Draft Minutes 1-10-06
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:00 P.M. JANUARY 10, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of January 10,2006, was caIled to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Chair Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Public Works:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Aki Honda
Glenn Goepfert
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. TM-2005-13
James Chen
21713,21731,
21711 Alcazar
Avenue.
Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre parcel into four parcels, ranging
from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 square feet. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .9-acre site into four parcels,
ranging from approximately 7,500 to 9,200 square feet. The proposal is to reconfigure four
existing parcels into four new lots, currently only three of the lots are developed with single
family homes; the fourth parcel exists as a driveway access for one of the existing properties.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
January 10, 2006
She reviewed the site analysis and tree removal as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approves the tentative map in accordance
with the model resolution.
James Chen, applicant:
· Said he worked closely with the Fire Department, Planning Department and Public Works
when submitting the tentative map. The proposal meets the zoning and Public Work
Departments requirements.
· He requested that the tentative map be approved.
· He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the proposed project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that Condition I3 on the Tentative Map speaks to the driveway easement; they will
record the driveway easement agreement so that adjacent property can also use it.
Ms. WordeD:
· Responded to Com. Giefer's questions about public and private roadways.
· There is no difference between width of public and private roadways; it is what Public Works
Department will approve in terms of adequate access for this number of lots.
Glen Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public Works:
· Said that Public Works would typically have a wider street section for a publicly maintained
road. Generally the city would have a substandard down to 28, typically a street would be 30
or 36 feet, if it were expected to be publicly maintained. There would typically be sidewalks
except in an area where it has already been approved by Council as semi-rural area.
· In this particular case Public Works would consider a narrower road. In order to have the 29
foot width, Public Works would indicate that they need to make it a private road. The
standards for a typical road presently is 36 feet.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Steve Malan, Imperial Avenue:
· Referring to an overhead map of the city streets, he illustrated the area around Imperial and
Orange Avenues where a drainage problem has existed for 15 years. During major rainstorms
the heavy flow comes from different directions and floods his lot and the neighbor's lot. Each
year they have cleared it out manually.
· He recommended installation of curbs and gutters in the general area and another catch basin
installed; and some type of site drainage plan for the entire area to catch it before it hits
Alcazar.
· The density of the project seems high, but livable. It improves the area. Drainage is the main
concern.
Sheaun Tsai, Alcazar Avenue:
· Expressed concern that the old lots had two street entrances, the new ones only have one
entrance; traffic will be concentrated on the one side. The traffic and the car lights will impact
his house.
· The court set up is another concern; it does not match the neighborhood.
· According to Feng Shui, a court with a driveway directly facing the house is not good for the
house owners. The width of the street entrance is also a concern.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
January 10, 2006
· He is opposed to the project.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Commended the city for requiring bond money be put up for the protection of the trees on the
property. It is a very useful way of making sure the trees on the property are not damaged by
bulldozers or mysteriously disappear.
· She expressed concern particularly with the Walnut trees, stating she would like them replaced
on the property with a covenant recorded that two walnut trees have been replaced because
they are trees recognized by the city as being of historical importance. Cupertino needs to try
and retain big trees; English Walnut trees are a heritage type tree for the city.
Suriel Chawla, resident:
· Said he liked the idea of newer homes in the neighborhood.
· Expressed concern about flag lots. He referred to the adjoining property as an eliminator,
meaning that he loses 15 feet of open space.
· He said that adding higher density and newer development would create major privacy issues
for his property.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Goepfert commented on the drainage issues:
· Explained the process followed in reviewing an application for a storm drain. He said in this
particular case, he was unsure if they considered the quantity of runoff being added in the area;
it is a difficult spot but they would seek a solution on the improvement plans to convey the
runoff rrom the site, not just the added runoff, past what was described as a low point. which is
a problem in the area.
· It is about 250 feet to Orange where there will be a storm drain main line built by a public
system, and is further to go to Imperial to make sure the runoff is conveyed. We will look at
how we Can safely convey that without adding to the existing problem. The alternative would
be that we would not consider denying something of this, it is not a significant contributor on
the basis of existing drainage problems. The level of improvement and the cost to extend or
pick up the runoff rrom the roadway is something we could consider. It would not be a total
solution to just work on this roadway. In other cases, Public Works would look at detention on
the lots; I am not sure if there is an existing problem because there is an existing problem here,
if that would be appropriate for one new route. In the new pavement area, but Public Works
would look at what it would take to minimize the contribution to the existing problem.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Pointed out that Page I -6 and 1-7 contain the Public Works conditions. Curb and gutter
improvements a speaker talked about wanting to see curbs and gutters, it does stipulate that
they shall be installed in accordance with standards as specified by the city engineer.
Condition 6 refers to drainage which is also referring to the drainage system, shall be to the
satisfaction of the city engineer.
· If the Commission feels there is some additional work that needs to be done in those
conditions, you can specify it; you can ask the city engineer to focus on the additional
contribution made by this project and to determine if there is a way to upgrade the drainage in
the area that he thinks is reasonable that he could require of the applicant. The issue that Mr.
Goepfert is referring to is that we cannot ask this applicant to solve the problem for the whole
neighborhood when they are not contributing very much to that problem.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
January 10, 2006
Ms. Honda:
o Responded to Mr. Tsai's concern about the impacts created by the private driveway direction.
o Explained that it was currently a tentative map application; when it returns for development of
the properties, they can look at site specific mitigation measures which could include some
additional trees at that time.
Com. Giefer:
o There is indication on one of the plan sets that the arborists made their notes on, that they
intend to put dry wells on each of the lots. On the other subdivision map, they are lacking. To
aide in the drainage with the houses that are there now, she understands that the down spouts
would tie into those dry wells. Is the developer going to put in the dry wells underground for
each home because it would solve some of the runoff problems, and from the rooftops, that
water would not collect in the street.
Mr. Piasecki:
o Requested the applicant's comment on the lights shining onto the neighbor the south.
Mr. Chen:
o Said it was a difficult issue for an engineer. He said personally he understood the concept of
Feng Shui which alleges that it is not good for the homeowner to have a driveway that directly
faces the house. Relative to the light shining directly into the homeowner's window, he
suggested that a tree be planted in between the driveway and the window to block the direct
light into the window.
o He suggested that the homeowner and developer work together on a solution.
Chair Wong:
o Suggested that the driveway start at 20 feet and open up to 29 feet; when they exit from the
private driveway they will be exiting between the two properties at the existing driveway but
when they go inside the private driveway they will opening up to the 29 foot driveway area.
Mr. Piasecki:
o The 29 feet area accommodates the onstreet parking on the west side of the street; the travel
lanes are already limited to about 20 feet, which are after the onstreet parking and before the
private curb line in front of the homes.
Com. Giefer:
o Suggested that even if it was just for parcel one. If there was no on driveway parking in parcel
one and you moved parcel one to the left, you could save one of the English walnut trees and
provide more space between the eastern neighbor.
o Said she supports making the first portion of the driveway "no parking" and limit that size to
20 feet, giving them a larger parcel one, put a covenant on one of the English walnut trees to
save one of them to allow more privacy for the eastern neighbor, which would be a win-win
forall.
o Suggested a condition for tree protection to prohibit storage of materials or dirt underneath
protected trees, and have the conditions of the protection posted.
o Add a condition to protect at least one of the walnut trees if the driveway is narrowed.
Vice Chair Miller:
o Said he was satisfied that the drainage issue was being addressed adequately and that the
applicant was doing his best working with staff.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
January 10,2006
· It is a reconfiguration of existing parcels, taking away flag lot arrangements and putting in a
cul-de-sac which is an enhancement to the neighborhood.
· It is an attractive solution which will upgrade the neighborhood. Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve
Application TM-2005-13 as amended; including reconfiguration of the
driveway, saving one of the walnut trees, no material storage or dirt
underneath trees, drainage to be self sustaining to the maximum extent
possible in the new driveway, and a catch basin within the driveway to help
alleviate the drainage problem. (Vote: 4-0-0)
2.
TM-2005-14
Jitka Cymbal
(Jinling and Roger
Low residence)
21988 McClellan Rd.
Tentative Map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two
parcels, 10,418 square feet and 1,385 square feet respectively.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide a 21,803 square foot lot into two
parcels in a RI-7.5 zoning district as outlined in the staff report.
· He summarized the recommendations for tree retention and removal from Barry Coates, the
City's consulting arborist. Mr. Coates' recommendations are outlined in the staff report, Page
2-3.
· As a result of the arborist's recommendations, staff has put conditions of approval in the
approval of the tentative map, including recording a covenant for the protection of the three
trees; obtaining a tree protection bond of $10,000 per tree; hiring a licensed arborist to oversee
the tree protection measures during construction. He illustrated the location of the trees
proposed for preservation.
· Staff recommends approval of the tentative map.
The applicant was not present.
Com. Miller:
· Asked staff why a flag lot was being considered as opposed to a straight subdivision down the
middle?
Mr. Jung:
· Responded that the property is conventionally zoned and the minimum lot width required in a
R 1 zone is 60 feet at the front set back line; the lot is too narrow to split down the center.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was still a workable solution; and an opportunity to not have another flag lot situation.
Mr. Jung:
· Said it was a situation where the flag lot lends itself to the protection of the existing trees on
the property, and was not certain if that would be the case if the lot were to be split down the
middle.
· He said he thought it would be problematic whether the Oak tree could be preserved with a
50/50 split down the middle.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
January 10, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that if the Commission is interested in pursuing the two lots with the frontages on the
public street they could address the question and continue the item. The applicant would
likely have to file a request for at least a variance or an exception to the ordinance to allow
them to have the less than standard lot width.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she also felt that the lot should be split down the middle; and suggested continuing the
application.
Com. Saadati:
· For protection of the trees, splitting the lot down the middle makes sense. He said it should be
addressed further.
Com. Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Commended the city for protecting the trees, and considering the bond requirement.
