Draft Minutes 12-20-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
December 20, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The special Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Gilbert Wong
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Taaghi Saadati
Lisa Giefer
Staff present:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
CiddyWordell
ColinJung
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Piasecki noted receipt of correspondence related to the
Marketplace; and a communication relating to the Whole Foods application.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
Commissioner Chen:
· Announced that it was her last meeting as a Planning Commissioner. She said it was a
pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Planning Commission in the past five years.
· She thanked the City Council for their trust and support; and her colleagues.
· Thanked staff for their support and hard work, and the community for their support and input.
· She announced that as of January I" there would be a vacancy on the Planning Commission
and encouraged residents to apply for the position.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Thanked Com. Chen for her knowledge and input and caring attitude for the community.
The Commissioners expressed appreciation to Com. Chen for her camaraderie and knowledge and
wished her success in her future endeavors.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
December 20, 2005
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Howard Trudeau, Cupertino resident:
· Expressed concern about the future increased traffic as a result of the various project approvals
in the city.
· Encouraged the Planning Department and Public Works Department to present an integrated
approach on traffic to the city because of building up a great deal of traffic on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Wolfe Road with over 700 condominium units under consideration, or
approved on that corner and further developments coming in the Vallco area. A lot is being
done to increase the traffic on Stevens Creek and the results need to be publicly shown if the
studies have been done, so that people Can see exactly what will happen to the traffic and what
street improvements are going to be made in the future.
· Suggested a systems approach be taken to look at the overall integrated effect of all the
additions to housing and retail up and down Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard.
· Said he looked forward to hearing in the future about such a study so that he and others would
feel more comfortable that it is being planned and being taken care of and not have another
Winchester/Stevens Creek congestion or make out crossroads at Stevens Creek and DeAnza
Boulevard more congested than it already is.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Commented that while Cupertino would like to have a Valley Fair and Santana Row for the
economic return it brings to the community, they would not be building that type of project in
Cupertino. When the General Plan was updated, a professional traffic engineer was hired as
an expert in the area and he did a comprehensive traffic analysis of the General Plan which
includes all the projects referred to and some not proposed yet.
· Suggested that the speaker contact Ciddy Wordell for a copy of the report, which is a
comprehensive analysis and tests ail the intersections in the city to make sure they meet the
LOS standards.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2005-20, ASA-2005-18
(EA-2005-16) Peter Ko
(Whole Foods) 20955 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Use Pennit to demolish structures associated
with a former car dealership and construct a
one-story 63,000 square foot market.
Architectural and Site Approval for a new,
one-story 63,000 square foot market.
Tentative City Council date: January
17, 2006.
Colin Jnng, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Use Pennit to demolish structures associated with a former car
dealership and construct a new 68,2 I 4 square foot one-story market with mezzanine level, as
outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the site plan, landscape plan and project data as outlined in the staff report.
Glen Goepfert, Asst. Director of Public Works:
· One of the improvements that was suggested by the Transportation Impact Analysis actually
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
December 20, 2005
was extending the southbound left turn lane on Stelling.
· Would not recommend having a conflicting movement through the median, making a break in
the median for the left, traffic leaving the site, and making a left hand turn ftom the site.
· Said they were concerned about truck traffic.
Mr. Jung:
· Reviewed the letter ftom the Alves Drives neighbors who tentatively support the Whole Foods
project but have some concerns:
o Make sure noise ordinance is complied with;
o Sources of noise identified as roof top equipment, and directing any directional vents
southward.
o They question whether or not the south wall needs to be put in place or not.
o Store operating hours; customer vs. employee activities, loading dock activities and
truck deliveries.
o Light and glare, potential odors.
o The neighbors would like to limit Stelling Road access so there would be no exiting on
it. Discourage cut through traffic on Alves Drive.
o No construction or demolition trucks during the construction phase on Alves Drive.
· Staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
recommend approval of the Use Permit per the Model Resolution with the added condition
that the Public Works Department studies the onsite parking layout and circulation to ensure
the delivery truck movements work and that they are used; and recommend approval of the
ASA Resolution.
Com Giefer:
· Inquired if staff and the applicant looked at having a turn in lane anywhere facing Stevens
Creek. A deceleration lane might solve the truck traffic and save the landscape median in ftont
of the market.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Most of the truck activities will occur in the morning hours and probably not as many
customers as in the afternoon. It would not be the biggest problem.
Mr. Goepfert answered Commissioners' questions:
· Said there were no comments ftom VT A regarding the relocation of the bus stop. They did get
comments on doing standard improvements to it and it was added to the conditions for the
Public Works to facilitate a look at the area and decide what is actually needed.
· There is a memo ftom Public Works addresses the parking and conflicts along Steven Creek
Boulevard as far as access to the site. The Director of Public Works has taken a stand on that.
· Said it was the applicant and property owner's responsibility to clean up hazardous materials
left behind.
· Relative to Vice Chair Miller's concern about traffic, and staff's suggestion of removing the
parking along Stevens Creek in ftont, he stated that Public Works would like to remove the
parking on the north side and move the curb three feet over, which would necessitate a job in
the striping.
Chair Wong:
· Referred to the Site Plan, asked why the building pad was shown on the gas station when it is
not owned by the property owner.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
December 20, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Stated that they asked the applicant to show what buildings might go up in the long term
future, they have no control over it. They chose the location because the building would be
upfront location of Stelling, and the activity is visible along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is an
attractive design and they want it to be more visible. Putting it in the back it would not do
much to enhance the street environment.
· Staff feels comfortable with delivery trucks or big trucks making the right turn onto the
driveway; the movement is workable. After eliminating a few of the parking spaces right at the
entrance, to increase the radius it could work.
Peter Pao, SandhiU Property Company, San Mateo:
· Said there were one or two issues relative to traffic engineering that need to be cleared up.
Peter Ko, architect:
· Discussed plans for the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the entry to the restaurant
seating area, which may reflect the orchard that existed many years ago in Cupertino. He felt
the design would complement Whole Foods as they emphasize organic foods.
· Addressed the artwork along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said that they were considering
hiring a local artist to design a mosaic painting for the wall on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Anthony Gilmore, President of Northern California Whole Foods Market:
· Said the Whole Foods building will include "theater" aspects. There will be seated venues
where food preparation will take place and brought to the middle of the store where customers
can walk around and sit down at that location.
· This will be the largest Whole Foods store in California.
· May have outdoor cooking during events, but not permanently.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked why Whole Foods felt that the orientation along Stevens Creek was a better suggestion
than what Chairman Wong and staff recommended, as opposed to parallel to Stevens Creek.
· Asked about their policy on supermarket shopping cart retrieval, that may find their way into
the neighborhoods.
· On the Plan Set (ASO.I), asked for confirmation that the mezzanine is being built when it is
opened.
Mr. Gilmore:
· Alternative layouts were looked at; they felt in order to maximize the parking and the building
size, all at grade, it would have to face in that particular direction.
· Also taking advantage of Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. If they were to put it back
toward the end of the property there would be a choke point between the gas station and where
the store squared off separating the two parking fields.
Mr. Gilmore reviewed the operating hours:
· Loading hours 5 am-lO am; store hours 8 am-lO pm.
· Averages about 2 trucks per day; some trucks come five days a week, some only one day a
week.
· Majority of deliveries are Monday-Friday. When they open at 8 am there is minimal amount of
customers in the store. Most of the big rigs will be there before 8 am.
· The mezzanine is planned, it is an integral part of the building.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
December 20, 2005
Gay Lawrence Pang, Pang Engineers:
· They did study the crossing over three lanes and making a u-turn. A regular vehicle could
make that u-turn. They assume the vehicle would come south. They suggested that the
southbound left turn lane on Stelling be lengthened. The vehicle could either go straight south
or make the left turn and go eastbound on Stevens Creek.
. Mr. Pang:
· Referring to comments made by Commissioner Miller, he said without a redevelopment of
that parcel (Shell Station), there is no way that the City can ask for a dedication or
improvement to facilitate a separate right turn lane there.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Larry Burriesci, Alves Drive:
· Supports the project.
· Likes the orientation of the store on the property; good use of the property.
· Fully expect that this applicant will obey the City ordinances and the truck drivers will abide
by the rules.
· Relative to traffic, a problem exists on Alves Drive on Sunday mornings. He also discussed
traffic problems on Stelling.
· He urged consideration of angling the driveways in to prevent creeping out onto Stelling
Road.
Jennifer Griffith, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Shops at Whole Foods in several different cities. Thought there would be better parking with
Whole Foods moving. Traffic in this area where the store is going to be moved is a major
concern.
· One of the main concerns is traffic problems on Stelling Road. There needs to be better
traffic control on Stelling where the proposed in and out lanes are for the future parking lot.
Stelling traffic is sometimes at a dead stop. The left turn light going southbound to make an
east turn onto Stevens Creek is very long. Wants to make sure the Stelling end of the traffic
potential does not become a big problem there.
· Expressed concern about the safety of the pedestrian traffic and wheel chair users at Stevens
Creek and Stelling intersection. There are two bus stops there. It takes a considerable amount
of time to cross Stevens Creek and Can be dangerous.
Jan Stoeckenius, Cupertino Road:
· Supports proposal.
· Said he felt the traffic problem was over-exaggerated. Whole Foods traffic is reasonably
congested getting in and out and people live with it. He anticipated that it would be the same
or easier with one large entrance on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
· Relative to the trucks in the morning, he said he lives directly across fÌ'om the Sunnyview
Lutheran Home and trucks back up into their drive way in the morning and sound the
beep/beep warning signal when backing up. He does not feel it is an issue.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked for the construction schedule, and questioned whether the store was going to open next
year.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
December 20, 2005
Mr.Ko:
· Responded that if they received approval tonight, they would proceed to get the construction
documents, submit it to the Building Department about the beginning of February; hopefully
secure a building permit sometime in May and begin construction. Construction would take
six months, and the project would be complete by the end of the year.
Com. Chen:
· Questioned what the parking ratio was for the existing Whole Food store, as it appeared to be
congested.
Mr. Goepfert:
. Said that the parking demand study was not part of what the traffic engineer perfonned. Since
more than the code required parking was being proposed, it was not seen as an issue. If it is
necessary for the traffic engineer to look at some of the other issues as a condition, it could be
included if the Planning Commission felt it was desirable.
Ms. Wordell:
· In response to Com. Giefer's question about whether or not the public art piece would be
mounted on the side of the building, she explained that Whole Foods proposed a very large
sign in front with their name, and it was felt that they could combine the strong identification
in front with public art. In the General Plan it states that public art can take the fonn of many
different kinds of proposals, not just an object; it can be something integrated into a building.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Stated that the Planning Commission could request in the condition that it be referred to the
Fine Arts Commission for review whether it is an acceptable solution.
Com. Chen:
· Stated that public art should be durable and not tenant specific. The idea of integrating public
art with the sign as part of the building, if Whole Foods at some later point decides they need
a bigger space, finds another area then the art work in her opinion would not be durable. She
said she had an issue with the term "mounted" in the model resolution.
· Commented that is sounded like they were describing a license plate holder.
Mr. Wordell:
· Said a solution could be to make the 'name of the store separate in some way so that if the
store name changed that could be changed without affecting the art. It would likely have to
be part of the design.
Com. Saadati:
· Overall the project looks very good. It appears to be the right location and hopefully will be
very successful.
· Based on the 200+ feet distance from Alves, and the noise abatement measure for equipment,
he foresees that the noise will not be such a big issue. If it is, he thinks additional measures
need to be taken to remedy that.
· Said that he felt traffic noise would not be more than is already present. The traffic noise
from Stevens Creek is loud; the carS in the parking lot usually go at a slower speed, which
will not generate as much noise. However, the trucks may, but with the enclosed loading
dock, it would be remedied to some extent.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
December 20, 2005
· Whole Foods is a good neighbor and they will likely address any future complaints and the
neighbors who are there should be in communication in the future if anything comes up that
is not to their satisfaction. It is difficult to estimate how many CarS are going to be going in or
out in the parking lot at the same time.
· Said he has been to the existing Whole Foods and was able to get in and out; parking is
difficult there, it is not sufficient. Time will tell, and parking will need to be evaluated if it
has a big impact on Alves Drive. If there are concerns regarding traffic, that portion can be
studied further.
· Said that demolition and proceeding with the building can move forward, since it is the most
time consuming part of the construction document. The parking and remainder do not take as
much time. They could move ahead with other aspects of the project.
· Supports the project.
Com. Giefer:
· Pleased that Cupertino will host the largest Whole Foods in California.
· Recommends that they lengthen the westbound turn lane on Stevens Creek to try and
accommodate that and make it easier in non peak traffic times because during peak times it
would not be able to be done.
· Expressed concern about the bike lane on Stevens Creek at Stelling. Allowing parking along
Stevens Creek does slow traffic but having a bicycle lane there leaves potential for the
bicyclists to get crushed by right hand turn traffic onto Stelling.
· Suggested a condition specifically stating that no construction vehicles be allowed on streets
such as Alves as part of the approval process.
· If necessary, perhaps make it illegal to turn onto Alves at certain times of the day when
construction is going on.
· Supports the project.
Com. Chen:
· Supports Com. Giefer's suggestion regarding the construction trucks coming and going.
· Expressed concern about the parking situation on Sundays when both the church and the store
are operating at the same time. Would like the issue raised when reviewed by the Director of
Community Development.
· Supports the project.
Com. Miller:
· Architecture is outstanding and will be a good addition to the city.
· The truck route is very important and is being addressed.
· Convinced that the issues will be addressed and there are solutions including doing something
with the timing at Saich and Stelling; making it convenient to make u-turns at Alves at
Stelling, making it inconvenient to turn right onto Alves, and possibly speed bumps.
· Said he did not feel that traffic was as big an issue as they once thought. Given the distance
rrom the market to the Alves neighborhood, noise is not going to be an issue.
· Supports the project.
Chair Wong:
· The City is losing a major dealership that brought a lot of sales tax for Cupertino; Whole
Foods is relocating and will bring a lot of people rrom other cities, bringing sales tax dollars
back into Cupertino. In a way they are revitalizing Cupertino.
· Supports the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
December 20, 2005
· He would like to look into the Sunday service of Abundant Life Church and how that will
affect traffic.
· Include in the Traffic Study Report, not only Alves Avenue but beyond into Greenleaf in the
Garden Gate neighborhood.
· Said he supported Public Works memo regarding the two suggestions they made concerning
looking at the traffic circulation in the parking lot and also looking at no parking on Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
· Concurred that there should be no construction traffic on Alves Avenue, possibly by
restricting the hours.
· Recommended that staff follow up with neighbors and forward a recommendation to City
Council.
Com. Giefer:
· Suggested wording change to the model resolution. Change the word "mounted" to "add an
elevation", as long as it is durable and coupled with the Whole Foods logo sign.
· Agreed to adding the wording that it would be referred to the Fine Arts Commission for
review and approval and recommendation to the City Council.
· Include in the model resolution that the bike racks be located near the entrance.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if the Public Works memo was included in the model resolution yet?
· Would like the traffic engineer to follow up on the Sunday traffic and get a recommendation
to the City Council.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it is generally referred to that they have to review extending the left turn pocket and
whatever is necessary to accomplish that. The parking on Stevens Creek Blvd. is not
specifically mentioned. It is on the record and will come up at the Council level as well.
· Will have the Traffic Engineer follow up on Sunday traffic and make recommendation to City
Council.
· Will have the cross traffic looked at before Council.
Com. Chen:
· Commented that Abundant Life Church has a large vacant lot behind church and can solve
the parking problem themselves. They could turn the vacant lot into additional parking.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve U-2005-20,
ASA-205-18, EA-2005-16 as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chairperson Wong summarized the suggestions regarding art work, bicycle racks, and construction
traffic.
2.
U-2005-09, ASA-2005-06
(EA02006-06)
KCR Development, Inc.
(Evershine) 19620-19780
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Pennit to demolish approximately 15,267
square feet of existing commercial space
and construct a new 37,250 square foot
two story building at an existing shopping
center (Marketplace). Architectural and site
approval for demolition of approximately
15,267 square feet of existing commercial
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
December 20, 2005
space and construction of a new 37,205
square foot two story building at an existing
shopping center (Marketplace)
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
o Reviewed the project as outlined in the staff report.
o Staff recommends for the Planning Commission to hear the public testimonies, consider the
items but continue the item so that the issues could be resolved.
o Relative to the parking study, the applicant has expressed concerns with the 10% safety factor
that the parking consultant built into his methodology and also the timing in which the study
was taken; as November has a higher shopping season. At the time of the study, building A
was still under construction; there were some contractors' cars parked in the parking lot which
should be accounted for.
o The Planning Commission options regarding the parking deficiency. They could direct the
applicant to reduce square footage and provide more parking stalls to balance the parking
deficiency, or direct a new parking survey be conducted at a different time of year. A
condition could be designed to get a parking monitoring plan to ensure sufficient parking at
different times of the phases of the project.
o Reviewed the Building DesignlLandscaping.
o Staff recommends that a final landscape plan be presented and be reviewed by staff and come
back to Planning Commission with recommendation.
o The City architect made suggestions to further enhance the architecture of the building. A
balcony feature matching Building A be presented to break up the second story mass. Gates
and Trellis matching that of Building A be presented on this project as well for consistency so
that the two buildings are compatible with each other. The main entrance should be
emphasized along south elevation. Along the east elevation the architect suggested that lattice
features with vines and vegetations be presented; an art feature, a statue or fountain, at the
corner of the new building to balance the entry drive.
o Reviewed neighborhood concerns including landscaping, restaurant odors, operational issues
of the center, parking, onsite circulation, pedestrian crosswalk along Portal, as outlined in the
staff report.
o Staff recommends that the application be continued and the Planning Commission hear the
public testimonies and applicant's position and direct staff on the parking deficiency issue.
Com. Miller:
. Relative to parking, what is the philosophy for the design of peak traffic or for percentage of
peak?
o Asked what the issue was regarding the service access on the easterly portion of the property
referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Piasecki:
o Said they do not design for the absolute peak; but plan for something less. The traffic engineer
did a study that showed there is some joint utilization of parking and he put in a 10% factor to
allow some flexibility.
Mr. Chao:
o Relative to the issue of service access, he said there is an existing driveway along the easterly
boundary of the shopping center that the applicant proposed to maintain. They will restripe
the stalls so that there is opportunity to make some enhancements in the area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
December 20, 2005
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to parking.
Mr. Piasecki:
· ValIco has a development agreement and there is a specific requirement that they provide so
much parking. It does exceed the standards and that is a huge center so it is a bit different.
Toll Brothers is a straight forward shopping center, there is no office and they are proposing
specific parking solution that includes some angled parking on a public street and taking some
credit for that.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the issue of the removal of the palm trees, what Can be done to ensure that it
doesn't occur again, and how can the neighbors be compensated for doing the research on the
palm tree concerns.
Mr. Chao:
· Relative to the palm trees, he said there was a covenant in I977 and the removal ofthe trees
was an oversight. The ERC recommended that a condition be placed on the present project
that new specimen sized palm trees be proposed for the location where the trees were
removed. Staff is proposing a condition that all the landscaping for this project be sacred to
this project. Any future removal would have to go to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he did not know if it was a covenant or a condition. We don't have a program to
compensate for due diligence. We appreciate Keith's work and we are trying to rectifY it in
this situation, requiring that the palms be put back in. What the Commission could do is
require that a covenant deed restriction be placed on this property similar to what you referred
to and what Commissioner Giefer advocates on hillside lots. You can also specifY that these
be considered heritage trees under the ordinance and notifY the neighbors that they cannot be
removed.
Mr. Goepfert:
· In response to Chair Wong's question about what direction the applicant should take on the
choker issue, he said they spoke to the applicant and received indication that the neighborhood
felt they needed to be consulted on about the disposal of that issue.
· There was a requirement from the City Council to install a crosswalk at the existing chokers
on Portal. The applicant wanting to please the city and City Council went ahead and installed
it without the benefit of approved plans.
· The city does not have a standard for mid-block crossing. Part of the traffic consultant's work
was to look at the location and determine whether there was any liability in it, if indeed there
were issues such as site distance.
· The neighborhood will be asked what their concerns and designs are before making a final
recommendation of where the choker should be. Mid-block crossing has some liability issues
and putting an enhanced crossing at an existing intersection would be preferable.
· The palm trees were discussed. The removed ones need to be replaced.
Wayne Akuba, Applicant:
· We have started expanding the shopping center and we have greatly appreciated the help from
the planning staff and commission as far as previous approvals. We have put together a nice
project that we are looking at as far as in the building itself, in Building. C would bring in
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
December 20, 2005
about $ I 7 million or $ I million in sales tax. Weare looking at negotiating with tenants along
those lines. When you look at all the different elements as far as ingress/egress and different
areas, we have been working with the city as far as how to basically get 1raffic across if you
want we have site plan of the way the center used to be. We will have more parking than is
required according to the shared requirements.
· Discussed shared parking
· Discussed the landscaping plan, noting that they planted one 1ree for every three parking
spaces, whereas the city requirement was one for every 5 spaces.
· Discussed the requirement of the palm 1rees; have replaced the palms with 4 palms, canary
palms $ I 2K each, and have con1racted with the landscape person to put in the remainder of the
palms, a variety of date type palms valued at $20K each.
· Said it would be a requirement for all new restaurants to have odor abatement equipment
installed. They have also agreed to help the existing restaurants install the equipment in
existing restaurants.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Asked applicant to comment on the relief on architecture and an art piece to balance the other
side, as well as the service access on the eastern part of the property.
Mr. Aknha:
· Relative to an art feature, he said he would willingly work with planning staff to develop a
monument or an art feature on the corner of the building, something that would meet the needs
of the city.
· As far as the easterly en1rance, one of those things that we had looked at; if you look at the site
plan, there is perpendicular parking and I had talked to our architect about mitigating two
driveways.
· In response to Vice Chair Miller's request for comment on the onsite pedestrian circulation, he
stated that the original circulation called for three crosswalks or sidewalks to get ITom Stevens
Creek to the center; they have increased it to 5, to allow people to 1raverse ITom Stevens Creek
to the center.
· On the entrance areas, crossing the sidewalks, a concrete pavement 1reatment will be use on
the easterly section, which would tie the different sidewalks together. There is also a colored
concrete 1reatment at the main en1rance which will delineate the crosswalks.
· Explained that the plans for Building C included a retail type tenancy for the downstairs, and
upstairs would have an office on the back portion of the building.
· On the ITont portion we are talking to different tenants as far as whether it would be office or
some sort of retail.
Mr. Pang, Traffic Engineer:
· Explained that the three major items they contracted with the City of Cupertino for relative to
the marketplace expansion were: To look at the traffic impact analysis in terms of the Delta
differential increase in chips for Building C alone as well as for the entire site to give Public
Works and Glen Goepfert an opportunity to see what the total peak hour traffic could be once
Building A and C were fully occupied. The second item was for the parking demand. The
third was in relationship to the mid-block crossing on Portal.
· He discussed the parking demand analysis, and noted that a challenge of the parking study
would be a number of different areas, one being onsite parking on Portal; the fact that Building
A was completed but unoccupied and that there mayor may not be potential vacancies in the
other buildings while the parking study was being perfonned. The applicant confinned that
there were no vacancies other than Building A. Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
December 20, 2005
Carol Baker, resident:
· Noted that as long as the Marketplace has been in that location, they have never had all the
stores rented. Weare surprised to learn that they are putting in more.
· She heard from Long's employees their concern about lack of parking for their customers and
they have been squeezed out you can't see the store any more; and once Building C is built,
you won't see Longs at all when driving by.
· Discussed the renderings that were provided to the residents of the entrance to the Wilson Park
tract behind the Evershine construction zone. She said she would support either rendering
provided.
Keith Murphy, E. Estates Drive:
· Expressed concern about the removal of palm trees from the center without notification from
the neighbors. He noted that the palm trees had a history with the city and the center.
· He questioned the status of the trees, and whether there would be a covenant of use permit
attachment to protect the trees in the future.
· He discussed his concerns about the east side of the property that presently has a three foot
high cyclone fence; the future plans to put an art structure which would impact the pedestrians
going into the center.
Virginia Tamblyn, Bixby Drive:
· Spoke on behalf of herself, Boris Abenson, and Mr. and Mrs. Tenaka.
· All are concerned about the new construction in the Marketplace, specifically impacts from
traffic, noise and pollution.
· It is not known how much more traffic will be drawn to the center by the new building tenants;
they have noticed an increase already in the neighborhood.
· There is an overflow of parking due to a lack of spaces in the Marketplace.
· They feel that the center is being overbuilt, and the citizens are worried about the
concentration of housing in the area.
· Truck deliveries hold up traffic on Portal while negotiating turns into the Portal loading dock.
· Discussed the requirement for new odor abatement equipment for new restaurants.
· She expressed the urgent need to mitigate the strong odors from the present restaurants in the
Marketplace because of the negative impacts on the neighboring residents.
· She noted the special restriction in effect which states that no more restaurants can go into the
gated area adjacent to the residents on Bixby, and recommended that it be stated in the use
permit.
Alan Roth, Portal Plaza resident:
· Said he compared the shopping center to a neighbor who has many cars and parks them on his
lawn and then in front of others homes because he has run out of space.
· If you go to the center between 12 noon and I p.m. it is quite busy and crowded and the traffic
has increased considerably. At night the cars cruise in circles and the neighborhood trying to
find parking space.
· Portal Plaza residents up until now have not had a serious parking problem, but with center
patrons parking on their street, they cannot park on their own streets. They do not want to
have to resort to tagging or towing.
· He expressed concern about the odors from the restaurants early in the morning on the
weekends which is a nuisance. He noted that there were odor filtering systems on the market
that the Elephant Bar was considering; however, it has been over a year since the restaurant
opened and the neighbors have been putting up with the odors.
Cupertino Planning Commission
I3
December 20, 2005
· He added his ITustration that there were other restaurants in the center which did not have odor
filtering equipment and the remark was made that they could not be required to instaIl them as
they were cost prohibitive for the owner.
Chair Wong:
· Noted for the record that the model resolution states that new and existing restaurants wiIl
have odor abatement equipment.
Patricia' McAfee, No. Blaney:
· Noted that there was 5,000 square feet of vacant office space in Cupertino.
· She questioned why vacant buildings in Cupertino were being torn down, only to be replaced
by others. Is the space needed; wiIl they be able to get the tenants to fiIl the space?
· The residents want to ensure that when spaces are rented, they stay rented.
· Addressed the parking issue, especiaIly the flow of traffic in the early evening when people go
to dinner and to Longs to pick up prescriptions. An existing building off Portal creates a blind
spot in front of the Elephant Bar.
· Longs Drugs have been in the center for many years and is a good neighbor. The residents
want to see them remain in the center.
George Monk, Price Avenue:
· Delighted to have a successful business at the Marketplace; Longs is a vital piece of the
neighborhood, and I enjoy having the Elephant Bar close by.
· Having the owners and developers as neighbors has been a long and painful trial. This
development has been going on for most of the decade, with two more years to go.
· Whatever ends up being approved for this, please have some timetable set with some
meaningful penalties for when the developers miss the deadlines, because it has been a
recurring theme of the whole development.
· Developers believe that being good neighbors means meeting the minimum requirements set
by the city with commitments made, conveniently ignored when they think the neighbors have
forgotten.
· The requirement in the original Longs development in 1977 was that the developers maintain
the choker on Portal. The Marketplace side was baron and they are now saying the fix is being
held up by the city. It is not being held up by the city; they haven't done it since 1977.
· The other side of the street was maintained by the condos and was always very fuIl. Two or
three Christmas' ago, I sent a letter about this development and suddenly an array of
poinsettias appeared on the Marketplace side chokers because they had a proposal in front of
the city and they needed to look like they were being good neighbors. It looked good for about
5 days and then went back to its nonnal baron appearance.
· Relative to the chokers, there was a sudden frenzy of activity, they ripped out the landscaping
on the condominium side which looked good and now both sides look equaIly devastated.
· When the Elephant Bar was built, they promised to landscape the side facing Portal.
Landscaping meets bare minimum requirements; it can be considered compliant but can be
considered most suitable for tethering bicycles and sheltering smokers from the Elephant Bar.
· They cut down the trees a few years ago because they said they needed people from the street
to be able to see the buildings. They have now built barriers in front, three major buildings to
replace the trees that were apparently blocking the rear.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Expressed concern about the narrOW entrance constructed next to the newly constructed two
story building. If the other new building is built adjacent to it, there wiIl be a very narrow
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
December 20, 2005
entrance and exit into the center.
· It is difficult to get into the center with the amount of density in the center. There is confusion
about how to enter the center.
· By constructing the new building on the left hand side of the newly constructed two story, a
very dense face of two story buildings will be presented onto Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Suggested that something be done to break up the bulk of the building along Stevens Creek, as
it looks like an interior shopping center.
· Asked for assurance that the ash trees along the parkway in front of the new proposed building
are protected. The other ash trees along the newly constructed two story suffered adversely
during construction.
Alan Robell, Richwood Drive:
.. The parking area is busier with the Elephant Bar and other two restaurants in the center.
Urged that they come to an agreement about what the right methodology is to go ahead and
measure the right parking load and go through the analysis.
· Relative to pedestrian access, on Richwood Drive, a number of residents coming from the east
along Stevens Creek to go ahead and walk to the Marketplace, and that dual set of driveways
between the two developments is a challenge to get through. Looking at some more detail in
the plan, a better solution can be arrived at that mitigates some of those concerns about getting
across there. In addition, since there are multiple buildings, want to also have that pedestrian
plan add extra levels of details to make it clear how pedestrians coming from the east will get
from the buildings in the front across the parking areas to the retail at the south end of the
center.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked staff to comment on Ms. Tamblyn's statement that there could be no more restaurants
in the gated area on Bixby.
Mr. Chao:
· In 1976 there was a condition as part of the use permit that limits any new restaurants to occur
along the corridor of Bixby. There are currently two restaurants. The condition states that they
are grandfathered in and they may maintain as is; there cannot be any new restaurants
proposed on the corridor. It will be clarified in the new conditional use permit or part of the
model resolution as verbatim taken out from the original use and carries forward.
· In response to Com. Saadati's question, he indicated there was not a master plan for the center.
Parking would be a problem for any plans in the future, as there is no room for additional
building.
· He answered questions about traffic and parking concerns in the center.
· Options for the applicant include reduce the building size, or do another study.
Mr. Akuba:
· It is our responsibility to work through the issues with the city and Planning Department as far
as the parking requirements for the different tenants we are negotiating with. We asked the
city planning staff if we can continue the same way we did Building A and B where we
presented the tenant to the Planning Department and have them approve it based on the
parking calculation requirements. If we continue along those lines, it is our responsibility to
make sure we fill the spaces with tenancies that will fit the parking requirements.
· Requested that the Planning Commission consider their application to allow them to move
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
December 20, 2005
forward based on providing applications for each tenant coming in.
· Said they were willing to return to the Planning Commission if there were parking problems
once the project was completed.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The concern I have with considering the shared parking is that the traffic study showed that the
peak hour was noon; if the peak hour was in the evening I see a stronger argument for saying a
shared formula makes sense, but when the peak hour is in the middle of the day, I am
struggling with how I can logically agree with that.
Mr. Akuba:
· If you look at how the parking requirements are set up for the shared parking, the retail
component is at 60%. From that standpoint what you are looking at is a metered output for
each of the tendencies that go in, as far as how you look at parking. How you cater as far as
the shared parking and the requirements for retail is 60% during the day, 90% in the evening
arid the big component is 10% in the evening for office.
· If you look at the shared parking as it is today, we exceed what Pang Engineers looked at for
that demand. We are asking that you allow us to continue to work along that methodology
because we have exceeded it. That is where we differ as far as what the parking requirements
should be.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The difference we have in the amount of parking makes me uncomfortable with a case by
case; we should deal with each tenant. We do not want to encourage under-performing uses in
the center; we want to give the applicant all the flexibility he needs to have a successful
leasable tenant space. At the same time, if the difference between what the parking study says
he needed and what was being provided was far less, we could probably go along with
something like that.
· There may be room for the applicant to go back and review their plans, to see if they can carve
out some of the space, to see if they Can provide it in a strategic way that allows them to add
more parking spaces, and then come up with some wording along the lines the applicant is
suggesting that would indicate it would work, because I am uncomfortable monitoring and
measuring each tenant. It is not a practical way of approaching things.
· We think what the applicant is attempting is a good idea; it is a good idea to replace
dysfunctional space in the back, the Gateway site isn't working, with a new building that is
more complimentary to what he is building out there. It seems to be too much, too big and the
parking study seems to corroborate that.
· A continuance may allow us to move ahead and let us look at some type of compromise
between what he wants to do and what we want to do. Perhaps he could return with something
mQre solid in January.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address a concern ITom the neighborhood for the reason why the buildings are
moved toward the ITont. He said based on the Heart of the City Plan, that was the goal.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the applicant is a good example of one who buys into the concept that more visible
buildings on Stevens Creek Boulevard are more marketable. This will be the third; the
backspace isn't as marketable. We think it is both market driven as well as the city's interest
in having attractive, well landscaped buildings on the ITontages.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
December 20, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
o It is a difficult decision; it is a successful center and we want to have successful shopping
centers continue to be more successful.
o The center seems to have had some difficulties in relationships with the local neighborhood
and we also not only like to have successful centers, but have the neighbors feel good about
them as well.
o We have an application that is not complete at this point in tenns of the number of issues that
haven't been fully addressed, and the biggest one is the parking.
o Based on what we have heard tonight is to feel perhaps there is enough parking there, but I am
not 100% sure and there has been a lot of conflicting numbers.
o I would like to see more supporting evidence in terms of the numbers before I go ahead and
approve the number of additional square feet.
o It is not fair in terms of the traffic study done to say that there are people looking for spots
when there are obviously additional spots in the center that they could have parked their car at
even though it may have been further away rrom the particular location they were seeking.
o I am stilI not clear on what the real answer is and that is why I am hesitant to move ahead on
the project.
o Depending on whether we agree on the size of the buildings as they are now or we redesign
them, it is hard to put the finishing touches on the building, and it seems rrom the building
standpoint, the first item that has to be addressed is the parking and what that does to the
s1ructure and the layout.
o It appears the applicant was willing to address them in tenns of the odor abatement and
addressing the issue on Portal, as well as the issue on the eastern side of the center.
o I think we have a willing applicant and I think we can work this out, except I personally
haven't figured it out rrom a parking standpoint as to whether or not it needs more information
before we move forward.
Com. Chen:
o The project has many unresolved issues, and we should continue the project to get more
infonnation by next meeting.
Com. Giefer:
o Said she had three key issues with the project.
o Parking: Said she agreed with the parking engineer's study. She cautioned against the center
becoming one that requires valet parking similar to BJ s. She said she drove by the
Marketplace this evening at about 6:15 to get a feel for the 1raffic demand with the current
tenants, and observed many of the things that were in the 1raffic engineer's report. The west
side of the Marketplace center was busy and there were cars circling rrom the new building to
Elephant Bar looking for spaces. In addition, along the older portion east of Longs, almost all
the spaces were full. She felt that the parking engineer's study was accurate in tenns of what
the demand would be.
o She recommended a smaller new building be built for Building C.
o Tree removal: Said she took issue with the environmental review document. If the proposed
building was built, they would lose almost 20% of the 1rees on the lot, which is potentially a
significant impact. By also reducing the footprint of the building it helps parking, but it also
saves more of the 1rees there. She said she wanted the palms recorded in the deed and in the
future proposal to ensure they don't need to discuss the palms being moved or tom down, and
ask why it happened.
o Design: Said she concurred with the architect's comments that the proposed structure does not
Cupertino Planning Commission
I7
December 20, 2005
tie in with the other buildings that are there; it is too plain, not well articulated. I would not
want to see another turret lining Stevens Creek, but I think if you could differentiate in some
other way by putting a fountain there that is low profile, easy to see across, it would be
outstanding and would be an improvement to the site.
· Said she was encouraged by the architect's suggestion of a safety zone between the two
driveways; and suggested that it be presented to the Planning Commission if the item was
continued to a future date.
· It is questionable why the éhoker point has languished on for some time; for the sake of the
neighbors, conclude it as quickly ;IS possible. I don't know what the liabilities are for the city.
· Said she was uncomfortable with letting their managing their own parking numbers and
calculations; wanted many of the trees preserved and wanted the ten palm trees replaced in the
entry ways and have them recorded to go with the property in the future.
· She recommended that the design be improved and better tied in in between the other
buildings.
Com. Saadati:
· The design is going in the right direction with the exception of some level of architectural
consistency with other buildings and that needs to be addressed.
· As stated by others, the parking issue needs to be evaluated more. I don't have a high level of
comfort on this.
· Hopefully we can continue this and then these issues can come back with a discussion.
· Suggested another meeting with the neighbors to address their concerns.
· Regarding the choker, I don't know why you want to put something that could be a future
liability for the city. My recommendation is to remove it, if there is no benefit based on what
the traffic engineer has recommended.
· The Palm trees were discussed. The removed ones need to be replaced.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The only liability is that there is a pedestrian crossing in the choker. The choker is fine.
Chair Wong:
· Said he was an advocate for parking. Conflicting reports have been received.
· Thanked Mr. Akuba for the parking analysis; and suggested that time be allowed to analyze it
and compare it with Mr. Pang's.
· The applicant has gone above and beyond in trying to mitigate all the concerns; the restaurant
mitigation that they didn't have to do it for all the restaurants, but went above and beyond and
did that. The owners didn't purchase the center until 1997, the research Keith did there was
condition in 1977 to protect the trees and it was not known. All of us including the applicant
agreed that the palm trees will be replaced. Some of the other concerns regarding design that
can always be worked out at he staff level between the applicant and city staff.
· The concern with the chokers or pedestrian walkway is that if you look at the previous
resolution, that was a vote by the City Council and there was at least one neighbor who
supported the pedestrian walkway. What is 1h1strating for both the applicant and the
neighbors, is that they are not getting direction ftom our city staff. Currently it says that it has
to be put in and I would like it to be completed. You need to give direction and as Mr. Pang
said, there is a liability with the city, but if the City Council says back then that it should be
put in, and it has been an eyesore for so many years. If it was a City Council direction to be a
pedestrian access, I think that Public Warks needs to work with the applicant.
· Input ftom the neighbors shows their 1h1stration; they feel we need direction ftom the Public
Works Department, and they want it completed; but the applicant would like to do it but they
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
December 20, 2005
have no direction. The construction of the Elephant Bar was held up because they were in
litigation, and the experience was the applicant learned that if for some reason something was
held up, they Jmew they should have better communication with the neighbors and should
mitigate those concerns.
· Having a traffic or parking concern at a shopping center is an applicant's delight, it indicates
they have a successful center.
. He pointed out that city planners stress walkability and getting people out of their cars. There
are many mitigating factors to work on and it appears the item should be continued.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to parking, the heavy parking appears to be on the side by the Elephant Bar and
although there may be sufficient space in the parking lot, but the space is a long distance away
on the eastern side of the center, there is going to be a tendency for people who want to go to
the Elephant Bar to park in the Portal Plaza parking areas.
Chair Wong:
· The other observation is that with a successful restaurant, the patrons tend to park as close to
the restaurant vs. walking a short distance. Folks need to walk and that is why we see a lot of
the circling that Mr. Pang did acJmowledge.
· The Portal Plaza president was here regarding his ftustration. The street is public and we want
to encourage parking in the parking lot.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to continue Application
U-2005-09, ASA-2005-06, EA-2005-06 to the January 24, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the traffic circulation, I do have the concern if we can resolve that as well as the
Commissioners' concerns and the pedestrian internal traffic plaza.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE DIRJtCTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
Chair Wong:
. Expressed appreciate to Com. Chen again and wished her success.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting at 6 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary