PC 08-23-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Taken at Study Session
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 3, 2004 Study Session:
Com. Giefer requested the following changes:
· 1 ,I Page under: Steve Piasecki: 3n1 and 41h bullet: Change "commissions" in both
sentences to "commissioners".
· Page 13, Com. Giefer: Change "are hurt" to read "not hurt".
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to approve the Augnst 3, 2004
Study Session minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the August 9,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
· Page 7, 61h bullet: insert "regarding" after "is"
· Page 10, Chair Saadati: first bullet, second line: Change "apart" to "across".
Com. Chen requested the following changes:
· Page 1, under Commissioners present: last line, change "Gilbert Wong" to read "Angela
Chen".
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve the August 9, 2004
minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
TR-2004-04
Li Mei Yee
8062 Park Villa Circle
Tree removal of a protected tree at a planned
residential development. Postponed from
Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2004.
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes
3.
TR-2004-05
Nathan Lewis (Westridge
HOA) 10166 English Oak
Way
6.
DIR-2004-06
David Pernge (Tian-
Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Motion:
2
August 23, 2004
Tree removal of a protected tree in a planned
residential development. Postponed from
Planning Commission meeting of August 9. 2004.
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting
of September 13. 2004.
Appeal of a Director's minor modification for minor
additions to an existing church. Request postponement
to Planning Commission meeting of September 13,
2004. Tentative City Council date: September 20, 2004.
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone
Applications TR-2004-04, TR-2004-05, and DIR-2004-06 to the September 13,
2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
4.
TM-2004-07, V-2004-02
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lomita Avenue
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46 acre parcel into two lots
of .22 acres each. Variance to reduce lot width from 60
to 50 feet to match neighborhood pattern. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued
from Planning Commission meeting of August 9. 2004
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is a two lot subdivision; request also includes a variance to reduce the lot width
from 60 feet to 50 feet to match the neighborhood pattern.
· At previous meeting the Planning Commission expressed some concerns with the narrower
lots despite the predominant pattern in the neighborhood.
· At the August 9th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was asked to come back with a
redesign of the subdivision plan that considers a flag lot design.
· Application is two alternatives: the original proposal of a subdivision in two lots of equal size,
plus a variance request to reduce the lot width from 1,650; and the tentative map to subdivide
the lot into one wider lot and one flag lot.
· He illustrated the subdivision redesign requested which was a flag lot subdivision. Some of
the house would have to be trimmed off to meet the setbacks. The granny unit and detached
garage would also need to be demolished. Both lots meet the minimum size for the zoning
district and the existing structure would need to conform to the existing setbacks, but it is
below the maximum FAR for the R I zoning district.
· There is room in the front to construct a two car garage, which could be done through a
building permit review.
· At staff s suggestion, the architect has come back with a proposal; the designs are still
conceptual in nature, the drawings are rough; presented the concept of pushing the garage back
and creating a low wall with some architectural features that bring out the front of the house.
· Staff previously recommended approval of TM-2004-07 that was the two narrow lots and the
variance; alternatively the Planning Commission could approve the subdivision plan with a
flag lot design; if in favor of the flag lot design, you will need to also carry it through a motion
to deny the variance request as it would not be needed for the flag lot design.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
August 21,2004
Com. Miller:
. Asked if there was a way to reconfigure it without chopping off part of the house; i.e. can the
line be extended and then grant the lot an easement for ingress and egress.
Mr. Jung:
· Said he was uncertain how much width there would be for a driveway to the rear; the setbacks
would be from the easements as well, the ingress, egress easement, and would not likely save
anything in doing so.
Mr. Piasecki:
· A second option that the applicant has is to take the existing house and shift it to the back lot;
the whole house could be preserved; they would have to build a new foundation.
Mr. Gary Li, applicant:
· Said he was going to build a new house in the flag lot if the plan is approved.
· From the pattern on the street, the next door neighbor is a 40 foot wide lot and the house is not
visible from the street; the one next to it is a 60 foot wide lot and because of the landscaping in
front of the house, the house is also partially visible from the street.
· If it is a flag lot, it may not break the neighborhood pattern so much.
· Said he did not have a problem with chopping the house; the family room and laundry room
would be taken out.
· Said the reason for preserving the existing home was that it was remodeled six years ago, and
the kitchen and bathrooms were in good condition as well as the house itself.
· Said he would have to consider moving the house to the back lot; there were costs involved,
but it was an interesting concept.
Com. Miller:
· Asked for clarification if the applicant was agreeable to the solution where part of the house is
removed and part is remodeled.
Mr.Li:
· Said yes, Mr. Jung had mentioned the easement; and Mr. Li said that if they do not do that,
there are many complications which he did not yet understand.
Mrs.Li:
· Asked if there was a possibility they could keep the existing house, because Com. Miller
mentioned the easement.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was a suggestion made by staff, and it was not clear if it works within the rules of the
setback; if the easement doesn't give you a better setback situation then there is no benefit to
doing that.
· Said it appeared the choices were to demolish part of the house or move it to the back lot.
Chair Saadati:
· Said the applicant already expressed an interest in demolishing the two feet of the house to
bring it in compliance, which would make it simpler.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
August 23, 2004
Yice Chair Wong:
· Asked the applicant if it was their intention to save the family room.
· Relative to Com. Miller's question, asked staff if it was a possibility if the easement was
granted.
Mr. Jung:
· Responded no, that the setbacks are also measured from the travel easement line as well, so
they wouldn't gain any advantage in doing so.
· The house would be moving to the rear flag lot and there is enough flexibility because this is a
tentative map approval. If they have a change of heart and want to move it to the back lot, it
can be approved before a final map approval is granted by the Public Works Department.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Com. Miller:
· In line with previous discussion, said he was still in favor of the flag lot over splitting it into
two smaller 50 foot lots, and based on what the applicant has said, he has a choice of either
cutting off part of the house as it exists now or moving it to the back lot, and one of those
choices is acceptable.
· Supports the flag lot configuration.
Com. Chen:
· Concurred with Com. Miller's decision.
· Said she would like to add flexibility for the applicant to either chop off part of the house or
move the house to the back.
Mr. Jung:
· It need not be made a condition of approval, it is within the power of the Community
Development Director to make reasonable interpretations of the tentative map; keeping a
house at this location, moving it to the rear is immaterial to the subdivision design itself.
Com. Giefer:
· Said in reviewing what was presented, she was still uncomfortable with keeping the home in
its existing space, since it still has to be determined where to put a two car garage in the
configuration; they are going to ask the applicant to chop off several feet of the existing home,
and squeeze in a garage somewhere on that site.
Mr. Jung:
· Said where the house is presently located, he dimensioned off the front yard and there is room
in the front yard for a two car garage; it still meets the front setbacks from the new property
line.
· Said he could not say how the design of the house would work internally if it was done.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would be in favor of the application if the home was either demolished or moved to
the back lot. It is architecturally going to be an odd structure to put a garage in front of the
existing home, which is a nice home.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
August 23, 2004
· Ifthis does pass where the applicant has the ability to either move the home to the back lot, or
keep it where it is; chop off two feet and add a garage.
· Recommended that it be mandatory as a condition for it to go to the Desigu Review
Committee, to ensure that the new garage is well integrated into the existing architecture of the
home
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the tentative map is not normally tied to design review; asked for feedback from the city
attorney.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Said they could not put it in as a condition on the map, as discussion is related only to the map.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she was not in favor of the subdivision unless the home was moved to the back lot.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he concurred with his colleagues in support of a flag lot.
· He said he understood where staff was coming from regarding having two narrow lots, but he
felt in this particular situation that two flag lots were appropriate.
· Not comfortable giving a variance because it would be substandard with the ordinance; and he
felt the applicant was comfortable with the flag lot, and they have an option of either building
their dream home in the rear of the building or staying in the front.
· He understood, according to the city attorney, that they were voting only on a tentative map.
Chair Saadati:
· Supports the flag lot, keeping the house as is; it has been that way for a long time and fits in
the neighborhood.
Motiou:
Motion by Com. Miller, secoud by Com. Chen, to approve Application
TM-2004-07, with the flag lot design. (Vote: . (4-0-1, Com. Giefer voted no)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to deny Application
V -2004-02. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision was final, unless appealed to the City Council.
5.
Z-2004-01, U-2004-10,
ASA-2004-14, M-2004-06,
EA-2004-11; Mike Rohde
Val\co Shopping Center)
10123 & 10150 No.
Wolfe Road
Rezoning of a 7.5 acre site from Planned Development
(General Commercial, Light Industrial, Hotel, Regional
Shopping) to Planned Development (General
Commercial, Light Industrial, Hotel, Regional Shopping,
Residential). Use Permit to construct 204 residential units
and a parking structure. Architectural and Site
Approval for 138-760 square feet of new retail space,
Residential units and a parking structure. Tentative City
Council date: September 7, 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
Àugust 23, 2004
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Said that the applications were for a use penn it for 204 residential units; architectural and site
approval for retail space, residential units and parking structure, modification of a
development agreement in order to include the applications as part of the Vallco development
agreement; and a rezoning that will include a residential use as allowed use in the zoning
district; as well as a mitigated declaration.
· Reviewed the background of the development agreement, and the site plan including the Rose
Bowl site and the Wolfe Road retail site, as outlined in the staff report.
· Said that the drawings are conceptual and applicant will be required to return with more
detailed plans to both the Planning Commission and City Council.
· Reviewed staff concerns outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that all the details come back to the Planning Commission and City Council
if approved in concept level.
· Traffic report completed; determined there were no significant impacts on traffic from the
project.
· There were comments at the study session about wanting to see greater pedestrian access
between this project and adjacent properties and that has been made a condition of approval to
have them come back and show how they will better interface.
· Project provides adequate parking. During construction however, they will fall below the level
of parking they are to provide during construction; they will need to show a construction plan
or parking plan as to how they are going to provide parking during the construction period.
· Reviewed landscaping and tree removal as outlined in the staff report.
· There are no significant impacts from the schools; 50 students from the elementary and middle
schools; 23 high school students. Developer fees would mitigate any impacts from the increase
in students.
· Noise impacts from the street noise to the residences have been identified; will need some
noise studies done to determine what kind of construction is needed to address the noise
impacts.
· Affordable housing will be the 15% in our regular program; sanitary district and water service
indicated there are some capacity problems in terms of the pipes; and the applicant and city are
already in discussion with both of the agencies.
· In terms of sanitary there will have to be some enlargements done and in water that remains to
be seen. The mitigation is that in either case the increase in capacity will occur prior to
issuance of building permits.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval
of the environmental negative declaration, the four applications. There is no model resolution
for the modification to the development agreement; attorney will draft it; the recommendation
is that the Planning Commission pass on their recommendation to the City Council that the
projects be included in the development agreement.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she did not recall seeing the tree removal diagram in the staff report.
· Regarding the parking calculation, the number the developer shows for the Rose Bowl site is
1398 stalls for parking, but the number staff had was 1400+; what is the difference.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the 1429 spaces is derived from the 1398 Rose Bowl, plus the 31 Wolfe Road.
· He clarified that they were counting the street parking on Wolfe Road (on Vallco Parkway).
Planning Commission Minutes
7
August 23, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Follow up on Com. Giefer question regarding parking; on the residential there is 204 units; are
those all assigned parking or general; how is it calculated?
Ms. Wordell:
· The upper levels of parking are dedicated to the residentials so they have exclusive rights to
the residential parking.
· Said there were two spaces per unit.
· Guests would have access to the lower level and the first level; residents park on the 3'd, 4th
and 5th levels.
Vice Chair Wong:
· On the traffic pedestrian on Vallco Parkway where one lane would be deleted; currently there
are 4 lanes and it would be reduced down to one lane for onstreet parking.
· What is being suggested; is there going to be a center divide?
· There is no left turn lane going onto Wolfe Road.
· Said he had a concern about parking on Vallco Parkway but will address later.
· Also regarding the high school mitigation fees, does the applicant pay for the 20 students; how
does that work; what ifthe numbers went up or down?
Ms. Wordell:
· It is three lanes in each direction and it will go to one lane of parking and two lanes of through
traffic in each direction.
· It will be restriped; there would be two through lanes in each direction.
· There will be a left turn lane onto Wolfe Road.
· They pay a development fee directly to the school district.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There is no adjustroent made if there are more or less students than projected, because over
time it will vary, they have a set fee.
· It is rigorously established by state law.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on the concern about Vallco Parkway regarding the setback on the
design issue; was it for a wider sidewalk and if it is pushed over for a wider sidewalk, the
building may be smaller and may not get all they want.
· Commented that by having a narrow street, there is a more intimate feeling; at 12 feet vs. 20
feet.
.
Ms. Wordell:
· It creates a more open ambiance of having a wider sidewalk vs. a narrow sidewalk where you
would feel very constrained walking down; it would be uninviting. If it was wider, it would be
more inviting.
· Staff looked at Santana Road where the main streets are 20 feet wide; some of their side streets
are 12 feet, with the feeling they were side streets to walk by to get to the main street.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
August 23, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said staff had looked at arrangements at Santana Rowand Santa Barbara; Mountain View has
variable width along their street; they also have angled parking which gives a greater
separation from the travel lanes.
· Said in their professional opinion, 12 feet is not adequate for this building; the building is tall
and it needs to be pulled back some and more space is needed for the pedestrian; otherwise the
pedestrian is going to feel squeezed.
· Staff suggests it be increased to 20 feet.
Com. Miller:
· There were very few staff comments on the intersection of Wolfe and Vallco Parkway; are
there any other comments about the ease or difficulty with which shoppers and pedestrians can
cross and get from one side of the center to the other; does staff have an opinion on that?
Ms. Wordell:
· Staff have not analyzed that yet because the details are going to come back at the next stage, at
which time they will address it.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There are not a lot of good options; it is a very wide street and the option of having a free for-
all pedestrian crossing is not a good one. Public Works is not recommending that in this
location.
Com. Miller:
· Asked for clarification of the term 'pedestrian scramble'.
Mr. Glen Goepfert, Public Works:
· Said it was a dedicated pedestrian movement with no motor traffic moving in any direction;
staff felt it was not appropriate there because it would add at least one-half minute to the
overall cycle length for the signal; the motor traffic wouldn't be able to move through the area.