· Said she was pleased that the Commission is considering the bond money and that Mr. Coates'
suggestions about protecting the trees during construction are being considered.
Xzaodonig Zhao, resident:
· Asked what stage the project was at, and the purpose of the story pole. The story pole looks
into his backyard and he was concerned about a privacy issue.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jung:
· Explained that the pole were story poles.
· He said the applicant wanted to submit an application for a two story residential permit for
each of the lots; he did not have the lots at this point and staff discouraged him from filing the
application right away until he was certain he would get the subdivision.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that the item be continued for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to
address the Commission's concerns.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to continue Application
TM-2005-14 to the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0)
3. U-2005-19, ASA-2005-17,
TR-2005-8, EA-2005-15
Mike Rohde, Vallco
International Shopping Center
LLC, 10123 No. Wolfe Rd
Use Pennit to allow portions of a three
story, four level parking garage to exceed the
32 foot height limit. Architectural and site
approval to allow portions of a three-story,
four-level parking garage to exceed the 32
foot height limit. Tree removal and replanting
plan for portions of a three-story, four-level
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
January 10, 2006
parking garage that exceed the 32 foot height
limit.
Ciddy WordeD, City Planner, presented the staff report:
o Reviewed the application for a use pennit to allow portions of a three-story, four-level parking
garage to exceed the 32 foot height limit; architectural and site approval to allow protions of a
three-story, four-level parking garage to exceed the 32 foot limit; and tree removal and
replanting plan for.portions of a three-story, four-level parking garage that exceed the 32 foot
height limit.
o She illustrated the site layout and circulation, and reviewed the proposed parking garage.
o She reviewed the following issues as and staff recommendations outlined in the staff report:
Site Layout and Circulation; Height; Lighting; Parking and Traffic.
o Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of
the applications.
Mike Rohde, applicant:
o He reiterated that the application was for a Use Pennit for a portion of the north parking
structure.
o Parking is a major component of the revitalization of the mall; tenants always ask how much
parking there is and where it is.
o The north parking structure is a very important structure for the mall, thereby allowing
customers to park on the west side of the campus, on or near Macy's and TGI Fridays. The
structure helps balance the property from the west side and east side; and it will allow opening
the theater and secure the agreements with Macys and the other department stores.
o He discussed the compromises made in working with the city and neighbors, including
reducing the levels of the garage; retaining as many trees as possible and replanting trees;
removal of the tall elements away from the west side of the garage, including the elevator
override, and lampposts. They are also seeking the Commission's input for the upper parapet
in terms of the height.
o Construction on the garage will also be in a precast manner in tenns ofIimiting the amount of
construction that will take place on site. There will be an addition of the green screen which
will shield the neighbors of the filtered view of the garage.
o In addition, the traffic hours will be limited on the perimeter road as staff mentioned.
Kirk EUis, architect:
o He said in the revitalization of the campus, they looked at creating a mixed use campus,
focusing on entertainment activity. The mall was built long ago and trends have changed.
Relative to campus planning, parking will be spread around the campus and not focused in
o one location; there will be different activity areas; create a real streetscape and have the
intersection of Vallco and Wolfe become a real intersection that is a gateway into the campus.
o He reviewed the orientation of the parking garage and discussed the various features on the
different levels. Details are outlined in the staff report.
o He reviewed the landscape plan.
o Relative to the stacking and elevation of the parking garage, he said they compressed it down
as tightly as possible, and tried to accommodate as many of the needs they could within
reason. It is a critical part to the success in the development of the mall.
o Responded to Commissioners' question relative to the parking garage.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
January 10, 2006
Mr. Rohde:
. Regarding lighting levels at the roof level, he said they would have the opportunity to put it
on a separate breaker. After the mall is closed, the lighting levels in the existing garage get
reduced to half. In the top level of the garage they have the ability to coordinate traffic after
a certain time on the uppermost level.
o Relative to the use of underground parking, he said that Macys prefers not to do subterranean
parking; and they have veto powers. Also there two PG&E transformers located in ftont of
the entrance to Macys as well as a 12 KV line.
o He answered Commissioners' questions about the parking garage, including accessing and
exiting the structure during operating hours and after hours; lighting; and number of levels.
Com. Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Sharon Hampe, resident:
o Thanked Chair Wong for facilitating the meeting last Friday with the neighbors.
o The revitalization of Val1co is an important project because the projected sales tax can help
provide quality services to the City.
· She noted that in the evening, when walking north to south on Norwich Avenue next to the s
· oundwall, she is able to see all the levels of the Val1co parking garage next to Macys, because
.the trees are not tall enough to screen it. She expressed concern that with the addition of more
parking levels, the height of the parking garage will impact privacy and create security
concerns, as well as noise impacts and additional pollution created ftom the additional cars in
the garage.
o She suggested, ftom a win-win perspective, to propose to construct the garage one level lower,
which would be in compliance with the 32 foot height, and would also will be compatible with
the Macys' structure.
Mark McKenna, President-Elect of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Spoke in favor the proposal.
o Said that one of the missions of the Chamber of Commerce is to enhance the viability of the
economics of Cupertino and they feel that the parking garage would increase the viability of
the commerce in Cupertino.
Nelson D'Souza, Dennison Avenue:
· Opposed the building of the parking structure.
o Expressed concern that the parking structure has been built up to 32 feet which is considered
to be high compared to the existing parking structures in and around Macys and Sears.
· Attempts have been made to work with Mike Rohde to design a parking structure that goes
below grade level; the main reason that City Council has approved 32 feet is because going
below grade level has been ruled out because of the PG&E transformers that claim to be in the
way and have been put forth as a major problem.
o He questioned whether any Planning Department staff has verified Mr. Rohde's statements
that it is impossible to move the transformers. He said that he located both transformers
outside Macys and they are 3 by 5 fe~t and 5 by 9 feet in line outside the Macys' sidewalk. He
commented that if some space was given up, it was likely a structure could be built
underground. He asked that the statements be verified about Federated not being open to going
to the subterranean structure, and also if any documents exist showing that PG&E states that
the challenge exists.
· He pointed out that Mr. Rohde was not able to provide contact names at Federated or PG&E
when residents asked for them at the neighborhood meetings.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
January 10, 2006
· He expressed concern about the en1ry and exit points for the parking structure. One of the
en1ry points is through Norwich Avenue which adds to the congestion in that area. He
suggested moving it to another location in the parking structure.
Patty Chi, Norwich Avenue:
· Said that ITom her tront yard she can view the existing Macys' parking garage.
· She suggested that the parking garage be moved closer to the theaters if it was anticipated that
the garage would be heavily used by theater patrons. The movie patrons leaving after the last
movie would create a disturbance for the close neighbors.
· She asked that the Planning Commissioners consider staying with the 32 foot height.
Com. Wong:
· Clarified that the footprint of the parking structure would not be built on the transformer.
· Based on what the applicant stated earlier in the meeting, Macys has veto power, and does not
want to have a subterranean garage.
Lisa Warren, resident:
· Said she attended the neighborhood meeting held in November. She felt not all the persons
who should have received notice of the meeting, were notified of the meeting.
· Many who attended the meeting felt that the applicant was withholding information and
providing incorrect information.
· She said there seemed to be a conflict of information between the November meeting and the
present Planning Commission meeting relative to the three stores and PG&E, and information
relating to the parking garage.
· She expressed frustration about the unanswered questions about the tree protection, and
parking garage structure.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Relayed a comment ITom Patti Chi that in the winter time the ash trees lose their leaves, so
their may be a bigger problem. The photos were taken in the summer when the trees were
fully leaved.
· She said the parking garage should remain at the 3 I foot height, since taller structures intrude
into the neighborhoods.
· It would also be helpful to have security guards in the area of the parking garage after hours or
went the movies let out. She said at Valley Fair there are security guards in trucks in the
Macys area which provided a feeling of security when entering the parking garage. Having
them in the area at closing time helps to reduce the problem of purse snatchings. We need to
think about that when we have people going into areas of the ValIco mall and the perimeter
road after hours, because we haven't had shoppers in the areas around the mall after I I p.m.
Michael Pyle, Dennison Avenue:
. Expressed his appreciation to the city staff, Planning Commission and City Council for being
receptive and working to develop some mitigation, rather than move quickly on everything.
. Relative to the issue of the row of trees, which is being relied upon as an important part of
site mitigation and noise and light mitigation, he noted that the rows of trees are extremely
uneven in their height and their condition. The tree plan also shows instead of three rows of
trees in some places, near the west side entrance of the garage, they are considering
removing some rows of ash trees leaving a single row of redwood trees. The city report on
housing as opposed to the garage refers to the fact that at least in some portions of property,
irrigation is either non-existent or has been cut off which threatens the health of a number of
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
January 10, 2006
trees. There is also the issue that ValIco cut a number of trees in the north parking lot, which
raises the question does the existing development agreement or anything else protect the
trees, or do they exist by the grace of Vall co, which his neighborhood does not want to rely
on for the health and safety of those trees over time.
. He asked the city to address the issue and propose language to ensure that ValIco isn't
responsible for maintaining the rows of trees.
. The second issue relates to traffic flows. The one thing that is still very much on the west
and north where there is abutting residential, is that it is where the entrance to the parking
garage would be. He said he would like to see some thought on finding a way to reconfigure
all the streets and intersections to have the main focus for traffic into the garage be on the
west side of the garage, which is the natural way and the easiest for people to access from
Wolfe Road.
Sean Hnang, resident:
· Echoed some concerns of the neighbors; the first one relates to the access to the soundwall
itself, which would be toward Wolfe Road, which would have an easy flow. Instead of having
the flow towards the neighbors, should it go the other way.
· He commented that the top level of the garage would provide only 20 additional spaces, but is
going above 32 feet high. He said there was a lot of parking available outside Sears.
· Said he found the suggestion for off hours parking outside the mall interesting as it would
create a dangerous situation for pedestrians. He questioned whether the parking structure was
really for the AMC theaters or something else.
