PC 04-26-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:45 P.M.
MONDAY
Following a recess rrom the Study Session, the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26,
2004 resumed at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA.
Commissioners present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Staff present: City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Public Works
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Ciddy Wordell
ColinJung
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
Glenn Goepfert
Minutes of the April 12, 2004 regular Planning Commission meeting:
Amend Condition 4 of the resolution: "The applicant will have the option to install very
low noise humidifier air handling systems that meet the City's noise ordinance in lieu of
providing noise barriers around the equipment."
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen to approve the
April 12, 2004 minntes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Saadati noted receipt of a letter from Michael
McCormack regarding Item I.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
1.
ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01,
EA-2004-02
Greg Pinn (pinn Brothers
Construction)
20128 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Architectural and site approval for a mixed use
retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 unit
development). Use permit for a mixed use retail
(2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned
restaurant building. Request postponement to
Planning Commission meeting of May 24.
Tentative City Council date: June 21, 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes
2
April 26, 2004
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to postpone Applications
ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01, EA-2004-02 to the May 24, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
2.
U-2003-12
Leah HernikllCingular
Wireless
10881 So. Blaney Ave.,
(Tin Tin Market)
Use Permit to erect a 55 foot artificial tree
monopole and an equipment shelter for wireless
phone antennas. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staffrcport:
· Application is for use permit to install a 55 foot tall personal wireless service facility,
consisting of 6 panel antennas mounted on an artificial trecpole and associated base equipment
at the Tin Tin market.
· Illustrated project site on coverage map; treepole is located along back alley of Tin Tin
Market.
· City of Cupertino supports the wireless antenna facilities providing cellular coverage to the
community provided they are consistent with the city's wireless facilities master plan and
zoning regulations in terms of the location, design and visual impacts.
· Proposed treepole is at the maximum height limit of 55 feet and is well within the minimum
required setback distance rrom any residential properties. It also satisfies the policies of the
city's wireless master plan in that it uses the most recent available technology to camouflage
the pole and replicate the look and feel of a real redwood tree.
· The proposed trecpole is designed to facilitate two carriers; Sprint has submitted a letter to co-
locate on the trecpole with Cingular Wireless.
· Applicant is required to plant a row of screen trees along the portions of the northerly property
line adjacent to the Tin Tin Market.
· Staff has received numerous complaints regarding operational issues of Tin Tin Market which
are not related to the merits of the application. Most of the complaints relate to code
enforcement issues and staff will continue to work with the property management at Tin Tin
Market to correct the confirmed code violations prior to the issuance of the building permits
for the project.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit in accordance with
the model resolution.
Com. Miller:
· Asked if there would be a capacity to co-locate more than two providers on the treepole.
Mr. Chao:
· Said that only two could be on one pole. The engineer can explain.
Com. Giefer:
· At the site visit, observed there were two large trash receptacles outside of the existing chain
link fence; where will those be relocated?
Mr. Chao:
· The equipment for the trecpole will be located along the west side of the building away rrom
the trash enclosure and will not hinder the operation of the trash enclosure; at this time there is
no need to relocate the trash enclosures.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
April 26, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Asked for clarification on the materials and maintenance of the treepole in terms of how
quickly the materials fade, plans to make sure that it continues to be branched and disguised.
Mr. Chao:
· Applicant will respond.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if the radio ITequency radiation report was done based on 2 or 3 treepoles at the same
location.
Mr. Chao:
· The radio ITequency omission study is done based' on the antennas ITom Cingular Wireless
only; when Sprint or another carrier comes in, they will be required to apply for a separate
conditional use permit and a separate report, study and noise analysis will required.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Requested that applicant address the noise level of the equipment cabinets.
· Questioned if previous approvals at Valley Green Drive public storage facility and Foothill
Boulevard and Highway 280 were similar to present application.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner:
· Said the difference between the two is that they don't have any residential neighbors; the
public storage is in a non-residential area and the Foothill Boulevard one is in the middle of a
clover leaf next to the highway.
· Said that relative to the Planning Commission ability to allow or deny applications for
treepoles, it would be based on design findings and not whether the interest is to provide
coverage or not provide coverage for the area; strictly based on the aesthetics.
Leah Hernikl, Cingular Wireless:
· Reviewed the history and background of the application.
· Said maintenance was performed on equipment monthly and carrier could be contacted for
aesthetic problems.
· Relative to equipment noise, said that at 10 feet from the northerly property line, there is a
47.2 db level; at 56 feet away, it drops down to 32.2 db, with the fans running and air
conditioners off. Noted that the tree is about 150 feet away ITom the residential boundary; the
report was done based on the original location of the tree next to the northerly property line.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Tom Hugunin, LaRoda Ct.: .
