PC 03-11-08CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 11, 2008 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 2008, was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Jessica Rose
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Ciddy Wordell
Senior Planner: Gary Chao
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the February 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Rose, to approve the February 12,
2008 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Deborah Hill, Rainbow Drive:
• Expressed concern about traffic in the Target parking lot; and unsafe drivers on Rodriguez,
Torre, Stelling and Rainbow. She stated that drivers cut off the bicyclists on the roads in
Cupertino.
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
• Stated that the Planning Commission did not have control over traffic enforcement or traffic
operations and said that concerns should be addressed to the Public Safety Commission and
the Public Works Department so that they can address her concerns.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 11, 2008
Elena Herrera, Granola Drive:
• Asked for an explanation of the construction oversight process, and said there are two
projects in her area she was concerned about. One relates to the height ordinance of a new
home project at 21105 Hazelbrook which top of the second floor is well into the roofline of
the two story homes adjacent to it. A surveyor on her property said that another project two
doors down at 21180 Granola is also higher than the 28 feet. She expressed concern about
what will be done about the two homes exceeding the height limit.
• One of the projects has an electrical box on its wall with a device to protect the lines going
from the street. All new projects are underground now. She was told it was a temporary
measure and the builder has been informed that it needs to be changed.
• A project on Greenleaf has a temporary power box on their project site; it goes through the
framing of the roof and is part of the permanent fixtures. She asked what the ramifications
will be.
• Asked if there were ordinances regarding the site; the site is a mess and there are four
projects directly around her property and the rat infestation is horrendous in the
neighborhood.
• She asked for a response on the process as she did not understand it.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said staff would look into the concerns expressed and speak with the other people
responsible for overseeing the projects.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval
(EA-2007-08) Brian to construct two one-story retail buildings
Replinger (Cupertino Village) totaling 24,455 square feet and atwo-level parking
Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. deck. Tentative City Council date: March 18, 2008
Steve Piasecki, provided a brief summary:
• Reviewed the application for a 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.
One of the issues is they could either retain the existing conditions which they don't feel are
acceptable conditions, including the spillover parking that has been documented; the trash
problems have been going on for a long time; there are no operational controls in this
particular center; there have been no substantive changes in the center for some time; there is
clearly anon-desirable interface with the residential neighborhood to the west in terms of
access and aesthetics; and there are access issues, i.e., the Homestead Road driveway.
• The second choice is to use the use expansion as an opportunity to enhance the center and its
relationship to its neighbors and make every attempt to contain the parking demand on site;
apply some reasonable use controls; improve the circulation; screen the development
effectively from the neighborhood; close off the pedestrian access; insulate the noise and the
light; and clean up the trash conditions.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the project, noting that the item was continued from the
November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning
Commission directed staff to retain a parking consultant to quantify the offsite parking
spillover into the residential area to the west; directed staff to evaluate the proposed onsite
Cupertino Planning Commission
March 11, 2008
circulation access for safety enhancement for potential mitigation measures to enhance; and
directed staff to identify the interior pedestrian path to see if there were any crossing
enhancements within the project.
• Reviewed the comments and concerns raised at three community meetings held. The
comments and concerns are listed on Page 9 of the staff report.
• The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) recommended granting a mitigated negative
declaration with the conditions added to modify the site plan to compensate for the parking
deficit; and provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan.
• He reviewed the site plan, various elevations, landscape plan, tree removal plan; and parking
lot lighting plan.
• Fehr and Peers conducted a supplemental parking lot analysis of the adjacent residential
streets and they looked at several streets to the west of the center, to try to capture any
spillover demand. They observed the offsite parking demand follow the similar pattern to the
onsite parking demand, when the parking lot at the shopping center was at its peak, they
also found a similar occurrence along Linnet in the residential streets, so that the parking
demand increased along the residential side streets at the same. Based on their observation,
the total parking demand peaked out Saturday afternoon. At this time 95% or more of the
parking stalls were taken up in the shopping center. They observed that patrons of the center
parked in the residential streets even before the shopping center parking lot was at capacity
which indicates it is a behavioral issue as opposed to a demand issue as well. Fehr and Peers
did an analysis to quantify the number of cars that should be attributed to the shopping
center that park on the residential street. With the formula used, they suggest that
approximately 32 cars could be attributed to the shopping center during the peak, using the
peak as Saturday afternoon. It should be added to the total parking demand captured from
the Hexagon study.
• Said that since the November 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has worked
in an additional 53 stalls; with still a parking deficit of 22 stalls. With the two components
added in, the total parking requirement is 855, and the parking provided is 833 stalls.
• He reviewed the options to mitigate the parking deficit: Modify the site plan to compensate
for the parking deficit, including consideration of additional parking on the bank parcel and
along the entrance driveway at Pruneridge Road located on the southeast corner of the
shopping center property; and require urban-lift structures for employees; provide a
Transportation Demand Management Plan; and consider incentives for employees to carpool
or take public transportation. The project may also be approved with a requirement to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission a year from the completion of construction or when
the project is 50% occupies, whichever comes first. A parking survey would be conducted
to evaluate the parking demand. If a deficiency is found, the remaining 50% would not be
leased until appropriate measures are taken to address the parking concerns as determined by
the Planning Commission.
• Relative to circulation issues, Fehr and Peers determined that the proposed restriping of the
existing center would enhance the circulation. They did not find any issues with onsite
circulation as proposed. They suggested the Homestead driveway exiting out onto
Homestead Road be simplified; the original suggestion was to eliminate the driveway to a
right in and a right out; but Fehr and Peers looked at the situation and suggested adding
another movement which allows for a sheltered left out of the shopping center. By doing
that people would not have to make a U-turn at Homestead if they wanted to go westbound
on Homestead, and it also prevents people from making unnecessary turns at other
intersections. Staff feels it is a good suggestion and Public Works Dept. concurs.
• The other improvements are along Wolfe Road, currently there is not a break in the median
for a left hand turn from Wolfe into the center; the consultant has suggested that a sheltered
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 11, 2008
left be provided, make improvements to the median to make that happen. Public Works
concurs and recommends this be implemented as a condition.
• Fehr and Peers also suggested stop controls at location C; on the upper deck of the parking
garage indicated by Letter D, they suggest that the last two parking stalls at the end of the
garage be eliminated to allow sufficient room for cars to do a three point turn or
hammerhead turn to get out of their space.
• They also suggest that some stalls be deleted along that building which is already reflected
on the applicant's site plan.
• Relative to residential interface, it is proposed to eliminate all pedestrian access along Linnet
Lane. A 7 foot high fence is proposed along the northerly property boundary between the
church and shopping center; and conditions will be enhanced to enhance landscaping
features and buffers along the westerly boundary.
• Summarized the following conditions to be implemented:
o Construction Management Plan implemented
o Odor abatement
o Landscape maintenance bond
o Detailed landscaping maintenance plan
o Improvement plans be provided to address refuse and recycling
o Bus shelter enhancement along Wolfe Rd.
o Reconstruction of sidewalk
o Corner plaza enhancement plan
o Enhancement plan for the interior courtyards
o Disclosure to tenants of all the conditions recommended and approved
o Onsite patrol for security reasons and security cameras be located at key locations
o Approval of the project with a one year review period
• Staff also recommends that the final site plan, architectural drawings, performance audit
conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission be reviewed and approved by
the DRC prior to the issuance of building permits.
• Staff supports the project; they feel it is a long awaited opportunity to work with the
shopping center to bring them up to par on all aspects, and recommends approval of the
project per the model resolution.
Com. Rose:
• Asked staff for an update on the residents pursuing a permanent parking area on Linnet with
the City of Sunnyvale.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the issue is on the table with the City of Sunnyvale, and it has to go through their
process to have their City Council approve it. They have not heard any other pursuit from
the residents or commitment from the City of Sunnyvale.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that preferential parking can be a hassle for residents. Staff does not feel it should be a
first choice, but it is their choice. Staff is working on solving the issues with the closeoff of
the access and providing the parking onsite because that is where they would prefer it.
Com. Rose:
• The relationship between the church, center and parking; does the center want the church to
use it as parking, or is it a controlled access; does it interfere with the parking already going
on at the center?
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 11, 2008
Steve Piaseclu:
• Said it did not interfere. The church peak usage time is offsetting, usually on Sunday
morning when the center is not at its peak demand. There is an agreement between the
church and the center for sharing.
• Said there will be stairs to access the second floor. Staff is suggesting that the center look at
a secondary set of stairs, and perhaps an elevator.
Com. Rose:
• Relative to the improvement along the sidewalks of Wolfe and Homestead, she asked if
there was an arborist involved in the process to improve how the trees can survive with the
sidewalks by reducing roots and changing the system.
Gary Chao:
• Said the city arborist would be involved; if the project is approved prior to issuance of the
building permit, the applicant would submit a sidewalk reconstruction plan along with the
landscape plan to detail how it will work out. The arborist would have to review and
approve it, and during the construction process he would go out and see that it is done
properly and provide a letter of confirmation that everything is in good standing after the
fact.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked how the sheltered left turn was different than the left turn lane currently on
Homestead. Why do they need the driveway on Wolfe; why not just close that off and have
more parking spaces?
Gary Chao:
• Referred to a diagram, and gave an example of a sheltered left on Stevens Creek Boulevard
mid-block between Torre and DeAnza Boulevard.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the rule of thumb with traffic is more is better, if there are more options to get into a
location, there will be less impact on any of the remaining options.
Com. Kaneda:
• Staff mentioned there were many problems with the existing facility and the implication is
that this application is a tool that could be used to improve the situation by tying things to its
approval. Are there no other ways that some of these problems can be addressed other than
using this application to hold the applicant as hostage?
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they could go after the shopping center when there are trash problems, such as rodents
and odors. They can use the Health Department and Code Enforcement, which has been
having numerous discussions with them about that issue. He said they could not necessarily
require them to put in trash compactors; but they can cite them when problems occur. He
said it was not a very effective tool, and he would like to see strong structural enhancements
to a center; things that actually work, as opposed to just using enforcement.
Com. Kaneda:
• There was discussion about using different transportation techniques to try to reduce parking
requirements; and then tying that into a review later on to see if it is working. If a one year
review reveals that it is not working, what can be done.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 11, 2008
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said the likely scenario is to restrict them to retail uses until they could demonstrate that the
restaurant uses could work. That also is a heavy hammer; the applicant is investing a lot of
money to build the buildings and would like the flexibility to respond to the marketplace to
occupy those buildings. Other backup options would be to say that it doesn't work; they
must put in urban lifts and guarantee that with a deposit to the city to ensure they put in the
urban lifts. Urban lifts provide a second level, lifted parking deck, and can provide 25
spaces.
Said they bring up the idea of transportation demand management because it is a good green
thing to do; people need to get out of their cars. Similar centers with a concentration of
employees should have the incentive to take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle; it is
something strongly encouraged and they should be advocating, but there are backup options
short of going to the land use controls.
Com. Kaneda:
• Staff mentioned that the parking wall will act as an acoustical buffer; is there some kind of
solid feature to it that will stop sound, or are you counting on the plantings to stop sound.
Gary Chao:
• It belongs in its own properties with attenuated sound and that is based on the noise
consultant's recommendation; so either through thickness, type of concrete, or the material,
and the fact that there shall be no openings, even though it looks like there are some
openings in terms of this decoration on the outside, it is actually a solid concrete wall.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that much of what they are doing along the western edge is implying that it is
separating neighborhood from the shopping center, which normally you don't want to do
because things should be walkable. He said he agreed, and with all the talk about how they
are going to increase the parking and do these things, the implication is that nobody really
expects the problem to go away; and therefore the physical separation still needs to be
created.
• If the parking problem was actually fixed, we wouldn't have to put these separations in
because there would be adequate parking on site.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said they would have to go a long way to achieve that objective. If they still have porous
openings into the neighborhood and have enough parking, because you have to build in a
greater percentage of parking so maybe you are utilizing it at 85% or 90%; when you get up
to the 95% range, you want to make it so difficult to park in the neighborhood that you chose
to look for that 5% space that you can find. While we prefer to have porous openings and
connect residences with nearby shopping, it is probably best to just close the entire thing off
and make it so difficult that people will seek that last space.
• The applicant addressed adding another level of parking at the November meeting and said it
was prohibitively expensive; and it poses a bigger structure that the residents are looking at.
It is not necessarily a good option.
Chair Miller:
• Asked how many spaces could be gained at he bank building.
Cupertino Planning Commission
March 11, 2008
Gary Chao:
• The bank building is one portion of the shopping center that has not been efficiently used in
terms of parking; there is a lot of opportunity along that strip of landscaping; potentially it
could be modified to gain enough width for parallel parking or diagonal parking along the
entrance drive off Pruneridge. If the bank drive thru was eliminated, it would have potential
for some extra parking stalls in that area.
• Were other areas of the shopping center considered for the garage or is this the only location.
That could also be another potential location.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Discussed other potential areas for parking; modifying the street; and said it would not
impede ingress or egress in any way. The applicant can address that issue; with Ranch 99
not wanting to have a structure in front of them, blocking their visibility to public streets.
Brian Replinger, Kimco Realty Corp., Applicant:
• Said since they purchased the property two years ago, they have tried to be a good neighbor.
In going through the planning process, they tried to address that and sincerely listened to the
concerns which have been access from Linnet Lane and the parking on the site.
• Parking is difficult to find, but it is the result of being a successful center. They have gone
through every iteration of trying to find every conceivable parking space onsite and believe
that the best way to do this is to find physical parking spaces. It is the easiest to quantify and
best way to manage it.
• As staff pointed out the last place they have to look for surface parking is down at the bank;
they have done some preliminary studies and without the parallel parking, they can get 18 to
20 spaces which would get them to the 855 spaces. That is contingent upon the bank having
approval rights on what they can do with the drive thru facility there and that is where those
spaces would be picked up. They are negotiating with the bank to see if that is feasible. If
not, they will have to consider some other measures discussed, and still look at employee
traffic management in the future. They feel it is the right thing to do, and the garage is an
area to designate for employees parking which from their standpoint is enforceable.
• In the past six months, the operational people have realized that trash and operational issues
have been a problem and it has been ramped up through frequency of collection,
enforcement of time and hiring an outside trash management firm that has implemented a
program. They are also looking into enrolling in the Cupertino pilot recycling composting
program.
• Said they were cognizant of the operational issues and are looking to improve them. It is an
ongoing issue; is something that needs to be done and is being done regardless of this
project.
Com. Giefer:
• Referring to the site plan, when you first began planning out the project and decided to add
structured parking, did you consider any other areas on site for the parking structure besides
along the Linnet Lane wall?
• Said the applicant was proposing different things; one is the structure that is adjacent to
Linnet Lane and the three different new buildings. Asked if they looked at doing a retail
structure with parking above it did they analyze any of those other alternatives and consider
the financial return on that?
• What about looking at adding additional underground parking under the parking garage?
Cupertino Planning Commission
March 11, 2008
Brian Replinger:
• Said it was driven by two perspectives; you want the usable space, the retail space more
visible to the road; that is architecturally more pleasing, and draws people into the center.
• They would not be able to put a parking garage on Ranch 99 for instance; it couldn't be done
by the lease there; but even if that was not an issue, putting a parking structure there at a
major intersection is normally not something that people want to do. Parking structures by
their functionality and use typically would be at the back of a center and not front and center.
• The project has gone through many different components, and the first layout seemed to
make the most sense and maximize usage for the site.
• Underground parking is cost and time prohibitive; there are many utilities that run through
there that would literally take years to get through PG&E if they had to move those.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked if any parking mitigation efforts were instigated to reduce the current parking
problem.
Brian Replinger:
• Said they inherited most of the leases when they purchased the property, and are bound to
things they can do to those leases, and some of those say the tenant can park on the site, so
they have to live with those.
• Said they were exploring opportunities with their operations people to see how they can
implement these things as leases come up for renewal or expire. It is rather difficult to
grandfather now, but they are looking at what they can do to improve it in the future.
• Both studies were by the city's parking consultant.
Chair Miller:
• Said it appeared circulation would be even more challenging than it is today; and asked if it
was a concern for them on the site itself or not.
Brian Replinger:
• Said their engineer's independent traffic study indicated that the flow has improved because
it becomes more circular in this one than it is now. They took a group of the triangular
islands that chop up circulation out and the perimeter circulation becomes more efficient.
Presently it winds around the back of Ranch 99; it has been straightened up and is an
improvement.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was there today and because it was so challenging to make a left turn onto
Homestead, he gave up and made a right turn. He asked if they felt the sheltered left turn
would really work and how effective it would be.
Brian Replinger:
• He said they are working with Public Works Dept. on offsite improvements. He said
personally he was not in favor of making left hand turns onto roads as heavily traveled as
Homestead and would defer to Public Works.
Steve Piasecki:
• You would probably also want to require that they put a cross hatch area and no blocking so
that if you are trying to negotiate that during the high volume hours, people don't end up
blocking your ability to get into the protective left.
Cupertino Planning Commission
March 11, 2008
Chair Miller:
• What is the ratio of restaurants to office and commercial, and the possibility of you having to
adjust the amount of restaurant space based on the success of the parking arrangement.
Brian Replinger:
• Said they would like to have flexibility in leasing the space, and would like to be able to
respond to the market, such as retail or food.
• Restaurants park at a higher ratio; they would like to reach 855 that the studies show; make
that park, and go from there and have that be the standard.
Steve Piasecki:
• Asked if they would prefer to go to the urban lift solution as opposed to a tenant type of
control.
Brian Replinger:
• The lifts would be for employees only. It becomes an operational and liability issue; any
time you have machinery in a place you have to have somebody there to ride herd over it.
Someone would have to park the employees and operate those lifts. He said it was not high
on the list of preferred versions and is likely further down the list than the parking
management program. It is harder to quantify what the real impact for that is.
Chair Miller:
• Said the issue with parking management is how to quantify it; how do you police it, ensure
it is working effectively. They are looking for a permanent solution, not a temporary one,
and what kind of arrangement could they have that would help ensure that it is a more
permanent than a temporary solution.
Doug Fisher, No. California Operations Director:
• Said it was a big concern at all their shopping centers. An example being implemented is in
Olivia Place Plaza in downtown Walnut Creek. There is onsite security which has been
provided with license plate numbers of all the employees; the employees receive placards
and the cars are monitored by marking tires. For the past 60 days it has been very
successful. He said they would be willing to implement the same program in Cupertino and
guarantee its success.
• If we need to free up spaces and encourage employees not to drive, we would go back to
Brian Replinger on other options that would be included in this proposal; other incentives.
Presently, the most effective tool is to designate either offsite or onsite one area and add that
to the security patrol scope and get them to comply.
• Said they did not have a viable offsite location at this point. A lift system would come into
play, although it is not their preference when they had success at other centers with this type
of parking restraint.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Explained that parking cashout is the same thing as parking demand management; the
employee is paid not to drive his car. It could be a carpool or bus pass.
Chair Miller:
• Said that if the alternative was to do lifts, someone would be needed to manage the lifts
onsite. It may be less expensive to encourage employees not to drive by paying them not to
do so.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 11, 2008
Doug Fisher:
• Said it was reasonable to look into, and they were open to all suggestions and
recommendations.
Brian Replinger:
• Said that research shows it is most effective in a single employer environment where the
bulk of the employees are working 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. In the center there are 40 separate
employers and each is covered under its own lease.
Chair Miller:
• He said they would be in control by offering the incentive. He suggested that it may be
more cost effective than putting the lifts in.
Brian Replinger:
• He agreed that it may be more cost effective. They want something that is quantifiable, so
that if they are talking about it in a year or so, that they can say that they agree they did not
meet the standard, or did meet the standard, rather than having it be a subjective thing.
Chair Miller:
• Said he was seeking a backup plan. The first plan is to work with the bank to get more
parking on the bank parking space. If that doesn't work, then consider paying employees
not to drive or reducing the amount of restaurant space that you can actually lease; or discuss
reducing the amount of square footage permitted to be built up front.
Com. Giefer:
• How far along are the discussions with the bank about removing the drive thru and
enhancing the parking spaces there. When is the projected conclusion of those discussions?
(Response: A couple of weeks)
Mr. Wong:
• Said they moved the angled parking back, reduced the landscaping in that area, and went to
90 degree parking, 24 foot drive aisle, 18 foot stalls with 2 foot overhang. They were able to
pick up 20 stalls.
• Said they have not looked at adding some parallel parking.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that answers how you would fit more in there and with staff's explanation that for every
9 on angled parking, you lose a space. Asked if they had experience on how to screen urban
lifts if they were installed in that area.
• Said that if the urban lift option was explored, she would like to see some way of screening
them besides through the building.
Mr. Wong:
• Said the area indicated is a natural area for the urban lifts. At the last ERC meeting, when
discussing additional parking, they were trying to quantify a number they could meet. At
that time they did not have enough parking stalls for the number that the ERC was looking
at.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11
March 11, 2008
Rev. Christie Ola, Sr. Pastor of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church:
• Provided a Power Point presentation which outlined the background of the church which is a
church in two languages, English and Mandarin, and is located on the corner of Linnet and
Homestead. The church was started 50 years ago, and serves the community with worship
services in two languages, anon-profit preschool, citizenship classes and English as a
Second Language classes provided free of charge; as well as other services to the
community.
Cliff Ludwig, Administrative Board Chairperson, Good Samaritan United Methodist
Church:
• Said that safety was a main concern of the proposed Cupertino Village project. They
welcome many of the proposed changes to Cupertino Village; and want the neighboring
project and property to be attractive and successful and many of the changes are aimed at
those items. He said they also recognize that the success of the project will make direct and
indirect contributions to the congregation.
• A key concern is safety of the children in the preschool. The new parking structure is a
concern as it will greatly increase the traffic flow right along the school play yards. They are
concerned that this will increase the noise, and increase the vehicle exhaust.
• Suggested that any wall built should be non-climbable, to ensure the safety of children and
to prevent accidents.
• Concerned about the parking at Cupertino Village. There is a prior written agreement that
the church has access to 200 spaces within 300 feet of the church entrances. The facility is
used every day, all day, and into the evenings. Safe access is needed to the spaces over in
Cupertino Village.
• Adequate parking would also go a long way in addressing the concerns of the surrounding
residential community.
• Said they had concerns if the urban lifts are added as they would be located in the area that
the preschool looks out onto, and also is facing the main entrance of the church facility.
• Emphasized that they needed access to the additional parking.
• Expressed appreciation for the good faith efforts made to date to address the needs of the
church and surrounding community; however, they requested some modifications.
Bill Hutchinson, Vice President of Board of Trustees, Good Samaritan United Methodist
Church:
• Said that safety concerns were twofold: the protection of the children using the play yards
and the safety of the congregation and visitors to the facility. The play yard gets daily use,
not only on Sundays. The children must be protected from errant vehicles, car exhaust and
prying eyes. With increased traffic flow comes the potential for errant vehicles crossing into
the property. Construction makeup of the wall is paramount concern. They are pleased that
preliminary plans call for a solid wall. The height of the wall is important as it affords some
measure of protection from car exhaust for the children playing close to the entrance.
Request that the wall be 8 feet high as measured off the existing parking lot for the
Cupertino Village.
• Summarized that they were satisfied with the good faith effort that Cupertino Village has
made in their preliminary plans. They request only minor modifications be made; first, solid
wall 8 feet high as opposed to 7 feet high; and request access and egress point be located
nearer to the parking structure that where currently shown.
Dean Fujiwara, Cupertino resident:
• The neighborhood submitted a petition with 118 signatures (out of 164 homes) objecting to
the project. The neighborhood has not been given enough time when meetings are
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 March 11, 2008
cancelled. Only a few people received the note when the last meeting was cancelled and
several residents showed up for the meeting.
• Expressed concern with the noise from the parking garage, particularly the second floor
where it is open, as the noise travels at night. The use of the second floor for the employee
parking would make the noise worse as they play their radios loud when they get off work at
10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.
• The lights will shine into the neighborhoods.
• Said they want the environmental concerns addressed relative to the hazardous chemicals
used by the cleaners. They do not know what dangerous chemicals or quantities are there
and part of the construction will be by the Cupertino Village cleaners; when they are
digging, the dirt will fly, dust will be everywhere, and the contamination will go into the
homes.
• The City of Sunnyvale stated they will not allow permit parking. The request will be
submitted again, and hopefully the church will lend their support.
• Employee parking. It was my understanding that the previous owner of the shopping center
implemented an employee parking plan, in which the employees parked at the Hilton and
given incentives to park there. However, it was not successful and they parked on the
neighborhood streets and also parked in the parking lot.
• Everything is based on the number of square feet and number of parking spaces. There are
different numbers from the initial plan to the current plan to the numbers of the first
description to this page in terms of the square footage for the building. I just want to make
sure we are talking about the same numbers. The numbers go from 24,500 square feet,
23,000+ and 24,455 and since all the parking spaces are driven by those numbers, I want to
know which number is correct.
Mona Abdoa, Loch Lane:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said she was concerned about the traffic on Homestead Road and the increased possibility of
accidents. It has taken as much as 10 minutes to get onto Linnet.
Conchita Gomez, corner of LinnetBarnell:
• Opposed to the project.
• Said she experienced many problems with people parking in that area. Patrons of the
shopping center park in the church parking lot.
• Opposed to the project because of the noise and presence of lights. There are workers
working at 6 a.m. which is not in keeping with the city laws.
May Huong, Cupertino resident:
• Opposed to the project.
• Referred to the petition which Mr. Fujiwara discussed and noted that the majority of the
neighborhood was opposed to the project. She asked that their concerns be taken into
consideration.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• She said her main concern was that the Ash trees in the public right of way along Wolfe
Road and Homestead are protected, as the corner is important as the northern entrance to
Cupertino. The double row of Ash trees is a hallmark of Vallco/Cupertino Square/Cupertino
Village shopping district and it is important to maintain the trees and propagate them along
the area.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 March 11, 2008
Said she was pleased that they were considering the Ash trees down Linnet and have a
parkway with a berm.
There is a lot of traffic along Wolfe and Homestead and there should be investigation of the
best access points.
Tom Oelke, Cupertino resident:
• Said as a parent of a child attending the church preschool, he was concerned about the traffic
going into the back parking lot. Raising the wall and trying to minimize traffic there would
be desirable.
• Another concern is the foot traffic through the building. He said that he felt some people
would cut through the church building to get to Ranch 99 market. Agate would be a more
feasible pass thru for people.
• He said he was also concerned about the parking access. The plans presented earlier showed
the gate opening onto the driveway. He said he has parked in the Ranch 99 lot where the
parking ramp will be; and he did not favor walking with a small child down a busy
driveway; having a gate underneath the ramp where people would be shielded from the
traffic would be more desirable and safer.
Elena Herrera, Granola Drive:
• Opposed to the project.
• Concurred with Jennifer Griffin's statement about the trees, as it is an important entrance to
the City of Cupertino.
• Said she was disappointed the study did not include the morning hours, since many of the
parking questions are making assumptions about human behavior that she did not see. She
said she had experience with the shopping center as she had worked at a restaurant and
shopped at it when it was Whole Foods. She said she was familiar with some of the traffic
flows and has seen traffic get more congested.
• Relative to the lifts, she said it was difficult to police the employees, since people park
where they want, and sometimes will justify parking there because they were a customer on
that particular day. Said she felt they were making assumptions about human behavior that
were not valid. Some people may park in other lots because of safety reasons.
• Said that whether or not they were considering new lifts or underground parking, Los Gatos
and Walnut Creek has done it, and although it is expensive, they can't keep building flat
concrete pads for cars; at some point one has to admit that it may not work.
• She urged the Commission when voting, to vote their consciences and not just vote for the
tax revenue or for the business and the growth of the city. Think long term because these
decisions are not easy ones for anyone.
E. Boklund, Cupertino resident:
• In favor of project.
• One of the things in the past was we wanted to close the driveways going into the center, and
that was finally done, but now we have the pedestrian entrances and those are going to be
closed is you approve the garage, which I am pleased to see.
• In fact, I am in favor of the garage because I feel that the retaining wall or sound wall in the
back of the garage with all the vegetation will be the greatest improvement I have seen there
in 39+ years. One of the main problems I have is with the sheltered left turns into the
Cupertino Village, both on Wolfe and Homestead. As a regular driver around the
community, I found it dangerous and hazardous both going southbound on Wolfe Road
passing the shopping center. Cars pulling out of the center in front of me is not uncommon
situation. If there are left turns coming into the center it will double the problem of all
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 March 11, 2008
southbound traffic on Wolfe Road. Westbound traffic on Homestead from Wolfe Road that
is a zoo, particularly at commute time.
• If it is going to be implemented, possibly stop having left turns onto Linnet for westbound
Homestead.
Mu-Jing Li, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was also opposed to the project.
• He said trash pickup starts as early as 6 a.m. If the commercial building is expanded, there
will be more similar activities. Property values will decrease.
• Consider the residents as well as the commercial buildings which provide the city revenue.
The businesses are concerned with the cost of improvements, but no consideration is being
given to the cost to the residents and the negative impacts to their property.
Carolyn Bircher, Cupertino resident:
• Said that her thoughts were covered by previous speakers and she did not wish to add
anything.
Chen Fang Zou, Cupertino resident:
• In favor of project.
• Referred to the left turn shelter and said he felt that people would not be able to cross the
street; it would be a serious traffic jam.
• Referring to the site plan, he indicated where the people would park. He said the traffic
would be heavy and the city should be concerned about liability and security.
• Businesses are concerned about the cost, but if it is going to be done, it has to be done right,
and not build something to find out in a year that is not working.
David Doudna, Parnell Place:
• Asked if the sheltered left turn onto Homestead will openly prevent people from making a
left turn from westbound Homestead onto Linnet. He said he makes the left turn frequently
and would rather not have to go all the way down to Heron.
• Said it sounded almost that it was green to have inadequate parking that is built into the
neighborhood. Reading some of the studies and materials distributed, if the concern of
having too much parking is impervious asphalt, perhaps the solution is to use pavers instead.
• Said the applicant talked about wanting quantifiable success and as an engineer he could
appreciate that; but perhaps the answer is not to quantify just the number of parking spaces,
especially when they want the freedom to control what percentage of their business is
restaurant for example. In his view, the quantifiable success is zero, as in zero spillover
parking. It is something that needs to be monitored periodically perhaps every year or two
and it is something that needs to be enforced, perhaps by requiring some type of conditional
occupancy if they are not meeting zero spillover parking.
Serachita Bose, City of Sunnyvale Planner:
• Said they provided initial comments on the project at the November 2007 meeting; since
then they have met with the developer and he has presented the revised plans to the city of
Sunnyvale.
• The project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and their efforts are appreciated
in listening to the City of Sunnyvale and the neighbors. Concerns have been raised by the
residents today and there have been issues with parking overflow into the streets, noise
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 March 11, 2008
• impacts, odor impacts, from the existing restaurants. There are also some issues with the
patrons of the church parking along Linnet Lane as well, which impacts the ability of the
residents to use the parking on the street.
• Having said that, we realize that the circulation on the site is tight, that the shopping center is
a successful one and traffic will likely increase as a result of the project. Possible solutions
have also been proposed to address these concerns. Elimination of the pedestrian access
points between the center and Linnet Lane are blocking the fire access point to not allow
pedestrian entry; we think that both of these things will discourage customers from parking
on the adjoining residential streets. We support Cupertino's staff recommendation for
constructing a wall as well as gated access between the church site and the shopping center.
• Said it appears that the parking study initially done as well as the Fehr and Peers parking
study did not factor in the ability of the patrons of the church to park at the shopping center;
and the developer clarified that the parking agreement between the church and the shopping
center is not a legally binding agreement. The assumption is that the peak of the church and
the peak of the shopping center do not overlap, but the concern is, based upon the
presentation that the church made today, they use the church throughout the week, on
Saturdays which is also the peak of the shopping center. They would like to recommend that
the parking agreement between the church and the shopping center be revisited and these
issues be captured into the traffic study to be factored into the actual use of the parking
available at the shopping center by the church.
• The supplemental parking study states that a parking deficiency of 22 stalls still remains
onsite. It is recommended that the project be conditioned to either restrict the total amount
of restaurant or retail, or restrict the total square footage of the proposed addition; so that
there is a guarantee today at this time, prior to the project being approved, that there will be
no parking deficiency on site.
• The proposed sound wall on the parking structure along with the green screen in front of it,
facing Linnet Lane is a good feature of the design. As there is no sound wall on the second
floor, there are some concerns about the potential for noise to spillover.
• The photometric plan indicates that there will be no spillover of lighting on Linnet Lane
resulting from the lights on the upper deck of the parking lot. She said they felt it is a good
feature of the design as well.
• Sunnyvale staff has explored the possibility of providing restricted residents only parking in
the area. There are multiple issues associated with this, including available funding, and
willingness of the residents.
• Said they did not want to create additional hassles for the residents to park on their streets as
well as there are enforcement issues. Said they were willing to work with the developer in
the City of Cupertino to explore these possibilities further, but felt the project should not be
approved assuming that restricted parking in Sunnyvale neighborhoods will occur.
• The staff report also mentioned a multi-language sign program, Condition No. 18
discourages customers from parking in Sunnyvale neighborhoods. The Director of Public
Works as well as the Traffic Division staff has not had the opportunity to reign on the
recommended conditions, and the feasibility of these conditions can only be confirmed after
meeting with these divisions.
• Said they were willing to work with Cupertino staff as well as their own divisions to work
out feasible alternatives including restricted parking and signage. She is not able to confirm
today without further discussions with their respective divisions, that this will be a viable
option.
Mario Gerbay, Cupertino resident:
• Relative to parking, he said he felt the parking ratios, stalls per square foot, need to be
revised. He said the placard system for employees at Whole Foods is not successful. They
Cupertino Planning Commission 16
March 11, 2008
need to look at the design process that Cupertino Village has proposed; it is one parking
structure approved by the city and it is a mess. You can clearly see the design of the
structure and parking lot. If that happens with Cupertino Village, they will spill onto the
streets into the neighborhood causing more chaos and litter in the streets.
He asked that they address the parking issues, litter, 8 foot wall for the playground; also the
entrance to 280 north which is severely congested all day.
He asked if the city was considering a traffic study.
Ms. Chen, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to the project.
Said the parking structure will be a danger to the residents; the project will increase the
traffic.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller summarized questions and concerns:
Concern: Noise from the top level of the parking structure, particularly if employees are
parking up there, leaving the area and starting their cars late in the evening.
Gary Chao:
• The noise consultant specified that on the entire wall plane noise decibels would have to be
brought down to an acceptable level; the report is in the staff report. Either the applicant
would have to submit a more revised detail plan to be reviewed by a professional noise
consultant or engineer to show that it will satisfy the city ordinance in terms of decibels.
• That can be achieved by either having the mainstream wall go all the way up to the shed roof
or there be noise attenuation handles similar to the Vallco parking garage implemented on
the second level of the wall plane.
Concern: Lights into the neighborhood.
Steve Piasecki:
• Sunnyvale staff spoke; the light study shown by staff revealed that all the light is directed
down; and the wall element itself cuts off any light that might spill over. This is a better
condition than present where there is nothing blocking the lights in that parking lot.
Concern: Environmental concerns with respect to toxic chemicals being used in the
shopping center
Gary Chao:
• Notification has been received from the Dept. of Substance Control; they have been working
with the shopping center property owner to look at some of the chemical residues that result
from one of their prior Laundromats. Work has already begun in terms of remediating any
contaminations and they have updated staff. With or without this project, the property
owner will have to conform to their standards or conditions. It does not relate to what is
being proposed or considered this evening.
Concern: Dust and other debris spilling over into the neighborhood during the construction
period.
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 March 11, 2008
Gary Chao:
• As part of the conditions of approval, staff is requesting a detailed construction management
plan; part of that is for the contractor to come up with a strategy to mitigate dust control,
specifically spelled out in the condition and also that they would carry out with the project at
the construction site in accordance with our best management practices which is enforced by
our Building Department.
Concern: Litter from the shopping center finding its way into the residential streets.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the barrier should deter people using the residential streets. He said he agreed with
some speakers that they would prefer a condition where nobody uses the residential streets
from the shopping center. The litter should be substantially reduced because of the parking
methods and the existence of the wall.
Concern: Odor issues from food and restaurants being experienced in the neighborhoods as
well.
Gary Chao:
• Staff is recommending a condition that all new restaurants in the center implement the odor
filtration system similar to the condition in the Marketplace Shopping Center.
Concern: Cannot account for employee parking behavior or human behavior and that
employees will park in the neighborhoods regardless.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said there is validity to the perception that people will do what they want to do; they are
attempting to build in the physical enhancements and improvements that have a significant
disincentive for the employees to want to go to the neighborhood. Why would one want to
walk an extra 5 or 6 minutes to get to work when there is available parking or other systems
onsite that can be accessed.
Concern: A speaker asked if a traffic study was conducted.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt the traffic study was covered in the first 1-1/2 hours of discussion at the present
meeting.
Concern: There was continued concern about the sheltered left turns and the potential
traffic jams it is going to cause.
Steve Piasecki:
• The traffic engineer Fehr and Peers as well as Public Works indicated it would work in both
locations. It is not the intent to inhibit left turn access onto Linnet.
Concern: Trash pickup at inappropriate hours and workmen working at inappropriate
hours; people doing things on the shopping center site outside of normal business
hours.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 March 11, 2008
Steve Piaseclci:
It came to the attention of the Code Enforcement Division and they have advised the
applicant that cannot occur. This is a recurring problem with other centers in the community
and it is an enforcement issue dealt with when it happens. The property owners and
merchants are strongly urged to conform to the requirements, and they are cited if necessary.
Concerns: The church would like to have an 8 foot wall instead of 7 foot high, and a different
location for the access.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the 8 foot high fence was satisfactory; the different location is not a problem, unless it
is a controlled access, as long as it is something they can control.
Concern: Neighbors expressed concern about the meetings being cancelled.
Gary Chao:
• Explained that reference was to the last Planning Commission continuation/postponement
requested by the applicant. The request was because the information they had wasn't
sufficient to address some of their concerns; they did not want a large group coming to the
meeting when they couldn't address their questions properly. They needed more time to
prepare to address the questions.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked if the parking study includes the church parking. Are the numbers based on the
shopping center excluding the stalls that the church is using?
Gary Chao:
• From the times both Fehr and Peers and Hexagon were out there, they did look at the
interactions between the two properties. Said the numbers were based on the actual survey
study; and according to the church they are using the existing shopping center throughout the
day. Likely when the traffic engineer counted vehicles, many of those would potentially be
the church use of the stalls. He said he felt it has been indirectly accommodated or
considered in the reports.
Chair Miller:
• A speaker commented that perhaps the city did not consider that a peak time was Saturday
afternoons for the church as well as the shopping center. However, that is the time when the
city saw the peak demand and perhaps the peak demand was not just coming from the
shopping center but also from the church, and that has been included in the calculations.
(Staff said that was correct.)
Com. Rose:
• According to the ordinance this project needs to provide 720 stalls; and then the actual is
going to be 833.
Gary Chao:
• What is being proposed, what is shown on the site plan is 833.
Com: Kaneda:
• Said his thoughts were primarily on the amount of parking based on the comments received
from the neighbors and on the garage.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 March 11, 2008
Said his sense with the garage is that lighting will not be a problem and if the garage is
constructed of some type of solid wall such as a concrete block masonry wall, he would
expect that the noise problems would be better than present and not worse. As stated
previously, the garage could actually be a friend of the neighbors, which he saw in the
current design. All pedestrian access has been cut off which will help to control the problem
of shoppers parking in the neighborhood. However, he still had concerns about the amount
of parking for this development.
Staff commented that it is now green to have just enough parking, but if the parking is so
tight that people are driving around and around looking for a space, it is arguable that it is
not green. The bottom line is that we are still stuck with this ratio, we are increasing the
retail space 22% and increasing the parking less, than 22% so I would imagine if you
increase the retail space a set percentage and the parking a set percentage, the problem will
stay the same. We are increasing the square footage of the shopping center 22% and
increasing the amount of parking less than that; my thinking is that in fact we will make the
problem worse, not better.
Steve Piasecki:
• Clarified that the Planning Commission had the option of conditioning it so that they are
equal or make it greater. The delta between the two is so small, that the applicant can make
it up one way or another.
• Said streets were available to everyone for parking, and they could not guarantee no parking
spillover. They can only have a significant disincentive and that is what has been suggested;
to make it too distant to be convenient for the employees or customers.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it would be acceptable to him to increase the parking some number greater from a
percentage standpoint than the square footage that is being proposed.
Com. Giefer:
• When they considered the Cupertino Square application and the four story parking structure
abutting the residential in that area, they asked Cupertino Square to set up a construction
management parking hotline for the adjacent neighbors. There was a point person at the
company who would take the calls and take care of any nuisance issues right away. Was
that program successful and was it used?
• Asked if there were any specific complaints regarding the parking structure.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it was successful. There was a similar program when they built the AMC theaters and
they were working well into the night and both times it worked well.
• Said there were no complaints regarding the parking structure since its construction. There
were some concerns while under construction but none since completion.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that the complaints from the neighbors and the public testimony were actually different
tonight than last time the item was heard. She said it is more helpful when the people
express specific issues rather than just a general opposition to the project. The property
owner has rights as well as the residents who abut the project and the best thing the
Commission can do is try to make it a successful project for everybody both in Cupertino
and in Sunnyvale, which is the goal of the Planning Commission.
• Said that in the Valley Fair area where Valley Fair abuts the Santa Clara neighborhood, they
put signs out that say No Parking for Valley Fair at the opening to the neighborhood, and it
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 March 11, 2008
clearly states they don't want you to park there. She felt it was a good low cost idea and is
something that Cupertino Village management could set up and control and make sure
people understand it is a residential neighborhood, and not overflow parking for Cupertino
Village. Also, from comments from various people, closing the entry points into Cupertino
Village from the adjacent neighborhood would make it more difficult for people to enter
through as it is a considerable walk. As a customer, it will discourage people from parking
in the neighborhood.
• The parking ordinance clearly states that when you restripe the parking lot, you need to have
bioswales throughout the parking lot. In this case, we are not seeing that; we are only seeing
it along the proposed parking structure on the Linnet side of the wall. The applicant is trying
to meet the intent of what we want to do with swales with their rain gardens; but I would like
to see if this project does move forward a few enhancements to the project to keep more of
the rain water on the site to help us with water not going into the storm water system.
• She suggested opening up the rain gardens to also capture rainfall, using rain chains,
bringing them out from the building and have the rain chains drain water and drain into the
rain gardens because it will help capture the rainwater from the roofs into these catch basins
they have designed as part of their landscaping.
• The traffic study also recommends that we have specific pedestrian paths and we
differentiate them as part of the parking lot, and I would like all of those to be either a
permeable or asemi-permeable surface. If it were pavers then people would know where it
was safe for them to navigate the crosswalks and it is also a visual clue to the drivers. We
heard many concerns from the neighborhood about safety and we want this to be a safe
center and improve the traffic flow in it. I would add that as a condition that the ped paths
become permeable or semi-permeable surfaces; that we improve the function of the rain
gardens to also serve as a catch basin for rain water.
• I noted in the staff report that on the interior of the center, there are some improvements, but
I am not sure what they are; they show a trash receptacle but they don't show a recycling
receptacle. To be consistent with our city policy that wherever you have a trash receptacle,
you also have a recycling receptacle and it is clearly spelled out what goes in that.
• She recommended if the application moved forward, that a final landscape plan with the
internal structure of the courtyards come to DRC. If there are bioswales included or catch
basins included as part of the interior landscaping, it would help because it would reduce the
amount of spaces available.
• If the parking structure moves forward, it does need to be ADA compliant; an elevator to the
second floor would be necessary. She said she was unsure about the sheltered left turn onto
Homestead. There is potential conflict there that has always been a problem, She said she
was in favor of eliminating the left turn onto Homestead.
• The question is how do we feel about the parking ratio between what is proposed today and
the additional square footage. I agree with Com. Kaneda that it needs to be in balance; we
need to either have the applicant conclude their negotiations with the bank and the additional
parking spaces to meet this additional retail for the project to go forward, and if they were
able to do that, I think a lot of good things come out of this. I think we would see
improvement over noise and circulation between the center and Linnet Lane and I think that
would be an enhancement for the neighborhood.
Com. Rose:
• Coms. Kaneda and Giefer touched on several things, and I had the same observation as Com.
Giefer in the meeting tonight listening to the comments. People were able to provide us with
specific feedback and it allows us to find a compromise in inevitable and expected growth
and improvement to business and retail in our city as well as respecting the status of the
surrounding neighborhoods. It is always a challenge but I think we have made some
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 March 11, 2008
headway and we are now trying to narrow down the areas of concern.
• Said she found the church presentation on parking very interesting, which emphasized that
parking is more of a concern than she originally thought when reading the staff report. It
appears there is even more access and more use both on Linnet and in the shopping center
itself by church patrons and they should not underestimate or assume that the parking issues
are easily mitigated. She said she realized that the issue is quite big and needs to be looked
at carefully. At the very least there should be an equal ratio between square footage and
parking or a ratio that is in favor of additional parking, based on that and especially with
respect to the Linnet residents wanting people not to park on their street.
• Relative to the parking garage, she said the proposed garage is well designed; the
landscaping is going to be a huge improvement to what is currently there, and she is pleased
to hear that the walls have the potential to lessen the noise and the lighting that is currently
being experienced as a resident of the adjoining streets. She feels that the outcome will be
one that people will be pleased with.
• Said she appreciated the introduction of the bioswale; it was suggested at the last meeting
and it is really important. Com. Giefer's suggestion of having the rain gardens within the
parking lot is great. Again, in the parking lot, I do think it is a very busy parking lot, just to
look at as well as to be in, and I think distinguishing between walkways with some type of
colored the or flooring would be helpful and keep it a safe area for people to walk.
• Relative to the church, she supports the 8 foot wall around the children's play area; she
questions that the gate location by the parking garage won't be encouraging people to park
on Linnet, but if that is what the church is interested in, it is worth a try.
• She encouraged Sunnyvale residents to consider a parking permit system. She said it was
successful in her neighborhood at deterring non-residents from parking in the neighborhood.
• Said they should not underestimate the impact of the parking issue, which already is a
problem.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt that the remainder of the Commission would be inclined to go ahead assuming
that the parking and some of the other issues have been addressed. He said he felt the same
way.
• Where two different uses or different zonings meet, it is always an issue. It is especially an
issue when we have a residential neighborhood right next to a very successful shopping
center. It is not acceptable that either one wins and one loses; it has to be a win/win
situation. I think we have the makings of a win/win situation here. Specifically now if the
applicant is not allowed to move forward, then the current conditions will continue to go on.
We have no control. People said there is trash in their neighborhood, there are odors, there
is noise, parking issues; all that will continue. On the other hand, if we allow the applicant
to go ahead and do his development, then we will gain control over those issues and mitigate
a lot of them for you and I hope it will improve the neighborhood at the same time that the
applicant gets to do his development which he has property rights and a right to do as well;
and that as best we can, we make it work and everybody gets a little bit but nobody is
completely satisfied which is the basis for a compromise.
• Relative to the key issue of parking, it was pointed out that there is peak parking on Saturday
afternoon, and the church is a major contributor to that peak parking; but the solution has
fallen completely on the shopping center and not on the church, which is not a fair
assumption.
• The ordinance says if we had just gone by the ordinance, all they would have been required
to provide would be 720 spaces; however, a traffic study was done and it suggested that 720
was not nearly adequate and it needed to be 855. He said he may disagree with his
colleagues on it needing to be aone-for-one ratio in terms of increase, and he may put more
Cupertino Planning Commission 22
March 11, 2008
value on the fact that they had a study done by professionals who have given the indication
that that is what it is; and possibly some of the reasons it doesn't necessarily have to be a
one-to-one ratio has to do with the mix of what is going on in the center. He saw that it is
only 26% restaurant, and 71 % office, which tends to shift the required parking to a lower
level. He said he stood in the minority on that one; but he felt that 855 is a reasonable
number to start with, since he felt they have to have a further control on this and he liked
staff's idea of reviewing and doing another traffic study after the center is 50% after a year
or the center is 50% leased.
He said he was hopeful based on what the applicant said tonight about additional parking,
even more than 20 spaces might be picked up at the bank building. If not, then they have
other mitigations including modifying programs that modify employee behavior, and the
lifts.
Doug Fisher:
• Said their current design has provided more disabled parking stalls that are required by code
on the site itself. He said they could provide disabled parking stalls underneath, but he did
not understand the philosophy of providing them above, where there is equal facilitation.
Putting all the disabled parking stalls as close as possible to the building is adding more than
required. Why would you want to put disabled parking stalls on top of the parking garage;
that would be more travel distance for a disabled person to get to the center. He said this has
been done before in other centers.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she had a concern, that even though they are supplying more handicapped parking
spaces, those are usually the ones that are full. There are times when every handicapped
space is filled.
Steve Piasecki:
• A condition could be applied stating it would have to meet the ADA codes for accessibility
and available parking.
Com. Rose:
• Said she was not comfortable with the left turn onto Homestead. It does not feel like a safe
intersection; it is a challenging turn to make across a four lane road.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said several Commissioners have raised a concern about that; they may be in a position to
tentatively recommend approval subject to certain conditions coming back for their
approval.. The traffic engineer can also come back and directly address the question. The
Planning Commission could sculpt whatever condition they want.
Chair Miller:
• Said he supported the idea of a complaint management program, the recycling receptacles,
and having identifiable crosswalks.
Com. Giefer:
• The issue for me is as Com. Kaneda pointed out, I think once the building is built, and 50%
rented out, at that point we are doing a disservice to the property owner to say you have to
stop now, you aren't in compliance with parking. You can keep those buildings closed. I
would rather go in anticipating their success and they are going to need those spaces.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 March 11, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said they do not know how many spaces they are ultimately going to need; the question is
what number do you start at. He said a professional consultant was hired to come up with a
best guess, and he was comfortable with that.
Com. Kaneda:
• Expressed concern that previously a different consultant made the absurd statement that the
parking lot was 100% full, therefore it was right sized. Because he knew how impacted the
parking lot is, he said his inclination is to choose the conservative side with the parking.
Gary Chao:
• Said it would be 22% additional spaces which is what the square footage is projected to be.
If the parking supply is increased by 22%, the new parking demand number is 870 stalls as
opposed to 865.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Applications
U-2007-06 and ASA-2007-10 with the following additional conditions:
o Adding Point No. 2 on Page 1.6 of the staff report, which is "provide a Transportation
Demand Management Plan, such plan shall be permanent and demonstrateable and be
linked to the leasing strategy.."
o Establish a hotline for complaints and violations of any of the points of the conditional
approval; the adjacent neighborhood would be able to call the construction
management and report violations for immediate address;
o Establish a sign program for Linnet Lane similar to the one at Valley Fair that says it
is a residential parking and should not be used for Cupertino Village. The sign
program should be reviewed and approved by the City of Sunnyvale;
o Pedestrian pathways throughout the center be made of a permeable or semi-permeable
surface and of a different color than the other paving materials to ensure that they are
highlighted for pedestrians;
o Add recycle bins paired throughout the interior of the center or near all stores where
there are also trash receptacles;
o The parking garage will also be a sound wall which goes up and meets the shed roof to
ensure reduction of noise and glare;
o A final landscape plan be remanded to the DRC to ensure that swales and rainwater
collection is included as part of the landscaping plan in the interior and throughout the
site;
o In the spirit of having bioswales throughout the parking center, although there is no
space for them;
o The runoff from the roofs be captured in the rain gardens through rain chains or other
such devices to keep the water in the center;
o The parking structure either include minimally a second set of stairs and that it must
be ADA compliant and staff will determine what the necessity is of that;
o The left hand turn onto Homestead Road from the Homestead driveway be eliminated;
o The fence between the center and the church play yard area be an 8 foot reinforced
masonry wall;
o The location of the common gate between the church property and Cupertino Village
be located in a mutually agreeable position between the church and Cupertino Village.
Com. Kaneda presented a friendly amendment to the motion: The access to the church is a
friendly amendment to make it controlled access, so its lockable when its not in use. Com.
Giefer accepted friendly amendment
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 March 11, 2008
Com. Giefer:
• The motioner adds a one year period that this be brought back to the Planning Commission
to report on the success of the parking mitigating recommendations and further parking
actions will be taken at that time if necessary.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said it would be helpful to include additional parking demand management and/or urban
lifts, and valets services; which would spell out the parameters and the applicant
understands.
Com. Giefer accepted the language; Com. Kaneda accepted the amendments.
Chair Miller:
• When we bring them back, one of the things I mentioned before is, the church is contributing
to the parking issue, so suppose they come back and the parking issues are a result in the
increase of the size of the church congregation.
Com. Giefer:
• That is a valid point, and at that point I would like to hear back from the church if their
membership has doubled because that would make a difference to us. I think we can look at
the status they gave. us today of their membership and we can extrapolate that they come
back and say they now have a 750 person congregation and everybody parks there. Then we
know it is not just the patrons.
Steve Piaseclu:
• Said that it is not uncommon with churches, popular downtowns, and schools, it is not
something that they could necessarily remedy. At some point, if the church becomes more
popular, they may want to seek another location where they can park their parishioners
because it is an extremely small lot and it has impacts.
Com. Giefer:
• Clarified her motion: said minimally a second stairway be added which is the staff
recommendation and/or an elevator if necessary to make it ADA compliant.
Chair Miller: Next thing was suggestion of rain chains.
Steve Piasecki:
• Explained the device and said to simply state rain chains or comparable device to direct the
water flow.
Com. Rose: No further comments.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she supported staff's recommendation to add minimally a second stairwell coming
down from the structure because it is a long structure and it is for the ease of the people who
are using it. Regardless of the ADA requirements, it is a practical recommendation that staff
is making.
• Said the condition relating to the pedestrian pathways being permeable was for the new ones
being added. They are also asking for an interior landscape plan and if they chose to come
back with pathways as part of that and patios, they should be permeable or semi-permeable.
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 March 11, 2008
Amendment Com. Giefer added that the language relating to the
to Motion: additional features and conditions to the Use Permit and ASA
come back to the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item
at the next meeting. Com. Kaneda, as second to the motion,
accepted the amendment. (Vote: 4-0-0.)
Steve Piasecki:
• Noted that the added conditions will come back to the Planning Commission on March 25
and the item be scheduled for the City Council meeting of April ls`
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
• Com. Miller reported that the only item discussed was the Cupertino Village application.
Housing Commission: Meeting on Thursday, March 13, 2008.
Mayor's Monthly MeetinE with Commissioners: No Meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional
report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for March 25, 2008 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: _ "~'°~ e • ~ ~"
Eliz e Ellis, Recording Secretary
,.a.,
Approved as Presented: April 8, 2008