· It is more appropriate for a downtown area with real city blocks and some parallel routes.
· Another option was a grade separation for pedestrians; there is a bridge about 350 feet to the
north; one would have to go through the retailer which is more realistic to look at in those
terms.
Com. Miller:
· The bridge is well defined so that pedestrians would view that as welcome option to get to the
other side.
Ms. Wordell:
· It would not be accessible with this proposal because you would need to go up to the second
story ofthe retail to access it.
· If coming from the parking area to the mall or theater, unless it was highly marketed to guide
people to it, they would more likely cross at another location.
Com. Miller:
· That is potentially an area for further study.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
August 23,2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it would likely function similar to Valley Fair and Santana Row with Stevens Creek
Boulevard where it is a difficult street to cross. They do not have the retail bridge that is
present at Vallco.
Chair Saadati:
· Regarding the traffic study, the report says that there is impact; however looking at the table,
ES I, it seems the current level of service is impacted comparing it to the expected growth
column. Looking at Item 5 on Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway, level of service is C- and
also background is F and expected growth is F, in some areas that area actually goes up and
some areas it is reduced.
Mr. Goepfert:
· According to the study, the impact doesn't come from this particular phase of development;
however if you look in the background for those that are actually grading, it is coming in
background in a number of areas and a number of intersections and staff has a problem with
that. This is the first time that this has shown up in any of the cumulative studies that have
been done for projects in Cupertino.
· However, there are some things that would go toward that; one is that the consultants have
been asked to use the year 2000 counts which are the most conservative counts based upon the
economy at that time.
· There are other background projects; that Ms. Wordell mentioned, the Vallco development
already vested, which is put into the background and pushes over some of the others.
· This particular phase does not have a significant impact in terms of affecting degrading the
LOS; the separate problem is for staff to look at whether they actually believe that the
intersections are going to be degraded in some cases to F or E, which would require a General
Plan change.
· The congestion management counts in October will generate some new information and take
another look at this because we don't think that things are degrading this badly, but may be a
result of the conservative look taken by using the year 2000 counts.
· Said the project being discussed does not have a significant impact as far as degrading the
intersections. If it did, staff would be happy to condition it with mitigations, but unfortunately
some of the previously vested Vallco phases have already gone by and we don't have the
ability tonight to recommend any mitigations for those; those have been 10 years in the past.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if it took into consideration the movie theaters, the 204 housing units, the retail
excluding the 50 residential units, condos and the hotel.
Mr. Goepfert:
· Said he felt that it did.
· If the overall traffic picture were to be what it is here, we would have to look at what we could
do to mitigate the impacted intersections; that would have to do with single time; if we had to
add to the green; look at some turning movements, that sort of thing, but before we get to that
point, we need to take another look at this and reanalyze what is here to see if it is too
conservative.
· There will be an opportunity to do that to a certain extent in the congestive management
counts in October, which is an overall picture for Cupertino for the level of development. This
particular phase of development is not contributing to the impact that you see, not in a
significant way.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
A.ugust 11,2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Are staff and the applicant comfortable with the traffic circulation of the residents coming into
the building, as well as their retailers going into the parking lot. Do they feel the signs are
visible, do they know how to enter and exit into the Rose Bowl project?
Mr. Goepfert:
· Said it was not something he would be able to tell as far as the detail of the signage; something
the developer might speak to.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if they were comfortable about the ingress/egress from the street going into the
building.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The applicant has devised a creative effort with many ways to get in and out of the site.
· There is a perimeter road, three access points along Vallco Parkway, plus the perimeter road;
they have got it ramped so that it is a separate entrance for the residential, and separate for
retail.
· It could be considered overdone; there will be a lot of parking and accessibility with the
design.
Ms. Wordell:
· The development agreement vests the traffic mitigation for the vested elements so that the
theater, hotel, and the retail cannot require any additional traffic mitigation, even for those
background projects because in 1990 it was vested for those projects as well as any traffic
mitigation required at that time, which there wasn't any.
· There were no significant impacts identified at that time.
· Said if staff wanted to address traffic impacts from any of the developments, if would have to
be on their own if they wanted to change some of the signals or future projects not connected
with Vallco, if they contributed significantly to traffic.
Mr. Piasecki:
· As Mr. Goepfert stated, this is the first time this has shown up in this fashion and it is a good
red flag to now focus on the new counts; watching it carefully over the next few years to see if
it actually starts to materialize, and if so, take appropriate actions to ensure that Wolfe Road
continues to flow.
· If there is going to be any slowing it is probably going to be the side streets, not Wolfe; more
green will be allocated to the overall city traffic than will be to the internalized traffic
movement.
· It is doubtful that the numbers would actually materialize, because it is conservative.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if the relocation of the bus stop shown on Sheet 6 was in addition to the current one on
Wolfe Road which is underneath the pedestrian bridge or is it a replacement for that?
Ms. Wordell:
· Illustrated where they would need to have a bus stop, and where currently the park and ride lot
and the bus stop were; and noted that it would be an addition.
Planning Commission Minutes
11
August 2~, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Relative to tree removal, said some were 16 inch and 22 inch diameter; asked if there were
specimen trees.
· Are they going to be completely removed or relocated; there is reference made to relocating
the trees.
· Regarding the fire access, the fire truck needs to get close to the building or is it reachable by
ladder?
· Said the diagram did not show all the trees.
Ms. Wordell:
· Some ofthe ash trees were specimen trees.
· Not proposing any relocation; the arborist is recommending a different type of tree be planted,
not the Ash trees.
· Said the fire department would use the ladder along Vallco Parkway which is why they want
short trees replanted in the area. They will access it through a corridor so that the outer row of
trees are alright because they can get to the units between the outer row of trees and the units
through the sidewalk area.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if the fire department would be able to access the building if more of the street trees
were retained.
· Said she was concerned about the outside row on Wolfe Road; the arborist report shows the
outside row in tact. She wanted verification that just a few of the outside ones were gone.
Ms. Wordell:
· Illustrated which trees would be removed because of construction and the fire department's
recommendation; also illustrated the trees to be retained.
Mike Rohde, Vallco Fashion Park:
· Will discuss the conceptual plan for a Rose Bowl site and emphasized how essential the
housing element and mixed use Rose Bowl project is for the overall health of the mall.
· This residential mixed use project will help fund some of the other proposed improvements
such as a theater. The mixed use project is an important factor for Vallco to go to the next
level and be a successful center.
· The project is time sensitive; they have been working diligently with staff; there is a crucial
time element to make a September City Council meeting; are seeking the Planning
Commission's conceptual approval on what is presented this evening.
· The mall is going through a crucial growing period, and the theater as well as some of the
other improvements in store cannot happen unless there is a mixed use project on the table.
Many centers across the country have added housing components to their property.
Mr. Kirk Ellis, P & R Architects:
· Reviewed the goals of the project: A financial component relative to the success and
revitalization of Vall co Fashion Park.
· Wanted to bring life back to the city, creating something the city would feel represents what is
going on in the city, social activity, and also bring Vallco out to the street front and try to re-
engage the street front.
· It is seen as a unique opportunity, a unique block, which would be one sided to a certain
degree, as far as how it relates to its neighboring blocks. It would have neighbors to the south
and to the east and the block and building has been designed to be a four sided building.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
August 23, 2004
· Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway is a busy intersection, and as the mall has a desire to come
out and engage the street and bring people connecting from the street into the mall and back,
they wanted to have some sort of form and element that could really help to organize and
anchor the intersection.
· Said they want Cupertino to be a desirable place to live; the goal is to create a place people
will be proud to live in.
· Ground level plan: the concept was to try to nest residential and retail spaces around the
parking garage; tried to minimize the impact the parking garage would have on the streets and
the neighboring properties; bring a significant amount of retail back towards Vallco Fashion
Park so that there is an engagement of opportunity across the street and have an indoor and
outdoor experience.
· Attempted to address Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Roads because it is important, there is a
significant amount of vehicular traffic now and anticipation of a significant amount of
pedestrian traffic.
· The depth has been established as being a typical depth for acceptable leasable retail space; the
larger block could be subdivided. There is a large block available for interested tenants.
· Pleased that the city is willing to entertain having parallel parking along the street, it will help
the feeling of the street, to slow traffic; retailers will want to have parking in front of their
doors.
· Felt that it was appropriate to maintain a sidewalk width of 12 feet, with the tree canopy which
would be a part of the landscaping plan, that would define a zone 12 feet up to 20 feet. At
certain points there is an opportunity to open it up, pull the facades back and have some
expansion contractual on the path along the sidewalk.
· The design approach was that it would be better to try to concentrate activities in certain areas,
rather than string apart activities.
· Wolfe Road because of the one-to-one setback and the activities happening and orientation
back to Vallco Fashion Park is a great opportunity to have a deep plaza with activities and
retailers that are programmed to help support activities.
· Reviewed the various entrances, outlets and levels of parking.
· Showed a variety of examples of courtyards throughout various developments and discussed
the elevations.
· Reviewed the concept of the development.
Com. Miller:
· Asked the architect to respond to the concern about the amount of glass in the residential area
on the elliptical section of the project.
Mr. Ellis:
· The design concept from the beginning has been something used to anchor the intersection at
the corner on the architectural side of things looking at the massing.
· It is seen as the opportunity to create something that was unique and different and follow a
pattern of celadon transparency which is marched around the building; with a distinctive
feature at the corner. If it was more solid, it would feel heavier, more overbearing aesthetically
and massing wise, which presently is a concern of the city.
· Provided an overview ofthe living space of the units.
Com. Miller:
· Expressed concern about the narrowness of the walkway along Vallco Parkway and the
recommendation that it be moved back another 8 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
August 23, 2004
· Said he had a major concern with what happens to the intersection between Wolfe and Vallco
Parkway. If it is not done correctly, it could potentially be a nightmare in terms of safety for
people walking across as well as a bottleneck for traffic.
· It does not appear to be completely addressed or addressed very well at this point.
Mr.EIlis:
· Said it was their intent to have a series of expansion and compression spaces; there would be
an impact if the building had to move back 20 feet off the street; there is an impact in the
footprint of the building and therefore in the residential up above.
· With 204 units allotted by the current General Plan, that is what they are designing to at this
point, and that is what works with the project. They feel that the orientation scheme will be
enlivening and will have activity pockets along the street.
· Parallel parking is going to discourage people from being at the curb line next to cars;
illustrated where there was a setback and opportunity to have enough space that people can see
off the curb.
· Said they did not have a traffic engineer who has worked on the project with it at this point to
comment on specifics relative to speed or distances.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Relative to Com. Miller's comment about traffic, there are three entrances and exits going out
from Vallco Parkway, a left turn would be difficult if it was a successful retail center.
· Would there be a traffic light, or right turn only.
· He said he saw the business being as successful as BJ.'s and Cyprus.
Mr.EIlis:
· Said they saw it as being successful, and agreed.
· It is a good point and it has been discussed previously, since it is signalized; it is shown as one
in, two out, the left turn is going to be through traffic. It is something they may need to
investigate with the city's traffic engineer or on their own to look at what the appropriate
solution is.
· Said it was their ideal opportunity to get the entry down to the main lower level parking.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if the peak season, and holiday season were taken into consideration, or when the cars
pile up trying to make a left turn and they pile up inside; and also pedestrian traffic during the
holidays walking back and forth in the urban city life that is proposed.
· What are the mitigation factors?
Mr.EIlis:
· Initially it has been studied, but they do not have final counts or solutions. Mr. Rohde may be
able to respond.
· With that intersection, what the city initially asked for and they are proposing to do, is that
motorists would notice going over different paving surfaces to help delineate where pedestrian
surfaces are, and give as much priority visually as far as cues to pedestrians.
Vice Chair Wong:
· It will be very challenging if someone is trying to make a left turn, pedestrians don't yield to
the cars, it will be chaotic.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
August 23, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· If subsequent studies show that it doesn't work or doesn't work in the future, you would
simply have to close it off, make it a right turn in, right turn out, and if people wanted to head
westbound on Vallco Parkway, they would go to the next intersection and make a U-turn,
and/or go around what is currently Vallco Parkway to Finch to get onto Stevens Creek.
Mr. Rohde:
· Relative to Vice Chair Wong's question, he said that during peak times and holiday times, they
typically manage their own traffic on their 64 acre property. Their security staff is in charge of
maintaining traffic control on their property and they also enlist the help of the Sheriffs
Department and Code Enforcement.
· If it became a traffic issue on a Friday night or day after Thanksgiving, they would work with
the city of Cupertino and Code Enforcement, and create a right turn only or mitigate that
traffic to some degree.
· Said their people were qualified to relocate parking lots or direct parking and traffic in certain
areas.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Questioned the architect regarding the connectivity between the property and Menlo Equities.
· The service yard is going to look over the residential area; will there be trucks driving there;
what are the hours; and how is it going to affect both rental units and for-sale housing on
Menlo Equities?
Mr. Ellis:
· Referring to the second level plans, there is a clear view of the service driveway. It is
addressed for functional reasons and safety reasons; the service traffic cannot be coming and
trying to access backing into the building offVallco Parkway or Wolfe Road.
· From the beginning they looked at having the service road be along the back side; it also helps
with the setbacks needed for code reasons.
· There will be service trucks on the back road as well as people who are either residents or
people coming out of the parking lot. In the staff report, time restrictions were mentioned for
operations for the service docks. It is something they would look into and be approachable to.
· Raising the grade to get up into the second level was an important step to having a successful
parking garage also; they proposed a thicker screen of landscaping trees to screen the exiting
cars and block the headlights.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked what the hours for the service vehicles and garbage trucks would be.
Ms. Wordell:
· The conditions of approval are hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
weekends and holidays; also the loading docks will be covered and closed when they come
back for their final design approval. When a truck pulls into unload, it would be fully
enclosed, motor shut off.
· The trucks could be seen coming and going, but would not be seen or heard once they pulled
into the loading docks.
· They should turn off their engines when they are parked there, and turn their radios off.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
August 21, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the Menlo Equities housing units were 20 feet from the property line.
· There are 60 feet in the parking structure area between the parking structure and their property
line, plus another 20 for Menlo Equities.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he assumed Menlo Equities and the applicant would have a disclosure statement
regarding the service area and to let the residents know about it.
