Draft Minutes 03-14-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 14,2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of March 14,2006 was called to order at 6 45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Aki Honda
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the
February 14, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
(Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Chien abstained)
Minutes of the February 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections as noted:
· Page 11, Vice Chair Giefer: 2nd bullet: change "the city" to read "a city."
· Page 11, Vice Chair Giefer, 3'd bullet: delete "and uot have fences around the property."
(She said that she did not oppose fences around the property.)
· Page 11, Vice Chair Giefer, 51h bullet: change "family" to read "residence."
· Page 11, Vice Chair Giefer, 6"h bullet, second line: after "close" add the word "them"
· Page 11, Com. Saadati, 2nd bullet: delete "they would have" and insert "there would be"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to approve the
February 28, 2006 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
March 14,2006
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director noted receipt of an article about the Toll
Brothers; the matrix requested by Com. Wong, and a letter dated March 10, 2006 from A.
DeRidder
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
1.
TM-2006-01
Roger Higdon
(Jauch residence)
10760 S. Stelling Rd.
Tentative Map to subdivide a I.84-acre parcel into one
.92-acre parcel and a remainder parcel. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
Continued to the March 15, 2006 Special Planning
Commission meeting
Architectural and Site Approval for a 3,600 square foot addition
to an existing office building and existing office building and
exterior and site modifications. Modification to an existing use
Permit (9-U-75) for a 3,600 square foot addition to an existing
office building. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed. Continued to the March 15, 2006 Special Planning
Commission meeting.
Director's Minor Modification with a referral to the Planning
Commission to install a new drinking water well in an existing
drinking well station. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed. Continued to the March 15, 2006 Special Planning
Commission meeting.
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to postpone Items 1, 2
and 3 to the March 15, 2006 Special Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Asked the city to reaffirm its pledge to protect the trees of Cupertino. in particular the Heritage
trees and the street trees of the city. She said there were four street trees in her neighborhood
damaged or destroyed by people pruning, topping, or cutting the roots of protected street trees
in the last week, resulting in the destruction and removal of three 54 year old trees.
. She discussed many instances of tree damage or removal in the recent weeks in the Rancho
Rinconada neighborhood and asked that such instances be reported'by residents to 91 I or the
code enforcement office.
2.
ASA-2006-02,
M-2006-01
Steve Yang (The
Stargazer Group
LLC) 10062 Miller
Avenue.
3.
DIR-2006-04
(EA-2006-05)
Nelson Lui
(California Water
Service Co.)
N. Portal Ave.,
100 ft. North of
Drake Drive
Motion:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
March 14,2006
PUBLIC HEARING
4.
U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04,
TR-2006-06 (EA-2006-04)
Mike Rohde (Vallco
Fashion Park) 10123 No.
Wolfe Road
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval
applications to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant
(Island Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot
restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest
comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and No. Wolfe Road.
Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct
two restaurants; California Pizza Kitchen (CPK) and Island Restaurant on the northwest comer
of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road at Vallco Fashion Park. The project also
includes a tree removal application to remove nine trees on the site. The tree removal permit
is being requested to allow reconfiguration of the parking lot behind the proposed restaurant to
maximize the number of parking spaces behind the restaurant.
· ll1ustrated an aerial photo showing the project location and the conceptual master plan of the
proposed Vallco Fashion Park buildout. She reviewed the site layout, floor plans, and
elevations of the two restaurants
· Lany Cannon, the architectural reviewed the plans and has recommended more of a prominent
entry for the main entry to the restaurants to avoid the confusion the double entries to
California Pizza Kitchen creates.
· Staff recommends that the architecture be enhanced on one side of the building because it will
be visible along Wolfe Road and the comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe.
· Staff concurs with the architectural advisor's recommendations and has incorporated some
conditions of approval for the model resolutions as outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the tree removal plan as outlined in the staff report.
· She noted that the applicant's landscape plan is conceptual, and staff has added a condition
requiring that they submit a detailed landscape irrigation plan.
· Staff also recommends that the building could be rotated to create more open space between
the buildings for a common walkway, seating area and provide more landscaping and benches
for seating.
· Staff recommends along the CPK elevation on the east side, in addition to providing more
architectural enhancements, wrapping some outdoor seating along the side for visible outdoor
seating along the Wolfe Road rrontage.
· Staff also recommends a new at-grade sidewalk be installed between the trees along Stevens
Creek Blvd. to more closely match the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
· Staff recommends if the sidewalk were to be installed that the surrounding landscaping also be
recontoured to match the new sidewalk grade.
· The Environmental Review Committee (ERe) recommended approval of the negative
declaration with three additional recommendations set forth in the staff report.
· The ERC also recommended that the Planning Commission review the number and location of
trees for tree replacements and that the applicant modify the design of the restaurants to blend
in with the rest of the city.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to grant the
negative declaration and approve the Use Permit and ASA applications in accordance with the
model resolution and additional conditions recommended by staff and the ERe.
Mike Rohde, Applicant:
· Said that part of the concept was to bring the shopping center closer to the community and
bring the sidewalk and tenants closer to the sidewalk for connectivity to both restaurants.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
March 14,2006
· Relative to staffs recommendation for the sidewalk between the trees, they request the money
be taken out of the RDA funds in the future to have it as part of the future concepts.
· He noted that the property was Sears property and they were able to move forward with them
because the REAs are signed.
Kirk Ellis, Perkowitz & Ruth Architects:
· Referred to the site plan and reviewed the project layout, noting the reasons for the orientation
of the CPK and Islands restaurants.
· He illustrated photos of the Bella Terra shopping center in Huntington Beach which his firm
also designed. The center was similar in many ways to the proposed project and illustrated
many of the designs and elevations to provide a better visualization of the proposed project.
· Relative to the architectural elevations, he said there were some things that could be done to
help mitigate the elevation for CPK.
· Reviewed the tree removal plan, including the survey of existing conditions and the proposed
conditions.
· He reviewed the landscape plan, and site elevations and said they would be able to address
staffs recommendation about the landscaping, but that it would be difficult to address their
recommendation about the windows or courtyard on the back side area.
· Referring to the architectural consultant's remarks about the double door entry to CPK, he
noted that the double doors were a national prototype program element for CPK.
· He answered questions from the Commissioners about placement of the restaurants, building
heights, and parking,
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Asked staff to bring back response ifVallco is required to use bio swales in their parking lots.
· Asked the applicant if they were planning to implement any green building practices in the
construction of the buildings.
Mr. Ellis:
· Said he did not know if green building practices were being used.
· Relative to reversing the order of the two restaurants, with Islands on the corner. he said both
operators agreed with the present layout.
Chair Miller:
· Said it was his opinion that the Islands restaurant would make a better statement on the corner
than CPK.
Mr. Rohde:
· Said it is a jockeying position for the tenants and they both negotiated their lease based on
their position. Both leases are done and it would be a challenging atmosphere to try and
switch them, because CPK really wants the corner and Islands likes the site they are on.
Chair Miller:
· There was some discussion that the proposed height differential is greater here than in the
Huntington Beach project. Is there the possibility that we can have a similar height orientation
as Huntington Beach.
Mr. Ellis:
· He said he thought it was possible without controlling the drawings from either prototype. He
said he would need to consults with both architects.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
March 14,2006
A discussion ensued wherein staff responded to questions about the similarities and differences of
the Elephant Bar in the Marketplace to the proposed project, relative to parking requirements and
traffic flow issues.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that the Elephant Bar Restaurant is extremely successful and that in turn has created
traffic flow issues and parking problems. Relative to the proposed project, spillover impacts
from the parking would not affect public offsite parking as the property owner is Sears.
Mr. Rhode:
· Noted that there would be 5700 parking spaces on the campus, and different parts of the
campus would be used at different times of the day.
· He also noted that the Elephant Bar only has one main approach adjacent to their building,
whereas the approaches to the proposed restaurants are spread out.
Chair MiUer:
· Asked if there should be parking requirements or traffic management requirements put on the
site, similar to what was done on the Marketplace site.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was done with the subsequent buildings on the Marketplace site. He said that if they
were concerned, they could ask to analyze that onsite and look for better ways to manage that,
and/or suggest utilization of the TMD techniques used on the Marketplace. He said there were
some solutions and they would only be implemented if there was a problem.
· Said the issue of public art was the prominence of the corner and the need for something to
complement what is happening across the street. Staff suggests going above and beyond that
absolute requirement; the Planning Commission could choose to do it or not.
Ms. Honda:
· Said staff would modify the model resolution to require the landscaping to come back to the
DRC or the Planning Commission.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
AI DeRidder, resident:
· Said he felt the developers were approaching the project in a piecemeal way without a good
five year plan.
· The present project for two restaurants will require 98 more parking spaces; it is already
difficult to find a parking space during the holiday season, which is an important time for the
mall tenants.
· Several of the proposed projects require the loss of several hundred parking spaces in the
center which will create a negative impact on the parking and on the mall.
· He suggested a more orderly progression of doing projects and moving onto the next one to
make the plan work, and suggested that the Planning Commission wait until after the holiday
season this year to see what the five year plan is.
· Opposed to the project.
Mark McKenna, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Said they were two new, vibrant restaurants that will help improve the economy of Cupertino,
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
March 14, 2006
and become more economically viable.
· He said that the parking management plan was put in place at the Marketplace to protect the
overflow trom Valleo; therefore he did not see why there should be a parking management
plan at Valleo.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said she wanted to ensure that the project at the intersection was a quality project.
· Asked for assurance that the green parkway of the ash trees on the corner of SC and Wolfe
Road were maintained and kept in their present condition.
· Expressed concern about the issue of the sidewalk between the trees.
· Suggested that the new restaurants take reservations for the convenience of patrons.
· Asked the Planning Commission to ensure there was enough parking for the mall and to keep
the tower height down to 30 feet.
Ching Shyu, resident:
· Expressed concern about privacy; said people could sitting outside the restaurant could watch
the neighborhood and her street could be seen trom all angles of the Islands restaurant.
· The patrons are likely not residents of Cupertino because of the theater in the mall, and they
can watch the children trom the patio.
· Said she hoped that the businesses and prosperity are not at the cost of downgrading of the
quality of life in Cupertino.
Shilpa Joshi, resident:
· Said she anticipated that parking would be a problem because of the amount of development.
She said if there was not adequate parking, the overflow would spill into Chuck E Cheese
parking lot in the strip mall and would affect the neighborhood parking.
· Said she was opposed to the palm trees and preferred the oak trees.
Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive:
· Said she concurred with prior speakers' concerns.
· Recalled that Menlo Equities removed II trees so that the businesses would be seen trom the
street; however, there are no businesses there, only apartments.
· Said she supported having the odor abatement equipment installed and said she felt it should
be a requirement.
· Said she did not support having the restaurants on the comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe
because they did not know what the final impact of the traffic would be.
· The residents want to know what else is planned for Valleo as they have not seen the entire
plans for Valleo. A councilmember said he was concerned about the piecemeal planning of the
project. The citizens should know what is corning up.
Rudy Griffin, resident:
· Said it was his understanding in the beginning that the restaurants would be inside the mall.
· When Valleo was built there was a problem with parking during the holidays and there are
now more restaurants on Stevens Creek to add to the need for parking.
· He urged the Planning Commission to study the parking because he felt it would move into the
neighborhood streets.
· He said he was opposed to palm trees.
· Opposed to the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
March 14,2006
Nelson D'Souza, resident:
· Expressed concern that it appeared the applicant was presenting the project on a piecemeal
process.
· He said he was opposed to the process; it shows a lack of respect for the neighbors as they are
impacted by everything.
· He requested a parking comparison of the parking in that area because of the parking impact
¡¡-om the Elephant Bar restaurant in the Marketplace. Chuck E Cheese in the Portal Plaza will
also add to the parking impact, as some of the cars will likely park in the Sears parking lot as
well, or move into the neighborhood.
· Said he was opposed to palm trees; he felt there are an eyesore at the Marketplace. A
characteristic of the comer of Wolfe and Stevens Creek are the beautiful trees there. He said
he did not support the sidewalks running between those trees.
· Suggested that the landscaping plan be revisited as they could do a better job. He reiterated
his concern about the two restaurants damaging the trees and urged them to be protected.
. Relative to the odor abatement; he said he was tired of driving by or walking through the area
of restaurants reeking of ¡¡-ench fries. He said he supported some type of equipment to ensure
that the community is not impacted by the odors from the restaurants.
Christine Guisiana, Chamber of Commerce:
· Relative to the odor filtration; said she understood it was done voluntarily and was not part of
the permit process. It is an expensive process and many restaurants rely on their aromas to
entice patrons ¡¡-om the street.
· Relative to the comment' about piecemeal, she pointed out that it was a huge project which has
been on the books for quite some time; it was known that it would go before the Planning
Commission and City Council in that structure.
· Relative to the odor abatement issue, she said that the cost should be considered as it may
deter businesses ¡¡-om coming in which would be detrimental to the city.
Dennis Vaughn, resident:
· Said he was familiar with CPK and Islands Restaurants, and questioned if they were the best
choice to put on the high profile comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road.
· Said he was opposed to the palm trees because they were more suited to southern California.
He expressed concern that CPK and Islands restaurants may choose the palm tree design
which does not fit in with the street. He said he would prefer to keep the current trees and
have the landscape architect work with the city and integrate the current trees rather than try to
change Cupertino to a look like a beach community.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
· Asked staff to address the concern expressed by speakers about the applications being
presented piecemeal; and the process of the proposed hotel and Penneys garage as well as the
retail.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that it was a large shopping center, and for practicality reasons, it would not be
prudent for Valleo to line up all the prospective tenants and present it as one application at
once. If that was done, staff would likely hear the comment that they were giving too much
development activity to study. He said that other centers such as Santana Rowand Valley Fair
still have large pieces that have not been developed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
March 14,2006
o Said they do not discriminate against names of restaurants.
o The applicant has gone through a number of applications, asking to develop a Rose Bowl, and
develop some additional retail in front of Penneys and a parking garage north of Macys. The
master plan also includes a hotel site, which the city insisted when they subdivided, that it only
be used for a hotel. It does not preclude them from proposing another restaurant in the future.
o He noted in perspective, the two restaurants equal about I % of the center; which he said was
not a major application relative to some of the others presented.
Com. Wong:
o He said that concerns were being expressed at public hearings about the parking, and he
wanted staff to be comfortable with the parking.
o He questioned where the parking overflow was for the proposed condos in the rear, and what
proposed mitigating factors there would be to prevent overflow into the adjacent shopping
centers.
Mr. Piasecki:
o The parking works out to about 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet which is higher than the
ordinance requirements for retail, and it is also part of the earlier development agreement
which the city is bound by. He said they do not have the flexibility to increase it to 6 per
1,000.
o He said they were continuing under the old development agreement and were comfortable
with that parking number and with the idea that the shoppers may have to walk half a block to
get to Sears or to the restaurants or to go to the Rose Bowl, which is not uncommon. The
same situation exists at Santana Rowand Valley Fair, where they are successful. If there are
no parking problems; there is no successful retail.
o He said it was unlikely that there would be overspilling at this point, and said they are
proposing to build a parking garage by Macys to make up all the lost parking. They are also
being conscientious on the issue of parking in rront of Penneys or providing parking
associated with the Rose Bowl. He reiterated that he did not feel parking would be an issue.
Com. Saadati:
o Expressed concern about the potential impact of new restaurants on the existing restaurants
and the "mom and pop" operations in the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
o Said that recently the real estate experts Randall Maclay, said that the expectation was that
about 75% of new tenancy in shopping centers would be restaurants; it is the function of the
market place. The comment that it is difficult to get into restaurants, is evidence that this is
where the marketplace is; there will be a lot of restaurant activity. It is not known whether or
not it will drive out the "mom and pop" operations as the market place determines when and
how.
o One of the issues in Cupertino is there are many low performing retail and all the new
restaurants have been highly successful, and many of the older restaurants are still not coming
up.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o Asked staff to address the benefits of locating the sidewalk between the trees and asked if they
would be removing the hedge currently between the roots of the trees.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
March 14,2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the condition of approval is placed there because the Heart of the City Plan requires the
sidewalks be moved between the trees and moved back rrom the curb line. The reason for the
requirement is so that people won't be walking along the five foot sidewalk possibly
jeopardizing their safety with cars speeding by at 50 mph. People like the parkway look and
feel. Taking into consideration the eXIsting mature trees, they worked with Menlo Equities for
quite a while with landscape architects on how to place the sidewalks so the existing root
systems were not harmed.
. He said there would be a parkway with tree trunks, with a wider sidewalk 6 or 7 feet wide,
separating the pedestrians rrom the 50 mph travel lane. The plan was approved for the
Marketplace, City Center and every project along Stevens Creek Boulevard except the
Crossroads area. He reiterated that the trees would not be harmed.
Mr. Piasecki answered Commissioners' qnestions:
· Said that the parking ordinance had a requirement for parking as well as a condition specifying
they shall provide bicycle parking.
· Relative to placement of buildings, he said staff supported the placement provided the Wolfe
Road rrontage is dressed up. He said ways to accomplish that include the concept of
externalizing land use, with outdoor seating and glass; use of trellises to provide the sense of a
pedestrian friendly walkable street area.
· He said his preference would be for outdoor seating around the side as well; and it could be
specified that they shall provide it. It could be discussed with the developer about asking them
to look at whether they could straighten the building up a little more, much of that may be in
relationship to Sears and their desire for visibility.
Chair Miller:
· Relative to the trees, is staff confident that the root structures of the trees won't be damaged as
the buildings are fairly close to some of those trees.
· Said he was optimistic that the restaurants would be successful and there would be a traffic
problem. Asked staff if a traffic problem occurred, where would the next parking structure be
on the site.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Responded that the conditions could specify that potential damage to the trees had to be
addressed; he said staff would support pushing the buildings back another ten feet.
Mr. Rhode:
· Addressed potential parking problems, noting that Valleo has its own police force which is the
security staff of 20 officers on site who can assist with a parking contingency plan that will
help direct traffic to unfilled parking areas. He said they would be able to utilize a good
portion of the entire mall, not just the parking area in rront of Sears.
· He said a contingency plan would involve department stores and their land use since they did
not own any other land where a parking structure could be built other than the North Macys
lot. He said they would forward with their present plan and address the parking problem when
it occurs.
· Said it was feasible to do a parking structure on the Sears property if the restaurants generated
an issue of the need for more parking; although he could not answer for Sears or Penneys. He
added that the parking structures currently in place could be redone.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
March 14,2006
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Clarified for the audience that they were not approving the landscape plan this evening, it
would come back to either the DRC or to the full Planning Commission. She said at this time
there are no palm trees being proposed this evening.
· Said she was pleased they were making better use of the land and an underutilized comer, and
was not worried by the rotation of the buildings and how they relate to one another. It could
be monotonous as everything along Stevens Creek Boulevard runs perpendicular to the street.
· Expressed concern that they may be generating a potential wind issue brought up earlier.
· She commented that the west elevation of the Islands was too plain for the city, and suggested
four different side of each building, fully designed with no inactive vistas. She said the east
elevation ofCPK also needed some improvement.
· Said she supported the concept of the sidewalk screening for the trees, as it would help the
long term health of the trees.
· Said she was pleased that the applicant had voluntarily gone with an odor abatement
equipment on both restaurants, since it has been a long term issue for the surrounding
neighborhoods; it is part of Vallco being a good neighbor and she was pleased to see it in the
conditions.
· Said she was pleased to see the tree protection policy as written in the staff report, the ASA
and the use permit. She also suggested that the developer post signs that it is not appropriate
to put storage materials or park underneath the trees, and clearly label what is not supposed to
go beyond the chain link fence.
· She said she wanted to ensure that there were bike racks at Vallco in a number of places,
because it does help alleviate the parking issues. She said she felt the Vallco parking plan was
sufficient at this point, and said that she hoped the mall would become so successful that
everyone would have to take the bus to Vallco.
· In response to the Planning Commission and City Council's desire to make the buildings
greener and environmentally friendly; she recommended a requirement for cooled roofs, using
either a reflective material on the roofs where they are not visible from the street, or use a
reflective color because that will reduce the amount of cooling necessary.
· Anticipating the success of the project, she suggested that the conditions include that they have
a backup parking mitigation plan, and offer eco passes to Vallco employees.
· Said she was concerned about the height of Islands and agreed that they need to have the
buildings be more proportionate to one another and not have one tower over the other. She
supported having more muted colors, making sure they are working with more muted palettes
for CPK.
· Said she supported the project.
Mr. Ellis:
· Said that the cost for a cooled roof was not a significant change
Com. Wong:
· Said he supported the project
· Said that economic development for Vallco Fashion Park mall is very important to Cupertino.
· He said he understood the residents' concern about their perception it was a piecemeal
approach, but assured them that it was not; and pointed out that Vallco presented a campus
plan for a successful mall. He suggested that the master plan be available on the website so
that the community could follow the progress, see the other things that are already vested in
the project, and inform them that hotel would have a public hearing.
· Said he supported a TDM plan, and suggested that the Planning Commission look at it to make
sure it is reflective of their wishes, since parking was a main concern heard. It may mean that
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
March 14,2006
people have to walk further onto the campus, but they want to ensure that there is no overflow
parking onto adjacent shopping centers or into the neighborhood.
· Another concern to address in the model resolution is the resident's concern about privacy
impacts on East Estates and Stevens Creek Boulevard. He suggested that it be mitigated by
landscaping so that people would not be peering into the neighborhood homes and yards.
· He concurred that both the east elevation of CPK and the west elevation ofIslands needs to be
dressed up, perhaps with outdoor seating.
· There should be a diversity of restaurants and Islands and CPK will be a good addition to
Cupertino. He said he visited one of their prototypes in North Scottsdale where you could
shop while you waited for table and the restaurant would notify you on a hand held buzzer
when your table was available. He commented that many restaurants choose not to have
waiting lists which is the owner's prerogative, and not within the Planning Commission's
jurisdiction to address.
· Relative to the building height, he expressed concern that there not be exact compatibility in
heights, so that there would be some distinction between the buildings and the restaurants
would be more visible. He asked that the architect follow up on the color palette as there was a
difference between the photos and the colors he showed to the commissioners, which were
more palatable.
· Said he supports the footprint of the building, and does not feel it needs to be rotated.
· Relative to zoning, he recalled that for the Marketplace, the applicant worked voluntarily with
the residents behind who wanted palm trees and they tried to accommodate them as much as
possible.
· Said he felt the odor filtration should be on an as-needed basis. The filtration systems are very
expensive and the city wants to encourage restaurants and successful businesses in Cupertino,
and the Chamber is present to address small business concerns. He suggested that it be
included similar to the TOM plan; the TOM plan for parking will not be implemented unless
there is a problem and the odor filtration should not be implemented unless there is a concern.
He added that presently he did not see it as a major concern.
· Said he supports the project.
Com. Chien:
· Said he was not opposed to the building orientation if they felt it would help make the
businesses successful. He asked the applicant to go back to the architects for further work on
the scale and height.
· He commented that the residential applicants are asked to do the same thing, to keep the height
down more in scale, break up the wall with other designs, etc., and he felt if the residential
applicants were required to meet those requirements, so should the commercial applicants.
· He said he supported the project, and thanked the applicant for providing the video which
helps the residents at home to see the project and what is being discussed.
Com. Saadati:
· He referred to the comer as the jewel of the site and agreed that each restaurant should have
their own identity; with some compatibilities in materials, but not necessarily the same colors;
consistency in landscaping to tie them together yet still preserve their own identity. He said
those areas needed further work.
· Said he would have preferred a circular building in the comer so that it flows.
· The two story parking structures in Sears is mostly vacant; the rooftop is not more than 10%
occupied. Getting people to go that far is a challenge because people want to park right next to
the building.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
March 14, 2006
· Regarding the sidewalk between the trees, he suggested penneable pavers which could
preserve the trees more.
· Overall it is a good project and the only concern is the compatibility of the buildings and
materials, where hopefully there will be some improvement.
· I support the project.
Chair Miller:
· Supports the project.
· Unlike some of the other applications that Vallco has presented which were controversial in
tenns of housing, this is the type of project they want to see. Vallco is reshaping themselves
as an entertainment center and it is a proven combination that theaters, bowling alleys and
restaurants work extremely well together and it is the type of application to be encouraged.
· He reviewed the issues:
./ Parking - No. I issue - there is general agreement to have a TOM program;
./ Have a landscaping plan that addresses all the issues discussed; bring it back to the ORC,
not review at staff level;
./ There is general agreement about a bike parking plan;
./ Also general agreement about doing something to the east side of CPK, either through art,
landscaping or outdoor seating. There was also discussion about sprucing up the west side
of the Islands restaurant;
./ Consider having a cool roof, and more green building;
./ There was consensus about the height relationship as shown in the pictures of Huntington
Beach; as well as the muted colors;
./ The odor abatement be on an as-needed basis; the restaurants are not close to housing;
there is justification to not require the odor abatement unless it becomes an issue.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Added Com. Chien's comment about using penneable surfaces and stone pavers instead of
concrete as part ofthe landscape.
· She suggested adding a condition to recycle unused building materials as opposed to just
dumping them in landfill. She clarified that as they are building, if they have excess lumber,
wallboard, rather than throwing it into a dumpster, and having it taken to a landfill, they would
donate it to another organization or resell it. If something was over-ordered, rather than
throwing it away, donate it to another use.
· She noted for the record that she supported odor filtration systems on restaurants, and
supported keeping the condition on it.
Com. Wong:
· Added the concern of the East Estate residents that staff look into mitigating landscaping
measures to assist the privacy of the neighborhood.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added that if there is a concern about being able to view from the restaurants, it is likely that
the northerly winds may carry odors into that same neighborhood. In tenns of consistency,
they would rather not be faced with the problem after the fact, but budget the money into their
program and put the odor abatement equipment in and take care of it beforehand to avoid
getting phone calls regarding the odor problems.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
EA-2006-04. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
March 14,2006
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application
U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06 with the following added conditions:
staff will draw up a parking TDM plan; the landscaping plan will go to the
DRC; Bike racks will be included in the project; the east elevation of CPK and
west elevation of Islands has to be dressed up either through landscaping art or
outdoor seating; include green buildings aspect by having a cool roof; the height
orientation and color needs to be mitigated with pictures shown by applicant of
Huntington Beach; the odor abatement will only be used as needed; permeable
surfaces will be used whenever possible; recycle unused materials shall be used
for construction site; mitigating landscaping features shall be done at Stevens
Creek Boulevard and East Estates.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Modified the motion if acceptable to the maker of the motion, with the following: Unused
building materials be recycled, as well as coming back to the DRC.
Com. Chien:
· Proposed a fuendly amendment to remove the condition relative to including the odor
filtration system; second by Vice Chair Giefer.
Com. Wong:
· Explained that the reason he did not support the removal of the condition about the odor
abatement system, is they want to encourage more restaurants and the abatement is expensive.
He added that it would be included if there was a perceived problem.
Com. Saadati:
· Said if they put it in the condition of approval if there are odor problems, they need to take
action to correct it, and they agree to it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· These are national chain restaurants; we are not the only city who has or will be asking them
to include odor abatement, we are building multiple housing units all around this corner; we
have an established neighborhood across the street, and I would like to be proactive as a city
and require odor abatement for this site for both the restaurants; I don't think they will see this
as a significant overrun to their construction and walk away trom it; and I think when we can
do something good in advance, we should.
Com. Chien:
· Clarified that the motion was for odor abatement.
Vote: (3-2-0; Chair Miller and Com. Wong No.)
Kirk Ellis:
· Clarified that when they talked with the architects for CPK and Islands, the system was not a
part of their discussions of either restaurant.
· Said he understood Vice Chair Giefer's concern that it is a part of mitigating environmental
impacts, but it is not something that Islands or CPK have been discussing and they did not
volunteer to do so.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
March 14,2006
· Said there was a cost factor involved in retrofitting a site after it has been built vs. putting it in
at the beginning. It would be less impacting to install it at the beginning of the system. He
said design-wise he did not have a preference, although he could not speak for CPK or Islands.
Com. Saadati:
· Said considering the cost would be more afterward, he would stay with his original vote.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Provided specific wording on the TDM plan itself, "traffic and parking review - they shall
retain a traffic engineer who will conduct a parking and traffic analysis six to nine months
after opening at both restaurants to determine if the parking in the onsite traffic pattern is
sufficient to serve the restaurants and they shall commit to a TDM plan incorporating solutions
such as parking cash out and eco passes for the restaurant employees and valet for customers
and traffic circulation. The TDM plans including the projected funding shall be reviewed by
the DRC prior to issuance of building pennits"
· He added the caveat about the projected funding, is if there is a problem they have to commit
to correcting the problem. The plan and its cost needs to be known, and how much it will cost,
and they would have to commit to that and it would go to the DRC.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Miller declared a short recess.
5. U-2005-15, EXC-2005-18
TM-2005-04,~2005-04
(EA-2005-17) Kelly
Snider (Toll Brothers)
Stevens Creek Blvd. @
Finch Avenue
Use Pennit for a master plan for a commercia] and
residential development consisting approximately
I ] 2,300 square feet of commercia] shopping center, up
to 380 residential units and a 3.5-acre public park.
Exceptions from the Heart of the City Plan to allow
for an average 35-feet front setback along Stevens
Creek B]vd. for the commercia] shopping center.
Tentative Map to subdivide 4 parcels (approx. 26-acres)
into 6 parcels for a residential and commercial development
consisting ofapproximate]y 1 ]2,300 sq. ft. ofretai]
shopping center, up to 380 residential units and a 3.5-acre
public park. Rezoning to allow for a commercial and
residential development consisting of approximately
1 ]2,300 sq. ft. of commercial shopping center, up to 380
residential units and a 3.5-acre public park. Report to City
Council; Tentative City Council meeting: March 21, 2006
Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report:
· Explained that the application was a result of the City Council action taken on February 7"'
when they reviewed the application and took first reading of the rezoning. Council directed
the applicant to make some changes remanding it back to the Planning Commission for a
report to tell them whether the app]icant's revised plans reflect the changes requested by the
City Council. He stressed that it was not a re-hearing of the application; it hasn't been
advertised as a re-hearing of the application and the City Council has already taken first
reading of the rezoning, indicating that they consent to the project with the changes noted in
the staff report.
· He reviewed the changes suggested by the City Council as outlined on Page 5-1 of the staff
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
March 14,2006
report.
· He referred to the site plan, and reviewed the changes made to the retail shopping center,
public park, and residential units as outlined on Pages 5-3 to 5-5 of the staff report. Parking
has also been added on Valleo Parkway to be more symmetrical and increase the parking yield
onstreet, and redesign of the street to provide public street parking. Islands will be provided
on the street to save the existing trees; a shuttle will also be provided. There will also be a
minimum 30 foot building setback with an average of 35 feet; the buildings have been
adjusted to accommodate the requirement.
· He reviewed the enhancements provided by the applicant in an effort to enhance pedestrian
access and add on-site parking, as outlined in the staff report.
· He noted that the arborist reported that the Sycamore tree #174 was in declining health and
should be removed and replaced with a nursery stock field grown tree in a more visible
location.
· He reviewed the miscellaneous directions ÍÌ'om the City Council, most of which were
addressed by conditions of approval in the staff report; the Planning Commission can report on
the grade they will receive. The items were outlined in the staff report, Pages 5-4 and 5-5.
The Planning Commission would report back by adoption of a Minute Order indicating that
the applicant has addressed all the changes requested by the Council.
Rick Nelson, Toll Brothers:
· Reported that the proposal presented in January to the Planning Commission had two options,
one for a 369 unit project with the typical 15% inclusionary requirement in that for the BMRs,
and the other option including 80 senior units to be provided in a retail low income product,
and the remaining 322 units would be the for sale market rate units.
· The Planning Commission recommended the senior option and it was presented to the City
Council on February 7"' who concurred with the Commission's recommendation that the
project have the senior option included, and limit the number of units to 380. There were also
4 or 5 design changes requested.
· Per Council's direction, the park is now a 3.5-acre contiguous rectangular park.
· Relative to the request for more substantial setbacks, the 4th floor along Stevens Creek and
Tantau was removed.
. As a result of the reconfiguration of the west parcel, due to the park size increasing to 3.5
acres in one rectangular shape area, combined with eliminating the 4th floor of the terraces
building on the east residential parcel, he said they added some additional units to the north
parcel and as staff indicated, rather than having 108 villas which is a three story type
residential unit, it is now 120 units. The result is a private open space area proposed with a
pool and rec facility becoming smaller at .6-acre.
· Additional parking was provided on Valleo in conjunction with the additional retail park.
· Provided 30 foot minimum setback which the overall average is closer to 35 feet.
· The request was to provide the retail connection to the West Terrace to Valleo, which was the
addition of 3,300 square feet of retail space added.
Jim Yee, ETBS, reviewed the changes made:
· reduced the height of the East Terrace;
· removed the fourth story on Stevens Creek;
· opened up the building, (before there was no entrance off Stevens Creek) to off the East
Terrace building;
· introduced more landscape greenery ÍÌ'om a driveway to a landscape buffer;
· added the element of 3,300 square feet of retail;
· transfer of 12 units to the North parcel, which is now 200 units;
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
March 14,2006
· providing 3.5-acre contiguous park;
· added 44 parking spaces between the commercial/retail shopping parking court and also
Vallco parkway;
· overall density has been lowered on the for sale site to 17 to 26 units per acre; no charge
community room;
· retained pedestrian connections;
· revised senior buildings and new landscape master plan.
Jack Bariteau, Keenan & Bariteau:
· Reviewed the changes made to the site plan taking into consideration the City Council's
direction at the February 7th meeting.
· Said that the staff report addresses conditioning that as some form of food service or restaurant
use; which they were not opposed to. He said they would want some flexibility rrom the city's
perspective if we couldn't attract that type of use to make it retail space, so that the space
would not sit vacant if they weren't successful in attracting the right restaurant space. He said
he felt it was an acceptable compromise for them and the city.
Jim Yee:
· He referred to the site plan and elevations and provided an overview of the architectural
design, landscape design, and reviewed the changes.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Reiterated some of the public benefits they feel the project brings to the city:
./ 3.5 acre park, public parkland;
./ dedication obligation for the reduced residential units, in the order of about 1.8 acres,
resulting in an additional 1.7 acres over and above what is required, in addition to
improving the park;
./ providing the city on an annual basis approximately $320,000.
./ providing $100,000 of public art;
./ 21 % of units now for BMR for seniors;
./ creating a new East Gateway to Cupertino
./ new pedestrian bike trails; new sidewalk over Tantau, estimated at over $300,000;
contribution to the connection to Calabazas Creek at $140,000 and the pedestrian to
Vallco, Finch and Stevens Creek,
./ .6-acre of open space provided for the project residents;
./ community room rree of charge to the public;
./ new shopping opportunities provided with restaurants and retail.
· He summarized that they responded to the City Council's direction at the February 7'h
meeting, resulting in an excellent project that the city would benefit rrom.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
AI deRidder, Ann Lane:
· Said he was pleased to see the changes were made which he said were an improvement of the
past. He said he did not support making Finch Avenue into a parking lot. .
· He expressed concern about the impact on the schools of all the development in the area. He
asked that before consideration is given to approval of a big project, they know for certain
what the impacts on the schools will be; will it be one student per 4 units, or one student per
unit? It would alarm the neighborhood if it was one student per unit.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
March 14,2006
· He urged the Planning Commission to recommend that when the park is developed, it be a
residential neighborhood park, not a soccer field.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· She said her new motto for Cupertino was "Quality for Cupertino, we will expect nothing
less."
· She said the residents of the area have to act as architects for their own neighborhoods since
the entire area is exploding in building, housing, density, and the trees are coming down. The
residents have the right to make sure that the land that is used here is something they are going
to be proud of.
· She expressed her disappointment about the number of trees that have been either killed by
spraying or irresponsible removal of 100 year old trees that had significance in the city of
Cupertino. She referred to the Sycamore tree, No. 174 and noted that Mayor Lowenthal
supported retaining the tree, and some Planning Commissioners also supported its retention.
She urged the Planning Commission to recommend that the tree not be removed.
· She noted that there was also a pine tree along Finch Avenue 10 feet ITom the setback from
Stevens Creek that should be retained. She asked that the oak tree be replaced.
· She expressed appreciation for the building height reduction, and asked that the density be
kept down, as they wanted a quality project for Cupertino.
Nelson D'Souza, resident:
· Said he fully supported Jennifer Griffin's efforts on keeping the trees, and urged the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider her suggestions.
· He said he did not agree with City Council's recommendation of 380 units which he felt was
too dense.
· He expressed concern that in looking at the cumulative impacts, it may result in Stevens Creek
and Wolfe Road becoming another Bubb Road, with 380 units being approved for Toll
Brothers, 200+ at the Rose Bowl, and 137 at Vallco. He said the residents don't want another
Bubb Road at their end of the city.
· He said he felt three stories was too imposing, and suggested bringing the density down to two
stories.
Shilpi Joshi, resident:
· Said that she uses the route Pruneridge and Tantau because she enjoys the greenery in the area.
She recommended a minimum 7-acre park on the land.
· She suggested that the applicant add $1 million to money they give to the city for a park in
Rancho Rinconada as they have needed one for some time.
· She recommended that it be a requirement for the developer to pay the wages for a crossing
guard at Lawrence Expressway where the school children would have to cross to go to
Eisenhower School as a result of the impact on the schools.
· She said she supported Jennifer Griffin and her comments about the trees. They have been in
the area many years and provide lush greenery to the area by Finch and Vallco and the
residents appreciate their beauty. Once removed, the beauty and greenery will be gone.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the city could do nothing in terms of funds for the school district.
Com. Chien:
· Asked staff to explain the calculation of how much park acreage the developer has to
dedicate when the applicant presents a project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
March 14,2006
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the ordinance has a formula that relies on the density; above 20 units per acre, the
formula assumes about 1.8 persons per household in those types of developments times the
300 market rate units, which totals 540 individuals expected in the development. They
discount any impact for the senior units because they are senior affordable units; they do not
count any of the BMR units, from 540 or .54 times 3 , equals 1.7 or 1.8 acres of park which is
expected from this development. He noted that the developer is providing about double that.
Com. Chien:
· Stated that on average the park acreage is low, but the developer is providing more on this
particular project. He commended the applicant for going above and beyond the requirement
in terms of parks.
Mr. Piasecki answered Commissioners' questions:
· The community room will be available to community groups free of charge. It will likely be
handled through the shopping center management.
· Relative to a community garden, he said that the applicant felt the open space was too small to
accommodate one.
Mr. Yee:
· He said the area was originally about .9-acres. As a result of shifting the units to
accommodate the Council's desires to reduce the building height along Stevens Creek and
Tantau in conjunction with the reconfiguration of the park, that area is now about .6-acre.
With the programming proposed for the residents for the development with the community
pool and recreation facilities; in conjunction with trying to create an open space area for the
rest of the residents and the seniors, it was felt they could not accommodate a community
garden at this point. A small garden for the seniors is a possibility; when they get to that stage,
they can look at a smaller area.
· Said there would be approximately 600 new trees at the site.
Com. Wong:
· He said he thought it was a good idea to add the 3,300 square feet of ground floor or the West
Terrace. He asked where the parking would be.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Responded that the parking is part of the additional parking picked up on Val1co parkway and
by reprogramming Finch A venue. The parking shown is additional parking that has been
added along Val1co Parkway at the request of the Council. He said in this particular location
the City Council is looking for something that offers more food service. He said he did not feel
there was an issue with it being supported by the parking that is in the area.
Com. Woug:
· Said he was concerned that they would be using a public street for parking, and asked if it
would be the applicant or city who would maintain the street.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Said they would not only be designing and improving it, but maintaining those areas around
the center under some form of landscape and easement agreement with the city. Maintaining
the public street has not been defined other than the parking area and all the sidewalk and
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
March 14,2006
public areas around the project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the options are either to maintain it or if the city is going to be liable for it, maintain
it with their money. They will pay the city for the maintenance, and Public Works will need to
come up with an appropriate fee associated with that.
Com. Wong:
· Expressed concern about having a 3,000+ square foot café with parking on the public street
and not having any parking on the existing parcel. He said that Panera Bread and Le
Boulangerie even with their parking onsite have parking problems. He noted that the parking
on Finch Avenue and Valleo Parkway is supposed to be for overflow guest parking or flow
rrom the main shopping center.
Mr. Piasecki:
· He said he did not share the concern about parking. There is ample parking around the site
onstreet, and it will be one of those convenient walk-to restaurants; it is something the
applicant has been asked to do to act as an anchor or comer turner for pedestrians and
encourage people to walk. It will be a small café with as few at 30 seats or as much at 70 or
80. He said it was too small an area to be concerned about.
Com. Wong:
· Said there was no Council direction regarding the landscape buffer between the East Terrace
and the shopping center, and as stated in the staff report, they will go through the fire
department to see if there is any safety hazard. He said he was concerned about accessibility
and circulation and with adding 200 units in the north area, the motorists would have to drive
around vs. going through.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the fire department looked at it and they are satisfied they can serve the fire needs of the
condominium units as well as the retail.
· He said the options are a service alley with large trucks using the alley, backup beepers
echoing off the commercial building and impacting the residential building, or a green space.
Mr. Piasecki responded to Com. Wong's request for comment on Jennifer Griffius commeuts
on the Sycamore tree and pine tree earlier in the meetiug:
· He said they would consult with the tree expert on whether it was possible to save the pine
tree. The report in the staff report indicates that the Sycamore tree cannot be saved; a
followup analysis can be done to determine how many years it will live, and if it between 5 or
10 years, it could be decided to mold the project around it, depending on its life expectancy.
The option is to get a full grown healthy planted tree, or ask for 4, to get the caliber back.
Com. Woug:
· Relative to the senior housing, he asked about the alternative of putting the seniors adjacent to
Valleo Parkway vs. in the rear, so they could be close to the center, with the market rate
housing in the back. He later clarified that he was suggesting adjacent, not put in the West
Terrace, along the rrontage he illustrated on the plans.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Responded that the pros outweighed the cons on the issue; rrom a land planning perspective
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
March 14,2006
because the seniors are surface parked, putting it on the West Terrace parcel, there would be
much more visible parking area that you are going to see, and it likely isn't the type of image
the city is trying to create.
· He said the distance ITom the senior housing to the retail was about 800 feet which they felt
was not an unreasonable distance for them to walk.
· Relative to green building designing principles being used in the project, he said it was a level
of detail that they will discuss in the architectural and site approval. He said they recycle any
building products, and was surprised that Cupertino did not have the requirement as part of
their building regulations. Wood materials are recycled and subcontractors are required to
separate that out onsite, and paper and metal materials are picked up by recycling companies.
In addition to any demolition that takes place on the property, all the material will be recycled;
including recycling the asphalt.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that if the proposal meets Planning Commission requirements, they can suggest wording
for a condition saying they will come back with a green building program encompassing
certain elements, and as the applicant indicated, they are willing to do that.
There was a discussion about the senior housing, wherein Vice Chair Giefer expressed concern
about the small size of the proposed units, 550 to 750 square feet. She questioned whether the
Planning Commission could send a recommendation to the City Council for a ]5% increase in
square footage for the senior units.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Said he has been consulting with people who develop senior housing projects and they
indicated the unit sizes of the senior housing is consistent with what they nonnally want to see
for these types of projects to effectively manage them, and what their clientele desires.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the Planning Commission can send a separate minute action, because it is outside the
parameters of the item the Council directed, expressing concern and stating they would like to
see the boards and nails equal at least whatever the number is. The Council can take it up
· He clarified that it is not a public hearing on the merits of the project, it was remanded to the
Planning Commission to look at specific items; the City Council is holding a public hearing on
the entire project and the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to provide input.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she did not understand why they were separating bikes and pedestrians; there has been a
lot of discussion about pedestrian connectivity, but none is visible. There is a bicycle and
pedestrian committee but no pedestrian committee or bicycle committee. There is no bicycle
parking and there is a bicycle demand that needs to be added to this as part of the parking plan.
She questioned where the bike racks are going to be placed and what the bike calculation is for
the project.
Applicant:
· Said that the bike parking is one per every four units.
· Provided assurance that they intended to meet the requirements for bike parking in the retail.
He noted that architectural and site review will cover the issues in detail. He reiterated that the
details would be discussed when they retum to address the specific site planning issues and the
landscape design for the project. At that-time the bicycle paths would be addressed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
March 14,2006
o Said a significant amount of parking would be lost as well as square footage.
Mr. Piasecki:
o He said it could be addressed at the time of the Architectural and Site Review; but to make
sure the applicant understands that it may result in adjusting the site plan, and the impact on
parking will have to be evaluated at that time.
o He clarified that Vice Chair Giefer was asking if bikes can drive in independently of the
automobiles; they can be on the side of them, but is there a bike lane coming off Stevens
Creek going down to the center where the new bookstore location might be, and is there an
east/west bike lane potential that would take bicyclists in a safe pattern east and west across
the shopping center site. That would likely result in a reduction in parking.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o Said it was important to keep that in mind and be understanding.
Applicant:
o Said he understood the concerns, and was willing to sit down and discuss them and look at
how they could be accommodated.
Mr. Piasecki:
o Noted that the north/south connection down the main driveway might be accommodated by
encroaching further into that green space between the East Terrace and the shopping center.
Mr. Ellis:
o Clarified that the size of the senior units is 650 square feet for the one bedroom units, and 850
square feet for the two bedroom units; which is consistent with the site data on the site plan,
and consistent with the building footprints that are drawn on the current site plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o Asked if any further consideration was given to the impacts on the Fremont Union High
School District.
o Said the Council received a letter from the school district stating that they would have a
$411,000 immediate capital deficit based on this and other projects. She said that although it
is not something they will rule on, or that they are permitted to, she felt it was a shame that in
a community where the housing values are largely based upon the success of our school
systems, the developer is not willing to make the district whole on their capital issue.
Mr. Bariteau:
o Said according to the school impact report, they feel from an operating standpoint, there is a
surplus being generated by this project as a result of the mixed use nature of the retail
combined with the residential. On the capital side, there is a slight shortfall; in the school
report, they talk about the demographics and they question whether that is really an impact
that is going to be generated on the project.
o He said they feel with the surplus operating revenues that would be generated for this project,
they should offset any capital in a shortfall and that coupled with the fact that they had
indicated in the report with the changing demographics, there may not be an impact to the
schools.
o He said they rely on the report, which was done by a consultant that the city has used and
relies upon.
o Said he would keep Vice Chair Giefer's comments in mind.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
March 14,2006
Com. Chien:
· Commented that at the February 7'" meeting, the Planning Commission expressed that in
addition to the 3.5-acre park, that funds be set aside for a park in the Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood. He asked if it was still on the table.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that it could be submitted in the fonn of a separate minute action to the City Council
encouraging them to require that of the applicant. It is not part of the items they remanded
back to the Planning Commission.
· The City Council expressed some interest in that possibility; and at that time there was another
applicant also possibly proposing to help fund that. When it comes back to them for the
second reading, they may want to reconsider.
Com. Chien:
· Said he would support the minute order.
· He said the Parks and Rec Commission had expressed some interest in Calabazas Creek and
asked if they had any conversations about what might go in there?
Mr. Bariteau:
· Said Calabazas Creek would have to be master planned by the water district, and as staff
indicated, they were making a contribution toward that.
· He said that relative to the site circulation pedestrian plan, it shows that the linkage can be
accommodated in the future. When the water district does do their environmental review and
master planning, the project can connect to that area in the future.
Chair Miller:
· Requested that architectural and site approval and landscaping come back to the Planning
Commission and not just to the DRe.
· Said he would like to explore the senior housing more. He said he was not opposed to a 650
square foot unit, as it would work for an individual or a couple, although 700 square feet
would be more appropriate. He said 850 square feet would work well for a two bedroom unit,
and 900 square feet even better.
· Said he wanted to discuss in more detail the issue rrom the standpoint of doing 15%
throughout the entire project, it would be giving more square footage than with 20% and
seniors with those size units. He asked if they considered trying to come up closer to the
number of square feet and perhaps added a few more units so that there was more equality.
Mr. Bariteau:
· Yes, when we originally brought the proposals to the Planning Commission in January, we
had two different options because we were willing to do the standard 15% project for for-sale
units.
· The second option was the senior affordables. I think there is somewhat of a misnomer if you
are looking at it strictly rrom a square footage standpoint, because I think the perception is that
because we are not providing the exact same square footage that we otherwise would have to
be providing if it was an inclusionary for-sale product, somehow that there is not equity. He
assured that there was equity and said it was the reason two proposals were presented, so that
the Planning Commission could make the choice.
· He said in order to do the senior housing, not only do they give away the property, in order to
finance the senior housing project, there has to be tax credits used on the project. There is a
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
March 14,2006
gap that happens between that tax credits that a developer can get and the gap financing which
has to be made up. The gap financing can amount to as much as $120,000 because when they
go to find the tax credits, they don't have the same available pool that they otherwise do if
they were building family units, because seniors don't have as many opportunities to get tax
credits as if you were doing a housing proposal, there are more tax credits avai]able; and that
gap actually gets smaller, but because it is a senior project it is a larger gap. That gap could
amount as much as $120,000 +/- $5,000 or $]0,000.
· Said they were subsidizing that in addition to giving the property away. He said the amount of
gap financing is difficult for them to undertake and they were going to propose to act as the
general contractor to build this into a turnkey for Bridge Housing. They would undertake the
construction to help reduce the gap financing to a more acceptable rate.
· He said that Bridge Housing did not offer shuttle service in any of their senior complexes.
The seniors do drive, and in mixed use projects the seniors are in close proximity to the
amenities they like.
· He said it was a cost burden that they could not justifY. In the present proposal, he noted that
the shuttle service cost come out of someone's pockets, but that the builder did not fee] that the
seniors would avail themselves of the service and the cost to them was not justified.
Tom Ear]y, Bridge Housing:
· Discussed the portfolio of senior housing projects that they have participated in in various
communities, ranging in size trom 650 square feet for a one bedroom unit to 850 square feet
for a two bedroom unit. He noted that only one project provides a shuttle bus for the residents,
and it is located in Marin County and is a distance trom the commercial services and transit.
· In response to Chair Miller's question, he said he did not consider the distance the Cupertino
seniors would walk from their residence to the bus stop or retail area as being an impediment
in any way to the seniors.
· He explained that relative to affordable housing finance, they compete at the state level for
either tax credits or taxes on financing and one of the things they look at in that scoring
process is proximity to service and transit. When Toll Brothers approached them about the
project, the first thing they did was looked at the amenities including retail and transit and it
falls well within the state's guidelines for proximity and fits in within their demographic and
experience level.
· He said that the seniors who live in the units are mostly in their high 60s, although some do
move in during their 50s and are typically ambulatory. There is an onsite resident staff
member who helps them with appropriate services when they are no longer ambulatory.
He said that the project includes in its operating expenses, monies for services as part of their
mission statement as a non-profit builder of affordable housing, providing appropriate services
for the residents. The funds in the operating budget are designed to be a flexible tool to
monitor the progress of the community itself and what their needs are, whether education, or
health screening programs, as well as outreaching to pre-existing services within the
community that they can benefit trom and they can access for them.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Posed the question if he was 79 years of age when he moved in the senior housing complex,
and stayed there for 10 years, but could not drive any longer; how would he get to Kaiser
Hospital.
Mr. Early:
· Clarified that they were not an assisted living provider, but cannot deny housing to people who
have disabilities or trailty. They are involved with the management of housing in terms of
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
March 14,2006
working with public agencies to try and assist the people with onsite trained resident staff who
are aware of public resources that they connect the people to.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Responded that he would call VT A Paratransit and they would come and pick him up and
transport him to Kaiser.
Mr. Early answered commissioners' questions relative to the seuior housing:
· Rents vary trom $600 to $850 per month.
· They have not experienced any difficulties in renting senior units in complexes they manage;
typically they have a long waiting list for their properties.
· He said the location is appropriate with close proximity to the park and transit to the retail and
commercial areas.
Chair Miller:
· Noted that the shuttle service is only trom the senior housing to the bus stop.
· Asked staff the reason they were asking the applicant to restrict the new retail facility on the
northwest comer to food service only?
· Expressed concern that ifthey cannot fill it with a food service, it may remain vacant.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the concern is that the concept is supposed to be a magnet, highly activated
outdoor space. They were concerned that if they did not restrict it, it may result in a low end
commercial use, or service commercial use that might decide to occupy that space and that it
would not be activated.
· He said he was not sure they would require that it had to be occupied. He said it was not much
different trom what was done with the coffee shop at the library.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked that the value of the senior housing be provided, including land and the building
compared to the other housing. He said he would like to have the information before the
project goes to City Council.
· The only item that was not addressed is the garden. He said he hoped that some type of
garden will be included in the senior area.
· Recommended preserving the tree near Stevens Creek.
· Suggested keeping the option open for retail if the restaurant does not work.
· Agrees with implementing green building.
· Said he hoped the applicant will follow up and work with the school to make up some of the
negative balance that they are experiencing.
· Supports the application.
Com. Chien:
· Said he liked the increased pedestrian walking area.
· Said he appreciated the applicant's recycling practices.
· Said the senior shuttle program is very important.
· Recommended saving the Sycamore tree.
· Supports the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
March 14,2006
Com. Wong:
· Suggested a garden area near the senior court yard.
· Expressed concern about the parking. He would like them to work with staff and have a TDM
plan and only be implemented if needed.
· Said he was concerned with using public streets.
· Said he was concerned with circulation. He feels that it is important for the area between the
east and north terrace.
· Recommended that the site review come back to the Planning Commission.
· Said he agreed with staff on the 3300 sq. foot cafe and that it should be an active part.
· Supports the project.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she felt it was an improved projected from a few weeks prior.
· She expressed concern that they were only looking at the pedestrian paths, the bike paths are
not part of that and she feels it will affect the Master Plan. She recommended that it go to City
Council as something that needs to be addressed as part of the final approval.
· Looks forward to the ASA and the green building plan. She would like to know the specifics
the green building plan.
· She feels that the senior shuttle is valuable and should be true transportation for the seniors
who are no longer driving.
· Suggested designated parking for the seniors if not already part of it.
· Suggested a community garden. She expressed concern about the westerly exposure in that
area because of the height of the buildings.
· Said she would like to have more square footage on the senior project for larger units.
· Does not want the Sycamore tree removed. She suggested a board test recommended by the
City Arborist.
· Recommended that the pine tree on Stevens Creek be preserved and worked into the landscape
plan.
Chair Miller:
· Feels it is an excellent project and has been improved.
· He supports the project.
Chair MiUer summarized the action items:
· Recommendation that the Architectural and Site Landscaping comes back to the Planning
Commission.
· Keep the senior shuttle bus service; if it is just defined to be between the bus stop and the
senior housing, expand it so that it is comparable to what the other senior projects in town are
doing.
· He agrees with staff that they want a vibrant activity in the 3300 sq. ft. space but they would
allow the applicant some flexibility in case it is difficult to put food service there.
· He would like to save the Pine tree and doing further testing on the Sycamore before giving up
on it.
· Bicycle connectivity
· Green building
· Recycling of excess building materials
· Supports the community garden
· He supports Com. Wong's suggestion of a TDM plan.
· Supports Vice Chair Giefer's suggestion for designated senior spaces.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
March 14,2006
· Issue of whether or not there is support for a part in Rancho Rinconada.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that if the commissioners are satisfied with Chair Miller's list, they can forward the
minute action indicating that the project does comply with City Council's direction. If there
are any of those items that were not specifically mentioned in their direction, they will be a
separate minute action.
Com. Wong:
· He stated that he thought there was enough support for a park at Rancho Rinconada. He said
he felt there was enough support also for getting more square footage on the senior housing.
Vice Chair Giefer and Com. Wong:
· Stated they supported the park for the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood.
Chair Miller:
· Said he did not support the park.
Com. Chien:
· Stated he was open to that.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he felt that there was sufficient space and he would rather have more units than larger and
less units.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Pointed out that it was not suggested that the units would go lower, but she felt they could do
better than they are. She said she spoke with members of the Senior Commission who live in
senior housing which prompted her to wonder about the numbers and if they were doing the
right thing for the seniors.
Chair Miller:
· Pointed out that if the units were increased in size, the rent would increase for the seniors; 650
square feet for a one bedroom apartment is sufficient and is not uncomfortable; 850-900
square feet works well as a 2 bedroom, particularly if a live-in care giver is needed. Another
alternative is to ask that the mix be changed. What is the percentage?
Applicant:
· Said it was eight 2-bedroom units.
Mr. Early:
· Said they limit the number of 2 bedrooms in their projects because of marketability issues; the
two bedroom units serve a limited pool of households.
· The most valuable unit type for affordable senior population is a one bedroom.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested language for a minute order, "that the applicant shall make every attempt to
increase the size of the units and/or demonstrate at the Site and Architectural Review process
that the units have been designed efficiently through built ins or other mechanisms so that they
are highly efficient units for the seniors who are in them."
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
March 14,2006
Com. Wong:
· Said he was concerned because it was a City Council member who brought up the concern,
and it was important to address their concerns and look into having bigger units.
· Said that Mr. Piasecki's suggested language provides too much flexibility and he was not
comfortable with that direction. Since there are three commissioners saying they do not want
to state a square footage or percentage, the recommendation be made that the units be bigger.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she was recommending closer to 105,000 square feet which this is not close to what it is.
It is presently 9% of the total boards and nails and she recommended it be closer to 15 %. She
would like to see more square footage added to the senior units.
· She said that she knew seniors who have moved into smaller senior units and have had
difficulty parting with their possessions and furniture.
Applicant:
· Pointed out that they were proposing units that were not market rate units, but moderate to low
mcome.
· What is being proposed is a senior housing project that is available to low income seniors. If
they were market rate, it would involve a different calculation to address. As a result, the units
are smaller and some of the other amenities provided with the market rate community are
different.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Said she understood the difference, but reiterated that the two bedroom unit is still 150 square
feet smaller than the smallest one bedroom market rate that she is aware of.
· Recommended more square feet per unit for the senior units.
Chair Miller:
· Suggested that the applicant increase the size of the senior units and demonstrate that increase
at the Site Architectural stage
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, that the applicant has
demonstrated tbat they have met all the requirements set forth by the City
Council at the February 7, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended to City Council to take into consideration the following items.
./' The architectural and site review should go back to the Planning Commission.
./' The shuttle is meant for the surrounding area not just to the bus stop. The 3300
square feet would be allowed flexibility that would not include personal needs and
be part of the Director's discretion.
./' The Sycamore (#174) as well as the pine tree shall be preserved unless otherwise
stated by the arborist; as well as any trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard that are
within the 10 to 20 foot right of way.
./' The applicant shall have more bicycle connectivity within the project.
./' Green building as well as recycling shall be included in the project.
./' The community garden should be included in the senior complex.
./' Staff will submit a TDM plan for review.
../ Agree with staff s language that the senior housing shall increase additional
square footage.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
March 14, 2006
Com. Wong:
· He informed Vice Chair Giefer that each unit would have one parking space.
· Expressed concern about the circulation by closing off the street between the retail and the east
terrace.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Suggested that the green building portion be green building design and practices.
Com. Wong:
· Asked if there were enough commissioners who wanted to suggest bringing the senior housing
on the north parcel on VaIlco Parkway.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· She stated that saving the Sycamore would require some design changes and the entire area
may need to be looked at again. She said she was amendable to that once they know the fate
of the Sycamore tree.
Vote: (5-0-0)
Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong, to approve the Minute Order to
look into additional funding for a park in Rancho Rincouada. (Vote: 5-0-0)
6. Selection of Planning Commissiou Alternates to:
o Environmental Review Committee alternate.
o Design Review Committee alternate.
o Housing Commission representative.
o Economic Development Committee alternate.
There was consensus to continue Item 6 to the March 15,2006 continued Planning
Commission meetiug.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the continued Planning Commission
meeting Wednesday, March 15.2006, at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary