PC 12-20-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
December 20, 2005 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The special Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Lisa Giefer
Staff present:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
CiddyWordell
Colin Jung
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Piasecki noted receipt of correspondence related to the
Marketplace; and a communication relating to the Whole Foods application.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
Commissioner Chen:
· Announced that it was her last meeting as a Planning Commissioner. She said it was a pleasure and a
privilege to serve on the Planning Commission in the past five years.
· She thanked the City Council for their trust and support; and her colleagues.
· Thanked staff for their support and hard work, and the community for their support and input.
· She announced that as of January I" there would be a vacancy on the Planning Commission and
encouraged residents to apply for the position.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Thanked Com. Chen for her knowledge and input and caring attitude for the community.
The Commissioners expressed appreciation to Com. Chen for her camaraderie and knowledge and wished
her success in her future endeavors.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Howard Trudeau, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed concern about the future increased traffic as a result of the various project approvals in the
city.
· Encouraged the Planning Department and Public Works Department to present an integrated
approach on traffic to the city because of building up a great deal of traffic on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Wolfe Road with over 700 condominium units under consideration, or approved on
that corner and further developments coming in the Vallco area. A lot is being done to increase the
traffic on Stevens Creek and the results need to be publicly shown if the studies have been done, so
that people can see exactly what will happen to the traffic and what street improvements are going to
be made in the future.
· Suggested a systems approach be taken to look at the overall integrated effect of all the additions to
housing and retail up and down Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard.
· Said he looked forward to hearing in the future about such a study so that he and others would feel
more comfortable that it is being planned and being taken care of and not have another
Winchester/Stevens Creek congestion or make out crossroads at Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Boulevard more congested than it already is.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Commented that while Cupertino would like to have a Valley Fair and Santana Row for the economic
return it brings to the community, they would not be building that type of project in Cupertino. When
the General Plan was updated, a professional traffic engineer was hired as an expert in the area and he
did a comprehensive traffic analysis of the General Plan which includes all the projects referred to
and some not proposed yet.
· Suggested that the speaker contact Ciddy Wordell for a copy of the report, which is a comprehensive
analysis and tests all the intersections in the city to make sure they meet the LOS standards.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2005-20, ASA-2005-18
(EA-2005-16) Peter Ko
(Whole Foods) 20955 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Use Permit to demolish structures associated
with a former car dealership and construct a
one-story 63,000 square foot market.
Architectural and Site Approval for a new,
one-story 63,000 square foot market.
Tentative City Council date: January
17. 2006.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to demolish structures associated with a former car
dealership and construct a new 68,214 square foot one-story market with mezzanine level, as outlined
in the staff report.
· Reviewed the site plan, landscape plan and project data as outlined in the staff report.
Glen Goepfert, Asst. Director of Public Works:
· . One of the improvements that was suggested by the Transportation Impact Analysis actually was
extending the southbound left turn lane on Stelling.
· . Would not recommend having a conflicting movement through the median, making a break in
the median for the left, traffic leaving the site, and making a left hand turn ftom the site. .
· . Said they were concerned about truck traffic.
Mr. Jung:
· . Reviewed the letter ftom the Alves Drives neighbors who tentatively support the Whole Foods
project but have some concerns:
o 0 Make sure noise ordinance is complied with;
o 0 Sources of noise identified as roof top equipment, and directing any directional vents
southward.
o 0 They question whether or not the south wall needs to be put in place or not.
o 0 Store operating hours; customer vs. employee activities, loading dock activities and truck
deliveries.
o 0 Light and glare, potential odors.
o 0 The neighbors would like to limit Stelling Road access so there would be no exiting on
it. Discourage cut through traffic on Alves Drive.
o 0 No construction or demolition trucks during the construction phase on Alves Drive.
.. Staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
recommend approval of the Use Permit per the Model Resolution with the added condition that the
Public Works Department studies the onsite parking layout and circulation to ensure the delivery
truck movements work and that they are used; and recommend approval of the ASA Resolution.
Com Giefer:
· . Inquired if staff and the applicant looked at having a turn in lane anywhere facing Stevens Creek.
A deceleration lane might solve the truck traffic and save the landscape median in ftont of the market.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Most of the truck activities will occur in the morning hours and probably not as many customers
as in the afternoon. It would not be the biggest problem.
Mr. Goepfert answered Commissioners' questions:
· . Said there were no comments ftom VT A regarding the relocation of the bus stop. They did get
comments on doing standard improvements to it and it was added to the conditions for the Public
Works to facilitate a look at the area and decide what is actually needed.
· . There is a memo ftom Public Works addresses the parking and conflicts along Steven Creek
Boulevard as far as access to the site. The Director of Public Works has taken a stand on that.
· . Said it was the applicant and property owner's responsibility to clean up hazardous materials left
behind.
· . Relative to Vice Chair Miller's concern about traffic, and staff's suggestion of removing the
parking along Stevens Creek in ftont, he stated that Public Works would like to remove the parking
on the north side and move the curb three feet over, which would necessitate a job in the striping.
Chair Wong:
· . Referred to the Site Plan, asked why the building pad was shown on the gas station when it is not
owned by the property owner.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Stated that they asked the applicant to show what buildings might go up in the long term future,
they have no control over it. They chose the location because the building would be upftont location
of Stelling, and the activity is visible along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is an attractive design and
they want it to be more visible. Putting it in the back it would not do much to enhance the street
enviromnent.
· . Staff feels comfortable. with delivery trucks or big trucks making the right turn onto the
driveway; the movement is workable. After eliminating a few of the parking spaces right at the
entrance, to increase the radius it could work.
Peter Pao, SandhiU Property Company, San Mateo:
· . Said there were one or two issues relative to traffic engineering that need to be cleared up.
Peter Ko, architect:
· . Discussed plans for the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the entry to the restaurant seating
area, which may reflect the orchard that existed many years ago in Cupertino. He felt the design
would complement Whole Foods as they emphasize organic foods.
· . Addressed the artwork along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said that they were considering
hiring a local artist to design a mosaic painting for the wall on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Anthony Gilmore, President of Northern California Whole Foods Market:
· . Said the Whole Foods building will include "theater" aspects. There will be seated venues where
food preparation will take place and brought to the middle of the store where customers can walk
around and sit down at that location.
· . This will be the largest Whole Foods store in California.
· . May have outdoor cooking during events, but not permanently.
Com. Giefer:
· . Asked why Whole Foods felt that the orientation along Stevens Creek was a better suggestion
than what Chairman Wong and staff recommended, as opposed to parallel to Stevens Creek.
· . Asked about their policy on supermarket shopping cart retrieval, that may find their way into the
neighborhoods.
· . On the Plan Set (ASO.1), asked for confirmation that the mezzanine is being built when it is
opened.
Mr. Gilmore:
· . Alternative layouts were looked at; they felt in order to maximize the parking and the building
size, all at grade, it would have to face in that particular direction.
· . Also taking advantage of Stevens Creek Boulevard ftontage. If they were to put it back toward
the end of the property there would be a choke point between the gas station and where the store
squared off separating the two parking fields.
Mr. Gilmore reviewed the operating hours:
· . Loading hours 5 am-lOam; store hours 8 am- I 0 pm.
· . Averages about 2 trucks per day; some trucks come five days a week, some only one day a week.
· . Majority of deliveries are Monday-Friday. When they open at 8 am there is minimal amount of
customers in the store. Most of the big rigs will be there before 8 am.
· . The mezzanine is planned, it is an integral part of the building.
Gay Lawrence Pang, Pang Engineers:
· . They did study the crossing over three lanes and making a u-turn. A regular vehicle could make
that u-turn. They assume the vehicle would come south. They suggested that the southbound left
turn lane on Stelling be lengthened. The vehicle could either go straight south or make the left turn
and go eastbound on Stevens Creek.
Mr. Pang:
· . Referring to comments made by Commissioner Miller, he said without a redevelopment of that
parcel (Shell Station), there is no way that the City can ask for a dedication or improvement to
facilitate a separate right turn lane there.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
-
Larry Burriesci, Alves Drive:
· . Supports the project.
· . Likes the orientation of the store on the property; good use of the property.
· . Fully expect that this applicant will obey the City ordinances and the truck drivers will abide
by the rules.
· . Relative to traffic, a problem exists on Alves Drive on Sunday mornings. He also discussed
traffic problems on Stelling.
· . He urged consideration of angling the driveways in to prevent creeping out onto Stelling Road.
Jennifer Griffith, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· . Shops at Whole Foods in several different cities. Thought there would be better parking with
Whole Foods moving. Traffic in this area where the store is going to be moved is a major concern.
· . One of the main concerns is traffic problems on Stelling Road. There needs to be better traffic
control on Stelling where the proposed in and out lanes are for the future parking lot. Stelling traffic
is sometimes at a dead stop. The left turn light going southbound to make an east turn onto Stevens
Creek is very long. Wants to make sure the Stelling end of the traffic potential does not become a big
problem there.
· . Expressed concern about the safety of the pedestrian traffic and wheel chair users at Stevens
Creek and Stelling intersection. There are two bus stops there. It takes a considerable amount of
time to cross Stevens Creek and can be dangerous.
Jan Stoeckenius, Cupertino Road:
· . Supports proposal.
· . Said he felt the traffic problem was over-exaggerated. Whole Foods traffic is reasonably
congested getting in and out and people live with it. He anticipated that it would be the same or
easier with one large entrance on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
· . Relative to the trucks in the morning, he said he lives directly across from the Sunnyview
Lutheran Home and trucks back up into their drive way in the morning and sound the beeplbeep
warning signal when backing up. He does not feel it is an issue.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· . Asked for the construction schedule, and questioned whether the store was going to open next
year.
Mr.Ko:
· . Responded that if they received approval tonight, they would proceed to get the construction
documents, submit it to the Building Department about the beginning of February; hopefully secure
a building permit sometime in May and begin construction. Construction would take six months,
and the project would be complete by the end of the year.
Com. Chen:
· . Questioned what the parking ratio was for the existing Whole Food store, as it appeared to be
congested.
Mr. Goepfert:
. . Said that the parking demand study was not part of what the traffic engineer performed. .
Since more than the code required parking was being proposed, it was not seen as an issue. If it is
necessary for the traffic engineer to look at some of the other issues as a condition, it could be
included if the Planning Commission felt it was desirable.
Ms. WordeD:
· . In response to Com. Giefer's question about whether or not the public art piece would be
mounted on the side of the building, she explained that Whole Foods proposed a very large sign in
ftont with their name, and it was felt that they could combine the strong identification in ftont with
public art. In the General Plan it states that public art can take the form of many different kinds of
proposals, not just an object; it can be something integrated into a building.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Stated that the Planning Commission could request in the condition that it be referred to the
Fine Arts Commission for review whether it is an acceptable solution.
Com. Chen:
· . Stated that public art should be durable and not tenant specific. The idea of integrating public
art with the sign as part of the building, if Whole Foods at some later point decides they need a
bigger space, finds another area then the art work in her opinion would not be durable. She said she
had an issue with the term "mounted" in the model resolution.
· . Commented that is sounded like they were describing a license plate holder.
Mr. Wordell:
· . Said a solution could be to make the name of the store separate in some way so that if the store
name changed that could be changed without affecting the art. It would likely have to be part of the
design.
Com. Saadati:
· . Overall the project looks very good. It appears to be the right location and hopefully will be
very successful.
· . Based on the 200+ feet distance ftom Alves, and the noise abatement measure for equipment,
he foresees that the noise will not be such a big issue. If it is, he thinks additional measures need to
be taken to remedy that.
· . Said that he felt traffic noise would not be more than is already present. The traffic noise
from Stevens Creek is loud; the cars in the parking lot usually go at a slower speed, which will not
generate as much noise. However, the trucks may, but with the enclosed loading dock, it would be
remedied to some extent.
· . Whole Foods is a good neighbor and they will likely address any future complaints and the
neighbors who are there should be in communication in the future if anything comes up that is not to
their satisfaction. It is difficult to estimate how many cars are going to be going in or out in the
parking lot at the same time.
· . Said he has been to the existing Whole Foods and was able to get in and out; parking is
difficult there, it is not sufficient. Time will tell, and parking will need to be evaluated if it has a big
impact on Alves Drive. If there are concerns regarding traffic, that portion can be studied further.
· . Said that demolition and proceeding with the building can move forward, since it is the most
time consuming part of the construction document. The parking and remainder do not take as much
time. They could move ahead with other aspects of the project.
· . Supports the project.
-
Com. Giefer:
· . Pleased that Cupertino will host the largest Whole Foods in California.
· . Recommends that they lengthen the westbound turn lane on Stevens Creek to try and
accommodate crossing lanes into the left turn lane and make it easier in non peak traffic times
because during peak times it would not be able to be done.
· . Expressed concern about the bike lane on Stevens Creek at Stelling. Allowing parking along
Stevens Creek does slow traffic but having a bicycle lane there leaves potential for the bicyclists to
get crushed by right hand turn traffic onto Stelling.
· . Suggested a condition specifically stating that no construction vehicles be allowed on streets
such as Alves as part of the approval process.
· . If necessary, perhaps make it illegal to turn onto Alves at certain times of the day when
construction is going on.
· . Supports the project.
-
Com. Chen:
· . Supports Com. Giefer's suggestion regarding the construction trucks coming and going.
· . Expressed concern about the parking situation on Sundays when both the church and the store
are operating at the same time. Would like the issue raised when reviewed by the Director of
Community Development.
· . Supports the project.
Com. Miller:
· . Architecture is outstanding and will be a good addition to the city.
· . The truck route is very important and is being addressed.
· . Convinced that the issues will be addressed and there are solutions including doing something
with the timing at Saich and Stelling; making it convenient to make u-turns at Alves at Stelling,
making it inconvenient to turn right onto Alves, and possibly speed bumps.
· . Said he did not feel that traffic was as big an issue as they once thought. Given the distance
from the market to the Alves neighborhood, noise is not going to be an issue.
· . Supports the project.
-
Chair Wong:
· . The City is losing a major dealership that brought a lot of sales tax for Cupertino; Whole
Foods is relocating and will bring a lot of people from other cities, bringing sales tax dollars back
into Cupertino. In a way they are revitalizing Cupertino.
· . Supports the project.
· . He would like to look into the Sunday service of Abundant Life Church and how that will
affect traffic.
· . Include in the Traffic Study Report, not only Alves Avenue but beyond into Greenleaf in the
Garden Gate neighborhood.
· . Said he supported Public Works memo regarding the two suggestions they made concerning
looking at the traffic circulation in the parking lot and also looking at no parking on Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
· . Concurred that there should be no construction traffic on Alves Avenue, possibly by restricting
the hours.
· . Recommended that staff follow up with neighbors and forward a recommendation to City
Council.
Com. Giefer:
· . Suggested wording change to the model resolution. Change the word "mounted" to "add an
elevation", as long as it is durable and coupled with the Whole Foods logo sign.
· . Agreed to adding the wording that it would be referred to the Fine Arts Commission for review
and approval and recommendation to the City Council.
· . Include in the model resolution that the bike racks be located near the entrance.
Chair Wong:
· . Asked if the Public Works memo was included in the model resolution yet?
· . Would like the traffic engineer to follow up on the Sunday traffic and get a recommendation to
the City Council.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Said it is generally referred to that they have to review extending the left turn pocket and
whatever is necessary to accomplish that. The parking on Stevens Creek Blvd. is not specifically
mentioned. It is on the record and will come up at the Council level as well.
· . Will have the Traffic Engineer follow up on Sunday traffic and make recommendation to City
Council.
· . Will have the cross traffic looked at before Council.
Com. Chen:
· . Commented that Abundant Life Church has a large vacant lot behind church and can solve the
parking problem themselves. They could turn the vacant lot into additional parking.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve U-2005-20,
ASA-205-18, EA-2005-16 as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chairperson Wong sununarized the suggestions regarding art work, bicycle racks, and construction
traffic.
2. U-2005-09, ASA-2005-06 Use Permit to demolish approximately 15,267
(EA02006-06) square feet of existing commercial space KCR
DeveIopment, Inc. and construct a new 37,250 square foot
(Evershine) 19620-19780 two story building at an existing shopping
Stevens Creek BouIevard center (Marketplace). Architectural and site
approval for demolition of approximately
15,267 square feet of existing commercial
space and construction of a new 37,205
square foot two story building at an existing
shopping center (Marketplace)
Gary Chao, Senior PIanner, preseuted the staff report:
· . Reviewed the project as outlined in the staff report.
· . Staff recommends for the Planning Commission to hear the public testimonies, consider the
items but continue the item so that the issues could be resolved.
· . Relative to the parking study, the applicant has expressed concerns with the 10% safety factor
that the parking consultant built into his methodology and also the timing in which the study was
taken; as November has a higher shopping season. At the time of the study, building A was still
under construction; there were some contractors' cars parked in the parking lot which should be
accounted for.
· . The Planning Commission options regarding the parking deficiency. They could direct the
applicant to reduce square footage and provide more parking stalls to balance the parking deficiency,
or direct a new parking survey be conducted at a different time of year. A condition could be designed
to get a parking monitoring plan to ensure sufficient parking at different times of the phases of the
project.
· . Reviewed the Building DesignlLandscaping.
· . Staff recommends that a final landscape plan be presented and be reviewed by staff and come
back to Planning Commission with recommendation.
· . The City architect made suggestions to further enhance the architecture of the building. A
balcony feature matching Building A be presented to break up the second story mass. Gates and
Trellis matching that of Building A be presented on this project as well for consistency so that the two
buildings are compatible with each other. The main entrance should be emphasized along south
elevation. Along the east elevation the architect suggested that lattice features with vines and
vegetations be presented; an art feature, a statue or fountain, at the corner of the new building to
balance the entry drive.
· . Reviewed neighborhood concerns including landscaping, restaurant odors, operational issues of
the center, parking, onsite circulation, pedestrian crosswalk along Portal, as outlined in the staff
report.
· . Staff recommends that the application be continued and the Planning Commission hear the
public testimonies and applicant's position and direct staff on the parking deficiency issue.
Com. MiDer:
· . Relative to parking, what is the philosophy for the design of peak traffic or for percentage of
peak?
· . Asked what the issue was regarding the service access on the easterly portion of the property
referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Said they do not design for the absolute peak; but plan for something less. The traffic engineer
did a study that showed there is some joint utilization of parking and he put in a 10% factor to allow
some flexibility.
Mr. Chao:
· . Relative to the issue of service access, he said there is an existing driveway along the easterly
boundary of the shopping center that the applicant proposed to maintain. They will restripe the stalls
so that there is opportunity to make some enhancements in the area.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to parking.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Vallco has a development agreement and there is a specific requirement that they provide so
much parking. It does exceed the standards and that is a huge center so it is a bit different. Toll
Brothers is a straight forward shopping center, there is no office and they are proposing specific
parking solution that includes some angled parking on a public street and taking some credit for that.
Chair Wong:
· . Relative to the issue of the removal of the palm trees, what can be done to ensure that it doesn't
occur again, and how can the neighbors be compensated for doing the research on the palm tree
concerns.
Mr. Chao:
· . Relative to the palm trees, he said there was a covenant in 1977 and the removal of the trees was
an oversight. The ERC recommended that a condition be placed on the present project that new
specimen sized palm trees be proposed for the location where the trees were removed. Staff is
proposing a condition that all the landscaping for this project be sacred to this project. Any future
removal would have to go to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Said he did not know if it was a covenant or a condition. We don't have a program to
compensate for due diligence. We appreciate Keith's work and we are trying to rectify it in this
situation, requiring that the palms be put back in. What the Commission could do is require that a
covenant deed restriction be placed on this property similar to what you referred to and what
Commissioner Giefer advocates on hillside lots. You can also specify that these be considered
heritage trees under the ordinance and notify the neighbors that they cannot be removed.
Mr. Goepfert:
· . In response to Chair Wong's question about what direction the applicant should take on the
choker issue, he said they spoke to the applicant and received indication that the neighborhood felt
they needed to be consulted on about the disposal of that issue.
· . There was a requirement ftom the City Council to install a crosswalk at the existing chokers on
Portal. The applicant wanting to please the city and City Council went ahead and installed it without
the benefit of approved plans.
· . The city does not have a standard for mid-block crossing. Part of the traffic consultant's work
was to look at the location and determine whether there was any liability in it, if indeed there were
issues such as site distance.
· . The neighborhood will be asked what their concerns and designs are before making a final
recommendation of where the choker should be. Mid-block crossing has some liability issues and
putting an enhanced crossing at an existing intersection would be preferable.
· . The palm trees were discussed. The removed ones need to be replaced.
Wayne Akuba, Applicant:
· . We have started expanding the shopping center and we have greatly appreciated the help ftom
the planning staff and commission as far as previous approvals. We have put together a nice project
that we are looking at as far as in the building itself, in Building. C would bring in about $17 million
or $ I million in sales tax. Weare looking at negotiating with tenants along those lines. When you
look at all the different elements as far as ingress/egress and different areas, we have been working
with the city as far as how to basically get traffic across if you want we have site plan of the way the
center used to be. We will have more parking than is required according to the shared requirements.
· . Discussed shared parking
· . Discussed the landscaping plan, noting that they planted one tree for every three parking spaces,
whereas the city requirement was one for every 5 spaces.
· . Discussed the requirement of the palm trees; have replaced the palms with 4 palms, canary palms
$12K each, and have contracted with the landscape person to put in the remainder of the palms, a
variety of date type palms valued at $20K each.
· . Said it would be a requirement for all new restaurants to have odor abatement equipment
installed. They have also agreed to help the existing restaurants install the equipment in existing
restaurants.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· . Asked applicant to comment on the relief on architecture and an art piece to balance the other
side, as well as the service access on the eastern part of the property.
Mr. Akuba:
· . Relative to an art feature, he said he would willingly work with planning staff to develop a
monument or an art feature on the corner of the building, something that would meet the needs of the
city.
· . As far as the easterly entrance, one of those things that we had looked at; if you look at the site
plan, there is perpendicular parking and I had talked to our architect about mitigating two driveways.
· . In response to Vice Chair Miller's request for comment on the onsite pedestrian circulation, he
stated that the original circulation called for three crosswalks or sidewalks to get ftom Stevens Creek
to the center; they have increased it to 5, to allow people to traverse ftom Stevens Creek to the center.
· . On the entrance areas, crossing the sidewalks, a concrete pavement treatment will be use on the
easterly section, which would tie the different sidewalks together. There is also a colored concrete
treatment at the main entrance which will delineate the crosswalks.
· . Explained that the plans for Building C included a retail type tenancy for the downstairs, and
upstairs would have an office on the back portion of the building.
· . On the ftont portion we are talking to different tenants as far as whether it would be office or
some sort of retail.
Mr. Pang, Traffic Engineer:
· . Explained that the three major items they contracted with the City of Cupertino for relative to the
marketplace expansion were: To look at the traffic impact analysis in terms of the Delta differential
increase in chips for Building C alone as well as for the entire site to give Public Works and Glen
Goepfert an opportunity to see what the total peak hour traffic could be once Building A and C were
fully occupied. The second item was for the parking demand. The third was in relationship to the
mid-block crossing on Portal.
· . He discussed the parking demand analysis, and noted that a challenge of the parking study would
be a number of different areas, one being onsite parking on Portal; the fact that Building A was
completed but unoccupied and that there mayor may not be potential vacancies in the other buildings
while the parking study was being performed. The applicant confirmed that there were no vacancies
other than Building A. Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Carol Baker, resident:
· . Noted that as long as the Marketplace has been in that location, they have never had all the stores
rented. Weare surprised to learn that they are putting in more.
· . She heard from Long's employees their concern about lack of parking for their customers and
they have been squeezed out you can't see the store any more; and once Building C is built, you
won't see Longs at all when driving by.
· . Discussed the renderings that were provided to the residents of the entrance to the Wilson Park
tract behind the Evershine construction zone. She said she would support either rendering provided.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
· . Expressed concern about the removal of palm trees from the center without notification from the
neighbors. He noted that the palm trees had a history with the city and the center.
· . He questioned the status of the trees, and whether there would be a covenant of use permit
attachment to protect the trees in the future.
· . He discussed his concerns about the east side of the property that presently has a three foot high
cyclone fence; the future plans to put an art structure which would impact the pedestrians going into
the center.
Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive:
· . Spoke on behalf of herself, Boris Abenson, and Mr. and Mrs. Tenaka.
· . All are concerned about the new construction in the Marketplace, specifically impacts ftom
traffic, noise and pollution.
· . It is not known how much more traffic will be drawn to the center by the new building tenants;
they have noticed an increase already in the neighborhood.
· . There is an overflow of parking due to a lack of spaces in the Marketplace.
· . They feel that the center is being overbuilt, and the citizens are worried about the concentration
of housing in the area.
· . Truck deliveries hold up traffic on Portal while negotiating turns into the Portal loading dock.
· . Discussed the requirement for new odor abatement equipment for new restaurants.
· . She expressed the urgent need to mitigate the strong odors ftom the present restaurants in the
Marketplace because of the negative impacts on the neighboring residents.
· . She noted the special restriction in effect which states that no more restaurants can go into the
gated area adjacent to the residents on Bixby, and recommended that it be stated in the use permit.
Alan Roth, Portal Plaza resident:
· . Said he compared the shopping center to a neighbor who has many cars and parks them on his
lawn and then in ftont of others homes because he has run out of space.
· . If you go to the center between 12 noon and I p.m. it is quite busy and crowded and the traffic
has increased considerably. At night the cars cruise in circles and the neighborhood trying to find
parking space.
· . Portal Plaza residents up until now have not had a serious parking problem, but with center
patrons parking on their street, they cannot park on their own streets. They do not want to have to
resort to tagging or towing.
· . He expressed concern about the odors ftom the restaurants early in the morning on the weekends
which is a nuisance. He noted that there were odor filtering systems on the market that the Elephant
Bar was considering; however, it has been over a year since the restaurant opened and the neighbors
have been putting up with the odors.
· . He added his ftustration that there were other restaurants in the center which did not have odor
filtering equipment and the remark was made that they could not be required to install them as they
were cost prohibitive for the owner.
Chair Wong:
· . Noted for the record that the model resolution states that new and existing restaurants will have
odor abatement equipment.
Patricia McAfee, No. Blaney:
· . Noted that there was 5,000 square feet of vacant office space in Cupertino.
· . She questioned why vacant buildings in Cupertino were being torn down, only to be replaced by
others. Is the space needed; will they be able to get the tenants to fill the space?
· . The residents want to ensure that when spaces are rented, they stay rented.
· . Addressed the parking issue, especially the flow of traffic in the early evening when people go to
dinner and to Longs to pick up prescriptions. An existing building off Portal creates a blind spot in
front of the Elephant Bar.
· . Longs Drugs have been in the center for many years and is a good neighbor. The residents want
to see them remain in the center.
George Monk, Price Avenue:
· . Delighted to have a successful business at the Marketplace; Longs is a vital piece of the
neighborhood, and I enjoy having the Elephant Bar close by.
· . Having the owners and developers as neighbors has been a long and painful trial. This
development has been going on for most of the decade, with two more years to go.
· . Whatever ends up being approved for this, please have some timetable set with some meaningful
penalties for when the developers miss the deadlines, because it has been a recurring theme of the
whole development.
· . Developers believe that being good neighbors means meeting the minimum requirements set by
the city with commitments made, conveniently ignored when they think the neighbors have forgotten.
· . The requirement in the original Longs development in 1977 was that the developers maintain the
choker on Portal. The Marketplace side was baron and they are now saying the fix is being held up
by the city. It is not being held up by the city; they haven't done it since 1977.
· . The other side of the street was maintained by the condos and was always very full. Two or three
Christmas' ago, I sent a letter about this development and suddenly an array of poinsettias appeared
on the Marketplace side chokers because they had a proposal in ftont of the city and they needed to
look like they were being good neighbors. It looked good for about 5 days and then went back to its
normal baron appearance.
· . Relative to the chokers, there was a sudden ftenzy of activity, they ripped out the landscaping on
the condominium side which looked good and now both sides look equally devastated.
· . When the Elephant Bar was built, they promised to landscape the side facing Portal.
Landscaping meets bare minimum requirements; it can be considered compliant but can be
considered most suitable for tethering bicycles and sheltering smokers ftom the Elephant Bar.
· . They cut down the trees a few years ago because they said they needed people ftom the street to
be able to see the buildings. They have now built barriers in ftont, three major buildings to replace
the trees that were apparently blocking the rear.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· . Expressed concern about the narrow entrance constructed next to the newly constructed two
story building. If the other new building is built adjacent to it, there will be a very narrow entrance
and exit into the center.
· . It is difficult to get into the center with the amount of density in the center. There is confusion
about how to enter the center.
· . By constructing the new building on the left hand side of the newly constructed two story, a very
dense face of two story buildings will be presented onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. Suggested that
something be done to break up the bulk of the building along Stevens Creek, as it looks like an
interior shopping center.
· . Asked for assurance that the ash trees along the parkway in ftont of the new proposed building
are protected. The other ash trees along the newly constructed two story suffered adversely during
construction.
Alan RobeD, Richwood Drive:
· . The parking area is busier with the Elephant Bar and other two restaurants in the center. Urged
that they come to an agreement about what the right methodology is to go ahead and measure the
right parking load and go through the analysis.
· . Relative to pedestrian access, on Richwood Drive, a number of residents coming from the east
along Stevens Creek to go ahead and walk to the Marketplace, and that dual set of driveways between
the two developments is a challenge to get through. Looking at some more detail in the plan, a better
solution can be arrived at that mitigates some of those concerns about getting across there. In
addition, since there are multiple buildings, want to also have that pedestrian plan add extra levels of
details to make it clear how pedestrians coming ftom the east will get from the buildings in the ftont
across the parking areas to the retail at the south end of the center.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
· . Asked staff to comment on Ms. Tamblyn's statement that there could be no more restaurants in
the gøted area on Bixby.
Mr. Chao:
· . In 1976 there was a condition as part of the use permit that limits any new restaurants to occur
along the corridor of Bixby. There are currently two restaurants. The condition states that they are
grandfathered in and they may maintain as is; there cannot be any new restaurants proposed on the
corridor. It will be clarified in the new conditional use permit or part of the model resolution as
verbatim taken out ftom the original use and carries forward.
· . In response to Com. Saadati's question, he indicated there was not a master plan for the center.
Parking would be a problem for any plans in the future, as there is no room for additional building.
· . He answered questions about traffic and parking concems in the center.
· . Options for the applicant include reduce the building size, or do another study.
Mr. Akuba:
· . It is our responsibility to work through the issues with the city and Planning Department as far as
the parking requirements for the different tenants we are negotiating with. We asked the city
planning staff if we can continue the same way we did Building A and B where we presented the
tenant to the Planning Department and have them approve it based on the parking calculation
requirements. If we continue along those lines, it is our responsibility to make sure we fill the spaces
with tenancies that will fit the parking requirements.
· . Requested that the Planning Commission consider their application to allow them to move
forward based on providing applications for each tenant coming in.
· . Said they were willing to return to the Planning Commission if there were parking problems
once the project was completed.
Vice Chair Miller:
· . The concern I have with considering the shared parking is that the traffic study showed that the
peak hour was noon; if the peak hour was in the evening I see a stronger argument for saying a shared
formula makes sense, but when the peak hour is in the middle of the day, I am struggling with how I
can logically agree with that.
Mr. Akuba:
· . If you look at how the parking requirements are set up for the shared parking, the retail
component is at 60%. From that standpoint what you are looking at is a metered output for each of
the tendencies that go in, as far as how you look at parking. How you cater as far as the shared
parking and the requirements for retail is 60% during the day, 90% in the evening and the big
component is 10% in the evening for office.
· . If you look at the shared parking as it is today, we exceed what Pang Engineers looked at for that
demand. We are asking that you allow us to continue to work along that methodology because we
have exceeded it. That is where we differ as far as what the parking requirements should be.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . The difference we have in the amount of parking makes me uncomfortable with a case by case;
we should deal with each tenant. We do not want to encourage under-performing uses in the center;
we want to give the applicant all the flexibility he needs to have a successful leasable tenant space.
At the same time, if the difference between what the parking study says he needed and what was
being provided was far less, we could probably go along with something like that.
· . There may be room for the applicant to go back and review their plans, to see if they can carve
out some of the space, to see if they can provide it in a strategic way that allows them to add more
parking spaces, and then come up with some wording along the lines the applicant is suggesting that
would indicate it would work, because I am uncomfortable monitoring and measuring each tenant. It
is not a practical way of approaching things.
· . We think what the applicant is attempting is a good idea; it is a good idea to replace
dysfunctional space in the back, the Gateway site isn't working, with a new building that is more
complimentary to what he is building out there. It seems to be too much, too big and the parking
study seems to corroborate that.
· . A continuance may allow us to move ahead and let us look at some type of compromise between
what he wants to do and what we want to do. Perhaps he could return with something more solid in
January.
Chair Wong:
· . Asked staff to address a concern from the neighborhood for the reason why the buildings are
moved toward the ftont. He said based on the Heart of the City Plan, that was the goal.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . Said the applicant is a good example of one who buys into the concept that more visible
buildings on Stevens Creek Boulevard are more marketable. This will be the third; the backspace
isn't as marketable. We think it is both market driven as well as the city's interest in having
attractive, well landscaped buildings on the ftontages.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· . It is a difficult decision; it is a successful center and we want to have successful shopping centers
continue to be more successful.
· . The center seems to have had some difficulties in relationships with the local neighborhood and
we also not only like to have successful centers, but have the neighbors feel good about them as well.
· . We have an application that is not complete at this point in terms of the number of issues that
haven't been fully addressed, and the biggest one is the parking.
· . Based on what we have heard tonight is to feel perhaps there is enough parking there, but I am
not 100% sure and there has been a lot of conflicting numbers.
· . I would like to see more supporting evidence in terms of the numbers before I go ahead and
approve the number of additional square feet.
· . It is not fair in terms of the traffic study done to say that there are people looking for spots when
there are obviously additional spots in the center that they could have parked their car at even though
it may have been further away ftom the particular location they were seeking.
· . I am still not clear on what the real answer is and that is why I am hesitant to move ahead on the
project.
· . Depending on whether we agree on the size of the buildings as they are now or we redesign
them, it is hard to put the finishing touches on the building, and it seems ftom the building standpoint,
the first item that has to be addressed is the parking and what that does to the structure and the layout.
· . It appears the applicant was willing to address them in terms of the odor abatement and
addressing the issue on Portal, as well as the issue on the eastern side ofthe center.
· . I think we have a willing applicant and I think we can work this out, except I personally haven't
figured it out ftom a parking standpoint as to whether or not it needs more information before we
move forward.
Com. Chen:
· . The project has many umesolved issues, and we should continue the project to get more
information by next meeting.
Com. Giefer:
· . Said she had three key issues with the project.
· . Parking: Said she agreed with the parking engineer's study. She cautioned against the center
becoming one that requires valet parking similar to BJs. She said she drove by the Marketplace this
evening at about 6: I 5 to get a feel for the traffic demand with the current tenants, and observed many
of the things that were in the traffic engineer's report. The west side of the Marketplace center was
busy and there were cars circling ftom the new building to Elephant Bar looking for spaces. In
addition, along the older portion east of Longs, almost all the spaces were full. She felt that the
parking engineer's study was accurate in terms of what the demand would be.
· . She recommended a smaller new building be built for Building C.
· . Tree removal: Said she took issue with the environmental review document. If the proposed
building was built, they would lose almost 20% of the trees on the lot, which is potentially a
significant impact. By also reducing the footprint of the building it helps parking, but it also saves
more of the trees there. She said she wanted the palms recorded in the deed and in the future proposal
to ensure they don't need to discuss the palms being moved or torn down, and ask why it happened.
· . Design: Said she concurred with the architect's comments that the proposed structure does not
tie in with the other buildings that are there; it is too plain, not well articulated. I would not want to
see another turret lining Stevens Creek, but I think if you could differentiate it in some other way by
putting a fountain there that is low profile, easy to see across, it would be outstanding and would be
an improvement to the site.
· . Said she was encouraged by the architect's suggestion of a safety zone between the two
driveways; and suggested that it be presented to the Planning Commission if the item was continued
to a future date.
· . It is questionable why the choker point has languished on for some time; for the sake of the
neighbors, conclude it as quickly as possible. I don't know what the liabilities are for the city.
· . Said she was uncomfortable with letting their managing their own parking numbers and
calculations; wanted many of the trees preserved and wanted the ten palm trees replaced in the entry
ways and have them recorded to go with the property in the future.
· . She recommended that the design be improved and better tied in in between the other buildings.
Com. Saadati:
· . The design is going in the right direction with the exception of some level of architectural
consistency with other buildings and that needs to be addressed.
· . As stated by others, the parking issue needs to be evaluated more. I don't have a high level of
comfort on this.
· . Hopefully we can continue this and then these issues can come back with a discussion.
· . Suggested another meeting with the neighbors to address their concerns.
· . Regarding the choker, I don't know why you want to put something that could be a future
liability for the city. My recommendation is to remove it, if there is no benefit based on what the
traffic engineer has recommended.
· . The Palm trees were discussed. The removed ones need to be replaced.
Mr. Piasecki:
· . The only liability is that there is a pedestrian crossing in the choker. The choker is fine.
Chair Wong:
· . Said he was an advocate for parking. Conflicting reports have been received.
· . Thanked Mr. Akuba for the parking analysis; and suggested that time be allowed to analyze it
and compare it with Mr. Pang's.
· . The applicant has gone above and beyond in trying to mitigate all the concerns; the restaurant
mitigation that they didn't have to do it for all the restaurants, but went above and beyond and did
that. The owners didn't purchase the center until 1997, the research Keith did there was condition in
1977 to protect the trees and it was not known. All of us including the applicant agreed that the palm
trees will be replaced. Some of the other concerns regarding design that can always be worked out at
he staff level between the applicant and city staff.
· . The concern with the chokers or pedestrian walkway is that if you look at the previous
resolution, that was a vote by the City Council and there was at least one neighbor who supported the
pedestrian walkway. What is ftustrating for both the applicant and the neighbors, is that they are not
getting direction from our city staff. Currently it says that it has to be put in and I would like it to be
completed. You need to give direction and as Mr. Pang said, there is a liability with the city, but if
the City Council says back then that it should be put in, and it has been an eyesore for so many years.
If it was a City Council direction to be a pedestrian access, I think that Public Works needs to work
with the applicant.
· . Input ftom the neighbors shows their ftustration; they feel we need direction ftom the Public
Works Department, and they want it completed; but the applicant would like to do it but they have no
direction. The construction of the Elephant Bar was held up because they were in litigation, and the
experience was the applicant learned that if for some reason something was held up, they knew they
should have better communication with the neighbors and should mitigate those concerns.
· . Having a traffic or parking concern at a shopping center is an applicant's delight, it indicates they
have a successful center.
· . He pointed out that city planners stress walkability and getting people out of their cars. There
are many mitigating factors to work on and it appears the item should be continued.
Vice Chair Miller:
· . Relative to parking, the heavy parking appears to be on the side by the Elephant Bar and
although there may be sufficient space in the parking lot, but the space is a long distance away on the
eastern side of the center, there is going to be a tendency for people who want to go to the Elephant
Bar to park in the Portal Plaza parking areas.
Chair Wong:
· . The other observation is that with a successful restaurant, the patrons tend to park as close to the
restaurant vs. walking a short distance. Folks need to walk and that is why we see a lot of the circling
that Mr. Pang did acknowledge.
· . The Portal Plaza president was here regarding his ftustration. The street is public and we want to
encourage parking in the parking lot.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadatl, to continue Application
U-2005-09, ASA-2005-06, EA-2005-06 to the January 24, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong:
. . Regarding the traffic circulation, I do have the concern if we can resolve that as well as the
Commissioners' concerns and the pedestrian internal traffic plaza.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
Chair Wong:
. . Expressed appreciate to Com. Chen again and wished her success.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting at)) p.m.
. C//!< (¡.~A'
···.·;L;¿'A.A.þ:?£'..¿ ~
~/i
Elizabeth {¡¡;Úis, Recording Secretary
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved as amended: February 14, 2006