· Said he would like to see some kind of warranty for the trees and a maintenance plan for tree
replacement.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Asked the applicant to clarify Ms. Warren's comments about the veto power of the anchor
stores.
Mr. Rohde:
· Clarified that the speaker was not completely accurate in her statement about the parking
structure on the south side of Penneys.
· He said they do have the opportunity land a parking structure on the south side of Penneys and
it has always been in the plan. It is not something new.
· He said they have had discussions with Penneys about trying to add a parking structure on the
north side of the property and it is not on the table for them at this point. Penneys also said no
to adding a parking structure on the south side.
· He pointed out that the land in front of Macys is owned by Vallco and is therefore the best
opportunity for them to build a parking structure on it. It is correct that Penneys and Sears
own their own building as well as their pad.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that many applicants are independent and can make choices; however, the present
applicants have three major anchor tenants they have to go to every time they have a proposal,
and must renegotiate their agreements under their real estate agreements with those anchor
tenants. It makes the process slow and cumbersome, and it may appear they are inflexible;
they are well intentioned, but they just don't have the flexibility that other independent
applicants may have. He said to bear with them and the city, as they were trying to get the
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
January 10, 2006
best alternative out ofthe proposals, and it is difficult when dealing with parties who have veto
power.
Mr. Ellis:
· Said that relative to the entrance on the east side vs. the west side of the garage, the biggest
concern initially, was traffic safety. Referring to the master plan, he illustrated a flow of
traffic to demonstrate turns, stop signs (lack of) cars driving down Wolfe Road, as an example
of the safety and traffic concerns at that particular corner.
· Relative to a neighbor's concern that there is an entrance on that way, is that needed? It is
needed; for the number of stalls, a second entrance is needed; also because the ramping is done
on the west side, that is the best location for it as far as functionality and safety. .
Mr. Piasecki:
· Asked Mr. Rohde if it would work to flip the structure so that the ramping comes trom the
other side and then take two entrances off the north side of the structure.
Mr. Rohde:
· He said it would not actually work; it is necessary to have the ramping on the far side; once
again Macys having REA veto authority; they want to have as clear a view of their ftont door
and their parking for the patrons as possible. It is a stipulation. When you see a ramped edge
to a parking structure, you cannot see them quite as treely and they wanted to actually have the
full 17 foot high clear lower floor, which we are not able to accommodate. This is one of
those things, ramp on the far side gives them the visibility. Once again helps us to keep the
flow in the safest point which is on that farther west side, not the east side.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· There was a question about the trees, and whether they were deciduous, what happens in terms
of preservation and replacement, and what are we doing about thinning sections of the trees.
· Said that the concern about people walking back trom the theater along the perimeter road
could be addressed by signage, discouraging them trom using that particular area.
Ms. Wordell:
· The evaluation trom the arborist for the trees that are along the west side of the property, the
redwood and the ash was in general that they were in good health and they have a significant
long life ahead of them. He didn't do an individual evaluation on them for that reason. I think
if you wanted to direct that there be more attention spent to that, that could be done and we
could have that be part the detailed landscaping plan to come back to you and we could look at
it more closely.
· The deciduous trees get thinner in the winter; additional planting is being considered as part of
the new landscaping plan.
· There was also the suggestion of trying to allow some interior access; it might be a possibility.
The suggested signage may also be helpful.
Com. Saadati:
· The areas that need to be addressed when this goes to City Council need to be specifically
addressing the level of use for the roof level and reduction of the lighting, clearly identifying
the parapet materials. I am not sure if the cable? Would be better than a solid material, I have
seen both. If there is no car, the cables will give you perception of less height;' if there is solid
concrete, it may not be as attractive.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
January 10, 2006
· Looking into possibly eliminating the 20 parking stalls that will increase the height; I think
structurally that could possibly be done if that is eliminated; I don't think 20 parking would
make a lot of difference. It should be looked at and addressed before the City Council,
because I suspect the height may be an issue that they are concerned with. Item 8 states that a
tree protection is bond for during construction, however after the construction is done in the
future there has to be some verbiage that the trees are going to be protected and they remain to
be well watered and kept in good condition. If they die, they need to be replaced, so that it at
least blocks the view of the structures from the neighbors.
· A good security plan; I think Mike stated in the past that you have security guards; as Vallco is
expanding and more people are going through there, if the theater is closing at 2 a.m. there
needs to be a definite plan to ensure public safety.
· Good signage with good taste.
· With all the conditions and staff condition I support the project.
Com. Saadati:
· Planters would be attractive. There could also be low lighting put on the inside for security.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she concurred with staff recommendation to move ahead with the Use Pennit and also the
environmental, and have the detailed landscaping plan as well as the ASA come back to the
Planning Commission.
· There are too many inconsistencies in tenns of tree removal; several conflicts that need to be
clarified, with the specific intent to save as many of the mature ash trees as possible that are in
place today.
· There needs to be some access from within the second story of the mall to the parking garage,
because it gives people a greater feeling of security.
· Suggested the top 20 spaces be eliminated with a maximum height of 32 feet.
· I concur with Com. Saadati that 20 spaces which we will lose some of them anyway to put in
the hammerhead for the turnaround. I don't think that losing 15 spaces is going to be
substantial, and I think it will make the neighbors feel much more comfortable if we eliminate
that higher portion.
· I think that with the tree protection that is in the Use Permit, I would also like to add a few of
the points that arborist Barry Coates brought up and those are that we post notices on trees that
are protected, on the fencing around the protected tree; that we specifically state that the trees
are to be watered and maintained and in good health throughout the construction process.
· As Com. Saadati indicated, that we record a covenant, protecting the trees that are retained.
Under the tree protection bond, the second line I put down that all evergreen, ash, coast
redwood or any other significant trees determined by the Director of Community Development
and the Planning Commission that are not required to be removed, have a construction bond,
because there may be other trees that come up during the landscaping plan that we feel are
significant and should be protected.
· Said she concurred with Com. Saadati; she would like to see green screen both on the west
side of the structure which faces the neighborhood as well as the north side of the structure that
faces 1-280 in the event the condominium development is approved, because there should be
some screening in that direction as well.
· Said she supported the project; it is an important project to help ValIco get energized again.
Chair Wong:
· Asked Com. Saadati and Com. Giefer; regarding the concern about the neighbors and the 20
spots on the northern part, and also recognizing the concern regarding the turnaround; perhaps
Cupertino Planning Commission
I3
January 10, 2006
you could use those 20 spots and have that bigger area for that turnaround; would you
entertain that idea?
Com. Saadati:
· He said he would look into it, and to make sure it works best with the circulation. A portion of
it may need to be eliminated but they need to study it more to see what works best. The
Director of Community Development may have the fmal say. By the time it goes to the
Council, it needs to be addressed more.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would prefer to keep the visual lines of the parking garage; having 20 spaces less the
turnaround, is really 15 parking spaces; it seems even from the developer's perspective, and I
don't know the cost, but I would anticipate that the cost of adding that is more expensive for
ValIco than eliminating it.
· It seems to have very low utility value to me; I support the tower for the elevators; I don't
have a problem giving them that, it is necessary for the project and it has been located away
!Tom the housing, but I see that the expense is more significant than the amount of spaces we
gained.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Vallco has gone a long way to mitigating many neighbor concerns with the green screens, their
baffling, and a lowering of the original structure proposal.
· He said his perception in talking with the neighbors was that the primary issue was privacy
and he felt having a solid parapet wall was a solution to that so that there couldn't be people
standing up there looking into the neighborhood.
· I also think that is a similar issue in relationship to just how high the structure goes; I think the
primary issue is that we screen it !Tom the neighborhood, and if it is adequately screened, then
I don't see it as a major issue at this point.
· I could go either way on the small section with the parking there, whether we just use that as a
turnaround or eliminate it entirely. I would like to hear what Vallco's feelings are on that
particular point. Com. Giefer's comments are well taken; it is not a lot of parking.
· My primary issue is that I think this parking structure is needed as ValIco moves forward, we
are all expecting they are going to be successful and my primary concern is that the larger
problem that we might have is that they are so successful that we are pushing parking into the
adjacent shopping center, which in turn would push parking !Tom the adjacent center into the
surrounding neighborhoods; and it would be a far worse problem than having a parking
structure at the Macys' site.
· He said he would like to explore further to ensure that if and when that problem occurs, there
is a plan in place long before so that they are addressing the issue so that the neighbors aren't
imposed upon and the shopping center next door is stilI able to do business and not be pushed
out by parking !Tom ValIco.
· The other issue, there were other solutions we looked at; in terms of knocking down the two
existing structures and rebuilding them. I think the problem here is !Tom a timings
perspective; the quickest way to get the parking structure up for the theater is to build it at the
Macys; site and in the long run, it would most likely have a structure there in the long run, so
for timing issues and because it will likely end up there eventually, it make sense at this point
to go ahead with this structure here.
· Supports the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
January 10, 2006
Mr. Rohde, applicant:
· Said that Vailco has its own security staff unlike some of the other neighborhood centers; and
will be able to control their own parking and would do that. There will be 20 officers to help
maintain the property day and night.
· Relative to the comment about the 20 spaces on top, he said the 20 spaces are very expensive
to build; but the main purpose is a structural issue for them. The cost to build those parking
spaces is very challenging but the structural part of it is more important for us; we have
already reduced that side as much as possible, but it comes down to a structural issue on the
parking structure; and that is why the 20 spaces are there and we think that doing a
hammerhead there, we would likely lose the maximum of 3 stalls.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Maybe the question becomes if you built the structural elements necessary, but didn't put
parking up there, because once you put parking, you need the baffling, the green screen, and
then you have the additional height associated with that additional 6 feet. Could you just build
the structural framework elements and not put parking up there?
Mr. Rohde:
· I still think you are at the same height; you may as well put parking there because it is the
same issue; you are at the same height. That is what the green screen is to protect the
neighborhood in addition to the three rows of trees. You are still at the same height will the
structural element on that side.