· Asked how they would connect the Rose Bowl project with the Hewlett Packard property and
the Menlo Equities; would they be a condition of approval? Also, how can the residents walk
to the marketplace and there is also an elevation of grade levels concerns.
· How are people going to walk from Menlo Equities and the Toll Brothers project to the new
supermarket?
Mr. Ellis:
· Said there were opportunities to do that. Once again with a setback area and the opportunity
for landscape buffer and easement area, they have the opportunity to go ahead and have
something that is a good connection point.
· One of the goals is to have this become an exciting place that people want to live in; there are
going to be neighbors and they want to have that sense of connectivity.
· It is up to the city and the client to decide legally how that is done; from the design side, he
said they could accommodate those things.
· It is a design idea; there is nothing agreed upon with the approach, but with Menlo Equities,
the residential component in the area illustrated, it would be easy to get some connection point
that comes along the east edge of the Rose Bowl property.
· He illustrated where it would be a benefit and opportunity, but said it would be a challenge to
come back to the market.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if there was a way that they would not have to walk around, but walk down the
staircase, because of a different grade level. He said he knew there was a service road, but
most people want to take a short cut, and walkability is encouraged.
Mr. Ellis:
· Said the opportunity is there design-wise; they would have to look at the staircases because
one is exit and one is going to be private for residents. If there were to be an agreement
between both properties of some way to address that, there are legal issues with how they
could accommodate that movement, vs. having more open air, accessible easement area that
might be provided outside.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff if the Planning Commission or City Council could make the applicant make it
more connectable since they were concerned about legality issues.
Ms. Wordell:
· In the next design phase one of the conditions is for them to come back with a proposal for a
better connection; if it is approved that way, that is what they will come back with.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
August 23, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Looking at Val1co Parkway and cutting into the building at different areas, what is the average
depth of the sidewalk if you had to take the insets with the straight line of the 12 foot sidewalk
for the whole length of Vall co Parkway.
· In the rendering shown of the resident lobby where one would drive in, is there a drop off/pick
up space, once one enters that bridge goes under the glass feature by the tree; there is a green
striped 15 minutes parking.
Mr.ElIis:
· The average is 15 feet, excluding the open spot; already notching back to 14; average out to be
about 15.
· Reviewed the second floor plan; does not have floor space, but upper space of the retail
spaces. The area is visitor parking, a drop off area, a court with stamped concrete or pavers.
Mr. Rohde:
· They have their own security staff and part of their duties is to maintain truck traffic. They do
not allow trucks to park on Wolfe Road; there are two truck docks facing Wolfe Road.
· Typically have not had problems; the trucks are able to pool elsewhere and if they end up
stopping, they are asked to move and given a reservation space to get them back.
· They are able to maintain their own property and this would be another area that the security
staff would help maintain.
Mr.ElIis:
· Referring to the elevations, the intent is to average 50 feet, there are some code reasons why
this works out to be best; it is not part of the development agreement; but once again to get the
appropriate side scale drama for that corner piece to help hold that intersection, you want to
push that it would be a different construction type at that point; the glass at the ellipse.
· It is the part that goes to 60 feet; not all of the roof lines will be 60 feet though, there will be a
vanance.
· Said the height ofthe retail component across Val1co Parkway was 41 feet tall to the highest
point; there is a 20 foot difference looking from the Wolfe side.
Com. Chen:
· Are there entrances from the courtyard size for the residential units along the Wolfe side.
· Are there two rows of the residential development.
Mr.ElIis:
· Responded yes to Com. Chen's questions.
· Illustrated the Wolfe Road side, double loaded corridor, where the units face the courtyard and
those that face the street with one common secure circulation space in between. Roof height is
the same; there are structural reasons for that; aesthetically we want to have some variations
and elevations.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if consideration was given to reduce the height of the illustrated side to make it match
more of the other side and also reduce the units along the Wolfe side.
Planning Commission Minutes
17
August 23, 2004
Mr. Ellis:
· Relative to reducing the height along Wolfe Road, they did not consider that to be the direction
to go with the design; said they saw the block set apart by itself; an opportunity to have a
strong statement.
· Also have to get the right height as far as number of units residential and retail is actually
workable; fortunately there is tree screening which can be kept out a row, it will help to
balance out the appearance.
· Had a productive meeting with the fire department and onsite walk with the arborist, talking
about specific trees, what could and couldn't be done.
· Opening the intersection up for the ellipse gives a better visual access to this intersection; it is
going to be an active place.
· The connection back to Vallco; the outward appearance of Vallco, it will be unencumbered but
also it is going to be safety wise, pull the trees off for better visibility.
· The fire department talked about the need to have people come onto the plaza and be able to
get back off.
Com. Chen:
· Asked what the plan was for the new retail space at the opposite comer of the residential unit,
architecturally and use ofthe tenants.
Mr. Ellis:
· The concept was to have a more solid box that faced backwards to Penneys; it may have been
the old building and had been cut off and a glass front put on it; the reason for the glass is to
have an exposure back across the drive, so people coming and going out of the cinema have a
connection of seeing people doing things, an activity sense. It is important, but also giving the
opportunity to have smaller icon and landmark as you are coming down Vallco from the east,
for another reference point.
· At this point; in this case we are showing a slightly higher element to get some hierarchy to get
to that mass; as far as tenant space, it could be either two story tenant, a book store, or two
tenants on individual floors.
Com. Chen:
· Asked staff how the change would change the total retail space allotted for this area; and how
is it going to change the total residential units.
· What about residential units?
Ms. Wordell:
· Vallco has 500,000+ square feet of retail space allowed as part of their development
agreement, this will take 136,000 square feet of that from their total; the cinema will also take
some, but they will still have some retail space left over; which they are planning to add on at
least at this point in the main mall as well as out toward Wolfe Road.
· The calculations have not been done for what the cinema will use because they are going to
have to take a deduction for the cinema that is in the development agreement; not certain if it
will be completely depleted or not.
· Vallco has its own allocation as does the retail for the area; there may be some left over for
others, like the Hewlett Packard site. The existing General Plan allows 120,000 square feet for
a power retailer so that could go anywhere.
· This General Plan would be used up with these units. There would not be any additional
residential development allowed in that area unless there was a General Plan change.
Planning Commission Minutes
1&
A.ugust 11, 1ßM
· Tonight's approval of the 204 units would use up the housing allowance in the Vallco Park
area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The allocation is coming from the Heart of the City allocation; there are other areas in the
community that allow some residential buildout, but this would use up all the allocation for
that particular area.
Chair Saadati:
· Relative to the Rose Bowl site plan, he asked if tree grates would be provided for the walkway
trees since the concrete grates extend the sidewalk visually; it may have a more positive
impact.
· When considering detail, it may be beneficial to look into it to see if it will address some of the
concern regarding the width, because there is not a landscape island across the entire length; it
is just three grates at certain spacing, which may provide more space for pedestrians to walk.
Mr. Ellis:
· Plans include landscaping along the street.
· When walking the site, the fire department saw benefit for their fire access in having better
spacing of trees than is currently there now. Tree spacing will be addressed.
Chair Saadati:
· Said that a major concern was the amount of glass used which would create a challenge for
privacy, as people from the outside could see in.
· Noise is one ofthe key concerns that needs to be IKkleè addressed; regular glass won't work;
need a special glass.
Mr. Ellis:
· They will have an acoustician working to get the right technical side of how the glazing
system is looked at.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That is a point that staff is concerned with as well with the townhouse units next to the parking
garage, making sure they have a sound transmission class rating sufficient so that you don't
hear squealing tires, car engines and car alarms. That is going to be a challenge
Mr. Ellis:
· Described the building materials used; including natural stone, cultured stone, concrete block,
stucco, plastic finishes, and lime wash paint. The lower retail level will be concrete structure
and the upper residential levels will be wood, with some steel. The company has significant
experience in doing lifestyle retail centers and mixed use.
· Will be using a variety of plaster washes also so it is not all one type. The color palette
includes more colors than are illustrated.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding housing units, what is the percentage of 'for sale' and 'for rent'?
· Asked staff what the noticing requirements were, as there were not many people present at the
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
19
August 23, 2004
· Want to make sure the community is aware of the project and after this is built, hope they have
a positive reaction.
Mr. Rohde:
· Relative to 'for sale' and 'for rent' units, said be was not sure, but they were investigating the
insurance ramifications; there will be some of both categories.
Ms. Wordell:
· Regarding the noticing, staff did a 1,000 foot radius notification and also e-mailed the General
Plan task force.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Relative to the development agreement, asked for verification that it did not include the 50 unit
condo and hotel. Asked if they were seeing the whole master plan now, or was it just
conceptual.
Ms. Wordell:
· Those projects are specifically excluded from this approval; residential uses are allowed and
vested in the development agreement, but they weren't specified as far as number of unit or
density.
· That is why they had to go to a use permit for this project which is why this particular project
is not vested, even though residential uses are; specific project is not. If they want to do
additional residential, they would be able to, but they would have to get an allocation for that
and they would have to go through the use permit process.
· They could have chosen to do it together, and asked for a General Plan amendment and wanted
to come with all the residential now, but they are not.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Questioned whether the 1,000 square foot noticing was the perimeter for the Vallco property
or the Rose Bowl; if using the Rose Bowl project, there are not many single family homes
around it, vs. on the other side of Vallco, there are more single family homes around the Portal
neighborhood.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was the Rose Bowl project and Wolfe retail.
Com. Miller:
· It suggests that very few people received notice of the project. For subsequent meetings, it
should be expanded in some way because it is not likely there will be many residents 1,000
feet from the Rose Bowl. Staff can address the issue.
· Asked for clarification when staff earlier made the comment that the 204 units used up the
allocation; where does the 50 stand, do they need a General Plan amendment to come back for
the other 50, or is that included in what was said to be used up the allocation?
Ms. Wordell:
· It is not included and they would have to get a General Plan amendment, or if it were far
enough in the future, perhaps the regular General Plan process would allocate and they could
just draw on that.
Planning Commission Minutes
20
August 2J, 2001\
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
· Said that relative to the transportation betterment with the Valley transit bus system, it seems
they are adding 205 units, 204 units someplace else, a hotel and hopefully a successful theater
operation, Vallco Fashion Park. He was hopeful that the buses will be off Wolfe and Stevens
Creek to pick up and deliver people and drop them off. Asked staff to respond.
· Concerned about Wolfe Road being a main primary artery; there are Foothill, DeAnza,
Lawrence Expressway and Wolfe Road; Wolfe Road not only takes care of Cupertino, but also
takes care of West San Jose, Saratoga people; it goes straight down to Fair Oaks, so there is a
straight artery going through.
· Said he hoped they were not planning decreasing Wolfe Road into two lanes instead of three
lanes.
· Concerned about the residential units on how they are broken down in number of bedroom
units; someone said that the high school district says there is no problem, but when adding up
each thing, Cupertino High is already impacted and they will definitely be impacted in 2004
and 2005.
· Said he hoped that they would not allow trucks to make deliveries on Wolfe Road.
· Urged the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that the incident with the Verona
Apartments where 16 families who were on the BMR list lost their chance for affordable
housing did not occur again.
· Expressed concern about one unit which did not appear to have any light to it.
Mr. Ellis:
· Illustrated that it was typical in hotel design; using the inner corner for utility spaces for
circulation; the way it is laid out is a one bedroom unit, facing out onto the courtyard; has an
opportunity for a second window; utility storage in this case, and mechanical shaft.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to Mr. Whitaker's concern about Wolfe Road, there is no change with this project to
Wolfe Road, the lane configuration on Vallco Parkway is proposed to go from 6 lanes down to
4 lanes to accommodate onstreet parking; there is no change to Wolfe.
· As indicated earlier, ifthere is a problem with level of service, Wolfe Road will be the priority
focused on.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Reiterated that Vallco Parkway is currently 6 lanes and potentially may be reduced to 4 lanes
and have parking on both sides; will it accommodate for the future development on Hewlett
Packard property.
· Asked the reason Vallco Parkway was 6 lanes originally.
· Said it would be good to have something similar to the Santana Row pedestrian friendly
middle mall.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Traffic engineer feels that there will be no problems with reducing Vallco Parkway to 4 lanes.
· In the past, there was an 18 story Marriott Hotel approved on the present Hewlett Packard
property; there were big plans for the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
21
August 23, 2004
· This could be the beginning of that; I don't know if it will come to fruition, but the Hewlett
Packard lands could be tied in some fashion; they are proposing a residential component along
Vallco Parkway, not the intensity of Santana Row, but a pedestrian oriented walkway area.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Has lived in Cupertino for 20 years; shopped at Vallco for 30 years.
· One of the hallmarks of the Vallco property all the way down to Homestead at Sunnyvale at
the Hewlett Packard properties, is the double row line of small Ash trees.
· The Ash trees along Wolfe and Vallco Parkway have been maintained by Cupertino for the
last 30 years and they cannot be in such bad condition, considering people have been proud of
the trees, they are mature specimens.
· Said she would be upset if the trees were removed from Wolfe Road and along Vallco
Parkway.
· The Toll Brothers property does intend to keep the double row of trees along Tantau, Stevens
Creek and Vallco Parkway.
· Also concerned with the pedestrian safety along Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway; it takes a
long time to get across the road.
· Asked the Planning Commission to consider maintaining the trees as they are a hallmark for
the area and a source of pride of the neighborhood.
Jody Hansen, Silverado Avenue:
· Was not present but asked that her written comment be entered into the record.
· Supported the residential mixed use component in concept.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the project.
· Believes that the vertical integration mixed use smart growth project is what Cupertino needs;
and the applicant put a lot of articulation and design into the building.
· Also support staffs recommendation to bring back the design to address.
· Believe that the mixed use project is the right location.
· Want to see the applicant tie more connectivity regarding the Menlo Equities and the Hewlett
Packard property in the future.
· Concerned regarding the traffic mitigation of the LOS of D and F on Wolfe and Vallco
Parkway; staff needs to look more into it.
· Will not hold up the project, but have reservations in the reduction of lanes on Vallco Parkway
and putting parking on the street.
· City Council is going to have a special meeting regarding noticing; and it is important to work
together with staff to find a better way to notice the community, so that we can all support this
project and let them know what a wonderful project and addition this will be; because we need
more retail and more affordable housing.
· Am open to making this more rental community vs. for sale; support rental units because
recently we have been approving a lot of for sale units and rental units will be easier for the
applicant to control some of the noise and other mitigating factors that go into a mixed use
project.
· Concurred with Com. Giefer's comment about the sidewalk being 15 feet, supports the
concept suggested, and also some safety features Mr. Rohde brought up regarding ingress and
egress of the parking. He said the Chamber of Commerce supports the project as well.
Planning Commission Minutes
22
A.ugust 11, 1004
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that the use permit resolution reads that they would be 'for rent' condominiums, and
similar to Verona would allow them to rent them or sell them as they wished.
· Said she was unsure if there were other opportunities for addressing the BMR issues regarding
people losing their BMR units as a result, and noted that is the way it is presently set up.
· In response to Vice Chair Wong's request, she eXplained the Verona situation and how the
residents lost their BMR status. She said the development started out all 'for rent' units and the
owner decided to take advantage of the fact that they were also mapped for condos; therefore
the higher units were changed to 'for sale', so they must have had some below market 'for
rent' units in the 'for sale' project, that the renters could no longer stay in.
· Said that the entitlements allow them to go to 'for sale' without going through any other city
reVIew.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said what they are finding, is that for financial reasons, the banks are insisting upon mapping
of these projects so that the property owner has the flexibility to respond to market conditions;
they don't want to hold a lot of rental units, as well as the applicant's.
· From the applicant's perspective there are liability issues associated with 'for rent' and 'for
sale' so in essence there is not a lot of discretion on staffs part to direct that it go one way or
the other without upsetting the entire apple cart.
· If there is a desire for more 'for rent' projects, it should be specified in areas where it can be a
stand alone; in cases like this it probably will be market driven.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he agreed that it should be given flexibility; but wanted to prevent a situation like Verona
in the future.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff will look into it; there are ways to do that or allow longer periods of time; make sure the
residents, should they become disrupted have an opportunity for first right of refusal for
subsequent units that are available; given rights to actually purchase the affordable units
because once they go from rental to ownership, there are still BMR units, they just have to be
ownership units, so we may give priority to the initial tenants; they have to qualify.
· Staff will provide more information on the issue.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggestion is to give it to the Housing Commission, and have them suggest some mitigating
factors for 'for rent' units, and the owners have the right to have it 'for sale' and have some
mitigating factors.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports mixed use.
· Have some concerns regarding the space and townhouse courtyards; regardless of what
glazing you use; in the two bedroom townhouse units, you are going to have the master
bedroom away from the garage; most likely going to have a child's bedroom near the garage,
and that child will most likely be disturbed when the car alarms and the parking structures are
going off in the middle of the night regardless of what grade of glazing materials used.
· Suggested that one row oftownhomes be eliminated or some of the other condos be eliminated
to make them into townhomes. Said she felt the 30 foot distance between the townhomes and
Planning Commission Minutes
n
Àugust n 2004
the parking structure is not enough for both air circulation for noise, and in general could not
imagine having ~ view out the kitchen window to a parking garage.
· Agree with staff; the distance, the screening, somehow needs to be enclosed, but it does not
provide the home view that Cupertino residents want to enjoy as part of the community.
· Expressed concern about what was presented on the eastern elevation; it looks unfinished and
industrial. If we continue to develop in that area with more housing, again, I appreciate the
fact that you did design all four sides of it, but that one side needs more work. I would like to
see it plus sed up more with landscaping, I can see you took our feedback from the study
session to heart with regards to more screening on the parking structure which faces Menlo
Equities and I appreciate your efforts there, and know it can be done. .
· Regarding move in/move out, would like the residents to have access to the loading docks,
which sounds like it is not going to be an issue for the residents; might want to consider
moving the freight elevator into that area; that is at your discretion.
· Also support retention of as many trees as possible; having walked the site, agree with arborist
that many of the trees are in poor condition; I would like to see a condition added to the
approval that Vallco who is responsible for maintaining those Ash trees on Wolfe Road, have
a care program in place to rehabilitate the retained Ash trees as well as continually maintain
the trees along Vallco Parkway. Some trees are in poor shape but could survive if they were
appropriately cared for and maintained.
· Another point, promoting walkability, not just pedestrian walkability, but bicycle access as
well; not only pedestrian connection to the Menlo Equities project, but bicycle access, either
routing it on to Wolfe Road or routing it directly along the access point to Vallco Parkway;
both are acceptable solutions.
· Suggested bike lockers in the residential parking area; staff can come up with the correct
amount.
· Concerned about the entry point walking from the hallway into the kitchen. With the final
architectural plans, want to see something that is a greater separation from the entry way and
the kitchen to provide a feeling of closure in space.
· Requested samples of appropriate size of all materials to envision what the application of the
materials will be on the finished units as they are approved.
· Supports the project, but feels there is more work to be done before the design is finalized.
Com. Chen:
· Said it was a good design and she liked the mixed use concept.
· Expressed concern about the use permit, total number of residential units and also the retail
space; although not opposed to any of them, wants a comprehensive analysis of the whole area
of the total housing units, the use of retail space, and connectivity to all the large sites.
· School impacts are also a concern.
· Said it was a unique opportunity for Cupertino to look at the 27 acres of development for the
Hewlett Packard site and also this is a 7.5 acre or 9+ acres of development.
· Said she would support most of tonight's recommendation with the exception ofthe use permit
and architectural and site approval.
Com. Miller:
· Supports the project in general; seeing it at the conceptual stage at this point and expecting to
see a number of refinements in the future.
· Said he understood that it is important to put residential units in here both for the project and
being a housing advocate, believe they are important for Cupertino. However, want to ensure
they are not stuffing in units wherever possible, and agree with Com. Giefer that there may be
Planning Commission Minutes
24
August 23, 2004
some issues relative to the townhouse units in terms of the noise and the negative impact of the
views out onto the parking structure.
· At the corner of Vallco Parkway and Wolfe, the idea of the glass is a dramatic look, but we
need to make sure it doesn't impact the residents, or it is done in such a way that there is some
mitigation there.
· Also concerned about how the treatment of the intersection is going to go and whether in fact
that is going to be a major impediment to traffic moving north and south. If it is, how is traffic
going to be routed, or how will they deal with traffic that is moving through Cupertino from
one direction to another. Also how does that traffic interface with pedestrians trying to cross
the intersection.
· Am comfortable with the sidewalks on Vallco Parkway after the applicant explained. As Vice
Chair Wong discussed, it is important that we explain the links in more detail and suggest that
we include that in our approval, that we ask the applicant to put more time and effort into how
those links are going to work.
· Address the noticing issue for the City Council meeting if that is not too late to do, so that we
make sure we get far more noticing than we did for this hearing.
· In terms of 'for rent' or 'for sale' it is important to allow the market to dictate this; presently
there are a lot of vacancies in the rental market; the applicant should have the flexibility to do
either/or based on market conditions.
Chair Saadati:
· Supports the concept plan; with still a lot to go; about 20% to 30% of the work done; a lot of
tweaking needed, elevation changes.
· Regarding traffic, looking forward to seeing the congestion mitigation management in October
to see how the overall traffic is going to look.
· Said he liked the idea of parking on Vallco Parkway as it would make the pedestrians feel
more comfortable walking along the walkway, and the stores prefer the cars parked in front
rather than having cars speeding by.
· Connectivity to adjacent development: Would like to take a look at that to ensure there is a
connection; and need to look at how all of these developments will affect the whole area. In
favor of mixed use, it is done in adjacent cities.
· Regarding the trees, it would be beneficial to all parties to have an overall picture of what the
final outcome is going to be, considering the pros and cons.
· Eastern elevation needs tweaking.
· Supports many of colleagues' comments.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports staff's opinion of widening the sidewalk setback on Vallco Parkway; would like to
see it expanded to approximately 20 feet.
· Said she likes the articulation done on the street side but would like them to be broader
because other areas such as Santana Row or other parts of San Jose where they didn't have
onstreet café dining, are always cramped and Cupertino could do a better job.
· Would like to see the setback increased as well in that area.
· Add a condition that all of the mechanical apparatus on the roof air conditioning, HV AC be
covered and not visual to the residents who are on the higher floors.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that Com. Giefer's last comment was Condition 15.
Planning Commission Minutes
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
2S
À.ugust 11, 1ßM
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Application EA-2004-11 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Application Z-2004-01 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
U-2004-10 with the following conditions: staff to look into the traffic
mitigation; connectivity with other developments snch as Menlo Eqnities and
Hewlett Packard project; the applicant shall prepare a tree care program for
retained trees as well as new landscaped trees; also look at the circnlation
plan especially the moving vans for apartments and how that circulation will
go; management suggested they will also look at the peak hours of the
shoppiug of the retail that goes in the circulation pIau; also coudition to
improve the east elevation looking at Menlo Equities, and also want more
details regarding the ellipse at Wolfe Road and Val1co Parkway;
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the applicant regarding the 12 feet, there are some ins and outs, averaging about 14
feet; her explanation about architect was well taken.
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that the trees that will be saved will be the outer row of Ash trees along the Rose
Bowl site; the inner row of Ash trees will be removed on the Rose Bowl site along Wolfe
Road; both rows of Ash trees along Vallco Parkway will be removed and both rows of Ash
trees and those in the construction footprint on the Wolfe retail site will be removed. The only
trees remaining will be the Wolfe Road outer row of Ash trees.
· Noted that some of the conditions in the motion were already conditions; move in/move out
plan is new; a tree care program is new; the idea of more specific information about how the
intersection is going to work is already included.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Want to see a plan for peak hour traffic during the retail Christmas and holiday seasons; what
kind of plan they would have to control or mitigate the traffic for retail; and coming in/coming
out for the housing.
· Asked how traffic mitigation would be addressed if it was already in the staff report.
Ms. Wordell:
· There is no traffic mitigation proposed; before it goes to City Council staff will take a closer
look at the assumptions and methods of the background conditions as to why it showed the
background conditions going to those lower levels; but the project does not need any traffic
mitigation.
· Staff does not support having Wolfe and Vallco Parkway stop with all the pedestrians walking.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Public Works spoke to that as lowering level of service even further and causing a lot of
confusion in the particular setting.
Planning Commission Minutes
26
August 23, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
· There is a condition that calls for the ellipse to be handled differently, which would be to pull
back the residential use and look at the idea of some sort of an atrium or some way of allowing
the edge of it to be lit and exposed and not subject to people pulling shades.
· If you don't want to do that you would need to change it and you might say to have them bring
back how that edge will be treated; the architect talked about being able to handle it with
special shades or something similar; that needs to be addressed.
· You will need to change it if you don't want the specific suggestion there now.
· She read the text regarding 'ellipse feature' from the staff report. (Page 3 of the resolution for
the use permit, Condition 7, 11th bullet, Page 5-13 of the staff report.)
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked if staff was suggesting it be a commercial center?
Mr. Piasecki:
· There are two options; you could either incorporate it into commercial on the ground floor
similar to what Borders does with the upper levels; alternatively it can be opened up to a big
clear space and atrium with a grand appearance. It is a good architectural element, but not
appropriate for residential.
· The two options are: (1) Leave the wording as is, which the applicant may not like, or modify
it to say that they have to come back and demonstrate how the ellipse will work, which is a
softer version. (2) Eliminate it; in which case you would be buying the applicant's concept of
using it residentially.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he would allow the flexibility for the applicant to prove that is why it is for residential,
but was open to colleagues' comments.
Com. Miller:
· Said he had some concerns about the residential use, but was open to allowing the applicant to
come back and address those issues appropriately.
Chair Saadati:
· Said if it was overlooking an ocean or a forest, it would be different, but it is looking down on
two lane traffic and his own personal opinion would be that he would not want to live there.
Com. Miller:
· It is in the applicant's best interest to do that, because if he designs something that nobody
wants to live in, no one's purposes have been served.
Second: Com. Miller
Com. Miller:
· Asked if they were asking the applicant to take another look at the intersection of Vallco
Parkway and Wolfe Road?
Ms. Wordell:
· That will be at the next stage; but he is not getting off at doing that at a later stage.
Planning Commission Minutes
27
August 2J, 200~
Com. Giefer:
· For clarification prior to voting, a few of us made comments with regards to the space between
the townhomes and the wall in front of them; is that something that should have been a
condition of this, do we want to see a change there.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that it is covered in one of the architectural and site design bullets: "auto circulation
adjacent to townhouses, demonstrate an attractive interface between parking structure and
residences. "
Com. Giefer:
· With the vague language, that should be enough to address that or reduce units if necessary to
address that.
Ms. Wordell:
· If the applicant came back with something that was not deemed sufficient, they would have to
come back with something more radical.
Vote: (4-1-0; Com. Chen voted No)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
ASA-2004-14, change conditions accordingly to match what was done with
the use permit, where they need to be. Vote: (4-1-0; Com. Chen voted No)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
M-2004-06 (4-1-0; Com. Chen voted No)
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented that he knew the applicant doesn't have to do any traffic mitigation because they
are in this redevelopment project; but said he hoped he would take into consideration the
concerns of the Planning Commission regarding traffic mitigation efforts.
· Said it was a compromise, as he did not support having parking on Vallco Parkway, but
overall the project was very good.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
· Com Chen reported no meetings have been held.
Housinl! Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported that the August meeting was cancelled.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners;
Vice Chair Wong reported:
· Many commissions cancelled their meetings except for the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
2&
August 23, 2004
· Fine Arts Commission reported they are looking for more sponsors for fine arts projects. The
art project currently at the Quinlan Center, there time is up for their two years; so that will be
relocated. Also the conquistador hat that was stored that used to be in front of the library will
be coming back to the community center and be placed in the prominent location.
· The Teen Commission will be changing with a new set of teen commissioners.
· Senior Commission is working on projects. Many people have taken time off in the summer.
Report of Director of Community Development:
Mr. Piasecki:
· Provided sales information on a housing unit.
Ad iournment: The meeting was adjourned to the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission at 6:45 p.m. on September 13, 2004.
SUBMITTED BY:
~
s, Recording Secretary