U T CA S E F R O N T EL E C , ME C H , PL U M B . , S T U B UP AR E A EL E C , ME C H , PL U M B . , S T U B UP AR E A STUB UP AREA CASE FRONT WASTE OUT REF. OUT ELEC OUT H G F E I 6 2 3 4 5 D C B A 1.51 STEVENS CREEK BLVD NO R T H S T E L L I N G R D van H (E) ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS (NO WORK), SEE WOMEN'S MEN'S SEATING AREA OF WORK JUICE & SODA FOUNTAIN SCOPE OF WORK EXIT # 1-3 96" CLEAR EXIT # 1-4 67.25" CLEAR EXIT # 1-5 67.25" CLEAR EXIT # 1-8 67.25" CLEAR EXIT # 1-7 67.25" CLEAR EXIT # 1-6 33.625" CLEAR EXIT # 1-2 96" CLEAR A0.8.1 3 EXIT # 1 96" CLEAR 1.SEE SHEET A0.8.1 AND A0.8.2 FOR ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS 2.SEE SHEET A0.8.1 FOR EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 3.SEE SHEET A0.9R REFERENCE SHEET FOR ORIGINAL TI BUILD-OUT CODE ANALYSIS 4.SEE SHEET A1.0R FOR ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PLAN; WORK COMPLETED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT 150 KEYNOTE TAG AREA OF WORK REMODEL ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL EXIT DISCHARGE EXISTING EXITS, NO CHANGE 36" WIDE DETECTABLE WARNING EXIT ACCESS Architects 150 California St. 7th Floor San Francisco California 94111 Tel. 415.788.6606 Fax 415.788.6650 REVISIONS DATE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect © Field Paoli SHEET NO. JOB NO. CHECKED BY DRAWN BY SCALE JUICE & SODA FOUNTAIN MAY 23, 2014 ISSUE FOR PERMIT 1351.11 7/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 4 1 2 : 1 5 : 2 1 P M As indicated A1.0 JWL EED SITE, ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PLAN AND CODE ANALYSIS STEVENS CREEK 20955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 1" = 20'-0"A1.0 1 SITE ACCESSIBILITY & EGRESS PLAN OCCUPANT LOAD - PROPOSED - SODA FOUNTAIN AND JUICE TOTAL: 70 NET GAIN FROM EXISTING: 32 NEW STORE TOTAL LOAD: 1,563 NONAMEAREAOCCUPANCY USE OLFOCCUPANTS 102FIRE RISER33 SFS-2ACCESSORY STORAGE AREAS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM300 SF1 103SODA FOUNTAIN SERVICE162 SFBKITCHEN - COMMERCIAL 200 SF1 103ASODA FOUNTAIN COOLER62 SFS-2ACCESSORY STORAGE AREAS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM300 SF1 103BSODA FOUNTAIN SEATING281 SFBASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS - UNCONCENTRATED15 SF19 104SEATING691 SFBASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS - UNCONCENTRATED15 SF47 108JUICE 107 SFBKITCHEN - COMMERCIAL 200 SF1 OCCUPANT LOAD - EXISTING (AREA OF WORK)EGRESS WIDTH # OF EXITS PROVIDED (NO CHANGE) NONAMEAREAOCCUPANCYOCCUPANCY USEOLFOCCUPANTS 1CULINARY CENTER508 SFBASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS - UNCONCENTRATED15 SF34 2SALUD STORAGE115 SFS-2ACCESSORY STORAGE AREAS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM300 SF1 108COUNTING 246 SFBBUSINESS AREAS 100 SF3 TOTAL OCCUPANTS EXISTING (AREA OF WORK): 38 TOTAL OCCPANT LOAD (FROM A0.9-REFERENCE SHEET): 1,531 1,563 PERSONS X .2 EXIT WIDTH = 312.6 INCHES EGRESS WIDTH REQUIRED EXISTING WIDTH PROVIDED: 494 INCHES SHEET NOTES - SITE PLAN 1,563 PERSONS (NEW OCCUPANT LOAD) X .2 EXIT WIDTH = 312.6 INCHES (NEW EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED) EXISTING WIDTH PROVIDED: EXIT 1 96" EXIT 1-296" SLIDING DOOR - FULL BREAKOUT EXIT 1-396"SLIDING DOOR - FULL BREAKOUT EXIT 1-467.25" EXIT 1-567.25" EXIT 1-633.625" EXIT 1-767.25" EXIT 1-867.25" TOTAL590" (NO NEW ADDITIONAL EXITS REQUIRED) LEGEND - SITE PLAN NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE HG I J 2 1.5 SODA FOUNTAIN COOLER 103A SEATING 104 JUICE 108 B4 ZBZB ZB ZB ZB ZB ZB ZBZB CC C ZB ZB ZB ZB ZB E E 2 A5.2 2 A5.2 1 A5.2 1 A5.2 1' - 9 3/4"4' - 0"11' - 7" 6' - 0"10' - 6" 11.2 SODA FOUNTAIN SERVICE 103 SODA FOUNTAIN SEATING 103B FIRE RISER 102 ZB 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 1' - 2 1 / 4 " 5' - 2 1 / 2 " 4 ' - 0 " 1' - 1 1 " TYP 1' - 5"8 3/4" A2.3 2 6' - 2"3' - 6"4' - 2"9' - 6" 4 ' - 6 3 /4 " 4' - 7 3/4" 4' - 7 3/4" ALIGN 9.22 9' - 0" MATCH (E)COFFEE SERVICE 23.1 14' - 0" TO BEAM 10' - 0" BO SOFFIT 8' - 9" 4' - 6" 15' - 5 1/2" ZA ZA ZA CEILING ELEMENT ABOVE (E) PARTITION/ WALL 3' - 6" ELEVATION DATUM OR CONTROL POINT TRACK FIXTURES - ALIGN BOTTOM OF TRACK HEAD WITH BOTTOM OF SOFFIT (E) GYPSUM BOARD SOFFIT 2 X 2 ACT CEILING COOLER BOX CEILING WOOD SOFFIT PENDANT LIGHT (HIGH BAY) - EXISTING TO REMAIN DECORATIVE PENDANT LIGHT - 7'-0" AFF RECESSED 2 X 2 FIXTURE HK LINEAR COOLER FIXTURE ZB C B4 FIRE SPRINKLER HEADLAYOUT DIMENSION OPERATIONAL CLEARANCE DIMENSION FAN COIL UNIT SEE REFRIGERATION DRAWINGS 2 2 A5.2 2 A5.2 1 A5.2 1 A5.2 WOOD SOFFIT MEMBER TYPES: 2 X 4 TYP, LENGTH PER TYPE OVERHANG 1' - 6" TYP A A B B B B D 3' - 4 1/2" WD3 MTL1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A WD3 SEE SLAB PLAN C C C D: 12'- 0" D @ (E) WALL 6" TYP OVERHANG C: 7'- 0" B: 13'-0" A: 8'-0" GAP, TYP 2 1/2" 2.28 4' - 6" 4' - 6" 4' - 6" 4' - 0" B 5.7 TYP 5.8 TYP A9.2 2 5.6 5.9 ALIGN ANGLE WITH LAST PLANK, TYP 11' - 3 1/2" 17' - 3 1/2" 17' - 3 1/2"18' - 3 1/2" 18' - 3 1/2" MTL1 A9.1 3 1.LIGHTING SCOPE MAY CHANGE PENDING FINAL PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS, VERIFY WITH ARCHITECT 2.PAINT DECK OVER SODA FOUNTAIN AND SEATING, AT ANY UNPAINTED NEW OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT PAINT EXISTING STUDS ABOVE SOFFIT. Architects 150 California St. 7th Floor San Francisco California 94111 Tel. 415.788.6606 Fax 415.788.6650 REVISIONS DATE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect © Field Paoli SHEET NO. JOB NO. CHECKED BY DRAWN BY SCALE JUICE & SODA FOUNTAIN MAY 23, 2014 ISSUE FOR PERMIT 1351.11 7/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 4 1 2 : 1 5 : 3 9 P M As indicated A2.3 JWL EED REFLECTED CEILING PLAN STEVENS CREEK 20955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.3 1 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - JUICE & SODA FOUNTAIN LEGEND - RCP GENERAL NOTES 1DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: AGRID DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURAL GRID LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BITEMS THAT ARE LOCATED ON A GRID LINE OR OTHERWISE LOCATED BY MODULE, MULLION LAYOUT, SCHEDULE OR DETAIL ARE NOT OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED. CDIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR FACE OF CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DDO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN AND CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY LAYOUT CRITERIA, OR IF DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTED, NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION. EWHERE A DRAWING DIMENSION IS NOTED AS "CLEAR" THIS DIMENSION SHALL INDICATE CLEARANCES AT COMPLETED CONDITIONS, TAKING FINISH MATERIALS INTO ACCOUNT. FDIMENSIONS ARE BASED UPON SPECIFIED MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT. SUBSTITUTIONS MAY EFFECT DIMENSIONS. SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS SHALL INDICATE THE IMPACT OF THE SUBSTITUTIONS UPON DIMENSIONS AND CLEARANCES. GDIMENSIONS FOR OR TO EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2ELEVATIONS REFER TO THE TOP OF THE SLAB ON GRADE DATUM. FLOOR ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE TO TOP OF CONCRETE SLAB, BUILDING HEIGHT ELEVATIONS NOTED ARE TO TOP OF FRAMING. 3A SITE SURVEY SHOWING SITE BOUNDARIES, BOUNDARY LENGTHS, DECLINATIONS, SITE CONDITIONS AND GRADES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS FURNISHED TO THE DESIGN TEAM BY THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. 4FIRE SPRINKLER WORK SHALL BE DESIGN-BUILD. PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR THIS WORK SHALL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5PROVIDE BACKING AND BLOCKING FOR WALL MOUNTED ELEMENTS AS REQUIRED FOR ATTACHMENT AND FOR SEISMIC BRACING OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. 6IF MATERIALS SUSPECTED OF CONTAINING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED, DO NOT DISTURB; IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ARCHITECT AND OWNER. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL BE REMOVED BY OWNER UNDER A SEPARATE CONTRACT. 7CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH WORK HOUR AND NOISE RESTRICTIONS REQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. 8FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM TO CBC & NFPA CODES. FIRE SPRINKLER DESIGN SHALL BE BY A LICENSED FIRE SPRINKLER ENGINEER. PRIOR TO FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION, CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW. 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.3 2 ENLARGED RCP - SODA FOUNTAIN SOFFIT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.3 3 CANOPY PERSPECTIVE - FOR DESIGN REFERENCE ONLY 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A2.3 4 CANOPY PERSPECTIVE 2 - FOR DESIGN REFERENCE ONLY KEYNOTE RCP 2.28(E) WALL. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ATTACHMENT TO (E) STRUCTURE. 5.6WF POST CONTINOUS TO BEAM ABOVE, TYP OF 5 5.7HSS POST WELDED TO BEAM ABOVE, SSD 5.8ANGLE WELDED TO HSS POST, SSD. WOOD MEMBERS FASTENED TO ANGLE PER DETAIL. 5.9WF BEAM CONTINOUS FROM POST TO (E) WALL. TYP OF 5 9.22PAINT ALL NEW HVAC TO MATCH EXISTING 11.2PROVIDE SHADES AT (E) WINDOW 23.1HVAC DUCTWORK, SMD SHEET NOTES - RCP NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE 2 A5.2 1 A5.2 3223 SF Architects 150 California St. 7th Floor San Francisco California 94111 Tel. 415.788.6606 Fax 415.788.6650 REVISIONS DATE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and the same may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect © Field Paoli SHEET NO. JOB NO. CHECKED BY DRAWN BY SCALE JUICE & SODA FOUNTAIN OCTOBER 16, 2014 ISSUE FOR PERMIT 1351.11 10 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 5 : 1 2 : 0 8 P M 1/4" = 1'-0" A-CUP JWL CFS FIXTURE PLAN - RESTAURANT AREA BOUNDARY STEVENS CREEK 20955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 1/4" = 1'-0"A-CUP 1 WHOLE FOODS MARKET - STEVENS CREEK - RESTAURANT AREA BOUNDARY NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE Subject: Report of the Community Development Assistant Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 Foothill Live-Work Project Update The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Foothill Live-Work project at 10121 N. Foothill Blvd on April 22, 2014, and the City Council approved the project on May 20, 2014. In October, the applicant submitted building permits for City review. The applicant is currently working on addressing comments, and plans to begin construction early next year. Apple Campus 2, Phase 2 Architectural and Site Refinements The project applicant is requesting the approval of an Architectural and Site approval and a Tree Removal Permit to refine the phase 2 portion of Apple’s previously approved office, research and development campus. The project site is located east and west of N. Tantau bounded by Calabasas Creek to the north and west, City of Santa Clara limits to the east and I-280 to the south. The plans and updates for this project can be viewed at www.cupertino.org/applephase2 .An Administrative Hearing is tentatively scheduled on November 13, 2014, 5:00 p.m., at Cupertino City Hall to consider this request. Upcoming Meeting Schedule Regular Planning Commission meetings are scheduled the holiday weeks of November 25th and December 23rd, 2014. Planning Commission approval is needed to cancel these meetings, if the Commission so desires. Upcoming Dates: Date Event Time Location Tuesday, November 3rd, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting – GPA Housing Element 1st Reading 6:45 p.m. Community Hall Tuesday, November 18, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting – Tree Ordinance Amendment / GPA Housing Element 2nd Reading 6:45 p.m. Community Hall Tuesday, January 6, 2015 City Council Regular Meeting CANCELLED Tuesday, January 13, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6:45 p.m. Community Hall OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org