Chair Wong:
· Ifwe don't build those 20 spots; how many feet will it be reduced if we went that way.
Mr. Rohde:
· It comes back, Kurt may be able to answer that. We have already reduced the height of that
structural element on that state; you end up with a bonus 20 spots, but you still have the same
height on the parapet.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the difference will be the baffling and the green screen. You will not need that additional
6 feet if it is just a structural element. If that is important to the Commission and you probably
don't want the parking up there if you want to reduce it by the six feet; otherwise you will. It
is correct, you will have it up to the platform layer of that upper level; you will have that exact
height, but you won't need the 6 feet on top of it.
Chair Wong:
· The 6 feet for the privacy for the neighborhood will only be for those 20 spaces.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is for the entire west elevation and part of the north and south wrapped around, but if you
bring that upper level on the west side, than you need to baffle it and greenscreen it. That
translates to 6 feet of height.
Chair Wong:
· I don't understand why you need the green screening facing the condominium; my concern is
it is a parking structure; you have carbon monoxide with autos.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
January 10, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Weare trying to take care of some noise flanking; this is what happens along freeways when
you put soundwaIls; you have to extend soundwaIls beyond the property line because you get
flanking coming from the sides. 1 envision that you would only need to wrap it about 25% of
the north and south end to get a pretty good level of avoidance of the noise flanking; after that
point it starts to get fairly distant, you will have plenty of airflow and if you decide to
greenscreen the entire north elevation, you wouldn't have to baffle it. You would simply do it
for an aesthetic greenscreen effect.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the neighbors for attending and organizing the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors
want VaIlco Fashion Park to be a good neighbor; they want good communication from the
mall and they are frustrated with the communication from the mall. Tonight we will send a
loud message to be be sent to the owners; we need better communication as the City Council
said in their last meeting.
· Said the shopping center would not make money with the parking structure; they don't want to
build this parking structure; but it is necessary to have a place to park, and the parking
experience should be positive.
· 1 believe that the mitigating factors suggested by staff were positive and will be a win-win
situation. I believe that all the mitigating factors that staff suggested, I support.
· We did look into the concerns about moving the entrance at different points. I know that it is
not the best interest of the neighbor to have the entrance facing the neighborhood, but based on
what the architect told us tonight, that they need to have two entrances and exits for safety
purposes and that would be the best feature. Also in the REA ?? agreement it says that
perimeter road will be closed at 9 p.m., so in the evening you will have some relief. Also the
top level will be closed at 8 pI.m. or 9 p.m. so there will also be relief on there too.
· I am open regarding the 20 spaces regarding the parking structure. I would like to see it more
of a turnaround; but again I am open to that. We want a successful shopping mall; that is the
bottom line. It is in the redevelopment area; I know that folks are deeply concerned and I hear
that loud and clear.
· Regarding the trees, when we hear the next application, there is going to be mitigating factors
regarding the trees; I also support staffs suggestion regarding that we do need a detailed
landscaping plan and also I do want to turn around at the top level and not have it dead end.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application EA-2005-15. (Vote: 4-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application U-2005-19 with the following conditions: No.7 - tree protection,
that it be stated no parking or vehicle traffic or storage shall be under the
root zones; information be added to the arborist's report that the notice of
the posted conditions be placed on the tree protection barriers; trees be
watered and maintained in good health; and that the retained trees be
recorded as a covenant on ValIco. Staff will also look at a turnaround at the
top level, and the issue of deciduous trees to make sure there is full color. The
height be limited to 32 feet for the parking structure itself. (Vote: 4-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
January 10, 2006
Com. Giefer:
· That we would limit the height to 32 feet where the parking is structured itself. (with the
parking structure itself? )
· We had some discussion about the supporting members of the structure without the parking
being built and I am unclear if there was support for that moving forward or what my fellow
commissioners were suggesting.
Chair Wong:
· I would have the concern based on what the architect said regarding the structure of the
parking structure and that is why I would be hesitant to support it. I !mow that the
neighborhoods would like it to be lowered but based on what the architect said I am concerned
about the well being of the structure.
Com. Giefer:
· Even though they could build the structure without putting in the parking pad. They could
build a supporting structure which would exceed the 32 feet, but the actual parked on portion
would be eliminated which would also eliminate the height of the green screen.
· Said she was comfortable with that option.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if in the future parking was a concern, with the application, could they come back and
continue their parking structures.
Com. Saadati:
· They can always come back as long as adequate screening is provided.
· I am receptive to Com. Giefer suggestion, we don't have enough infonnation as to see how
this structure works, but it is something that the staff could look into.
Mr. Piasecki summarized:
· It is suggested to allow the structure to go through with no parking on the top level; which
would eliminate the need for the baffling and the green screen because you wouldn't have
privacy impacts, noise impacts, lighting impacts, at the upper level.
· There would then be a process for the applicant to come back if they need the extra parking
and they have to do all those other mitigating factors, we can have a public hearing on that.
· The recommendation to the City Council is based on removing the 20 spaces. They always
have the ability to come back and apply for another use permit as they have done in this
instance. Your intent and your recommendation would be clear to the City Council; they can
ask that the City Council throw it back in and have that discussion next week.
Com. Giefer's suggestion accepted by Com. Saadati and Vice Chair MilIer.
(Vote: 4-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application ASA-2005-17 Vote: (4-0-0).
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
TR-2005-08 per the model resolution; changed to reflect any tree changes
made to the Use Permit ASA
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
January 10,2006
(New wording proposed by Com. Giefer related to the arborist recommendations for the different
kinds of protections.
Com. Giefer:
· In the past if we have approved a tree removal, the applicant is able to go out and
begin tree removal and for ours and the public's comfort level, ensure by approving
this that we are specifically stipulating that they will come back with a detailed
landscape plan before they start clear cutting Vallco. I am uncomfortable with this.
Ms. Wordell:
· They have to come back with a specific tree removal and replanting plan prior to any activity
in that area.
Chair Wong:
· The language is that there is a condition of approval that there will be no construction on the
site until it comes back to the Planning Commission for specific approval.
Vote: (4-0-0)
Will be forwarded to City Council on January 17.
Chair Wong declared a recess.
4. U-200S-16, ASA-200S-11
Z-200S-0S, DC-200S-01,
TR-200S-04, EA-200S-10.
Mike Rohde (Vallco Shopping
Center) 10123 No. Wolfe
Road (portion of property
On the west side of No. Wolfe
Rd., south ofInterstate 280,
North of Macy's department
store
Use Pennit to construct 139 residential
condominium units with an underground
Podium parking structure, an associated 1600
Square foot recreation facility, and a 4,000 square
foot day care center. Architectural and site
approval for the 139 residential condominium
Unit complex and underground podium parking
Structure. Zoning Map Amendment (Z-2005-05)
to rezone a 5.19 acre site ITom P (Regional
Shopping) to P (Residential). Modification of a
Development Agreement (DC-2005-l I)
to encompass the development proposed in
U-2005-l6 and ASA-2005-l I. Tree removal for
the removal of trees ITom the project site.
Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the project, consisting of five applications listed in the staff report. The project site
is currently an underutilized surface parking lot serving as overflow parking for the mall,
located on the west side of No. Wolfe Road, south of Interstate 280 and north of Macy's
department store.
· She provided the background of the application, including neighborhood meetings held which
raised concerns about building heights and setbacks, landscaping, traffic, school, and noise
impacts and relocation of the existing farmers market located on the project site. Because of
the concerns raised, the applicant revised the plans.
· She reviewed the revised site plan including an underground podium parking garage with 270
parking spaces, and 7 surface parking spaces on the southeast corner of the site; 5 buildings
consisting of the condominium units. The three story buildings are Building A on the south
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
January 10, 2006
side of the project site and Building B and C on the east side of the project site. Building C
and E are the two story condominiwn buildings on the west side of the project site. The 4,000
square foot daycare center is proposed for the southeast comer of the site, surrounded by 8,000
square feet of playground area. The 35,500 square foot recreational area including a proposed
1,600 square foot recreational building.
· The site is proposed to be developed at a density of 26.8 units per gross acre.
· The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it requires the unit allocations ITom
ValIco Park South and other commercial centers areas of the General Plan allocations. It
complies with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, except for the east side yard setback which
is along 1-280 off-ramp where a 20 foot setback is required by the Heart of the City Plan and a
15 foot setback proposed by the project.
· The project requires rezoning which would make the project consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan already allows for residential uses on the site.
· A development agreement modification and use pennit are also needed to vest the project as
residential use.
· She reviewed the parking, architectural design, conceptual landscape plan and tree removal,
traffic, school impacts and proposed elevations as outlined in the staff report.
· She noted that the city's architectural advisor Larry Cannon reviewed the elevations and
supports the proposed elevations, architectural features. She reviewed Mr. Cannon's
recommendations as outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed thç nine staff recommendations for modification to the plans, outlined in the staff
report, Page 4-1 I.
· Staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Pennit, Architectural
and Site Approval, Zoning Map Amendment, Modification to the Development Agreement
and the Tree Removal Pennit.
Mike Rohde, Applicant:
· Said that Vallco must compete with Valley Fair, and Stanford and must become more
competitive to stand apart ITom the other shopping centers in their shopping district. It will
need to be more of a lifestyle entertainment shopping center through a mixed use planned
development.
· The Economic Development Department of the city has stated that ValIco has the opportunity
to increase sales tax ITom the current amount of $ I. I million to over $4.5 million. When the
mall is successful with the new buildout, there is the opportunity to generate over $24 million
in low income housing over the next 30 years.
· By bringing additional housing to Vall co, the Vallco campus will help reinvigorate the mall.
Kirk Ellis, applicant:
· Referred to the site plan and described the proposed project, including design changes made in
response to some neighborhood concerns voiced. We started off with three levels on both
sides, changed to 2 and 3 scheme; eliminated the balconies on the west side of the proposed
condominium project; moved the road to give it greater green space buffer on the west side;
reduced the units ITom the original 156 to 139; given greater setback area to the green space on
west side; created open space. .
