Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10 300 TORRE AVENUE • C UPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF R EPORT Meeting: May 1 5 , 2012 Main Street Cupertino mixed -use developm ent Subject Planning Commission Recommended Action On March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the following on a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Lee voted No) (See Attachme nts A and B for Planning Commission R esolution No s . 6684, 6685 & 6686 and Minutes ): 1. 2012 Addendum to the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Modifications (M -2011 -09) to the previously -approved Master Use Permit (U -2008 -01), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA -2008 -06) and Tree Removal Permit (TR -2008 -08) t o allow for a hotel of up to 250 rooms; 138,700 square feet of retail/athletic club space; a 0.8 -acre town square; up to 289,000 square feet of office space; 143 senior age -restricted condominium units; a 0.75 -acre park, removal of 61 trees and relocation of 17 trees ; 3. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA -2011 -24) for the office, retail buildings, parking garage and hotel ; 4. Tentative Map (TM -2011 -04) for a total of seven lots and 143 senior age -restricted condominium units as proposed by the applicant; 5. M odif ication of Condition No. 5 to replace the requirement for a 400 -person banquet facility with a 6,500 square foot r estaurant and meeting space; 6. Extension of permit to expire five years from the date o f approval of this modification; 7. Preservation of the exi sting Ash trees along Vallco Parkway as the street trees; 8. Allowance to apply faux balconies, rather than useable balconies, on the hotel exterior; and 9. Removal of the requirement in Condition No. 6 requiring that the applicant provide free VTA passes to the seniors living in the senior housing complex for one year. Staff specifically recommends that two of the Planning Commission recommendations be modified . The first recommendation is to modify Recommended Action No. 2 as noted below r egarding the parameters of the development approval based upon the applicant’s submittal of revised development plans following the Planning Commission meeting . The second recommendation is to modify Recommended Action No. 4 as noted below regarding the pr oposed tentative map based upon staff’s concerns on the proposed subdivision of the project site. Staff’s recommendations include (see Attachment C ): Staff Recommendation
1. Modify Recommended Action No. 2 to read : Modifications (M -2011 -09) to the previously -approved Master Use Permit (U -2008 -01), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA -2008 -06) and Tree Removal Permit (TR -2008 -08) based on Option A(1)-2 to allow for a hotel of up to 180 rooms; up to 138,700 square feet of retail/athletic club space; a 0.8 -acre town square; up to 260,000 square feet of office space; 143 senior age -restricted (no condo minium s) units; a 0.75 -acre park, removal of 61 trees and relocation of 17 trees ; 2 . Modify Recommended Action No. 4 to read (see discussion on parcelization section later in the r eport): Tentative Map (TM -2011 -04) for a total of four lots including: one lot for the retail/athletic club, Town Square, park and parking garage; one lot for the senior units and retail below, one lot for the hotel; and one lot for the office buildings. In ad dition, staff would like the Council to provide comments and direction on the following two issues (discussed in detail later in the report): A. Retail Pads in the Town Square B. Type, size and amenities of the Hotel Applications: M -2011 -09 (E A -2011 -18), ASA -2011 -24, TM -2011 -04 Description Applicant: Kevin Dare Property Owner: 500 Forbes LLC Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (3 vacant lots) between Finch A venue and N. Tantau Avenue (APN 316 -20 -085, 316 -20 -078 and 316 -20 -079) Application Summary: The applicant has submitted three revised development plans (Options A (1)-1, A(1)-2 and B)(See Attachment W for plan set ) for consideration as a result of discussions during the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2012 . The applicant is requ esting approval of : 1. Modification s (M -2011 -09) to the previously -approved Master Use Permit (U -2008 -01), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA -2008 -06), and Tree Removal Permit (TR -2008 -08); 2. Architectural and Site Approval applications for retail shop bui ldings 2 -5, retail pad building 3, and the hotel ; 3. Tentative Map to subdivide 3 parcels (approximately 18.5 acres) into 5 parcels with 143 senior age -restrict ed units; 4. M odification to Condition No. 5 to allow for a 6,500 square foot restaurant in the hote l in lieu of a 400 -person banquet h all for a hotel over 160 rooms; 5. E xtension of the permit s to expire five years from the date o f approval of th is modification ; and 6. R emoval of the condition of approval requiring useable balconies rather than faux balconi es on the hotel. 7. Removal of the requirement in Condition No. 6 requiring that the applicant provide free VTA passes to the seniors living in the senior housing complex for one year.
Project Data Summary : General Plan Designation: Heart of the City Spec ific Plan Area Specific Plan: Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Zoning Designation: P (CG, OP, ML, Res) Gross Lot Area: 758,104 sf (17.4 acres) excluding Finch Avenue Finch Avenue Abandonment: 46,500 sf (1.1 acres) Total Lot Area (3 parcels): 804,604 sf (18.5 acres) including Finch Avenue Total Building Area: Option A(1)-1: 686,424 sf; Option A(1)-2: 678,924 sf; Option B: (exclusive of the parking garage) 686,224 sf Parking Garage Square Feet: Option A(1)-1: 464,254 sf; Option A(1)-2: 554 ,624 sf; Option B: 464,254 sf Total Parking: Option A(1)-1: 2,131 spaces; Option A(1)-2: 2,176 spaces; Option B: 2,392 spaces Setbacks Stevens Creek Blvd: 1.5:1 (1.5 foot setback for every 1 foot of building height); (Front/Corner Front) minimum 35 feet N. Tantau Avenue: 1.5:1 (1.5 foot setback for every 1 foot of building height): (Corner Front) minimum 35 feet Vallco Parkway: 15 feet from office; 20 feet from parking garage, 15 feet (Street Side Yard) from hotel, and 20 feet from retail or athlet ic club Side Yard Setback : One -half (1/2) the height of the building, or ten (10) feet, (next to Metropolitan whichever is greater and Rosebowl developments) Proposed Lots Areas: Lot 1: 1.67 acres Lot 2: 11.76 acres Lot 3: 1.41 acres Lot 4: 2.26 a cres Lot 5: 1.60 acres Development Allocation proposed (total available citywide): Retail Commercial: 138,700 square feet, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 2 12 ,8 77 s quare feet available citywide) Office: 260,000 square feet, 100,000 s quare feet of which was already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 20,536 s quare feet available citywide, except for North Vallco Park which has a balance of 87,746 s quare feet ) Senior Housing: 143 units, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 1,938 units available citywide ) Hotel: 180 rooms, already allocated in 2009 approval (balance of 269 rooms available citywide ) Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Project Consistency with Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Addendum to the 2009 Fi nal Environmental Impact Report Planning Commission Discussion On March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the modification s and associated applications to amend the previously -approved 2009 Master Use Permit with a development plan allowing for the most flexibility and maximum retail square footage and hotel rooms , with 138,700 square feet of retail /athletic club space and up to 250 hotel rooms (identified as Plan 3 A in the table below ). Other development plans (Plans 1A , 1B , 1C an d 3B ) with lesser retail square footage s were also reviewed by the Commission, but were not recommended for approval. Additionally, at the beginning of the public hearing, the applicant removed market -rate apartment housing from the development proposal (e ssentially removing Plans 2A and 2B) after hearing concerns from the community. The development plans that were presented to the Planning Commission (See Attachment D for Planning Commission staff report) for consideration are summarized in the table be low: Summary of Development Plans Presented to the Planning Commission Land Uses 2009 Approved Plan 2012 Plan 1A 2012 Plan 1B 2012 Plan 1C 2012 Plan 2A 2012 Plan 2B 2012 Plan 3A 2012 Plan 3B Retail (sf) 127,789 69,700 78,700 138,700 83,200 92,200 138,70 0 69,700 Athletic Club (sf) 145,000 60,000 60,000 --- --- --- 60,000 Office (sf) 100,000 289,750 289,750 289,750 289,750 289,750 289,750 289,750 Residential (du) Senior 160 143 143 --- 143 143 143 143 Market -Rate --- --- --- 120 105 105 --- --- Hote l (rooms) 250 180 180 180 180 180 250 250 Parking Supply 1,691 2,191 2,159 1,956 2,163 2,131 1,956 2,159 * All retail options include a maximum of 10% restaurant uses, consistent with the original approval. S ince the Planning Commission meeting, staff w as made aware by the environmental consultant that although the parking and trip generation analysis for the plan recommended by the Planning Commission (Plan 3A ) appeared to be within the parameters of the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), fu rther analysis by the environmental consultant recently indicated that this plan would actually create a new significant impact not previously studie d in the 2009 FEIR involving a Level of Service (LOS) impact at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and I -280. Because the applicant is considering only to modify the previously -approved Master Use Permit and associated applications, and to stay within the development parameters allowable under the 2009 FEIR, the applicant is requesting that the Counci l not consider this plan , and instead consider the newly proposed plans .
Revised Development Plans Following the Planning Commission mee ting, the applicant prepared three revised development plans (Option s A (1)-1, Option A(1)-2 and Option B as noted below ) (See Attachment W for the revised development plans) for City Council consideration as a result of the discussions during the Planning Commission meeting and in light of the recent environmental analysis that essentially determined Plan 3A would not be possible under the 2009 FEIR . Option A (1) -1 Optio n A(1)-2 Option B The applicant is proposing the following key changes as a result of the comments from the Planning Commission meeting that have been incorporated into the revised development plans : • Reversing the location of the park and senior housing so that the park is more internal to the site and adjacent to the existing Metropolitan mixed use development and future Rosebowl mixed use d evelopment sites , as well as to the senior housing site. The location of the park is consistent with the Planning Commission’s preference at the hearing on March 27, 2012. • Adding retail buildings along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the west closer to the Me tropolitan retail buildings and to the east closer to N. Tantau Boulevard to provide for greater retail continuity along Stevens Creek Boulevard and to adjacent sites. • Reducing the length of the parking garage, particularly along Vallco Parkway, by provid ing an additional level of parking each below and above ground. The parking garage is now proposed at
five levels above ground (as was approved in 2009), but with two levels of below ground parking. This significantly reduces the length and massing of the parking garage both along Vallco Parkway and internally within the development betwe en the hotel and the of fice building. • Relocating Office 2 further north to face Vallco Parkway, creating area for a retail building to front Stevens Creek Boulevard . • Inco rporating an auto court plaza between the office buildings that is visible along Stevens Creek Boulevard . • Providing two -story flexible space buildings allowing for ground floor retail space and second floor incubator space along the parking garage fronta ge . The incubator space would allow for small start -up / research and development uses. The two -story format would also reduce the visual impact of the parking garage. • Reducing the office square footage to 260,000 square feet. For the purposes of the c urrent application, the applicant is requesting that the additional allocation of 160,000 square feet be provided to them from the city -wide office allocation pool and is removing the request for the “major company” pool. They are however, prop osing to com e back in the future to ask for an additional allocation for 32,000 square feet to allow for a total of 292,000 square feet of office space. A detailed discussion of office allocation is provided later in this report. Option A (1)-2 is the applicant’s pre ferred option that allows for a total amount of retail square footage in the development of 131,200 square feet (with a maximum of up to 13 8,700 square feet), with 2 60 ,000 squ are feet of office , 143 senior age -restricted unit apartment with ground floor re tail space , a 180 -room hotel, a 0.75 acre park, and a 0.80 acre town square. This plan allows for a 14,500 square foot retail anchor at the southwest corner of the site along Stevens Creek Boulevard and moves the senior units to the northwest corner of th e site facing Vallco Parkway. Option A(1)-1 is an option that would also allow for a maximum 138,700 square feet of retail space, but proposes a 30,000 square foot retail tenant at the northwest corner of the site facing Vallco Parkway. Option B differ s in that 60,000 square feet of athletic club and 78,500 square feet of retail space are proposed in lieu of the total 138,700 square feet of retail as proposed in Option A plans . The athletic club is located on the northwest corner of the site. A summary of the new development plans is provided in the table below. Summary of New Development Plans Land Uses 2009 Approved Plan Option A (1)-1 Option A(1)-2 Option B Retail (sf) 127,789 138,700 131,200 with a maximum up to 138,700 78,500 Athletic Club (sf ) 145,000 -- -- 60,000 Office (sf) 100,000 260,000 260,000 2 60 ,000 Senior Housing (units) 160 143 143 143 Hotel (rooms) 250 180 180 180 Parking Supply 1,691 2,131 2,176 2,392
Since the applicant is now proposing these new development plans , staff has prepared new draft resolution s with conditions of approval that reflect the recommendations by staff based upon development plan Option A(1)-2, but to maximize the retail square footage to allow up to 138,700 square feet (including restaurant/eatery uses of up to 53,538 square feet), and to modify the tentative map to allow only four lots (combining both o ffice buildings onto one lot), as opposed to the development plan that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Staff has included new dr aft resolutions for the modification (M -2011 -09), architectural and site approval (ASA -2011 -24) and tentative map (TM -2011 -04) applications that are included as Attachment C of this report. Discussion During the March 27 th meeting, the Planning Commissi on had discussions on additional key items for City Council consideration. An explanation of the key issues and Planning Commission discussion are outlined below with staff’s recommendation on each of these items. 1. Parcelization The applicant ’s proposal a t the Planning Commission meeting included a Tentat ive Parcel Map to subdivide three (3) lots into seven (7) fee simp le lots, allow ing each office building to be on a separate lot, and to further subdivide Lot 2 into 143 senior age -restricted condominium u nits with a separate condominium for the underground parking garage for the senior housing complex. Planning Commission Recommendation At the Planning Commission meeting, a majority of Planning Commissioners recommended s ubdividing the site as proposed by the applicant. However, some Commissioners recommended subdividing the site into six (6) lots (both office buildings on one lot) and not to allow condominiums for the senior age -restricted housing, as recommended by staff. Staff Discussion – Modify Se ction No. 4 of the Planning Commission recommendations In light of the newly proposed options following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has removed the senior -unit condo minium s and is asking for a total of five parcels. However, staff still recommends limiting the subdivision of the site into only four fee simple parcels, with both office buildings on one parcel . With this parcelization, the project would involve subdividing three (3) existing lots into four lots consisting of one parcel wit h the majority of the retail space, the parking garage, town square and park; a second parcel for the senior housing and ground floor retail connected to the senior housing; a third parcel for the hotel; and a fourth parcel for both office buildings. The t entative map approved for the project in 2009 allowed for the creation of five lots; this would essentially reduce the previous approval by one lot for a total of four lots. It is also consistent with the previous approvals in which no condominiums were pa rt of the previous approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends modifying Section No. 4 of the Planning Commission recommendation to allow a total of four lots including: one lot for the retail/athletic club, Town Square, park and parking garage; on e lot for a hotel of up to 180 rooms; one lot for the senior units and retail below; and one lot for the office buildings. The applicant has indicated that he intends to come back later with a plan to condominiumize the senior units and retail below as we ll as the parking garage and attached retail. While no action can be taken on
this at this time, t he Council can provide comments on this issue. Staff comments on the potential future condominiums are as follows: • The Heart of the City Specific Plan cont ains a specific policy that highly discourages parcelization of sites. The primary concern with multiple parcels and condominiums include diminishing effects of the center's ability redevelop in the future; and inherent difficulties with having multiple o wners sharing maintenance, management and conditions of approval placed on a project. • Senior units and retail below – staff does not recommend condominiumizing the senior units. Staff is not necessarily opposed to the creation of a retail condominium on the senior housing lot, since it may be difficult for the applicant to find a senior housing developer that would also operate a retail component on the lot; however, if a retail condominium is considered for this lot, then staff recommends that this retai l space be placed under the same ownership as the rest of the retail space in the development. • Parking garage and retail - i f the applicant wishes to pursue a separate lot for the parking garage ownership , which includes two retail/incubator spaces, staff recommends that this retail/incubator space also be placed under the same ownership with the rest of the retail space in the development. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to comply with the requirement that all the retail be under on e ownership if he pursues condo minium s for the senior housing and parking garage . 2. Office Use and Allocation – General Plan Requirement The proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission involve d a request to develop two office buildings totaling 289,750 s quare feet , in lieu of the previously -approved 100,000 square foot office building. It was noted that this would require an additional office allocation of 189,750 s quare feet. At the time of the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant was requ esting that this additional allocation come from the Major Companies office allocation pool, since there was not sufficient unrestricted office allocation available , even with the pooling of the unrestricted office allocation from other areas of the City. The previously -approved 100,000 square foot office was approved using the unrestricted office allocation available at that time . The restriction with the Major Companies office allocation requires the applicant to “demonstrate that the (office) development positively contributes to the fiscal well being of the City,” in accordance with General Plan Policy 2 -20 (Diversity of Land Use), Strategy 3. However, s ince the Planning Commission meeting, staff has determined that there is an additional 61 ,179 squar e feet of unrestricted office allocation that was p reviously unaccounted for, bringing the total citywide pool of unrestricted office allocation to 1 80 ,536 square feet (except for the 87,746 square feet from the Vallco Park North area which Apple is intend ing to use)(See table below). The additional unrestricted office allocation is a result of office square footage that was allocated but never constructed as part of the Civic Center development across the street from City Hall. The approval for this devel opment expired in 2010 .
Table of Unrestricted Office Allocation Existing Available Unrestricted Office Allocation Square Footage Existing Citywide (aside from the Vallco Park North area) 119,357 Unused allocation from the Civic Park project(expire d in 2010) 61,179 Total Available 180,536 Although the amount of available unrestricted office allocation does not allow the applicant to build to the previously -proposed 292,000 square feet, the applicant indicated at this time he is requesting only an additional 160,000 square feet of unrestricted office allocation to allow for the two office buildings to be constructed with total office square footage of 260,000 square feet. Additionally, the applicant has submitted written correspondence (See Atta chment E ) stating that he will no longer pursue a request to use allocation from the Major Companies office allocation pool, but will request allocation from the unrestricted office allocation. However, because this will nearly deplete the available unre stricted office allocation down to 20,536 square feet, the applicant has provided written correspondence (See Attachment E ) indicating that he will provide the City with $350,000 . Condition No. 5 of the draft resolution requires this payment no later than June 30, 2012 . The applicant has indicated that he is amendable to the condition. Planning Commission Recommendation A majority of Planning Commissioners recommended allocating the Major Company office allocation to the project , since there appeared to be insufficient unrestricted office allocation at the time . The Planning Commission Chair further recommended that the Council find a way to increase office allocation in the City. Due to the applicant’s modified request, the Major Company allocation is n o longer required. Staff Discussion The applicant ’s request for an additional 160,000 square feet of unrestricted office allocation, will allow the City to retain 20,536 square feet in the unrestricted office allocation pool . Staff believes that this wil l allow minor office projects and additions to proceed in the City while the General Plan amendment for office is being completed. In addition, the applicant’s offer to fund the General Plan study in the amount of $350,000 will allow the City to proceed i mmediately with a General Plan amendment to increase office alloca tion in the next fiscal year. Therefore, s taff supports this approach. Staff has included a requirement for $350,000 to fund the General Plan amendment as a condition of approval for alloc ation of office square footage for the project. 3. Retail All three options pro pose creating a downtown area with retail uses lining the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage and a round the town square. Both Option A(1)-1 and Option A(1)-2 propose the most reta il square footage with up to 138,700 square feet. Option B proposes retail square footage of 78,500 square feet, and a 60,000 square foot athletic club that could activate the area similar to retail. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commiss ion recommended approval of a development plan with the maximum retail option of 138,700 square feet. The Commission also indicated the importance of allowing a higher amount of
restaurant use s within the retail spaces to activate the development as a dow ntown area. O ne of the Commissioners further recommended that the applicant consider incorporating additional retail space with larger tenant spaces that could accommodate multiple retail anchors on site , including along the Stevens Creek Boulevard fronta ge, to create a vibrant downtown retail shopping atmosphere. Staff Discussion Staff is supp ortive of the development plan Option A(1)-2 with the maximum retail option of 138,700 square feet and a 14,500 square foot retail anchor on the southwest corner o f the site along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff also supports the recommendation to allow for additional restaurant uses within the retail spaces than the standard 10% of retail space allowable and studied under the 2009 Final EIR . No additional allocation is required for the proposed retail square footage since the previous approval in 2009 received an entitlement of 150,000 square feet from the retail allocation pool . If the project is approved with a total of 138,700 square feet of retail space, then 11 ,300 square feet may be returned to the retail allocation pot (See table below). Use 2009 Master Use Permit Allocations Granted 2012 Revised Development Plans --Maximum R etail P roposed Allocations Needed for 2012 Revised Development Plans Total Citywide Balance of Available Retail (Commercial) Allocation Retail 150,000 sf (from Vallco Park South ) 138,700 s f No additional allocation needed ; net gain of 11,300 square feet 212,877 sf (201,577 sf + 11,300 square feet) In an effort to better address the P lanning Commission questions regarding the demand and viability of the proposed retail, and whether the site could support additional retail in the form of retail anchors, staff employed the assistance of a retail consultan t , Linda Congleton & Associates. The following is a summary of the retail consultant's findings: • Shopping center anchors (such as department stores and/or grocery stores) determine their potential site location based on the size of properties, as well as the number of available h ousehol ds in their service area . The proposed project given its land acreage and total commercial square footage, is considered a mixed use infill development ; not a commercial shopping center. • Gi ven the City's high day time workforce population , t he proposed pr oject can be very successful as a mixed -use , downtown -style development with its dynamic m ix of uses , and emphasis on indoor/outdoor din ing , and pedestrian -oriented activit y . • The proposed project provide s the flexibility to accommodate mini -anchor tenants. • The proposed project provide s commercial buildings and pedestrian amenities at the right locations to facilitate a walkable and synergistic experience. M ost successful downtowns have a variety of different building designs and placement in relative clos e proximity to promote a very organic and interesting feel . Therefore, a strict alignment of retail along the Town Square is not necessary . • The City does not have a signi ficant amount of grocery demand given the current availability of grocery stores . Ho wever, a neighborhood or specialized grocer y ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet may work on the site. T he key to success is visibility and convenient access to parking. Therefore, a location along Stevens Creek Boulevard would be more suitable. • Two -story retail format along Stevens Creek Boulevard will diminish the center's ability to attract high quality retailers given their functional and logistical constraints. However, second -story incubator space above ground floor retail may work provided t he space is design ed to sufficiently address the
retailer's requirements with ample ceiling height , store depth, at tractive store front design, access, and ventilation systems. Such a format may be more appropriate along the interior of the project and co uld serve as a transitional use between the office and retail uses. The applicant indicates that he still believes it is possible to incorporate a small grocery store “anchor”on this site. Therefore, the Option A(1)-2 proposes a 14,500 square foot a nchor along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and is the preferred option by the applicant. Staff is also supportive of this plan as it appears more viable than the Option A(1)-1 plan with a 30,000 square foot retail anchor along Vallco Parkway. Restaurant Uses C onsistent with the retail consultant’s recommendation, the applicant is requesting that restaurant/eatery uses consist of approximately 45,000 square feet of the total retail square footage. The retail consultant indicated that approximately 40,000 – 50,00 0 square feet of the retail should be eatery type uses to create an optimum tenant mix. A st udy by Fehr and Peers prepared on May 4 , 2012 (See Attachment F ) indicates that up to 38.6% of the total retail square footage , or 53,538 square feet, can be occ upied by restaurant/ea tery uses if the Option A development plan s with the maximum amount of retail, 138,700 square feet, were approved. However, the re would be a limitation of the mix of restaurant types to allow the project’s anticipated traffic generat ion to function within the parameters of the Addendum to the 2009 Final EIR. It would essentially allow for 44.4% of low turn -over restaurants that are open for lunch and dinner only (restaurants that typically require reservations, are not chain -restaura nts, and do not turn -over customers within an hour), 44.4% of high turnover restaurants open for lunch and dinner only (chain restaurants that turn -over customers within an hour), and 11.2% of high turnover restaurants that are open for breakfast, lunch an d dinner. It also assumes that approximately 9,500 square feet of the retail could be ancillary eatery uses such as bakeries, coffee shops and ice cream stands. A condition has been added to the project that requires the final tenanting plan be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that the mix of food uses and their expected hours of operations are within the parameters set forth in the Fehr and Peers restaurant study. 4. Residential Uses As part of the Planning Commission considerati on, one of the development options proposed housing on two sites within the project, including a 143 -unit senior age -restricted condominium complex and a 120 -unit non -age restricted apartment complex. The apartment complex was proposed with loft -style studio and one -bed room apartments marketed towards young professionals. However, during the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated he would not pursue the non -age restricted apartments. As a result, the current plans before the Council only include the senio r age -restricted housing complex with retail on the ground floor. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider only one housing component rather than two for the project to enable the project to have a stronger and more successful retail/comme rcial component. A student generation analysis prepared by Schoolhouse Services indicated that approximately 32 students could potentially be generated by the non -age restricted hou sing; however, it also suggested that loft -style and one -bedroom units wou ld not appeal to families and would, therefore, have a student generation rate lower than for typical apartments in Cupertino (See Attachment G for the student generation analysis). Staff also noted that while it is anticipated that the non -age restricted apartments would generate some amount of students, the proposed apartments would be more compatible with the mixed -use nature of the project since a younger demographic group would likely be more attracted to and use the “downtown -style” environment than those living
in a senior age -restricted housing complex . Staff believes that a senior demographic group may be less compatible to live within a “downtown -style” environment and may not frequent businesses in the development compared to a younger demograph ic group. 5. Parking Garage for the Office Development The applicant has significantly modi fied the parking garage in the newly proposed options by removing the above -ground parking garage for the office building s and incorporating the parking for the o ffice in the western portion of the parking garage by undergrounding two levels of parking and increasing the western portion of the parking garage by one level to five levels. This change significantly lessens the length and massing of the parking garage along the Vallco Parkway streetscape and within the development as well. Planning Commission Recommendation A majority of Planning Commissioners supported the parking garage proposed by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting, which included a s plit 3 - and 4 -level above ground parking garage with one level of parking below ground. However, many of the Commissioners also supported the idea to allow the applicant to work with staff to explore alternate options for the parking garage, including enha ncing the exterior design of the parking garage, undergrounding the eastern portion of the parking garage and increasing the western portion of the parking garage to a fifth level, pushing the office 2 building back along Vallco Parkway and placing retail along Stevens Creek Blvd. Staff Discussion Staff is supportive of the newly proposed parking garage in all of the new development plans sin ce it significantly decreases the length and massing of the parking garage along Vallco Parkway and within the devel opment , and is consistent with the five -level height that was previously -approved in 2009 . Staff also supports the proposed two -story retail along the parking garage frontage since it will provide a visual buffer for the five -story parking garage . 6. Altern ate Site Plan and Park Location During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided an alternate site plan that essentially moved the park away from Steven s Creek Boulevard and more internal ly to the site adjacent to the Metropolitan and Rosebow l mixed use development sites. The alternate site plan also added a retail building to the west along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and also moved the senior housing building to the north facing Vallco Parkway. Further, the length and massing of the parking st ructure was reduced, allowing the office buildings to be moved back towards Vallco Parkway and an auto court created in front of the office buildings facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. The newly proposed options include these changes noted above and have bee n further refined by the applicant. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission supported moving the park back behind the senior housing and adding retail along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage to provide more retail continuity. Staff Discussion Staff is supportive of the changes that the applicant has made since the Planning Commission meeting to incorporate these changes.
Issues for City Council Consideration A. Retail Pads in the Town Square The proposed modification includes the ad dition of two retail pad buildings, ranging in size from 1,500 to 3,000 square feet, flanking the north and south ends of the town square. The retail pads are proposed to further activate the town square and are envisioned to house small eatery shops, suc h as a yogurt or coffee shop. Additionally, the buildings are designed architecturally to match the agrarian theme of the retail buildings throughout the development. Planning Commission Recommendation A majority of the Commission recommended retaining the pads in the town square and asked staff to work with the applicant on the architectural design of the buildings to make them appear less bulky. However, other Commissioners recommended either eliminating the southern retail pad to allow more exposure and visibility of the town square from the main driveway entry along Stevens Creek Boulevard, reducing the northern pad to 1,500 square feet and/or reducing both pads to 1,500 square feet. Staff Discussion Staff recommends that the City Council conside r eliminating the southern retail pad and/or reducing the total size of each pad to no more than 1,500 square feet since the intent of the town square was originally to be large enough to accommodate public gathering space. While staff believes some level of restaurant use would enhance the town square, staff believes that the proposed pads are still too large. As an example, the retail pads in the center island area at Santana Row are 429 square feet (Vintage Wine Bar) and 440 square feet (Pink Berry). A dditionally, staff recommends that the architectural style of the pad be redesigned to reflect a more open, gazebo style to preserve the open feel of the town square. B. Type, Size and Amenities of the Hotel The hotel proposed by the applicant is a 180 -room Marriott Residence Inn. This hotel is considered a business class hotel that primarily caters towards business travelers and provides limited amenities such as conference and meeting rooms, kitchenettes, restaurants that serve free daily hot breakfasts, a nd business service centers. In 2009, when the Council approved the hotel with up to 250 rooms, it was envisioned that the hotel would be a four - or five -st ar hotel with full amenities, rather than a business class hotel. The project was also conditioned to require a 400 -person banquet hall if over 160 rooms were proposed. The applicant has indicated that he is not pursuing a four or five -star hotel with full amenities on this site. Therefore, he is requesting relief from the condition of approval No. 5 from the original approval (See Attachment H for 2009 conditions of approval) requiring a 400 -person banquet hall. In lieu of this, the applicant is proposing to provide a 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting space at the ground level of the hotel fa cing town square that will have the ability to provide some banquet hall services. The applicant has also slightly amended the exterior elevation of the hotel by softening the color tones of the hotel and providing additional base materials along the stre et frontage of the building. The City’s Architectural Advisor (See Attachment I for Architectural Advisor recommendations) has reviewed this revised elevation (See revised hotel plans in Attachment W ) and recommends more transitional façade elements, archi tectural detailing, and uniform façade and roof styles to lessen the verticality of the building.
Planning Commission Recommendation The majority of the Planning Commissioners recommended that the applicant consider a high quality “boutique” hotel for th is site. Other commissioners supported the type of hotel as proposed. All commissioners were supportive of the proposed size of the hotel at 180 rooms, but approved the hotel to allow up to 250 rooms for flexibility. The Commission was also supportive of a mending the condition to allow the restaurant/meeting space in lieu of condition No. 5, which required a 400 -person banquet facility. Staff Discussion Discussions with the retail consultant indicate d that a four or five -star hotel on this site would not l ikely be able to compete with other hotels in the area because Cupertino lacks the tourist and leisure hotel guest base to support weekend overnight stays. The consultant state d that hotels in Cupertino are tailored for the business traveler from Sunday t hrough Thursday. Therefore, a five -star hotel would not be viable at this location. Based upon this information, staff seeks the Council’s determination on the following: 1. Whether the hotel should be a high -end, four - or five -star hotel with full servic e and amenities; and 2. Whether Condition No. 5 requiring a 400 -person banquet facility should be modified to instead allow a 6,500 square foot restaurant that has the ability to provide some banquet hall services. Staff further recommends that the City Coun cil condition further refinement of the architectural elevations for the hotel and that the architectural and site approval for the hotel be required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee incorporating the City’s Architectural Advisor recommendations including any additional review for revised elevations. Other Discussion Vacation of Finch Avenue If approved a s part of this development project , the applicant is requesting that Finch Avenue, a public street that runs north and south through the project site between Stevens Creek Boulev ard and Vallco Parkway, be vacated by a separate action by the City and g ranted to the applicant in exchange for development of the 0.8 0 acre town square and 0.75 acre park and public access easements a llowing public pedestrian access through the interior pedestrian paths and plazas, the town square and park area, and public driving access and parking on site. Finch Avenue is 1.1 acres and will increase the development of the Main Street project to 18.5 acres. The vacation of Finch Avenue is a separate agenda item that will require a separate City Council action if approved. The applicant is intending to construct the street infrastructure and town square as part of the first phase of the development, since this is necessary to provide access through the site and for the ind ividual lots. In the event construction comes to an abrupt stop for any reason, a condition of approval has been added that states the vacation of Finch Avenue will not be recorded with the County until such time the street modifications are complete. Additionally, a bond will be required prior to issuance of permits for street modifications that will allow Finch Avenue to be reverted back to a standard City street if the project is not constructed .
Addendum to the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report On March 23, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the 2012 Addendum to the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed project and recommends appr oval of the Addendum . The Addendum analyzed the two most intense development plans that proposed the maximum amount of trip generation an d construction impacts envisioned under these new plans , and compared them against the plans analyzed in the 2009 Fina l EIR. Although the development plans have slightly changed from the specific site plan options that were reviewed under the Addendum due to changes made since the Planning Commis sion meeting, the parameters of the development plans have not changed (e.g . maximum square footages of retail, office, senior housing, athletic club, hotel, parking garage, park and town square studied in the Addendum reviewed by the ERC), and in fact, in some cases have been reduced (such as the office from 292,000 square feet to 260,000 square feet). An updated 2012 Addendum dated May 4, 2012 (See Attachment P ) has been prepared that incorporates the review of these changes, which are being presented to the City Council for review and consideration. The results and conclusion s of the 2012 Addendum are still the same as reviewed by the ERC on March 23, 2012, which concludes that these development plans would not create any new and/or more significant environmental impacts than disclosed in the certified 2009 FEIR. In conjuncti on with the approval of these applications, the City Council will also be required to approve the 2012 Addendum to the 2009 FEIR. Noticing and Community Outreach In addition to the required p ublic hearing and legal notices published in the newspapers for the proposed project , the City sent out citywide courtesy notice postcards in March notifying property owners, residents and businesses of the proposed modification to the Main Street Cupertino mixed use development and upcoming Planning Commission and Cit y Council meetings. Additionally, the site has been posted with five on -site notice boards notifying the public of the project and City Council hearing date. Further, updated information on the Main Street project has been provided on the City’s webpage at www.cupertino.org/mainstreet. Additionally, the applicant stated that he has held ten (10) community meetings to date with various stakeholders and residents of the community; four of which were held prior to the applicant’s submittal of applications and six of which were held following submittal of applications. The applicant’s most recent community meeting was held on Wednesday, March 9, 2012. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the City has received several letters (See Attachment O ) from members of the community regarding the proposed project. A summary of comments raised in these letters are listed below . Most of these issues have been addressed in the staff report . Staff comments have been added in italics where necessary : Public Comments • The development should provide a “downtown” experience with boutique and other retail stores rather than offices • Consider a four - or five -star hotel rather than business class hotel • Provide outdoor area space for residents to relax and enjoy
• Vacation of Finch Avenue is supported if the project results in a substantial community benefit by constructing the town square, park, roadway system, driveway entrances/exits, and public access, maintaining the site, and completing the development. • Consider the consequence s of vacating Finch Avenue if the project is not completed – a condition of approval requires a bond to restore Finch Avenue if the Town Square and street improvements are not completed. • Consider one -way traffic around the driving loop around the town squa re – although one -way traffic is possible from an engineering and safety standpoint and would appear to help the safety of pedestrians crossing through the internal loop street, it may also create some concern from a retail standpoint by making some routes more circuitous (e.g. entering from Stevens Creek Boulevard and going to shop 8 would require looping around the entire loop street). • Ensure that the setback requirements are being met and the reciprocal public access easements are maintained by this site and the adjacent sites. • Parking structure is massive; consider underground parking • Ensure that the town square and retail are part of the first phase of development • Consider energy conservation requirements for the project • Consider the quality of life for Cupertino resident _____________________________________ Prepared by Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Amy Chan, Interim City Man ager Attachments: A: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6684, 6685 & 6686 B: Minutes to the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting C: Draft Resolution for City Council consideration D: Planning Commission Staff Report of March 27, 2012 E: Applicant’s List of Requests and Changes as of May 4, 2012 F: Restaurant analysis by Fehr & Peers dated May 4, 2012 G: Schoolhouse Services school generation and fiscal analysis of January 2012 H: 2009 Master Use Permit Conditions of Approval I : 2009 Approved Master Use Permit plans J : Applicant’s Justification Letter and List of Modifications from March 27, 2012 K: South Vallco Master Plan L : 2009 Approved Tree Disposition Plan M: Draft CC&Rs N: City Architectural Advisor Comments from March 27 th Planning Commissio n report O: Emails and letters received from the community P: Draft 2012 Addendum to the 2009 Final EIR dated May 4, 2012 Q : Architectural Plan Set reviewed by Planning Commission on 3 -27 -12 R : Architectural Plan Set (hotel) reviewed by Planning Commissio n on 3 -27 -12 S : Landscape Plan Set reviewed by Planning Commission on 3 -27 -12 T : Tentative Map and Civil Drawings reviewed by Planning Commission on 3 -27 -12
U : Tentative Map and Civil Drawings reviewed by Planning Commission on 3 -27 -12 V : Tentative Map and Civil Drawings reviewed by Planning Commission on 3 -27 -12 W : Architectural Plan Set for City Council consideration X: Landscape Plan Set for City Council consideration Y: Tentative Map and Civil Drawings for City Council consideration Z: Tentative Map and Civil Drawings for City Council consideration continued AA: Tentative Map and Civil Drawings for City Council consideration continued