Exhibit CC 11-15-2011 Item No. 17 Darrel Lum Petition for Reconsideration of EXC-2011-10 Cc 1 ► I-'7
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF EXC-2011-10
SUBMITTED BY DARREL LUM NOVEMBER 15, 2011
GILBERT WONG, MAYOR
MARK SANTORO, VICE MAYOR
BARRY CHANG, COUNCILMEMBER
ORRIN MAHONEY, COUNCILMEMBER
KRIS WANG, COUNCILMEMBER
DAVID KNAPP, CITY MANAGER
AARTI SHRIVASTAVA, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CAROL KORADE, CITY ATTORNEY
RE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
AGENDA ITEM #18, EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN, EXC-201 1-10
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN, EXC-2011-10, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 , I E-MAILED TO ALL OF YOU ASKING,
"WHAT FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WAS THE BASIS FOR
AUTHORIZING EXC 2011-10, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF
THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A FRONT SETBACK OF 30 FEET FOR
BUILDING F @ 20750 STEVENS CREEK BLVD."
To DATE, NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, PROMPTING THIS
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
ON NOVEMBER 1 1 , 2011 , I REQUESTED A COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S
REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC
PLAN.
ON NOVEMBER 15, 2011 @ 8:20 AM, RESPONSE HAS BEEN
RECEIVED. THE EXCEPTION REQUEST DOES NOT SPECIFY A REASON
FOR THE EXCEPTION, EXCEPT FOR "IMPROVEMENTS PER THE
MODIFIED HEART OF THE C:ITY PLAN...."
PETITION
The petitioner alleges that the City Council did not make the necessary findings required for an
exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
RESPONSE
The project was approved in accordance with the required findings needed for a Heart of the
City Specific Plan Exception:
1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with
the goals of this specific plan and meets one or more of the criteria described above.
The development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and the specific
plan. The project will help instill a `'sense of place" by creating community gathering
places with appealing architecture and pedestrian-oriented streetscape features. The
location of the building was or000sed after all efforts were exhausted to meet the
prescriptive development standards in the specific plan and to maximize parking for the
development.
5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification
of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary
to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
The strict application or the front setback requirement does not allow for the most
efficient parking layout and maximized parking supply. In addition. the buildable area of
the lot is constrained by a grade difference and the location of a large oak tree. The
intent of the specific plan is addressed with the building positioned to promote an active
streetscape. Furthermore, the City Council required the building to be setback additional
four feet to 30 feet.
COMMENTS
Regarding
...unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards
...meet one or more of the criteria described above
As follows:
STAFF REPORTS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CIT'
COUNCIL CITE UNIQUE LAND USES AS:
3
City Council Staff Report/September 6, 2011
Setback Exception
The applicant is requesting an exception for a reduced setback of 26 feet along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, where 35 feet is reqLired by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The exception is
requested due to the phv sical c)istraints of the parcel containine Buildin<_ F. such as _rade
differences het\\een the °rort and rear half of parcel and the presence of a lar_ee oat: tree near
the huildine. The proposed s for increased parking and a more efficient parkin__
la■out. In addition,the treatment in the 26-foot landscape easement/public sidewalk area
proposed by the project is consistent with the commercial district. The City has granted simils
exception requests in recent years (e.g. the Peet's and Panera building across the street). The
Planning Commission supported the exception request because it would help enhance the
streetscape with activity closer to the street and there are a number of existing buildings along
Stevens Creek Boulevard that are closer than 35 feet to the curb.
OAK TREE
PARKING LOT
GRADE DIFFERENCES
BEFORE WE ADDRESS THESE "UNIQUE LAND USES," WE WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS OTHER ASSERTIONS IN THE STAFF REPORTS,
THERE ARE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT AND THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT THAT " THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ALONG STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD WITH SETBACKS LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE
SPECIFIC PLAN."
AN EXCEPTION CAN NOT BE APPROVED BASED ON AN EXCEPTION FOR
OTHER PROJECT(S).
PETITION
The petitioner asserts that an exception should not be approved based on an exception for othe
projects.
RESPONSE
This is not a ground for reconsideration. Also. the City Council based the approval of the
exception on the merits of the applicaticn.
CORRECTION
5
DECISIONS. A SHELL MAY HAVE: BEEN VIEWED IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT.
SPECIFIC REFERENCE FOR A SPECIFIC RESTAURANT WERE:
CORPORATE BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
SIZE
FRONTAGE
CORNER ENTRANCE
TERMS OF LEASES
DEDICATED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
TIME OF THE ESSENCE
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
COMPLETION DATE
THESE REASONS DO NOT SUPERCEDE PUBLIC POLICY SUCH AS THE HEART
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN.
EXCEPTION TO HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN STATES THAT:
...AND WHERE ALL EFFORTS TO MEET THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN
EXHAUSTED.
NO ALTERNATIVE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
PETITION
The petitioner alleges that no alternative plans have been submitted to Planning Commission
or City Council.
RESPONSE
The City does not require alternative plars to be submitted for exception applications.
However, various setback alternatives were discussed at the Council hearing and the Council
finally adopted a revised setback of 30 feet for Building F.
COMMENT
THERE MAY NOT BE A REQUIREMENT. BUT AT LEAST SOME ALTERNATIVE
PLANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNED THAT COMPLY WITH THE HEART
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLANS 26 FEET BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE
EASEMENT AND 9 FEET SETBACK WHICH WOULD GIVE THE PLANNING
7
2. THE PRIMARY BULK OF BUILDING SHALL BE
MAINTAINED BELOW 1 : 1 SLOPE LINE DRAWN FROM
THE ARTE:RIAL STREET CURB LINE ....
B. FRONT SETBACKS
1 . MINIMUM SETBACK - FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE 35 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE CURB
(NINE (9) FEET FROM THE REQUIRED BOULEVARD
LANDSCAPE ELEMENT: SEE SECTION 1 .01 .040(D)).
D. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
1 . BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - ALL NEW
DEVELOPMENT SHALL ESTABLISH AN EASEMENT
TWENTY SIX (26) IN WIDTH ALONG THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE.
A. EASEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
THE E:ASEMENT SHALL CONSIST OF
(I) A CURBSIDE PLANTING STRIP TEN (1 0) FEET If
WIDTH,
(II) A SIDEWALK SIX (6) FEET IN WIDTH, AND
(HI) A BACK-OF-WALK PLANTING STRIP TEN (1 0)
FEET IN WIDTH
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 9 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED BOULEVARD
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT. SETBACK IS DISTINCT FROM THE BOULEVARD
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT.
THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR USING
AVERAGES FOR LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND SETBACK.
#2. GROUND FOR RECONSIDEIRATION: AN OFFER OF RELEVANT EVIDENCI
9
RESPONSE
The approval in question was for the core and shell of the building pads and the floor plan
provided by the applicant did not indicate a separate bar, as it was yet to be finalizes by the
future Islands tenant. If Islands request a separate bar within the restaurant, then they would
be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, which would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a future public hearing. Regarding the parking ratio, the City typically requires
1 space/3 seats for bar seats ondy not the entire restaurant. Restaurant seats require a
parking ratio of 1 space/4 seats....
COMMENT
First mention in City document that shell of building is the subject of this application.
For the first time. in the October 201 1 Kahn Design Associates letter states that this
application for an Exception for the Heart of the City Specific Plan is for the shell buildings
only. .
Interpretation of parking ordinance for restaurant with bar is ambiguous.
THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS WITH SEPARATE BAR IS
NOT AN OBSCURE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES RESTAURANTS WITH SEPARATE
BAR TO HAVE USE PERMIT APPROVAL. NOTE THAT THE RESTAURANT
WOULD BE THE APPLICANT.
IN 2006 THIS REQUIREMENT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS
APPLICATION FOR AN ISLANDS RESTAURANT IN THE VALLCO
FASHION PARK SHOPPING CENTER.
PARKING RATIO: 1 PARKING SPACE FOR EACH SEAT
AND IN 2009 THIS REQUIREMENT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE
APPLICATION U-2009-04 FOR THE AQUI RESTAURANT. IN THE DE
ANZA CENTRE SHOPPING C:ENTER. ANOTHER BYER PROPERTY:
"RESTAURANTS WITH SEPARATE BARS ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE PER THREE RESTAURANT
SEATS PLUS ONE PARKING SPACE PER EMPLOYEE.
PARKING ANALYSIS
RESTAURANT
11
PERHAPS THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH THE
RESULT THAT AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
IS NOT NECESSARY.
#3. GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION: PROOF OF FACTS WHICH
DEMONSTRATE THE CITY COUNCIL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
RENDERING A DECISION WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS
OF FACT; AND/OR RENDERING A DECISION IN WHICH THE FINDINGS
OF FACT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT "THE GRADE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
FRONT AND REAR HALF OF PARCEL" IS A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT.
THE NATURAL GRADE OF THE SITE SLOPES DOWN WEST TO EAST.
THE NORTH/ SOUTH GRADE IS MAN-MADE WITH AN 18 INCH HIGH
RETAINING WALL AND 4 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK SOUTH OF THE
RETAINING WALL AT THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT SITE IN
PARCEL #359-08-020. RELOCATING THIS RETAINING WALL SOUTH 0
THE SIDEWALK WITH APPROPRIATE GRADING WOULD GAIN AN
ADDITIONAL 4 FEET SETBACK. A SOUTH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
SHOULD BE DONE AT THIS POINT.
PETITION
The petitioner alleges that there are no physical constraints on the Building F parcel to prevent i
from being setback 35 feet from the curb as required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The
petitioner suggests relocating a retaining wall and adjusting the lot line to gain an additional four
foot setback.
RESPONSE
...At the hearing, the petitioner did not provide these specific suggestions to meet the setback
requirement. The City Council can only act on the facts and evidence on hand vnvnen its decisior
is renaered.
COMMENT
Not sure the public is responsible for antviding specific suggestions to meet the setback
requirement Fact and evidence were available for the City Council, Planning Commission. and
Planning Department, SUCH AS
13
EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE EXCEPTION
TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.
THIS PETITION FOR RECONSIDE:RATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEART
OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED.
15
C c L5(11 E� (7
Karen B. Guerin
From: Keithddl527 @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:48 PM
To: Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Agenda Item 17: Reconsideration of EXC-2011-10
Regarding City Council Agenda Item 17; Reconsideration of an exception to the HOC plan, Petition for Reconsideration of
EXC-2011-10 requested by Dr. Lum
Dear City Council
Cupertino's General Plan, a plan once crafted in partnership with your constituents to give our elected leaders clear
guidance for our city's governance and your once official mar date to act on our behalves, this document has been hi
jacked by non elected actors.
You, the City Council, have willing and enthusiastically transferred your powers of governance over to actors who do not
have to answer to the electorate, clearly you do not wish to lead any more, perhaps you desire just the robes of office, the
stylish title, the simple ceremonial duties, or why would you undermine your elected duties and responsibilities, not just for
yourself, but for all future city council's by default as well?
Appeal's requested by your constituent's of your prior approved exceptions or variances to our General plan, to a specific
plan, to our zoning—to our municipal code in general—these appeals are a reflection of these individual's or group's
desire to challenge any defective legislative act of the planning commission or city council or any administrative approval
by unelected city official, as your constituents are typically motivated without regards to personal gain, but with a deep
heartfelt civic duty to protect our fellow residents, as you feel empowered to act once too.
The old guard of Cupertino which wields power has been knocking heads with upstarts from all areas of our community,
those who dare to voice contrary ideas for our city's future direction. That heated dialog has come a long way the past
few years and where once there was only fear there is now a begrudged growing respect, perhaps these groups will never
become friends, but they do have a common political enemy and that is against manufactured consent, rather
facilitated manufactured consent, which can be turned against not only the lone voices in our community, but against
the old power structures too, and those that wield it unwisely, as no one is immune to this anti democratic virus once it has
been let loose in our community.
It must be understood, as your constituent's clearly understand today, that our city's general fund is held hostage by many
actors; federal, state and county, with each actor desiring specific actions in trade for supplying ongoing funding to our
community, the trade of choice, is for changes to be made to our General Plan, as community development pressures
fabricated from outside our community have shouted down our own resident's desires for community development as
directed by our own general plan documents. Typically, our overseeing bureaucratic actors demand revisions to our
general plan which go against our community's quality of life manifesto, so your constituents are under attack.
Our voices are made mute with every professional consultant group that city staff hires with your city council's uninspired
approval, these professional facilitator's who can manufacture a"group think" consensus, whispering away community
descent with polite algorithmic precision, then claiming that a majority public mandate has been magically reached,
freeing our city father's to act as they alone desire, avoiding any true consensus building efforts, dirty as that process may
be, but taxpayers paid the ultimate price for this deceit all the same, as manufactured consent now replaces-your once
inspired governance-shame on us all for letting this come to pass.
Resident's have been quietly counting there pennies, selling off unwanted possessions, gathering these funds to renew a
dialog with their elected officials, you, the city council, and with the actors who direct you from behind the scenes, benign
or malignant as they may be, as we now understand we have to"Pay to Play" as the pain of the status quos is now too
painful to ignore, equally vast is the manufactured distance you desire to keep us at, why our appeals now come at a very
high price.
But we can whisper too, we will respectfully request that government transparency be restored, we will respectfully ask for
our three minutes at all public hearings, we will politely ask that administrative approvals be posted on the city's web site,
we will exercise the appeal process as never seen before in our city's history, as the betrayal of authentic governance has
come at too great a price; I will miss some of my possessions, but I will not sit by and do nothing, as will many in our
1
community too, as we all begin a new dialog and exercise our rights together, messy as that community effort will surely
be.
I am writing you today in support of the reconsideration of your prior approval of EXC-2011-10, city Council
Agenda Item 17,which is heard before you tonight.
I support the General Plan, hence I support the Heart of City plan and I support the clear direction that the city council's
recent review and update of that specific plan was thought to have strengthened, giving clear guidance to both
applicants and your constituents, but apparently not to the planning commission and the city council yourselves, who even
tonight wish tosevisit tha HOC plan to make_yet more punitive changes and continue to undermine_our general plan's
guiding mandate, while you remain deaf to your constituents voiced concerns, ignoring the reconsideration before
you, pushing your legislative deeds into the early morning once again, as most governance is now done by your
esteemed body when our residents are asleep in there beds ... this is your mandating body?
No.
Respectfully, with insomnia,
Keith Murphy
10159 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-252-6503
2
CC 11 - 15 - 11
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Your Partner in Silicon Valley
November 15.2011
Cupertino Chamber of
Commerce
20455 Silverado Avenue
Cupertino City Council Cupertino,CA 95014
Tel(408)252-7054
Cupertino City Hall Fax(408)252-0638
10300 Torre Avenue www.cupertino-chamber.org
Cupertino,CA 95014
2011 Board of Directors
Board Officers
Re: Support for Cupertino Crossroads Redevelopment Paula Davis,President
Flint Center
Dear Mayor Wong and Cupertino Councilmembers, John Zirelli,VP Special Events
Recology South Bay
I am writing to express the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's support for the Cupertino
Kevin McClelland,VP Membership
Crossroads redevelopment as passed by the City Council on September 6,2011.This Development
redevelopment will not only compliment current projects in the area but will also help Leeward Financial&Insurance
Services
with creating a compelling place to shop,dine and gather at the heart of Cupertino.
Matt Wheeler,VP Finance
As noted by the architects of this project,Kahn Design Associates,the Council should be LMGW Public Accountants
recognized for the amicable and comprehensive deL,berations that took place during the Darcy Paul,VP LAC
September 6 meeting. The motion passed that night:reflected and addressed the Law Offices of Darcy August Paul
concerns expressed by Cupertino residents and Councilmembers.In addition,the
motion also preserved the character of the project that will ensure it becomes a popular Relatonsde,VP Community
amenity for residents. Vallco Shopping Mall
Lynn Ching,Immediate Past
The Staff Report,as well as the Architects'testimony detail how restrictions at the site President
(Island's requirements,oak tree preservation,and grading to name a few) require the Sustainable Living Group,Inc.
granting of an exception.Furthermore,this exception will help with reinvigorating the
commercial and recreational opportunities at Cupertino Crossroads,while still Board Members
Neil Bhatnagar
providing a comfortable 30-foot setback for residents and visitors. BowlMor Lanes
Yogi Chugh
State Farm Insurance
Given the compelling benefits for the community and Cupertino businesses,the Mike Foulkes
Chamber respectfully requests that you support the Cupertino Crossroads Apple,Inc.
Redevelopment as approved and decline the reconsideration. C m G�opa6akery
Lennies Gutierrez
Best regards, Comcast California
Butch Harris
• PG&E
�,//��Q�J Sandy James
it'G Sandy Cement Company
Scott Jeng
HSBC Bank USA,N.A.
Paula Davis Dean Munro
President Via Services
Mahesh Nihalani
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Jewels in Style
www.cupertino-chamber.org Barbara Perzigian
(408 252-7054 Cupertino Inn
) Maria Streeby
The Cypress Hotel
Vicky Tsai
Dry Clean Pro
rri
•
---+ k
•
fl■ Nicw■lic•0.--
•
l
js •
•
.
!`
M r
2 . ,.ApF.. ......„-- •.,, ' I •:::.:.... , i ?
, . 1 1
•
• Id s. 1 ' c,—
70 4
i ffti — J Vim,•
s I.I I J 2.5x N V �� \.mi . � r-:''
•
1�
° I —
:
n
i 1 in
I
•
• sws
.•l.r [ I N 11 ..' N 17
Al 66•• '^�1IIt 1
=
8f UO
/G o
p s6 p
i .�
•
1
g?s aJ
l
•
•
.. '
•
J .
, -
Fri
, . , • .
-S'
,..
r, \ 1
C ,
71
0 . .. 1
'-\
. .
, ,•'' ,
(A
,
: . II. • . I .. , ,
. ,
, \
..,
...
cl
, ..
' ,.. IL- - -•--- -' ‘,, .
•
1J ,
______ . —. •
•
. . . .
: .
,..
,..
•.. ,I1 .
,. .
. . . ... .. .. . . ,
. ,
..,_,._
1": ' A '::' .. 1Xk'o, '-) '' ''"7 • ': ; '''I — , 'I; pr. ii,,
.. . . .. ..:
.. ...)4,0,. .,........ ,,„.
_ . ..... _
= ,,,.__ . .,
.. . ,\....
1 ,'.111 '
_e,„,k, . . .... I',4,,,,-''''‘,-. ',„ I
1 4/
rfl 4,;., • 4...,......‘....._., -.1
, ...
4 .
7, ‘
. ,..
. .
•'..,
1. — ';'' .. . ••
0 -
....
•••
--r—i-Mr —
n.,,,, E.
...
,j :,.. ),
. : . ..
LP
..-1,. • t 8
„4 \TAI. 2 ..F.—--cr__..,.,,c37c, ----' ' 1-----, • ..-------d _I'L ';_.,... ' 71'.1.,. ..:
,f4' __,..,_,LiI.
.•
rn . .
.
,• ,. T r ' ' . :-..- . ,....
m :
. ....,,,, .....t.„ . .
_,..,,,...„
. ... . ...
. . . ... ..... ..
1,,,,. ..... ...---. . . , „ .....
t.,
4 4. • . . ,
co
. ,.
........_. ,,......**.._,-_. .,,
0 .:
: ' ',,..;•v. ,:.
.,.
P 1 I
,
in 1---
r .
. ,
.... , 1 i.,„5,
--------: .
, .
...
, .. .. •
.
,
:•.,.,9,
1 4 '5:9
1 1°:
, II64 . H 4.,/
.---"-.' . s''
• ,,
I,X : 't• F
ri
;4.
p II '4'1 I ...410 c;,,,.. •/ ,,,tr
........7.,‘ .. .
',,is ---
.
.1'
A‘, ‘ „ ,---1-1------ -=‘ ' : 0'. -- .
4 , ! , ... ......... . •
..*..,-----------,-,-,_...4,,
4 . ,••,, , _ ..."k4t...''''
6:0
l,•
...
I ,
. .
s, it
, .
. i :.....
•,..••
.,
..,
_ „...
,,.
• e .
;.:
ii
L )
' ,tb4''s • I ' ,
.-• 4‘,,,
l..,, • .
...„
;'.! . •i : .
• . . ..,. .
. . • ..
•
• ‘411 i 1 • L.,,,, ; iii. . ,..
..
.N
if...3 ip.., ..„ ,.
, , 4.. ... • .
..:
. •
..., I ,
, ! . ,. 4 1 ,
i 1 E . „...,
: .., ....,:..,: , ..
••
. , , , :
al . ::: . ..
In OM MI
■
•
':^•-.•.-�,.�„�.,�.... ._ � .. � •+....... .. .. ..: � • _.. .Ili 1. ' •• •' ••,
2.,..S,S�s :' C..› )1. IV
1 a 1..' \* . .■
1 • ••• .
,..,,,,‘„ .• ....
. .. ._
„....„.:„.....,,,...„.". ..:...: ..
,, ,,_„::. : .: . .. .„ . ,
, ,
•
•
, , ..........., .....,. ...,.. ......... . .4.,..
;...,,••••• .. " . '
Ail: • . !.'''Ni ,
•
•
I •' "I‘ii :
•
. . [.../1 Ak,
11/15/2011
Address: 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
(Crossroads Shopping Center)
I'etIBoner: Dr. Darrel I.um
Applicant: Mark Creedon(Byer Properties)
Applications: DP-20I1-03,ASA-2011-12,GXC-
201 1-10,T R-201 1-30
• Construction of two new building pads and
demolition of one existing pad (Marie
Callender's)
• Sidewalk,landscaping,lighting,and street
frontage enhancements-similar to"I] Maxx
approval
• Parking lot improvements
• New pedestrian plaza, fountain,seating
areas,and other amenities
• Removal of 79 trees and replacement with 90
1
N� ? .g _Prop.rtylow �.
ji r \�vA Perking la area of work
} €�
ti'S x wbvklavnge
Gcnid Lx rm r
�•:�k � ��Bldg down woo of work
." ., • • r ®Pobbc ROW ono of work
1
11/15/2011
• Aug.9,201 I: Planning Commission
recommends approval of the project
• 5gp.h,2011:City Council approves the project
with the following key changes:
• Review parking a year alter completion
• Remove parking spaces near central Oak tree
• Building F shall be setback:10'from the curb
• Allow restaurants to comprise 15%of shopping dr.
• Sep. 15,201 L:Dr. I_um files petition for
reconsideration
• l?xccption Findings (physical site constraints,
alternative site designs K past exceptions)
• Parking Assessment(bar ratio& parking
supply)
• "I heOrdinanceallo,n5 chopping center parking demands to
h'assessed through a comprehensive parking study
• I'm king study surveyed the entire shopping renter,
including restaurant uses and found that the project
proposes adequate parking supply
• Citi',gill reeicry an additional parking suns ev a year atter
construrtinn completion
• The approval did not include a bar for Islands. Islands mill
be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit it a bar is
proposed in the future.
• I IOC Spec ilk flan allons the('ity to approve exceptions
provided the required findings are made.
2
11/15/2011
Iherroject 15 a`,approtcd in accordance,citit the rrytlire('
hJk Spec ilic Plan ryception findings:
I.
Ow pr,q r,rd dcach Fria (i l it",(,corrl
Pi 1■od,itir Ha' „I Ilu>,I,r,Oa phm uwf nnrl.✓nr ar rrtr,rr,d Nrc
tr florid Jr.,rit'rd u�. 'r.
I ho tlrcr lul,mriit is 0111cr„isr,umistrnt„1111 Ihr h ti S l,tnorol Plan and
thosl,,'1111 plan.l It 1,o nlci t„dl hole instill s"sons.el How"Itt uralny,
,nnununll,0,1t i i,n}''hla„'',„0th 01100111T an hilt,hilt'and 11r1.s0601 1-
01 Wilted stmtlx al,c t.dlures. !he le,aIiuu ill Ihr huildinr„as 1,ro1,nsod
01(01 AI 01101 to moot Ihr pour 111111 rc,lcv'10011 11
standards In Ihr 4 11,1 ht plan and to ms,iml.'o pat lkln',,tar Um
dov toi ent.
pn'pu.,d dcrrinpotan,Nan Hot id illi11001,i■,l'rol'rrhl ill 111y,,,,,m rrl>
iu 16c 111;,1 r1.Y hr doh inrnlhd h,l6r pal do lo-,rlt6,old„d,�t 1/.
I he dr,th,pmrnl 11111 not Ti'injurious h,proprrti or[micro,colon's in the
aria nor ho d.lri uent.il to the public heolih and sslbt,.
•1, l ; I4.'lfif"1 llc.l," ..'! I'
16r],rnp,'x,1 rl,rrloprenll rill nri r 1,,dr a ha.md,an rudil i,m t✓r p,dr.Ki,m
,vlr❑0IW'HON,
I he dr,rtlemcnl„ill not irate Hazardous,0101100ns tot nodes('alit and
,chit!rim ball.,.
d. Ilea jorxvJ dnatorit rut lout lr,d,a,i ,I,,0,1,1i,.11c,11,11111 roll,
a,,u,dh�In ur,e'llrr der,by auto 1.
I hr dt,rle1,monl h,n Io'',1 atorss in 1,01,11,',lreols and 1,01,110 wool,e,der
00/00/10/11 r■ j ti, with 111 I,..Nor la y,-1
,hapi r¢,r.,,rr p t,, ,,I 16,'1'011 ri,
l h.',trill appli,111,m t,l Ihr bunt sriha,I.royuirrinonl duos not ally,,lo,the
most oili,font pal Ion,;Ia,nut mod liar tons,stll!Iv,In additum.Ihr
buildeblosoi•s of the lot is,,, ,trrolnod b,a grads,,110',000,s, the 114010/11 of
1,11,;000ktmo. Ihrinlenlnt the !tit 111,111 1,and ms, d,)1111 II,,'',Wilding
p,01,0ned to pmuwtr an at ln,'shot'(soap..I 1.11 OW1111010.the(It L mutt it
rcyuln'd Ihr tnlildi 11/to he solbatk,u,additional tont loot to 3U loot.
I I.1• t,"1';`4)(f t t"°t 3 I. L t �e s l t }• \ 4)i '`,
• I heCiti tt,llootcd the required procedures,including public
notification and htopublic hearings.
• I xistim;site constraints nix 0 lar,fe Oak tree and};rack
diflerences.
• the c4reption involves the least rimditication of the
development regtilations u Itt(iin}�parl.iitg and
preservation of the Oak tree h,accomplish a reasonable use
of the parcel.
• I)en elopment is gencr,tlly'consistent it ith CAP and zoning
• l he project actil'ltes the streetscape and creates a"sense of
plate"-consistent itith the I IOC policies.
3
11/15/2011
Adopt a resolution to deny the petition seeking
Council reconsideration of its decision to
approve the I leart of the City front setback
exception (I:XC-2011-10)
4