· Said the plan on the perimeter road is to have it be a tree lined drive, characteristic of the
Vallco campus. Our preference had been to have both the pieces, the condos and the parking
garage have a unifying characteristic being the tree lined road. We would prefer to see trees
on the north edge of the parking structure as well as trees on this side with the required bike
paths still passing through. Therefore remove a few of the trees that were basically an islands
in a parking lot now; plant them in a green bed where they Can live and grow better balanced
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
January 10,2006
by trees against the parking structure? Within the site, one of our organizing concepts was to
have a connection, a path that led through different open sþaces to green spaces at the north
end. To address one of the points raised in the report, although the Heart of the City does caIl
out for a 20 foot setback there is a utility easement that runs along here for PG&E to access the
transformers. We have maintained that easement in accommodating all of the requests of the
city and neighbors in trying to get as much space as possible here. What we are asking for is
to see if we could go, 18 foot setbacks ftom building face to the property line. While that
doesn't['t fall in line with the 20 foot setbacks as required by Hart of the City, with all the
accommodations we are making at the west, we wanted to ask for that to be an approved
variance to that especiaIly because it is up against an offiamp.
. With the 139 units submitted, we started with 156 units, we reduced that. We would like to
stick with the 139 units; if we had to lose a few to do some accommodations as far as building
mass, if it is 137, we request that it not be taken under 135. Once again the revenue ftom the
sales of the condos is going directly into the tenant improvement spaces in the maIl and the
maIl interior renovation. This is a part of the overaIl financial holistic solution for the campus.
In conclusion we are trying to make it an attractive place to live. We want to put neighbors
next to neighbors and keep the cars down below grade.
Ms. Honda:
· Discussed the noise impact analysis; the study recommended that a 10 foot soundwaIl along 1-
280 and 1-280 offiamp to wolfe Road; that would bring the ground level sound levels to an
acceptable level at that point. For the living units, they would be required to have forced air
mechanical ventilation which would take care of the noise impacts ftom 280. There may be
some additional mitigation measures that building wiIl have to look at to bring it to down to
the acceptable interior levels.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It would implemented in the design stage. It is caIled an STC rating, exterior to interior noise
that these units are going to have to be beefed up, so that in a closed window condition with
air conditioning, it wiIllmock, out about 30 decibels of noise, if not more.
· We would like to ensure when the sound waIl is built that we create the opportunity for vines
to grow on the fteeway side. This has been done before and it avoids the waIl becoming a
graffiti palette. It has been suggested that they provide planting in the Caltrans right of way.
Com. Giefer:
. Planter boxes were recommended by the applicant;
. Tree report does not indicate which trees wiIl be removed; there is no x through them; there
is a coast live oak indicated that is tree 258 and the numbering stops at 256;
Ms. Honda:
· Said the tree survey is one conducted by the city arborist and had no connection with the
proposed tree removal by VaIl co. In the packet ftom the applicant there is a tree removal
plan; however, it is not site specific to indicate which trees wiIl remain and which wiIl be
removed.
· They wiIl be required to bring back a final landscaping plan; however, the Planning
Commission could pose a requirement similar to the parking garage that it come back to the
Planning Commission for final approval.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
January 10,2006
Com. Giefer:
· Without specific information about which trees they want to remove, seeing that the arborist
did not mark out the trees that are being removed, we cannot see which trees ValIco is asking
to have removed as part of the site.
· With regard to finials on top of several of the buildings, did you consider any other solutions.
They look like lightening rods.
M. Rohde and Kirk EUis, Applicants:
· Answered questions relating to the project including the architectural features, the soundwall,
potential issues related to asbestos concrete water mains, and potential mitigation measures
related to the project.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing
Sharon Hampe, Dennison Avenue:
· Said there was a lot of housing in a small area; the housing proposal is 139 units; the
Rosebowl has 204 units; MoIlybrass has 130 units; Toll Brothers may propose 402 units. A lot
of development happening in a small area and urged commissioners to recommend the city
count back, a more broader view of study.
· We need to see the report rrom the perspective of studying a broader perspective including all
the development units and try to think what the environmental impact is; traffic impact, school
impact.
· We do have lots of other activities going on in this area. Once we have quality data and they
we will be able to make a better decision. I would urge you to hold off on the decision until we
have more information.
· A more thorough study will bring up more information about impacts.
Suchen Chang, Mary Drive:
· Expressed concern about the high density housing project because it will overcrowd the
schools and impact the traffic as well as intrude upon her privacy.
· Residents of the condominiums will be able to see into her rront, back and side yards. A line
of trees is not adequate to ensure privacy.
· Expressed concern that there was only 36 feet between her property and the condos; the
spacing is not wide enough to be appropriate to her and the neighborhood.
· The condominium residents in the future may request to open the wall between their
neighborhood and the proposed site.
· Asked the city officials to review the proposal closely and make a wise decision to reject the
overcrowded housing project.
Yi-Ke Wang, Mary Drive: .
· Would like to see the project benefit not only the developer, but also the neighbors and future
condominium residents.
· Suggested that the building wall on Building E have the same setback rrom the emergency
access land to the building.
· He said that the window size of the residential units should be limited and be of reasonable
scale.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
January 10, 2006
Patty Chi, resident:
· Questioned why there is a request for another 139 units for redeveloping when 200 units were
just granted in the Rosebowl for redevelopment of a shopping mall.
· Relative to school impacts, she questioned which grade level the projected 39 students would
be rrom. She noted that it is likely families with high school students would chose single
family homes.
· She did not feel the 937 projected traffic impacts were logical and asked the Planning
Commission to consider waiting another year to study the traffic impacts, school impacts and
make a decision.
AI DeRidder, Ann Lane:
· Summarized that there were approximately 850 proposed units for the city that would impact
traffic and schools.
· He urged the Planning Commission to consider the projects together and realistically address
the impacts.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to school impacts, he said it was mysterious to residents when we see a lot of activity
in an area, we do make referrals to the school districts, the applicants are required to do school
impact studies.
· We are actually preempted rrom state law rrom making decisions based solely on school
impacts because the state legislature in their wisdom has placed a requirement on
developments so they must pay a capital impact fee; they also have revenues for the high
school district coming rrom property tax, what they have indicated is that if we are going to
impost that fee on development, that we should not also be making decisions, based on their
judgments, that we should rely on the districts to help us out, to figure out what the impacts are
and we have referred this to the school districts and what we understand is that there is a
projection over time that we are in a bubble now, and we are going to go over the curve and
you will have fewer students in the future. People don't believe it until it happens.
· There is a lot of interest in this particular area; it is the hallmark of Cupertino; our schools are
the hallmark, so it has been focused on over and over again in this community, particularly on
the west end oftown by Monta Vista High School. It is focused on we rely on the districts to
help us figure it out, and ironically we cannot solely make a decision based on that.
AI DeFrancesco, Norwich Avenue:
· Said that after the story poles were erected, he realized that his present view would be
obstructed rrom his rront window.
· Expressed concern with two and three story buildings on top of 4 foot parking partially
underground means that they are 2- 1/2 story buildings and they will be up against one story
area where most of the housing is one story housing. Two and a half stories against one story
is unusual in the city.
· This is a pocket of high density housing; it is isolated and is an island unto itself. It is 130
people who are going to live some place.
· Don't believe that they are living there because they want to walk over to ValIco and shop
each day.
· Commended ValIco for the new design; and much better than the 156 unit the developer for
the updated
· Does not feel that ValIco sales tax will increase because they are building housing;
· The three bedroom units will attract children.
· Suggested half the number of units if anything; a lot of greenspace against the wall.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
January 10, 2006
o Suggest that Val1co sell the five acres to someone else; put up a wall and incorporate those
five acres into the neighborhood that is there.
o Wait a year to see ifVaIlco needs that space for parking.
Howard Trudeau, resident:
o Commended Val1co for the new look; the design is very effective and much better than the
156 units shown at the neighborhood meetings in November; they have not been presented to
a neighborhood meeting. There may have been more support from the neighborhood if they
saw what has happened.
o Commended the ERC for the change; staff recommended two more rows of trees and move
the units back which was a motivator to look a lot better.
o The housing in south Val1co should come with intensive comprehensive review; the project
should slow down and integrate with the remainder of the studies.
oWe all feel strongly about the existing soundwaIl.
o I commented at the ERC that I had a list of neighbors who would throw ourselves in front of
the trucks when they come to try to break through that soundwaIl; but I think someday the
neighbors who move into this condominium unit are going to demand that they be able to get
through. That soundwaIl integrity must be maintained and I suggest a city ordinance or
something to make it more official and more difficult than just a simple discussion that could
break through that wall.
o The potential overflow parking beyond the parking structure is gone because of the
condominiums.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
o Said it would be advantageous to keep the density of the condominium complex down; the
impact on the high school district with further housing units in the area is of grave concern to
the neighborhoods.
o With the addition of the housing project on Ridgeview Court, there are over 1,000 units, in
the last two years in eastern Cupertino.
o The developers should put in money for a new high school to be built. Swmyvale High
School will have to reopen if more housing complexes are approved.
o Agreed with previous speakers who said there needs to be a comprehensive look at what is
occurring in eastern Cupertino.
o Why is there a daycare center in the complex?
o Expressed concern about the long extended buildings that are going to be fronting along 1-
280.
Kathy DiFrancesco, Norwich Ave.:
o Said one of the biggest changes in Cupertino is their need to incorporate high density housing
as part of the community. As other speakers have noted, they have incorporated a number of
units that are still under construction in one area of Cupertino, and the total impact of any of
them is not known.
o Said she would like to see again the incredible success that Val1co had in the 70s, and have it
retain its glory again. She said she did not feel that the success of the Val1co mall was
dependent on high density housing in her neighborhood and next to a freeway. The success of
the mall is based on the type of stores there, the ease of shopping, and good management; and
other malls have been renovated and recreated themselves. The Pnmeyard and Westgate did
not require high density housing.
o She urged the Planning Commission to extend the inquiry into the kind of development that is
being suggested, one that does not fit into the existing small area of single family homes; one
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
January 10, 2006
that is 36 feet ITom an area that has had only single family homes in it with the exception of
certain second story houses.
