Exhibit CC 08-01-2017 Item No. 16C - Oral Communications - The Oaks Shopping Center To: Cupertino City Council
CC: Cupertino City Clerk
From: Peggy Griffin
Date: August 1, 2017
Subject: Agenda Item 16.0 GPA Application Request for Oaks Shopping Center
Please include this document in the public record for the August 1, 2017 Cupertino City
Council meeting, Agenda Item 16.0 Oaks GPA and Heart of the City request.
Both Oaks Shopping Center alternatives push the limit on what should be considered
reasonable amendment requests. They are asking for significant exceptions to
• Density (2-3 times current density)
• Heights (95% more)
• Setbacks (50-100% less)
• Slope ( 1/3 to 1/2 less)
• Open space (50% less)
These 2 project options also go against many of our General Plan goals and policies.
(See attached pages).
Yes, we need more housing and we need to preserve and enhance our retail but not at
the cost of throwing out our plans for the overall city.
We need to build affordable housing and retail in a scale appropriate for the space.
That is why we have these plans!
Alternative 1:Mixed-use Residential
ALTERNATIVE 1 -MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
CUPERTINO. CA
-=-_ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION
At
7.
s� _
1.t
{
Alternative 2: Mixed-use Gateway
A�TLR-,A7f:L2-tt,YLD�lSL 3L7Lt4AY
CL'FiF,7;�t0.CA
j GLULRAL PLAN At00DIUEh'7AUT)r'ORi7AMNAPZ,CA7-Ct.
s1 (Residential portio
r. rJ
•• 'j.� _ YID
Residential Density
Currently Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2
Allowed "mixed-use mixed-use (residential
______ __ residential" gateway" portion)
Lot area 7.9 acres 7.9 acres 7.9 acres 4.74 acres
Estimated
Residential(60%)
Density 25 du/acre
56.70 du/acre 25.31 du/acre 42.19 du/acre
Residential 197 units 448 units 200 units 200 units
35%Density 69 units 157 units 70 units 70 units
Bonus Units (197'35%) (448*35%) (200*3s%)
Total Units 266 units 605 units 270 units 270 units
Actual Density 33.67 du/acre ,476.55 du/acre 34.18 du/acre 56.96 du/ac:
w/bonus units
warms•'
CHAPTER 3:LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
r
GOAL
projectEnsure that • planning and
building design
through a highof identity •
connectivity
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN
The City wit[seek to ensure that the site and building design of new projects
enhance the public realm (e.g., streets, parks, plazas and open space areas) and
that there is a focus on integrating connections to adjacent neighborhoods,
where appropriate.
POLICY LU-3.1:SITE PLANNING POLICY LU-3.3: BUILDING DESIGN
Ensure that project sites are planned Ensure that building layouts and
appropriately to create a network design are compatible with the
of connected internal streets that surrounding environment and enhance
improve pedestrian and bicycle the streetscape and pedestrian
access, provide public open space and activity.
building layouts that support city goals STRATEGIES:
related to streetscape character for LU-3.3.1:Attractive Design.
various Planning Areas and corridors. Emphasize attractive building and
POLICY LU-3.2:BUILDING HEIGHTS AND site design by paying careful attention
SETBACK RATIOS to building scale, mass, placement,
Maximum heights and setback ratios architecture, materiats, landscaping,
are specified in the Community Form screening of equipment, loading
Diagram (Figure LU-2). As indicated in areas, signage and other design
the figure, taller heights are focused considerations,
on major corridors, gateways and
nodes. Setback ratios are established
to ensure that the desired relationship
of buildings to the street is achieved.
CHAPTER 3:LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LU-3.3.2: Mass and Scale. LU-3.3.7:Street Interface.
Ensure that the scale and Ensure development enhances
interrelationships of new and old pedestrian activity by providing active
development complement each other, uses within mixed-use areas and
Buildings should be grouped to create appropriate design features within
a feeling of spatial unity. residential areas along a majority
LU-3.3.3:Transitions. of the building frontage facing the
Buildings should be designed street. Mixed-use development should
to avoid abrupt transitions with include retail, restaurant, outdoor
existing development, whether they dining, main entries, etc. Residential
are adjacent or across the street. development should include main
Consider reduced heights, buffers entrances, lobbies, front stoops and
and/or landscaping to transition to porches, open space and other
residential and/or low-intensity uses similar features.
in order to reduce visual and LU-3.3.8: Drive-up Services.
privacy impacts. Allow drive-up service facilities only
LU-3.3.4:Compatibility. when adequate circulation, parking,
Ensure that the floor area ratios of noise control, architectural features
multi-family residential developments and landscaping are compatible with
are compatible with buildings in the the expectations of the Planning
surrounding area. Include a mix of Area, and when residential areas are
unit types and avoid excessively visually buffered. Prohibit drive-up
large units. services in areas where pedestrian-
oriented activity and design are highly
LU-3.3.5:Building Location. encouraged, such as Heart of the City,
Encourage building location and North De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista
entries closer to the street white Village and neighborhood centers.
meeting appropriate landscaping and
setback requirements. LU-3.3.9: Specific and Conceptual Plans.
Maintain and update Specific/
LU-3.3.6:Architecture and Articulation. Conceptual plans and design
Promote high-quality architecture, guidelines for Special Areas such
appropriate building articulation as Heart of the City, Crossroads,
and use of special materials and Homestead Corridor,Vallco Shopping
architectural detailing to enhance District, North and South De Anja
visual interest. corridors and Monta Vista Village.
CHAPTER 3:LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LU-3.3.10: Entrances.
In multi-family projects where
residential uses may front on streets,
require pedestrian-scaled elements
such as entries, stoops and porches
along the street.
LU-3.3.11: Muttipte-Story Buitdings and
Residential Districts.
Allow construction of multiple-
story buildings if it is found that
nearby residential districts will not
suffer from privacy intrusion or be
overwhelmed by the scale of a building
or group of buildings.
POLICY LU-3.4: PARKING
In surface lots, parking arrangements
should be based on the successful
operation of buildings; however,
parking to the side or rear of buildings
is desirable. No visible garages shall
be permitted along the street frontage.
Above grade structures shall not be
located along street frontages and
shall be tined with active uses on
the ground floor on internal street
frontages. Subsurface/deck parking
is allowed provided it is adequately
screened from the street and/or
adjacent residential development.
CHAPTER 3:LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
STRATEGIES: POLICY LU-27.9:AMENITIES AND
LU-27.7.1: Lot Size. SERVICES
Ensure that subdivision and lot- Improve equitable distribution of
line adjustment requests respect community amenities such as parks
the neighborhood lot size patterns, and access to shopping within
Consider revisions to tot size walking and bicycling distance of
requirements if the neighborhood lot neighborhoods.
pattern is different from the zoning
requirements.
LU-27.7.2: Flag Lots.
Allow flag lots only in cases where
they are the sole alternative to
integrate subdivisions with the
surrounding neighborhood.
POLICY LU-27.8: PROTECTION
Protect residential neighborhoods
from noise, traffic, tight, glare,
odors and visually intrusive effects
from more intense development
with landscape buffers, site and
building design, setbacks and other
appropriate measures.
i
3 n 1Y
CHAPTER 3:LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
' 1^
GOAL LU-13
,k
• • r •
that ! •i allmodes of ii r •
links its distinct and active commercial
andmixed-use •andnotes, and
creates • high-quatity, distinct community
rim s • • vibrantheartfor ie !
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA
The Heart of the City will remain the core commercial corridor in Cupertino, with a
series of commercial and mixed-use centers and a focus on creating a walkable,
bikeable boulevard that can support transit. General goals, policies and strategies
will apply throughout the entire area; while more specific goals, policies and
strategies for each subarea are designed to address their individual settings and
characteristics.
POLICY LU-13.1:HEART OF THE CITY POLICY LU-13.2:REDEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN Encourage older properties along
The Heart of the City Specific Plan the boulevard to be redeveloped
provides design standards and and enhanced. Allow more intense
guidelines for this area, which development only in nodes and
promote a cohesive, landscaped gateways as indicated in the
boulevard that links its distinct sub- Community Form Diagram
areas and is accessible to all modes (Figure LU-2),
of transportation.
7
y
Hello Council,
Well, we're here again to talk about the developer putting mega
buildings on The Oaks
Well, lets start with a review
Then a comparison to Rosebowl
Then a realistic pictorial of KT Urban's Mega Oaks
Cupertino City Council Previously Approved This Oaks Project
A.pFroved Bid Not Buifst
The Oaks Shopping Center
LocAtion: North of Stevens Creek Floulrvanl east of HWI 65,u est of Mary Alk enue
Developer. Sa-id Hill Properties Inc
Architect: " tnt.Architects
Project Managrc Stephen hose
Application Summary.
• Use Permit&Architemural and Site Approval to demolish a theater and 2,430 square feet of cciMmemal space and construi l a 4
story-, 122-rciom hotel,a 3-story 31.000 square fcYA mixed use retail'officce,`coneention center building over an underground
parking pacium and sitz improvements in t>.v o pha_vcs at an existing thupping center.
Tantative NUp to subdivide an 8 l net acre parcel into 2 par€rls of 3 0 and 5 1 nt-rra in size,sxrth cute parcel to be further
subdivided into iwo commercial condominium units and a corninorr arca lot.
• Esception to the Heart sof the Clh,to reduce one side yard setback 15 W1 foz the proposed building
Tree Removal request to remove and replace approximately 47 trees drat are part of an ttpl+rov-ed landscape plan for an existing
showing cectter
Project Data,
i7rsidMHrr1 N;A
Comrrrrrcial
Lot Stu: 81 acres
Type Hotel,Mixed Use fretail;office,'convention center)
Sire Hotel 122 rooms. Mixed U-v:56,194 sq it
Height Hotel.4 story,Mr.xtd Use:3-story
Statin. ,
Tbc Planning,'nalmission reviewed sht project on May 27,ZXM9 azt.1 lune 1U.2003 and rt imimended approval
• The City{uLincil approved tt=e pnge" :t on SoptenrlN r 2,,2(ol
• Final Mag,was approved by the City Council on May d,2010
•
CRY COunci.approval$expire September 2 2012,
• On November 16,2010,City C:rtarscil approved a 14•last-er Entertainment Permit fur the Oaks Shopping Center:consistent with the
Planning Crmrnl,"k.+r's rectxrimendation-
• Thr Director of Community Development issued art extension of the permits extending the expiration date:to Sept 2.2D1.1
Visial:
sr
Renderunguf►+,fixed Use ptlIxivml
i Re ndcrtng at pro p.,ed Afrrreiitl lnn
c� V Back to 10C
I3
The Gals Today 2014 Approve Plan
Cupertino Oak-,
vC
k ffi .
Ilk
wmPm.'"
► a � t `
Lot Size 8.1 acre
=3529836 ft2
Retail/ 53,701 ft' 569194 ftp
Theater
Office 175553 ft2 - ft2
Housing - ft2 (0 units) - ft"' (0 units)
Hotel - ft2 (0 rtu -81,130 ft2 (122 r*
------------- --------------
715254 ftp 1329130 ft2
-20.2% FAR 4 -2X 437.4%% FAR
+ Parkine Garaue
Lets Compare The Oaks To Rosebowl
The Oaks
x
Lot Size 8.1 acre
F �
37
Rose Bol l -
Lot Size 7.47 acre
Housing, 204 Units 224,337 ft2
Retail 120,000 ft2
204 Units 334,337 ft2
Lets Compare To KT Urban 's Oaks
Th e Oaks
Lot Size 8.1 acre
yr
AML
1
KT Urban Oaks
Lot Size 8.1 acre
Retail/ Theater 69,500 ft2
Housing
Rosebowl1 200 Units 221,771 ft2
Rosebowl2 200 Units 221,771 ft2 Ppr
Rosebowl3 200 Units 221,771 ft2 i
600 Units 734,813 ft2
Conclusion
KT Urban wants to lOX the amount of
building at The Oaks
This mega project proposal is not Cupertino
Clearly, Cupertino residents do not want this
monstrosity.
#l�
th
The Westport development
proposal is essentially a rehash of
the same one rejected by the
council last year. KT Urban only
got 127 valid signatures (out of
22,000 registered voters) for its
failed attempt to submit an
initiative. It's an insult to . . .
The Westport proposal asks for
pre-approval of violating various
municipal codes — it is not a part
of the normal GPA process at all.
The housing/office units per acre,
proposed by KT Urban, is even
higher than the density in
Measure D which was rejected by
the city voters in 2016.
The Westport proposal will
increase the density by more than
ten times of the existing structure
and certainly creates devastating
traffic impacts to already highly
congested Highway 85 and local
streets (Stevens Creek Blvd and
Mary Avenue).
The so-called "Transit Center" is
merely a bus stop at a remote
corner. It's a useless benefit. It
will take away 72 on-street
parking spaces and put in only 50
underground parking.
Pedestrian Bridget over 85 is only
on the imaginary drawing. KT
Urban will neither fund it, nor
build it. Caltrain was never
consultants on whether a transit
stop north of Stevens Creek away
from De Anza College is even
feasible.
Lauren Sapudar
From: Munisekar <
Sent: Thursday,August 03, 2017 9:32 AM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Document shared on 8/1/2017 in Public Comments for Agenda Item 16C
Attachments: CupertinoCityCounci108012017.pdf
Dear Mayor Savita, City Council and Clerk,
Here is the presentation I shared on Aug 1 st City Council Meeting when speaking during public comments
section for Agenda Item 16C.
Thank you for listening to residents concerns on Westport/OAKs GPA request and voting it down with 4-1
straw vote; looking forward to official recording of that vote on Aug 15, 2017.
Please include this document as part of public records.
Thanks
Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
Total Control Panel Loein
To:citvclerk(i�cupertino.org Message Score: 1 High(60):Pass
From: My Spam Blocking Level:High Medium(75):Pass
Low(90):Pass
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
0 :3
N (1)
cn Q a v
� V -0 v
p � -0 o
0 L40 CL
O
� � 5
v
-
a� N
z Q
0
• �1 h
tr
67
}
Ilk o6#
a rD
DD
o
ED a'
t.� o
let
rD
1.5
SPS.
c� a h
m
CA
LY �
es �$
l �•
4—J
^LO
W
^cr
U c
m Q
.O
i
Y
wJ
rz
LD
(D
ac
SO
5
0 CL
0 w
CL
O 90
CL
CL
o c a C
• o c a IV 0 m
L 'cu v t!)
E a
O CL _ U)
O
i
i
• • • • • •
� O 0041 r-i� Q -0
O
V' C7
PQ -0 N. O rD
QJ
�
L/) -0 CD e-+-0rD
C (D r- O Q-
0O S (D D
CL
O 0 �G
o D
mo
0 O
rj
(D 0
c D - -N F"
CL fD cin V).
� r+ rD
�-
O cin
0
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 7:28 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: last night's presentation
Attachments: vallcoretail.docx
This is a copy of my presentation during the Orals on Aug. 1 , for the record.
Thank you.
Phyllis Dickstein
Cupertino Resident
Total Control Panel Login
To:cityclerk(cLcupertino.org Message Score: 1 High(60): Pass
From: My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium(75):Pass
Low(90): Pass
Block this sender
Block aol.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed yourfilter level.
i
i
1
I would like to comment on some of the points made at last Thursday's retail
workshop, and give my take on how they might relate to Vallco as a retail
center.
1) The problem of building shopping malls is the high cost of construction.
But, the Vallco buildings already exist! and Valley Fair, the same type of
structure is admittedly very successful, so the main problem with indoor malls
is not the shape of the building. A complete teardown is therefore
unnecessary and counter-productive. Anyway, the prime shopping month in
the USA coincides with the coldest month in Cupertino -- do you want to shop
outdoors after work once the sun goes down?
2) Shoppers prefer outdoor parking -- another plus for Vallco.
3) Location, location at major crossroads. Vallco is at Stevens Creek & Wolfe,
just near 280, not far from Homestead Road.
4) Traditional department stores have been closing, but off-price stores are
can be successful. Penneys in fact had one of its successful locations at
Vallco. Surely, there is a need for one department store in Cupertino.
5) Shopping centers need experiential tenants. How about a new fitness
center, a multiplex, a bowling alley, an ice-skating rink, a couple of good
restaurants and a food court with some one-off stalls (Vietnamese
vegetarian...). An expanded food court could attract Apple personnel who may
not want to eat in the company store day in and day out.
6) Medical buildings were mentioned as good co-tenants and a major medical
facility is what Cupertino lacks. Something like Stanford's new HMO or a
branch of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation could take over one of the former
Department stores.
7. The right shoppers are needed. What about the thousands of Apple
employees across the street? And the 900 tenants at the Hamptons?
A focus group could be held at Infinite Loop right now to see what kinds of
stores the employees would like.
8. Please note that the panelists' ideas of mixed use centered on housing,
very little on offices. Vallco could include some housing to meet our
obligations to the state, but mixed use should be considered more broadly.
We already have plenty of offices and housing on Wolfe Road -- Vallco could
be the third leg of the tripod —retail, entertainment, dining, medical facilities as
well as some housing.
[ (not delivered because timed out) 9. Conclusion: Vallco was not the
complete failure it is sometimes made out to be, but what it lacked was a retail
vision. The last few owners were real estate speculators with no interest or
expertise in shopping centers. A developer with vision could make a fair return
on investment, while enhancng our quality of life.]
Lauren Sapudar
From: on behalf of Ignatius Ding <
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 4:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Copy of my presentation from 8/1/17 council meeting
Attachments: 08-01-17_Presentation.pdf
Dear Grace,
Enclosed is a copy of my presentation from last night.
Please include it in the city public records. Thanks
Regards,
Ignatius Y. Ding
Total Control Panel Login
To:cityclerkLckupertino.orMessage Score:27 High(60): Pass
From: My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium(75): Pass
Low(90): Pass
Block this sender
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
I
Presented
by
Ignatius Y. Ding
Cupertino Resident
of
40 years
The Westport development proposal
is essentially a rehash of the same one
rejected by the council last year. KT
Urban only got 127 valid signatures
(out of 22,000 registered voters) for its
failed attempt to submit an initiative.
It's an insult to the intelligence of the
council and residents
*910ZUI S.1310A SlIa aul
Xa paha fai sung uaTum Q aansuaIV
ui Sl!suap aul uuul nq� lIu
WAa SI luua-i11 Zx Sq pasodoid
laam .gad sl!un aaljjo/tulsnou au j
'IIp ju ssaawd Vd!) Ium iou auj jo
pud v jou sI 1I — sapoa Iudlalunm
SnOI.IUA tUIjVJOIA JO IVAoaddp-aid
.ioj s3isp Iusodo.id I.iodlsaAA, auZ
The Westport proposal will
increase the density by more than
ten times of the existing structure
and certainly creates devastating
traffic impacts to already highly
congested Highway 85 and local
streets (Stevens Creek Blvd and
Mary Avenue).
The so-called "Transit Center" is
merely a bus stop at a remote
corner. It's a useless benefit. It
will take away 72 on-street
parking spaces and put in only 50
underground parking.
;xuoq v XIdmis sT .iallieuu
a.iijua au jL -aigisvaj uana sT a�tajjOD
VzUV aQ tUO.Ij SUMO laa.13 suanajS
jo gpou dols j!suv.ij P .xaglagm
uo pallnsuoa .IaAau SURA UIUIII93 'II
piinq .iou 11! punj .iagl!au ll!m uuq.i fl
jLX 'iuimmip S.ivuTt-uuui aqj uo
SIuo sl SS .fano latpi.Ig UUI.IIsapad