Draft Minutes 1-06-09CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLAS~~TING COMI~~IISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. January 6, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COl~~N[UNITY HALL
The Special Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 2009, 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: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the November 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Brophy, to approve the
November 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Rose, to approve the December 9, 2008
Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, noted
receipt of items related to the agenda item.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Steve Piasecki ,Director of Community Development, acknowledge receipt of a Federal
Communications Commission Report on local governments, tiedto transmitting antenna RF
emissions safety, etc.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 6, 2009
Motion:. Motion by Com. Rose, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the
Consent Calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARING
1, U-2008-01, ASA 2008-06, Master Use Permit, Architectrual and
TM-2001, and TR 2008-08 Site Approval, Tentative Map and
Kevin Dare, Sand Hill Property Tree Removal Permit
Company, North of Stevenc (Continued from December 9, 2008)
Creek Blvd. and South of Vallco
Parkway between the Metropolitan
Mined-use retaiUcondominium
Development and Tantau Ave.
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application which was continued from the December 9, 2008 Planning
Commission meeting, fora 17.4 acre Main Street mixed use development that Sand Hill
Property Company is proposing, to include retail, office, senior housing, hotel, athletic club,
and public park in Town Square. The applications include a master use permit, architectural
and site approval, tentative map and tree removal.
• Reviewed background of application; the Planning Commission reviewed the project and
conducted public hearings in October and December meetings. On December 16 the project
was introduced to the City Council and the Council at that time made no comments, but took
public testimony; no formal recommendations or decisions could be made until the final EIR
circulation period ended on January 2. The Commission can now make a formal
recommendation on the project.
• She reviewed the Commission's comments and public comments from the December 16, 2008
meeting, which were detailed in the staff report. In response to comments from the
Commission and public, the applicant has submitted an updated site plan for Scheme A and
Scheme B. The uses are generally the same; the differences are the green space park area was
reduced; the applicant indicates that there is some green space along the Metropolitan building
site, between the condos and senior housing. They also incorporated a major tenant space of
30,000 sq. ft. along Vallco Parkway in lieu of the 40,000 sq. ft. proposed before.
• The applicant has submitted some alternative options that the Commission can consider, which
are meant to be interchangeable to also address the market demand as well. Option 1 shows a
30,000 sq. ft. major retail center with some surface parking alongside, and also some jewel box
buildings added along Finch Avenue. Alternate option 2 is a 40,000 sq. ft. major retail with
21,000 sq. ft. of retail lining Vallco Parkway.
• Staff is supportive of any of the options with the additional recommendation that if Alternative
Option 1 is considered with the jewel box building and the surface parking, that the retail
storefront should be provided along the northwest corner of the major retail building. The
applicant has shown in Option 1 and 2 the loading dock area has been changed from the
original scheme, so in Option 1, the loading dock would actually come off parallel to Vallco
Parkway; and in Option 2 it would face out towards Vallco Parkway.
• The applicant has also looked at the corner of Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue. The
existing Scheme A shows the 145,000 sq. ft. athletic club, the existing Scheme B on that
corner shows a 3 story office complex with 205,000 sq., ft. of office, and the alternate option
shows a 30,000 sq. ft. major retail with 6,000 sq. ft. of attached retail and a restaurant pad.
• Staff supports either Option A or the alternate option which is the retail use, because both of
these would support the retail commercial vision of the South VAllco Master Plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 6, 2009
• She reviewed the addition of retail along Vallco Parkway; the proposed hotel in both Scheme
A and B, the square European parking plaza; the interface between the senior housing and the
Metropolitan condos as outlined in detail in the staff report.
• Relative to office allocation, the applicant is requesting at least 100,000 square feet of office.
Staff originally supported up to 60,000 square feet of office allocation; however, they now
support 100,000 square feet of office if sufficient office allocations are added in conjunction
with the General Plan amendment that the City Council recently authorized so that the project
does not diminish office space available for other major corporate interests. A condition of
approval has been included in the project to require General Plan amendment to be approved
before any utilization of the office allocations.
• She reviewed the additional modifications to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff
report, including under findings for the Use Permit; Conditions 22, 27A, 28, 3 0, 3 7, 3 8, 60, 72
and 76. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the applications with staff's recommendations and recommend that the Council certify
the EIlZ including the statement of overriding consideration, with the master use permit
architectural and site approval, tentative map and tree removal permit.
• She answered Commissioners' questions relative to the EIlZ, location of bus duck outs;
parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard; height and setback of buildings.
Ken Rodrigues, Project Architect:
• Reviewed a slide presentation showing images of the outdoor spaces, umbrellas, outdoor cafes,
and areas for possible community events within the Main Street Project.
• He illustrated the location of the retail spaces, office spaces and residential units and discussed
the design of the project. He showed the location of the proposed park areas, parking areas,
pedestrian walkways, loading dock area, public plazas, open spaces, office space, hotel, and
realignment of Finch Avenue. He said that the lower level of the parking garage could be
converted to retail on Vallco Parkway if it is something the market drives in the future. The
landscape plan was also reviewed.
Gary Lieman, Landscape Architect:
• Stressed their commitment that it be a sustainable project, with native plantings, and drought
tolerant species to make it a showcase part of the project.
• Discussed the tree disposition plan, and stated they were able to preserve many more trees than
initially thought, and have been able to strengthen the existing street tree program with new
Ash trees, and develop the walkable street all the way around the perimeter which is a feature
of this part of the neighborhood.
• Reviewed the walkways and pedestrian areas; proposed rooftop gardens and landscape buffers,
garden areas, green space plaza areas which would ~ accommodate a variety of uses such as
farmers markets and festivals.
Kevin Dare, Sand Hill Properties:
• Revisited the issue of the office square footage and quest for office allocation. Said that the
proposed plans provided them the ability to bring in a landmark style type of development for
the office buildings, that will give them the ability to attract landmark quality tenants. The _
concept of 100,000 square feet as a minimum would be an effective use for their leasing team
and their ability to attract a broader type of tenant, since there are not many available larger
format square footage buildings out there now. Giving them the ability to cast that net wider is
something that would be very useful as they go to market.
• Discussed the need for a balance of uses at this location; stating that anything less than
100,000 sq. ft. of office in comparison to the size and relative scope of the other types of uses
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 6, 2009
is unbalanced, which is the reason the 100,000 sq. ft. helps balance that out and makes it
distributed well.
•
•
One issue raised at the last meeting was-the need for housing units to be allocated because of
the office allocation requested, understanding that 1,000 square feet of office requires about
two units of residential. Our plan proposes 160 residential senior housing units which does not
impact the schools. Based on that calculation, in effect, we are offsetting the need for the
housing requirement by about 80,000 sq. ft. because we are providing 160 units, equating to
about 80,000 square feet of office. In effect, we are asking for an investment of 20,000 sq. ft.
of office for the location itself. When you look at those factors, along with the fact that where
does the city want to invest this office sq. footage; we understand that is a commodity that the
city has and saying where do you want to invest and where is the right place to invest. In
perspective, we believe the office element and having a landmark quality style building here is
an important element for us to be successful We are investing heavily in this community; not
only financially but also from a time and commitment to this project. Through the process of
the many meetings we have held in the past year, we have incorporated a lot of comments and
many, if not most of the comments, have been incorporated into the plan. What we are asking
is that the city partner with us in investing the office square footage here for us to be
successful and be able to move forward and have that regional quality and regional
commercial center that the General Plan calls for.
A second element discussed at the last meeting, was the issue of senior housing. There are
concerns about the type of senior housing proposed. and that assisted living housing may not be
the appropriate use for the project. After consideration of the comments, they agreed with
those comments; and will pursue the active living, age restricted senior housing.
He discussed concerns about the conditions of approval published by staff:
• Deletion of Section 4, Finding No. 4: Section 3, the conditions, we are agreeable to the
joint use agreement and the concepts; request modification of language relative to the
restroom facilities being available "at all times", as we interpret that to mean 24 hours
per day. We are requesting that it be during normal business hours with provisions for
flexible hours for approved community events. There is concern about the facilities
being open 24 hours per day, to prevent persons from sleeping in the building during
the night.
• No. 8, ground floor retail: The specific request says "ground floor retail is along at
least 50% of the exposed building frontage, visible along Stevens Creek Boulevard." It
was modified to say "10% of the ground floor shall be retail,", the reason being that
ground floor retail with our specific plan for the lifetime fitness format, if you actually
were to put all of the proposed retail square footage on a lifetime plan against Stevens
Creek we would exceed 50% of the frontage along Stevens Creek, but the plan itself
does not actually have all the retail pushed up against Stevens Creek. The concept is to
draw the energy and focus within the site and not to have the energy pushed outside of
the project itself. Responding to Chair Miller's question is there a requirement at every
building in this project to have retail, he said there was not, because from a campus
style setting, this project has substantial amount of retail and when looked at on an
overall basis and average, every building does not need to have its own free standing
retail
• No. 17B sidewalk and crosswalks: Request that the statement be that "the applicant
shall provide decorative crosswalks and put decorative semi- pervious pavement
treatment across Vallco Parkway, North Tantau and Stevens Creek. We are requesting
precast concrete pavers, not semi-pervious pavement treatment; the difference being
that the semi- permeable pavement treatments does not have a concrete sub-slab; the
Lack of a concrete sub-slab allows for more settlement and is not desirable as it can
cause additional maintenance issues and down time and is not something we wish to
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 6, 2009
experience. Allowing the precast concrete pavers allows us to achieve the look and feel
while addressing the maintenance concerns.
Condition 19b, Street Furniture: We understand that we are going to have street
furniture along Stevens Creek. The last part of the sentence "the street furniture shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Council in conjunction with the. approval of the
public improvement plans". We are requesting to de-couple those two issues as the
street furniture and the public improvement plans may be coming at different times; so
we would request that the street furniture be reviewed by the DRC. In the event that the
street furniture is ready for review and approval, that we can have that right to be able
to present it earlier.
Condition 27A: We are requesting that we comply with the Heart of the, City guidelines
at the time of approval, because we do meet those guidelines.
Condition 28, South Vallco Plan: In the second sentence, it says "that the applicant
shall demonstrate that they shall provide sufficient outreach to the stakeholders, with
including input, but not limited to the specific lighting, etc." We are requesting that it
read "the applicant shall make reasonable efforts to contact adjacent property owners to
show improvement plans, including but not limited to ..." The idea behind this, is we
have done significant outreach through this process, through the creation of the South
Vallco Plan that was approved in September. Specifically we will contact Mike Rohde
from Cupertino Square, Mike Foulkes from Apple, Edward Chan from KCR and the
Metropolitan HOA Board to get their feedback and their input. We are trying to define
what that specific statement refers to.
Condition 29, Creek trail improvements: There are two items, the first relates to the
amount requested, $96,000 for the improvement of the trail connection along Calabazas
Creek. Our plan shows that we will include decorative pavers for the crosswalks across
Vallco Parkway to the trailhead and the cost of the decorative paving (3,850 sq. ft x
$15/sq. ft) is about $57,750; ($96,000 less the $57,750 that we are going to be adding to
the creek head, coming out to $3 8,250.) The second item where it says "the applicant
shall coordinate with the ownership of properties on both sides of the exposed
Calabazas Creek." Given the fact that Apple owns properties on both sides of street, it
is unclear to us what we are supposed to coordinate. We are asking that it be removed.
Condition 30, the park area along Metropolitan: As staff said, we ask that we not limit
it to the tot lot, but we not be limited to the recreational apparatuses in sitting areas.
No. 31: The security plan for parking garage: It is unclear to us; we understand that
security is important for our project and for the plan moving forward; the request is that
we add individual safes in the housing units and hotel rooms. It is something we will
consider; but we are asking that it not be made a mandate or a requirement.
No. 37 green building: We have a strategy for green building implementation, and we
will implement many things discussed. Sand Hill is on the forefront of making green
buildings and we are committed to it, but this is a mixed use campus style project and
given that, we don't know the ultimate level of certification that we will be able to
achieve. We are uncomfortable committing to something we cannot guarantee, and
because South Vallco Master Plan does not call for a specific level of certification, we
want to align with what the actual plan calls for.
No. 38, Maintenance Agreement: We are requesting that the maintenance agreement --
shall be for the areas directly adjacent to our subject property.
Traffic Mitigation: I have been working on the traffic mitigation at Homestead and
Lawrence Expressway, and the statement in blue, the fair share contribution, is just a
statement to the effect that in the event that Scheme A, which was the $334,100; if
anything less than that is approved, or something different that causes less traffic
impacts, then we would pay the pro rata share of that traffic impact.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 6, 2009
• No. 62, bus stop location: We are asking that instead of being relocated, that it will be
.improved. It is our understanding that it is not required to be relocated. This may
include consistent shelters for the bus stops but will not include duck outs or relocation
of the bus stops themselves.
What is requested, is recommendation for approval of the plans as shown them, Scheme A and
Scheme B, along with the options as submitted, and the conditions of approval as described by
staff and the revisions expressed herein.
Com. Brophy:
• Asked Ken Rodrigues to comment on staff s dissatisfaction with the European parking square
component.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said they have had a good working relationship for the past year and feels that any one of
those schemes shown, the two that staff is recommending, or theirs will work. He said he was
comfortable and felt the developer was comfortable in agreeing to staff s recommendation.
Com. Brophy:
• Referred to the recent set of drawings, reference to Options 1, 2 and 3; Option 1 being the
40,000 foot building with some shops along Vallco Parkway. Said he recalled that Mr.
Randolph felt it was anon-starter in terms of leasing, and should they consider Option 1 under
those circumstances.
Ken Rodrigues:
• I cannot speak to the leasing potential; Jim Shepard can; from our standpoint, we do not want
to preclude any scheme; that is why we are asking for a couple of schemes, because we started
out and still think that this may work, but this is the preferred scheme now. It gives us the
capability of moving forward with either one; I think they are both good; staff is
recommending both, so I think we are okay that way if you are.
Com. Brophy:
• On Option 2 which is the 36,000 sq. ft. of retail at the northwest corner of Tantau and Stevens
Creek; do I correctly understand that it would in effect replace either the athletic club and/or
the 205,000 foot office building if it went in. Think of that as a module that might replace
those two uses if that is how the market plays out.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Correct.
Com. Kaneda:
• Referring to the different options for retail, I would like your opinion as a planner. My
thinking is that along Vallco Parkway, if you start putting gaps along that, there will be a line
of retail coming in from Wolfe Road, and then it will hit our site, and your original design you
have kind of that large retail and then a wrap around strip retail and then there is an entrance _
into the site, and then you have another retail and you have the parking garage which is
designed so you can add retail; essentially you have a continuous string of retail units and if it
dies off anywhere, after the parking garage, it becomes more iffy and if there is an office there,
there is no retail and if there is retail building there with a big parking lot, that string of retail
dies off. My concern is that with Alternate 1, you are breaking that, and I have seen cases
where a fairly small break, that's it you are done, and it makes a large difference. I am
uncomfortable with Alternate 1.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 6, 2009
Ken Rodrigues:
• This plan is driven by a specific tenant; the community talked a lot about some type of
specialty market or similar tenant. Jim Shepard discussed Option 2 with many tenants and it
was anon-starter for them about 4 or 5 months ago. He came back to us and asked if they
could have another option if we don't want to lose something that the community is looking
for which is a small boutique market; and that market requires some "teaser parking". What
we presented to you last time was different than this.
• Referring to the site plan, he illustrated the location of the retail spaces, office spaces and
residential units.
Com. Kaneda:
• On sidewalks and crosswalks, you discuss going to precast concrete pavers; but underneath
you are going to have concrete; which will be similar to a solid concrete sidewalk. One of the
reasons they are asking ,for permeable pavers was to reduce storm water runoff. I know you
don't like the idea of bedding in sand, but if you do what you are talking about doing, you
might just as well concrete the entire thing over. Permeable pavers wasn't just an aesthetic
issue; it was a sustainability issue.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said it was their understanding that it was a maintenance issue. Staff can address that.
Gary Lieman:
• Said the distinction they were trying to make was they didn't want to use the permeable pavers
in the high volume traffic; they are interested in incorporating permeable pavers within the
project itself, for the storm water benefits. The permeable pavers used would have a gap
between the paving stones themselves as opposed to permeating through the paver itself; it
permeates through the joints between the pavers. Within the public right of way where there
are crosswalks, there we would want to have a concrete sub-slab so we don't have the
settlement issues because that is a more durable surface for higher volume traffic conditions.
But internal to the site, where there are the plazas, our pedestrian areas, and our auto court
areas, there we would like to have permeable pavers with gravel sub-grade, sub-drains so you
would have storm water occurring in those areas.
Com. Kaneda:
• How would you feel about some buildings being LEEDS silver, such as the office buildings,
the hotel and senior facility. I understand your issues with retail.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said from the developer's standpoint, it is difficult to commit to a certain building level and
then not meet that expectation; which Peter Pau feels strongly about. If I tell you we are going
to have a LEEDS silver certified office building, when in fact we end up with gold, it is
positive. But if we have to do some trading off because this is a campus which allows us to do
some of that, then we may not individually meet a level of threshold, but collectively we do. _
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would like to get the key buildings that are reasonably doable, to have that target.
There is an issue that I understand a designer can't guarantee something like that because you
don't make the final decision about whether it is silver or not; you apply to another body and
they decide whether it is silver or not. Cities understand you go in targeting something and
you go in submitting enough points to get there and you may lose some; and in some cases,
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 6, 2009
you may not get what you shoot for. I think cities understand that and I would expect that the
city would also. That doesn't mean that you can't target that and make a good faith attempt to
get that.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Recently the office building we fmished for Apple on DeAnza is silver certified. The South
Vallco Master Plan gets to the spirit of what you are commenting on, that the goal is silver
certification for the specific buildings you may be talking about.
• Said they would seek to achieve the silver certification; but it was difficult to make the
commitment to achieve silver on the retail or silver for office, because some of it is not
dependent on them.
• Said they had a lot of experience with the Sunnyvale project.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said in terms of the conditions, she was concerned, that if they put it in as a goal, they as a city
lose control once we say that is what you achieve, you might or might not make it, there is no
impact on the project if you don't make it. Based on what I have heard you say, if we required
that every building be LEEDS certified minimally, is that something you could -live with.
Ken Rodrigues:
• The LEED certification is something we are supportive of; the level of certification is
appropriate as a condition.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• With the senior housing proposal before us, one of the comments many of us made earlier, is
that what is currently being proposed is units of 612 square feet per unit, which for an active
senior community is very small. She questioned if it was adequate space for an active senior
development, and is it the right product for the area.
Ken Rodrigues:
• That is a fair question, as we are going through the process, what we are doing as we move
through; we may reduce some of the units and increase the size of individual units; we are not
sure yet. We will take under advisement.
• He said there was 34,000 sq. ft. of common open space for the senior housing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• With regard to personal space on rental units, we require personal balconies and if you are
doing high density housing, it seems to me that people will want some of their own space to
get out. If the seniors are highly mobile, it may be less of an issue; but if they are sedentary or
less active seniors, they may prefer a balcony to sit on. She said she still had many questions
about the proposed building.
• With regards to pervious vs. impervious, isn't there a pervious concrete; and would that work
on the substrata on the higher traffic streets?
Gary Lieman:
• There is a permeable concrete that is a dry mix which allows water to percolate through it;
permeable paving gives the benefits of the percolation through a gravel sub-base that would
work better in that type of situation; which is what they want to use within the project itself.
• In the crosswalk areas, there is such a narrow strip there for the crosswalks, what we are really
concerned about is the differential settlement between the asphalt road section and the paver
crosswalk section because we want to make sure that's a very strong section and the strongest
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 6, 2009
section we have seen is using a concrete sub-grade there. The benefits you were talking about
in terms of the amount of permeable, is a very narrow piece that would occur underneath the
crosswalks anyway, because it is just a narrow strip and the road is crowned there. We are not
talking about a significant amount of water that would be treated under a permeable situation;
we are trying to balance the objectives in terms of creating a high end visual, aesthetic surface
that has a good longevity in terms of its wear characteristics. We are concerned about
introducing that water into the pavement; which you are right, you could take it through the
permeable concrete but then the lateral movement after it goes through that permeable
concrete could start to undermine the adjacent asphalt section and then you start to get some
differential settlement and we want to avoid that.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Runoff was one of the primary comments of the Water District in the EIR, and the response
was that it was still less than 1 % increase in the creek flow at the ten year and hundred year
flood periods. What other things are being done onsite besides using pavers to retain the water
onsite?
Gary Lieman:
• Said they would include many plantings, both along the building edges themselves and
between the storefronts and the parking areas; and there will be opportunities for water to be
filtered or to permeate into the sub-grade through those areas. They see it as a good
opportunity to be able to create outdoor garden spaces, it will work well with the whole
concept of the usable outdoor spaces.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• In the surface parking areas, the parking ordinance requires swales in the ground floor parking.
They are not shown there; is there a reason they are not shown as part of this project?
Gary Chao:
• Said the option can be discussed with the developer.
Gary Lieman:
• Said there would be a number of landscape areas sprinkled through the site that will be able to
accommodate storm water, particularly along the street frontages around the perimeter. There
are some large areas where we will be able to run some water through and help treat that. It is
a complex network of spaces in terms of piping water from a paved source to a planted area;
that is a little beyond the reach of the detail we have gone to now. We have done it on other
projects where you take that water from the paved areas and direct it to the landscaped areas
and cleanse it in those areas.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Questioned the logic for requiring a security plan for the parking garages.
Steve Piasecki: _
• Said it was something they like to see when the size of the parking garage gets to be fairly
substantial; when you have the public coming and going in a setting like this. It is not
common for an office building where you have security. patrols, but we feel we need
something that tells us how it is going to work; and also we would like that to be reviewed by
the Sheriff's Department.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 6, 2009
Kevin Dare:
• Said there would be a security program for the project.
Gary Chao:
• Said that a retail option at the corner of Tantau and Stevens Creek would be covered under the
scope of the existing EIlZ, because it is the same type of use.
Com. Rose:
• Said that her questions were answered in the discussion.
Chair Miller:
• Said that in previous meetings, they discussed the possibility of putting additional units over
some of the retail shops, which is not present in the present iteration. He asked if that
consideration was dropped.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said they feel housing at this location would be successful; where we are at in the process, that
is not one of the potential options as ascribed in the EIR. We understand that the
demographics could be a very viable drop as shown by Metropolitan next door; but at the same
time we feel that these types of uses that we have will still be a very successful project and will
function well together.
Chair Miller:
• Suggested that if they re-evaluate the size of the senior units and increase them, it would
reduce the unit count. One way to make it up is to add some units over the retail stores.
• We are talking about a small amount of units. Given the fact you are putting so much office
space up there, it seems a natural place to put some housing where younger workers are close
to the office. We talked about this walkable community; you are just adding more of the
walkability aspect to it.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said that the use would be very good at this location; on the other hand as we have expressed
going into the project to the community, Planning Commission and Council, we understand
that the impacts to schools are a main driver which is not desirable.
Chair Miller:
• We discussed where the retail will go and where it will not go; I wanted to make sure we are
all clear from your standpoint what is saleable retail and what isn't. Last time we talked about,
staff had requested some retail on the backside of the hotel; are you still for or against that.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Referring to the site plan, there is retail under the senior housing that flanks one edge of Town
Square; there is retail completely underneath the office building; all of the orange or terra cotta.
elements are all retail; inside the athletic club they have a cafe and a spa that could wrap the --
corner' and what Kevin Dare was most worried about was the specific percentage of how
much retail ought to be on Stevens Creek;. If we found that the club really felt that was the
best location for what they are doing to have it on Stevens Creek, obviously we would.
• Presently, we are not committing to retail in the hotel, but chances are when you go to the
larger room format, there would be some retail in there. The smaller 150 room; typically has a
breakfast bar/dining area, but it is much smaller.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 6, 2009
• Said they were not considering retail on the south side of the parking structure adjacent to the
hotel at this point.
Chair Miller:
• If we look at the 30,000 sq. ft. unit at the corner of Vallco Parkway and Finch, the
modification with this retail shop at the corner, my question is, would it make sense to extend
that further toward the 30,000 sq. ft. building or not; does it take too much parking out.
Ken Rodrigues:
• It would take the maneuverability of the loading area; we did look at that and came up with the
minimum requirements for delivery of coke trucks, chip trucks, and we just couldn't make it
any longer.
Com. Kaneda:
• Does it make sense to make that retail area larger? Does the scheme that you have the loading
dock connected directly onto Vallco Parkway, make sense to look at going back to that scheme
with the loading dock connecting onto Vallco Parkway and then extending the retail.
Ken Rodriques:
• This plan is driven by the tenant, including that loading area; not to say it might not work; we
could explore it. I would not want a condition to have to do that, but that is a good one to look
at. It makes the condition of glazing a lot easier to accomplish on this corner with the loading
here, than it does there. We know that condition exists; we agree with that; staff s condition of
providing some glazing there; transparency and maybe even access there to activate there.
• One of the comments from staff as part of our discussion with them, are no breaks with the
curb cuts. It helps address that issue and gives us the ability to keep that front edge in that
corner.
Steve Piasecki:
• Because there is the possibility of having more people crossing through the front of that
30,000 sq. ft. tenant, the Commission may want to consider that the walking space should be
more like the walking spaces in front of the other retail areas, so that it becomes a much more
attractive and connecting type of element.
Chair Miller:
• Relative to the 30,000 sq. ft. building, he said it was not his objective to force them to put
retail there if it did not make sense. but to make certain they had the flexibility that should the
day come when there is retail on both sides of the street, they have the ability to fill that in as
much as possible.
Kevin Dare:
• That is the reason we wanted the other option; when Jim Shepard goes out to test the market,
the retailers don't sign a lease until the project is nearly complete. That is the first problem;
that takes a while to get to that point. In this market they may not even sign a lease when it is _
completed. I think this gives us some flexibility to do the continuous retail or this plan,
depending on which tenant we secure.
• Said they added the new driveway connection and reduced the size of the park on the site plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said her question was not relating to the reduced size of the building or the parking, it is why
the driveway? Would the retail be as successful if that driveway was gone, because it still has
the parking.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Yes, but it now has access into that parking from Stevens Creek and it also has an exit point
from it. I think that was something we reviewed with Public Works; they were okay with.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she was sold on the idea of equally spaced walkable city blocks and that it was a grid
system and now he grid system has been broken up.
Ken Rodrigues:
• He agreed that they have somewhat, but said they also want to make it viable too.
Jim Shepard:
• Expressed appreciation for the flexibility shown on the plan which provided a better leasable
retail plan than what they started with. He said that having the access point was important
because of the small parking areas where you come , in and then have to turn out; it allows
more flexibility and accessibility for the tenants. It is a win/win situation because you have a
way to get to these spaces, it is helpful for those two buildings, otherwise you would come in
and if those spaces are full you have to come out. By adding this parking area, it was helpful;
and adding the inlet and outlet helps these buildings immensely to lease. The reason is it gives.
me more flexibility in who I can put here.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said that the project is moving forward positively and has lead to a great deal of enlightenment
for the residents of Cupertino who can be part of the planning process for their end of town,
resulting in something that is beautiful, and will continue the green that is eastern Cupertino on
down Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said she was looking forward to having the double row of
Ash trees along Stevens Creek, and was pleased there was an attempt to save the Allepo pine.
• Said it was important to maintain the 35 foot public right of way along Stevens Creek, which
is the park strip; make sure there are Ash trees planted there and ensure that the double row of
Ash trees is around the perimeter of the entire property protected and not cut down.
• Expressed concern about the traffic problem and stated there were recently two accidents at
Calvert and Lawrence. She asked for assurance of a construction mitigation plan and that it
will not create massive traffic problems for eastern Cupertino. The 280 off ramp in Santa
Clara is within one-quarter mile of the project; we don't want to cause traffic problems.
• Expressed concern about the possible splitting into five pieces and asked that the Commission
make sure that all five pieces are under the same plan; no trees get cut down; and continue the
green! _
Ken Wong, Cupertino resident:
• Said the project was very important to the Metropolitan residents. One thing that has come up
several times in. the last three weeks is the fact that the park adjacent to the Metropolitan has
become smaller. In the beginning at the meetings, the proposed park was one acre, and in the
latest plans it shows it as .5 acres, which is a steep reduction. Many of the homeowners are
very concerned about how the park has decreased in size so quickly. He reiterated they want
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 6, 2009
to keep the open space as large as possible and with the last set of plans, hope that the
Commission will agree that the original size needs to be maintained.
Roberta Schwartz, Cupertino resident:
• Commended everyone's effort to put the plan together as it has been a long struggle to have a
downtown area.
• Asked what impact it would have on Vallco, which is presently struggling. Will it go out of
business?
• Said she did not understand the concept of having a sports center as the present one has been
struggling for many years.
• What is the present occupancy rate in the hotels in the area? Is there a demand for another
hotel, particularly in the present business climate?
• Expressed concern about the building standards in Cupertino, citing the complex on the corner
of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard.
• She questioned if there was going to be an anchor store, and cited several centers that did not
have an anchor store and did not survive.
• Questioned the reason for building more buildings when there are so many empty buildings,
and yet more being constructed and not leased out.
Chair Miller:
• Commented that the speaker's questions related to market driven issues, and the decisions are
in the hands of the people putting up the funds, who don't want to lose their money on
constructing buildings that are not used.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that the City does not make the decisions for private property owners about whether the
hotel demand is up or down. The first question related to Cupertino Square and what impact it
might have, which is the same impact that Santana Row had on Valley Fair; the two work very
well together and it is hoped that this will be a smaller format, more intimate environment and
good alternative to what is currently the hottest combination of centers in the valley. Also
Cupertino Square is about 1.2 million square feet; this project is only 150,000 square feet of
retail. It will not undermine, and it a completely different format than is the enclosed mall
type that Cupertino Square is.
• Pointed out that the current membership of the existing sports center is up.
• Relative to the current economic conditions, the current project won't hit the streets for about
two or three years, and hopefully the economic climate will be different by then. The property
owner who is adept at timing his buildings, will build the right buildings when the market is
responsive to them, including the hotel. There is currently a small demand for hotel space in
Cupertino.
• Relative to anchor stores, there will be a blending of smaller anchor stores and smaller shops.
He said one anchor store might conceivably be a high end grocer; and the athletic club
functions somewhat as an anchor.
• Although there are many vacant office buildings, Cupertino currently has some of the highest
office demand in the valley.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Kevin Dare, Sand Hill Properties:
• Relative to the use of park space, he said the two pieces are independent of each other. He said
they envision a smaller park with a tot lot, that would be ideal for the Metropolitan area and to
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 January 6, 2009
be able to program the park that way, with more privacy and an area to control the children.
The other area would be ideal for people sitting on a park bench, enjoying the surroundings
and perhaps having coffee and a bagel. He agreed that it was not a place to play football or
soccer, and noted Cupertino has other parks for those types of activities. He said he wanted
everyone to understand that they are trying to program both of these spaces to be a little
different, but to accommodate all of those different types of uses.
Chair Miller:
• Said he did not think of a specialty market as an anchor store in the sense of bringing other
supporting retail uses; and asked the leasing agent if he was concerned that this is a collection
of unanchored retail stores.
Jim Randolph, Leasing Agent:
• Said as the leasing agent, he was not concerned that it may be seen as a collection of
unanchored retail stores. The 30,000 sq. ft. space on Vallco Parkway is an anchor for 150,000
feet and that is a destination space that if we get a specialty market, it really helps lease shop
space. If you were to study throughout the Bay Area where Whole Foods goes, there is a huge
draw for tenants that just want to be in a center with Whole Foods. I think we are well
positioned; I understand the fears about vacant space; but the two spaces we have on both
cornerstones of the project are just ideal for anchorability, to support what else we are doing.
Chair Miller:
• Asked if it would make more sense for the project from a retail standpoint to have that other
space used as a major retail space, instead of a sports center.
Jim Randolph:
• Said they were both good, and they had flexibility. He said that Corte Madera had a town
center with a high end athletic club which served as a great draw for that center, because
people during the day will go and work out and will utilize the food shops and the retail also.
We are seeing more and more of that use complemented into shopping centers. Santana Row
has Club One. Major retailers in many cases don't want to go next to a health club because
they absorb their parking.
Chair Miller:
• Responded to the comment, stating that Peter Pau for a period of time owned the Oaks Center
and had commented that the Linda Evans exercise center just took up a lot of parking and the
people who frequented that establishment just went there and exercised, and then went home.
He asked if that model was changing from a few years ago?
Jim Randolph:
• Said that it was a test model for Express, which was come and go. This type of facility is
amazing, and is a family draw and clients are there for a greater period of time. Once you
leave the facility, there are many options within walking distance.
• Said the proposed facility will draw a different type of client than the Oaks Shopping Center.
Steve Piasecki:
• Summarized that the conditions in the packet deal with the less defined elements that they
would need to come back for architectural and site approval, namely the senior residential
building, the 30,000 square foot building in the back; as well as the athletic club. There is also
a requirement that the design of that building if it is an athletic club or retail shop, act as a
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 January 6, 2009
gateway element into the community. The prototypes of the athletic club would be hard
pressed to accomplish that.
Said the conditions address it; they would have to come back. He said they were satisfied that
the conditions as recommended, and even with the modifications that Aki Snelling went
through are satisfactory compromises and the applicant brought up -some additional
modifications, some of which staff does not have a particular issue with.
Review of Changes:
Annrove Exhibits:
Com. Brophy:
• To the extent that we are working off a modified site plan, should we understand that those
modified plans are the ones we are considering rather than the ones in the zoning packet. (Staff
responded Yes).
Development Approval:
Com. Brophy:
• Said he had an issue with that; as the development approval is written here, this turns down the
option of Plan B for the developer; also the numbers don't match up with the modified plans.
Said he would support either Site Plan A or Site Plan B, and would support Site Plan B,
subject to the clause of a General Plan amendment, so the issue of how much office space
might go here would come up again at the time that the Council considers a General Plan
amendment.
• Said he understood why the staff is opposed to it, but felt it at least should be up there and be
considered more at the time of General Plan amendment rather than throwing it out tonight.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said it spoke more toward the issue of how many square feet of office should be allocated to
this project, more than Com. Brophy's comment, but she was not comfortable with the amount
of square feet necessary in Site Plan B per office. She said she would not support that because
she felt it was not compatible with the proposed use for the project area.
Com. Rose:
• Stated during the last discussion that there was too much office space on that corner.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he thought Kevin Dare said that he could live with 100,000 sq. ft.
Kevin Dare:
• It is something we understand if the Commission is concerned about the office allocation,
maybe you can help me understand what that conditions 'means in the event that currently there
is 450,000 sq. ft. in the General Plan. I understand that City Council authorized discussion as _
part of the housing element to increase that to another 450,000 or 500,000 square feet. What
happens in the event that the General Plan with the additional office square footage does not
get approved; does that mean we have no office square footage or how does that actually work.
Steve Piasecki:
• Explained that the condition states that the General Plan amendment to allocate at least
100,000 sq. ft. would have to have been approved before; then you would be able to draw that
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 January 6, 2009
down. The Council's direction was take a look at how much office you can add without
increasing the housing allocation in our housing element and the General Plan. We think that
is somewhere around .5 million square feet, perhaps higher. We haven't gone through the full
exercise yet and won't be able to for a few months.
We know of other property owners in town who are looking at expansions; I feel comfortable
that 100,000 sq. ft. probably could work; 200,000 starts to get more problematic. We are fairly
comfortable with saying okay, we can go up to the 100K, even with the General Plan
amendment, it shouldn't impact the demands we are hearing from -some of our other major
office users in town.
Chair Miller:
• Said putting himself in the applicant's shoes, he would have a problem with this, because if
they are going to give approval for this project in the next few weeks, yet they don't really
know if they have approval for a few months until the allocation is decided; that is hardly fair.
Steve Piasecki:
• I am not addressing the fairness issue, as much as we have a situation where the first one in the
door is asking for a big chunk of what is left in our General Plan. The other ones haven't had
a chance to bring their proposals forward yet. There is no allocation for office in this location
now, so to say that it is fair to take it from other areas, and concentrate it here, and not let the
other ones who have made it known to us that they are also interested, also seems like a race.
Kevin Dare:
• Isn't that how the ordinance is structured, once we submit it, lining up I don't know two years
down the road who is going to file an application for the existing 450,000 square feet. I agree
with your concern because that is our concern, and hearing this tonight that was a condition.
We want to move forward with our plans; how do we do that if we don't know if we even have
"approval" for what is actually allocated for us. We are put in a very difficult situation
because we effectively don't have approvals yet.
Chair Miller:
• You are correct; and we can only make a recommendation at this level; it will be forwarded to
the City Council and when the Council hears this, you will really want to emphasize that
concern.
Kevin Dare:
• We would ask that the condition be modified to not have it be contingent on the General Plan
amendment being approved. As I understand it, the 450,000 square feet is not designated for
anyone in particular; and we understand there are concerns about allocation, and certainly that
is why City Council is going through the addition of the additional office square footage; but
to reiterate, I am concerned about not having clarity and certainty with that certain condition.
That makes us not at ease at all with that condition.
Com. Kaneda: _
• Said he was comfortable with 100,000 square feet; but not so with 200,000 sq. ft. because he
did not fully understand the process that City. Council is going to go through.
Chair Miller:
• No. 2.remains as is.
Cupertino Planning Commission _ 17 January 6, 2009
Com. Brophy:
• I have some more issues beyond the question of Site Plan 2. It seems for Condition No. 2, we
should also be adding a clause that says "as an option to both plans, the northwest corner of
Stevens Creek and Tantau Avenue may be developed with up to 36,000 sq. ft. of retail space,
and 162 parking stalls, with appropriate reductions in other uses." That is approving Option
No. 3 . I have objections to the other options, that is why I specifically put in No. 3 .
• As a fmal clause I would suggest, this deals with the issue that Chair Miller raised, I would
add a clause that is not exactly binding, but at least opens up the door to possibility in the
future; and that is "should the applicant so desire, the Planning Commission will entertain the
conversion of office space allocation to residential use, subject to a limit of an average of two
bedrooms per dwelling unit; any such re-allocation from office to residential use will be
subject to staff review and the public hearing process. A supplemental EIR may be
necessary."
Gary Chao:
• If the Commission wishes to go in that direction, they probably need to add also that a
supplemental EIR be done to assess the school impact, because it talks about different type of
residential use that wasn't covered in the current EIR.
Kevin Dare:
• Asked if there were other uses besides office that would be contemplated as an exchange.
Com. Brophy:
• I am opening the door for consideration by the City Council and by you as the applicant, given
the problem that exists with the General Plan as office space allocation. It is offered as
something for you and the Council to consider; I don't think it encumbers you in any way.
Kevin Dare:
• Is there another use that we can add so that if it's office and/or another use, such as retail, that
we can have that tradeoff. Also in terms of square footage; because the other option would be,
we have a lot of effective allocation or commercial space square footage that we can draw
upon from this location. If we were to actually re-allocate some of that square footage which
should not have very much traffic .impact, or other types of environmental impacts, re-allocate
that for housing, that would be something we would consider.
Com. Brophy:
• Whatever you do, you will have to go through the public hearing process if you want to go
down this road. I am putting it like this just to put both the applicant and City Council on
notice that we as a Planning Commission have thought about this issue and have opened the
door for consideration.
Kevin Dare:
• That is fair; we are supportive of that.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt that it wouldn't be additional traffic compared if you changed it on aone-for-one
square foot basis, from office to residential; and if we limit the bedroom count, the impact on
schools would be relatively modest.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 January 6, 2009
Kevin Dare:
• We would support that; and perhaps if the addition, is if we not only say "office square
footage" but also would have the potential tradeoff for retail square footage.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he would prefer to keep it the way it is for now; and the applicant can look at it down the
road if needed.
Chair Miller:
• Said that he was suggesting that they not reduce the office space, but put additional housing
units above the retail.
What they are defming here is a multi-use project that generates traffic for the retail at
different times of the day. The office plays into that and I bought that concept. If you reduce
the office space, then are you weakening the center?
Com. Brophy:
• No; I think there is no question. First of all, I think the important thing, and we have had this
discussion before that the amount of support for the retail that comes from the people who
actually live on site, or work on site is minimal. To some extent what we are creating is a
stage by which we encourage people from the larger community and beyond the community to
come, but the amount of retail space that will be supported by 100,000 or 200,000 sq. ft. of
offices, is minimal; 1,000 feet or such.
Chair Miller:
• Yes, but it adds to the office space across the street, and then becomes a little more substantial.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he did not think that was the case; it is not like the people in the office buildings or
residences within this site or even within a block or two will be sufficient to support the retail.
They are there as more to create a stage for the downtown rather than actually providing
sufficient spending power.
Steve Piasecki:
• .Commented that if it is looked at as expressing a sentiment of the Commission that would
become memorialized presumably by the City Council, and it says we would be willing to
consider this; the reality is the applicant can come in with any amendment versions of this
plan. Let's say he decides the athletic clubs are out, a larger box is in, they can come back at
any time and ask for amendments and wouldn't have to go through the same process just
described.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked if it was necessary to have that language in there, seeing that the applicant would need
to come up, and as Kevin Dare said, he can't adequately predict if that allocation is going to
increase for office space and they are not awarded that 100,000 square feet. Any use that they
would like to make to this plan they are going to have to come back through, have further
public hearings, perhaps supplemental EIRs. Shouldn't we leave those deaf on that point until
the applicant figures out what they might want to do.
Com. Brophy:
• That is fine; I thought it would be a way to open the subject up in a form other than
discussions we have had. He is here, has heard it, and if he would prefer not to have the
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 January 6, 2009
language or if the rest of the Commission would prefer not to have. the language in this
particular condition, that is fine.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said there was also the option of leaving it as part of the minutes, or do a Minute Order.
Com. Brophy:
• Said it seemed like a step too high.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt there was a benefit in increasing the size of the senior units; and if that is done,
would reduce the number of units. A way to offset that would be to put some additional
commercial, either on top of some office space or on top of some commercial space. It is also
a good place to put some additional units, not senior units, that may be occupied by young
engineers, similar to Metropolitan, because we are adding this office; and there is office across
the street and on the other side of Vallco. We are talking about tens of units, and I cannot see
where that would have a major impact on schools, but could have some benefit to the
immediate vicinity and in terms of the walkability in reducing a lot of traffic.
• There are two objectives here and I saw that as one way to try to resolve those issues.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he could support that.
Chair Miller:
• Said the only add to be made was the addition of one option.
Com. Brophy:
• Northwest corner of Stevens Creek and Tantau; may be developed with up to 36,000 sq. ft. of
retail space, 162 parking stalls, with appropriate reductions in other uses which in the current
scheme would be eliminating the athletic club.
Com. Rose:
• Said she needed to understand it better and would comment after more information.
Gary Chao:
• The concern here is that there is no guarantee that the deal will close on the athletic club, so
the question is what then.
Chair Miller:
• Com. Brophy's recommendation is not to eliminate the athletic club, but only to allow an
option if that doesn't come through. The option would be 36,000 sq. ft.
Com. Rose:
• Said that was a reasonable proposal.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not like that alternative.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she was comfortable letting the market decide which is a stronger vehicle; whether the
athletic club or retail on the corner; and she was comfortable with Com. Brophy's additional
language.. Said she was concerned that they had not talked about the size of the hotel. At this
point, it is up to a 5 story, 250 room hotel; if we decide that is too tall, too many rooms, do we
need to modify that to reflect what we are actually recommending.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they would have to modify it to reflect the recommendation.
Chair Miller:
• That is fine; what I think I heard you say with regard to Com. Brophy's recommendation was
you are okay with that; it passes. The next one you raise is the 250 vs. the 150 rooms; and you
are not comfortable with the 250 rooms.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she did not know; and was interested in hearing comments from her colleagues.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported 250 rooms because he sensed it would likely result in a nicer hotel than a
150 room hotel, from a quality standpoint; the 150 being a lower end hotel with what they
were talking about with just a breakfast area, as opposed to a fairly nice hotel with retailing.
Com. Rose:
• Said she did not have a preference.
Com. Brophy:
• It seems to me that the 150 was plugged in with the athletic club, and the 250 was plugged in
with the office building which I gather we have struck down; so I am not sure there is a matter
to be decided here. I have no problem with the 250 room hotel vs. 150; as far as rooms, the
high end hotel that was proposed that is before us next week on DeAnza Boulevard is only 13 8
rooms, so I don't think you can judge quality on numerical count.
Chair Miller:
• The number of room will remain at 250.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that one of the concepts of the plan is that it is flexible, which it needs in the current
market and the community also needs that. Staff likes the idea that you can add alternates and
switch in and switch out.
Com. Brophy:.
• Suggested another change to No. 2: Strike the last sentence "ground floor level of the office
building ... shops". Obviously that is the intent of the plan, I think given the difficulties of the _
economy and the fact that this is such a complex project, I would not want to lock the
developer into requiring that every single space necessarily be retail on the ground floor; and
encourage the developer to come up with a plan that if necessary, has less retail space, but that
the leasing agent, the project manager really feel confident will be successful. For this project
to work as a downtown, what we need' is high productivity retail with activity happening. The
last thing we need is space that turns out to be unleasable or leasable only to low class uses
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 January 6, 2009
that degrade the quality of the downtown. I would like to strike this out with the
understanding that the bulk of the space will be retail in any case.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not agree.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said it made her nervous; and she understood the perspective that they don't want to tie their
hands and they may need to pepper in a real estate office or such in there: There may be
something that is not a traditional retail use and I understand the gesture you are trying to
make; but I think the key to the success of the project is populating the area around that park
with retail uses, and that is the only way it is going to work in my mind.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the developer already has the motivation to do that and he felt it was not necessary to
hold Ken Rodrigues' hand as he designed every detail; it is counter-productive and in this
market it would almost guarantee to lead to a worse project, not a better project. He said he
would rather give the developer the opportunity to tweak it every possible way while still in
the site review process and Design Review Committee still have the ability to make sure that
the underlying concept is maintained. That is why I would ask you to consider giving the
developer in this case more flexibility than you might otherwise do.
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested, instead of eliminating it entirely, inserting the words "the majority of the ground
floor."
Com. Rose:
• Said her concern, especially around the Town Square, is if any of that were to not be retail, the
whole vision of this project that we have as the city of Cupertino, is going to be changed. It
makes the entire project different. I respect what you are saying, but am wondering if there is
a compromise, but I could just see if, for example, it says here under the senior housing, if that
wasn't retail, that whole side of that square is going to be used very differently than what we
are all really excited about; and what we have been hearing from our residents in all the
community meetings of what they want.
Chair Miller:
• Said that Mr. Piasecki offered a compromise; instead of striking it, add the word "majority" ...
"the majority of ground floor level."
Com. Rose:
• Said she did not think that anything around the perimeter of the town square should be
anything but retail. Perhaps in the office space that would be an area to be more flexible.
Vice Chair Giefer: _
• Said she concurred; it is a deal breaker for her. There are other parts of the project where she .
would not hold their feet over the fire.
Chair Miller:
• Said there was consensus on that; that one is not going to fly.
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 January 6, 2009
No. 3
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she felt uneasy especially after the recent Vallco/Cupertino Square experience where that
particular property owner started having fmancial problems, and sold off the subdivided
parcels. The whole area is not going to be developed cohesively, and she is concerned that the
first portion of the project will get built and the subsequent subdivided pieces will get sold off.
She questioned how to successfully get the project they desire and the great work the
developer is capable of, and actually have it delivered before they give away the subdivision
rights. ,
Steve Piasecki:
• Said an option would be to suggest that the fmal map for the individual parcels will not be
recorded until such time as either the project is committed, vested, started, etc., or you would
have the situation where you allow the tentative map and they could spin the individual parcels
off, but those property owners would be locked into this plan. On the athletic club parcel, you
would have the athletic club or option 2; those are the only options you could use.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt the subdivision was to the city's benefit, because in this particular market, if the
developer doesn't have the funds to build the entire project out himself, it gives him the option
of selling one of the pieces off to someone else who could build it out; that is potentially a
benefit.. The fact they are locked into this plan regardless of who builds it out, I don't care
who builds it out, as long as it is built to the specifications and conditions we put on it.
• What is our consensus on the tentative map subdivisions?
Com. Rose:
• Using the economy, I think I am more comfortable with this as an option, rather than
compromising on that retail space around the park as an option. I would support this.
Com. Kaneda:
• The way that breaks up, I am okay with five subdivisions.
Com. Brophy:
Okay
No. 4
Consensus okay.
No. S
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it spoke to the question raised earlier, do you want to have anorth/south pedestrian
.possibility through the park between the senior units and the property line and up to the north
property line; you could add that in there if you felt it was appropriate.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he preferred to leave it for staff to work on at the time because the one thing discussed
was the design on the west side of the senior building. If that has stoops on it, I think there is
some discussion needed that I would trust staff to make that decision. If it is windows and a
wall, it would probably makes good sense to do that, I would like to see if we need to amend it
so staff has the option of making it part of the public way; but is not required to; is there some
way we could do that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 January 6, 2009
• Consensus to leave it as is.
No. 6
Okay
No. 7
• The developer requested that. it be during normal business hours with provision for flexible
hours for approved community events.
Steve Piasecki:
• They defined normal business hours as 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; in the summer it is light until almost 9
p.m., would you want to have more flexibility on what is normal business hours. Say that the
hours would correspond to when the retailers are open.
• Consensus above is okay.
No. 8
Com. Brophy:
• I think we should delete this completely. The point made earlier, is that this is essentially a
campus type project; trying to force retail into the health club or a five story hotel, I don't see
what the benefit is, since we are providing plenty of one story retail. I would suggest we take
the entire clause out.
Com. Kaneda: Supports that.
Com. Rose: Leave as is.
Vice Chair Giefer:
I would like to take the section that mentions the town square because I feel it conflicts with
our previous discussion with regards to mandatory ground floor retail in the town square.
Chair Miller:
• Said the tone of it is to say that any buildings over 45 feet in height need to have retail. What
we are trying to provide more flexibility with is not with requiring retail on the hotel or the
athletic club sites along. Stevens Creek. Why not just exclude those two.
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested that the Commission fmds that the provision of retail throughout the overall campus
satisfies the General Plan requirement for ground floor retail for the buildings that exceed 45
feet.
Com. Brophy:
• Said they should resist the temptation to try to design every building and every little feature.
He hoped they could consider looking at projects as what is important for it to work from the
community perspective and let the developer and his professional team work out the details. -
To the extent they keep doing this, it makes it much less likely that any project will be built.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he would agree if the developer said he had a problem with certain things; but he hasn't
said that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that it went back to the root of her fears; that the entire project won't get built. This
developer is great and will deliver what they say they are going to deliver, but what if
something happens and it ends up in someone else's area.
Com. Brophy:
• Said the staff tried to foresee that in Item 13; that is why that is there and that deals with that
concern. When we try to go beyond that to start working out every last detail, I think that is
when we make it harder for the developer to build it at all, and if he does build it, to make it a
successful project. In this particular case, I think that the interest of the city and the developer
are aligned and I am trying to make it easier so it will be a better project for the community,
not just that it is easier for the developer to finance and implement.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I agree with Com. Brophy, but more with Com. Kaneda because my overriding concern is that
it will be subdivided, sold off and we won't get exactly what we are voting on tonight. I would
like to take the suggested language that Kevin provided.
• Consensus on that.
No. 9
Okay .
No. 10
Chair Miller:
• Suggested additional language, that "the applicant have the option of paying an in-lieu fee." I
have trouble with affordable senior housing; if it is for sale, it doesn't make sense at all; if it is
for rent, perhaps it makes some sense. In general it doesn't make a lot of sense for senior
housing in my view. The money could be better used by the city in another area of the
community.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation they feel appropriate.
The Below Market Rate housing manual does not allow an in-lieu fee and this would
presumably entail the Council saying they would amend it to allow it; you would then have to
define "in-lieu fee"; is it the equivalent to the cost of providing the units or is it our other in-
lieu fees which don't come anywhere near the cost of actually providing units. There is no
mechanism to do that at this point; it is required of all housing developers.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not feel it was a bad idea, but he was concerned there is no mechanism to do that
and it seems problematic.
Com. Brophy: _
• One argument in favor of it, is that there are a lot of senior housing arrangements that are not
exactly rental or ownership, you have life interests where it is hard to figure out how you
would handle that in a BMR type arrangement, so I could see a senior project would make
sense to have an in-lieu fee and let the city attorney figure out how to handle the details.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I recall that when we did the apartment/condominium conversion at Aviary, one of the things
they did was the BMR units became rental units for disabled persons; so rather than having
them be for sale, as an in-life interest or an outside sale, that is another option that we could let
them investigate. I think one of the problems that I have with allowing in-lieu fees is staff s
comment that you never recoup the full cost, and with the price of real estate in Cupertino, the
value of the land makes it prohibitive to purchase it and develop the units as the city has. I
personally would rather have the developer just build the units and make them available and
meet our current requirement. I think it is one of the most expeditious ways to make the units
available to people who are in need.
Kevin Dare:
• Said they would support an in-lieu fee; there are many instances where the in-lieu fee can be
used in a very effective and specific way; you have all the funds now for those .particular
programs that you wouldn't necessarily have in this type of specific development.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said a backup option the Commission has is to suggest that they either provide it in the project
as it is required by our BMR unit, or provide an equivalent number of units offsite, meaning
they could go to another location, build a 24 unit or whatever it is, open BMR type affordable
units, not necessarily senior, to get the Chair's suggestion. That could be a city funded project
where the city is trying to do some affordable units, similar to CCS Vista Drive. There maybe
a number of ways to accomplish it.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was likely that the Housing Commission would like to weigh in~on whether and how
you go about doing this; the Planning Commission could do a minute action to the Council
saying that we are concerned about how you provide affordable senior units, and would like
the Council to direct the Housing Commission to look at alternatives to satisfy this condition.
The Housing Commission would be like the Planning Commission in making their
recommendation; it wouldn't necessarily require their concurrence with the Council, so you
would express your concern and then ask the Council to ask the Housing Commission to
explore different options.
• Consensus on that.
Chair Miller:
• Pointed out a recent newspaper article where it stated that because of the economy, in some
parts of San Jose, it has become a problem because some market rate housing in some areas of
San Jose are now less expensive than the BMR units; and should that happen in Cupertino, this
program is not flexible enough to deal with that situation.
No. 11
Okay as is.
No. 12 --
Chair Miller:
• Asked if they should allow them more residential units in case they decide to build them, or
just leave it at 160?
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 January 6, 2009
Kevin Dare:
• Referred to the statement "the applicant is authorized up to 100,000 sq. ft. of office space ....
requested" and said the contingency makes them uncomfortable because it is contingent upon
the approval of the General Plan amendment. One option in terms of incorporating Com.
Brophy's statement, is "the applicant is authorized up to 100,000 sq. ft. of office space. If the
General Plan amendment is approved by the City Council, the applicant may increase the
office allocation to 200,000 sq. ft. as requested." He said it would provide the flexibility
proposed; but the baseline concern is to remove "that is contingent upon the General Plan
being approved."
Chair Miller:
• Presently there is sufficient office space allocation to satisfy this project in Cupertino.
Steve Piasecki:
• The downside is we are trying to respond to the very emphatic letter we received from Apple
Computer that they have a concern about giving this much square footage to this applicant at
this time. We were trying to be responsive and say there was a way to address it with that
future allocation should that become real. Again, the Commission can make any
recommendation they wish.
• Said they have had discussions with Apple about wanting to come forward and lock in some of
the current General Plan square footage and they haven't. A formal application needs to come
forward; they intend to ask for that.
• For the major corporate headquarters holders, there is 150,000 sq. ft. for major corporate
headquarters; that is not enough to satisfy what their wishes are.
• The total available allocation is over 430,000.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she heard the applicant say that the office space is very important to them as part of this
project, which originally she started out at 60K, and now was willing to concede to 100K. Said
when they deal with their major corporate headquarters companies in the city, they need to
make sure that they are moving ahead with their interests and try to satisfy everybody.
• Said she would support staff's language of the General Plan amendment; though I recognize
that this seems unfair to you because you are here with a plan before us now. This is a
recommendation to City Council, City Council is the one that will ultimately make that
decision and vote to increase the allocation in the General Plan. You also made the comment
regarding senior housing that based on the square footage of the housing, it almost takes you to
the entitlement position of requesting 80,000 squares for commercial; so if the seniors housing
were to change or the housing component would change, one might also say there is some risk
there for the city; we are willing to give you more than what you "would be entitled to" based
on the housing numbers.
• Said she would be supportive of staff's language and let City Council make the ultimate
decision.
• Said she would support that, but originally they started out with staffs original
recommendation 60,000. She said she would not support 200,000. _
• Said she was willing to give them 100,000 sq. ft.
Kevin Dare:
• Our concern is that our project is put on hold until and/or if that happens. The concern is
effectively the approvals we have are not really enforceable because I can't actually have our
architect or design team make any type of plans or make any type of commitments. The
biggest issue is the lender who asks what did get approved, which puts us in a difficult position
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 January 6, 2009
because nothing we have is actionable any more. In effect, we have to come back in six
months once it's already done.
Com. Kaneda:
• We understand that and even if we say we will give you 100,000, we can't give you 100,000 in
the end, because City Council has got to give you funds, not us.
Chair Miller:
• We only make recommendations on this; so from that standpoint we can only recommend that
the Council do something or not do something.
Com. Kaneda:
• Ultimately the Council will have to support that and even if we say that they could not support
it and change it back to the original language, I am not sure you are talking to the correct
group.
Chair Miller:
• From the standpoint of do we want this project to move -ahead or not; what is our
recommendation to the City Council?
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was willing to recommend 100,000; and no other requirements.
Chair Miller:
• I agree with that because I think all we are saying is we are in favor of this project. If City
Council has some different way they want to do it, or they want to add additional allocations to
satisfy some other developers, or Apple when they eventually come in, that is going to be the
Council's decision anyway. We are just recommending that we should allow this developer to
move ahead expeditiously and not get into the issue between this developer's square footage of
office space and Apple's. We are not getting involved; all we are doing is recommending that
we approve this project and allowing the developer to move ahead. It is then up to the Council
as to whether they want to make the developer wait until they vote on something else, or they
want to allow that or they want to talk about some other options. .
Com. Brophy:
• Does that mean we are going to ignore the question of General Plan allocation?
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed with Com. Kaneda's suggestion; that we just say they are allowed 100,000 sq.
ft. and take out "if a General Plan amendment is approved."
Com. Brophy:
• What does that mean in terms of allocation; the defmition means something out of the General
Plan.
Chair Miller:
• We are recommending that the squares come out of the existing pool; in the current General
Plan, it allows us to move squares from one area of town to another to satisfy a particular
project. The General Plan already allows us to take some allocations from a different area of
town and to give them to this particular project in this area of town. It doesn't require a
General Plan amendment to do that.
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 January 6, 2009
Com. Brophy:
• We are making the decision to take that space away from someone else.
Com. Kaneda:
• Ultimately, some of the other projects that want to go ahead are talking hundreds of thousands
of square feet, much more than is allocated now. For them to go ahead, there is going to have
to be a General Plan amendment anyway; which is why I am in favor of just moving ahead.
Ken Rodrigues:
• Said that in good faith, Sand Hill Property Company has worked diligently for 1-1/2 years on
the proposed project. He applauded the hard work of everyone involved, noting the amount of
time and .work involved. He noted that other potential corporate users have not brought
anything before the Planning Commission. He said that some of the other corporate users are
not standing up and doing the right thing and adding senior housing, but Sand Hill is doing
that, which is a powerful statement. It is 160 units added to the housing pool. He asked that
the facts be considered in the deliberations of the applications.
Com. Rose and Com. Kaneda:
• Support 100,000 sq. ft.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Still have a problem with not adding the General Plan amendment.
Com. Brophy:
• Said that Mr. Rodrigues' point was powerfully made; I think the reality is that he is pointing
out that Sand Hill had worked very hard on this; the other issue though is that Apple is the
largest employer in this city, largest taxpayer, and I am undecided. I have a conflict of
matters.
Chair Miller:
• I think that Apple is going to get all the allocations they want from City Council; and that we
should not be holding up this project because of something we cannot decide here. If we like
the project, I personally like the project and would like it to move forward, and so I am
inclined to say, let's not put obstacles in their path. If City Council wants to do that, it is their
prerogative to do that at this point. I don't want us to try and second guess the City Council; I
just want to approve the project.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she would not vote against the project if the majority of the Commissioners wanted to
move in one direction; but it is difficult to support that without the amendment.
Chair Miller:
• Summarized that there were three Commissioners in favor.
No. 13
Com. Brophy:
• This is well thought through and I think this is an important item to maximize the likelihood
that the project will be implemented.
• Consensus.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 January 6, 2009
No. 14
Vice Chair Giefer:
• In addition to what is already here, they need to meet our parking requirements for surface
parking with regards to catching water. I think they will accomplish much of that with the
pavers planned. There are some other things in our parking ordinance that haven't been
mentioned that I would like them to pay attention to.
• What I have added is "surface parking must meet current parking standards."
Steve Piasecki:
• Condition 14 is trying to get at the drainage and issues.
Nos. 1 S and 16
Okay
No. 17
• Change as requested by applicant.
No. 18
Okay
No. 19
Com. Brophy:
• Part A, does the City Council approve architectural and site approval applications or would
that go to Planning Commission or DRC?
Steve Piasecki:
• When the plans are as unspecified as they are, it is recommended they go back to City
Council; if the plans are specific, staff is fine with the drawings they choose.
Chair Miller:
• There was a request by the applicant to de-couple the street furniture. Is that okay?
Com. Kaneda:
• DRC instead of City Council for the street furniture.
Com. Brophy:
• Recommended that both the corner building and the garage be deleted. The corner building we
have talked about having prominent architectural design enhancements; now we are looking at
either 30,000 sq. ft. retail building or a health club and once we get past all the good language,
there is no way you are going to make those prominent architectural buildings. It is not
possible to have things like glass storefronts and interesting and unique architectural features,
and still have a tenant who is willing to pay the competitive rate.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for architect and retail opinions on that.
Steve Piasecki:
• The architectural advisor offered some suggestions for how retail building could be fairly
modest and still create a gateway building.
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 January 6, 2009
Com. Brophy:
• Said with all due respect to the architectural advisor, he felt Ken Rodrigues had more
experience with retail architecture.
Ken Rodrigues:
• The retail buildings what we have already designed, we would clearly just move that type of
feel in architecture, giving the quality that we are already showing at town square; that is in
our control. Sand Hill Property owns that, they would be the client driving the design and they
would just drive it the same way they have the rest of the project.
Com. Brophy:
• My concern is that the language about having prominent architectural design enhancements
runs up where you are expecting a design level on this particular site far above what we would
expect elsewhere in the city. You are going to run up against the unwillingness of tenants to
pay for extra costs. There may well be inexpensive features you can do to improve the quality
of the building but to believe that you are going to get a prominent architectural design
enhancement for a small amount of money, I think is not realistic.
Kevin Dare:
• Referring to the corner building along Tantau, there are some different options. You have the
lifetime fitness club and they understand that the corner element is very important as a
gateway feature to the project coming into the city, and they are well aware of that. We are
going to have to treat that corner very well. The defmition of prominent gateway feature is
unclear; it can be interpreted many different ways.
• The other element to this, and this is not just talking about the corner building but also the
gateway feature into right in front of Tantau and Stevens Creek, would be something that we
have talked to staff about that there would be an architectural element or gateway feature not
associated necessarily with the building but as a gateway element to the area itself.
Com. Brophy:
• It is your money; if you have no objection to the language, I will withdraw my objection, but I
am concerned that in order to make this project work, that retail tenants tend to beat you down
on rent, especially in this kind of market. I just want to make sure you feel you can live with
this language.
Kevin Dare:
• Said it was a good point; and asked for a defmition of a prominent architectural design
enhancement because it is very subjective.
Steve Piasecki:
• If this building had been designed you wouldn't need this condition, this condition is only here
because we have nebulous plans being brought to us and we would have been very happy if
they had shown us one of the other designs that Mr. Rodrigues worked on. It would probably
have more than satisfied this condition. The athletic club is problematic in my mind; I don't _
know how you make that big box look. like a gateway building. Again, they have chosen to
punt on this and we are saying we need something to back us up. There is a big community
interest in how this building looks. This is the best language we could come up with; we
would have been just as happy if they designed it already.
Chair Miller:
• Pointed out that they had to come back to the Planning Commission.
Cupertino Planning Commission 31 January 6, 2009
Kevin Dare:
• Relative to the garage issue, no problems with the conditions, because if we were to convert to
retail, we know we have shown you what it would look like, we have shown you that we could
do it.
Com. Brophy:
• If you are happy with it, that is fine. The thought that there is going to be a retail strip along
Valico Parkway borders on the delusional; we can't fill retail space along Stevens Creek
Boulevard which has six lanes and approximately 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day.
Chair Miller:
• Consensus for changes on No. 19.
No. 20
• Satisfies the art requirement.
• Okay.
No. 21
Okay
No. 22
• Staff wants to add 22d. "For any trees that require removal due to construction plan drawing
changes and/or construction activity, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit in
accordance with the protected trees ordinance."
• Consensus okay.
Nos. 23 - 26
Okay
No. 27
• Request from applicant to add language "in effect at the time of approval"
• Okay
No. 28
• Staff supports the change
• Okay
No. 29
• Staff: we said that we think you could possibly reduce it; a figure of around 65k from 96k; we
didn't think we should go all the way because we would have expected them to make some
kind of connection across there.
• Also want to cross out the one sentence they requested. _
• Okay
No. 30
• There was a staff requested change that it not just be tot lots.
Cupertino Planning Commission 32 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer
• Expressed concern about the driveway; said she bought into Ken Rodrigues' proposal that they
were coming up with a walkable city grid system with minimal turns. Said it would be a better
project if they eliminated the additional driveway and increase the size of the park, keep the
parking near those two retail buildings but eliminate the driveway. I like the idea of the
symmetry of the walkable blocks with less driveways; it allows us to present a little bit larger
park.
• Said to keep the roundabout if it serves the purpose of turnaround if there is no parking
available.
Com. Rose:
• I see your point, but one of the reasons we brought this up at the last meeting and again
tonight, is that there was some connection with the viability of the retail there to this design.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• My take away was the parking, that is why I am supportive of keeping the parking there.
Com. Rose:
• I thought the entrance allowed for a more successful retail.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• That is what we heard this evening. I will acquiesce to the major; it is a concern of mine.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said one option that the Commission has would be to go to the line drawn. but give the
applicant the option of pulling back the retail shops slightly to accommodate at least a
driveway in; which results in a bigger park, a slightly smaller retail building with at least a one
way drive if not a two way.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she would like a bigger park, but has an issue with the driveway.
Kevin Dare:
• Said that a concern they did not raise yet, was that they did not want to create a traffic jam in
the event they close off the access out, and there are cars coming in because they can't see
parking along that area, and they drive, through and there are no parking spaces.
Com. Rose:
• Not many people use Memorial Park which is up against Stevens Creek and the grassy area
close to Stevens Creek, because it is not a place you would be comfortable with children under
age 10 for safety reasons. I like the idea of a tot lot, but to be safe for children the area needs to
be safe and fenced along the busy areas.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• If you are going to keep the driveway, you need to keep those crash bollards there we have
discussed.
Com. Rose:
• Is there a possibility of moving retail down and having that buffer that road between two
.buildings.
Cupertino Planning Commission 33 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• I agree; this is Stevens Creek where people consistently exceed the speed limit; whatever the
use of the park is, it does need to be sheltered or fenced off and I would suggest that any
ingress points along Stevens Creek if that driveway remains, that we need to do something to
prevent the possibility of people from driving into the park and running over the children in
the tot lot or the elderly people sitting on the park benches.
Com. Brophy:
• Said they were excellent points, but if the retail is going to work, they have to give some
reasonable consideration to having aingress/egress system that works.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that Kevin Dare's concern about creating a traffic jam was a valid one, since it is a blind
parking lot. Said that he felt it needed to stay.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• As she was the only one with a concern about the driveway, she suggested verbiage to the park
area along Metropolitan No. 30 that "the area be screened off or fenced off from traffic, and
that the design of the adjacent park area to the driveway onto Stevens Creek be reviewed by
the Parks and Rec Commission, looking at safety."
• Okay
No. 31
Com. Brophy:
• Suggested deleting reference to safes. It is a step too far in micro management; there is no
reason to require housing units in this project to have safes; it is a business issue, not a
planning issue.
• There was consensus to have the market address the safes in the senior housing units, not the
Planning Commission.
Ken Rodrigues:
• The senior units are secure; not to say that room to room invasion may not occur. Said he
liked the staff suggestion to have a security plan.
• Remove reference to safes in senior housing units.
• Okay
Nos. 32 - 35
Okay
No. 36
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said there were some things noted in the EIR that were not included in the construction
management plan, and suggested they be added: (1) Equipment staging should be no closer
than 200 feet to the existing residential buildings; Metropolitan and then senior housing. (2)
Diesel engines should not idle longer than 5 minutes.
Aki Snelling:
• Said they would be added as part of the condition for the mitigation monitoring report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 34 January 6, 2009
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said that in the past there has been a phone number and construction manager's name posted
for residents to call if there are violations or issues with the construction. She suggested that it
be added for the convenience of the Metropolitan residents.
No. 37
• The applicant agreed earlier that they would obtain LEEDS certification with the goal of silver
Com. Kaneda:
• Recommended that the hotel, office space, and senior housing be LEEDS silver certified to the
appropriate LEEDS standard; the remaining buildings be designed to a LEEDS certified
standard which is a lower standard than silver. Also solar for hot water and pools. Retail or
athletic club does not require certification.
No. 38
• There was a request by applicant after Stevens Creek Boulevard saying directly adjacent to the
subject project site.
• Okay
Nos. 39 - 42
Okay
No. 43 +
• Gary Chao indicated those were Public works conditions; all are standard conditions that
would be associated with every type of similar project. Only suggestion is wording change
from "tentative map" to "fmal map" on the last two conditions as a reference; (Nos. 72 and
76)
No. 60
• If they did less than the plan, they would do the pro rata contribution.
No. 62
• Instead of relocating the bus stop, we are looking to improve bus stop and are excluding- the
requirement of duck outs and relocation of the bus stop itself.
• The bus stop improvements to be designed to VTA's requirements.
Steve Piasecki:
• Relative to a condition that speaks to narrowing Vallco Parkway, he said the condition that
speaks to the development plans that you are approving shows that configuration; that is what
is being approved. It shows on the plans that angular parking is being put in there.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• There was a request for a change to Condition 72 and 76 from the city; change Water District
approvals to be required before final map recordation, rather than tentative map. _
Com. Brophy:
• Staff had asked that the layout of the major tenant building on Vallco Parkway be required to
have retail space facing on the parkway. Since I previously said that I don't think that Vallco
Parkway will be successful as a retail street, I would request that we deny that request.
Cupertino Planning Commission 35 January 6, 2009
Chair Miller:
• Isn't that addressed by giving them approval for the different options?
Com. Brophy:
• Referred to Page 3 of the staff memo where it shows the existing scheme which was the truck
entrance through the square, showing alternate Options 1 and 2; and said that if Option 1 is
implemented there must be a retail storefront provided along the northwest corner of the major
retail building facing Vallco Parkway. He recommended that it not be required of the
developer and that the alternate Option 1 be acceptable as shown,
Chair Miller:
• Said it was not in the conditions of approval, therefore it is not in what is being approved; it is
in the staff report.
Com. Brophy:
• Clarified that for site approval, they are not agreeing to that request.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that since it is not in the conditions, no further action is required.
Chair Miller:
• Make sure we are clear on the options. With respect to the northwest corner of the project,
there were two options. Is everybody okay with approving both options.
• Consensus to approve both options.
• Southeast corner of the project: not approving the office space; the other two options are either
the retail or the exercise center.
• Okay to approve both options.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that all changes made in the .use permit are replicated in the architectural and site
approval and will be made automatically. If there is anything in the tentative map we will also
make those automatically.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve U-2008-01,
ASA-2008-06, TM-2008-O1 and TR-2008-08 and the final EIR and statement
of overriding considerations per the model resolution as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COn'IlVHSSION
Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting..
Housing Commission: Com. Kaneda reported that there was a tour of some low income housinjg
projects.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.