· Not pleased with how close the treepole is to the houses.
· After meeting with Cingular, felt that the pole should be located further away ITom the
residences.
· Locating pole further away had a visual impact on the western foothills for some of the
neighbors.
· Tin Tin Market has a history of code violations.
· Sound rcport is incomplete; illustrates old location.
· Because of outstanding issues, requested that the application be postponed or denied until the
correct engineering work is done.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
April 26, 2004
Charles Pickett, W. Estates Drive:
· Said that the treepole resembled an artificial tree and is in an area without trees.
· Said that other carriers did not have a problem with coverage in the area and questioned if
there was a need for the treepole ifCingular merged with AT&T.
· Said he felt the Telecommunications Master Plan document called for a reason for the treepole
not to go in.
· Urged that the Planning Commission deny the application.
Mary Edbrooke, LaRoda Drive:
· Property is adjacent to the Tin Tin Market.
· Concerned about noise ITom trucks and air conditioning system of the market.
· Expressed concern about long term effects ITom cell waves.
· Aesthetically the treepole will be obtrusive as there are no trees in the residential area.
· Opposed to the treepole.
Christina Papadakis, So. Blaney Avenue:
· Concerned about noise ITom the market.
· Treepole will block her view.
· Tin Tin Market has not done any upgrades.
· Opposed to the application.
Frank Wong, La Roda Court:
· Concerned about health effect on residents ITom cell waves.
· Opposed to the trecpole.
Richard Wu, LaRoda Court:
· Concerned about health effects, noise levels and visual impacts.
. . Concerned about need for support of one more carrier in the area.
· Recommend denial of the application.
Janet Lin, LaRoda Court:
· Concerned about radiation level; noise level and visual impacts.
· Opposed to the location of the artificial tree.
· Concerned about the need to add more carriers to the area.
· Opposed to the application.
Roger Guertin, LaRoda Court:
· Opposed to the location of the treepole.
· Concerned with rodents in the area of Tin Tin Market.
· Concerned about additional carriers in the future either co-locating on the same treepole or
adding more treepoles.
· Proposed a larger tower at City Center, and minimizing the need for poles in several locations
throughout the city; the city would benefit ITom the revenue.
· Expressed concern about Tin Tin Market not maintaining property standards and violating
codes, trash pickup, and noise concerns.
Dale Cramb. LaRoda Court:
· Said he had similar concerns to those already expressed.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
April 26, 2004
· Also concerned with long term effects of the radiation.
· Felt the mere need for a tower does not constitute reason to build the tower.
· Tin Tin Market code violations still exist and should have been resolved.
Fanqi Meng, So. Blaney Avenue:
· Questioned the need for another carrier in the area.
· Said he was not sure of the long term effects of radiation.
· Opposed to the application.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chair Saadati:
· Asked staff to comment on the effects of the radiation since many were concerned.
Mr. Jung:
· Said Federal Government has set exposure standards for radio ITequency radiation.
· In response to a speaker's comment about installing a taller antenna on the building; said
Sprint PCS has an antenna on the Kimpton Hotel and is the applicant petitioning to co-locate
with Cingular Wireless at the Tin Tin Market facility; even at 100 feet, their antenna cannot
extend coverage adequately to the area in question.
Dr. Jerrold Bushberg, Health and Medical Physics Consulting:
· Prepared the health and safety report for the site.
· Said the maximum exposure for the site is 2% of the allowable public standard.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Do you really need a 55 foot treepole to accomplish the needs of the wireless company?
Phillip Dale, RF Engineer:
· Treepole is there to be a disguise to hide the antenna; the 55 feet height is needed to provide
coverage to the surrounding area, about Yo mile radius.
· Within this neighborhood, this is the best location defined.
· In response to suggestions about other locations, he said the DeAnza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
location would provide more than 55 feet height, but it is moving to the north and there are
already sites there.
· The new library site would require 100-120 feet, and the more further north you move more
toward where there is already coverage and would be duplicating it.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that the closest AT&T antenna location was in the northwest quadrant of Stevens Creek
and DeAnza Boulevard.
Com. Chen:
· Questioned how long construction would take after approval.
Mr. Dale:
· Said after building permit granted, construction generally takes ITom 2 weeks to a month.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
April 26, 2004
Com. Miller:
· A number of people were concerned about the noise. Review the noise study; it is in a corner
which seems like the building actually shields some of the noise ITom the neighbors to the
north.
Mr. Chao:
· Correct, the noise analysis attached to your staff report is on the original location of the pole,
which is right next to the property line. Since they moved to the new location, it is bounded by
two sides, by buildings. In addition to the distance, it will render less noise, significantly and
as it was before, it was already under the city's noise standards.
Com. Miller:
· Relative to the comments in the staff report for 'conformance to the wireless facilities master
plan, a preference for facilities to be located under the existing structures of buildings, there is
a lack of buildings in the area; the second preference is new structures in non-residential
locations.
· How is it construed to be a non-residential location; it seems to be a residential location.
Mr. Jung:
· It is a shopping center; we have construed it as a non-residential location; it is about 195 feet
away ITom the nearest house.
Chair Saadati:
· Asked what size trees proposed to be planted.
· How high are the light poles in the parking lot.
· Asked if light poles were considered for the antennas.
Mr. Chao:
· Not yet determined; condition on permit that applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan
to be reviewed by city arborist consultant.
· It would be ideal to plant a row of redwood trees to match the proposed treepole.
· Light poles are approximately 20 feet tall.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the light poles with antennas were horrendous looking; which would be a 20 foot light
pole with an additional 20 foot with a canister on top. Too obtrusive.
Com. Miller :
· What is the height of the tallest structure at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Ms. Wordell:
· Tallest building is 109 feet.
Com. Miller:
· Said data presented concludes it is not a health issue; not a major noise issue.
· From a visual standpoint it is an eyesore; not compatible with the neighborhood.
· Other carriers are in the area that provide service.
· Has applicant explored taller structures on corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard?
· Not in favor of the application.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
April 26, 2004
Com. Chen:
· Concurred that the concerns were visual, noise, maintenance and health impacts.
· Questioned necessity of having the treepole located close to the residential area.
· Said that until more studies are done in looking for a different location and possibility of
providing service with more concerns regarding neighbors, she did not support the project.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Main concern was visual impact.
· Said although not tied to the application for approval or denial, he expressed concern that
management of the Tin Tin Market should abate all concerns that the neighbors have.
· Said that when the wireless facilities master plan was passed, the antennas were desired on
light poles or street poles. What is being said now is that a higher location is needed; want to
know for future how can we locate these devices in neighborhoods; regarding radiation it is
2% according to the study.
Mr. Jung:
· The idea in residential areas was eventually to develop a system of antennas that could be
inserted on utility poles and the light poles themselves; this was suggested by the wireless
consultant; not quite sure if the industry itself has completely bought the concept or not; feel it
is a trend that they would be heading in that direction and we are trying to get ahead of the
curve on that.
· Assume that they have some cost issues with doing that and no carriers have approached staff
with that type of system yet for residential areas; it appears they are trying to get the most out
of the sight they can and perhaps if the Planning Commission is in favor of a denial tonight,
they will likely be looking at a lower height structure; it would be at the cost of having less
coverage overall in the area. They were trying to get as much coverage as they could and
probably also capacity as well. The neighborhood would have to be more accepting of less
service if they want a lower height facility located elsewhere in the site.
Com. Giefer:
· Concurred that the visual impact of the project is a deterrent to the neighbors on the east side
of Blaney as well as on LaRoda Court.
· Too many issues exist with the visual impact of the antenna and the long term issues with Tin
Tin Market operations.
· Not in favor of application.
Chair Saadati:
· Concerned with visual impact of the evergreen tree.
· Questioned if other options exist with less visual impact; not certain if it has been fully
explored.
· The community needs more antennas to adequately serVe the residents.
· In the past we have approved I tiÏte a few antennas on a pole, not as visible and not as close to
residential; can some of the street poles could be utilized and would it be acceptable to the
applicant.
· Not in favor of application at this time.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to deny
Application U-2003-12. (Vote 5-0-0)
Ms. Wordell noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 days.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
April 26, 2004
Chair Saadati declared a short recess.
3.
MN-2004-01, EA-2004-07
Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion
Park) 10123 No. Wolfe Road
Amendment to the development agreement for
Vallco Fashion Park (Application No. I-DA-90)
to allow a movie theater complex to be located on
top of the existing mall shops or within the
existing parking lots adjacent to Wolfe Road.
Tentative City Council date: April 27, 2004
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
· Said application was for modification to the development agreement, to modify the location of
the cinema ITom the 1990 agreement.
· Site plan illustrates the three approved locations for a 3,500 seat cinerna.
· Reviewed text amendments to the development agreement.
· Negative Declaration determined there were no additional environmental impacts.
· Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and the modification to the
development agreement.
Com. Miller:
· Is the height of 75 to 80 feet the height of the theater alone, or theater plus what is beneath it.
Ms. Wordell:
· The theater plus what is under it; the total height.
Com. Miller:
· In the written text received, it says that if Westland elects to build a 3,500 seat complex, the
total buildout to 1.6 million square feet ofleasable space shall be reduced by 100,000 square
feet; are you proposing a change to that.
Ms. Wordell:
· No change.
Com. Miller:
· Staffreport says Vallco has a vested right to construct approximately 500,000 square feet of
retail space, that is the residual they haven't used as part of this development agreement;
including the fact that it might be reduced by 100,000 square feet?
Ms. Wordell:
· The number would be reduced.
Com. Giefer:
· Staff report indicates that the Vallco Redevelopment agreement as a whole expires in 2006,
would the termination of this proposed minor amendment coincide with that termination date.
Ms. Wordell
· Yes, it does.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
April 26, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· How much public noticing went out for the application and were the neighbors aware of the
heights.
Ms. Wordell:
· Did 1,000 feet on this; and it was described as an amendment to the development agreement;
there was not height information on the notice.
· Neighbors were aware of heights; in that there is no real project before us yet; they can show
us concept plans but we don't have a actual application for the project.
· Said that the applicant locked in the old 1980 General Plan which allowed 8 stories, no
specific height; and are not proposing an increase in height at this time.
Mike Rohde, Vallco Fashion Park:
· Thanked staff for their time in preparing documents and excellent communication with staff.
· Application is to relocate the theater ITom the exterior parking lot in ITont of Sears that would
be approximately 80 feet tall to the top of the mall which is currently a 2 level building, which
they feel will rejuvenate the mall.
· Said he was confident that details would be worked out with the department stores; a letter of
intent has been received by a major theater operator.
· Said the proposed new location would bring patrons through the mall to get to the theater
complex, which helps increase tax revenue for the city as well as for the mall.
· Said the third level is the theater complex only with vertical transportation up to the theater;
exit is through the mall.
· With the addition of a theater, more restaurants are interested in being a part of Vall co.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that prior approvals do limit uses on the west side of Wolfe Road to II p.m. closure;
typical cinema use would be exempt ITom that.
· Other businesses around the cinema west of Wolfe Road would have to close by 11 p.m.
unless they had modified permits.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Michael Pyle, Denison Avenue:
· Said that the notice sent out was a legal notice sent the prior week notifying residents of the
Planning Commission and City Council meetings to discuss proposed amendments.
. . Concerned about traffic and potential impacts in the neighborhood, affecting quality of lives
and the neighborhood.
· Concerned that traffic reports were based on 1989 and 1990; traffic has increased in the last 14
years.
· Traffic ITom the theaters at concentrated times will add congestion.
· Encouraged the applicant and the city to work on the traffic and minimizing impacts on the
neighborhood.
Ms. Wordell:
· Commented on traffic report done in the past:
o The development agreement locked in the traffic analysis done through the environmental
work at that time; if they were not changing the location, there would be no additional
analysis on traffic. There is not any done at this time because the location is similar, and
Planning Commission Minutes
10
April 26, 2004
doesn't affect the level of traffic, although it is true that traffic changed in 10 years, but
changes being asked for have little effect on how traffic would operate.
o There will be no amendment or review of previous traffic report; there is a possibility that
the actual project which we haven't seen the details of, may have some minor circulation
changes; if so, there would be additional traffic analyses done; but the size of the project,
general location of the project don't trigger any additional traffic review.
Lynn Puccinelli, Denison Avenue:
· Opposed to having movie theaters on proposed side of Vallco.
· Suggested if the movie theater is located on the west side of Wolfe Road, the perimeter road
be closed.
· Has had to call Sheriff on noise violations rrom shopping center in the past.
· Major concern is that a theater with 3500 seats will bring additional traffic and noise.
Penny Whittaker, Cheryl Drive:
· Clarified what she felt was the position of the concerned citizens of Cupertino (CCC) on the
redevelopment of Vall co :
o The CCC's three proposed initiatives do not specifically support or oppose the Vallco
development.
o The initiatives would allow the City Council to do what they think is best on Wolfe Road
commercial corridor.
o The CCC would like to see good commercial development in that area; the restrictions are
for mixed use and/or residences which would put more strain on the inrrastructure; but
single, duplex, triplex and fourplexes would be exempt.
o Clarified that the CCC is made up of many people; each opposes different ideas
concerning Vallco, but the proposed amendments to the General Plan are a compromise
that they all agree upon.
o Want Vallco to succeed and be a place people would like to shop, but would hope the city
would be careful about the impact to the neighbors.
Jody Hansen, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
· Chamber of Commerce agrees a more central location in the mall is critical to the commercial
success and revitalization of Vall co Fashion Park.
· Chamber of Commerce urges support of the negative declaration approval and the proposed
development agreement amendment allowing relocation of the theaters as proposed by the
applicant.
Mike Rohde, applicant:
· Said they had an approved development agreement for 3500 seats.
· Vallco has its own 24 hour security.
· Vallco is concerned about the lifestyle of the neighbors and feel they can maintain the current
lifestyle of the neighbors even with the theater.
· Trying to get Vallco back to its vibrancy in the 80s; it will increase revenues for the city.
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he strongly supported the project; the theaters will bring more revenue to the mall.
· Mall needs to be revitalized.
Planning Commission Minutes
11
April 26, 2004
· Recently visited Oakridge Mall with the new theaters, food court below; makes sense to have
the theater on the third story, to bring patrons inside, will add sales tax to the mall.
· Understand concerns of the neighbor on the northerly side; sounds like Mr. Rohde will be
open to mitigating those factors and this is an opportunity Cupertino cannot miss.
· Good to have a local developer here willing to work with the community and we should work
hard to try to revitalize this mall. Another one going up in Sunnyvale; we are competing with
the same retailers and this developer is really trying to get those stores and national chain
stores in here.
· Regarding the traffic, said he felt fine with the previous report and felt they would work
closely with staff to mitigate those factors.
· Opportunity should not be missed; move forward.
· Supports the project.
Com. Giefer:
· What is being approved is an amendment to the current Vallco redevelopment plan; everything
is already approved except for the location of the theater.
· Supports the application and the flexibility this gives the property management company to
recruit and attract the vendors they need to help revitalize the mall.
· Encouraged the members of the community to share their opinions at the time the plans are in
front of the Planning Commission, or other information for approval in the future.
· This will be a great addition to the mall and revitalizing Vallco.
· Supports the project.
Com. Chen:
· Happy to see the new changes about to be made to the shopping center.
· For all the reasons stated by colleagues, strongly supports the project.
Com. Miller:
· City services are a direct function of city revenues and resources; the city has been dealing
with declining revenues at Vall co.
· This is an opportunity to take the step to revitalize Vallco.
· From an economic standpoint, the location in the center of the mall and bringing people into
the mall is the right approach.
· This is an excellent approach to a resource that has been under-utilized in town.
· Weare all sensitive to the traffic issue; however, as staff pointed out, over the last decade the
traffic has improved rrom a level D to a level C in that area.
· Pointed out rrom a traffic standpoint, because this is located at an intersection on Wolfe Road,
there is the opportunity to do the right thing by traffic and minimize the impact on the rest of
the city almost totally.
· Fully supports the project.
Chair Saadati:
· This is an opportunity to bring the service in Cupertino and will serve the city very well.
· With revitalizing Vallco and bringing new shops to Cupertino will help the citizens and bring
revenue to the city.
· Relative to traffic, there may be a question mark there; when this comes back, we should have
a traffic engineer to validate whether it has chaH¡;eà the report.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
April 26, 2004
· Applicant needs to be a good neighbor, and address any concerns raised by adjacent properties
during or after construction.
· Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Negative Declaration EA-2004-07 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Application M-2004-01 (Vote 5-0-0)
4.
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendment to Chapter 19.100 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking
Regulations.
Tentative City Council date: May 17, 2004
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· The Planning Commission approved the work program for 2001 directing staff to evaluate the
compact parking stall requirements in Chapter 19.100.
· Due to workloads, staff has not been able to work on the project until this year.
· The purpose of the amendment is to address the concerns regarding compact parking stalls and
to further refine various sections of the parking ordinance.
· Staff is recommending the following modifications to the ordinance regarding parking:
o Delete the requirements for compact and standard stalls and require all parking lots
provide uni-size stalls
o Provide measures to enhance parking lot landscaping and permeability
o Provide additional land use categories in the parking ratio table
o Add residential use to the mixed-use parking table for minor projects
o Add parking lot lighting regulations
o Clarify and clean up various sections of the current code
· Discussed in detail the recommended modifications as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff is recommending that the uni-size stalls be provided in all parking lots and delete the
standard option of allowing the combination of compact and standard stalls.
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission review, comment and provide direction to staff
regarding the proposed municipal code, or if ready for a decision tonight, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission request that the City Council authorize the modifications per the
model resolution.
Com. Miller:
· What is the ratio used at Saron Gardens.
Mr. Chao:
· Ratio used at Saron Gardens, but based on its parking analysis prepared by a parking
consultant, was 2.5; the project was over-parked.
Com. Miller:
· In the staff report, it says survey indicates the average required parking is 2.47; was that
determined based on what were proj ects actually proposed or based on a study after the
projects were in place, how many cars were being parked there on any particular evening?
Planning Commission Minutes
13
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
· Survey was done on similar Bay area projects and it had samples of various times for those
projects; the 2.47 number was the actual parking demand for those types of projects. It was
after the projects were fully occupied that the studies were done.
· Relative to the chart, in a mixed use project the residential takes up a large portion of any
mixed use shared parking, especially during the evening and weekends. With the residential
component, you need to fully support the parking requirements of that residential component
within the mixed use context.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Relative to parking lot landscaping and permeability, currently in the RI ordinance, there is
50% you are allowed to have pervious surface currently.
.
Mr. Chao:
· Currently according to RI you cannot pave more than 50% of your required rront yard.
· With the proposed change, staff is trying to give incentives for people to use semi-pervious
materials; the notion is that if there is B combination of concrete or impervious material, and
semi-pervious material, you are allowed to cover a little more because water can percolate
through the semi- pervious material; whereas if you were to propose impervious cover, then
you are limited to cover up to 40% of your required rront yard area.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Likes the incentive of adding 60% if they do a semi-pervious/pervious, but by reducing it
down to 40%, in his opinion not fair and hopeful that colleagues are open to that.
· Currently garages for Rl are 20' x 20' and am concerned about reducing it to 19' x 20'. We
are trying to encourage people to park in their garages and a lot of people are using them for
storage.
· Regarding landscape buffer, it is a good idea, only concern is the same thing that if there is not
enough land on the property to meet the parking requirement, are they given an exception or
how will that be met.
Mr. Chao:
· For parking, if there are special circumstances they should do away with landscaping buffer
because of hardship, then the applicant can file for a parking exception which is approvable by
the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Wong:
· When talking about small lots, single family/townhouses, such as Saron Gardens, you are
referring to planning at developments, not small single Rl.
· When asked for guidance rrom the Planning Commission, he said he suggested three parking
spaces per unit; and was curious how 2.5 was arrived at.
· Reason for the three units was that many people have guest parking and he wanted to ensure
there is adequate parking; the last thing I want to say is mixed use projects
Mr. Chau:
· Said it referred to the new single family lot townhouse development.
· As mentioned in the staff report, if there is previous surveys or parking analysis done on
previously approved projects, we can go by that because that was prepared by traffic or
parking consultants.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
April 26, 2004
· In conducting a survey of adjacent cities, no evidence was found of similar parking ratios or at
least the majority of the other jurisdictions provided or asked for 2.5 parking stalls per
dwelling unit.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Cited examples of Travigne at Blaney, Stevens Creek, and Cypress Hotel where there were
parking problems.
· Said he understood the concept, and asked for an explanation on mixed use project and
examples of how it would work.
· Said he did not feel comfortable voting tonight; and would like to get more public input since
it is a major parking ordinance.
Mr. Chao:
· The difficult part as every mixed use project is different; if you were to apply this chart with
the new residential percentage, what we usually do is ask the project to go through with a
normal minimum parking ratios for each of the components; of the mixed use projects; they
have residential office and retail; they will use the base minimum required residential office
retail and then they will go through at different times of the day, apply basically the discounts
to the minimal parking ratio and then whichever comes out to be the highest, that will be the
parking ratio for that particular time.
Vice Chair Wong:
· This was taken rrom the Urban Land Institute many years ago, unsure how timely this
information is. It would be ideal if staff could come back with a hypothetical one so that in the
future when the public comes and looks at this, it looks a lot easier that it is documented,
because percentages only are shown.
Com. Chen:
· Agree with Vice Chair Wong that the chart is confusing, some examples of how the numbers
work out would help to clarify a lot of the concerns.
· The rest of the changes are good, especially the enhancement or the encouragement or
impervious areas increased.
· Asked staff if they covered the use of space that was on the use permit in the past several
years.
Mr. Chao:
· Staff did a search into some of the past years similar use approvals and some projects had
surveys done and parking analyses performed. We went with that because that is more
community oriented, specific to Cupertino.
· With regard to some of the uses, it was difficult to find previous samples because each one
was treated case-by-case, and there weren't any clear directions rrom other jurisdictions. To
the best of staffs ability, they tried to use previous approvals as a base to come up with these
numbers.
Com. Chen:
· Was there a chance to review existing categories; in the church case, parking is about the only
issue that limits the growth capacity for churches.
· Said in lighting regulations, it is very good, and to clarify, clean up the different sections.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
· Have not looked into churches, but the Planning Commission desires, staff can do so.
Com. Giefer:
· Appreciate the excellent job staff did on covering a lot of ground.
· When looking at landscaping, bio-filters and swales, did you consider integrating biofilters,
swales into perimeter landscaping when it was not abutting a street and what were your
thoughts on that if you did?
Mr. Chao:
· Presently, as recommended, developers are encouraged to provide swales and that would be
applicable to perimeter landscaping and strips; it goes hand in hand with recommended
enhancement to the parking landscaping buffer around the perimeters because there are no
provisions, and unless the property is in some specific plan which has specific perimeter
landscaping requirements, you can do away with the bare minimum which is next to zero
landscaping.
· Given the fact that if more landscaping buffer around perimeters is required, that would give
the opportunity to propose swales along the perimeters, not only swales in between stalls.
Com. Giefer:
· Be more aggressive in that area; would like to see required use of bio-filters and swales to
filter runoff before it hits storm drains because it is a major issue as part of the Bay Area.
· Likes the parcel sizes discussed for development and believes the requirements are going to be
more stringent as time goes by; it is something we need to begin to embrace, and would like to
see it begin here.
· Like the uni-size; many oversized vehicles are crammed into regular size spaces. What is the
average car width today.
Mr. Chao:
· 6 to 7.5 feet wide.
Chair Saadati
· Question regarding 10 feet landscaping next to a street; believe that is being next to the
sidewalk.
Mr. Chao:
· Correct.
Chair Saadati:
· With the regulation coming down rrom the Regional Board, there is no other option but to
provide the additional landscaping, and filter the water; and many municipalities are
encouraging this and it is moving forward.
· The other option is to provide the filters, which is heavy on maintenance.
· Landscaping will add to the environment also; in favor of that.
· With the proposed change to be effective April 15, 2005, if someone wants to resurface a
parking lot, do they have to go back and redo the whole area or just if they want to modify it.
Glenn Goepfert, Public Works:
· The removable filters, inserts and storm drains are high maintenance.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
· If the item is continued, the timerrame would be off a little, but the change will only be
applicable to new parking lots, major renovations to existing parking lots, or substantial
renovations to existing parking lots.
· Property owners or developers would not be required to do some of the things recommended
tonight if they were just to restripe the parking lot or resurface it.
Mr. Goepfert:
· This would call for changing the way to typically grade a parking lot, since now you have the
inverted crown right to the valley gutter to carry it off to a storm drain where otherwise you
might want to regrade it in order to take it to the perimeter or take it to the swale at the edge of
parking unit.
· It may entail rethinking as far as the way to grade a parking lot.
Chair Saadati:
· Uni-size is a good concept; easier on design and more flexible for smaller and larger cars.
· Said the Planning Commissioners had some comments regarding the table and they want it to
come back.
Mr. Chao:
· Said he had sufficient direction.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the application would have to be continued for about a month to allow ample time to be
noticed in the Cupertino Scene.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Jody Hansen, CEO, Chamber of Commerce:
· Asked that the application be continued.
· Said she was pleased that smaller projects would be afforded savings without having to do
their own parking studies.
· Trying to fmd a way to identify the levels of ratios is important.
· Said that some places mixed use parking is not working such as Cherry Orchard Center in
Sunnyvale that has a retail area and housing nearby, but does not allow anyone to flow into the
housing parking. Not really mixed parking.
· It would be interesting to know how that center is working out because there are times when
PF Chengs has to valet park. Said he would like to see how they compare to the other cities;
see what doesn't work and make sure there is enough parking allowed in the new projects to
get more people to use the retail.
Dennis Whittaker, Cheryl Drive:
· Parking is a small but definite part of quality of life.
· Planning in the past seems to localize immediately to be very inadequate.
· When BJs opened, there was a traffic backup on DeAnza Boulevard in the direction of
Highway 280.
· There are parking problems at the Cypress Hotel when functions are going on.
· Average required parking seems to be inadequate on a regular basis, not on an irregular basis.
· When Boulangerie is relocated, is parking going to be adequate there?
Planning Commission Minutes
17
April 26, 2004
· The park at DeAnza at Stevens Creek has now become a plaza; where was the parking going
to go there?
· The Wolfe Camera situation will be interesting with the nursery and cafeteria, and now mixed
use in there.
· The architect said that hundreds of people would use the park in Town Center; where are they
going to park.
· Florentines across the street, their parking there is going to destroy the people able to go there
for the locals.
· When you start parking on the sidewalks where the impervious materials are, I am worried that
we are going to be looking away rrom being a small suburbia area and start looking like a
Chicago/New Y orkILos Angeles.
· Questioned the number of75 for parking spaces for the hotel.
· Decreasing parking widths in the garage; don't understand when cars are getting larger, you
are decreasing the size.
· People will lose storage space; where will the public storage areas be located to accommodate
the residents.
· Urged the Planning Commission to take their time when doing a survey and wait until the
Wolfe Camera, Town Center and many of the projects are done instead of using past
information, since the past information does not seem to be adequate.
Penny Whittaker, Cheryl Drive:
· Said she assumed the discussion is about parking lots in Cupertino, and not just mixed use.
Please clarify for the citizens.
· Said as someone who has always felt that compact parking spaces were discriminating, she
was pleased that uni-size was being considered.
· Urged that garage size not be reduced, as it is already difficult to park both cars in one garage.
If garage size is reduced, only one car would fit in the garage and more people would be
parking on the streets.
· Concerned about too much landscaping in parking lots as it does not allow enough room to
back out or people to get in.
· Asked for more pictures of the proposed landscaping and what the requirements are.
Chair Saadati:
· Asked for comment on bioswales.
Mr.Chao:
.. Photos explain; there is a recent trend of people or cities considering bioswales in parking lots
because of the urban runoff issue. Storm water directly drains into the bay and the notion of
having a swales on the parking lot, basically the concept is simple; to catcþ as much of the
natural urban runoff as much as possible on the site instead of having it channel by grading
and curves and concrete into storm water system where it goes into the bay and pollutes the
bay. The idea of having swales in parking lots and also landscaping in these swales is so that
water can have a way of naturally percolating through the ecosystem and be filtered naturally.
It may cause some design issues or additional cost in designing the grading for these swales;
however, the environment is of concern, and that is the intent of introducing swales. More
diagrams and explanations will be provided next time around.
Planning Commission Minutes
18
April 26,2004
Chair Saadati:
· ..\Iso options If there are some lots that are very small and a swale will take away a few
parking spaces, which is definitely needed, what are the other options that developer or builder
needs to comply with in order to meet the regulations?
Mr. Chao:
· It was considered when devising how these swales should be implemented in the parking lots;
the diagram shows landscaping or swales between double loading stalls and a minimum of 4
feet width is required for these double loading stalls, including vehicle overhang allowance;
standard vehicle overhang allowance is 2 feet, for a 4 foot swale, so in between a double
loading stall vs. a parking lot that does not have any landscaping in between, no area is lost; it
is going to look more aesthetically pleasing because you have more green and more shading
trees.
Com. Giefer:
· Said at a recent conference she spoke with Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley people, who
found that after their six annual days of rainfall, theft they had to close the beach because the
runoff caused bacteria growth in the water and the chemical levels were too high.
· After they began to implement swales and bio-filters, they found about a 50% decrease in
having to close the beaches immediately that they attributed to that.
· Additionally as part of the General Plan Task Force, when touring two different projects in
different cities, one of the projects in small parking lots was they replaced some of the
impervious surfaces with pavers which allow the water to seep through, which is a low cost
and effective way to create a bio-filter.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Provide guidance to staff; concurred with Com. Chen to add a category for churches.
· Saron Gardens already did the survey on all the different cities; staff to bring it back and share
with Planning Commissioners.
· Staff provided an excellent report.
· Agree with uni-size stalls; like the swales, bio-filters and landscaping buffers for parking lots
but still feel strongly for the 20' x 20' garages, and would appreciate it if staff would set up a
scenario for the mixed use projects to see it more clearly.
· Concur with staff to notice in the Cupertino Scene, to get more public input.
· Thanked the residents for attending the meeting and providing input.
Chair Saadati:
· Commented that BJs implemented valet parking, and asked if took care of the problem or
would it be geed possible to get some information and bring it back. Sometimes businesses
are very successful, they have to find a way because you cannot provide parking space for the
peak hours because it is not cost effective.
· Bring back more information on parking in areas such as Cypress Hotel and BJs.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen to continue Application
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20 to the May 24, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes
19
April 26, 2004
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Ms. Wordell reported that the Vallco issue was discussed at
the last ERC meeting.
Housing Commission: Nothing to report.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Vice Chair Wong reported:
· The Public Safety Commission reported an increase in crime; urged residents to be certain to
keep computers and purses hidden;
· Parks and Recreation Department reported on the McNair property;
· Senior Commission is new, Senior Center may not have enough funding for personnel; also
the mayor would like the Senior Commission and Teen Commission to be involved in the
grand opening of the library;
· The Fine Arts Commission reported that the plaza on the corner of Stevens Creek and DeAnza
is coming of age;
· Cherry Blossom Festival held last weekend;
· Teen Commission is working on a youth advisory conference with other teen commissions in
Santa Clara County and will try to expand it to the other Bay Areas;
· Library Commission would like to collaborate with the Fine Arts Commission and they will
meet in the future. In the last measure, there was not a two-thirds vote for the hours for the
library, so we the new library, unfortunately may be closed due to lack of funding.
· Telecommunications Commission is doing information on HGTV; also working on public
access; recently visited Palo Alto to see how E-government is working in Palo Alto, in
partnership with Hewlett Packard;
· The mayor had some concerns also regarding the three initiatives on setbacks, density, and
height, that the Council is not going to be negotiating with them; they would like for the folks
to go through the General Plan and should be coming soon to the Planning Commission;
Mayor James reported there would be a presentation on May 27"' of prevention of rraud and
identity theft at Quinlan Center.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to a study session at 5:00 p.m. on
May 10,2004 in Conference Room C.
SUBMITTED BY:
~~
Approved as amended: May 10, 2004