PC 06-14-2016CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupe1iino , CA 95014
6 :45 P .M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
JUNE 14 , 2016
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 14 , 2016, was called to order at 6 :45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Takahashi.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
A lan Takahashi
Margaret Gong
Winnie Lee
Geoff Paulsen
Don Sun
Staff Present: Assistant Community Development Director: Benjamin Fu
Colleen Winchester
Erick Serrano
Timm Borden
Asst. City Attorney:
Associate Planner:
Director of Public Works:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
The following changes were made to the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission minutes :
Page 9: 4t1i Paragraph -Vice Chair Gong: Delete first line "ls it true that the ......... in the covenant"
Page 9 : 2°ct Paragraph -Com . Lee: Delete: "the street tree" and insert "the front yard tree"
Page 9: 7th Paragraph -Gian Paolo Martire: Line 2, Delete "are in" and insert "are not in"
Page 10 , near bottom of page : Mayor's Meeting : Delete: "Mayor Barry Chang plans to build
..... performance center" and insert "Mayor Chang voiced he would like to see something
like that"
MOTION: Motion by Chair Takahashi, second by Vice Chair Gong, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Sun absent, to approve the April 26, 2016 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
2. Minutes of the May 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Chair Takahashi, and carried 4-0-0, Com.
Sun absent, to approve the May 10, 2016 minutes as presented.
Cupertino Planning Commi ss ion 2 June 14 , 2016
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None other than re lated to agenda item .
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Lisa Warren, Cupertino resident:
• Addressed the Commission relative to the term "mixed use". Said she felt it was an over-used abused
term . Said they continue to look at projects that call themselves mixed use but they all but obliterate
retail and get rid of a use that we really need; the balance is not very good ; it is like going out and
ordering mixed fruit for breakfast; and your bowl of mixed fruit arrives and you are not a big fan of
melon but you tolerate it ; you love strawberries, blueberries are awesome ; you get two blueberries , one
strawberry cut in quarters and a bunch of melon . It is not really mi x ed ; it is very weakly mixed and it
feels like that is what is happening all over, not just Cupertino.
Chair Takahashi closed Oral Communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
3. ASA-2015-22, DP-2015-05.
U-2015-06, TR-2016-04,
EXC-2016-03, EXC-2016-05,
(EA-2015-05) Amy Chan
(DeAnza Venture LLC)
10122 Bandley Dr. &
10145 DeAnza Blvd.
(Marina Plaza)
Architectural and Site Approval to allow construction of a 122
room hotel , 2 mixed use buildings with 188 apartment units, and
approx. 22 ,600 sq . ft . of commercial space and a ss ociated site
and off-site improvements. Development Permit to allow the
demolition of approx. 44 ,000 sq. ft . of commercial space and
construct a 122-room hotel , 2 mixed use buildings with approx.
22 ,600 sq . ft . of commercial space and 188 apartments with
associated underground and surface parking. The project
Proposes 16 units as very low income, Below Market Rate units
making the project eligible for density bonus ; Use Permit to allow 24 hour
operations for a 122-room hotel including a restaurant with separate bar;
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 90 trees, Heart
of the City Exception for Building A to allow rear and side setbacks of 10 ft.
where 22 .5 feet are required; and to allow a 16-ft. setback for an architectural
feature where 31 feet is allowed; Fence Exception to allow electronic vehicle
gates.
It was noted that Com. Sun has a conflict of interest relative to the application , therefore he will not
participate in the meeting.
Erick Serrano, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Rev ie wed the application for redevelopment of Marina Foods with associated site and off-s it e
improvements as outlined in the staff report . He reviewed the project de scription , project site, setbacks,
architecture, landscaping and tree removal, transportation/parking, participation in th e Transportation
Demand Management Association when formed; and environmental review, which are outlined in
detail in the attached staff report.
• Staff recommends that th e Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
a ssociated applications .
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 14, 2016
Com. Paulsen:
• Caltrans is introducing themselves as committed to reducing traffic volume; yet they are requesting
additional lanes be put in on-ramps; it is indicative of the inconsistency seen at Caltrans. Said he
applauded the answers, and commented that on one side they say they want to reduce traffic yet on the
other hand want to build more lanes.
Com~ Lee:
• Asked staff to go into detail on the site plan and about the closure of easements and relocation of
easements; there appears to be an unhappy neighbor.
Erick Serrano:
• Said the easements in question are the easements running from Bank of America and another one would
be another easement along this property that has reciprocal access, the two properties have reciprocal
access between the site; there is still access throughout the site for the two properties. The city reviewed
the proposal along with the city engineer and determined that it was still adequate to meet the conditions
and to allow for reciprocal access. Conditions of approval allows the flexibility so that the applicant
can continue to have the dialogue discussion with the other property owners; we will allow them the
opportunity to work that out; it is a private agreement. The hotel room allocation draws from the Heart
of the City (HOC), 122 rooms is what is currently available in the HOC.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Asked staff to provide information on the Transportation Improvement Plan.
Timm Borden, Director of Public Works:
• Said they were beginning the nexus study for the traffic impact fee; in lieu of that they have surveyed
a lot of the other local jurisdictions in the region to determine approximately what traffic impact fees
are and will take a deposit or bond to secure an amount at this time. At the time that the building permit
is issued they will determine if they already adopted the traffic impact fee, they will pay what that is;
if they have not, they will pay the deposit in-lieu fee and then adopt the fee. If it is lower they would
get a refund down to that amount; if it is greater they are basically capped with this amount so the city
would pick that up and it would be rolled into the rest of the fee. It is anticipated that there will be
some amount refunded when the fee is actually developed, but to give them some assurance since we
have not done the study yet, that is why it is proposed to be capped.
Amy Chan, Applicant representing property owner:
• Marina Foods has been doing business in Cupertino for over 30 years, and appreciates the community 's
support of the supermarket. About 4 years ago they started to plan for the renovation of the
supermarket; as they began to do the financial analysis, they realized that with all the federal, state and
city regulations, the renovations would not pencil out. While they were contemplating what to do, the
city was considering the GPA and updating the housing element sites. The owners are very appreciative
of the city's support to allocate 200 housing units to the Marina Plaza site. Shortly after they began to
plan a mixed use project with 200 housing units, 60,000 sq. ft . of retail, 122 room hotel, with building
heights of 60 feet. They also wanted to provide 17 Below Market Rate housing. As they got closer
they heard feedback from the community that the preference was to have a lower profile project. The
owners decided to redesign the project to meet the existing zoning and to reduce the height to 45 feet,
and also to provide ample open spaces, but they also had to make the difficult decision to relocate the
supermarket of the location. Nonetheless they still want to provide some BMR units even though it
would add significant cost to the project. She illustrated the annual revenue loss. Marina Plaza's
commitment for BMR is to provide a 99 year term of BMR housing. The project is well designed for
the site and will be high quality. The owners want to have a development that they are proud of and
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 14, 2016
pass it on to the next generation . They will not sell the development and will continue to be involved
in the community. She highlighted revenues the city would receive from the project as well as a list of
community benefits that they are suggesting. The city will get approximately $9 .9 million one-time
revenue and the bulk of it is the park dedication fees and the housing mitigation fees, in addition to the
16 BMR units that the project is proposing . In the 20 year term the project will bring revenue to the
city approximately $23 million. She thanked staff for their assistance with the project and commended
their professionalism and exceptional customer service .
John (Architect):
• Relative to earlier comment about mixed use , said he agreed sometimes mixed use gets diluted; but this
is not such an example. This project is a true mixed use project of taking a sea of parking and start
developing with offices, the banks and everything else around it and bringing residential, restaurants ,
vibrancy, bringing connections into it. Said there is Target, Whole Foods, 4 bus stops, all types of
different neighboring retail and services for this community within a quarter mile; it is providing
connectivity in there plan, there are walkways to Stevens Creek, creating a promenade connecting
toward Apple. Said he was excited about the possibilities for the community . Said the brand of the
hotel has not yet been decided; there has been interest shown by some companies including Hilton and
IHD .
• He reviewed the measurements for each retail spot.
• He reviewed a slide presentation of the project.
Amy Chan:
• Said they have attempted to reach out to the neighbors, the bank properties, the offices and small office
on site of adjacent neighbors; they have been successful until recently with a couple of the neighbor
property owners ; said the city's condition of approval gives them time to work with them to make sure
they have a win-win ; they are aware of concerns and are willing to work with them.
• Said she received the letter that the Commission received, and have had conversations with them.
• In terms of why they have not been making the connection before, two notices for the project were sent
out, they visited all of the tenants of the buildings and let them know about the project and asked them
to help make connection to the property owners. They started that process in March, not until last week
have they been able to make the connection.
• The property owner started looking at the renovation of the market 4 years ago; renovation did not
include redeveloping the site, it was only updating the current market. As they looked at that project it
was not successful financially and dido 't pencil out. The Council took action to approve the housing
site less than 2 years ago and that is when they started to conceptualize the project.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Disclosed that on August 20 , 2015 at 11 :00 a.m . she met with the development group to listen to their
initial thoughts.
Colleen Winchester, Asst. City Attorney:
• Said she had a copy of the letter they were served shortly before the meeting; would provide a copy to
the applicant. Suggested that the applicant respond to the concerns raised in the letter .
Amy Chan:
• Said they worked with Mr. Burke, one of the neighbors (small office on Bandley on the west side) and
felt the conversation was positive.
Chair Takahashi:
• Asked the architect for more clarity on the live/live units ; is it the same term as live /work?
Cupertino Planning Commi ssion 5 June 14 , 2016
John (Architect):
• The live/live concept was the idea that you could have a home office or a guest room downstairs , to
have some flexibility. There aren 't that many in the community and they discussed with Planning
having something different as far as variety and the residential types that they have. In the study
sessions and workshops with the neighbors , one of the things done was to reduce the two bedroom
counts ; there are more one bedroom units in the last rendition of the plans.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said to the architect a few months ago an applicant wanted to open a beer garden and the problem was
that he couldn't have much of a beer garden because of an antiquated Cupertino law restricting outdoor
seating to 20% of a restaurant's seating. Com. Paulsen proposed as part of the Planning Commission
work plan that they remove that and be more flexible with outdoor seating, especially in light of our
climate and the trend toward more outdoor activities that this development reflects. That has not yet
gone to City Council , so it has not been rescinded yet. He questioned once that does get rescinded, are
the restaurants going to be able to have flexibility based on the current design to expand their outdoor
seating?
John (Architect):
• Said he felt they will; it is question of how they do parking and perhaps in that case when it does expand
more and gets livelier, they may have to look at a valet parking system or something similar.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he liked the design ; however he had a preference on rooflines. He referred to the Monte Verde
Sr . Apartment project in Orinda and asked it was possible to revisit some of the rooflines; was that a
design requested by the applicant or was that more his idea for design?
John (Architect):
• Said it was a little of both and also related to the area; he said it fit in the hills and it was a terraced
building, a different type of building than the project site.
Com. Paulsen:
• He said his staff held a tour last year and their arborist was very enthusiastic about large trees in new
developments. He suggested that as part of the Planning Commission work plan they require that every
developer plant the largest tree possible, the species to be determined in consultation with Public Works
staff. He asked what interaction his staff had with landscape architect for this project.
John (Architect):
• Said he was not certain if they did , other than the street trees , and he didn 't know if they consulted on
the onsite trees, which is usually between Community Development and the developer's arborist.
Jessie Markman, Jetlands Architecture:
• Addressing the comment about large trees, said they had gone to great measures to try to create a healthy
root environment and are using a below grade system that will allow loose soils so that the tree roots
can be healthy and grow vigorously to get large canopies. It has been something they have discussed
from day one and are working with the stormwater consultant and civil enginee r to create this great
environment for trees to grow healthy.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Noted that they received communication from Caroline Johnson stating that three trees on her property
are to be removed .
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 14 , 2016
Benjamin Fu:
• Said that was not possible; staff has addressed a communique with Ms. Johnson and addressed her
issues. There are no tree removal plans for her property and another issue was she said her building
would be rendered useless during construction and also may be damaged during construction. Staff
spoke with the building official to ensure that the building would be constructed to code and up to the
safety requirements and that will be evaluated during the building permit process .
John (Architect):
• The only trees being removed are on this property and there may have been some confusion; there were
several trees shown on the tree removal plan that were close to the property line; what usually happens
is a tree protection plan is done for trees in the vicinity; and we want to make it very clear that those
trees will be protected and retained during all the site work. He also answered questions about the
capacity of meeting rooms (max 120) and the restaurants, number of electric charging stations
(minimum of21), and parking spaces . He reviewed the access points from the retail garage to the retail
locations, showed levels of parking in different buildings, and location of electric gates .
Com. Paulsen:
• Disclosed that he met with the developer last Fall and heard their presentation; not certain of the exact
date.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Questioned if any studies have been done on bike storage as to the effectiveness and use of all the
increase biking, how much use it gets, how effective it is on traffic, etc.
Benjamin Fu:
• Said there were no official studies conducted ; referred to Timm Borden .
Timm Borden:
• Said they have not conducted studies; it depends on land use , street frontage , the walkability of the site ,
the bikeability; proximity to other services. There are many factors that can vary from location to
location. It is a good start to get people if they are out there and available and they are working to make
the city a better place to bike ; and it will have an effect and reduce traffic.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said they are in the process of writing a new Bicycle Transportation Plan ; having that infrastructure in
place will work together with any bicycle facility .
Chair Takahashi opened the public hearing.
Ling Ling Kulla Kulla:
• Said she felt the Marina project was a good plan for .the site; the four corners have updated architecture
and the addition of the Marina project will add to the updated appearance. It would be good to see
Cupertino transcend itself to the 215 1 century with thoughtfully designed architecture that is enjoyable,
open to the community and safe for our children with places where people like to go to. It is
commendable that Marina plans to allocate 16 units of housing at 30% of market rate. Said she was a
teacher and is affected by the housing problem . In the last 10 years many people have been priced
outside of the city and it is time they are brought back. Pricing people out of the community is not a
sustainable solution. A sustainable community not only needs a diverse population and culture; it needs
to have diverse income levels living together, sharing community resources and benefits ; then the
community will have true equality, fairness and justice and we will be free of violence and hate crimes.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 14, 2016
Chris Zhang:
• Said his family has been shopping at Marina Foods for 13 years, and as a responsible citizen over the
past years has carefully studied the new projects in the city and the impact to their schools, traffic and
the quality of life . Said he believed the project is a good step for the city, the current site is outdated
and not in line with the beautiful look of Cupertino. It creates traffic issues because the. current site is
a maze to navigate through. The proposed project will beautify this part of the city, but most
importantly as traffic continues to worsen everywhere in the Bay Area, the mixed use nature of the
project will reduce some traffic. Allowing people to live close to where they work, eat and shop, the
overall traffic situation will improve. As a cyclist said he would like to see the project address bike
safety; and he thanked the city for its current bicycle plan in place. He said he anticipates there will be
a lot of bike traffic due to the proximity between the site and DeAnza College and other retail centers.
• He would also like to see a lot of electric car charging stations which would be good for Cupertino.
Gale Connor, representing John and Nicole Saich:
• Said he submitted a letter at the meeting and apologized for lateness in submitting it for the packet last
week. The Saich' s just learned of the project only 6 weeks ago; apparently the notices were sent to an
out-of-state address and they did not receive them. They had their first meeting with the applicant and
project team the prior Wednesday. Over the last 40 to 50 years that this project in the existing center
has been developed, there have been a number of private agreements for ingress and egress to allow it
to function as a unified whole . The primary concern at this point is that there are two easements of
record that are pertinent to and benefit the Saich parcel that would disappear in the proposed project.
Submitted Exhibit B, a depiction of the various parcels. In 1972 the green easement (Parcel 2) was
created by means of a parcel map and it provides for ingress and egress off Stevens Creek and across
the property. In the late 1970s another easement was created further to the north; this included a longer
throat for an existing drive aisle that exists on the Saich property and continues on across the adjacent
property. When they saw the plans they noticed that Building C completely engulfs Parcel 3 and
engulfs much of Parcel 2, but the curb cut which would allow cars to circulate is gone. There is a new
curb, new landscaping there; and the historic use is gone. The meeting with the applicant was cordial
and they were shown a potential replacement easement; it is attached to the letter, and they do not feel
that the easement will replace what the developer is proposing to take.
• Said they believe that the project can and must be redesigned to accommodate the existing property
rights of the Saich's; Condition 11 calls for an agreement to dedicate new easements but for that to
happen there has to be an agreement not only to dedicate new easement, there has to be an agreement
to abandon what is out there, and so on those grounds they oppose the project as currently planned and
believe with time perhaps something can be worked out.
Steven Gettel, real estate advisor for John and Nicole Saich:
• Said they oppose the proposed project as · designed, for the reasons formally stated by
Gale Connor; however the project attempts to put the cart before the horse . These are property rights
that existed from 1978 and even before, but this property is enjoyed, depended upon and is relying to
continue to enjoy. The Saichs do not wish to relinquish these rights; the project is proposed as a taking
by building on these fights despite the short notice and that leaves the recommendation that this project
be remanded back to the applicant for redesign to take those rights into consideration. Said they would
work with the applicant in that regard.
John Saich, La Selva Beach:
• Said his family has been in Cupertino over 100 years; his father built the Bank of America building in
1963 and he is now the primary owner of20563 Stevens Creek Blvd; the proposed project is designed
to be built on his property's deeded and mapped easements blocking his property's direct access from
Bandley Drive and built on adjoining parking rights which are pertinent to an integral part of his
property. His property rights have existed for 40 to 50 years; his property has high identity, is
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 14, 2016
conveniently accessed and enjoys excellent parking. Said the project 's proposed design substantially
impairs his property's access, circulation, parking and exposure . Said he strongly objects to the
proposed project and will not relinquish his property rights .
Nichole Saich, La Selva beach:
• Said she was now a partial owner of 20563 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, and their property
rights have existed for many years . The proposed project is designed to be built on part of their
property; the proposed project will adversely affect their property's access, circulation, parking and
exposure . Said she strongly objected to the proposed project and will not relinquish any of their
property rights .
Ben Shyy, Cupertino:
• Current tenant of Marina Plaza, said he was in favor of the project; the building is too old with a lot of
problems and he was pleased to learn that there is a new project proposed. The new building will
encourage the current tenant to return. The building will look nice and match the surrounding other
buildings, such as Apple, hotel, and newly remodeled shopping and eating center across the street. The
current owner is a local person doing a local project and will benefit Cupertino. Marina Plaza is a good
project for the community.
Kevin McCLelland, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
• Said a Jetter was sent that will be summarized in his statements. Said he mourned the death of retail;
he received pet food that he would normally have purchased from his local chain National Pet Retailer
for $1.00 pound cheaper online, it was delivered to my home Sunday; so unfortunately I am one of
those many people contributing to the shrinking amount of retail space.
• Said he also met with man who used to have several hat stores in the area and 30 years ago he had 5
hat stores and he just closed his last shop about 2 years ago as brick and mortar doesn 't make sense
anymore. Looking at the Marina Foods project, 30 years ago if this was being built that would have
been an ideal location , a nice small community area for a hat store, but paying the per square foot retail
charge as opposed to the storage space that he currently has as he sells online, it is sad because I would
want to try on a hat before I ordered one online, but those are going away as well.
• The good news is that restaurants are the new retail and in Cupertino there is an expansion of those
restaurants . I also applaud the efforts to get more outdoor seating because the environment does provide
a great space for that, so I hope that we can do that as we do welcome new restaurants as our new retail
here in Cupertino. I wanted to thank Corn. Lee for bringing up the allocations which we can add to and
need to add to desperately. We have been behind in running out of the allocations for a Jong time now
so if you wanted to put forward for the City Council to adopt some more allocations for all of the areas
that would be great and especially for hotels because I think there are going to be more people wanting
to build those as well and it is a good thing we can add those quickly. I would like to ask that you
accept and approve the city staff recommendations to send this matter to City Council to approve the
mitigated negative declaration and approve the applications per the draft resolutions
Chris Grisanti:
• Said he supported the Marina Plaza proposed project; came to an agreement with a height restriction
that the city likes ; setbacks it seems most in the city like; the fact that it is blocked from the street or
there is already high rise buildings there; helps to block the overall density that the city feels the trees
etc ; seems like we have good community support and it is not really causing any of these voting issues
that we are having with the other planned projects. Said he was in favor of it , it is the only big project
that is going through a normal process. ·
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 14, 2016
Lisa Warren, Cupertino resident:
• Said it was a perfect example of questionable mix; said she disagreed with the architect; it is taking a
single story project with strictly retail, much used and 100 employees at Marina Foods and yet taking
away, and adding people that are going to need groceries. Said it was a great loss for the community;
it may be a local family but they have ads in Chinese newspapers for EB5 investors; half million dollars
will get you into the country and support at least 25% of this project they are trying to fund it that way.
That makes it no longer local; it tends to be the trend lately with many of the developers, so I hope
people are looking into that, because our area should not really qualify for EB5 and I believe that is
being looked at higher up in government. Shrinking retail? It is a grocery, there are other businesses
as well; there has been discussion about them trying to relocate the market; the meeting I was at was
hosted by the applicant they haven't found a place for that to happen which is concerning. Going from
one story to a 4 story plus underground parking, you ought to be able to save the mix you have; the mix
shouldn't get rid of what is currently existing and that is what is happening over and over again with
the proposals. There are already issues at Main Street with one particular restaurant that has no area
for the employees break area; tenant improvements do not include a place for their employees to have
a break room, they only have an area in the back with two patio tables; it is not HOC; with smaller
spots where will they take their breaks. Have delivery areas been figured out? The live/live thing
screams Air B&B. Said she disagreed that restaurants are the new retail. She commended them for
staying within the General Plan guidelines, their exceptions are minimal.
John Thatch, Walnut Creek: Did not speak
Chair Takahashi closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Asked staff to address the Saich 's concern about the current design absorbing the easements .
Benjamin Fu:
• There are 3 conditions of approval; Condition 11 on Page 4 of the DP document; it requires the
applicant to record reciprocal egress and ingress and Condition 65 and 66 addresses developer shall
update any existing easements as well; there is also a requirement for the applicant to come back to
the Planning Commission in case they cannot obtain an agreement with the property owners to re-
evaluate any sort of modification whether it is site design or building modifications. If an agreement
cannot be met the project has to come back to the Planning Commission for evaluation after Council
approval, but before any construction can begin, before they can proceed with building permits. At
that point in time if this condition is not met, building permits would not be issued and the project
would need to come back and go through the hearing process again for reevaluation . Said he had not
spoken with the Saich 's about it. In terms of easement and reciprocal access we leave it up to the
property owners as a private agreement. Alternatively it could be conditioned as such that a project
would need to come back or it wouldn't be able to proceed without such agreement; some of the
agreements could take longer between two private property owners.
Com. Paulsen:
• A Yes vote tonight on what you are recommending as staff would include a condition that would
preserve that easement or a negotiated solution?
Benjamin Fu:
• Correct; the three conditions.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 14, 2016
Chair Takahashi:
• Asked if it made sense to move forward if there is such a large potential conflict; it doesn't seem there
is an immediate obvious solution ; if it were approved tonight and then the City Council takes it up with
this particular condition; same thing, they would approve with this condition. If they approve with this
condition , the only recourse is that the applicant could not start building until this was cleared up . At
that point in time if an agreement cannot be reached, then the project is on hold until an agreement can
be reached. That vs . the converse of trying to reach an agreement before going to us or the Planning
Commission ; what is the advantage?
Benjamin Fu:
• It allows the applicant the opportunity to come up with a plan, a proposal. Because from their point of
view I don't want to speak for the applicant, but from City 's point of view that is a private agreement
between two parties and we reevaluate the project on the project itself, compliance with the code,
requirement, design etc. and you do see some standard languages and conditions that put on projects
pending further evaluation. They see it as a protection for the property owner as well, for the existing
property owner the adjacent property owner as well so then nothing can move forward until a resolution
has been met; full agreement between both parties.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he understood they could not tell a developer what they would like to see him do ; they must operate
within the zoning and the constraints; but looking at this development it looks like a flag lot with the
access off Stevens Creek is something that would be ideally meshed with all the property owners in
that big square. Said he was not telling them what to do but it would be great if they could all group
together and do a joint development; but again they are presented with this; he felt satisfied with this
condition if staff is satisfied and the attorney is satisfied that this would meet the legal concerns of the
current property owner.
• Said he expressed to staff about the market and knows that the applicant is looking at spaces but when
he sees shopping carts at bus stops that say Marina Foods what that says to him is that that market is
serving a population that is not contributing to traffic, maybe unable to drive and be transit dependent
and so it would be depriving a needy segment of population of access to food . While growing up in
Palo Alto , he saw it happen there ; for a long time there was no market in the downtown and a whole
generation missed out on the grocery store in downtown Palo Alto and he said he would hate to see that
happen there . He is aware they cannot, within the constraints of the zoning, tell a developer what to
do . He went on record as expressing his deep concern about the loss of this community resource,
because once it is gone, it will be very difficult for it to be regained.
Com. Lee:
• Said she agreed; with this design she felt it would be within the Commission to say that.
• Said in her opinion when there is a big space on a lot of this size and they are able to put in an anchor
store , it is beneficial to the community and this site ; the site is known as the Marina Site because the
biggest anchor tenant is Marina; this proposal will be to cut all the retail in half and have little shops ;
there is no real identity. She shared the concern with what is being said: (1) there is no identity ; (2)
there is lack of the shopping center and concerned that there is no anchor tenant;
Com. Paulsen:
• Can we require this of the developer? Can we recommend that the Council consider this a requirement
of the project? What is the process for this concern to move forward?
Com. Lee:
• Said they can state their concerns and what they would lik e to see a s a developm e nt project of this s ize.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 14, 2016
Asst. City Attorney:
• This is a different project because it is both a housing element site as well as a housing project; if what
you are talking about is a condition that there .be more of an anchor tenant or something along those
lines that is a different criteria. What we need to be looking at is what are the criteria for not approving
a housing site and a housing element site? As far as making a recommendation you can make a
recommendation that a site include a larger retail space; but for purposes of the findings and
recommending a denial of a housing element site, there is specific conditions and factual findings that
need to be made.
Com. Paulsen:
• There is retail and there is a grocery store, which are two different things; if it is an anchor that sells
I ike Target, it is different from a supermarket that serves the needs of poor people who can't afford to
drive to a store. Said at one time he managed a federal grant that encouraged cities to require zoning
that would include healthy food access, not just classification of retail. He asked how the other
commissioners felt about that?
Chair Takahashi:
• A question is how you structure something where you don't really know who the tenant is ; you don't
know ifMarina will move into that new location . Even if you allocate for an anchor there is no guarantee
that it is going to be grocery or market. It is a slippery slope.
Asst. City Attorney:
• The difference is from a land use perspective when you are looking at a use of retail vs. something
other than that, it is what the underlying use allows and w hat is permissible in that use category. You
could make a suggestion that there be larger spaces but this is the project that you been presented with
so this is the one you are making the decision on. It is a very slippery slope to say we don 't want that
type of business in this particular location if those are permitted uses in the zone. It becomes a difficult
analysis.
Com. Paulsen:
• Is this a General Plan issue for the Council to say we would like to have access to low cost healthy food
in our downtown and here is how we put it into the plan. The process for that is beyond the scope of
tonight's meeting . Said he was concerned .
Asst. City Attorney:
• Perhaps zoning as well. There can be specific incentives provided to certain establishments that provide
certain benefits ; something along those concepts.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said that her issue is that it is a housing element site . She asked if Mr. Albert Wong was still associated
with this project? On October 14, 2014, he came before this commission asking (that 's when we were
considering the parcels for the housing element) and stated very accurately that he has been a long time
resident here, that he has been a long time local businessman 30 years; he has had the Marina Market
30 years; it is time for it to be refreshed and redeveloped and he thought it would be very nice to
redevelop it. He knew, he stated that he knows that Marina Market is core to the Cupertino community,
the environment, and that he had planned to completely maintain Marina Market, and also build housing
and focus the housing on seniors. Even someone as senior as a former commissioner Paul Brophy,
accepted his sincerity that this truly was his intent. She said she understood what is said here you are
not obligated by law , but it was said and they supported it based on what was said to be a housin g
element and that is where the hook is now for her; and that is where the issue is for her ; said she was
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 14 , 2016
massively disappointed to see the plan without Marina, without senior housing and the minimum
number ofBMR units.
Com. Lee:
• Referring to AS , said one of her concerns is there are two parcels; said she felt the hotel should not be
located there; they envisioned Stevens Creek to have more of a retail and that is in the HOC specific
plan; for DeAnza to have more frontage and retail ; instead the retail is in the inner spots where signage
is not going to be able to do too much . It is hard for retailers to go in the internal spots where it used
to be parking. We know the hotel will do well; we are looking at a project as a housing element site,
but it is disappointing to see the retail tucked and hidden. Everyone has the best intentions to keep the
parcels together, but it is actually two parcels; later on it could be sold off. If planned as a planned
development, she would recommend that the parcels be united.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said speaking from experience as a ranch owner in Mendocino County, it is easier to maintain your
parcels than it is to try to carve them out later. As a developer it gives you more flexibility in the future
to keep your parcels.
Benjamin Fu:
• Relative to the issue of retail frontages the site has challenge in that it doesn 't have a lot of street
frontage as it is now. The majority of the frontage faces onto DeAnza which is where the most of the
outdoor amenities are, so shifting the hotel location is not going to replace any more street frontage.
The lot is the way it is.
Com Lee:
• Said there are a lot more cars on Bandley and Alves and DeAnza like the interior on the retail. The
projected sales tax revenues that says they are thinking $SOK is quite low if that is true; considering the
site. It could potentially generate more .
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said she understood where the BMR number comes from; she felt that 11 % on the total units being
proposed is more reasonable especially for the need for BMR units here. Because of the density, they
have received an additional 49 units; requesting 3 or 4 more isn't out of line .
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he was a big supporter of BMR housing also, but asked if they could require this or recommend it
to meet the requirements.
Com. Lee:
• Said they could recommend it to City Council.
Asst. City Attorney:
• Said it would be something that the developer would have to offer voluntarily in connection with the
development of this particular parcel ; because the density bonus law is in both the muni code and state
law in how the density bonus is calculated. There is no development agreement here so there is le ss
flexibility ; it is something that would need to be offered by the developer and volunta ril y provided .
Chair Takahashi:
• Said denying this project on the grounds there is not enough BMR is not an option ; it meets the
requirements.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 June 14, 2016
Asst. City Attorney:
• Correct; in this particular project the General Plan has 200 units as a housing element site; the number
of parcels in the General Plan were less than what is being proposed in this project; in this project
taking the acreage and multiplying it by the permissible number of units, results in 139 and they have
offered 16 affordable housing units, that is 11 % very low income housing. Under the formulas
established by the state they are entitled to the density bonus; they are entitled to that bonus which
allows them more housing on a particular site . It would be difficult to deny a project based on that
particular criteria . It is within the Commission's purview to say there are some elements of the project
that are less than satisfactory; there are things the Commission could do ; they could pass it on to
Council ; they could continue this hearing and give them time to address the concerns ; there are other
options.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he liked the development and was pleased to finally see the HOC developing for Cupertino . When
he moved from Palo Alto 30 years ago he felt like the city was a tractless suburb, and it is now finally
a place for fostering social contact, walkability. As a founding member of the Cupertino Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission he felt the project will work synergistically with the Bicycle Plan and with
other developers that are looking at bicycle facilities to really help foster bicycling as a serious
alternative, notjust 1% of trips alternative.
• He reported that he spent Saturday morning with Apple 's chief arborist looking at trees he has planted
and commented that it was fantastic what Apple is doing with their Oak trees and breeding their trees.
He commended the landscape architect and urged staff to visit the area, noting that thousands of Oak
trees were being delivered to Cupertino this week.
Com. Lee:
• Said the Asst. City Attorney said they could offer some suggestions and perhaps give the applicant
some time to make changes . She said there were three commissioners in favor of keeping the
supermarket.
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he felt they could not force them to do this but if they could continue the hearing and hold their
feet to the fire a little bit, rather than have them say they are looking for space and could not find any,
it allow them to return with a more concrete proposal. He said he was not at the meeting where they
mentioned that, and it was disheartening to hear that.
Asst. City Attorney:
• If the Commission would like to continue the hearing, they should look at the agreement with the
property owners as well, so they have time to resolve the outstanding issue.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said the strong opposition to the easement was the main basis for wanting to continue the item.
Com. Paulsen:
• Commented that he would rather receive a tidy package than a package with loose ends.
Asst. City Attorney:
• That is where the focus of the Commission needs to be is on the acquiring or giving the applicant and
adjacent property owners the time to sort through the easement and that would be based upon grounds
that while there is conditions of approval, there hasn't been sufficient time to iron that issue out. That
could be basis for continuing the hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 June 14 , 2016
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said her concern was the strong opposition by the neighbors.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said he was still not clear on how a Planning Commission would mandate a market in this project; it is
not something that should be or could be even remotely proposed. He said he was trying to look forward
given there is significant concern with regard to that element. What are the options in terms of
continuing based on the easement issue ; possibly three commissioners expressed concern over loss or
lack of an anchor tenant.
Asst. City Attorney:
• That would be extremely difficult, because as we were discussing before, it is the underlying use and
what is a permitted use in this particular zone and requiring an anchor tenant, or a certain size of a
space; it gets very difficult.
Com. Lee:
• Referring to AO, the live/live units are facing Alves; there are more cars on Alves , the fuchsia ones
would be very good spots or better spots for retail than the internal comer ones . Some people may
drive on Alves. For some reason they want to sell the live/live units ; she said she was not proposing
they have anchor tenants , it would be better but it 's like a redistribution or just reorganizing or moving.
Erick Serrano:
• Said Fire looked at emergency access to the site, along Alves Drive it will be completely red-curbed so
there will be no parking along that side ; it is strictly for emergency access because of the height of the
buildings and the proximity the fire trucks need to get to the building.
Com. Lee:
• Said she did not think it is a good idea to put retail on internal aspects ; also did not feel the hotel should
be facing DeAnza Blvd ., she would move the retail facing DeAnza to not have any sort of liability.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said he did not agree; the hotel location is fine where it is; DeAnza is not really not a retail street, up
to Stevens Creek; beyond Stevens Creek, South of Stevens Creek it is retail. Said he agreed with Com.
Lee that having retail on Alves would be fine as well and potentially add more elements to potentially
attract retail shoppers .
Com. Paulsen:
• Said he liked the project and would support it. He addressed the developer, stating that he was sitting
on a gold mine and that he would become wealthy with the project. He pleaded with the developer to
consider the needs of those less fortunate in the community, the elderly and please try to find a place
for them to shop in their community nearby for low cost healthy food. Asked them to consider helping
those find a place to live because everyone is made richer and actually healthier in the community in
long term through this income diversity. Relative to the easement issue, he said he was comfortable
working it out as Jong as construction doesn 't start without the Saich family successfully reaching
agreement with the developer.
Vice Chair Gong:
• Said she was uncomfortable with the strong opposition by their neighbors , that the designs were
completed without talking to them. It concerns her as a good neighbor. Said she felt the application
should be continued based on that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 June 14, 2016
Com. Lee:
• Agreed that the application could be continued.
Chair Takahashi:
• Said his thought on continuation was at least a significant revision would be needed to accommodate
access satisfactory to the adjacent property owner. That being said , he felt the change would affect that
corner to a point where it is going to have to come back to the Planning Commission . From that
perspective he agreed that that element should be rectified giving the adjacent property owner more
time to resolve exactly how those property rights and access will be resto red . Said he felt the site layout
was suitable from the standpoint of providing a hotel , the much needed housing for the city. The EV
chargers, said he was trying to look forward from the standpoint of more proliferation of electric
vehicles and one limiting factor , apartment complexes, apartment complexes that don't accommodate
EVs limit the market. As many EV charging stations as possible is a good thing from the standpoint of
allowing a tenant to own an electric vehicle . If there is none there they cannot run an extension cord
from their third story apartment down to the garage and charge their car. He shared the sentiments of
Com. Lee and Lisa Warren as far as diminishing retail. Any elements or efforts to increase the retail
will be beneficial to the project, but understand the constraints that the property owner is trying to work
with .
Items to be addressed include an agreement for easement and feelings about BMR.
There was a discussion to determine the appropriate meeting date to continue the public hearing to.
It was determined that Tuesday, Jul y 25 , 2016 at 6:45 p.m.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Gong, second by Chair Takahashi, and unanimously carried
4-0-0, Com. Sun absent, to continue the public hearing on ASA-2015-22, DP-2015-05,
EA-2015-05, U-2015-06, TR-2016-14, EXC-2016-03, and EXC-2016-05 to July 25,
2016 at 6:45 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
• The committee met and reviewed the project discussed this evening; application passed with a Negative
Declaration.
Housing Commission: No meeting .
Economic Development Committee Meeting:
• The draft Economic Strategic Plan was presented; began in early 2015 to focus on Cupertino businesses
to study regional and local trends in employment industry businesses retail with implications for
Cupertino businesses, and the impact of businesses on Cupertino 's fiscal health and the opportunity to
maximize what us already here. The final report will be presented to City Council at the end of the
summer.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Attended by Com. Sun; will report at next meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 June 14 , 2016
Report of the Assistant Director of Community Development: None
ADJOURNMENT:
• The meeting was adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2016 , at 6:45 p.m.
(J /!ti " --.t 9 ,,?/,l 6'
j j,A',/ufi-6!.L ~~ .....
Respectfully Submitted: ____ ..,..__ __________ _
Elizabe.tb>Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as presented: July 26, 2016