· She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider and take more time before making their
decision and recommendation to the City Council.
Michael Pyle, resident:
· Said he hoped the ironies of Item 4 are not lost, that talking about Item 3, we are all
concerned about parking, and in Item 4 we are going to pave over several hundred spaces of
parking so we can build condos. The other irony is that Item 3 we can't possibly go
underground to create parking spaces; and here on Item 4 the plan is to have underground
parking where it is convenient.
· The one thing you will do if you approve this is you will change the value of those over 5
acres ofIand, because zoned as residential property, they will be worth more than they are in
the current market zoned as commercial property. If the city is going to give a gift to ValIco
of rezoning this property and increasing the value of all that property, why not have some
conditions in the development agreement that require ValIco to use that money to reinvest it
in the property to make it succeed as a mall and to ensure that the money just doesn't go into
the pockets of the owners of Vall co.
· There are people who want to see ValIco succeed as a mall as a place where people can shop
and do other things that generate sales tax revenue, not to create high density housing.
· The issue of school impacts is one that needs some attention; the school report analyzes this
as a 156 unit condominium project; the report states that according to their analysis the
townhouses generate far more students than condominium units and with the change in this
project to involve townhouses and condos, the school report needs to be adjusted.
· I encourage reading of the letter ITom the superintendent of the Fremont union High School
District who doesn't give a ringing endorsement for what is going on; he says he wants to
express his concern that the cumulative effect of the housing projects especially in the
Cupertino High School attendance area, may push our student enrollment figures beyond
school capacity.
· One of the big problems with the project, is you create this urge to break open the wall; if
there is any effort to break through that wall, you are going to have a tremendous fight for
some future City Council because I think the people in our neighborhood value very much the
wall and are reminded of the statement that fences make good neighbors.
Sean Huang, resident:
· Said that mixed use looks good on paper, but it is not agreed upon or welcomed by all the
neighborhood.
· Asked the Planning Commission to reevaluate the overall planning within the area. If there is
a loss of houses in the plan, would it impact the schools?
· He recommended staying with it as commercial area, with upscale restaurants.
Mark McKeuna, representiug Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Said it should be recognized that they are supporting the residential units; looking at the whole
mix, ValIco is bringing in new retail into the city, they are bringing in new residents, and are
putting the residents along transit corridors.
· Said they felt it was a fantastic mix and looked forward to it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
January 10, 2006
Radha Nagarajan:
· The development is being considered in a piecemeal fashion; it has already been emphasized,
and should be emphasized more; we have looked at one development and now two today and
it goes on; there is no coherency to the plan, although there may be some in the master plan, it
doesn't get demonstrated as each plan is approved in a piecemeal fashion.
· The case for schools; staff made the case that we always hear this concern ftom residents; I
hope the city will listen. 39 students ftom 139 units; I really would like to look at the profile
of families that live in Cupertino that would actually only generate 39 students ftom this many
units, because we hear these ftactions and I am not entirely sure when they apply. This is a
question; what is the basis for 39 students out of 139 homes, or in future proposals that are put
before the city, I would appreciate if the city could actually justif'y, based on the profile of
families who live in Cupertino, that this is an acceptable number.
· The parking; the irony that was just brought up. We argued for two hours to put another floor
on the parking structure when we just demolished a good bit of parking to the rear. Land wise
I agree; it is a lot more expensive to give up this space but the irony should not be lost on the
Planning Commission. You just approved one because, if this has happened in the reverse
direction, it would be more of a lockable matter.
· He recommended replanting trees, not replacing with new trees or new multi gallon plans
since they take time to grow. He also recommended that the trees not be clear cut.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Some speakers brought up some interesting points, that instead of having the residential units
on one side of the wall and the neighborhood on the other side, why not change that and
incorporate the residential units into the existing neighborhood and then put the wall around
Vallco. It might imply that there is less density, but it would make more sense.
· Asked for staff's comment.
Mr. Piasecki:
· You would find that if you suggest to tear down the wall and take the traffic through the
neighborhood, whether it was a lower density or not, there would be a number of people
objecting to converting their cuI de sac into a street with whatever number of units.
· Also the concept of mixing uses, horizontal mixed use in this case, is not foreign any longer, it
can be found at Santana Row, and a number of other locations where this kind of mixed use
can integrate well with a commercial shopping center. It clearly is not going to be family
housing, it is going to be largely empty nester housing.
· To put things in perspective, because the issue also came up of there is always the perspective
that every household has two children and two adults. In the 2000 census our household size
was about 2.75 persons per household and that bears out today with about 20,000 housing
units and 54,000 population, about 2.75. What we find is that single family homes make up
about 70% of our housing stock, leaving only 30% to the rental, higher density format we have
in the community, and that the single family housing household size is in excess of 3 as a rule;
and the apartments and higher density are closer to 2.
· We are not seeing the large household size that a lot of people fear.
· The judgment has to be made whether this proposed project integrates reasonably well with
the shopping center, understanding that it is going to be a different animal. It is not a project
like every other single family neighborhood. He said he felt it could work.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
January 10, 2006
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if there could be a required condition that the money coming from the units gets
reinvested in Vallco.
Mr. Piasecki:
· This is a redevelopment project area; if we were involved in using tax increment funds to help
facilitate this project, we probably could ask them to show us the proformas. We could
probably have a development agreement that would ask us to demonstrate that they are doing
that. We are not investing with them. You are relying on their testimony to you that they in
fact intend to use the proceeds in this fashion.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Said that because it is a private property project, she was not aware of any instrument could be
used to force them to use their profits from the sale of the property and invest it anywhere.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· The other thing stated by the applicant, when Vallco was fully operational and this is a piece
of doing that, that it would generate a very substantial amount of tax dollars for the city,
something on the order of $4 million plus. Is it reasonable to ask that is, or as a condition of
approval, that the city brings some consultants in to take a look at their project now that it is
fully designed and give us some feedback on just how successful this project is likely to be.
Mr. Piasecki:
· You could ask for an economic consultant to come in and provide you with that. It might be a
suggestion the Planning Commission would want to make to the City Council.
· Cautioned that the project should not be looked at as a ticket for something else; the project
should be in your minds a viable project on its own, whether the money gets funneled into
VaJlco or not, is it a reasonably good residential project; is it well designed; is this a good use
for that north parking lot area. It is a difficult site to design something else into, such as a Best
Buy.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the residents asked, when Vallco first came for the 204 unit project in the Rosebowl,
and the justification was to help pay for the theater and parking. Why is it nOw required to do
another 139 units that is also earmarked for paying for those same things?
Emily Chen, Owner of Vall co:
· Discussed the difficulties encountered in securing fmancing for the AMC theaters, and the
stringent regulations. She briefly discussed the costs and bonding involved with the theater
complex and the parking garage and provided information on the time constraints she is faced
with.
· Currently we make a huge commitment with the Vallco mall. Our point is not to just make
Vallco working, we want to make all the people want a first class mall. In order to do this one,
our immediate competitor is Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping Center. After we complete
Vallco we will be close to the square footage of Valley Fair and Stanford will be able to
compete with our character, which is entertaining. We will have an AMC immediately on the
top of the mall and we have landed some other tenants. We are confident this mall will be
successful.
· The anchor tenants, Macys, Sears, Penneys cooperate with us and they have their own
conditions, but they believe we will be able to compete and be successful.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
January 10, 2006
Chair Wong:
· Asked if it was viable to put a big box such as Best Buy, restaurants or retail in the 5 acres?
Ms. Chen:
· How can we get over there; we need the funding to complete everything. The other situation,
do you think this would help for the anchor that the majority wants; they want first class super
original mall; we probably don't need a box, we need the tax dollars. The mall area with
entertaining attractions can attract the tax dollar in the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Pointed out that in order to attract major tenants into this center to attract the smaller tenants,
the owner will usually have to almost give the space away.
Ms. Chen:
· Explained that it is easy to get local tenants and they are willing to pay higher rent per square
footage, but the national tenants don't care; when they come over here, for the top 10% we
have to do whatever they want and whatever we can give to them. The top national tenants we
have to offer as low as $.70 per square footage for rent; after we finish everything, our target
rent for square footage still cannot compete with Cupertino Village. This is the type of
situation we are faced with. Nonnally it is about $ I 00 to $125 per square foot, but we commit;
if we need to do it, we do it.
Chair Wong:
· Asked Public Works what led them to make the recommendation of no breaks in the sound
wall.
Glen Goepfert, Public Works:
· There was a natural tendency to want to try to connect both bicycle and pedestrian travel both
to Wolfe and to the neighborhoods, but for the reasons mentioned, it is not a must do. When
there is a residential use and you are looking at pedestrians' bicycle use, you want to have the
best connectivity to the surrounding uses, not just the mall. There should be an alternative, it
is logical.
· The traffic consultant had that suggestion as well. I think the basic idea is pedestrian
connectivity to other services, to schools, as a safer route. I think that is what drives that
suggestion.
· In talking it over with Planning, we suggested that, but it was not made a condition; it is not
something that is needed, but I think anyone would take that as a logical alternative for this
sort of area to have at least pedestrian connectivity.
Mr. Goepfert:
· It is a tradeoff; on the one hand you want to have connectivity for pedestrian vehicular uses, to
have good circulation of all types. By the same token you have neighborhoods which have
concerns about being overtaken or have security concerns; you have to weigh those things.
· Speakers have said they have a concern about having that connectivity because there are
potential downsides to it. It would be true in many cases where it might be desirable to have
pedestrian connections, bicycle connections that are away from a major thoroughfare, but the
downside is there is a beachhead where you are allowing something to happen, or perhaps
there is some opposition on the other side. We don't feel strongly about it, but it is something
that should always be considered.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
January 10,2006
Chair Wong:
· The neighbors' concern is that if for some reason it didn't get passed, the wall stays as is; in
the future there may be a group of parents who want it.
· Asked how they could put it in the ordinance so that the wall will always remain a wall, and
that there will be no pedestrian access to the R I neighborhood.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he didn't know if there is a way of guaranteeing anything; because you are then
committing future city councils and planning commissions and even future neighborhoods to a
decision you have made in 2006 and in 2013 people may be clamoring for the wall to be tom
down.
· That is the purpose of public hearings, to get the sentiment of the neighborhood; and I don't
think there is any intent on anyone's part until we hear the sentiment change that this may
make sense, and only then consider it. There is no burning issue, you do have to walk around
the block; it is not a great distance and it is not open now. The concern about the potential of
people parking in the neighborhood, overwhelms the concern about let's have the great
connectivity. We have to err on this side of the neighbors in this case.
· I don't think we should suggest it; you could put it into the development agreement for VaIlco
which would commit them, but not necessarily commit anyone else; and it would be good for
another three years, which does not provide any long term assurance.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The project is a well designed project.
· From the standpoint of the neighbors and trying to mitigate the negative impacts on the
neighbors on the other side of the wall, going rrom the 156 to 137 units, they have done a
number of things to make that work, including some very large setbacks of whether it is 36
feet or 40 feet, on the side of the wall with the condominium units; in addition to the wall itself
and the landscaping that is going to be there as a buffer. The wall is 4 feet into Vallco's
property so that the folks who live on the other side of the wall actually are getting the benefit
of 4 feet of Vall co's property as usable space.
· The three story units are going to act as a sound buffer to reduce the noise for the people on
the other side of the walls. The applicant has gone a long way to be responsive to the concerns
of the neighborhood as well as the fact that they earn support of not having a break in the wall
just as the neighborhood is.
· It is an isolated project, not the best place for housing; however, when we redid our General
Plan recently, the old General Plan had an emphasis on housing and it was to some extent that
they said commercial was a bonus for providing housing in town. We redid that and put the
emphasis on commercial and said that housing was a bonus for providing more commercial
because of the fact that the city has a serious budget deficit problem.
· Suggested a condition be added recommending that a consultant with expertise in shopping
center design be hired.
Com. Saadati:
· The project is designed with a lot of concentration on the design due to the adjacency of the
single family housing, the two story rront rows and two story back rrom the rreeway. To some
extent it tries to blend in.
· The soundwaIl is there to help the noise and the site visibility.
· Said he felt the project was isolated; and if approved, hoped that it would be used mostly by
Vallco employees. He was pleased that there were one and two bedroom units in the project;
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
January 10, 2006
which might encourage some of the people who work in ValIco to want to live in the new
units.
o Said he did not like it being so isolated from the neighborhood; it would have been nice to be
an extension of the neighborhood; however, there may be some opposition to that also.
o Concurred with Vice Chair Miller's suggestion to have a condition of approval for an
independent consultant to provide their view of this as far as the effectiveness.
o With 137 units, it may not be the best place for a big box unit because of the shape of the lot.
He said he was not sure how effective that would be.
o Said he was receptive based on the conditions stated by Vice Chair Miller.
Chair Wong:
o Thanked the residents for staying at the meeting for 5 hours, and thanked the neighbors who
met with him the previous week. He said he sympathized with the neighbors; nobody likes
dramatic changes, but everyone wants a successful mall.
o Relative to the soundwaIl, there should be no break in the wall into the cui de sacs.
o Said he was not comfortable making a recommendation to the City Council; he said he
sympathized with the neighbors but wanted to look holistically at the community and what is
best for the community.
o Staff did a fine job listening to the neighbors. It may not be what everyone wants, but it is the
best proposal.
o Relative to the trees, he said he supported the ERC that all the trees need to be replaced.
o If it was a different situation, different financing, if Vallco could have created some type of
creative financing and found a way to have strictly a retail mall, he said he would support that.
However, because of their situation, he supported it based on the architectural design that
Com. Miller said that they tried to mitigate by having two and a half story in the
neighborhood. They are trying their best to mitigate by having most of the high density facing
the freeway, which is not the most ideal way of doing it.
o He said it gives the perception of building to the edge of the city or edge of the freeway, and
he would support that part.
o I am open to supporting staffs recommendation regarding mitigating it by two housing units
are not; those two feet like the architect described, that variance is so small that I can go either
way; I am open to that.
o It is a difficult decision. One thing not within our purview relates to school impacts; I have
been a big advocate for the schools, I am not in favor of portable classrooms; but it is not
within the city's purview to address that issue, and I will join the community to go to the
districts as well as our school board trustees and ask for better partnerships, because of the
development coming down the pipeline, and saying that we are being impacted.
o The school reports and surveys are saying that families are getting smaller, but because
Cupertino is such a unique area, and no matter the size of the units, children with families are
going to come to Cupertino and it will keep the value of the houses high.
Com. Giefer:
o Complimented the architects; said she was pleased with the design for the renovation of Vall co
and the adjacent properties in the Rosebowl.
o Said she liked the design of the project; but was uncomfortable with the location of the project
because of the lack of connectivity with the neighborhood. If all the neighbors said open the
wall, it would be a simple decision, but there seems like there is a lot of information and
historic information about keeping the neighborhood closed which seems illogical, when there
is a park and schools on the other side of the fence.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
January 10, 2006
· She expressed concern about that the tree retention, tree removal and tree protection
regulations were still not formalized and were ambiguities existed in the directions to be
followed by the property owner and applicant. She said she was particularly concerned with
the one oak tree. am concerned also that the one oak tree, full heartedly saying sure lets
approve the tree removal concerns me because I don't feel like it is as thorough as I would like
it!o be.
· Said she would prefer to see a project with the staff recommended 135 units; if two of the
three bedroom units could be reduced and moved inward in Section E or D, it would be more
comfortable with the potential child generation numbers; you can get more children out of 3
bedroom units than 2 bedroom units.
· Having a consultant come in to help evaluate the plan is a good idea; however, it may be too
late, because once we have approved this, what will we do with that information, because they
have already got the go-ahead at that point.
· Other concern is the vista fÌ'om the residence in Building A. We just approved a three story
parking structure and I am going to walk out of my fÌ'ont door in Building A every day and see
a three story parking structure and there is only one row of trees suggested. They are not the
tall ash trees that are there today, that would screen it fairly well but I would have some green
screening on the parking structure. I would prefer to see a double row of trees for those
residents for protection on the vista of those potential residents. I think that would be an
improvement in the project.
· I g or 20 foot setback, two feet won't make a huge difference. I would support the applicant
on that if they agreed to go down to 135 units, if we reduced some of the three bedroom units;
and if we could add a second screening row between Building A and B.
· I know staff made some suggestion about Building B on the daycare side, which my
understanding is that the daycare tenant that currently is in the mall; the reason they are trying
to come up with this building is to move that tenant out to make more space for retail and
provide a better Care facility, and I think that is a good idea. I would like to add more space
there to make it more of a greenbelt and align the drive as staff brought up in the beginning.
· Supports the project; she preferred to open the wall up, but is the only one who wants to do it.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve U-2005-16, ASA-
2005-11, DA-2005-01, Z-2005-05, TR-2005-04, and EA-2005-10, with the
recommendation that a consultant be hired.
Vice Chair Miller:
· It is an appropriate suggestion for us to make; when we were reviewing the General Plan we
talked doing exactly something like this; we would do a specific plan for the ValIco south
area; and it may be too late to do a specific plan but it is not too late to get a reading on how
the proj ect is progressing and if we are going down the right track or there are some things we
can do, and it is not too late to do because there isn't a lot in the ground at this point; but
maybe it is still possible to make changes. We can look at this, but we are not experts on what
shopping center should or shouldn't do in today's market. Not being an expert, I feel it is
appropriate for a project of this size and this magnitude and importance to the city, that we
have some independent consultants come in and confinn what the developers have done. And I
am expecting that they will, but until I see that I don't feel completely comfortable.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would like to add that condition
(Vote: 4-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
January 10, 2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained the City Council could not take action at their next meeting as it was not advertised
legally. They will be able to hear the parking structure and the applicant could request City
Council to have a special meeting.
· If it is not heard at a special meeting, it will be heard at their fITst meeting in February.
Chair Wong declared a recess.
5.
U-2005-15, GPA-2005-03
~-2005-04,~2005-04
(EA-2005-17) Kelly Snider
(Toll Brothers) Stevens Creek
Boulevard & Finch Avenue
Use Permit for a master plan for a commercial
and residential development consisting approxi-
mately 115,000 square feet of commercial
shopping center, up to 402 residential units
and a 3.5-acre park. General Plan Amendment
to allocate up to 402 residential units for the
South Vallco Planning Area.
Com. Saadati left the meeting for family reasons.
Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report:
· Suggested that this is a complex project; we would like to introduce it to you tonight,
particularly on the policy side of things, dealing with consistency with the General Plan,
consistency with the Heart of the City Plan, past council direction and let the applicant make a
presentation and continue it to January 24 meeting.
· The project requires a number of changes, including the General Plan amendment. The
applicant was relying on the newly adopted General Plan relating to the allocation of
residential units and the ability to move units around. It could technically be changed to public
recreation if there is to be a public park area.
· He suggested that it be tabled it for now, the discussion about that; I will talk to the city
attorney; I don't think there is a real major inconsistency issue with the General Plan and I
think he would agree, and if this is something that the city is interested it, we can take it up
separately later on. The Planning Commission and City Council could go ahead and act on the
project, without the General Plan amendment being taken into consideration, and show it as a
park area and tidy up the map on their own time.
· The second component is the rezoning to change the uses to allow the residential component,
and change it to planned commercial/residential with the public recreation, PR zone.
· An exception to the Heart of the City to allow the commercial !Tont yard setbacks to average
35 feet, the Heart ofthe City requires a minimum of 35; their averaging would go as low as 26
but as high as 57 so that would be along Stevens Creek Boulevard. We have done this in the
past with you with Peet's Coffee, Panera Breads applications. Tentative map to subdivide the
parcel to accommodate the different uses; use permit to construct the six buildings totally
115,000 square feet of retail space and there is a variation between 369 to 402; we have had
people referring to the 402 that is one of the options that the applicant is bringing forward, but
not necessarily the only option; and then site and architectural.
· He reviewed Option A (402 units) and Option B (369 units) as outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the project site, surrounding uses, and master landscaping plan. He said it was a
hybrid center on the same level at the Cherry Orchard Center in Sunnyvale.
· The master landscaping plan as already described; the public park is not only a square which is
something that the staff encouraged them to do to get a more functional public park area, it
equals about 2.8 acres and that. 7 I acre peninsula or panhandle portion which was by design to
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
January 10,2006
get us to the 3.5 acres. but also to provide a buffer between the public street area and the west
terrace.
· He illustrated a site plan/Iandscape plan for the commercial component showing Finch Ave. to
the west side/ Stevens Creek to the south and the east terrace building located to the east of the
site and the Villas to the north. It is caIled a hybrid, it is part main street, part suburban
shopping center because a number of the components they have we think are very good and a
lot of the things we have talked about creating more of a walkable main street commercial
district.
· We think that is going to give a nice edge to this commercial development, that wiIl be highly
walkable, highly desirable and will give that Main Street feel. It is also a suburban shopping
center in a sense that you have the conventional field of parking with the shops located behind.
It is a high end center, we think they have done a good job; there is some minor technical,
architectural issues that our architectural advisor has raised, but overaIl this is on a caliber with
the Cherry Orchard project in Sunnyvale at EI Camino Real with the PF Changs, Borders and
the extensive landscaping and in that project also is a horizontal mixed use as this is.
· The ValIco Park south alIocating pool we felt that if VaIlco had to puIl away 35 or 37 units,
that they would have a base of 100 and the ToIl site would have a base of 300 and depending
on where you end up, they will need to either have up to 102 if you do the senior option, or 69
if you accept their numbers or something less than that.
· That summarizes the policy issues. Some of the changes we are suggesting is West Terrace:
should come down and we can do that more or less by virtue of our purchase of .2 I acres and
get you up to 3 acres in the rectangle. They may need to take a few units out to get it down to
the 35 and it is not a significant number. .East terrace; 1 am concerned about a 300 foot long
building, four stories taIl, in spite of their efforts of breaking the building up, they have done a
good job of that, it is going to be a long, big building and 1 think that the upper floor, we
probably need to have an offset and that would likely take out 12 units to have that offset. Also
technicaIly we think they need more parking so we think they should take some units out of
the north Villas project or the North Terrace to get room to provide the angled parking on
VaIlco Parkway. We estimate it would require another 12 units, that would bring our parking
close to where we need it in terms of the joint use parking analysis. Here is what was
aIlocated to South V aIlco area, 400 units commercial; another undesignated area of 300 units; it
is your caIl and the Council's caIl on how much you think is warranted by the extraordinary
public benefits which 1 think are substantial in this case.
· The park area is getting some more commercial and activating the streetscape the way they are
in delivering a high quality commercial component and if we can get some of the unit counts
down we think the residential can even be an exemplary project.
· We have listed the substantial public benefits, the west terrace, if we did buy the .2 I acres they
would lose 16 units, we would end up with 3 acre square area plus the .71 and their also
contributing to improvements for a creek trail along Calabazas Creek from ValIco Parkway to
1-280 providing a pedestrian sidewalk on the west side of Tantau Ave. from VaIlco Parkway to
the north side of 1-280, to the first driveway on the north side to providing the commercial
square footage and they could provide additional parking which would again result in a unit
loss on the ViIlas Side. OveraIl we think you can bring the project closer to what kind of
density levels and the view we think is more compatible with what Cupertino has been
seeking.
· Part of the City Specific Plan, 1 think the variations they are suggesting provide a lot of interest
and are giving you some additional setback benefits that outweigh the slight encroachment for
the portions of the building that go into that 35 feet.
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
January 10, 2006
Kelly Snider, Toll Brothers Housing:
· Reviewed the project stating they were proposing to dedicate
3-1/2 acres of parkland to the City of Cupertino.
· Said the staff report refers to some of the substantial public benefits and outstanding
community benefits, including the 3-1/2 acre park, of which 2.8 are designated for active
playing fields, soccer type spaces, and approximately. 7 acres for passive use, picnic areas, etc.
Because of the mixed use nature of the project, in addition to the housing and affordable units
that would be introduced, there is also a substantial revenue input into the General Fund in the
city of Cupertino. We have hired economic planning Systems (EPS) to do a fiscal analysis on
the entire project; they have suggested that over $320,000 is a reasonable conservative
estimate that could be provided to the city's general fund, net of any expenses or costs that the
city would be incurring primarily due to the sales tax revenue ITom the 115,000 square feet.
· In addition to the public park space, there are common open space, private space, including a
community center, recreation building, swim pool, and a community room available to the
general public to reserve and use for community functions.
· We would work with the city to come up with a great public art component which would
comply with the most recent public art one percent requirement in the recently adopted
General Plan update.
· Affordable unit; Option A would give approximately 80 units, reserved for seniors in the
community, or Option B, which would be more family type housing dispersed throughout the
site of 55 units.
· A new gateway feature at the east end of Cupertino to replace the sludgestone.
· The master planning and landscape designing that have gone into the project as a whole
because it is pedestrianlbicycle friendly, providing lots of connections to both the existing
uses, the existing neighborhood enhanced pedestrian crossings to Rancho Rinconada as well as
connectivity directly with the metropolitan project adjacent to us.
· The public spaces we are proposing the existing sidewalks along ValIco and Finch, the new
sidewalks along Tantau-and the new retail and expanded retail at ValIco as well.
· There are formal endorsements for the project ITom the Sierra Club, the Leadership Group,
Housing Action Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce.
· Reviewed the history of the project over the last 5 years.
· Said they received the recommendation ITom the ERC for mitigated negative declaration
which allows us to come before you tonight for your support of the project.
Jack Bariteau, Keenan Bariteau, Palo Alto:
· Reviewed the project plan, stating that tenants will include a major bookstore, drug store and
upscale grocery score, several unique restaurants offering sit down table service boutiques.
Generous outdoor features, fountains, outdoor seating areas and water features are a trademark
of their properties. No drive through restaurants would be in the project.
· Said the architecture of the project was similar in quality to Stanford Shopping Center.
· The project would contribute over $320,000 annually in sale tax generation for the city.
· The key issues recommended by staff can be addressed at the next hearing.
· He added that there was significant public benefit being provided by Toll Brothers in bringing
us to the fore. The ability of them to produce the donation they are talking about of 3.5 acres
as a public park facility, is significant and is directly related to the unit count they are
proposing for you. Secondarily, in order for us to be part of this and to have the size center
proposed, and we would be purchasing a portion of this property ITom them after the
entitlements are received, they are giving us a beneficial price to produce the shopping center
so t hat our rental structure Can bring in the right tenants to the town and have them service and
be viable members of the community.
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
January 10, 2006
Kenneth Rodriguez, Kenneth Rodriguez & Associates:
· Reviewed the architectural features, architectural materials and landscaping to be used
throughout the project.
· Discussed the features of the auto court.
Jim Yee, architect:
· Discussed the features of Option A and Option B.
· Said that the average apartment in Cupertino was 1400 square feet, whereas the proposed
project is between 1700 and 1750 square feet. He illustrated the floor plan and described the
features in the units and the materials used. He noted that natural stone materials would be
used for the building base of the east terrace and said that many of the materials used would tie
in with those used in the retail.
· He reviewed the architectural features of the units.
Gary Layden, Guzzardo Assoc.:
· Reviewed the landscape master plan for the project.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Hemet Gush, California Cricket Academy:
· Gave a brief history of the Academy which opened in 2003, and has an enrollment of
approximately 400 students, ftom 6 to 14 years of age.
· He discussed the need for open space and reviewed the playing area requirements.
· He reviewed the Academy's proposal and said it was a good opportunity for Cupertino to
provide a good facility which is needed.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Expressed concern that the item was heard so late in the evening.
· Discussed the importance of creek ftontage for the area, stating that there Was a need for the
creek to be resurfaced. Nothing should be built on it at this time, if the city does not have any
money at this time, wait, have the park on it or Finch Avenue. It is too valuable to have a
retail building or condominium built on it. It belongs to Cupertino and the people.
· She showed photos of the trees she felt should be retained.
Marilyn Howard, E. Estates Drive:
· Said she lived in Cupertino over 47 years and welcomed the project to the city as it provided
housing with amenities for seniors and attractive gateway to Cupertino.
· The retail will also be a positive addition for the residents.
· Supports adoption of the application.
AI Di Francesco, Cupertino resideut:
· Said he was pleased with the project; commended Toll Brothers for the project.
Charlie Aharn, Miller Avenue:
· Said he and his wife were looking forward to the new retail tenants, and the park on Stevens
Creek.
· Recommended Alternative A which provides senior housing and possibly low income
housing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
34
January 10, 2006
· Said it was an excellent proposal for Cupertino.
Christine Kennedy Pierce:
· She recommended that the senior element be retained within the project, and stated she looked
forward to being able to retire in the community.
Lisa Warren:
· She said she was appreciative that Toll Brothers listened to the residents' input during the
neighborhood meetings and made changes to their original proposal.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that the applicant's video presentation be shown at the next meeting because of the
late hour.
· Provided input on scheduling time and dates for the Toll Brothers, Taylor Woodrow and
Marketplace applications.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the January 24, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary