Exhibit CC 02-25-14 Item #3 ASA Main StreetCc 2-�zslly
*3
From: Stephen Rose
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:45 PM
To: 'Lisa Warren'
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: RE: TIME? Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Lisa,
The physical mailing notice went out to 124 property owners adjacent to the project site. This included
the individual residential unit owners of Metropolitan project to the west.
The following is a brief summary of the noticing conducted for the project:
Notice-6f Public Hearin Site Notice. &Legal Ad _
Agenda,' , ° x`x =r • oF° `«, °' '
■ Site Signage
Posted on the City's official notice
(14 days prior to the hearing)
bulletin board (one week prior to the
■ Legal ad placed in newspaper
hearing)
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's
■ 124 notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the
Website
project site
Advertised on the City Channel
■ All interested parties (emailed/noticed)
(10 days prior to the hearing) _
That said, please note that the agenda items do not require a City wide noticing effort, nor would it be
typical to conduct.
Best,
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
408- 777 -3286
From: Lisa Warren [mai Ito: la-warrenP—att. net]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Stephen Rose
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: Re: TIME? Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Just found this in my'drafts' . I thought it went to you yesterday.
..
..................
Thanks Stephen,
When you say adjacent, is that only the distance, that covers commercial /retail parcels, or did any
residential parcels get a mailing? How far'out' ?
I guess I thought that given the project /agenda item, a more significant noticing 'range' would
be required.... city wide ?
This is surprising to me.
Lisa
From: Stephen Rose <StephenRna cupertino.org>
To: Lisa Warren <1 a-warren(c4att. net>
Cc: Gary Chao <GaryCQa.cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: TIME? Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Lisa,
The mailing has already went out to all adjacent property owners. A courtesy email notice has went out
for all those not adjacent to the property who have expressed interest.
I will 'follow up with our webmaster regarding the time update. I caught this myself, it might have slipped
from her attention.
Best,
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
408- 777 -3286
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la- warren Ratt.netj
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:50 AM
To: Stephen Rose
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: Re: TIME ?Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street. Cupertino Meeting
Hi Stephen,
I see that neither of the corrections that you requested have been made yet. The NIS web page
still has 5:00 as the meeting start time for Feb 25 CC.
The Calendar of Events still does not have the Feb 25 CC meeting, listed.
How long do these changes typically take?
Based on the City Attorney's comments about noticing, I am assuming that there will be a
mailing ? ??
If this is correct, do you know when the 'notices' go out in the mail ? Or if they have gone out..
when delivery is expected ?
Thank you.
Lisa
From: Stephen Rose <StephenR a,cupertino.org>
To: Lisa Warren <la- warrenaatt.net>
Cc: Gary Chao <GaryC a,cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: TIME? Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Lisa,
The correct time is 6:45 p.m., a request to the website to update the time has already been made
Best,
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
408- 777 -3286
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la- warren Oatt.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12;05 PM
To: Stephen Rose
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: Re: TIME? Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Time of meeting,is listed two ways
The Courtesy Notice email says 6:45.
The Main Street Project web page says 5:00.
Which is correct ?
—Lisa—
From: Stephen Rose <StephenR(a�ciipertino.org>
To: Lisa Warren <Ia- warren (a�,att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Lisa,
Thanks for noticing — we've already had the request go to our IT/Web department for inclusion, it
generally takes a little longer to get posted (but the w_ww.cupertino.org /mainstreet page has already
reflected the change).
Best,
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
408- 777 -3286
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la- warren a,att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:44 AM
To: Stephen Rose
Subject: Re: Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
Thanks Stephen.
The calendar only lists PC meeting for that date.
Lisa
From: Stephen Rose <StephenR�cupertino.orp
To: Stephen Rose <StephenR�cuuertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:1`7 AM
Subject: Courtesy Notice - Upcoming Main Street Cupertino Meeting
All,
Pursuant to your previous request, please consider this a courtesy notice for the upcoming City
Council meeting for Main Street Cupertino, which is to be held on February 25, 2014 at 6:45
p.m. in Council Chamber, Cupertino City Hall.
For a copy of the agenda, and more information pertaining to this meeting, please refer to our
calendar of events online at:
http://www.cupei-tino.org/index.aspx?pa,ge=l 8&retumQRL=%2findex.asPx
Best Regards,
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
W408-777-3286
7408 -777 -3333
�}
lk
v gl,
7
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Can we talk about 'plaster'?
Thanks.
Lisa
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Lisa Warren <la- warren cDatt.net>
To: Gary Chao <garyc(@cupertino.orq >; Stephen ROSE' <StephenR(cDcuperti no. org>
Cc: "msantoro(cDcupertino.org" <msantoro(cDcupertino _ orq >; Don Sun <book.sun(a _gmail.com >; Winnie
Lee <winnieleeddsayahoo.com >; Rod Sinks <rodsink agmail.com >; Gilbert Wong
<gwonq(a�cupertino.orq>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40 AM
Subject: Main Street'plaster' material
Gary and Stephen,
I am unsure about some of the materials being proposed by the applicant for Main Street.
As I mentioned at the meeting I, had with both of you, and then again at the DRC meeting, the 'plaster'
sample is not what I had 'assumed' they were refering to.
I shared with the applicant that the sample was a surprise to me. It was a small sample, but still was
obvious that it is a pretty generic 'stucco'with compact 'bumps'. I was told that their real intent is to have
something less bumpy more like 'sand', but that is not the sample that was presented.
Kevin Jones did tell me that the terms plaster and stucco are used interchagably in their industry.
I had thought that the finish being called 'plaster' would be more of a smooth 'old world' style finish (as I
mentioned in our meeting).
I think that I also told you at that time that there is a new construction home (not far from the MS building
site) that has a stucco finish very similar to what I was hoping they were referring to with the term
'plaster'. I am fairly certain that this material was sprayed on. I am waiting for a reply from the owner of
the new home to confirm that.
I am hoping that,you may be willing to meet me at the home that I am referring to so that we can look at it
together.
There is a lot of 'plaster' on the new ASA designs. I believe that the type of finish that the plaster has will
have a significant effect on the look and feel of the project and feel that it is worth discussing /changing.
It would probably be best to meet at the house either first thing, or last thing, of any given work day. I can
be flexible.
I can also meet multiple times if the people cc'd here are interested in seeing it.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Cc )'/Zs-hY
Karen B. Guerin j
0
From: Darrel Lum [drlum @pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:3;; PM
To: City Council; Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; Stephen Rose
Subject: February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting /Agenda Item #3
Attachments: Main Street Cupertino -CC 2- 25- 14.pdf
Please find attachment regarding February 25, 2014 City of Cupertino City Council meeting /Agenda Item #3
for your consideration.
TO: MAYOR GILBERT WONG
VICE MAYOR ROD SINKS
COUNCIL MEMBER BARRY CHANG
COUNCIL MEMBER ORRIN MAHONEY
COUNCIL MEMBER MARK SANTORO
FROM: DARR -EL LUM, RESIDENT OF CUPERTINO
RE: FEBRUARY 25, 201 4 CITY COUNCIL IVMIEETING /AGENDA ITEM 3
IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE RESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC)
HAS DEFERRED ITS DECISION ON ASA 201 ,2; 15, THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL FOR MAIN STREET CUPERTINO.
SUBSEQUENT TO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DIIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW OF
THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF MAIN STREET CUPERTINO, I MET WITH
ASSOCIATE CITY PLANNER STEPHEN ROSE WHO SPENT A CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME EXPLAINING THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET
CUPERTINO PROJECT. THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESSION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL
APPEARANCE OF THE PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE AGRARIAN AND DOWNTOWN
PREFERENCES.
ALTHO THESE PREFERENCES ARE DESIRABLE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
SIMULATE THE GLENDENNING BARN ON THE HEWLETT PACKARD
/APPLE PROPERTY NOR THE STRUCTURES ,4.T MCCLELLAN RANCH NOR
THE DOWNTOWNS OF LOS GATOS, MOUNTAIN VIEW OR SARATOGA IN
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO; RATHER MAIN STREET CUPERTINO SHOULD
BE A HIGH QUALITY PROJECT UNIQUE TO THE REGION.
1 ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION SO THAT MAIN STREET
CUPERTINO 1S COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Main Sheet Cupertino
AS,.k- 2012 -15
Subject:
Architectural and Site refinements to the previously approved Shops 1, 3 -5, 7 & 8, Pad 1 -3,
Town Square, Flex 1 & 2, Office 1 & 2, Parking garage, and associated landscaping and
associated site and landscaping design of the Main Street Cupertino Project.
Recommended Action:
1. Consider referrals from the Design Review ,--omrnittee (DRC) of an Architectural and
Site Approval (ASA- 2012 -15) to:
a. Provide clarification of Resolution 12- 098(M) as to the criteria for Architectural
Site Approval, including Condition 3E; and /or
b. Amend Resolution 12- 098(M) as to the role of the DRC for Architectural, Site
Approval related to the project; and
2. If Resolution 12 -098 (M) is amended, consideration and /or adoption of a resolution
regarding the Architectural and Site Approval Application (ASA- 2012 -15) pursuant to
the attached Draft Resolution (Attaclnment,k).
2/25/2014
3
1
I
Project Background
January 2012 (City Council Hearing)
- Original project approval
May 2012 (City Council Hearing)
- Approved a modification to 111e master use permit, site plan, and
established conceptual architectural designs
September 2012 (City Council Hearing)
- Approval of the Tentative Map
- Modifications to the developmentperunit
- Architectural and Site for conceptual approval for the loft units and modifications
to the parking garage and.retail buildings
• Revised building footprints
• Plan set represented at the September 2012 meeting did not include updated
elevations
• Provided direction to return to Design Review Conunittee for final
architectural and site refinements
2/25/2014
K
Design Review Committee
February 6, 2014 (Design Review Committee Meeting)
■ One Commissioner was supportive of the project overall but felt that
the further enhancements should be made to the Flex Building
■ Another Commissioner was concerned with the changes of the
project from the original design concept
■ The DRC voted to defer the project to City Council to clarify and /or
amend the Council's prior resolution (Condition 35) regarding the
project architectural and site criteria.
Summary of Public Comments
Key Comments prior to the DRC meeting:
• Architectural design theme
• Architectural interest and harmony-
• Color and Building Material
• Roof style and vertical 'interest
At the DRC meeting:
• Revised elevations submitted were positive
• Flex Building still needs work
• Supports the proposed design of the project
• The proposed design is fitting for a downtown
• Do not further delay the project
2/25/2014
3
Revised Drawings
Submitted on February 6, 2014
Shops 1
➢ Roof cornice
➢ Tower entry feature
➢ Stone Siding
Shops 3 & 4
Staggered monitor roof
➢ Slate tile roof
➢ Enhanced stone entry element
Flex Building
New second floor glass system on the Flex 1 building
➢ IPE siding
Additional Recommendations
City Architectural Consultant:
Shops 1
• Stone siding should match the other retail buildings
Flex 1 Buildbig
o Mirror the treatment on the building immediately to the right of the
garage entry tower
2/25/2014
Additional Recommendations Cont.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the following items
shall be reviewed and approved by the CDD:
• Final monitor window details on Shops 3 & 4 shall reflect the
design theme of the building
• Revise material #18 on the material board to higher quality stone
• Stucco finish shall be smooth and higher quality
• Demonstrate that the garage height is within 60 feet height limit,
measured from the curb (with the exception of the any roof railing,
roof parapets, and elevator/ mechanical equipment apparatus)
Council: Options
The Council has the following options:
1. Clarify the architectural and site criteria related to the project as part
of Condition 35, Resolution 12- 0913(M); and /or
2. Amend Condition 35 either as to the role of the Design Review
Committee or consider adopting a resolution approving. ASA -2012-
15 as proposed or with additional changes.
Staff recommends the Council approve the project with the revised
exhibits dated February 6, 2014 with the additional amendments
suggested. Staff also recommends that: the Council consider approving
the ASA for the.remaining buildings (Shops 2, 6, 9 and Loft Apartments).
2/25/2014
N1