PC 11-13-07CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. NOVEMBER 13, 2007 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Vice Chairperson: Gilbert Wong
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner Piu Ghosh
Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray
Chairperson Giefer welcomed new Planning Commissioner Jessica Rose Tracy to the Planning
Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the October 9,
2007 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Rose
abstained)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
• Chair Giefer noted written communications placed on the dais, relative to agenda items.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. U-2007-08, ASA-2007-12, Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct
TM-2007-11, Jyan-Ping Lily two, two-story 2,193 square foot single family
Chang, 10121 Pasadena Ave. residences. Tentative Map to subdivide a 9,750
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 13, 2007
square foot parcel into two 4,875 square foot
parcel into two 4,875 square foot parcels.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a tentative map, use permit and architectural and site approval for
the demolition of existing structures, which consist of a single family home and detached
garage at the rear that the applicant proposes to remove. The proposal is to subdivide the
property into two lots and construct two single family homes with attached garages.
• The applicant proposes to remove a large Douglas Fir tree on the front of the property and also
a similar size Douglas Fir tree to the rear of the property. The applicant also proposes to
relocate amulti-trunk Oak tree to the rear of the property.
• There is another single trunk Oak tree under the canopy of the Douglas Fir tree in the front of
the property, which the applicant also proposes to relocate; however, staff proposes removal of
the tree because relocation of the Oak tree might damage the Douglas Fir on the front of the
property; replacement to be with 48 inch box on the front of the adjacent lot as a front yard and
protective tree.
• Applicant is retaining two California Pepper Trees at the rear of the property and proposing
removal of the multi-trunk Pitasporum in the center of the property. They are also proposing
to remove fruit trees which are not protected trees.
• Staff recommends approval of the applications with the additional condition that requires the
Lot 2 driveway to be semi-permeable pavers on a porous aggregate base and sand on grade.
• No environmental action is required as it is categorically exempt under CEQA.
Piu Ghosh and Josephine Chang, applicant, answered Planning Commissioners' questions relative
to the application.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was pleased that the city was taking care to protect and ensure the survival of the Oak
trees on the property as they play an important role in the heritage of Cupertino.
• She emphasized the importance of the homes having adequate separation between them as they
are located in a planned development area.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for an explanation of the three point checklist for the project.
Piu Ghosh:
On a voluntary basis, the City Council adopted to build a green checklist for residential
projects and the applicant came up with 55 points on their greenpoint checklist, of which 30
points are the required points for energy, which is 15% above Title 24. The 55 points if the
baseline; that is a project commitment that they are going to achieve, they are going to have to
prove that to us through an index when we do the building plan check, we are going to ensure
that everything they say they are doing, they are going to be doing. Some of the things they are
going to have to self-certify; our building inspectors will not be up to speed with some stuff
and they may have to have the architect or designer self-certify some of the measures they are
taking in order to get to that threshold.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 13, 2007
Com. Miller:
• Said he was pleased with the amount of effort going into the landscaping and saving the trees.
• Noted that the project was similar to projects on Byrne Avenue in terms of the way the
subdivisions were going and the houses that were built there.
• Supports the application.
Com. Wong:
• Agreed with Com. Miller's comments.
• Supports the application.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was pleased that the city was instituting a policy to do green building.
• Supports the application.
Com. Rose:
• Said it was an attractive project and would complement the neighborhood; and was pleased
that there was consideration given to the existing trees.
• Supports the application.
Chair Giefer:
• Supports the project.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
U-2007-08, ASA-2007-12, TM-2007-11 per the model resolution, with the
addition of the papers as stated. (Vote: 5-0-0)
2. U-2007-10, ASA-2007-15, Use Permit for a Day Care Center/Specialized
Jody Chan (Legend Learning School. Architectural Site Approval for site
Center) 20289 Stevens Creek modification for a Day Care Center/Specialized
Boulevard. School. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a use permit for a daycare center/specialized school at an existing
commercial center; and architectural and site approval for site modifications for a daycare
center/specialized school.
• Reviewed the site layout and parking as outlined in the staff report. Although the commercial
center shares vehicular access with an office building, each building has its own parking lot
and must meet its own parking needs.
• Staff recommends approval of the use permit and architectural and site approval per the model
resolutions; including an additional condition that the applicant shall remove the unpermitted
paving and fence enclosure; repair the trash enclosure and irrigation system and replant the
landscaping where missing. Photos are available for review. He noted that a putting green
existed on the property and staff recommends its removal.
Colin Jung:
• In response to Com. Wong's concern about the playground area, he illustrated the location of
the playground area, which was as far as they could get from the residential area and still be in
close proximity to the business, so the kids don't have to cross the parking lot or any driveways
to enter the playground facility.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 November 13, 2007
• We don't have to worry about cars backing up into the structure because there is no parking on
this side; it is just a driveway all the way up, fronting the playground itself. The fencing
extends all the way around and the playground is limited to that area in the front where it is not
necessarily buffered on the left, but you have both the tree and a walkway and some ground
landscaping that is buffering it on the right hand side.
Steve Piasecld:
Said they could also ensure that the conditions ask that they install a buffer that would be
resistant to any vehicles coming into that area.
Com. Kaneda:
In view of the fact that this is a facility for young children, and also that the city recently
requested on a voluntary basis green guidelines, was there any discussion with the applicant of
asking them to do LEED green commercial interiors or something similar within the project.
Colin Jung:
• Said he did not ask the applicant about that.
Colin Jung:
• Said that a one way direction for the parking lot was not discussed with the applicant. A
portion of the driveway itself runs across the daycare center; I believe it is only one way there;
it is harder to have that become a one way driveway because it also; driveway not only belongs
to this property owner but it is shared half and half with the adjacent property owner over here.
It didn't come up during discussions to make it a one way driveway. Both property owners
would likely have to be involved.
Chair Giefer:
• Some correspondence we received talked about the penetration of learning centers, schools and
different things like that in the area; do we know as a city how many types of educational
centers we have in the city.
Colin Jung:
• Said there were a great number in the city. It is one of the more prolific industries in Cupertino.
He said that the business is not tax revenue producing for the city.
Jody Chan, applicant:
• Provided a brief history of the business which was in its 15~' year. She said that annually they
are subjected to stringent state requirements for renewal of license, and are subjected to
unscheduled visits to their site. She noted that not all learning centers are also licensed for
daycare services.
• She provided portfolios of her business plan and said that although the business was not a tax
revenue for the city, it provided a community service by supporting the education of its youth.
• She answered Commissioners' questions about the play yard and refurbishing of the facilities
and said she was willing use green building in the project.
• She thanked the parents who were present to show their support of the center.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; no one was present who wished to speak. She closed the
public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
November 13, 2007
Com. Wong:
• Said that the Learning Center prides itself in terms of education. Although it does not provide
a sales tax revenue; it is difficult to find places for educational services or zoning in the city of
Cupertino. Mrs. Chan worked closely with the staff.
• Supports the project.
Com. Kaneda:
• Suggested that there be a strong enough barrier to protect the children at the daycare center in
the event a car jumped the curb.
Com. Wong:
• Said it was difficult to find space for these types of educational programs; and suggested that it
be sent to the DRC because the Planning Commission is not purview to what the state
requirements are. The DRC could make certain that it meets all the health, safety and welfare
requirements and that it is the proper material, and architecturally pleasing. He said he felt it
was awin/win situation for all.
Com. Kaneda:
I would like to ask the owner to voluntarily strive to meet the minimum requirements of the
LEED for commercial interior guidelines and not requiring them to do a formal submission to
the U.S. Green Building Council or anything else, which I think can only help the environment
relative to indoor air quality and also will help all of us get a little more familiar with what the
guidelines and requirements area. Since this is one of our first projects, I would like to make it
a voluntarily strive to do your best scenario, not that they must achieve this level.
Com. Rose:
Relative to the playground, she said she was concerned about the safety of the children. She
recommended some type of screening on the fence so that the children aren't exposed to the
auto fumes from the parking lot area as well as the close proximity to Stevens Creek
Boulevard. I don't know if there is a solution for the traffic issue but according to the
information I had these programs end at 6:30 p.m. and I would guess sometime between 3 p.m.
and 6:30 p.m. fifty children are leaving. It is a compacted time to have so much traffic.
Supports the program and also encourages moving forward and finding some voluntary
compliance with the LEED guidelines mentioned.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he did not object to screening the fencing, but was not certain it would provide a visual
barrier, or an air pollution barrier.
Colin Jung:
• What staff is asking, given the concerns voiced, actually not to take action on the ASA but
perhaps direct the DRC to take that under submission and review and approve the playground
structure. We don't feel good about charging excess fee on top of this.
Com. Miller:
• It is not the parking that I think is the primary issue; it is that it is going to be emptying around
the same time there is going to be a lot of congestion in a very short interval of time as opposed
to spread out over an extended period.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 13, 2007
Applicant:
• How we schedule it is; we are aware of the problems; we have been dealing with this for 15
years; what you visualize is that during the day we would schedule the classes to end at 6 p.m.
with the pickup time to be between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. At most you have 40-50 families
coming in within ahalf--hour span of time.
• Pointed out that because they provide the shuttle service, currently they have 5-6 vans which
arrive within a span of 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Com. Miller:
• Said it appeared that the traffic was under control and based on staff's comment with respect to
the architectural and site, he would approve the project also.
• Said he supported Com. Kaneda's suggestion about green and also that they send the
architectural and site approval to the DRC.
Chair Giefer:
Two points, one is the technicality; when I look at the portion of the driveway that is applicable
to this application, we have less than 10 feet of space between the play area and the regional
boundary of that applicant's side; ... referring to the overview of the site plan, in this area
here, we have less than 10 feet of space between the play structure and what is technically the
applicant's driveway; seeing that they do not own this space, area we creating a burden
because technically a car cannot fit through that pinched area.
Colin Jung:
• There are reciprocal ingress/egress easements for them and they are unlikely to change. In
addition, there is some mature landscaping on the island and we have had suggestions in the
past to cut parking stalls in there but we resisted every proposal to do so.
• I would assume at some point that the applicant and owner would be negotiating there in
improvements and these improvements are not limited to this tenant, it is for the entire
property.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
• Said they would have the same problem as they did have with Panera Bread; a condition was
imposed on the applicant that only the owner could complete. She asked if they were going to
make it an actual condition of the permit
Colin Jung:
• Said he would prefer a condition on an approval versus code enforcement.
Eileen Murray:
• Have you asked the applicant if she had discussed any of this, or if there is a possibility of
doing this?
Jody Chan, applicant:
• Said that the owner was not aware of the existence of the putting green. The owners are aware
of the need to clean up that area and make it look professional and usable.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application U-2007-10
and ASA-2007-15 with the condition that there will be a voluntary LEED
certification for the interior; also that the playground will go to the DRC and
remove the language of the owner's improvement; the applicant to work with the
owner, and that it will be sent to Code Enforcement for further action.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 13, 2007
Friendly Amendment to Motion:
"strive to meet the minimal LE
accepted the friendly amendment.
Com. Kaneda added relative to the LEED certification, add
ED commercial interior certification level." Com. Wong
Com. Wong added to motion: Add "the applicant shall not use the putting green or any of
the landscaped area as a play area or school area." Second by Com. Miller (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
3. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval
(EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger to construct two, one-story retail buildings
(Cupertino Village) totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level
Homestead & Wolfe Rd. parking deck. Tentative City Council date:
December 18, 2007
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for use permit and architectural and site approval to construct two
one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two level parking structure at
Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. He noted there would be a second public hearing as the
Planning Commission cannot take action until ERC provides findings for the environmental
considerations and they are scheduled to meet on November 14, 2007. Details of the staff
presentation are outlined in the staff report.
~ As there are only 5,341 square feet of commercial development allocation remaining for the
area, the applicant is requesting the additional 19,114 square footage be redistributed from the
Vallco Park South area which currently has 791,000 square feet available.
~ He reviewed the site design, neighborhood connectivity, proposed architecture for the two
retail buildings, including the architectural consultant's suggestions; other site enhancements to
be included in the project and parking requirements. Other enhancements include bus shelters,
reconstruction of sidewalk, corner plaza enhancements, enhancements to the interior
crosswalks, parking lot shading trees, and trash enclosure size and location. He noted that the
proposed parking demand for the expansion is 800 parking stalls; the project proposes 782 and
fall short of 18 stalls. Relative to the deficit of 18 stalls, the Planning Commission has options
to consider in order to avoid parking shortage at the center. The options are listed on page 7 of
the staff report.
Relative to green design, staff suggests that the project be made to required to be LEED
certifiable, indicating that they don't have to go through the paperwork and actual certification
process, but the property owner would show proof that in terms of going through the checklist
of LEED to go through the points and show how they are meeting the minimum in terms of
being able to certify the two buildings.
Hexagon Transportation Engineers were retained to provide traffic analysis which indicated
the project will generate a net increase of 55 trips during AM trips peak hour and 154 trips
during PM peak hours. According to the traffic engineering in consult with Public Works and
data provided by the city Public Works Department, none of the signalized intersections would
be significantly impacted by the project; it will not degrade to a point where it is past whatever
service level it is at, and the project would not have any significant adverse impact on the
existing pedestrian bicycle transit facilities in the area.
Enhancement measures suggested by Public Works are outlined in the staff report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 13, 2007
He reported that the noise report by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., used the more conservative
residential standards which is 60 db daytime and 50 db nighttime as a standard for comparison.
Based on the report, new sources for noise associated with the project would involve air
conditioning, heating equipment, parking activities, primarily in the parking structure. As a
suggestion, a qualified noise control engineer shall approve the final design of any of the
mechanical equipment plan and to make sure that the operational noise level for any of the
mechanical equipment on the new buildings or garage shall be reduced to a noise level of 40
dba or less at the nearby residential receiver, basically at the property line. In addition,
regarding the noise barrier discussed earlier, along the west perimeter garage wall, our noise
consultant suggests that the final design be made so that the wall reduce the noise level
generated by things such as an auto horn to less than 70 db. The same noise barrier shall
provide a minimum of 6 dba of noise reduction and with the above measures in place, the
project would not result in a measurable increase in the existing situation. Given the net traffic
increase, the parking consultant states that the project would not result in measurable increase
from the traffic being generated as measured along the roadways that serve this project.
He discussed the issues related to trees as outlined in the staff report, and stated that staff
recommends the final tree plan be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
He reviewed the neighbors' comments and concerns expressed at another neighborhood
meeting, and email correspondence, which included issues related to parking, landscaping, and
pedestrian access. He also reviewed the conditions or mitigation measures that the Planning
Commissioners may consider in response to some of the neighbors' concerns. The comments
and suggestions are outlined on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff report.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Take public input,
evaluate issues of the project, provide staff and applicant with feedback and continue the item
to a date certain to allow sufficient time for staff and the applicant to respond to any concerns
or recommendations; and also provide a recommendation to City Council following that.
Com. Kaneda:
• Expressed concern that the traffic consultant could do a survey, determine the parking to be
100% full and arrive at a conclusion that they have exactly the correct number of parking
spaces. He said that as it exists today, the center does not have adequate parking. Before
discussing adding new buildings, there is clearly an issue with parking.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said that the traffic consultant went out and found the worst case situation and verified what
everyone already knows, they are jammed during the worst case situations. They did some
drive-throughs during the not so high demand periods and found there were available parking
spaces. There are some concentrated periods where the center is packed; and we spoke about
this earlier that this is arguably the most successful shopping center that we have.
Discussion continued regarding parking issues wherein staff reviewed the results of the recent
consultant's study, and possible mitigation options available to avoid parking shortage at the
center. Traffic circulation within the center was also discussed.
Brian Replinger, Development Director, Kimco Realty Corp.:
• Kimco took ownership of the center in March 2006 and since then has studied expansion of the
center to improve it. We do recognize that there are a lot of neighbors' concerns regarding
parking and traffic impact on the neighborhood. We have no feelings one way or another on
the pedestrian access or no pedestrian access from Linnet. It is what works best for the city
and the neighborhood. We were responding to Planning's comments to go with the city's
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 13, 2007
wanting to enhance pedestrian access when they came up with this plan. Nothing we are
married to.
We take no exception to anything that staff has come up with in the reports. Architecturally
from the arborist, staff comments on transportation, anything; we think that they are good
suggestions and don't take issue with any of those. There has been some concern about
operational issues tonight and as the city attorney stated, I instructed our legal people after
hearing this over the last few meetings, to look into what we can do with existing leases. A lot
of leases are ones we inherited with the center that we have to abide by now. I have asked
them to research what teeth we can put into existing leases and they are looking at notifying
the existing tenants that they will be expected to meet all city ordinances regarding noise and
we will put more teeth on those as leases expire and new leases come up.
Regarding parking, he said they had to live with the existing leases. They are looking at
providing incentives for new tenants as leases expire and ones that come into the new
development that goes forward on how to use the incentive of carpooling and using public
transit. We are hesitant to look into offsite uses because we are going to be at the mercy of the
offsite people and we would like to pursue permanent things that we have control over but for
patchwork things we are going to be at the mercy of, agreements expiring. We understand that
and we want this to work well. Typically when we see a parking deficit at a center, the first
people to complain are our tenants because they hear from their customers that they cannot
park there and they are going to go someplace else. We haven't heard that yet, but that does
not mean there isn't problems for other people but empirically that is where we typically hear it
from. I have looked at our other centers in the western U.S. about this size, they typically park
at between 4 and 6 per 1,000 which is fairly common for shopping centers across the country.
The ratio that Hexagon arrived at is based upon some higher ones and we are a little shy of it,
18 spaces, of their recommendation and we are looking for everyone of them, and in fact,
getting rid of pedestrian access would pick up 4 or 5 more parking spots. We have had two
meetings with the neighbors and you will hear from them tonight. We have been good
listeners; we understand their concerns and we want the center to be successful and we want to
be a good neighbor.
Com. Miller:
• Asked the applicant if they considered adding another level to the garage.
Brian Replinger:
• The height is something we wanted to be sensitive to; adding a third level, more height for the
garage, gets overpowering, presently the top of the screen would be about 14 to 15 feet; the top
of the existing buildings and proposed ones are about 22 feet.
• Below grade gets very expensive; we don't have the ability to charge for parking and when you
go below grade, that is typically subsidized by people staying there. There is also a gas
easement through the garage and relocating the gas would be problematic.
• He said that since they took ownership, prospective tenants have shown interest in the center.
Com. Wong:
• Said that it is a successful center, but has a parking problem. It is important that there be a
positive experience for the customers of the center, which is an important goal of the Planning
Commission also.
Brian Replinger:
• In response to Com. Kaneda's question relative to carpool incentives and use of public
transportation, he said they could look at ways to provide incentives to the employees of the
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 13, 2007
center to either use public transit or carpool; which is done by operating a bus or public transit
passes at a subsidized rate and similar with carpooling.
• Said it was difficult for the property owner to count employees, depending on the shifts and
workload of the day. The tenants know, but we typically don't ask that. We have an account
of what we think the numbers are and can make that available.
(Added text to draft minutes)
Com. Kaneda:
Asked staff if there was a way of estimating what that number is, what incentives for
carpooling and mass transit might reduce the number to?
Steve Piasecki:
• Cannot provide an accurate number, we could ask the traffic consultant to tell us, but I
don't think it is extremely high jor retail and for restaurants; it is very good for research and
development parks. Apple Computer has a very successful program; they have buses to and
from Caltrain. It may be in the S% to 7% range; we would have to ask the experts.
Com. Kaneda:
• It seems for some unknown reason that this shopping center has an unusually high ratio of
retail space; is that the ratio of square footage of retail space to parking spots? I hear that it
is above the ULI recommended ratios. I am curious why that would be.
Steve Piasecki
• We could ask the applicant to research those other methods and come back with employee
counts, perhaps they could re-engage the traffic engineers to survey a broader range of days
and find out if they can find the cars that were lining the street that Chair Giefer talked
about. We know there is some spillover, I don't know the degree of it.
Com. Miller:
• I am still looking at the parking problem; and there is a number of solutions proposed. One,
to reduce the number of square feet of retail; you change the use around; add more parking
and I was going to propose another one and perhaps on the front building on Wolfe Road,
instead of going one story linearly, had you considered doing a two story structure instead?
Brian Replinger:
• Said that consideration of two story structures in the center was not feasible as everything else
in the center is single story. It was felt that single story additions to the center were more in
keeping with the design of the center; and also second story space is difficult to lease.
Currently there is approximately 5,000 square feet of second story space that is not leased.
Com. Miller
• Asked how they planned to address the parking issue.
Brian Replinger:
• The problem with the first one we do, is we are willing to look at limiting the new use of food
to a percentage, or number of seats. Typically restaurants are part on a ratio of so many seats
per space and they are willing to work with the city to come up with an agreeable ratio for that.
• Said that outside seating counts if you go with a seat count ratio. If you say that restaurants are
going to park at one per four seats, the restaurants are going to be limited to a number of seats,
which would be included in the lease.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 13, 2007
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Surachita Bose, City of Sunnyvale Planning Department:
• Said that the main issues they feel impact the residents in the vicinity of the Cupertino Village
project have been identified in a detailed list of comments provided to the project planner. The
City of Sunnyvale's Planning staff has been contacted by several residents of the Linnet Lane
neighborhood and the key issues include the potential for traffic and noise in the adjoining
residential neighborhood; parking overflow into the streets; concerns about the amount and
condition of landscaping, and code enforcement issues on the project site. We do recognize
the challenges posed by commercial development projects in the vicinity of residential
neighborhoods. We have reviewed the project plans in detail and have some recommendations
that could potentially mitigate the impacts on the residents.
• The quantity of parking provided. The shopping complex currently has an extremely high
demand for parking and there has been considerable spillover of traffic into the neighboring
residential streets. In the past, we recommended that the project be conditioned to limit the
required parking demand on site or to reduce the total amount of retail square footage to meet
the available parking.
• Limiting the total amount of restaurant uses at the site to about 25%. We believe currently the
center has 27% of restaurant uses and considering that they are the high parking demand uses,
limiting that and capping that at 25% may be appropriate. I also understand that allowing
restaurant users to go in there does not require additional use permits or going through the
public hearing process; that may be a way of limiting the parking impact.
• The current traffic study points out that there is no spillover onto the Linnet Lane
neighborhood and in driving around the neighborhood and feedback from the residents it
doesn't seem entirely accurate. Also the traffic and circulation patterns that have been studied
in the traffic study do not look at the Linnet Lane; it does look at Homestead, Wolfe and a lot
of other streets, but not Linnet Lane. Maybe looking at a more detailed traffic study to assess
more fully the parking impacts maybe required.
• The issue of the location of the two level parking structure adjacent to Linnet Lane. We feel
that although the location of the pedestrian entryway at the center of the parking structure may
be a logical choice; it may encourage more people to park along Linnet Lane. We recommend
exploring design options as suggested by the project planner that would de-emphasize
pedestrian entry, and one alternative may be to design the project to have the pedestrian access
point blocked now, with the potential for it to be opened in the future if the parking situation
should change at some point.
• The issue of noise; we have already discussed the hours during which deliveries are made at
the site. We recommend imposing stronger enforcement measures at the site. It was not clear
to us looking at the section on elevation whether a masonry wall was being proposed or it was
verified today that there will be one. We are concerned that the wall may not be tall enough to
block noise from two levels of parking structure; we would like to encourage the occupant to
explore having a higher masonry wall and having the green screen in front of it to visually
soften the impact of the masonry wall.
• The project could be conditioned to require a bond to maintain the landscaping; the neighbors
pointed out it has been an issue in the past.
• The parking structure lighting should incorporate downlighting mechanisms to minimize
lighting glare onto adjacent residential properties.
• Incorporating construction impact mitigation measures to minimize impact to the residents
during construction phase of the project; and addressing the issue of how the parking during
the construction phase would be addressed.
• Concluded by stating that she looked forward to working with the city in addressing the
neighbors' concerns.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 13, 2007
Com. Wong:
• Asked if the City of Sunnyvale considered implementing a parking permit program since there
is a strong concern by the residents.
Ms. Bose:
• Said that it was an issue explored back in 2003 when the residents were opposed to an aspect
of the project. We had looked at the option back then but it my understanding that some or
most of the residents were not open to the idea of having permit parking at that time. There
was also the issue of having not enough staff available at our Public Safety for enforcement
reasons, but it is something we can explore further.
• She said she was not in a position to comment whether or not it was a viable alternative at this
time.
Kuldeep Chalihan:
• Opposed to project.
• Said the traffic in the evening hours from DeAnza/Blaney back toward east Homestead Road is
a big mess. Increasing the square footage will make it a nightmare.
• One year to 2 years of construction will create a nuisance for the entire neighborhood; property
values will depreciate.
Li Li, Parnell Place:
• Opposed to the project.
• There are many overspill problems on the weekend; when the traffic engineer does his survey,
he should definitely look at Linnet Lane and all the side streets. At least 100 more cars are
parked on the streets on the weekend.
• Expanding the center will add to the parking problems. Many people stay away from the
center because of the shortage of parking spaces already.
• Said that the odor from the trash containers at Ranch 99 are very strong in the neighborhood
and creates a lot of flies.
• Limit the restaurants in the center.
• Traffic during construction; will be worse.
Mario Garibay, Linnet Lane, read the following into the record:
• We the residents of Linnet Lane and surrounding neighborhood of Sunnyvale would like
Cupertino Village Shopping Center LLC to consider redesigning their current plans to expand
their shopping center.
• We continue to experience many negative impacts that have not been resolved since our last
public hearing regarding the fence. Deliveries are still occurring before and after the allotted
timeframes; when they should be made between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The grease trap recycler still
continues to show up at 1:00 a.m. along with the sidewalk pressure washing company and
parking lot sweepers. Considering the control on noise violations has not been enforced,
building and multi-story parking structures only are going to add to the existing noise from the
construction being done and the continuous traffic throughout our neighborhood.
• Building a structure of this size is only going to attract more people to come and visit the
already densely populated shopping center. We continue to deal with parking congestion and
shopping carts left abandoned in our neighborhood, making the visual presentation of our
neighborhood look poor. The towering apartments already impede on our privacy. Therefore
this parking structure should be built underground to minimize garbage being thrown from the
second parking level; noise reduction and headlights beaming through our windows.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 13, 2007
A 22 foot acoustic fully engineered soundwall should be constructed as we had asked for in the
past. Since the existing fence is now in compliance with the requirements of B 1628030 stating
that the fence is separating commercial zones from residential zones should be constructed at a
height and with materials designed, (1) acoustically to isolate part or all of noise emitted, and
(2) ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential dwelling units. In conclusion, adding a
parking structure in this capacity is only going to degenerate our residential and surrounding
neighborhoods, making it detrimental for our future.
Arvin Jain, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to project.
• Said he was surprised from the discussion that they were justifying adding to the same
successful complex at the cost of security and safety of the neighborhood. Three years ago his
house was burglarized and also the house behind him on Linnet Lane. Adding a two story
parking garage will aggravate that problem and the safety of the neighborhood.
• Adding more traffic to the neighborhood not only adds more spillover problems, but it will
become significantly worse and reduce the safety of the neighborhood because of the increase
of cars in the neighborhood and impacting the safety of the residents and their children.
• Take these two important factors into consideration in deliberation of the application.
Sai Gummidipudi:
• Opposed to the project.
• Expressed concern about the entrance into the shopping center from Linnet Lane; it has always
been an issue of contention for the Sunnyvale neighbors.
• Understand there is a lease issue with Ranch 99; hopefully the legal department for Kimco will
come up with something; there is a lot of parking space in front of Ranch 99 which could
probably be utilized for a parking structure. Having something right next to Linnet Lane with
the noise level and with the possibility of looking into our neighborhood from the parking lot
even though the design says it is 14 feet; I strongly feel there is always some possibility of
people hanging around there. Without a parking structure now, there are always people
spending time around that area even after 11 p.m. I am not sure if a second level will be any
different.
• The construction will be around for about 1-2 years and the entire area next to the fence is
going to be used for construction. We also have to consider the parking situation during the
construction span, and I am not sure where all the cars will go for that time. The obvious
choice is spilling onto Linnet Lane and the side streets.
• Said he appreciated that the people living next to the Cupertino Village get informed of all
meetings.
• Said that preventing pedestrian access on the border between the property and Linnet Lane
would help with the issues with parking and people walking through the residential area.
David Chapman, representing Good Samaritan Methodist Church:
• Is one of the nearest neighbors to the shopping center and does not get information about
meetings.
• Lack of pedestrian access to Linnet Lane would increase the pedestrian traffic through the
church property. There is currently a foot access from the church parking lot to the parking lot
of the center.
• Said because of the increased traffic between the center and our property they were requesting
that an 8 foot wall be built to protect against traffic. Said he was also requesting that the
pedestrian access be retained.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 November 13, 2007
• Closing access onto Wolfe Road would increase even more the traffic going through the
narrow passageway, the narrow driveway between the church property, the preschool
playground and the shopping center. He said they were concerned about the increased traffic.
• Said they need access to shopping center parking spaces as part of the ongoing agreement with
the center with previous owners for 200 spaces available for church parking, which is primarily
used on Sunday mornings. It does have an effect on other times of the week when meetings
are held; and there is currently considerable traffic from Linnet Lane and others in their
parking lot.
• Said that some of the parishioners do park on Linnet Lane on Sunday mornings or when there
are large events such as funerals.
• He noted that the church parking lot is heavily used during the week by patrons of the
shopping center.
Loretta Wong, Preschool Director, Good Samaritan Methodist Church:
• Expressed concern about the driveway between the preschool playground, and the plans to take
away some of the driveway off Wolfe Road and put it where Homestead is. If the traffic is
increased there, the preschool playground is right there by the throughway to the parking lot.
She said they wanted a barrier there for the safety of the children. In its present state, if a car
hits the metal fence, it will go right through the playground, endangering the children.
• Ensure that there is a safety valve there to prevent anything from happening to the children.
Hannah Yu, Linnet Lane:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said for the developer it is an issue of getting more money, and for the residents it is an issue
about quality of life.
• The burden the development has placed on the neighborhood and the community is so great
and disproportionate. We can all agree that there are extreme parking problems and that
parking in the area, the responsibility of the managers, they are not fulfilling their
responsibility in providing enough parking and the overfill parking lot has become our
neighborhood.
• In addition, parking in the neighborhood is bad and adding new traffic from the development
and when Vallco opens; it will overwhelm the streets that are not equipped to handle that many
cars.
• My biggest concern for my family and the residents on my street is the parking garage. I am
shocked there has been so little discussion that they want to build a parking garage across the
street from our houses. It will have a horrendous effect on the neighborhood. It would be
detrimental to the health, safety, emotional well being of the residents in the neighborhood.
Bob Struk, Kinglet Court:
• Opposes the project.
• Said that they are happy for the success of the Cupertino Village; however, it is excessively
saturated; and the proposals for the project will saturate it even more. The impact is not linear,
but goes up expedientially. Presently the spillover is not only on Linnet Lane; there isn't any
parking on Parnell Place or Kinglet Court.
• The air pollution is significant from the restaurants; the noise pollution is excessive and the
proposals limiting new machinery down to 70 dba is significantly loud.
• They consider the barriers they wish to have as mandatory. The impact to the safety of the
children of the church is real.
• He said the parking spillover was at its highest on weekends and weeknights after 5 p.m.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 13, 2007
• He distributed a signed paper by the Kinglet Court residents, unanimously requesting that the
project be halted based on the reasons listed.
Bob Rau:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said about 15 years ago there was an agreement reached between the residents and the
shopping center, they closed the driveway to the parking lot of the center; it was mentioned at
that time that the pedestrian access could be closed if the traffic was too excessive. The
pedestrian access only encourages parking on the street.
• He said the owner should invest in underground parking as the center is successful and it
would be a good long term investment.
• He said the current center owners started off good, were more responsive and aware than the
prior owners.
Xin Li:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said he did not get notice of the first two meetings.
• The parking structure is not acceptable and is too close to the residences.
• Said the parking lot of the center was full weekdays about noon and always on the weekend.
Mu-Jing Li, Parnell Place:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said he was opposed to the two level parking garage and the parking situation would be worse.
• He said the area before Ranch 99 market could accommodate a multi level parking garage.
• He asked that consideration be given to the depreciation of the property values of the
neighboring residents and the privacy impacts of the parking structure.
Jerrie Hyrne:
• Opposed to project.
• Said that the original shopping center was designed as a neighborhood center and is now a
regional center.
• She discussed the negative impacts of the odors permeating the neighborhood from the many
restaurants; and the heavy traffic in the neighborhood which impacts the safety of the children.
She noted that the vacant 4,500 square feet of space would create an additional shortage of
parking spaces.
• She asked that consideration be given to the quality of life of the residents, and not just
consider the tax revenue for the city.
May Huang, Linnet Lane:
• Opposes the project.
• Said that many friends have told her they do not attempt to park in the center parking lot when
shopping at the center; they park on Linnet Lane or Parnell or other nearby streets.
• Said that the project would only make the traffic and parking situations worse, and she would
be forced to live across from a huge parking structure. She added that the noise, air pollution
and odors from the center negatively impacted the residents.
• There is presently a parking space deficit and the proposed project would only increase the
need for parking which creates an impossible situation.
David Doudna, Parnell Place:
• Opposed to the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 13, 2007
• Challenged the notion and report that there is no spillover parking. Said it was his opinion that
the consultant's report was unfounded.
• He noted that he sent an email with comments also.
• Said he supported neighborhood connectivity, however, the reality is that given the inadequate
parking, the portal of Linnet Lane will be primarily used by people outside the neighborhood
driving their car, parking on our streets and walking to the shopping centers from our street.
Unless the parking lot is improved either by number of stalls or larger stalls, there maybe other
reasons people aren't parking in the lot. If it is improved so that it is more attractive for people
to park there than in the street, open it up, have a pedestrian portal.
• He questioned whether the Ranch 99 customers would push a cart of grocers up the ramp to the
top level of the parking structure or push it onto Linnet Lane where their car is parked. When
they do, their shopping carts are left on the street.
• Regarding other mitigation measures that have been discussed such as incentives for using
alternative transportation; great, so demonstrate it; why wait for the expansion; demonstrate
them now and show how the parking can be made adequate now and only then when you have
established what adequate parking is, and you know what that ratio is, only then can you say
we can expand perhaps, keeping that same ratio of parking spaces.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Asked that the Ash trees along Wolfe Road be protected, the double row of Ash trees from
Stevens Creek Boulevard down to Homestead along Wolfe Road are a hallmark of the Vallco
Cupertino shopping district. The greenbelt of Ashes at the intersection of Homestead and
Wolfe is a major entrance way to Cupertino; it is a gateway to the city and the lush green
ambiance with the lawns and street trees should be retained. Protect as many trees on the
property also.
• Said she hoped that before the project proceeds, everyone will make certain that there are no
parking problems on Homestead/Wolfe and in the parking lot.
Doug Durham, Lark Lane:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said he felt the plan was anon-starter; as it stands today there is no parking; and according to
the studies, there will be less parking.
• Said he endorsed the idea that the parking should be fixed as it stands today. Will people start
commuting if they are given free VTA passes, resulting in many spaces opening up?
• If the project goes through, all pedestrian access must be closed off, because without it there is
such a draw into the neighborhood to park there, and his neighborhood will become overflow
parking.
• Looking at the traffic flow outlined, he said he couldn't imagine driving a car into the parking
lot once the new retail outlets are there.
Mark McLaughlin:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said he agreed with many of the prior speakers.
• The parking study suggested that they had already reached 100% capacity; obviously
understated. He suggested that long before reaching 100% capacity, people are already trying
to avoid that problem by moving into the neighborhoods into overflow parking.
• The fence was built at the request of the neighborhood and it was a fight just to get that meager
fence that is present now. The landscaping was also a token gesture on their part; and no efforts
were made to maintain it.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 13, 2007
• Some of the things that have been proposed that I would strongly encourage is that barn
measure; in order to ensure that the landscaping is maintained, it is absolutely critical. The
pedestrian access, the elimination of any pedestrian access onto Linnet is also critical.
• The suggested changes to traffic flow in and out of the parking lot will only further increase
the problems on Linnet. If it is changed to a right turn only onto Homestead Road, it will
encourage people who are going to want to make the left hand turn onto Homestead get back
on DeAnza Boulevard, Saratoga/Sunnyvale and Blaney, they are going to have to park on
Linnet in order to make that turn and they are going to choose that convenience over moving
into a garage. Putting the garage on the back side of the parking lot; with the traffic patterns
already pointed out on the parking lot, people are going to try to avoid that as much as
possible; they are going to move to a place that is going to provide the most ready access in
and out.
• The problems that will be encountered during construction are being overlooked. There will
be many parking spaces eliminated during construction; where are the people going to park
while construction is going on; where are the construction workers going to park?
• The existing problems need to be fixed before a new set of problems are created.
Charles Rogers:
• No longer present at the meeting.
Jason Yu, Linnet Lane:
• Opposed to project.
• Said that the shopping center owner and the City of Cupertino would benefit from the
expansion of the center at the sacrifice of the property owners' privacy and quality of life.
• He questioned how many actual parking spaces would be gained since there would be two new
retail spaces built, resulting in a loss of parking spaces.
• Asked that the Planning Commissioners consider all the factors before making a decision.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
• During construction, what is the construction management plan; while the center is 100% at
capacity, where will they park, and while construction is going on?
Steve Piasecki:
The applicant will be asked to provide a detailed plan addressing where, when and how, and
how to keep them from parking on Linnet. When the contractors are hired, they can be
informed that they cannot park on Linnet for construction purposes. They would normally
provide an offsite location to stage, and will have to provide parking measures when they
demolish the parking lot, such as a valet system available to the shopping center. They would
likely want to demonstrate how they can build the buildings, not in two years, but shorter
period of time.
Said the application would be continued to the first meeting in January to address parking,
more parking counts, construction management.
Said that if the project moves ahead, it will give the city and the neighborhood some kind of
control, as presently the city has no control of how they operate, the odors from the center and
the other aspects that annoy the neighbors. He said he felt it cannot be done effectively under
the current lack of control they have, other than code enforcement. Kimco will do everything
they can to control the contractors on site and be as good a neighbor as possible, which would
occur in the next two months as completion of more parking analysis is done. The point about
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 13, 2007
access is well taken, it is essential especially when there is a successful shopping center, you
want to err on the side of the neighborhood when that is occurring.
The shopping center currently has an old permit that has no conditions on it; eliminating either
the percentage of restaurants, hours of operation, any incentives for employees to not take their
vehicles; there is nothing to control this. The only issue they have had to deal with in the not
too distant past, is they replaced the fence along Linnet, which is a low fence which provides
next to no protection for the neighborhood; high visibility into the existing parking, flat on the
surface level parking lot, and it is creating some of the problems that the residents are pointing
to. The lack of any kind of a barrier. He said that they could ask the owner to put up a
temporary fence to close off the pedestrian access within the next month or so.
The Planning Commissioners provided direction to staff relative to outstanding questions based on
discussion at the present meeting, in order to be better prepared for the January meeting.
Com. Kaneda:
My sense is that what is there now is fairly egregious on the residents on Linnet Lane and the
neighborhood. If nothing happens that may not be your best option. One of the things I would
encourage the neighborhood to think about is this may create opportunities for you to improve
a bad situation and make it better. Here is a couple of thoughts I think need to be considered
and looked at. Clearly the ratio of parking to retail being suggested, is not on the table. I
would expect a large increase in parking and at least from a percentage standpoint, a much
smaller increase in retail to get this into a range that can be considered. I understand there are
code issues and we will pretend we are meeting the code and the recommendations but code or
not, the parking situation does not work, and needs to be addressed.
Said there were comments that a parking garage is not acceptable, but the residents should
consider that the parking garage could be their friend; it can serve to block sound, block
people's views into their neighborhood because of the design of the garage, which is a solid
wall giving a wall that is going to be planted with vines that will act as a privacy and sound
screen. If done correctly, it can actually improve the sound problems and improve some of the
visual problems.
One of the things you need to pay attention to, referring to Linnet Lane, one of the things you
need to look at if a car is parked there and its headlights are on, there is going to be this critical
viewing angle that you need to make sure that somebody checks that angle to ensure the
headlights aren't going into somebody's home. Potentially that can be done and you can work
around it.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it would be helpful to look at the four level Vallco parking structure. The green screen
concept and the noise baffling that goes on in that parking structure would be similar and when
you see it, it is amazing.
Com. Kaneda:
• Clearly the pedestrian access needs to be cut off and I presume there is some way to do it and
have fire access, but under normal conditions there is no pedestrian access. Perhaps the church
can consider doing something with a lock so that when they need access, they unlock it, but
normally it is locked so people don't get in the habit of cutting through the church to get back
and forth.
• Suggested to the owner to consider doing the mitigation measures now to try them out.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 .November 13, 2007
Com. Miller:
• Agreed that the city did not have a lot of control over what is going on there now. Is there
some type of development that can go on there now that would mitigate some of the issues to
make it better instead of worse. He encouraged the applicant to consider that and also to talk
to the residents some more and see if there is some common ground that the center and
residents can meet on for awin/win situation.
• Many times people come here and to City Council and they want us to make a decision on
something and we do the best we can, but when we make a decision, we don't have the same
level of work and effort and ideas that go into it when residents and the developer sit down
together and try to work out a solution and work through many of the issues. It is a better way
to go and I would encourage the meetings to continue, particularly now that the issues are
being put on the table.
• We want to do something to improve or eliminate the spillover and a number of suggestions
were made. The first one was to cut off the pedestrian access, and it may be appropriate to put
a sound wall up there; but as pointed out, the garage itself may act as a sound wall.
• Said he agreed with speakers that right turn only movements on Homestead would encourage
more people to go down Linnett. However, he expressed concern with limiting it to right turn
only; and said he was also concerned with eliminating the access on Wolfe Road. Traffic flow
in the center itself and parking is two sides of the same coin, and if the traffic flow is not
improved in the center and if it gets worse because there is more people trying to fit into this
space, there is more motivation for people to look for parking in the neighborhoods because
they don't want to deal with the hassle of the queues they encounter when they get into the
center. The traffic flow in the center has to be addressed as much as the parking because they
affect one another.
• The odor abatement issue is one that we see all over town, and we do address that when we
have control over it and when it makes sense to address it. Here again it is an issue we don't
have control over now, but if there was some further development there, that is an issue that
potentially could get addressed.
• Said he was also sensitive to the concern of the church about safety for the children there and
we want to make sure we address that. At the same time, the church's request for keeping the
pedestrian access is an issue and I think Com. Kaneda may have a good solution in terms of
limited access where perhaps the gate is open on Sundays to allow people through if that could
be monitored effectively.
• Said that if the traffic study did not consider the impact or overflow into the neighborhoods,
the traffic study has under-estimated what the real numbers are and Com. Kaneda's
calculations are on point with respect to that.
• Summarized there may be a win/win situation, in that the neighborhood can gain some
advantage by having some development going on there and in return for that some of these
issues are mitigated in the process.
Com. Wong:
• Said that Coms. Kaneda and Miller summarized issues appropriately. He said that they have
spent two hours at the present meeting, and this is one of two shopping centers that will be
discussed. The people of Cupertino want to be good neighbors with Sunnyvale, so I want to
thank the people who did attend tonight and that we really do care abut our neighbors and want
to find a solution to have this awin/win situation.
• Instead of having us decide the end result, is to work closely with Kimco and it would behoove
Kimco to work closely with the Sunnyvale residents. We don't want to make these tough
decisions and if Kimco and the residents can find some compromise to resolve this, it would
make our job easier.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 13, 2007
I am not going into further direction for staff because I will not be on the Planning
Commission in January. I wish good luck to all of you.
Com. Rose:
• Said that she agreed with comments made, and said if you were going to encourage dialog
between Kimco and the residents, it is important that everyone be noticed properly.
• The group goal for both groups is to try to find a common ground and the parking structure
could be attractive and an improvement. She said that the wooden fence did not appear to
serve all in a fair way to separate them from the retail space. He said he felt if they worked
together moving forward, they could find a common ground that would make the
neighborhood more attractive.
Chair Giefer:
• When we address the parking again, to be specific on what I would like added to the parking
study, I would like to have the adjacent neighborhoods on Linnet and other neighborhood
streets, as part of that, looking for overflow traffic, specifically on weekends. Also the church,
because we have heard that because they share back and forth in parking, I would like to
understand what the capacity usage is as well.
• We have talked about green design and meeting a LEED silver, and I would like to see those
on the plan. The tree survey and study plan that is recommended, the DRC can improve that,
but in our packet having a larger tree map with readable numbers would be helpful; and trying
to get a rough count from the applicant in terms of how many employees there are at the center
and coming up with an estimate in terms of what impact a parking management plan may have
on this project, would be helpful in the decision making.
• Ensure that the parking plan meets the current parking requirement in terms of bioswales etc.
• A suggestion about the Fire Department's access in the one area on Linnet Lane; the Fire
Department can get through electronic gates or gates with a knox box ~. It may be a solution
for this area as well; it would be a solid gate that would go across there, so there would be no
pedestrian access from Linnet. The Fire Department has a special key to unlock the gate.
Gary Chao:
• Said that flip flopping the parking was discussed. Kimco pointed out that the lease for that
. building would expire in 2012, and as currently sits, you cannot swap it because the lease is
current; and until that time, there may be plans to either enhance the lot on the corner of
Pruneridge and Wolfe to provide more parking or reconfigure it so it is more efficiently striped
and perhaps relocate the bank building elsewhere onsite.
• Said there was no restriction on Retail A to put a parking structure in that particular area in that
triangle. There are not any restrictions; we have not talked about having a parking structure
there.
Chair Giefer:
If there are other opportunities to relocate the parking structure or underground the parking
structure, I think it would be a great idea to investigate those and make us aware of what the
issues might be in either undergrounding or relocating the structure as an alternative and then
coming back with the sound wall there as well as blocking the preschool play yard.
Com. Wong:
• If a housing unit can subterrain and the shopping center cannot, it is a matter of how much they
want to invest into the property. That is my concern, I think we all share that; is that how
much do you want to invest; how much would that break even point for Kimco would be. I
just want to push that caliber more; I am not asking for underground because it is very
Cupertino Planning Commission 21
November 13, 2007
expensive. I am asking for subterrain garage or what Com. Miller suggested is to put shop
over a subterrain garage to see if that will work.
Steve Piasecki:
Summarized that the Planning Commission would be making a motion to continue the
application to the January 8, 2008 meeting. In addition to all comments, request the applicant
to come back with additional parking surveys including the Linnet neighborhood and the
church.
Said it would be appropriate to have a conceptual construction management plan to identify
staging, phasing and a schedule for the construction so we know that it is practical that we can
do this; and then re-evaluate the outside circulation, especially the right turnout on Homestead,
and the Wolfe access elimination in particular so we have a better comfort level that the overall
circulation level will work.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue Item 3 to the first
meeting in January 2008. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
4. U-2007-11, M-2007-02
Wayne Okubo (Evershine)
19620 to 19780 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Use Permit approval to allow a food store
(Marukai) totaling 28,690 square feet located
in the Marketplace Shopping Center (former
Longs Druge site). Modification to an existing
Use Permit (16-U-76) to modify the conditions
Under which food services businesses will be
Allowed in the Marketplace Shopping Center
Along the rear service corridor. Tentative
Ciry Council date: December 18, 2007
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for modification to an existing use permit to modify the condition
under which food service businesses will be allowed in the Marketplace Shopping Center
along the rear service corridor. The use permit approval is to allow the Marukai food store to
be located in the former Longs Drug site.
• Explained the schedule for the trash pickup and said since there are some concerns about trash
pickup they have talked to the Environmental Services Manager who is the liaison to Los Altos
Garbage Company. There is a standing franchise agreement with Los Altos giving them the
freedom of picking up the garbage any time. That is just how the wording of the trash
franchise agreement is. However, we did get an email response from the Los Altos Garbage
Company that they are willing to work with a later date if the Commission wants to
commission something. A quick plan of the area, circled in red is the proposed trash enclosure
location and it is approximately 85 feet away from the nearest residential property line. We are
suggesting a condition that the detailed trash enclosure plan be approved by the Design Review
Committee because we still need to talk to the Environmental Programs Manager.
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 2°d at the site and some of the
comments involved:
° Older abatement system should be installed
° Concerns with the process of which fish produce are being shipped
° Concerns with odor and trash
° Early hour pickup
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 November 13, 2007
° Garbage facility should be located away from residential properties
° Concern with why Marukai signed a lease prior to getting a use permit
• Additional conditions from staff included conditioning the trash pickup, the earliest not being
earlier than Sam. We are suggesting that the fire and trash enclosure plan be reviewed by the
DRC; the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council to approve the
proposed modification based on staffs recommendation and recommend approval of the use
permit request by Marukai.
Gary Chao:
• Said they would be assembling precooked food and also packaging cooked food.
Chair Giefer:
• Asked for an update on the replacement of the palm trees.
Gary Chao:
• The applicant has submitted for the building permit to get the roof structure altered. We are
hearing from the property owner that there are some structural considerations so that is
delaying the process. We are telling the property owner that that is a condition that needs to be
fulfilled. There will not be any approvals of building C building permit which is in plan check
until that has been resolved. We have had concerns with timing issues, meaning that the winter
time is not the ideal time or season for planting palms. We were able to confirm with our
arborist that it is not a big concern of his. We are trying to get the applicant to get those things
planted as soon as possible.
Steve Piasecki:
Said there was a conflict with the trees. On the east side of the driveway where the
construction will taking place for the new building, we have agreed with the applicant that it is
not wise to be planting trees and then have to construction fence them and trench around them.
We would allow them to delay those until they finished the foundation and all of the site work
but prior to doing all the framework of the building. They have agreed that they would comply
with it on that side.
Chair Giefer:
• Suggested that they have them put place holders for the palms that will be placed on the east
side so they don't build the building too close.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they were aware that there is a condition that they must comply with or they must change
it similar to what they are doing with the restaurant with the food prep condition. They have to
do one or the other, they cannot ignore it.
Wayne Okubo, applicant:
• The food prep is about 2000 square feet, approximately 10% of the total site. The architect
provided staff with a video of the procedures for food prep and cleaning. They have A ratings
from the Health Department and pride themselves in this. They prepare food and then put the
food in refrigerated cases for purchase. It is a small area compared to the market area.
• They did put an application in June for the palm trees. The building department requested that
the details we had that were provided by the city arborist were not enough and so required us to
get structural detail. The information was provided to their structural engineer and he provided
a letter that stated he would not authorize the way the tree was set up. The city said they had to
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 November 13, 2007
get someone else to look at it and they did do that. The other structural engineer gave the same
opinion as the first engineer. This has been going back and forth between the structural
engineer and the arborist and they are working on plans to resolve this. The plans require that
the tree not be attached to the roof structure. The tree would have to be stabilized down below
for a period of time. A concrete planter box would be needed in that area to prevent the root
structure from undermining the footings that are in that area.
Said that the yogurt station is not the typical yogurt place; it is more of aself-service area, and
there should not be any odor problems. Said that the yogurt is put in the machines and is
extracted by levers. He added that in 1979 Longs Drugs was able to obtain some type of
approval to sell general food items.
Chair Giefer:
• Stated when the meeting was held with the neighbors that there was one person who signed the
letter of support but that was unaware that there was a condition, 3055, that went along with
the shopping center. She asked if he discussed the condition at the neighborhood meeting.
Wayne Okubo:
• They did go through everything as far as the use permit. It was covered in the early part of the
meeting. I don't think we went through in depth as far as the replacement of food uses. We
did ask if they would be interested in supporting food use in that space.
Com. Rose:
• Asked if the trees that are being planted so close to the building were a condition that was
added after construction of the building started or were they aware at the planning stages that
the trees would need to be placed in that proximity.
Wayne Okubo:
• That had evolved over a period of time. It was not a condition when we first started and got
the approvals for the shopping center. The building was completed before we knew of this
condition. There are two trees that are adjacent to the building that we have to figure out how
to plant the trees so they do not affect the trees or the building.
• Said he was not aware of a conflict when agreeing to the condition.
Com. Miller:
• Asked for clarification on how much cooking will go in the kitchen area and.what type. He
commented that raw fish becomes very pungent after a period of time, and he questioned the
handling of the disposal of the food products so that it did not create an odor in the trash bin.
Wayne Okubo:
• Said that the majority is raw fish, sashimi; and noted that a portion of the cases would be
cooked rice and cooked meat that are packed together. It is completed in the morning. The
proposal is for trash compactors which control the odors and the containment of the food; they
double bag the waste products. Staff toured the facility and saw how they dispose of the waste;
very little is actually thrown away. The fish bones, fish heads, etc are sold.
Alan Roth, Cupertino resident:
• Said he works for Second Harvest Food Bank and teaches classes for the California Restaurant
Association, with a degree in food science and nutrition from San Jose State.
• I would like a grocery store in that facility, however I think it would be very impractical. My
concern is that this particular store is going to have a very large kitchen. There is going to be a
lot of food preparation there and when you have raw food it is still going to have an odor and
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 November 13, 2007
will a potentially hazardous food. When you compact that kind of stuff, a lot of time the juice
runs out and runs into the gutter. The odor is going to be a big problem. I am familiar with
odor abatement and those systems need to be maintained and cleaned. I don't think traffic and
parking as been mentioned. I don't think the landlord cares about the neighborhood because it
is now a regional shopping center instead of being a local one.
Eugene West:
• Said he had not seen any plans relating to unloading trucks for the market; it is unacceptable to
have 6 a.m. trash pickup. He said he agreed with Alan Roth about the fish waste; and no
matter how the wind blows, there will be strong fish odors from the restaurants. Parking is
already maxed out.
• Relative to the mailer from Maruki, he said it contained Asian language. He said it was his
preference that the English language be used as it was the United States of America and the
patrons should understand English.
Marge Thompson:
• Said she was concerned about changing the resolution and the original use permit. If Marukai
does not remain there, the use permit would be changed and it would allow anyone to come in
and cook whatever they please.
• She also expressed concern about how to keep the cooking area clean and the tables outside.
She said the odor problems were also very intense from the Elephant Bar restaurant.
Chris Huang:
• Resides behind the Longs store; the odor abatement is a problem. The equipment needs
regular maintenance. What happens if the business does not have the money to do the
maintenance and then the odor will continue. The odor is extremely bad in the summer time.
Shao Lui:
• Resides behind the shopping center. Said he was opposed to the applications.
• I am opposing these applications and the reason is because the resolution you cited and a lot of
thought had been put into the resolution and it served the neighborhood fine. I would urge you
to reconsider modifying the resolution.
Virginia Tamblyn:
• Said that she and her neighbors fought hard for Resolution 3055. There was a yogurt shop that
went in down the alley and when it went out of business it became a Mexican takeout. When I
saw that a yogurt shop was going in the shopping center, I went to the Planning Department
and asked them to stop that. For reasons, it did not get stopped and should have been stopped
because resolution 3055 was still in place. The application for the shop was not completed
until two days after the request was made. She had received no notice, but noticed people
working in the facility. What really concerns me is what does a citizen do when the Planning
Department will not enforce a law. What recourse do we have? I don't think the use permit
should be modified to have cooking in the Makuri; there are still cooking odors from the
Elephant Bar.
Arthur Federico:
• I live on Bixby for 30 years. I was instrumental in getting the use permit 16676 initiated as it is
today. There is a statement that says that the parking will not be impacted because it will be
the same as Longs Drugs. I don't think so. There are five more drug stores in the vicinity. I
believe Longs Drugs would not renew its lease because of the loss of parking spaces when the
Elephant Bar went in. There is going to be a large parking problem.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 November 13, 2007
Boris Abramzon:
I live on Bixby about 30 yards from the garbage bins. He showed pictures of the garbage bins.
I have lived here for 16 years and in the last 5 years our quality of life has deteriorated
significantly. The odor, smell from garbage, rats and frequent violations. This resolution was
put in place to protect us from many things not just odor. Parking is an issue as well. I checked
one night for parking and there were only five parking spaces and cars were driving around
looking for parking and the store is not even in place. People will start parking on our streets.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• I remember the problems with the loading bay where the trucks came in and I see now who
was behind this now. I am glad the palm tree issue was brought up. I hope we are on the track
to getting the palm trees back. I think it would be a wonderful place for a heritage plaque
explaining what these palms trees mean to that area of Cupertino. I think it is important to
maintain the use permit to control the type of food businesses along the rear corridor behind
the marketplace. Please do not modify it.
Eileen Murray:
• Clarified that the palm trees are not part of the application and no vote will be taken on the
palm trees as they are part of another application.
Keith Murphy:
• Said he felt it would be appropriate to have a plaque noting that the palm trees were 80 years
old and they were going to move them; however, they mysteriously all went down within a
week or two.
• He said that he did not feel the Marketplace kept their promise about having good
neighborhood relationships. They have been bonded several times to complete projects and I
have a lot of concerns that 3055 was a good resolution and it seems to have done its job very
well. I think the neighbors do want the Marketplace to be a success, that it should also have a
way for the community to talk back and I think the resolution does that. It gives the
neighborhood an opportunity to be heard, which is why there is smell abatement equipment at
the Marketplace which sent a precedent for a city. It shows how useful the resolution has been.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
• In order to make this application work, that is why staff is making this recommendation for a
modification.
Steve Piasecki:
We think we can protect the neighborhood interests and still provide more flexibility and
maybe gain some greater controls if you decide that the resolution rewording would apply to
any change of restaurant use. Said it would go to City Council on December 18, 2007.
Com. Wong:
• Said that because of his recent election to City Council to begin in January 2008, he would
abstain from providing comments on the project as it would be going forward to the City
Council in January.
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 November 13, 2007
Com. Miller:
• There are two issues, one of the current application and whether or not it is acceptable; the
issue of whether or not to change the resolution that has been in place for a long period of time
and the issue of an innocuous application going in under a change to the resolution and being
replaced later on by a more noxious one.
• Said he was concerned that it was a sizable kitchen and. doubted that limited cooking would
stay in place for a long period of time. He said he was also concerned with working with fish
products which have more odors than others. Whenever the prior owners agreed to the
resolution 3055, there was a deal made and the residents were given something and the current
owners accepted the responsibility for that. He said he was hesitant from that standpoint to
change the resolution. There may be an opportunity that the neighbors and the shopping center
management should talk and see if there is some common ground where they both gain
something, and if there is a way to see through making something work.
~ He recommended that the item be continued to allow those discussions to take place and bring
it back for further discussion.
Com. Rose:
• Said she was concerned that the language in 16-U-76 specifically addressed the situation faced
today about replacing businesses in the future. Said she was concerned that conditions being
the common ground area or the solution for mitigating the differences between what the
neighbors want and what might need to happen in this space.
~ She said she did not know the entire history, but felt that the fact that the condition hasn't been
met yet, she questioned looking at granting another use permit for them. Said she hoped that
the neighborhood could look at this again and that the Marukai Market could look at their plans
again and figure out how critical their kitchen needs are or how that could be modified so that
everyone might be happy with moving the program forward.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he concurred with Com. Miller's comments; from the verbiage it sounds like there was an
issue with the restaurants and the odors and he said he would hesitate to turn that around at this
point unless he could see something he felt was ironclad that would not create a similar
problem. Unless there is something where there is a technology out there that will keep these
potential problems under control, he said he could not support the changes.
Chair Giefer:
Said she questioned what had changed since 1987 when resolution 3055 was added to the
center. The housing is still there, the center is still there; the retail aspect of the center has been
intensified but there has not been a significant amount of change; the Planning Commission
back in 1987 was trying to eliminate issues that were going on in 1987 but also in the future.
The developer can ask us to come back and have us reconsider things.
Said that on a recent visit to the center, she was surprised how strong the food smells were,
because in her mind as a Planning Commission, they had mitigated all the new tenants that
came in and no other odors other than the grill odors from the Elephant Bar would be present.
She said she has shopped at Murakai in Southern California and would welcome them to
Cupertino, but couldn't support a kitchen in this store. Understanding the format of what they
sell, it is a very large kitchen and they are not going to just making sushi in such a large
kitchen. She said she would treat Murakai similar to Longs Drugs as a retailer that sells food
products, if they did not have a kitchen and could support that portion of the application. She
said she would not support changing the language as staff is recommending for additional and
new food uses with mitigation.
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 November 13, 2007
Motion: Motion by Chair Giefer, second by Com. to approve the Use Permit U-2007-11
with the following conditions: That no incidental food preparation be made; the
kitchen size be reduced so that it is appropriate for supporting sushi, salads and
similar food items that could be sold; and there be no cooking with heat on site.
Chair Giefer withdrew her motion.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to continue the application to
December 11, 2007, to allow the residents and applicant an opportunity for
further discussion to come to a win/win situation. (Vote: 3-1-1) Com. Wong
abstained; Chair Giefer No.)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Environmental Review Committee: Meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2007.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayors Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: No report.
Economic Development Committee:
• Com. Miller reported at the last meeting that South Vallco was discussed; HP is considering
new owners for the Toll Brothers project; negotiations are occurring with the buyer.
• The new Economic Development Manager Kelly Kline did an outstanding job of creating
packets of information to be sent to prospective companies interested in locating a business in
Cupertino. He recommended that the packet be distributed to the Planning Commission at the
next meeting.
League of Cities Committee:
• Chair Giefer reported that a recommendation was made to the League of Cities to adopt and
recommend to their cities that they use the green point rating system and that public buildings
be LEED silver.
Misc•
• Com. Miller congratulated Com. Wong on his election to the City Council. He thanked him
for his contributions to the Planning Commission.
• Com. Wong welcomed the new Planning Commissioner Jessica Rose. He thanked the former
Planning Commissioners, Steve Piasecki and the current Commissioners.
• Steve Piasecki congratulated Com. Wong on his election to the City Council.
• Chair Giefer congratulated Com. Wong on his election to the City Council and thanked him for
his contributions to the Planning Commission.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Steve Piasecki congratulated Com. Miller for his presentation on the North Vallco Plan; Com.
Kaneda's recognition for his green building ideas and energy savings ideas.