Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
14. Cupertino Village
City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTtNO Summary Agenda Item No. Application: U-2007-06, ASA.-2007-10 (EA-2007-OS) Applicant: Brian Replinger (Kirnco Realty) Property Location: Homestead Road and Wolfe Road APPLICATION SUMMARY Community Development Department Agenda Date: Apri115, 2008 Consider Application Nos: U-2007-0b, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08), Brian Replinger (Cupertino Villa-gel, Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. APN: 316-05-050, 316-05-051, 316-05- 052, 31b-05-053, 316-05-05b, 31b-05-072, 31b-45-017. (Continued from April 1): a} Adopt a negative declaration b) Use permit and architectural site approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and atwo-level parking structure RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval of the project with conditions outlined in the model resolution. BACKGROUND On April 1, 2008, the City Council considered the application and directed the applicant (Kirnco) to further refine the proposed parking plan and return for a final action. DISCUSSION Parkuig In response to the City Council's concern regarding the parking capacity, the applicant proposes the following: 1. Increase the parking supply by 22 stalls from 835 to 857 stalls. 2. Restripe the church parking lot to gain eight parking stalls at 1Cimco's expense. Kimco is requesting parking credits be applied to the Cupertino Village shopping center for creating eight additional stalls on the church's property that would otherwise be potentially used by the church parishioners during peak 14-1 Cupertino Village Apri115, 2008 Page 2 demand. By including the 8 stalls credit, the proposed parking capacity has been increased to 865 stalls. The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed parking capacity match the percent of increase in square footage (22% or 870 stalls). Kimco is proposing to meet this demand and accumulate lea_ st five more stalls by either one of the following options: a. Reconfigure the parking lot of the bank parcel drive-thru area and capture 13 additional parking stalls, which brings the total parking capacity to 878 stalls; or b. Provide valet parking service for an additiona126 stalls during peak demand times (i.e., holiday season or high demand church times) bringing the total parking capacity to 891 stalls. Kimco prefers option A, but it is subject to lease negotiation with the bank tenaa_~t. If option B (valet parking) is considered, staff recommends that the valet service not be limited to only holiday seasons or high church usage times but also be applied to the shopping center peak parking demand times as identified by the traffic consultants (Friday and Saturday noon and dinner times}. These peak times should be tested by a professional traffic consultant in order to demonstrate the need for such service. In addition, the revised parking plan shall be reviewed by the project traffic consultant and approved by the Fire and Planning Departments prior to issuance of building permits to ensure sufficient fire truck access and appropriate pedestrian/vehicular circulation. Additional Conditions At the April, l 2008 hearing, the Council stipulated the following new conditions that would apply to the project: Security and Maintenance The required security and maintenance service shall apply to the shopping center property as well as along the exterior perimeter of the Linnet Lane garage wall and landscaping area. A detailed security and maintenance plan shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Green Building Measures The proposed retail buildings and the parking garage shall be LEED certified (26 pts. mutmum). The applicant shall submit a detailed green building plan prepared by a consultant autluung the different green measures that will be incorporated into the project prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to final occupancy~approval, . confirmation shall be provided to the City that the project has been formally certified by LEED. 14-2 Cupertino Village April 15, 2008 Page 3 Garage Consh•uction The garage shall be built first so that the additional parking stalls are available during the construction period of the two retail buildings. Median and Sidewalk Improvement Plan The final median and sidewalk improvement plan, including but not limited to the sheltered left turn from Wolfe Road and the new sidewalk reconstruction along Wolfe and Homestead Roads, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of the construction of the improvements. Said plan shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer and would require the peer revieuT of the project traffic engineer. Sign Approval No signs are approved as part of this project. A separate sign program approval shall be obtained from the Design Review Committee prior to any approval of new signs associated with the new construction. Arborist Review The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City Arborist shall also verify that the landscaping has been carried out u1 accordance to the approved landscaping plan and that all of the landscaping features are in good standing prior to the final release of occupancy for the two commercial buildings. Department of Toxic Substances Control The property owner is required to satisfy aII of the requirements prescribed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control in regards to the clean up the former Cupertino Village Cleaner's site. Traffic Signal Modiftcation Improvements The applicant shall fund the traffic signal modification impravements at the Homestead/Wolfe intersection in an amount not to exceed $75,000, said amount shall be due as a depa~it or reimbursement prior to final occupancy of the Cupertino Village development improvements. It is the City's intention that the traffic signal improvements be constructed as soon as feasible and no Later than five years from the project approval. Homestead Road Driveway The Homestead Road Driveway shall be designated as right turn in, right turn and sheltered left out only. The final driveway and median improvement plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 14-3 Cupertino Village Apri115, 2008 Page 4 ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions -please see attached Apri11, 2008 staff report Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes of March 11, 2008 and March 25, 2008 City Coiuzcil Meeting Draft Minutes of Apri11, 2008 Parking Letter from the Applicant dated Apri17, 2008. Revised Parking Lot Plans Planning Staff Report (April 1, 2008 with attachments and planset.) Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Subm' ed b Approved by: . Steve Piasecki David W, app Director, Community Development City Manager 14-4 Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 11, 2008 Elena Herrera, Granola Drive: • Asked for an explanation of the construction oversight process, and said there az o projects in lien area she was concerned about. One relates to the height ordinance anew home project at 21105 Hazelbrook which top of the second floor is well into roofline of the two story homes adjacent to it. A surveyor on her property said that er project two doors down at 21184 Granola is also higher than the 28 feet. She ex sled concern about what will be done about the two homes exceeding the height limit. • One of the projects has an electrical box on its wall with a de " e to protect the lines going from the street. All new projects are underground now. a was told it was a temporary measure and the builder has been informed that it nee be changed. • A project on Greenleaf has a temporary power bo n their project site; it goes through the framing of the roof and is part of the perman fixtures. She asked what the ramifications will be. • Asked if there were ordinances regar ' g the site; the site is a mess and there are four projects directly around her pr and the rat infestation is hon'endous in the neighborhood. • She asked for a response o e process as she did not understand it. Steve Piasecki: • Said staff w look into the concerns expressed and speak with the other people responsibl or oveXSeeing the projects. None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. U-2007-Ob, ASA-2007-10 Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval {EA-20U7-08) Brian to construct two one-story retail buildings Replinger (Cupertino ViIlage) totaling 24,455 square feet and a taro-level parking Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. deck. Tentative City Council date: March 18, 2008 Steve Piasecki, provided a brief summary: • Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two Ievel parking structure. One of the issues is they could either retain the existing conditions which they don't feel are acceptable conditions, including the spillover parking that has been documented; the trash problems have been going on for a long time; there are no operational controls in this particular center, there have been no substantive changes in the center for some time; there is clearly anon-desirable interface with the residential. neighborhood to the Westin terms of access and aesthetics; and there aze access issues, i.e., the Homestead Road driveway. ~ The second choice is to use the use expansion as an opportunity to enhance the center and its relationship to its neighbors and make every attempt to contain the parking demand on site; apply same reasonable use controls; improve the circulation; screen the development effectively from the neighborhood; close off the pedestrian access; insulate the noise and the light; and clean up the trash conditions. Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the background of the project, noting that the item was continued from the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the .Planning Commission directed staff to retain a parking consultant to quantify the offsite parking spillover into the residential azea to the west; directed staff to evaluate the proposed onsite 14-5 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 11, 2008 circulation access for safety enhancement for potential mitigation measures tp enhance; and directed staff to identify the interior pedestrian path to see if there were any crossing enhancements within the project. • Reviewed the comments and concerns raised at three community meetings held. The comments and concerns are listed on Page 9 of the staff report. • The Environmental Review Committee {ERC) recommended granting a mitigated negative declaration with the conditions added to modify the site plan to compensate for the parking deficit; and provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan. • He reviewed the site plan, various elevations, landscape plan, tree removal plan; and parking lot lighting plan. • Fehr and Peers conducted a supplemental parking lot analysis of the adjacent residential streets and they looked at several streets to the west of the center, to try to capture any spillover demand. They observed the offsite parking demand follow the similar pattern to the onsite parking demand, when the parking lot at the shopping center was at its peak, they also found a similar occurrence along Linnet in the residential streets, so that the parking demand increased along the residential side streets at the same. Based on their observation, the total parking demand peaked out Saturday afternoon. At this time 95% or more of the parking stalls were taken up in the shopping center. They observed that patrons of the center parked in the residential streets even before the shopping center parking tot was at capacity which indicates it is a behavioral issue as opposed to a demand issue as well. Fehr and Peers did an analysis to quantify the number of cars that should,be attributed to the shopping center that park on the residential street. With the formula used, they suggest that. approximately 32 cars could be attributed to the shopping center during the peak, using the peak as Saturday afternoon. It should be added to the total pazking demand captured from the Hexagon study. • Said that since the November 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has worked in an additional S3 stalls; with still a parking deficit of 22 stalls. With the two components added in, the total parking requirement is 855, and the parking provided is 833 stalls. • He reviewed the options to mitigate the panting deficit: Modify the site plan to compensate for the parking deficit, including consideration of additional pazking on the bank parcel and along the entrance driveway at Pruneridge Road located on the southeast corner of the shopping center property; and require urban-lift structures for employees; provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan; and consider incentives for employees to carpool or take public transportation. The project may also be approved with a requirement to be reviewed by the Planning Commission a year from the completion of construction or when the project is SO% occupies, whichever comes first. A parking survey would be conducted to evaluate the parking demand. If a deficiency is found, the remaining SO% would not be leased until appropriate measures aze taken to address the parking concerns as determined by the Planning Commission. • Relative to circulation issues, Rehr and Peers determined that the proposed restriping of the existing center would enhance the circulation. They did not find any issues with onsite circulation as proposed. They suggested the Homestead driveway exiting out onto Homestead Road be.simplified; the original suggestion was to eliminate the driveway to a right in and a right out; but Fehr and Peers looked at the situation and suggested adding another movement which allows for a sheltered left out of the shopping center. By doing that people would not have to make a U-turn at Homestead if they wanted to go westbound on Homestead, anti it also prevents people from making unnecessary turns at other intersections. Staff feels it is a good suggestion and Public Works Dept. concurs. • The other improvements are along Wolfe Road, currently there is not a break in the median for a left band turn from Wolfe into the center; the consultant has suggested that a sheltered 14-6 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 11, 2008 , . ~ . left ~be provided, make improvements to the median to make that happen. Public Works concurs and recommends this be implemented as a condition. • Fehr and Peers also suggested stop controls at location C; on the upper deck of the parking garage indicated by Letter D, they suggest that the last two parking stalls at the end of the garage be eliminated to allow sufficient roam for cars to do a three point turn or hammerhead twin to get out of their space. • 'They also suggest that some stalls be deleted along that building which is ahea.dy reflected on the applicant's site plan. • Relative to residential interface, it is proposed to eliminate all pedestrian access along Linnet Lane. A 7 foot high fence is proposed along the northerly properly boundary between the church and shopping center; and conditions will be enhanced to enhance landscaping features and buffers along the westerly boundary. • Summarized the foIlowii~g conditions to be implemented: o Construction Management Plan implemented o Odor abatement o Landscape maintenance bond 0 17etailed landscaping maintenance plan . o Improvement plans be provided to address refuse and recycling • o Bus shelter enhancement along Wolfe Rd. o Reconstruction of sidewalk o Corner plaza enhancement plan o Enhancement plan for the interior courlyazds o Disclosure to tenants of all the conditions recommended and approved o Onsite patrol for security reasons and security cameras be located at key locations o Approval of the project with a one yeaz review period Staff also recommends that the final site plan, architectural drawings, performance audit conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission be reviewed and approved by the DRC pxior to the issuance of building permits. . ~ Staff supports the project; they feel it is a long awaited opportunity to work with the shopping center to bring them up to par on all aspects, and recommends appro~~al of the project per the model resolution. Com. Rose: • Asked staff for an update on the residents pursuing a permanent pazking area on Linnet with the City of Sunnyvale. Gary Chao: • Said that the issue is on the table with the City of Sunnyvale, and it has to go through their process to have their City Council approve it. They have not heard any other pursuit from the residents or commitment from the City of Sunnyvale. Steve Piasecld: • Said that preferential parking can•be a hassle for residents. Staff does not feel it should be a first choice, but it is their choice. Staff is working on solving the issues with the closeoff of the access and providing the parking onsite because that is where they would prefer it. Com. Rase: • The relationship between the church, center and parking; does the center want the church to use it as pazking, or is it a controlled access; does it interfere with the parking already going on at the center? 14-7 Cupertino Planning Commission March 11, 2008 Steve Piasecid: • Said it did not interfere. The church peak usage time is offsetting, usually on Sunday morning when the center is not at its peak demand. There is an agreement between the church and the center far sharing. _ • Said there will be stairs to access the second floor. Staff is suggesting that the center look at a secondary set of stairs, and perhaps an elevator. Com. Rose: • Relative to the improvement along the sidewalks of Wolfe and Homestead, she asked if there was an arborist involved in the process to improve how the trees can survive with the sidewalks by reducing roots and changing the system. Gary Chao: • . Said the city arborist would be involved; if the project is approved prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant would submit a sidewalk reconstruction plan along with the landscape plan to detail how it will work out. The arborist would have to review and approve it, and during the construction process he would go out and see that it is done properly and provide a letter of confirmation that everything is in good standing after the fact. Com. Giefer: • Asked how the sheltered left tum was different than the left turn ~ lane currently on Homestead. Why do they need the driveway on Wolfe; why not just close that off and have more parking spaces? - Gary Chao: • Referred to a diagram, and gave an example of a sheltered left on Stevens Creek Boulevard mid block between Torre and DeAnza Boulevard. Steve Piasecld: • Said the rule of thumb with traffic is more is better, if there are more options to get into a location, there will be less impact on any of the remaining options. Com. Kaneda: • Staff mentioned there were many problems with the existing facility and the implication is that this application is a tool that could be used to improve the situation by tying things to its approval. Are there no other ways that some of these problems can be addressed other than using this application to hold the applicant as hostage? Steve Piasecld: • Said they could go after the shopping center when there are trash problems, such as rodents and odors. They can use the Health Department and Code Enforcement, which has been having numerous discussions with them about that issue. He said they could not necessarily require them to put in trash compactors; but they can cite them when problems occur. He said it was not a very effective tool, and he would like to see strong structural enhancements to a center; things that actually work, as opposed to just using enforcement. Com. Kaneda: • There was discussion about using different transportation techniques to try to reduce parking requirements; and then tying that into a review later on to see if it is working. If a one year review reveals that it is not working, what can be done. 14-8 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 11, 2008 Steve Piaseckd: - • Said the likely scenario is to restrict them to retail uses until they could demonstrate that the restaurant uses could work. That also is a heavy hammer.; the applicant is investing a lot of money to build the buildings and would Like the flexibility to respond to the marketplace to occupy those buildings. Other backup options would be to say that it doesn't work; they must put in urban lifts and guarantee that with a deposit to the city to ensure they put in the urban lifts. Urban lifts provide a second level, lifted parking deck, and can provide 25 - spaces. - Said they bring up the idea of transportation demand management because it is a good green thing to do; people need to get out of their cars. Similar centers with a concentration of employees should have the incentive to take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle; it is something strongly encouraged and they should be advocating, but there are backup options short of going to the land use controls. Com. Kaneda: Staff mentioned that the parking wall will act as an acoustical buffer; is there some kind of solid feature to it that will stop sound, or are you counting on the plantings to stop sound. Gary Chao: • It belongs in its own properties with attenuated sound and that is based on the noise consultant's recommendation; so either through thickness, type of concrete, or the material, anal the fact that there shall be no openings, even though it looks like there are some openings in terms of this decoration on the outside, it is actually a solid concrete wall. Com. Kaneda: • Said that much of what they are doing along the westirm edge is implying that it is separating neighborhood from the shopping center, which normally you don't want to do because things should be walkable.- He said he agreed, and with alI the talk about how they are going to increase the parking and do these things, the implication is that nobody really expects the problem to go away; and therefore the physical separation still needs to be created. • If the parking problem was actually fixed, we wouldn't have to put these separations in because there would be adequate parking on site. Steve PiasecId: • Said they would have to go a long way to achieve that objective. If they still have porous openings into the neighborhood and have enough parking, because you have to build in a greater percentage of parking so maybe you are utilizing it at 85% or 90%; when you get up to the 95 % range, you want to make it so difficult to park in the neighborhood that you chose to look for that 5% space that you can find. While we prefer to have porous openings and connect residehaes with nearby shopping, it is probably best to just close the entire thing off and make it so difficult that people will seek that last space. • The applicant addressed adding another level of parking at the November meeting and said it was prolnbitively expensive; and it poses a bigger structure that the residents are looking at. It is not necessarily a good option. Chair Milker: • Asked how many spaces could be gained at he bank building. 14-9 ~pertixio Planning commission 7 'March 11, 2008 Gary Chao: • The bank building is one portion of the shopping center that has not been efficiently used in terms of parking; there is a lot of opportunity along that strip of landscaping, potentially it could be modified to gain enough width for parallel parking or diagonal parking along the entrance drive off Pruneridge. If the bank drive thru was eliminated, it would have potential for some extra parking stalls in that area. • Were other-areas of the shopping center considered for the garage or is this the only location. That could also be another potential location. Steve Piasecid: • Discussed other potential areas for parking; modifying the street; and said it would not impede ingress or egress in any way. The applicant can address that issue; with Ranch 99 not wanting to have a structure in front of them, blocking their visibility to public streets. Brian Reptinger, Kfmco Realty Corp., Applicant: • Said since they purchased the property two years ago, they have tried to be a good neighbor. In going through the planning process, they tried to address that and sincerely listened to the concerns which have been access from Liffiet Lane and the parking on the site. • Parking is difficult to find, but it is the result of being a successful center. They have gone through every iteration of trying to find every conceivable parking space onsite and believe that the best way to do this is to find physical parking spaces. It is the easiest to quantify and best way to manage it. • As staff pointed out the last place they have to look far surface parking is down at the banlq they have done some preliminary studies and without the parallel parking, they can get 18 to 20 spaces which would get them to the 855 spaces. That is contingent upon the bank having approval rights on what they can do with the drive thru facility there and that is where those spaces would be picked up. They are negotiating with the bank to see if that is feasible. If not, they will have to consider some other measures discussed, and still look at employee traffic management in the future. They feel it is the right thing to do, and the garage is an area to designate for employees parking which from their standpoint is enforceable. • In the past six months, the operational people have realized that trash and operational issues have been a problem and it has been ramped up through frequency of collection, enforcement of lime and hiring an outside trash. management firm that has implemented. a program They are also looking into enrolling in the Cupertino pilot recycling composting program • Said they were cognizant of the operational issues and are looking to improve them. It is an ongoing issue; is something that needs to be done and is being done regardless of this project. . Com. Giefer: • Referring to the site plan, when you first began planning out the project and decided to add structured parking, did you consider any other areas on site for the parking structure besides along the Linnet Lane wall? • Said the applicant was proposing different things; one is the structure that is adjacent to Linnet Lane and the three different new buildings. Asked if they looked at doing a retail structure with parking above it did they analyze any of those other alternatives and consider the financial return on that? • What about looking at adding additional underground parking under the parking garage? 14 - 10 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 11, 2008 Brian Replinger: Said it was driven by two perspectives; you want the usable space, the retail space more visible to the road; that is architecturally more pleasing, and draws people into the center. • They would not be able to put a parking garage on Ranch 99 for instance; it couldn't be done by the' lease there; but even if that was not an issue, putting a parking structure there at a major intersection is normally not something that people want to do. Parking structures by their functionality and use typically would be at the back of a center and not front and center. • The project has gone through many different components, and the first layout seemed to make the most sense and ma>~mi~e usage for the site.. • Underground parking is cost and time prohibitive; there are many utilities that run through there that would literally take yeazs to get through PG&E if they had to move those. Comp Kaneda: • Asked if any parking mitigation efforts were instigated to reduce the current parking problem. Brian Replinger: • Said they inherited most of the leases when they purchased the property, and are bound to things they can do to those leases, and some of those say the tenant can park on the site, so they have to Iive with those. • Said they were exploring opportunities with their operations people to see how they can implement these things as leases come up for renewal or expire. It is rather difficult to grandfather now, but they are looking at what they can do to improve it in the future. • Both studies were by the city's parking consultant. Chair Miller: • Said it appeared circulation would be even more challenging than it is today; and asked if it was a concern for them on the site itself or not. Brian Repliuger: _ • Said their engineer's independent traffic study indicated that the flow has improved because it becomes more circular in this one than it is now. They took a group of the triangular islands that chop up circulation out and the perimeter circulation becomes more efficient. Presently it winds around the back of Ranch 99; it has been straightened up and is an improvement.: Chair Miller: • Said he was there today and because it was so challenging to make a left fain onto Homestead, he gave up and made a right turn. He asked if they felt the sheltered Ieft tarn would really work and how effective it would be. Brian Replinger: • He said they are working with Public Works Dept. on offsite improvements: He said personally he was not in favor of making Ieft hand turns onto roads as heavily traveled as Homestead and would defer to Public Works. Steve Piasecki: • You would probably also want to require that they put a cross hatch area and no blocking so that if you are trying to negotiate that during the high.volume hours, people don't end up blocking your ability to get into the protective Left. 14 - 11 Cupertino Planning Commission $ ~ March 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 2. M-2007-O1 ~ Six-month review of a Modification to a Use Permit Masayoshi I~'ujioka (20-U-99} to extend the hours of operation of an existing Kikusnshi Restaurant restaurant to 9:30 p.m (with patrons/employees leaving by 1655 So. DeAnza Blvd 11:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday and 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday (with patrons/employees leaving by 1:00 a.m.) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report: • Explained that the application was for asix-month review of the previous modification to a Use Permit since they were allowed an extension of hours over the original Use Permit. if the Planning Commission agrees to allow the use, the hours will continue. At the time the hours were extended, the neighbors presented some concerns related to the heating/air conditioning system, parking lot lighting and some of the issues they had with the previous tenant who had created some problems with them partly because they had an entertaining use. When the hours were extended the restaurant owner explained that there was no entertainment in the restaurant. The Planning Commission added some conditions to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors about keeping doors closed, looking into the lighting and ventilation systems. She reported that they have not received any complaints about the current operation, • A concern about the parking lot sweeping was mitigated by changing the time of sweeping to later in the morning. The light poles were installed previously without a building permit;. staff would like it clarified as a condition of the Use Permit continuing that the lighting has to be changed to conform to the original Use Permit so that the glare does not go onto the residential neighborhood. The noise complaint regarding the heating/ventilation system was investigated and it was found to conform to the noise ordinance. • The restaurant is complying with the parking regulations related to not parking in the kot after 8 p.m. which is adjacent to the residences. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the continuation of the modification and condition it on the lighting standards conforming to the original Use Permit. Scott Halm, Manager of Kikusashi Restaurant, Applicant: Said he discussed the lighting. situation with the property owner. He clarified that the lighting poles were raised about 9 years-ago and are in conjunction with the entire shopping center and are tuned to go on at a certain time. There are different kights on the restaurant that face Prospect Road that can be turned off and on manually by the restaurant. They are the brighter of the lights and are shut aff when the restaurant closes. He said he informed the property -owner that the neighbors had complained about the lighting system. Ciddy Wordell: • Said that it was the city's responsibility to follow up with the property owner, not the applicant. Staff will follow up with the property owner to have them conform MotioB: Nation by Cam. Giefer,.second by Cam. Kaneda, to approve Appliccation M-2007-01. (Nate: 5-(}-0}. 14 - 12 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 ~. March 25, 2008 Motion; Motion by Com. Giefer, to modify ASA-2047-l0, U-2047-46, the clauses in both that pertain to parking, which is No. !7 in both; with added language that specifies how they might improve their parking; after the first sentence add "through vale# parlang or offsite parking; urban lifts will require additional review by tine Planning Commission to achieve their total count." Com. Kaneda: • Said he did not want to tie it down to two specific items; if there is a problem with urban lifts, say put a condition on urban Iifls, but hesitate to say that it has to be valet parking or offsite in case they decide they can find a couple of places by restriping in some other place that we haven't discovered yet, or change around the landscaping and do something that will create . additional spaces, and then we put a condition on that there are only certain ways that they are allowed to find spacing. I would look to the architect and designer to get creative and figure out how to solve the problem, and put the condition on them to solve the problem. Steve ]Piasecti: • Suggested the language "parking capacity" instead of parking spaces, because if they do a valet system, then it relieves the capacity to park the vehicles and doesn't have to physically be a space. You could say "including but not limited to" the three identified. Com. Giefer: • Said she would withdraw her motion, but thought staff wanted specific remedies added to that. Steve Piasecki: • I would stay with the remedies that you suggested., just that in case they come up with something else, I don't know what that would be. Chair A~Iiller: • I agree with Com. Kaneda, ~we want to Leave it fle~nble so that they can get creative. However, Com. Giefer's comments bring up another question.. When I go through a notice, all the items that are conung back, and they are all coming bask to the DRC, the question in my mind is that so many things are going to be reviewed again, that does it make more sense to bring it directly to the Planning Commission. Com. Rose: • It is a public issue and it might be good to have the resolution in a public forum that people will see. Com. Giefer: • Withdrew original motion, and suggested the foIlowiag: Motion by Com. Giefer, to amend language Under parting supply: "the total percent of increase in the proposed parking capacity shall equal or be greater than the proposed percen# of increase in building square. footage; including such options as valet parking, or offsite or other dense .types of parting, to meet the parking demand." She said she was not particular where it goes unless urban lifts are part of it; it is a new way for t~s to solve a parking problem ghat we should all be more educated on. .Second by Com. Kaneda. (Vote: 4-0-l; Com. Brophy abstained~.._ •.~ •.~ - .. °~ .> ~.. .~ 14-13 Cupertino Planning Commission b ~ ~ March 25; 2008 we need to be certain we don't look back and compromise any of those numbers or decisions we previously-made. As options, the offsite parking was the least feasible; the lift had same requirements with supervision; and it appeared the valet service would be the best option to mitigate the parking issue. Com. Kaneda: • Relative to the parking issue, he said he was not inclined to relax the parking requirements; if anything, they should be stricter. He recommended that the owner decide the best way to provide the parking, whether by valet parking or lifts. Fie said he felt offsite parking would be problematic. Com. Giefer: - • Said that the issue is where to get the extra 15 parking spaces. She said the way Cupertino Village could make peace with its neighbors is to have as much onsite parking as possible and free up Linnet Lane and the adjacent neighborhood streets. She said she was not in favor of decreasing the total amount of spaces required for the project; she was flexible on how they provide the parking spaces. The applicant has a preference for valet parking which is not a permanent 'structural solution. The church also had concerns about anchoring the urban lifts in the space adjacent to their preschool area because of the noise they create. She concurred that they need to keep the parking in place and allow the applicant to solve that by providing valet parking which is more flexible, and they would be 'able to work with that through the peaks and valleys of their patronage. Said she felt comfortable about the noise attenuation, but felt the applicant needs to consider the adjacent neighbors; perhaps they should reconsider the valet employees vs. patrons; how that parking structure is used, but F think through usage they can come to some agreement on that. • The other issue was the mitigation of the toxicity. The ~DTSC is in charge and if there was a problem, they would be addressing it with the Commission. • Said she would support modifying Condition No. 17 regarding parking supply, and adding verbiage that they must meet through devices such as valet parking, urban lifts or offsite parking. ~ - Com. Brophy: • Said that he would abstain on the final vote as he was not on the Planning Commission during discussion of the application. • He said he felt an arrangement with the bank for offsite parking would be the most .feasible means to get overIlow parking to relieve the pressure on the adjacent neighborhood and make the center work better. He said he was concerned about using the top of a parking deck for employee parking because of the noise created in the neighborhood when they leave the facility at the end of their work day. • Cupertino Village is a busy center and it is important that any solution agreed upon make sure we feel comfortable there is enough parking, not only for the adjoining neighborhood but also for the existing tenants. Chair Miller: • We want to ensure there is sufficient parking there,.but I have no objection to you addressing that in any way that makes sense, whether the solutions we discussed, offsite parking or valet . parking or lifts. ~ ~ . 14 - 14 Cupertino Planning Commission Mardi 25, 2008 hazardous material response costs and damage claims. You are about ready to approve a project and there may be environmental questions of which no environmental report was given to the public, even though it was asked by the public for the report and the public still does not know how that is going to affect their health. The second concern is there is talk about making the second story of the parking structure valet parking or for the employees. Please consider the neighbors when deciding that because .late at night when the employees fmish work, there will be a lot of noise and the parking structure is open. At the present time there are Loud stereo base noises that comes from the pazking lot at 10:30 to 11:00 p.m.; with a parking structure far employees it may increase the noise in the neighborhood. May Huong, Cupertino resident: • Said many in the neighborhood asked her to pass on the message that they were disappointed that the petition was recommended, but they had to accept it with no choice. • Asked that the Commission make sure the ratio between the retail and parking is kept up; .the neighborhood is already taking in the overflow cars; if you keep the same ratio, it would not improve. ~ The neighborhood requests that.the parking be monitored. Said that many center patrons park on the street without checking the parking garage to see if it is full first. They presume there are no parking spaces available and park on the street. ~ Relative to the ground contamination, the parking lot is only a fe~v feet from the previous dry cleaner facility. Digging up the space to build the garage is close to the church and the residents. Clean up the area first before digging, so that the patrons of the center, . neighborhood residents and children at.the preschool are not put in danger. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: • Confirmed that the Department of Tonic Substance Control (DTSC) is in the process. of evaluating and investigating any ground and water contamination at the former Cupertino Village dry cleaner site. Staff has met with DTSC and the property owner will have to satisfy whatever conclusion the DTSC reaches as a result of their investigation, regardless of the proposed project or not. It is disclosed in the CEQA document which 'is part of the staff report, and is available to the public. He said that the contaminated area will not be stirred up with the new construction.. During its investigafian, the DTSC were not concerned about the proximity of the garage.to the contaminated area. ~ Relative to the question about employee parking on the second level, whether it would create noise and light intrusion into the neighborhood; the new conditions directed by the Commission to staff at the Iast meeting related to the noise attenuation being implemerited, so any noise will be buffered down to an acceptable IeveI and reviewed by a noise consultant prior to issuing the building permtt~ Staff is satisfied that the noise buffering function will be implemented.. The applicant hired a lighting engineer to ensure that the fixtures proposed would be cast downward and none of the casts of light will be on the property; As there are only one aisle and two rows of parking, the opportunity for the caz lights to be cast over are minimal. Corn. Rose: ' • When we talked about this before, it was clear based. on personal experience of that shopping area and visits to the site, as weII as comments from the community and commissioners, that parking is already a huge problem. Recommendations were carefully made to ensure that the minimum parking requirements would be met. In moving forward ar re-exp. ;Wing ~ today, 14 - 15 Cupertino Plamiing Commission 4 March 25, 2008 Chair Miller opening the public comment period. David Chapman, President of Trustee, Good Samaritan United Methodist Church read a letter to the Planning Commissian into the record: - - • "Subject: In response to the request to expand the Cupertino Village Shopping.Center in the three plans. The Good Samaritan United Methodist Church approves the expansion of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center; the church has a parking agreement with the Cupertino Village owner Kimco. Kimco has stated that they will honor that parking agreement; the church has requested a modification of the play yard wall and the position of the access gate into that parking area behind Ranch 99 building. These requested modifications have been . incorporated into the City of Cupertino Plamling Department conditional use and consent item statement. Given that the above items will be observed, the church has no' objection to the ' expansion of Cupertino Village as documented, and m fact, enthusiasticaAy supports it. The church believes this project will be a win/win situation for Kimco, the church, the residential neighbors and the patrons of Cupertino Village. We appreciate the City of Cupertino's efforts to ensure that all parties reasonable needs are achieved." (Signed by Davi-d Chapman) . Chair Miner: e Said that much of the discussion centered on the peak time for parking. Does that coincide with church activities pn a regular basis? Do you lmow how many spaces the church takes up on a regular basis inside the shopping center on a Saturday afternoon? David Chapman: • Said that church activities vary on Saturdays depending on the event. They have not had problems in the past with finding sufficient parking spaces on church property plus the additional parking per the agreement with Cupertizao Village. Said that the usage depends on the size of the activity on the Saturday a$ernoon, such as wedding, funeral or whether it is just a shopping day. Mohan Raj, Member of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church: • Said he supports the project. • He reiterated the need for the 8 foot wall by the, school yard. • Said the church is active in the comm~iniiy with a variety of offerings as' well as religious services and activities. Dean Fujiwara, Cupertino resident: • Said there was soil contamination at the shopping center, specifically by the old dry cleaner facility. The Department of Toxic Substance Control has communicated with Planning staff; there was a work notice done on February 25, 2008 and according to an email I sent to the agency, DTSC, they referred me back to Gary Chao and Steve Piasecki stating that they sent the information to them. This means that the public does not have any information about the toxic substance or the cleanup action or health hazard because we don't know what the contaminant does to humans and according to some of my Internet research, it says that PCE could cause cancer or may not. Asa neighbor residing across the street, having concern for the day care children next to it and concern with the customers of the shopping center if the contamination is in the soil. The construction may stir up the contamination and we the public would like to know how it is going to affect us; whether or not you are going to guarantee that we will be safe; because ICimco Realty and the DTSC came into agreement that says entry into this agreement provides Cupertino Village LLP with immunity from liability far certain 14 - 16 Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 3 March 25, 2408 them before that if it is possible to do, they would maintain the status quo allowing them to park in the Iot; and if it is something they have to address further, they would discuss it with the church. Said they would like to keep the offsite parking option open to consider the-way it is now worded they would be required to keep it onsite. The preference would be to keep it onsite since that is what they would have the greatest control over for the longest period of time. Chair Miller: ~• Asked staff if this is the kind of change that fits in with the requirements of what can be discussed tonight. Gary Chao: • Said the Commission was clear Iast time that they specified that the total percent of increase of parking supply shall equal to or greater than the increase of square footage, but it wasn't specified as to how that could be accomplished. Based on staffs interpretation of that condition, if we were to stop right there, lifts would be an option to accommodate. During the discussion you had also discussed with the applicant about restriping or reconfiguring the paroel, I think a number was assigned to that based on the project's architect, alk~those were considered and it could go towards staff s. finding that the intent which is to match the increase of square footage. With that in mind, it would be your interpretation if you want to further specify how they can achieve thaty in our opinion has to be measurable meaning if you allow them to use dome PDM, i.e., valet parking, that is probably more measurable because you could literally count how many employees or customers are being valet gazked to a certain area ofl=site those are measurable. It could be further clarified if the desire is to include languages to direct them how they could achieve that 2fl% or match the increase of square footage. Liddy Wordell, City Planner: • Said if they could interpret it as increasing stalls in some way, either through valet parking, lifts or offsite, if they could make that connection, they were in sound area. Com. Giefer: • In the model resolution parking 5 point No. 17, it does actually speak specifically about stalls on that one, As an example if we were to add after we hear the public testimony and the rest flf the testimony, whatever we felt was appropriate, such as valet parking or offsite parking, would that type of language be appropriate, Gary Chao: - • As long as they are measurable; those are the key. You can translate them into some type of stall equivalency or some sta1I discount to make the formula work. Com. Rose: • How much square footage would they need to reduce to not have to do the 22 stalls. (Alirwer.- Numbers are not ai~ailable at the meeting Is it an impact on the project or would it make the problem go away if they cut the square footage that is causing the 22 stalls to be required. Gary Chao: • Said it is more complicated because they have various options of slashing square feet; they could take it from the office, from retail, or from the restaurant, and the combination of everything, It depends; it could eliminate the need for the stalls; that was part of the discussion last fime as an option. 14 -17 Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 2 March 25, 2008• Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Said that the intent of bringing the item back on Consent Calendar was for the Planning Commission to review all the conditions directed by the Planning Commission at the March " 11°i Planning Commission meeting. • The scope of the meeting should be limited to the Planning Commission's deliberation at the March 11~' meeting. He clarified that changes, modifications and clarifications may be made to the conditions, but no new conditions can be added. Brian Replinger, Kimco Realty, Applicant: • Commented on Item 8 regarding the total parking count of the issues on the agenda. Said they got to the point where they could provide 835 spaces onsite are in discussions with the bank now providing 20 or more at the bank property, for a total of 855. The way the conditions reads is that the parking would be increased at the wine percentage as the square footage is approved, so if there is a 22% increase in square footage, parking would be increased by 22%. fur concern is having to provide that onsite; we can get to 855 onsite, but getting the. additional 15 to 20 onsite would be problematic and we would like to see if those could be met through an agreed upon parking traffic demand measures if in fact the study referenced later down the road, showed that those spaces would.be required. Corn, Brophy: • Asked if it meant applicant was proposing that they would not be increasing onsite parking to the same percent as the increase in mall space. Brian Replinger: • Said the only way to get the onsite parking increased to the $70, if in fact that is the number, is to provide urban type lifts for a portXon of the parking. It becomes problematic far a center that does not have full time onsite management, but it is an ,option they are still willing to pursue, but would like to be able to look. at that along with other options. Com. Giefer: • If you implemented a parking management plan that included valet parking and used the structure for valet parking, would you be able to put more cars than that and make up that deficit of 15 to 20 cars. Brian Replinger: • Said it was a gossibility, and we have talked internally about doing that for employees also. Again, you could park the top south of the garage in a very dense urban parking type field to get the cars in and increase the capacity. That is an option internally that is looking favorable. Valet parking would be the preference during the heavy hours. ' . Chair Miller: ~' • Said he was surprised to learn at the last meeting that the church held activities on the center's busiest day on ~ Saturday afteznoon. Do you have any sense on an ongoing basis, how' many parking spaces the church goers take up on the busy days, and whether or not it is possible to adjust the hours they do.business so that the peaks do not coincide. Brian Reglinger: • Said the two traffic studies done did look at the property on Saturday during the high use period, and that was the time they found the Iot parked at full capacity. It was not identified how many were church goers. They have not talked to the church about any specifics, but told 14 - 18 CTI'Y OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION - DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MARCH 25, 2008 T[JES CUPERTINO COMMU2~ITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 2008, was called to in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Calif ~ Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Ma Miller Staffpresent: Community Dev pment Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell . Senior Pl Gary Chao Vice Chairperson: a Giefer Commissioner: auI Brophy Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Jessica Rose at 6:45 p.m. Chairperson Chairperson Miller welcomed w Planning Commissioner Paul Brophy to the Plarming CammISSIOn. He expressed a reciation and congratulations to Ciddy Wordell who is retiring effective March 31, 2008, twill continue to work on the Green Building Sustainability Program. - None None None None Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to remove Application U-2007-06, ASA-2007-I0, (EA-2007-08) from the Consent Calendar far discussion. (Vote: 5-0-0) 1. U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10, (EA-2007-08) Brian Replinger (G~pertino Vdiage) Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. Review of conditions to Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and atwo-level parking structure, Te~ztative City Council date:.4pri11, 2008 14-19 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 March 11, 2008 Amendment Com. Giefer added that the language relating to the to Motion: additfonal features and conditions to the Use Permft and ASA come back to the Plannfng Commission as a Consent Calendar item at the next meeting. Com. Kaneda, as second to the motion, accepted the amendment. (Vote: 4-0-0,) Steve Piasecki: • Noted that the added conditions will come back to the Planning Commission on March 25 and the item be scheduled for the City Council meeting of .April 1 ~, None None • Com. Miller reported that only item Housing Commission: Meeting on report. ' was the Cupertino ViIIage application. ~, March 13, 2008. No meeting No Meeting. The meeting was adjourned, to the next reE meeting scheduled for March 25, 2008 at 6:45 Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary No additional Planning Commission 14 - 21 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 March 1 I, 2008 Conn. Giefer: • The motioner adds a one year period that this be brought back to the Planning Commission to report an the success of the parking mitigating recommendations and further parking actions will be taken at that time if necessary. Steve Piasecki: • Said it would be helpful to include additional parking demand management and/or urban lifts, and valets services; which would spell out the parameters and the applicant understands. Com. Giefer accepted the language; Com. Kaneda accepted the amendments. Chair Miller: • When we bring them back, one of the things I mentioned before is, the church is contributing to the parking issue, so suppose they come back and the parking issues are a result in the increase of the size of the church congregation. Com. Giefer: . • That is a valid point, and at that point I would like to hear hack from the church i.f their membership has doubled because that would make a difference to us, i think we can look at the status they gave us today of their membership and we can extrapolate that they come back and say they now have a 750 person congregation and everybody parks there. Then we know it is not just the patrons. 6teve Piasecki: • .Said that it is not uncommon with churches, popular downtowns, and schools, it is not something that they could necessarily remedy. At some point, if the church becomes more popular, they may want to seek another location where they can park their parishioners because it is an extremely small lot and it has impacts. Com. Giefer: • Clarified her motion: said minimally a second stairway be added which is the staff recommendation and/or an elevator if necessary to make it ADA compliant. Chair Miller: Next thing was:suggestion of rain chains. Steve Piasecld: • Explained the device and said to simply state rain chains or comparable device to direct the water flow. Com. Rose: No further comments. Com. Giefer: • Said she supported staff's recommendation to add minimally a second stairwell coming down from the structure because it is a long structure andit is for the ease of the people who are using it. Regardless of the ADA requirements, it is a practical recommendation that staff is making. • Said the condition relating to the pedestrian pathways being permeable was for the new ones being added. They are also asking for an interior landscape plan and if they chose to come back with pathways as part of that and patios, they should be permeable or semi permeable. 14-22 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 March 11, 2008 Chair Miller: • • Said they do not know how many spaces they are ultimately going to need; the question is what number do you start at. He said a professional consultant was hired to come up with a best guess, and he was comfortable with thafi. Com. Kameda: • Expressed concern that previously a different consultant made the absurd statement that the parking lot was 100% full, therefore it was right sized. Because he knew how impacted the parking lot is, he said his inclination is to choose the conservative side with the parking, Gary Chao: • Said it would lie 22% additional spaces which is what the square footage is projected to be. If the parking supply is increased by 22%, the new parking demand number is 870 stalls as opposed to 865. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Applications U-2007-06 and ASA-2007-10 with the following additional conditions: o Adding Point No. 2 on Page 1.6 of the staff report, which is "provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan, such plan shall be permanent and demonstrateable and be Linked to the Ieasing strategy.." o Establish a hotline for complaints and violations of any of.the points of the condztional approval; the adjacent• neighborhood would be able to call the construction management and report violations~for immediate address; . o Establish a sign program for Linnet Lane similar fo the one at VaIIey Fair that says ft is a residential parking and should not be used for Cupertino Village. The sign program should be reviewed and approved by the City of Sunnyvale; o Pedestrian pathways throughout the center be made of a permeable or semi-permeable surface and of a different color than the other paving materials to ensure that they are highlighted for pedestrians; o Add recycle bins paired throughout the interior of the center or near all stares where there are also trash receptacles; ~ • o The parking garage will also be a sound wall whfch goes up and meets the shed roof to • ensure reduction of noise and glare; o A final landscape plan be remanded to the DRC to ensure that swales and rainwater collection is included as part of the landscaping plan in the interior and throughout the site; o In the spirit of having bioswales throughout the parking center, altfiough there is no space fox them; o The runoff from the roofs be captured in the rain gardens through rain chains or other such devices to keep the water in the center; o The parking structure either Include minimally a second set of stairs and that it must be ADA compliant and staff will determine what the necessity is of that; o The Left hand turn onto Homestead Road from the Homestead driveway be eliminated; o The fence between the center and the church play yard area be an 8 foot reinforced masonry waIl; o The location of the common gate .between the church property and Cupertino Village be located in a mutnaIly.agreeable position between the church and Cupertino Village. Com. Kaneda presented a friendly amendment to the motion: The access to the church is a friendly amendment to make it contraIIed access, so its lockable when its not in use, Com. Giefer accepted friendly amendment 14-23 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 March 11, 2008 value on the fact that they had a study done by professionals who have given the indication that that is what it is; and possibly some of the reasons it doesn't necessarily have to be a one-to-one ratio has to do with the mix of what is going on in the center. He saw that it is only 26% restaurant, and 71% office, which tends to shift the required parking to a lower level. He said he stood in the minority on that one; but be felt that 855 is a reasonable number to start with, since he felt they have to have a further control on this and he liked staff's idea of reviewing and doing another traffic study after the center is 50% after a year or the center is 50% leased.. He said he was hopeful based on what the applicant said tonight about additional parking, even more than 20 spaces nught be picked up at the bank building. If not, then they have other mitigations including modifying programs that modify employee behavior, and the lifts. Doug Fisher: • Said their current design has provided more disabled parking stalls that are required by code on the site itself. He said they could provide disabled parking stalls underneath, but he did not understand the philosophy of providing them above, where there is equal facilitation. Putting all the .disabled parking stalls as close as possible to the building is adding more than required. Why would you want to put disabled parking stalls on top of the parking garage; _ that would be more travel distance for a disabled person to get to the center. He said this has been done before in other centers. Com,, Giefer: • Said she had a concern, that even though they are supplying more handicapped parking spaces, those are usually the ones that are full. There are times when every handicapped space is filled. . Steve Piasecld: • A condition could be applied stating it would have to meet the ADA codes for accessibility and available parking. Com. Rose: • Said she was not comfortable with the left turn onto Homestead. It does not feel like a safe intersection; it is a challenging turn to make across a four lane road. Steve Piasecki: • Said several Commissioners have raised a concern about that; they may be in a position to .tentatively recommend approval subject to certain conditions coming back for their approval. The traffic engineer can also come back and directly address the question. The Plauuring Commission could sculpt whatever condition they want. Chair Miller: • Said he suupported the idea of a complaint management program, the recycling receptacles, and having identifiable crosswalks. Cam. Giefer: • The issue for me is as Com. Kaneda pointed out, I think once the building is built, and SO% rented out, at that point we are doing a disservice to the property owner to say you have to stop now, you aren't in compliance with parking. You can keep those buildings closed. I would rather go in anticipating their success and they are going to need those spaces. 14-24 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 March 11, 2008 headway and we are now trying to narrow down the areas of concern. • Said she found the church presentation on parking very interesting, which emphasized that parking is mare of a concern than she originally thought when reading the staff repork It appears there is even more access and more use both on Linnet and in the shopping center itself by church patrons and they should not underestimate or assume that the parking issues aze easily mitigated. She said she realized that the issue is •quite big and needs to be looked at carefully. At the .very least there should be an equal ratio between square footage and parking or a ratio that is in favor of additional parking, based an that and especially with respect to the Linnet residents wanting people not to park on their street. ' • Relative to the parking garage, ~ she said the proposed garage is well designed; the landscaping is going to ~be a huge improvement to what is currently there, and she is pleased to hear that the walls have the potential to lessen the noise and the lighting that is currently being experienced as a resident of the adjoining streets. She feels that the outcome will be one that people will be pleased with. •, Said she appreciated the introduotion of the bioswale; it was suggested at the Last meeting and it is really important. Com. Giefer's suggestion of having the rain gardens within the parking-lot is great. Again, in the parking lot, I do think it is a very busy parking lot, just to look at as well as to be in, and T think distinguishing between walkways with some type of colored file or flooring would be helpful and keep it a safe area for people to walk. • Relative to the church, she supports the 8 foot wall -around the children's play area; she questions that the gate location by the parking garage won't be encouraging people to park on Linnet, but if that is what the church is interested in, it is worth a try. • She encouraged Sunnyvale residents to cansidei a parking permit system. She said it was successfuk in her neighborhood.at deterring non-residents from pazking in the neighborhood. • Said they should not underestimate the impact of the parking issue; which already is a problem. C`ha.ir Miller: • Said he felt that the remainder of the Commission would be inclined. to go ahead assuming that the parking and some of the other issues have been addressed. He said he felt the same way. ~ • • Where two different uses or di$'erent zonings meet, it is always an issue. It is especially an issue when we have a residential neighborhood right next to a very successful shopping center. It is nflt acceptable that either one wins and one loses; it has to be a win/win .situation. I think we have the makings of a win/win situation here. Specifically now if the applicant is not allowed to move forward, then the current conditions will continue to go on. We have no control. People said there is trash in their neighborhood, there are odors, there is noise, parking issues; all that will continue. ~n the other hand, if we allow the applicant to go ahead and do his development, then we will gain control over those issues and mitigate a lot of them for you and I hope it will improve the neighborhood at the same time that the applicant gets to do his development which he has property rights and a right to do as well; and that as best we can, we make it work and everybody gets a little bit but nobody is completely satisfied which is the basis for a compromise. Relative to the key issue of parking, it was pointed out that there is peak parking on Saturday afternoon, and the church is a major contributor to that peak parking; but the solution has fallen completely on the shopping center and not on the church, which is not a fair assumption. The ordinance says if we had just gone by the ordinance, all they would have been required to provide would be 720 spaces; however, a traffic study w.as done and it suggested that 720 was. not nearly adequate and it needed to be 855. He said he may disagree with his colleagues on it needing to be aone-for-one ratio in terms of increase, and he may put more • 14-25 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 March 11, 2008 clearly states they don't want you to park there. She felt it was a good Iow cost idea and is something that Cupertino Village management could set up and control and make sure people understand it is a residential neighborhood, and not overflow parking for Cupertino Village. Also, from comments from various people, closing the entry points into Cupertino Village from the adjacent neighborhood would make it more difficult for people to enter through as it is a considerable walk. As a customer; it will discourage people from parking in the neighborhood. - • The parking ordinance clearly. states that when you restripe the parking lot, you need to have bioswales throughout the parking lot In this case, we are not seeing that; we are only seeing it along the proposed parking structure on the Linnet side of the wall. The applicant is trying to meet the intent of what we want to do with swales with their rain gardens; but I would Iike to see if this project does move forward a few enhancements to the project to keep more of the rain water on the site to help us with water not going into the storm water system • She suggested opening up the rain gardens to also capture rainfall, using rain chains, bringing them out from the building and have the rain chains drain water and drain into the rain gardens because it will. help capture the rainwater from the roofs into these catch basins they have designed as part of their landscaping. • The traffic study also recommends that we have specific pedestrian paths and we differentiate them as part Qf the parking Iot, and I would like all of those to be either a permeable or a semi permeable surface. If it were pavers then people would know where it - was safe foz them to navigate the crosswalks and it is also a visual clue to the drivers. We heard many concerns from the neighborhood about safety and we want this to be a safe center and improve the traffic flow in it I would add that as a condition that the ped paths become permeable or semi permeable surfaces; that we improve the function of the rain gardens to also serve as a catch basin for rain water. ~ I noted in the staffreport that on the interior of the center, there are some improvements, but I axrt not sure what they are; they show a trash receptacle but they don't show a recycling receptacle. To be consistent with our city policy that wherever you have a trash receptacle, you also have a recycling receptacle and it is clearly spelled put what goes in that • She recommended if the application moved forward, that a final landscape plan with the internal structure of the courtyards come to DRC. If there are bioswales included or catch basins included as part of the interior landscaping, it would help-because it would reduce the amount of spaces available. ~ - ~ If the parking structure moves forward, it does need to be ADA compliant; an elevator to the second floor would be necessary. She said she was unsure about the sheltered Left turn onto Homestead. There is potential conflict there that has always been a problem, She said she was in favor of eliminating the left turn onto Homestead. • The question is how do we feel about the parking ratio befaveen what is proposed today and the additional square footage. I agree with Com. Kaneda that it needs to be in balance; we need to either have the applicant conclude their negotiations with the bank and the additional parking spaces to meet this additional retail for the project to go forward, and if they were able to do that, I think a lot of good things come out of this. I think we would see improvement over noise and circulation between the center and Linnet Lane and I think that would be an enhancement for the neighborhood. Cam. Rase: • Conks. Kaneda and Criefer touched on several things, and I had the same observation as Com. Giefer in the meeting tonight listening to the comments. People were able to provide us with specific feedback and it allows us to find a compromise in inevitable and expected growth and improvement to business and retail in ozu' city as well as respecting the status of the surrounding neighborhoods. It is always a challenge but I think we have made some 14-26 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 Mazch 11, 2008 Said his sense with the garage is that lighting will not be a problem and if the garage is constructed of some type of solid wall such as a concrete black masonry wall, he would expect that the noise problems would be better than present and not worse. As stated previously, the garage could actually be a friend of the neighbors, which he saw in the current design.. All pedestrian access has been cut off which will help to control the problem of shoppers parking in the neighborhood. However, he still had concerns about the amount of parking for this development, Staff commented that it is now green to have just enough parking, but sf the parking is so tight that people are driving around and around Looking for a space, it is azguable that it is not green. The bottom line is that we are still stuck with this ratio, we are increasing the retail space 22% and increasing the parking less than 22% so I would imagine if you increase the retail space•a set percentage and the parking a set percentage, the problem will stay the same. • We are increasing the squaze footage of the shopping center 22% and increasing the amount of parking less than that; my thinking is that in fact we will make the problem worse, not better. Steve Piasecki: • Clarified that the Planning Commission had the option of conditionsng it so that they are • aqua] or make it greater, The delta between the two is so small, that the applicant can make it up one way or another. • Said streets were available to everyone for parking, and they could not guarantee no parking spillover. They can only have a significant disincentive anal that is what has been suggested; to make it too distant to lie. convenient for the employees or customers. Corn. Kaneda: • Said it would be acceptable to him to increase the parking some number greater from percentage standpoint than the square footage that is being proposed Corn. Giefer: • When they considered the Cupertino Square application and the four story parking structure abutting the residential in that area, they asked Cupertino Square to set up a construction management parking hotline for the adjacent neighbors. There was a point person at the company who would take the calls and take care of any nuisance issues right away. Was that program successful and was it used? • Asked if there were any specific complaints regazding the parking structure, Steve PiasecZa: • • Said it was successful. There was a similar program when they built the AMC theaters and they were working well into the night and both times it worked well. • Said there were no complaints regarding the parking structure since its construction. 'T'here were some concerns while under construction but none since completion. Corn. Giefer: - • Said that the complaints from the neighbors and the public testimony were actually different tonight than Last time the item eras heard. She said it is mare helpful when the people express specific issues rather than just a general opposition to the project. The property owner has rights as well as the residents who abut the project and the best thing the • Commission can do is try to make it a successful project for everybody both in CLlpertsna and in Sunnyvale, which is the goal of the Planning Commission. ~ Said that sn the.Valley Fair area where VaIIey Fair abuts the Santa Claza neighborhood, they put signs out that say No Parking for VaIley Fair at the opening to the neighborhood, and it 14-27 Cupertino Planning Commission I8 - March 11, 2008 Steve Piaseclu: • It came to the attention of the Code Enforcement Division and they have advised the applicant that cannot occur. This is a recurring problem with other centers in the community and it ~is an enforcement issue dealt with when it happens. The property owners and merchants are strongly urged to conform to the requirements, and they are cited if necessary. Concerns: The church would like to have an 8 foot wall instead of 7 foot high, and a d~erent location for the access. Steve Piasecld: • Said the- 8 foot high fence was satisfactory; the different location is not a problem, unless it is a controlled access, as long as it is something they can control. Concern: Neighbors e~presserl concern about the meetings being cancelled. Gary Chao: • Explained that reference was to the' last Planning Commission continuation/postponement requested by the applicant. The request was because the information they had wasn't. sufficient to address some of their concerns; they did not want a large group coming to the meeting when they couldn't address their questions properly. They needed more time to prepare to address the questions. Com. Kaneda: - - • Asked if the- parking study includes the church parking. Are the numbers based on the shopping center excluding the stalls that the church is using? - Gary Chao: • From the times both Fehr. and Peers and Hexagon were out there, they did look at the interactions between the two properties. Said the numbers were-based on the actual survey study; and according to the church they-aze using the existing shopping center throughout the day. Likely when the traffic engineer counted vehicles, many of those would potentially be the church use of the stalls. He said he felt it has been indirectly accommodated or considered in the reports. Chair Miller: • A speaker commented that perhaps the city did not consider that a peak time was Saturday afternoons for the church as well as the shopping center. However, that is the fiirne when the city saw the peak demand and perhaps the peak demand was not just coming from the shopping center but also from the church, and that has been included in the calculations. (Staff said that was correct.) Com. Rose: e According to the ordinance this'project needs to provide 720 stalls; and then the actual is going to be 833. ~ . Gary Chao: What is being proposed, what is shown on the site plan is 833. Com. Kaneda: • Said his thoughts were primarily on the amount of parking based on the comments received from the neighbors and on the garage.- - 14-28 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 March 11, 2008 Gary Chao: ~ As part of the conditions of approval, staff is requesting a detailed construction management . plan; part of that is for the contractor to come up with a strategy to mitigate dust control, specifically spelled out in the condition and also that they would carry out with the project at the construction site in accordance with our best management practices which is enforced by our Building Department. Concern: Litter from the shopping center finding its way into the residential streets. Steve Piasec~: • Said the barrier should deter people using the residential streets. He said he agreed with some speakers that they would prefer a condition where nobody uses the residential streets from the shopping center. The litter should be substantially reduced because of the parking methods and the existence of the wall. Concern: Odor issues from food and restaurants being experienced in the neighborhoods as well. Gary Chao: • Staff is recommending a condition that all new restaurants in the center implement the odor filtration system similar to the condition in the Marketplace Shopping Center. Concern: Cannot account for employee parking behavior or human behavior and that employees will park in the neighborhoods regardless. Steve Piasecki: • Said there is validity to the perception that people will do what they want to do; they are attempting to build in the physical enhancements and improvements that have a significant disincentive for the employees to want to go to the neighborhood Why would one want to walk an extra 5 or 6 minutes to get to work when there is available parking or other systems onsite that can be accessed. Concern: A speaker asked if a tra,~c study was conducted Chair N.Gller: • Said he felt the traffic study was covered in the first 1-1/2 hours of discussion at the present .meeting. Concern: There was continued concern about the sheltered left turns and the potential trajJic jams it is going to cause. Steve Piasecki: • ~ The traffic engineer Fehr and Peers as well as Public Works indicated it would work in bath locations. It is not the intent to inhibit left turn access onto Linnet. Concern: Trash pickup at inappropriate hours and workmen working at inappropriate hours; people doing things on the shopping center site outside of normal business hours. 14-29 Cupertino Planning Conunission 16 March 11, 2008 need to look at the design process that Cupertino Village has proposed; it is one parking structure approved by the city and it is a mess. You can clearly see the design of the structure and parking lot. If that happens with Cupertino Village, they will spill onto the streets into the neighborhood causing more chaos and litter in the streets. He asked that they address the parking issues, litter, 8 foot wall for the playground; also the entrance to 280 north which is severely congested all day. He asked if the city was considering a traffic study. Ms. Chen, Cupertino resident: + Opposed to the project. • Said the parking structure will be a danger to the residents; the project will increase the traffic. Chair Millex closed the public hearing.. Chair Miller s~immarized gnestions and concerns: Concern: Noise from the tap level of the parking structure, particularly if employees are parking up there, leaving the area and starting their cars late in the evening. Gary Chao: • The noise consultant specified that on the entire wall plane noise deeil?els would have to be brought down to an acceptable level; the report is in the staff report. Either the applicant would have to submit a more revised detail plan to be reviewed by a professional noise consultant or engineer to show that it will satisfy the city ordinance in terms of decibels. • That can be achieved by either having the mainstream wall go all the way up to the shed roof or there be noise attenuation handles similar to the Vallco parking garage implemented on the second level of the wall plane. Concern: Lights into the neighborhood Steve Piasecld: • Sunnyvale staff spoke; the light study shown by staff revealed that ail the light is directed down; and the wall element itself cuts off any Light that might spill over, This is a better condition than present where there is nothing blocking the lights in that parking lot. Concern: Envirorunental concer~as with respect to toxic chemicals being used in the shopping center Gary Chao: + Notification has been received from the Dept. of Substance Control; they have been working with the shopping center property owner to look at some of the chemical residues that result from one of their prior laundromats. Work has already begun in terms of remediati:ng any' contaminations and they have updated staff. With or without this project, the property owner will have to conform to their standards or conditions. It fines not relate to what i.s being proposed or considered this evening. Concern: Dust and other deb~zs spilling over into the neighborhood during the construction period 14-30 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 March 11, 2008 • impacts, odor impacts, from the existing restaurants. There are also some issues with the patrons of the church parking along Linnet Lane as well, which impacts the ability of the residents to use the parking on the street. • Having said that, we realize that the circulation on the site is tight, that the shopping center is a successful one and traffc will likely increase as a result of the project. Possible solutions have also been proposed to address these concerns. Elimination, of the pedestrian access points between the center and Linnet Lane are blocking the fire access point to not allow pedestrian entry; we think that both of these things will discourage customers from parking on the adjoining residential streets. We support ~Cupertino's staff.reconunendation for constnzcting a wall as well as gated access between the church site and the shopping center, ~ $aid it appears that the parking study initially done as well a.s the Fehr and Peers parking study did not factor in the ability of the patrons of the church to park at the shopping center; and the develaper clarified that the parking agreement between the church and the shopping center is not a legally binding agreement: The assumption_ is that the peak of the church and the peak of the shopping center do not overlap, but the concern is, based upon the presentation that the church made today, they use the church throughout the week, on Saturdays which is also the peak of the shopping center: They would like to recommend that the parking agreement between the church and the shopping center be revisited and these issues be captured into the traffic study to be factored into the actual use of the parking available at the shopping center by the church. • The supplemental par-king study states that a parking deficiency of 22 stalls still remains onsite. It is recommended that the project be conditioned to either restrict the total amount o~ restaurant or retail, or restrict the total square footage of the proposed addition; so that there is a guarantee today at this time, prior to the project .being approved, that there will be no parking deficiency on site. ~ . • The proposed sound wall on the parking structure along with the green screen in front of it, facing Linnet Lane is a good feature of the design. As there is no sound wall on the second floor, there are some concerns about the potential for noise to spillover. • The photometric plan indicates that there will be no spillover of lighting on Linnet Lane resulting from the lights on the upper dock of the parking lot. She said they felt it is a good feature of the design a.s well. • Sunnyvale staff has explored the possibility of providing restricted residents only parking in the area. There are multiple issues associated with this, including available funding, and willingness of the residents. • Said they did not want to create additional hassles for the residents to park on their streets as well as there are enforcement issues. Said they were willing to work with the developer in the City of Cupertino to explore these possibilities further, but felt the project should not be approved assuming that restricted parking in Sunnyvale neighborhoods will occur. • The staff report also mentioned amulti-language sign program, Condition No. 18 discourages customers from parking in Sunnyvale neighborhoods. The Director of Public Works as Weil as the Traffic Division staff has not had the opportunity to reign, on the recommended conditions, and the feasibility of these conditions can only be confirmed after meeting with these divisions. • Said they were willing to work with Cupertino staff as well as their own divisions to work out feasible alternatives including restricted parking and signage. She is not able to confirm today without further discussions with their respective divisions, that this wiJ.l be a viable option. Maxio Gerbay, Cupertino resident: • Relative to parking, he said he felt the parking ratios, stalls per square foot, need to be revised. He said the placard system for employees at Whole Foods is not successful. They 14-31 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 March 11, 2008 southbound traffic on Wolfe Raad. Westbound traffic on Homestead from Wolfe Road that is a zoo, particularly at commute ti-zne. • ~ If it is going to be implemented, possibly stop having left tarns onto Linnet for westbound Homestead. Mu-Ting Li, Capertino resident: • Said he was also opposed to the project. • He said trash pickup starts as early as b a.m, If the commercial building is expanded, there will be more similar activities. Property values will decrease. • Consider the residents as well as the commercial buildings which provide the city revenue. The businesses are concerned with the cost of improvements, but no consideration is being given to the cost to the residents and the negative impactr to their property. Carolyn Bircher, Cupertino resident: • Said that her thoughts were covered by previous speakers and she did not wish to add anything. Chen Fagg Zou, Cupertino resident: - • In favor of project. • Referred to the left turn shelter and said he felt that people would not be able to cross the street it would be a serious traffic jam. • Referring to the site plan, he indicated where the people would park. He said the traffic would be heavy and the city should be concerned about liability and security. • Businesses are concerned about the cost, but if it is going to be done, it has to be done right, and not build something to find out in a year that is not working. David Dond.uua, Parnell Place: • Asked if the sheltered left tum onto Homestead will openly prevent people from making a left turn from westbound Homestead onto Linne#. He said he makes the left turn frequently and would rather not have to go all the way down to Heron. • Said it sounded almost that it was green to have inadequate parking that is built into the neighborhood Reading some of the studies and materials distributed, if the concern of having too much parking is impervious asphalt, perhaps the solution is to use pavers instead. • Said the applicant ta.Iked about wanting quantifiable success and as an engineer he could - appreciate that; but perhaps the answer is not to quantify just the number of pazking spaces, especially when they want the freedom to control what percentage of their business is restaurant for example. In his view, the quantifiable success is zero, as in zero spillover parking. It is something that needs to be monitored periodically perhaps every year or two and it is something that~needs to be enforced, perhaps by requiring some type of conditional occupancy if they are not meeting-zero spillover parking.. - Serachita Bose, City of Sunnyvale Planner: - • Said they provided initial comments on the project at the November 2007 meeting; since then they have met with the developer and he has presented the revised plans to the city of Sunnyvale. • The project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and their efforts are appreciated in listening to the City of Sunnyvale and the neighbors. Concerns have been raised by the residents today and there have been issues with parking overflow into the streets, noise 14-32 Cupertino Planning Conmussion 13 ~ March 11, 2008 Said she was pleased that they were considering the Ash trees down Linnet and have a parkway with a berm. There is a lot of traffic along Wolfe and Homestead and there should be investigation of the best access points. Tom Oelke, Cupertino resident: • Said as a parent of a child attending the church preschool, he was concerned about the traffic going into the back parking Iot. Raising the wall and trying to minimize traffic there would be desirable. • Another concern is the foot traffic through the building. He said that he felt same people would cut through the church building to get to Ranch 49 market. Agate would be a more feasible pass thru for people. ~ He said he was also concerned about the parking access. The plans presented earlier showed the gate opening onto the driveway. He said he has parked in the Ranch 99 lot where the parking ramp will be; and he did nat favor walking with a small child down a busy driveway; having a gate underneath the ramp where people would be shielded from the traffic would be more desirable and safer. Elena Herrera, Granola Drive: • Opposed to the project. • Concurred with Jennifer Griffin's statement about the trees, as it is an important entrance to the Czty of Cupertino. • Said she was disappointed the study did not include the morning hours, since many of 'the parking questions are making assumptions about human behavior that she did not see. She said she had experience with the shopping center as she had worked at a restaurant and shopped at it when it was Whole Foods. She said she was familiar with some of the traffic flows and has seen traffic get more congested. • Relative to the lifts, she said it was difficult to police the employees, since people park where they want, and sometimes will justify parking there because they were a customer on that particular day. Said she felt they were making assumptions about human behavior that were not valid. Same people may~park in other lots because of safety reasons. • Said that whether or not they were considering new lifts or underground parking, Los Gatos and Walnut Creek has done it, and although it is' expensive, they can't keep building flat concrete pads .for cars; at some point one has to admit that it may not work. • She urged the Commission when voting, to vote their consciences and not just vote for the tax revenue or for the business and the growth of the city. Think long term because these decisions are not easy ones for anyone: )E. BakluAd, Cupertino resident: . • In favor of project. • One of the things in the past was we wanted to close the driveways going into the center, and that was finally done, but now we have the pedestrian entrances and those are going to be closed is you approve the garage, which I am pleased to see. • In fact, I am in favor of the garage because I feel that the retaining wa11 or sound wall in the back of the garage with all the vegetation will be the greatest improvement I have seen there in 34+ years, One of the main problems I have is with the. sheltered Ieft turns into the Cupertino Village, both on Wolfe and Homestead. As a regular driver around the community, I found it dangerous and hazardous both going southbound on Wolfe Road passing the shopping center. Cars pulling out of the center in front of me is not uncommon situation. if there are Left turns coming into the center it will double the problem of all 14-33 Cupertino Pla~.ing Commission 12 March 11, 2008 cancelled. Only a few people received the note when the last meeting was cancelled and several residents showed up for the meeting. • Expressed concern with the noise from the parking garage, particularly the second Hoar where it is open, as the noise travels at night. The use of the second floor for the employee parking would make the noise worse as they play their radios loud when they get off work at 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. • The lights will shine into the neighborhoods. • Said they want the environmental concerns addressed relative to the hazardouschemicals used by the cleaners. They do not know what dangerous chemicals or quantities are there and part of the construction will be by the Cupertino Village cleaners; when they are digging, the dirt will fly, dust will be everywhere, and the contamination will go into the homes. • The City of Sunnyvale stated they will not allow permit parking. The request will be submitted again, and hopefully the church will lend their support. • Employee parking. It was my understanding that the previous owner of the shopping center implemented an employee parking plan, in which the employees parked at the Hilton and given incentives to park there. However, it was not successful and they parked on the neighborhood streets and also parked in the parking lot. • Everything is based on the number of square feet and number of parking spaces. There are different numbers from the initial plan to the current plan to the numbers of the first description to this page in terms of the square footage for the building. I just want to make sure we are talldng about the same numbers. The numbers go from 24,500 square feet, 23,000+ and 24,4SS and since all the parking spaces are driven by those numbers, I want to know which numbez is correct. Mona Abdoa, Loch Lane: • Opposed to the project. • Said she was concerned about the traffic on Homestead Road and the increased possibility of accidents. It has taken as much as 10 minutes to get onto Linnet. Copchita Gomez, corner of LinnetlBarnell; • Opposed to the project. • Said she experienced many problems with people parking in that area. Patrons of the shopping center park in the church parking lot. • Opposed to the project because of the noise and presence of lights. There are workers working at 5 a.m. which is not in keeping with the city laws. May Hnong', Cupertino resident: _ • Opposed to the project. • Referred to the petition which Mr. Fujiwara discussed and noted that the majority of the neighborhood was opposed to the projec#. She asked that their concerns 6e taken into consideration. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • She said her main concern was that the Ash trees in the public right of way along Wolfe Road and Homestead are protected, as the corner is important as the northern entrance to Cupertino. The double row of Ash trees is a hallmark of Vallco/G~rtino Square/Cupertino Village shopping district and it is important to maintain the trees and propagate them along the area. 14-34 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 March 11, 2008 Rev: Christie •Ola, Sr. Pastor of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church; • Provided a Power Point presentation which outlined the background of the church which is a church in two languages, English and Mandarin, and is located on the corner of Linnet and .Homestead. The church was started 50 years ago, and serves the community with worship services in two languages, a non profit preschool, citizenship classes and English as a Second Language classes provided free of charge; as well as other services to the community. Cliff Ludwig, Administrative Board Chairperson, "Good Samaritan United Methodist Church: • Said that safety was a main concern of .the proposed Cuperiino Vz~lage project. They welcome many of the proposed changes to Cupertino Village; and want the neighboring project and property to be attractive and successful and many of the changes are aimed at those items. He said they also recognize that the success of the project will make direct and indirect contributions to the congregation. • A key concern is safety of the children in the preschool. The new parking structure is a concern as it will greatly increase the traffic flow right along the school play yards. They are concerned that this will increase the noise, and increase•the vehicle txhaust~ Suggested that any wail built should be non-climbable, to ensure the safety of children and to prevent accidents. . • Concerned about the parking at Cupertino Village. There~is a prior written agreement that the church•has access to 200 spaces within 300 feet of the church entrances. The facility is used every day, aIl day, and into the evenings. Safe access is needed to the spaces over in Cupertino Village. • Adequate parking would also go a Iong way in addressing the concerns of the surrounding residential community. • Said they had concerns if the urban lifts are added as they would be located in the area that the preschool Iooks out onto, and also is facing the main entrance of the church facility, • Emphasized that they needed~access to the additional parking. , • Expressed appreciation for the good faith efforts made to date to address the needs of the church and surrounding community; however, they requested some modifications. Bill Hutchinson, Vice President of Board of Trustees, Good Samaritan United Methodist Church: • Said that safety concerns were Twofold: the protection of the children using the play yards and the safety of the congregation and visitors to the facility. The play yard gets daily use, not only on Sundays. The children must be protected from errant vehicles, car exhaust and prying eyes. With increased traffic flow comes the potential for errant vehicles crossing into the property. Construction makeup of the wall is paramount concern, They are pleased that preliminary plans call for a solid wall. The height of the wall is important as it affords some measure of protection from car exhaust for the children playing close to the entrance. Request that the wall be 8 feet high as measured off the existing parlQng lot for the .Cupertino Village.. Summarized that they were satisfied with the good faith effort that Cupertino Village has made in their preliminary plans. They request only minor modifications be made; first, solid wall 8 feet high as opposed to 7 feet high; and request access and egress point be located nearer to the parking structure that where currently shown. Dean Fujiwara, Cupertino resident: • The neighborhood submitted a petition with 118 signatures (out of 164 homes) objecting to the project. The neighborhood has not been given enough time when meetings are 14-35 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 11; 2008 Dottg Posher: • Said it was reasonable to look "into, and they were open to all suggestions and recommendations. ~ - Brian Replinger: " • Said that research shows it is most effective in a single employer environment where the bulk of the employees are working $ a.m. to 5 p.m. In the center there are 40 separate employers and each is covered under its own lease. Chair Miller: • He said they would be in control by offering the incentive. He suggested that it may be more cost effective than putting the lifts in. Brian Replinger: • He agreed that it may be more cost effective. They want something that is quantifiable, so that if they are talking about it in a year or so, that they can say that they agree they did not meet the standard, or did meet the standard, rather than having it be a subjective thing. Chair Miller: • Said he was seeking a backup plan. The first plan is to work with the bank to get more par-king on the bank parking space. If that doesn't work, then consider paying employees not to drive or"reducing the amount of restaurant space that you can actually lease; or discuss reducing the amount of square footage permitted to be built up front. Com. Giefer: • -How far along are the discussions with the bank about removing the drive thru and enhancing the parking spaces there. When is the projected conclusion of those discussions? {Response: A couple of weeks) " Mr. Wong: • Said they moved the angled parking back, reduced the landscaping in that area, and went to 90 degree parking, 24 foot drive aisle, 18 foot stalls with 2 foot overhang. They were able to pick up 20 stalls. " • Said they have not looked at adding some parallel parking. Com, Giefer: " • Said that answers how you would" fit more in there and with staff s explanation that for every 9 on angled parking, you lose a space. Asked if they had experience on how to screen urban lifts if they were installed in that area. • Said that if the urban lift option was explored, she would. h7ce to see some way of screening them besides through the building. Mr: ~'Vong: " • Said the area indicated is a natural area for the urban lifts. At the last ERC meeting, when discussing additional parking, they were trying to quantify a number they could meet. At that time they did not have enough parking stalls for the number that the ERC was looking at. Chair Miller opened the public hearing.. " 14-36 Cupertino Planning Commission March l I, 2008 Chair Miller:. • What is the ratio of restaurants to office and commercial, and the possibility of you having to adjust the amount of restaurant space based on the success of the parking arrangement. Brian Replirager: • Said they would like to have flexibility in leasing the space, and would like to be able to respond to the market, such as retail or food. • Restaurants park at a higher ratio; they would like to reach 855 that the studies shoQC; make that park, and go from there and have that be the standard. Steve Piasecki; • Asked if they would prefer to go to the urban lift solution as opposed to a tenant type of control. Brian Replfnger: • The lifts would be for employees only. It becomes an operational and liability issue; any time you have machinery in a place you have to have somebody there to tide herd over it. Someone would have to park the employees and operate those lifts. Fie said it was not high on the Iist of preferred versions and is likely further down the list than the parking management program. It is harder to quantify what the real impact for that is. Chair MiIIer: - • Said the issue with. parking management is how to quantify it; how do you police it, ensure it is working effectively. They aze looking for a permanent solution, not a temporary one, and what kind of arrangement could they have that would help ensure that it is a more permanent than a temporary solution. Doug Fisher, No. California Operations Director: • Said it was a big concern at all their shopping centers. An example being implemented is in Olivia Place Plaza in downtown Walnut Creek. There is onsite security which has been provided with license plate numbers of all the employees; the employees receive placards and the cars are moxutored by marking tires. For the past 60 days it has been very successful. He said they would be willing to implement the same program in Cupertino and guarantee its success. ' • If we need to free up spaces and encourage employees not to drive, we would go back to Brian Replinger on other options that would be included in this proposal; other incentives. Presently, the most effective tool is to designate either offsite or onsite one azea and add that to the security patrol scope and get them to comply. • Said they did not have a viable offsite location at this point. A lift system would come into play, although it is not their preference when they had success at other centers with this type of parking restraint. . Steve Piasecid: • Explained that parking cashout is the same thing as parking demand management; the employee is paid not to drive his car. It could be a caipool or bus pass. Chair MiIIer: • Said ,that if the alternative was to do lifts; someone would be needed to manage the lifts onsite. It may be Iess expensive to encourage employees not to drive by paying them not to do so. 14-37 April 1, 2008 Cupertino City Council Page b 15. Consider Application Nos: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08), Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village), Homestead Rd. & Wolfe Rd. APN: 316-OS-050, 316-05-051, 316- 05-052, 316-05-453, 316-05-056, 316-OS-072, 316-45-017: a) Adopt a negative declaration b) Use permit and architectural site approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and atwo-level parking structure Community Development Director Steve Piasecki and Associate Planner Gary Chao reviewed floe project. It was noted that Cupertino Village neighbors had been experiencing several problems. These included off-site parking in neighborhoods, impacts of noise, lighting and trash on the neighborhoods, and the access and adequacy of parking. The project now before Council would not only address these issues but also provide more retail and restaurant services to the community. The Planning Commission had held three public hearings on the project and the developer had held three community meetings. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: Planning Commission-recommended conditions: (a partial list of key conditions) • Parking capacity to match the increased square footage • Transportation demand management • Noise abatement • Refuse and recycling plan • Homestead driveway enhancement • Neighborhood sign program • Design review committee approval. of final architectural and site plan • One year review of use permit Additional staff-recommended conditions: • Garage construction first • Median and Sidewalk improvement plan • Sign approval • Arborist review • Department of Toxic Substance Control • Public Works Revised Conditions of Approval Staff also suggested that Council consider upgrading the condition far Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design} LEER Certification to the silver level for the two new retail buildings and the parking garage. Brian Replinger, Director of Development for Kimco Realty Corporation, stated that they had worked with staff and done outreach to the community, and they agreed to all of the conditions ~ of approval recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. He explained that they had implemented a new refuse program about three months ago and tenants who were not in compliance were being fined. He explained that LEED 14-38 April 1, 2408 Cupertino City Council page 7 certification was based more on office development than retail development and due to the constraints of retail they may have difficulty getting the final few points needed for a silver rating, although they had~already surpassed by 26"point minimum and actually now had about 31-32 points. The project architect commented on Title 24 requirements and referred to the ways they were planning to achieve these goals including the use of cool roofs. He also noted that they were looking at ways to earn more points toward LEED certification and may be able to achieve a 10% energy savings. May Huang, Dean Fujiwara, Katherine (daughter of Daisy Sun and speaking on her behalf) and Tomai Nagatsuyu each noted that they were neighbors of this proposed project and expressed their concerns about overflow parking in their neighborhood, construction equipment using their streets, environmental issues such as refuse and odors, noise and safety. They also commented that they had not received notification of this hearing. Clifford Ludwig, Chairman of the Administrative Board for the Good Samaritan Church, stated their support for this project. The developer had been working with them and their concerns had been addressed. Mel Brawn stated that as there were no questions regarding the parking agreement he had no comments. Jay Boklund stated that he thought the proposed garage and wall were assets to the community and he also believed that closing the walkways was a good idea. Mario stated that he did not believe the proposed garage was big enough and suggested that perhaps when the bank's lease was up in three years that location might be considered for additional parking. Council members discussed several issues regarding this project including circulation, access, landscaping {including tree replacement}, security, maintenance and noise, and concurred with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and staff. However, parking was a major concern. One of the conditions was that parking capacity would match the increased square footage. However, presently the plans called for 835 spaces whereas 870 were needed. Council did note that these did not have to be hard spaces. Other options were available such as valet parking. Council Member Santoro suggested the applicant work out a parking trade with the church. It was also noted that if the applicant did not arrive at the needed spaces then he would not be able to use the correlating amount of retail space. Council stated that they would be more comfortable seeing a plan from the developer that would account for these additional parking spaces and asked how long it would take him to report back. City Attorney Chuck Kilian stated that if the applicant agreed Council could continue this issue to another date for submittal of parking information or the Council could approve it 14-39 April 1, 2008 Cupertino Ciry Council Page 8 subject to a plan being submitted later on in the process, such as prior to the issuance of occupancy permits or the applicant could ask for a decision at this meeting. Neil Sacri, the applicant's attorney, commented that they would not be able to provide 870 spaces using only self-park spaces. However, other options were available and he believed at the time of the required one-year review it could be deternv.ned what was and what was not working. Brian Replinger, applicant, stated that he could come back to Council in two weeks with a plan showing parking surface changes that would narrow the gap in needed spaces. He also agreed to send out notices of that meeting, and the notices would state that the only issue under discussion was the parking. Mahoney moved and Sandoval seconded -that Council continue this issue for two weeks to discuss only the parking condition. Other conditions stood as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff including the, following: (1) Left turn only onto Homestead; (2) At least 2b LEED points; and (3) Security and maintenance on both sides of the parking garage. Mayor Sandoval cautioned the applicant that this did not reflect a guaranteed positive vote on his project and also noted that she trusted staff and the Design Review Conunittee would find a convenient time to meet on the other issues. Mayor Sandoval withdrew her second. Council Member Wong seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 1 Approve the 2008 Plarming Commission Work Progr Wang ved and Mahoney seconded to Conti the Planning Commission work program to pril 15 meeting. The motion ed unanimously. 17. Schedule a date for a s ~sessio the process for analyzing the City Attorney's office and planning for transition. ocumentation in packet.) City Council agree old the study sess _ on May 6 at 5:45 p.m. 18. Consider c ging the starting time of the A ri129 tea 'ding session from 5:34 p.m. to 4:00 .m. Council agreed to hold the team-building session on Apri129 at 4:00 p.m. 14-40 Kimco Realty Corporation April 7, 2008 Ms. Dolly Sandoval -Mayor Mr. Orrin Mahoney -Vice Mayor Ms. Kris Wang -Council Member Mr. Gilbert Wang -Council Member Mr. Mark Santoro -Council Member Re: Cupertino Village -- Expansion In response to the City Council's questions and concerns regarding parking capacity at the referenced project we are proposing the following changes to our site plan. • The current proposed site plan provides 835 parking spaces. The City's parking consultants, Hexagon and Fehr & Peers, recommended a total of 855 spaces for the entire site including the 24,455 SF expansion. We have revised our site plan (Attachment A) to exceed this recommendation by adding 22 parking spaces, for a total of 857 setf-park spaces. • The 857 spaces includes parking spaces in the Cupertino Village lot that are used by Church members during peak times. At our expense and with the Church's cooperation, we propose restriping the Church parking lot to add 8 new spaces (Attachment B). By crediting Cupertino Village for the creation of 8 new spaces that would have otherwise been used by Church members at Cupertino Village, we have increased the parking capacity to 865 self-park spaces. The Planning Commission has recommended a proportional parking increase based upon the added SF. 24,455 SF/ 112,607 SF = 22%. Current site parking is 713. An additional 22% is 157 spaces, for a total of 870 spaces. O_ur revised proposal accommodates 865 self-park spaces. We are proposing to meet the Planning Commission condition and accommodate the 5 additional spaces by one of two methods. 1. Re-capture the Bank of the West drive-thru for an additional 13 spaces. (Attachment C), and a total of 878 self-park spaces (which includes the credit for the 8 Church spaces). This is our preferred method but is dependent upon our lease negotiations with the Bank. 2. f~uring peak demand times ie: holiday seasons and large Church functions that overlap high center usage, provide valet parking for an additional 26 cars and a total of 891 spaces (which includes the credit for the 8 Church spaces) {Attachment D). 3535 Factoria Boulevard SE, Suite 420 • Bellevue, WA 48006 14 - 41 Phone (425) 373-3500 • Fax (425) 641-9730 www.kimcorealty.com a a a \ 1B"# 29~ 1-~1 no.o no.s 1 (p ~~ Nn ro° , a~ ,- an a~ N 22~ , 0"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7$ 9 10 11 12 12" 20" 7 1~ 16~ ~ 2-~`-1 20" 5 14' 4 128 -cn^u~ _ 36135134133 sirE ACCES W 1 2 1 8.5 W V 20 13 ~ i6 .5 W Z 24' 14 167 8"#2D3. 167.1 67.' 168.6 168.7 ~~ {-~ 8" 201 16 .2 4" 200 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 2~ ~2 EXISTING DRIVE-THRU LANES (3) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 2~ 3~ 4"1k42 168.5 168.2 19118117116115114113 54 STALLS ~~ 50 51 52 53 54 32 EXISTING STALLS 16 .5 22 ADDITIONAL STALLS 8--6 9 42"#54 s 2525 168.7 B°~56_ 168.4 ~~ 167.7 168.0 10• 167.5 EXISTING BUILDING ,396 SF Site Plan Cupertino Village DATE: April 7, 2008 A MCGJOB#: oslo2.o1 Scale : NTS ~N CUpertln0, CA mcgarchiteccture,com © MCG ARCHITECTS 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I 1121314151617 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 28 27 26 25 38 37 24 2212112011911811711 3l STALLS 29 EXISTING STALLS 8 ADDITIONAL STALLS 15 REPLACE FENCE WITH 4 FOOT HIGH CONCRETE METAL FENCING ABOVE > ~' b N ~ ~- N -,., ~: ~x.-;~..__. . N ~, N m ~ 4D'A116 n n '1~72'.4~~ ~~ ~ ~ Site Plan Cupertino Village DATE: April 7, 2008 B N Cu ertino, CA MCG JOB #: oslo2.o1 Scale : NTS ~ p mcgarchitecture.com © MCG ARCHITECTS 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ~ J ~Q STAIRWAY I' UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK 26 VALET STALLS Site Plan Cupertino Village DATE: April 7, 2008 ~ MCGJOB#: 06102.01 Scale : NTS ~N Cupertino, CA mcgarchitecture.com © MCG ARCHITECTS 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RAMP ut J s~rE ACCES ^ W 1 12 1 8.5 W V 20 3 16 .5 W z 24' 14 1672 67 STALLS 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 32 EXISTING STALLS 12 526 8" 203 167 5 ,6~ "202 ~ 35 ADDITIONAL STALLS ~~ 2~ 34 # 2 168.5 168.2 9~ 42 168.7 g"~ ~ 167.7 168.0 1 167.5 S EXISTING I BUILDING 3, 96 SF Site Plan Cupertino Village DATE: April 7, 2008 C N ~',~ ertln0, CiA MCG JOB #: os102.01 Scale : NTS ~ p mcgarchitecture.com © MCG ARCHITECTS 20W ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L J Kimco Realty Corporation VILLAGE MARCH 11, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET 1 SITE SURVEY 2.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 2.2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 3A PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~B PARKING RE-STRIPING PLAN 4 TREE PLAN 5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 7 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 8 SITE SECTIONS 9 SITE SECTIONS 10 ENLARGED PLAZA PLANS 11 SITE ELEMENTS 12 SCREENING DETAILS 13 ENLARGED ELEVATIONSlSECTIONS L1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS L2 PLANT LIST L3 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS L4 LANDSCAPE SECTIONS L5 TREE REMOVAL PLAN L6 TREE REMOVAL NOTES E1 PHOTOMETRIC E2 LIGHTING CUT SHEETS f' i _. c VICIMTY 4AP ~t QO --- _ ..-__ ___-_-_____ _-__..__~ -.--_-__-_-_ -..-y __. ~. .. •.. .. T~ iI~ ARCED iHREc ,?rr~n x vAPCEt R~ ~> I ~11r aCRCS -;_r LL. G 0) amnxc ~a S:W k rota. iTW [~ (9A ~vl(a>G '. c,_.5 bv'N9?VSJ IT ; i ~.. - - ~ ~- .. ~~ ~~ ~ f ~ o ~~ / ~'~~ ~. ~~ 2 i~ _ / \ _ ~ ~ ~:,~ :~µ, ~ / :~oa, « ~( , ' / „a ~,~,~ „~~s~ 4 (~ ~ \ '~ ~ ~ , ~ ~a~un;pnb ier: ~~ - ~ ~ ,P.v usuv"c'a anw:vovsi _ ;~~~ -, OME ;aen-:cry x eu.r ~'Ri c ~ 9WA*'G aeia / -' xi~~~ w n v (MA!x7b'A GViMY2v51 \~ ~ ,~ 1 ~~ i ~~~ ^, ., (~• ~, ..._ .. ~ _. .. 1 L.CAL ]_S~PiP~iOh NGtES :J ; Z i L1 ~.. > i I _ j Ni > -I ~_ ~? ~-~ Z ~I w> ~ Y _i ( ~ -+'- ~ ~_ . - ~. I ~ . , 3_f~4 a9~ }`~/r~ AN6 iMM4~T2' _ ~~ ~ SUPVEYOP3 CEPi'iFICA7E 'An1:~hG 5UNN.APY V J . a J N Q LJ U O Z C V 7 C O fla 11/ -- -11 ?J -=1 I --- -- - ---- -- --- --- - -- -- -- - - _ - --- - - - I .JNNET LANE ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ D l . ~.. 1 1 i/ ~ ~ 1 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ v /~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 1 I ,, ~ ~I ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ,'` 00' '~ ~,~ _ ~ N - / ~U -- 1 ~ r ~~~I ~ ~ ~~~ _ %~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ".~ ~ - ~ ~ (W -- I - .. ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ -- o ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U? I - - _ `~ -~ ~ -~_ ` ~ 1-L--- -~ - ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~-- ___ _ U i -~- . -- \ - -~I ~ r--- .. ` - , _ ~, `fir - ~-- /, ~ -~ ~ ~/ ~~ ~ ~i , ~ ~' Q /, ,I ~ ~ ~ j - /~ ~ ~- ~ _ _ ~ ~ \ r~,~ ~ , ~~ k n .r_ -_._.-.____-- 1 ---~ '~ J ~ _ _ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ``~ J / r ~ 1 ~ I -~- ~ ~. ,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~=- ~ ~ ~ L __ ~ R - o ~ 1 U I I ' h ' .I 1~~ - ,. .i ___ I .£ ~90L=E POA: 0 No. Date BY Revision Descr~tion oepiw er ~,. oa~e CUPERTINO VILLAGE s ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ WOLFE AND HOMESTEAD RD a CMeked aY Prged Ib i 1~'. Y`'_L.ti &V7. _ X71 c; ii_ -':f13 CUPERTINO, CA .~ -~-ou -. ra s„e~ ...,... . ~~~ i I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-2.1 .._ _.... LNNETLONE _~ 1 I I J I r N I U W 1.~~ W W ~i W I Z J I - i IU- -. J Q ~ 1 r• ~ _ - ~. ~ ~~ s ~ II ~ _II ~. m o _ i R -, ) .i~- :,.. ; 1- -- ~ j~ n ~ ~ ~ ... ' wct~e~acno s e No. Deis BY Revision Descriplbn oe.v,sa er wue oue n ~+~ ~ y , 1 a 8 GIOCkb OY ~OilL{N0.` ~~ ~ r~:~~.,~,~,,,~~ fl ~91c)';_"'. J: 2pS`;'II '.:f. 4561 ,.~~. .~~ a 0 G G y .~ i I I CUPERTINO VILLAGE WOLFE AND HOMESTEAD RD CUPERTINO. CA ..' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C-22 PODF SCREEN RAMP '. a ~ ~ ~ i ~'~ ~I ~I ~I ~I '~ ~ l T STAIRWAY ~f ~' UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK •'~~~~ II ~;. I , _~ II ~~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ GaasscAETE NEWDOUe~E LINNET LANE ExlsrwGFENCE PAVERS fOA FlRE I ROW OF TREES TO BE NEMOVED ~. ACCESS '~ SEE IPNDSLAPE I FIRE TAJCK ~ ~ ~ ACCESS GAiE 3 NO PECEE'RIAN ,A' ENTRY ..,". ~ '; V L / I ') ~~ _ - - Iii 1~ - r PROPOSED EXISTING ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ "~~`~,, ~ \~~~~ ~ ~ ,~Y' a r > bDC~cED Te 137,062 SF BLDG AREA 112,607 SF BLDG AREA ~{ ~~ oF4sP~ ~ `GRL"°RL" ~ ~1 ~ \ v ADCESSONIr \ O 635 PARKING STALLS (6.1 J1000) 691 PARKING STALLS (6.111000) ~ ~P° ~ ~ '~ ° o ~ ~ REPtALE ~ENLF 21 HC AND 814 REG. ~' ~`' ~., WDNaF°Dr NAG" CONCRETE ~~ - - ~ ° EkIS ING BUILDING METAL FENCING 36,564 SF PARKING DECK <R°'~ ,EwAa -~~, o >< ~ .~ Q ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ _IISTING 3UILOiN~;: ~ o ~ I, - -... r l l ~ (~ w ,~ ~- '` ~ ErasnNGBUILDING ~ / ' 1 ~ ~ W - _~ ,~ ~ ~~ Ax rA ~; =~~~X .spy` ., A-l r~s i I ~, Sf / I _ }f /ICI ;^ e?ISrufc GR VC Taaa ~ ,. `~-„C' Y ~..' Iy~II i,' .'.ANC 3 EKISTING BUILDINS J+ aATE„< ~ .. ~~ ~ ~. ~-~ 1,7 ,P C ,>I: - ~~ - .,~ ~ ,. P~ ~ A,~~ - o o r~ N , A , __ (t -,. ~ I O''o ~ ~, d NEw scRE=N % ,y ~~ ~ /i~ ~~" ,. ~ ~/ V ,;'nffi 6;~ ~ ~ ~ EXISTING EXISI] JU BUILDI4G :UILDI J, J / - .Y , BUILDING ::r}„j" W _~ ~ ' :; ~ ~~~ ,: n ,prr y+s 27r - PRO~DSE7 flETAILA V _~ _r,~•k 'µ Js. ?.:y. ..S GF - RiAZA A31Eq ... _ ~ C~" ~ a .~ ,.,~~( „ f"~ _ ~ ~ Q~ ` cy~ ~~'~' ~~~~~~~µ~~ is f s s ~ ~ F ~ JXe ~ .I+..,d c. ,{, k:. J,' ' ,,c~ + .~'~~ . I i.r:-:.~~ a f ~ a - ENNANCEO PAVNG AT PlA7A AREA ~ - CORNEAANDNEW '~~~ .-E%ISTING TREEG NEW UNTERNS ENHANCED PAVING AT - ENRANCEDT'AVING AT ENHANCED PAVNG - SIGNAGE ' !~ TD REMAIN, SEE Ai ENTRIES ENfRy RECONGTpUCTEO -- REIOLATED _ Ai CORNER TREE PLAN - WOLFE ROAD sloEwAUC ED:G,DP ,. ENTAy 0 CUPERTINO VILLAGE MCG JDB ;<: MARC 06.10208 SITE PLAN CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 3A DATE REVISIONS s~ie : r' = so' 785 Market SUeet =~I Z ~ Kimeo Realty San Francisco, Calrfomia 94103-2016 r 415.974.6002 F 415.914.1556 o zs so' goo r McG AALwr=_crs zom Au RtGNrs AESENV~ Corporation mcgarchitecture.com NOTE This mlormaopn is fAnCaplual n natureantl is sublea to aEjuslmerrts pentling Iwiher venfiCdllon antl Cf nt Tetunt entl Gavammemal Agenry approvals Na wanarees tlt ouarenUes al any WnC are given of ~mpl'~etl by the Arthit l PROPOSED EXISTING 137;062 SF BLDG AREA 112,607 SF BLDG AREA ¢2 835 PARKING STALLS (6.111000) 691 PARKING STALLS (6.111000) 21 HC AND 814 REG. 36,564 SF PARKING DECK ----- - +3 +5 +~ +1 +3 _ _ +2 +6 _ -_.. +7 ,; - -- .__ _. _ __ _ +10 -. ,_ r _ _ _ _..__ . __ ~. ~ ~ _ v rl ~ .- ... _. ... z +2 -~~ ~ ~ +1 ~ ; +g _ ' i - -- - ~ _- - 5 1 -- r i ____.__ -- + 1 CUPERTINO VILLAGE PARKING RE-STRIPING PLAN MAR~Dfi;azae Mcc~oa# USING 8'-6" x 18' STALL CUPERTINO CA SHEET 3B : , DATE REVISIONS 185 M k S Scale : 1" = so' ar et treet San Francisco, California 94103-201fi ~~~ Z K1mco Realty 1415 974 6002 F 415 9I4 155fi a zs so ~oo~ ' . . . . ~' MCG AFCHRECTS Apl ALL flIGHB FEEEf7vED ~l oration C~I mcgarchitecture.com NOTE rnls mrortnanon a cpncepcual n navre ane n sunA-m aaiustmems penemg mnnar vanncanon anc GieM Team aye Gmernmenlal Agency approvals. No wartanties or guaanbes ~! any luntl ve given w imgie0 bytM ArdrAtti _~ )vim . I:i:. ;; ;~; ~~C .-. /~~ ~ ' i ~ I % :'% ;~ : j~~ 1 • / - . i ~ 1 I '~ : I:i ® i~ ~ , _~ :~' ~ r` ~ r y e e'~ lei LEGEND: i i r-~~: r~` ice' ri . ~I ~ ~ ~ (E) TREE TO REMAIN I:% (•) i\_) ~'~~I / -`\ 1.1 r.` _ (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED ~ ' i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ .. 1.1 Iv ~ % 1 I 1`-7 '~ ~ ~ I - 7 (N) TREE ^' ; -~ - r i r,1 ~' I 1 ~ ~- ~ \1 : i . 1` 7 r~ r` 1 ~ i-, ~' ~ ~3 Cv' ~ ~. - :'i ~ a \. 11 .1 / / `- te :~i ~•; '~o ~~I I"1 ~. 1.1 ~ ® .-~ 1.1 ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ; 1 ~ ~ ~ l '~/ DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCG JOB S: 05 102.05 DATE REVISIONS ~ MCC ARGHITECT527W ALL RIGH?S RESERJEO NOTE. mle infortnalion is wnceglual in nawre dntl i55uEIR[I!0 atll~~slmencs aenomy mnne~ ee«caeo., ana cueol. Tenam. ana hove menial Agenry approvals No wmranues cv gueianuesb airy Nintl are given or imdiee by the A~cntlen TREE PLAN °~ r\ 1 i /~~I I \\_~ I" ~. `I 1~1 ~ / ~ j` 1 ' ~~ ! i - r` ~ _ / ~ Ill li r r _ ~ (~i' ~ i ._ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ \ _Y r ~ ,_ ., CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 4 Kimco Realty _ Corporation ~`T ~~ ` r 1 ''.'h. ~ ~ ~ y ` ~'~ ~r~ 26 'F~ ~~t I~ F1~ t I !~ ~ y ~: IXI ~~ e ~ y~ r H a~4 ~ I ri ro . ,,,` lY, C~. i ~ ~~ ~~~~- ~S i! r rr + ~ . I ~i f I ~ ~ q5$y i ~ ~ ter, ,~ ~ s ~~ ~~ ~ I ,. + ~ ~ 4 ~ ; ~ °STUCCO FINISH ~+ .~,'?~ ` ~ - ~ ~ STOREFRONT WOOD SIDING -. ~- - a yq' ,,y .~_- . - yr7 ~ I . _L _ • I' ~` ~ __ - -~ ~. 0_._~ - r.. .__. ----7~. i] ~ _ J __ - / I _~ - - ~ 'r ~ `3-' I 1 'L I'' ~..~., . _ ~ II Eiji . , ..'.~',II ,t. , ... GREEN SCREEN LATTICE WITH VINES 1 125' EAST ELEVATION AT RETAIL A ALONG WOLFE ROAD PAINTED STUCCO --OPAQUE 7P,ANSFORIMER SCREEN -FABRIC AWNINGS wlrH rMOLDING DETmL WOOD DETAILING WOOD SIDING--- 22 l 11 I~~ T 730' WEST ELEVATION AT RETAILA DATE: MARCH 3.2008 MCG JOB #: 06.102 05 DATE RE41SlONS ~ MCG ARCHITECTS N,'g] A! L RIGH?5 RESERVED NOTE. ibis inlormeuon n conceatua'. in nawre anC'e subject m aaemnenn oemm~o tanner reiR~wn and Clem. Tenant. antl 6oremmeopl AOenq a00~m'als No wartamces o~guereMms of any kmd ate given o. implieC by the A ii en 15' 125' CUPERTINO VILLAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CUPERTINO, CA SHEETS Scale : 3132"=1'-0" '~~ Kimco Realty 0 5' m _ Corporation A ~ ~. Y ~/ yy l [ ~ r 1 .f` '`1'Yy 'I Itl Y Y, ~ ~~ alit ~ ~L .. tl.r r ~'~ :. Y„fit ~'1,, 'ti 1 ~~~~~ H-{~,° - I ..tll 'R a". 6 fQYd~ ~ 1 ~°~~/ '_ t 7~~R A ~ F~1.- ..5 ~ ~ r~~ ~ r ~ t~ r f / fir, 4.° ~[ __ , Y {. -_'_ ~r_ _._ _ _.. '-T~7.. .._--._.~ r _. . . ~~ r - ___1111 ~~ ~ L-__ I ----~ ~- - `\ I t;' r' ,~ ~ r'` ~.f ~_l _.. PASSAGEWAY .. __ _ _ - 'I~ ~~~. i „ ~L}' y i ~~ I Y~ I I _i _ JL_. _. ~l l,~ 11- ~ 9 ~~il at! :!• t 'L`., ,..dk~~k I ~, ~~i~.~:u. „ 5' GP.EJJ SCREEN LATTICE - 130' 2 J ~k Y ,~ u ', Vr ATM "+.:..F1~Y C ~~ ~ . - ti~I.. ~ W000 DETAILING _. _ W000 SIDING -•- -. 1 '~\\~ ^ f_'~ °'~ i `'~r I ,., .... ;C I ~~ I N'OOD SIDING WOOD CANOPY-- - $i UCCO OVERHANG 22 t. y.~y _, _ I ~ ....____ 0 __. _ ~ r__- --, E____., f T?-I~- _ i 1 i ~ I '' I I I' I _ _~ - It I PASSA EW.4Y A ~ A ~ I ~ f~ ~. ~ ~~ it ~ ~ {II I ~- ~I ~ Ir ~' ~Q I l~ ~ II ~ ~' ~ ~ I ~I ~ 11 V.fJH it I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i t~ ~' I ~ . ~ _I~~I ~ I dl- ~~I ~ W~ Id a ~~i r ~ ~ I , ~~ II'I1 I~ ~ . '.I~ SOUTH ELEVATION AT RETAIL A NORTHEAST ELEVATION AT RETAIL B DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCG J08 #' 06.102.D5 DATE REVISIONS ~. MCG ARCHITECTS 2001 ALL FIGHTS FESEFVEO NOTE This inldrma0on is cdncepluE In name and ¢ sub~ec a adjuRmen6 pending iurtnel verifia6an arA^ Gienl Tenant. and Gavemmemal Agency approvals No warrnnes or gueramres or any Nind are given pr impbed dy Ne Ar~Aa_1. .. r - p- - . -_ _ fi fi _.'f ii e r .~ . ~ . ---- PAINTED STUCCO FA9RIC AWNINGS ~ - - u..:' ~. # < ; ~`•, 200' __ `'' ~,. - ~ ._ Teri ~ ~~ ~ iU ~, t =1l .::~~ __ ~ ...- -~.a NORTH ELEVATION AT RETAIL A ~': . ~~:x: woaoDETAIUNG f - WOOD SIDING - --- ~ °~~;,zx°. ~. WOOD CANOPY - '' 'lr-- I ~ ~~ T .?,fv ~` ~~l1 I ~. -L- 1~. ,1 ~ ~ L .., ~ C ~I l~l ~ Ir '~ ~~i ~ , CUPERTINO VILLAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 6 Scale: 3132" = 1'-0" Kimco Realty _ Corporation 65' SOUTH ELEVATION AT PARKING STRUCTURE/RETAIL B Scale: 3132" = 1'-0" ~- - ,~, ~ „ ~r r" E ;~~~ 1 ~~~N - - I -~`_ f .. - F~D AUTG~ NTRY WIMP EAST ELEVATION Scale: 3132" = 1'-0" ROOF SCREEN ' - MOLDING DETAIL -- ' ON STUCCO Wf~LL - 'NOOD SIDING _ - - - 'P:GOD POST DETAIL ~nterv y~n~eN UI Ilse WITH VINES PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION AT LINNET LANE Scale: 3132" =1'-0" WEST ELEVATION AT LINNET LANE Scale: 1132" = i'-0" CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE: MARCH 3,2°°8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 7 McGdoax: osrozos DATE REVISIONS Kimco Realty MCGARGHITECT$]Og] hLLRIGHTSFESFAVE~ Corporation NOTE mis rom~roa~ on n concep~aa ~ naiare aae ~ssee~m m - agvnmenu penaivg IunAei ve~iacauon anC Qenl. ienanl an0 Govemmenul agency epprova6 No wv2Mies of gue~anbes of any kind are green m imprieC by Ne A~Ilem ROOF SCREEN _~ ~ ~ GREEN SCREEN WITH -:-YII ~ ~ vINES ~ ~ zz DATE'. MARCH 3, 2008 MCG JOB #: O6 .02 OS DATE REVISIONS 'c MIX'i ARCHIi_CT5200i ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOTE' Tbia inlortnalron is concepluai in nature antl rs sub~cr rc atllustme~6 penGlny IuRber veiif. ~qn anc Gieni. ienan;, an0 Governmenlai Agency ap0rove~a No waranues pr yuarenliesr an bnd are given or implietl by Ne Arline t. A. SECTION LOOKING NORTH ALONG LINNET LANE SITE SECTIONS Scale : 118" = 1'~0" o a s' is~ CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA Kimco fealty Corporation SHEET8 L CARnbtj tiRiV~WA =1 I ~ ~ ia' slr~wA4c 6: PlAUr ~iR{P RaoF $RD Pl.oo2 ~ ~ ': • r~.. _.___._____y' r~ Z !3 Y IBS FtaGt` ~ Nsw~~~ ~ ~'-C~11 T1zE~. ~{_y _ " /^{~oF ~cC•~N +~, fit:,,`. ::,' L:I~ `{' ~ .. 'I 4" -- j jl w ~ 'I ~_ ~ifi t -_ -• ;~aRhr~ ~ ' `l ~R~1 ~cR~tJ LklTlcs .~..-~-~ - C~.t ~'RN~ ~~E (a! I N VINE ~ ~o` $' ( cF GvRH PfcM1I-Y tv lc~'.ltlht_ C. SECTION LOOKING WEST ATMULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL DATE: MARCH 3.2006 MCG JOB#~ O6.iC2.06 DATE REVISIONS ~ sAGG AFCHITEGTS 2401 ALL FIGHTS fiESEPVEG NOTE TAIa Illtormdllgl is tAncepludl in rNMBdne 6 SUE~.10 aat.nmams uene~nq mnna.er~l~unn arc cl~em Team. ane Governmental agency aaarovals Nowarrmroesol guerenlresN any qne are give orlmgia0 ~y lne nrtflnen. CUPERTINO VILLAGE SITE SECTIONS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET9 Scale : 118" = 1' 0" 0 4~ e' ,6~ Kimco Realty _ Corporation DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCG d06 #: 06.102.05 DATE REVISIONS MCG ARCRRECTS 2001 ALL flIGNTS REEERVEG NOTE-This Inlormallpn is conceplu9l in naNre and is sublet ro aaws;men~ oenmeg mnnar aer~rmaon anb G~eni. Tenam, area Governmemal Agency aOPrrn'als. Na warraMlPS p' guaranties of any Nm0 are green or impose oy the MhAe:l '~~ , ~ ,r~C>~°r ~ ~> r ~ .,~~ , G ~:. ~~~~0 +5 p`,~ q I .I WOLFE RC .j.:.. KEY PLAN ENLARGED PLAZA PLANS ~n ~ 1~> ~~ ~, . ,, ~' _ EXISTING BUILDING 3 396 SF s. `~ ~ ~ PROPOSED RETAIL ~=-~ ,,,~s t 7 _iN y ~ ._. 6I~.~ _ ~ ~- " WOLFE ROAD "x~ ,_ ~< ~_ ,.~ . ~. ._. 1,~_ .. _.. I . KEY PLAN CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA EXISTING BUILDING $F OWER \ l~ \\ ~ \\ ~ 0 \\ ~\ \~~ ~ ~ PLAZAAREA c . ~~., 15.,y~ fit _ a'~`~ , a ~~ .~~-° WOLFE ROAD ~,~:...~--tee.;. ;~. _~ KEY PLAN SHEET 10 Kimco Realty Corporation ~~ .-- u~ ~~~x ~1~N~~NTr w+vv ~.... .. ~..;. PEDESTRIAN GATEWAY DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 MCGJOB#~ 06.702.5 DATE REVISIONS MCC ARONIT:CTS 2001 qtl RIGHTS RESERVED NOTE. Tpis mfprmalipn is con<epWal in raNie and is suplnx ip atllusMSn6 pendng lutnar verd¢ation anp Client 7eneni, and Governmental Agency approvals Np wartantles prgue~aMies pl any Ipntl are given pr imdlad bylhe k~Aect SITE ELEMENTS CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA OPAQUE RICE PFPEF LANTERN METAL COLUMN WITH TRIM d' SHEET 11 {~ Kimco Realty Corporation N I PROPOSED ENTRY LANTERN .- ~~ ~ i,~ <, f. lij tw i `W ~ ^~ ii v~1~ rpp~~~~ ~1"11u ~. alx v'~ ,~ . •L' '4i { ~y r a.t S w~, i ` r DATE: MARCH 3.2008 MCG JOB #: 05 ~ 02.05 DATE REVISIONS 'i. MCG ARCHITECTS 2W I ALL RiGH78 A<SFAVED NOTE: ihis inlDrmalion is conceDlual ir. nar~re antl is sudleC rc adju9men15 Dending Iurlder verifiztion anc CFrnl iman;, antl Gavernmen;ai. Agenry apomvals. ND warranfies or guarnAies Dl any Nind are Arvan of impfiatl by the Arliilecl CUPERTINO VILLAGE SCREENING DETAILS CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 12 Kimco Realty Corporation ~ ~~ ~- t 0 r? _~ it ~ 1/~19~ ICI -- ~__~-_- ~1~~41C1' , ! I I fir, a y~ a I ~DN,~~~?: _-- I 3Ld~ Ui?;! ~y ~~ t ~, vi ~ ~ _ .., ..- ~ ; C\ ~ ~~~~ 11 ___ ~cI;I~~I;,ltl a _~_ ~ '~~ "'III - ~; A 9 n ~ WALL SECTION CATE. MARCH 3, 2098 MCG JOB ~ 06.102.01 DATE REVISIONS M~ APCHTECi52ppl ALL FIGME flE5EA4ED NCi! Slnu ~rnomraum a cor.•arnua ~r naru,e erc it w01BC'.c adur~n'EnR Pm~Onrp IuNra rxnMauan dnc' :bxnl Imm',. nM Gan•,"ax•~Td ApmCy AI~V~4vMS N;~wrv,x~a•puximlMSd dA~' Ni~.A JrA gnxn Y'~mpllBt py II'.e Art),A94t k' ~ ~c,Ft ss~=t~, ~ ~' ~__-._ -__ I --H -T T , GREEN SCREEN WALL PANEL -~ - ~~ i` ~-.1 `.~.: 7 I~ ~ I , SThNt'IN(o s~nm Mk'rM. ~SGf~!~I -7 ,r-;~r•~ WOar~T Wrr1~ 4x4 u~aor~ -rt~LUS c,°f~° l ~, Ir i i~ i i~ i p o ~~ii i I --pl -.1-... _ ~~ I ._ I I I- ---T---;r-, I r-~~~--' r Ir ~~,I ~~ I 1f ~ - ~~ L_ ~ ~~~-_- i~ i ~ T ~~ I- *_~_ ~,u '_ I I ;~- ~~ :_ ~ ~r_ i~. - 1 ~--5"N000 PILP41El~ ~ :;o1JoRE/1~ BL~c>K u o 0.1kL1$~ftMC =GREEN NSG~~N - ~ IN'rIG~ 3°,~~tL ~IL ~j,10Dp'(IQ.~`LLI~ ~r1UR~, _~~~~.~_~~,=~x4,~m~,~~YIr -~ i ~t~Nt~iN~ ' INEihL t~F ;w'~N ~ ~ _ ~^ ~--~---_____:._----~i f -~- (1= ~n ~- I ~i ~~~ r girl ~ /~~ I ~-~-~~;-. I ,_ ~ , ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ i, II ' III ~ ~i ~ i'~~n~_ ~~~~~ ~ ~ - } ~ ~ _II ll ~~ _ _ 3 ~1 '~ I; ~L~I t ~~ r i ~ t ,. 1= ~~- -~- ~ r _J i lam- -~ ~_I~ _ _ __.._ 1 ._ phlNi~b Nt£thL ~ kiLLf>,1d12K '. -- coNc-~~ rxac~= uhu. I - ~~RIN~ ~ RILL ,kNC ~f~E~ INTERMEDIATE ACCENT PANEL CUPERTINO VILLAGE ~~'I~ rlu la~>=_ iV V '" I i --'~C R~t~ ~,I~N~ h1k~lF I N~IGf<- ' ° MEfkL ~1~11M~~10R{~. ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS AT GARAGE WALL CUPERTINO, CA SHEET 13 Scale : i" = oD` ~~ ~~ Z (~ I~imco Realty ~' °°~ '°°~ ~~! Corporation '' , ~~_ .-. L ; ;t ~.- ?.L 1- LINNET LANE , ---- ------ - --- secnaNl ~ 1 ~ ~ __ ~7 \~ '\~'RAINCA ~--------__J Qy,~ / ~~, AT y~o P~Aay rY 5LA4D/ .-0 ~~~~ A N~ ~~ ~A Q ~+~ EXISTING BUII DING ~R ~ /// P Y ~xisTlNr~; LDING \ ~- b ~ b A \ ~ 4 4 D / \ .~ / seclDNf d RAIN 6ARJ3J / / / _XISTING 3UILDING ~ // / / /l 1 / ~ /~ ~~' / ~ /~ /~ D ASP~+4' / I ~ ~\ EX'STING 3UILCING- \ /~ I II .~ \ / ~ , / I v~ r ~ / ~~ T \ \. / \ ~ ~ G / I~ ~ vv a' J ~xlsTjNG auILDwG // }Tj~~- I ( 1 \5 LAST FMI ' / 1 \ Q / I I ~, / A r - -U RAIN GAR7EN PAV\il~~e1 T / I I ~ P I ~`___ /~ / I„iING RaM GA9EN '\ / / / a I i \ I ~ / ,~ . ~,~__ M~~ III ... ' I ENRiI' MA(d.'-'R _ I' i - ~~ I- - - - - - - - - - - o RAIN 4s'D - - E4R;T G EN - - Tr"~E BOLD FOLIAGE c ~ / GOLDR RANTMG ~~LT_ ~hO.~-~D 9_r1D4 G: PAN4G hEr` 4~dVY - SA4-8~=A5T ~I rrw~ ~r I ~ ;~ ~ , '~ ~I~ ~~ DEDIDUdJ5 SHADE TTti 1 i P• I Q ~ Q t I I~ ~~~ IQ ~' ~ l W ~~ / ~ iF / ~ / z ~ / I / C i i /' ~ ~ CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE: MARCH 6,zooa LANDSCAPE CONCEPT CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L1 MCG JOB #: 06.102.01 DATE REVISIONS 185 Market Street Scale : 1" = a0' San Francisco, California 94103-2016 z 0 zo ao 60 ~ K1111C0 R~a1Cy ~ 415,974,6002 ~' 415.914.1556 MLG FRCHITEGT52W] ALL RIGMiE RESEAVED Corparat~on mcgarchitecture,cam NOTE: This infprmalion is conceptual in natwe and is wOjM to ~ aJjuslments penUing IurlAer verification an0 Client Tenant, errtl Gove mat Agenry approvals Nowarranhes or guaranties of any hinE are given pr imp~e0 oy the ArpMleLi CLNCRET2 B9JC:a GATES 6'AS.SOC'''AT,ES PLANT LIST PLANT USE BREAK DO'~N ,BEES - LI Lagerstoemia i. Yuscarora' Qa e M rue p y 15 Gallon As 5rown SCREEN TREES CANTING NOTES Sequoia sempervi yens 'Soquel' Coast Redwood LopMstemon conPertus 3rlsoane 3oz I. All work shall be performed by Melaleuca qulnquenervia Gajeput Tree pereons Familiar with plantng work and LC t_ophostemon cooferus 3rabane Box 15 G-alion As shown under :ro supervision cf a qualirled planting foreman. STREEiTREES /,~\t1-~/,) Sequoia sempervi revs 'Soquel' Coast Redwood 2. Plant material locations crown are `~ ~- MR Mela L=uca riraphiopl gall Swamp Paperbark 15 G-allon As 5rown Pos;ac!a chinensis Chlnsse Pls:ache d'~ag!ammetic and may be subject to ~J thongs In :he {ISId by the Landscape MO Melzleuca qulogenervla Gajeput free 15 Gallon As shown PA dCING FIELD ~2E5 ' ' Archi:ec!. 3. In case of dlscrepanu es, :he plan shall Platanus a. Golumbi a ! ondon Plane Tree govern. Melaleuca qulnquenervla Gajeput Tree Pis:aca rnfnensis Chinese Pis:ache p 4. Plant Icatons shall be adjusted in the ~ ,. PletaUa chlnensls Chinese Pletache !5 Gallon As Shown TREES AT 3UILDINGS field as necessary to screen utilities Melaleuca gclnquenervia Ca.eput free but not to black windows nor impede acce s Lagerstoemla i.'Tuscarora' Grape Murtle s . PA Plz:anus a. 'Columbia' London Plane Tree I; Gallon As Shown Lophostemon conPertus 3risbane Sox Pistacia chinens'~,s Chinese Pi s:ache ~ The Landscape Architect reserves :he SC~EN 5HR135 rlaht to make substi:ut!ons, additions 55 Seo,uoia sempervlrens 'Soquel Coast Redwood 15 Gallon As Shown Rnaphl ofespls L'Jack Evans' h ' ' Indian Hawthorn and dele::ons In the planing ;theme, as necessary wrn le work is In progress. .;rc:cs:ap ylos d. Howard McMinn McMinns ManzanT:a Such chances are to be accom anied Lava:era !huringlaca 'Roseus' irEe Mallow p ' by egoi:a ple adjustmens In the contract pr~~~ce If /when necessary. 54RU35 AT STZaT Rfaphi olespis L'Jack Evars' ind!ar, Haw:Mrn 6. The contrac!or Is to secure all vines to SHR1135 Arotostaphylos d.'Howard McMinn' McMlnns Manzaaita walls and columns with aporoved AD Arc:ostaoFrylos 'Howard Ma lion' McMimb ManzanLa 5 Gallon As 6hpwn Wes:ringla fruticosa Coast Rosemary fastemers, allowing For two (2J years Dv Die:es vege:a Fortnight Llly 5 Gallon As Shown - growth NS HemerocalPs sp. Orange + Red Day ! ily 5 Gallon As Shown SHRUBS IN PAPoCING FIE! D NM LT Heuchera micrantha 'Palace Purole' Lava:era :Fwringiaca 'ROSeus' ~ Purple Heuchera Tree Mallow 5 Gallon 5 G61fon As Srown As Srown Wes;ringla fruticosa Coast Rosemary ~. 3ranching Neigh! of ?tees shall be a ` " Pi 9normWm t. 'Due!' New ~aiand =lax 5 Gallon As Showr Dietes vege:a For:nig:r, Llly 6 -0 minimum above Finish grade. RI ~aphioiepis I. 'Jack Evans' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gallon As Shpwn Hemerocallis so. Day Llly ~ Westringld Fru;icp;a Gpast Rpsemafy 5 ~-d )On As shown P'lYJrmiUm ;. 'DUet~ NEW Zedldnd FidX a. 411 trees In d fOrmd greup planting Shall be matching In size and shape. 5HRJ35 AT 3UILDINGS GROUNDCOV=RS AN Anlgozant'rbs - HUdrld; '3USh Geld' f 3ush Banner' KdngdrOp PdW ~- I ,1con Hemerocallis sp. ' - Day Llly 9, Landsca econtractor sha 11 nlre an p AU Arc:os:aphylos uva-ursl 'Point Reyes' 3earbeey I Gallon Phormlum l Duet New Zealand Flax accredRed tolls analysis Flan to set Gi Garex :~micola 3erkely sedge I Gallon Heuchera micrantha ' ' P-~~roie Hel.chera soil percolation rases and nurtrlents and G-5 Geranium sanguineum Granesb111 I Gallon Rhaphlolepls I. Jade Evans Ind'~an Hawthorn y re abide b commsndzans contained JS Juncos sp. Rush I Gallon within Far n~oper olio: grow: h. LA Lanprnthus auran:icum Ice Plant I Gallon GROUNDCO'/ER5 AT STET i P Limoni um Perezii 5ez Lavender I Gallon _ irachelospermum asia;icum Aslaic Jasmine 10. On grade planting backflll mix shall TA Tracheiospermum aslaucum Asiatic Jasmine I Gallon Aracsta los uva-ursl'Point Re es' P^9 9 3earberr 9 consist cf 50% Im orted to loll, 50~ p p " Lampran;Fvs auran!icus Ice Plant nailve soil !with no rocks larger than 2 vIN 55 diame;erJ. 3C 6oupainvi Ilea 'Barbara Kars!' 3ougalnvl Ilea 15 Gallon As Shown GROt1NDr-CVERS IN PARKING- FIELD V D3 Destic:is buccinator.a 31ood-red Trumpet ~d ne 15 Gallon As Showc Llmonlum perezll Sea '_avender II. All on-grade planting areas are to Hemerocallis sp. Day Llly reUeve iron and nRrogen stab! lized redwood soil conditioner at ti>; rate ~~ROUNDCOVERS GT 3UILDING of 6 cubic yards/1000 square fee; eaenly !!lied 6" deep into the soil :o _imon,um pereYl Sea ! avenger flni sh grade, Dress veoe!a Fortnight Uly Phormlum :yDue:' New Zealand Flax Geranium sanguineum Granesbi ll area wmicola 3er'rely SedgE ~emerocalUs sp- Day Lily RAIN '-ARDENS Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Swamp Paperbark Juncos sp. Rush Carex ;umicola 3erkely Sedge CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE. NARCH 3, 2008 MCG 108 ~: 06.102.01 DATE REVISIONS ~) MCGARCHIT"cCTS:D07 ALL RIGHTS flESERVED NOTE inu inlwmanpn ¢ concepNal in nal'ure antl is sublet! to atljustmenl gentling IuMn veriLcalipn antl CIanL ienenl. antl Govemmenlal Agenry approvals. No warteruies or waranaes of any Nino are given or imp6etl Oy Ne 4Grrled- 2, All planting areas sFall be :op-dressed with 3" layer of Flr bark chips having a maximum size o{ I" d''~ameter over Permatnene poPy:hylene weed oarier. 3. All street trees to be installed in accordance wish :hE sandards and specfl ca:IOns of t'ne Gry of Cupertino. 14. All r.ees within 4' of paving areas shall have deep root battlers Installed. Deep root barrier Model No. U3.24.2. !4151334.'.464 13. All slopes greater than 25:1 shall de covered with lute net;ing per the mane{dcturer'a speciiiodtl one. Overlap all edges a minimum of 2" and secure as required with metal triples. I6. All ;tees, sYeubs, graundcove~s and decent pldntings shall ve mafntd lned a"wove b' and below 30" at all sigh trl angle loca:i on :o allow vehl cle view. PLANT LIST CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L2 '~ 195 ~darket Street NTS i ~~ I' ''Z Sao Fraociscq Califamia 94103-2Di6 I~~ ~ ~~%'~ ~~~~~~ x`415,974,6002 ~, 415.914.1556 0 2s 60' ,oo' ~~~.-~~~~.~~~~~ mcgarchitecture,cam as ~4TE5 6 0.550 LIATES LINNET LANE STREET SCAPE GM1EN PREEN WITH YME P40CM5 STIdlOT112 {~ BiC 2"~-ION ='~iA W'.",: a ,ENDED SOIL e PVC 'JE.'INLINE'md`r'~_ ENY-:LOP? :acln el== - RAIN GARDEN SGALE: IR" = I'-0" CUPERTINOVILLAGE DATE'. MARCH 3, 2008 Mcceosx: oe.~o2o, LANDSCAPE SECTIONS DATE REVISIONS ~ MCG AFCHITECTS 2001 ALL FIGHTS AESEFVEO NOTE. T is inbrmdtien is cpncepNat m naWre antl rs suhJBCI 10 aa7eslmems vane~ng m~ne~.em~eanvn ana elem. Tenant. antl mental Agenry appmva4i No wananlies or guarenoe N elry a~etl are given of implieh by Ine arcnum CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L4 Nrs ~z i~~~ 0 2s so' ion' ~~ ~I~imc~ R~~t~r „,,,, ~~~~~o~'at~an 785 Market Street Sao Francisco, Califom~ 94103.2016 ~` 415.914,6002 ~ 415.914,1556 mcgarchiteciure.com G4TE5 d ASSOCIATES x i~E°_ -0 ~= R."JVD =os -~_ s~_c =_ avo ~~.^._~Tr s.. .^,R3C~'Si ~~-'=OAT GOBI=AN" DA-ED AJGJS" .8 X006 J i; //~ c~z _ i --- /- r t ~ cX'STIN~iiLD N! ~~ ~., m~ ~ ~ ~: DATE. MARCH 3,ZDB6 TREE REMOVAL PLAN MCG JOB Y. 06.1 C2.01 DATE REVISIONS Scale : 1" = 40' /lam I-~ --o z ~/ 0 20 ao ao Q MCG AACHITELTS Y007 ALL AIGMTS AESEAVED NDTE. This inlermdlien is c0icepwal in nature an0 is sub)¢pt Ip adjustments paneling turMer verit~catian antl Clent. Tgnanl. antl Gpvemmemal agency approvals. Na warramies or guaranties M any Bind are given or imp5ed py me Arcnnrl. ~\ LiNN.T LAS= L _ ~ ~~~ CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L5 I~tnaC~~ J~~~t~ r -- --- III I ~I,~ I I ,. i ~ _ I I I~ I l~ ~ ~~ ~- a ~ I i ~ I i ~ -~i - ~C \I ~ I i -III-_ /~ ~ ~~ i ~' / _ - i d ~~-----~ -~ I / ~~~ ~~~~ i ~ I I ~Q ~i i ~3 I ', nO/ .ILL ~t /r ~ ~I Ti I ~ I /^ // I r`i1 ~~~ 'll / 1 I Y °r ~ ~ .W I ~~ / d / ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~, I ~. / I ~I' I ~ ~~ ~ ~ I' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~g / ~ ~ / I / / Ma / / ~~ ~ ~~ ~ EXI~-ING- - I d //1~ t~~, ~~~ ~~ ~ I ~_---------- ~ I I ~~ ---- VI ~~ , oaa I~II~~~III IIIII~~~ III~IIII a ~.~. i~l~~~ll ~aJ~r~ ~~ 185 fAarlcet Street San Francisco, California 94103-2016 415.974,6002 1J 415.914,1556 mcgarchitecture.cam - ---- - GATES SASSOCIATES TREE nly. b"tUFS DBH CONDITION COMMENTS COMMENTS INCHES PERCENT ARSOR!ST C-RTES 55 GINKGC 11.5 65 HA5 ING! UDED BARK. REMCY SEGONCARY TOP 56 GINKGO l3 5C TREE LEAN5 AND IS 5'JPP~55ED 58 MONTEREY PIN°_ 14.8 40 TRUNK OCZING. R=-"IOVAL REGOMEND=_D 59 ASH 19.0 60 TREE IS IN PENINSULA THESE ?REE5 MUST BE REMOVED i0 MAKE WAY 60 ASH 20,6 55 UPLIFiINGCJRB LIGHiEN. FOR PROPOSED 3UILDING A 61 ASH 26.1 50 , DAMAGE TO CURB, CROTCH DECAY. MCST ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN FUTURE LANE OF TRARIC AND P.,RKING AREAS 62 ASH 22.1 50 SLIGHT LEAN AND INO_UDED BARK l4 GNINESE PISTACHE 4.0 l0 NEWLY PLANTED, KEEP THIN 15 CHINESE PISTAGHE 3.5 10 NEWLY PLANTE2 KEEP 'HIN 15 ASH 26.4 55 WEAK STRUGTURE,LiGNTEN OYR STREET. 18 ASH 35.5 45 SIGMFICANi INCLUDED BARC KEEP "HIN TREES ARE IN TH'c WAY OF THE PROPCSED T9 ASH 25.1 50 , ROOT CAMAGE, WEiAK 5TR'JC'URE ENTRANCE ALONG WOLF RD. IC2 GRAPE MYRTLE 2.5 l0 NEWLY PLANE^.. 103 CRAPE MYRTLE 2.4 10 NcWLY PLANED IC4 GRAPE MYRTLE 3 C 10 NEW YPLAN-D i0 BE 2c"IOVEC FOR A STRONG CORNER DESIGN . AT WO.FE RD 1 HONEST=AD RD 105 CRAPE MYRTLE 2.0 10 NEWLY PLAN"ED !?6 CRA3 APPLE 4.1 T5 HAS AMPLE ROOM TC GROW 125 CRA3 4PPLE 2 9 l0 HA5 AMPLE ROOM i 0 GROW TREES ARE LOCATED IN THE PARKING ! OT CI= 128 N=GTARINE . 1.5 EST. 60 NEWLY PL ANTED, HA5 PEACH LEAF CURL RANCH 99 AND MUST Sc REMCVED i 0 COMPLETE THE ADJUS~'1ENT OF THE PARKING .OW !29 NECTARINE !.5 E5T. 60 NEWLY PLANTED, HAS PEACH LEAF CURL !49 LOGJST 5.3 63 AMPLE GROWING• ROOM. THIN. 15C LOCUST 5.2 65 AMPLE GROWING R00^'I, THIN. THESE TREES MUST SE Rc'MOVED TO MAKE WAY 151 G-INKGC 5J 50 NUISANG_ FRUIT, TRUNK DECAY. FOR THE PARKING SiRUGTU2 AND THE NEW !52 MONTER=Y PINE 15,1 50 51GN1FICANi SEC•2uOlA PITCH MOTH INFESTATION. SWAL-'JLANDSCAPE AX75 ALON, LINNET LANE 153 MONTEREY PINE 14.6 60 PUSHING• C'JR3 154 MON =R=Y PINE .5.2,'.9.2 55 FORKS, FUSING- C'JRB, SEQUOIA PI-GH MOTH !55 LOCUST 5.2 65 4 FLE7 FROM G'JRB 156 LOCUS i 4.6 65 4 Fc'cT FROM CURB 155 LOCUST 5.1 65 4 FEE i FROM CURS 158 LOCUST 4.2 65 4 r'cE7 FROM CURB 159 LOCUST 5.8 60 4 FEET FROM C'JRB, BROCEN LIMB 160 MONTEREY PINE i5.6 65 LIG-H1=N OVER PAVING, ~RDPPING PISGH ON C.^,RS I61 MONTEREY PINE 24.5 55 FORKS AT 6', MOST GROWTH ON WEST SIDE 162 LOCUS i 5.3 65 4 r=ET FROM G'JR5 I63 LOCUST 5? 60 IRRGA~ 65 HAWTHORN 6. 5C LEANS AND' '~5 STRESSED 166 GINKGO 45 60 POOR FORM, LEANS THESE TREES MUST BE RE`10VED FCR iH_ Ibl GINKGO 3 1 50 SIGNIFiGANi TRJN!C DECAY REP'_ANTING OF A LANDSCAPE SGr'Z^"EN OF THE . APART"1ENi5 BCARDERING THE SOUTH 168 GINKGO 9.0 65 MULTIP! E TOPS BOUNDARY LINE. i69 GIN!CGO 53 65 TWO TOPS 150 GINKGO 65 60 LEANS, AN5 BEEN "OPPED Ill GINKGO 51 60 LEANS, HA5 BEEN 'OP°ED I i2 GINKGO 9,0 60 ! EANS HA5 SEEN TOPPED 153 GINKGO 5.8 55 LEANS, POOR FOR'1 114 GINKGO 1.0 63 HA53 TOPS. 115 GINKGO 1,5 10 LEANS I ib GINKGO 6.2 60 LEANS, HA5 0.~AK FORIh Ill GINKGO 6.0 10 IRRIGATE 198 TULIP TREE 25.1 10 UPLIFTING BRICKS, POSSIBLE APHIS PROSLEM. LIGHTEN FOR UINTER 119 TULIP TREE 20.3 65 3 TOPS WITH INCLUDED SARC, THIN AND CABLE IN WINTER PCSS~SLE APHIS PROBLEM THESE ?BEES MUST 5= REMOVED TO MAKF. WAY 180 E'/ERGREEN PEAR 9.1 50 CRACKING BRICKS, HA5 SIGNIFICANT LEAF SPOT. GROWING AROUND SUPPORT PIPES. PRJDENT TG ~MOV< FOR THE COHESIVE DESIGN OF ?HE PROPOSED 181 ASH 25.2 50 UPLIFTING CURB. HA5 GIRDLING ROOT AND 51GNPIGANT INCLUDED BARC IN5TAIL GABLE. BJILDING 3 182 ASH 22.4 60 UPLIF i INCs CURS- HA5 TRUNK WOUND WITH DECAY. 183 ASH 25,1 60 UPLIFTING GJ'RS. 5'JRRO'JNDED BY F-^.VING, HA5 INCUDED BARC 18c ASH 22.6 55 , UPLIFTING- CURB. CANOPY ALL SPROUTS. 185 ASH I6.6 60 SURROUNDED BY PAVING, RECENTLY PRUNE2 186 LOCUST 4.4 50 PLANTED i00 DEEP, ROO?b EXPCS'_D. HAS ING! UDED SARK. 181 LOCUST 4.1 50 PLANTED IOC DEEF,80075 EXP05ED.HASINCLUDED SARK. NEAR SEWER METER 188 ASH 246 50 UPLI~I ING CURS. RECENTLY PRJNED, HA5 iNGL'JDED 3A.RK AND G-IRDLING• ROOTS. 189 ASH '~.9.2 50 UPLIFTING- CURS. RECENTLY PRJNED, HA5 INCWDED BARK AND CANOPY IS ALL SPROUTS. 190 ASH 14.1 45 SIG-NIRCANIY SIR=SSED, VERY THIN CANOPY. PRUDENT TO REMOVE. 191 ASH 23.8 30 i OPS STUBSED OFF, WITH MANY SMALL SPROUTS. 51GN1F1GANi p!EBAGK REMOVAL 2GOMMENDED, !ffi ASH 23.6 50 RECENTLY PRJNED, SURROUNDED BY PAVING. GIRDLING ROCiS AND INCLUDED BARK. 193 ASH 23.9 60 NEWLY PRUNED, SURROUNDED BY PAVING. PUSHING- CURS. 194 ASH 185 60 RECENT! Y PRUNED, SURROUNDED B7 PAVING-. ROOT G-ROWING- AROUND SPRINKLER 197 ASH 16.1 60 REGEN i LY PRJNED, 3 "rEET FROM G'JRS. 196 ASH !9.1 65 R=CENiLY PRJNED,3FEETFROM CURS. I95 ASH 14.0 40 LEANS, WI i H ALL GROWTH OV=R ROAD. PRUDENT TO REMOVE. 198 ASH 24.3 65 'JPLI'r i ING CURS, t 'RJNKS AT 10'. THIN. CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE. MARCH 3, 2008 MCG JOB ~. 06.102.D1 DATE REVISIONS C MCG ARCHITECTS 2007 ALL RIGHTS flESERVEO N'JT'_ Tnis inlmmalion ~.a cprcepwal m ~a'ure and is wgepr rp atljuslmenls pending lunnei vera¢auon andClrem. tenant. ane Goveinmenlel Agenry apprpvals Np wananueswguarannes of any wntl are given pr ,mpoetl oy Ine acnnwl. TREEI~EPLAGEMENT D=SICxNA I ION A TOTAL Oi= 8~ TKES TO BE REMOVED. TNE1' U,''ILL BE REPLACED .AS ~~/! LOUJS iCi = 3 0 ~ vOX 4T = 24" SOX TREE REMOVAL NOTES CUPERTINO, CA SHEET L6 scale : ~" = aG' ~~ 185 ~darket Street ~~ ' ~ `Z San Francisco, California 94102016 o zo ao 60 ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~Ze~~lt~T ~ 415.914,6002 ~ 415.914,1556 ~,~}]'~?OI~~.~~f)j1 mcgarehi~chire.eam TREE N0. ~ GO"11'1EN'S INCHES GATES 523 6 IN NEW LANE OF TRAVEL 524 IB NEAR EXISTING BUILDING 540 4 NEECS i0 BE REMOVED FOR THE CREATION OF A N'cW 541 4 LANDSCAPE SCREEN 30RDERING EXISTING APTS. 543 6 IN DESIGNING A NEW COHESIVE TRANSITION BETWEEN PROPOSED °UILDING 3 AND THE EXISTING- C! LISTER OF BUILDINGS i-115 TREE MUST 3c REMOVED 5~-4 26 TREES i0 BE REMOVED FOR THE CREATION OF A SiRONG- 545 18 NEW LANDSCAPE BORDER OF T,-E PAR~CING- 5TRUG'JRE WIT-1 546 12 DRAINAGE SWALE 541 I6 54a 20 5~9 24 550 6 554 6 555 6 R1NK5 6 55T 6 GATES b ASSOCIATES CUPERTINO VILLAGE DATE: MARGH3.2D06 UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK PHOTOMETRIC MCG JOB #: 06.102.07 DATE REVISIONS Scale 1" = 30' Z 0 1S' 30' fi0 Q MCG ARCHITC'CT$ 2W] ALL flIGHT$RESERVEJ NGTE: Td!s!nlormalior. s conceptual m nature ana is suUleh to aauMRpnl6 pentl!ng lu!Inar!rprAlrelipn anU GieM Ta11anL antl Gove mental Agenry aopronls No warram~esmguaranees of any hma ve given or Imglree oy Ine Ara}een CUPERTINO, CA LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE syum ao 07 eeu'.og x,mae a,>!vlon : ~mons uP wm: F ur"oNU rD RSt rISM~SAaSG ARCwrecTUea ARm~ MOGN TED WiOEF oNE nswATrci&a LD~I]METALYUI!DE uit WBB ies tzapp p)5 3:3 o MDUNi ON fO' luMINAIR'c WrllSRIS; MORQONiPt PO&iIGN P01:. 14'PFF REFLECTOR DEVINE .!GHTING 5'EPL!GHi-HEAVY CiEAF 3W0.T Q 1D LM520DSLMH Outt GSi META! MED!UM 80.5E HIGH IR]9ap,I£S d0~0 015 afi MOON; <' 0.FF HOUSING SPECU'AF MEiW nat10E - ELiDR SLIGHTLY M1'G GUSS L _!u_ USURE STATISTICS DexnNmr. Symcd Ay My Mn MavMm Ava~Mm DARNING OECN + 19h 19)k ack N'A M,A SHEET E1 185 ~18tkEt SUEet San F~anei~o, Califomis 94103.2916 0415.914.6002 ®415.914,1556 mcgarchi~cturn com 'ep 'p.p 'ao 'ap 'oo 'p.o oa en oo ep o0 00 'oa 'no 'op 'oo 'oe 'o.p 'ap 'o.o 'o.o 'p.e 'on 'ao 'o.o en 'nc 'oo 'p.p 'eo 00 'oo 'pp 'ae 'oo 'eo on 'ae 'ao o.p 'op 'ao 'pp 'po 'op 'p.p oe 'oo 'o.e p.p 'pn 'De 'oo 'p.o ep 'pp 'o.o 'pp 'o.p 'oa 'oa he 'ea 'ao 'o.p 'oe 'Pp oe 'pp 'pa 'pe 'oD 'o.p 'oa 'oe bo 'e.e 'od 'ee 'on 'op 'op 'oo 'pp 'pe 'po 'oe 'pp 'eo 'op 'pe 'oo ue no p.e no 'oe 'ep 'ap 'oe 'no o.e bo 'eo o.p po 'oo 'op 'op 'eo 'op 'ae 'oa 'pp 'pa 'ao 'na 'ee 'eo 'oo 'po oe 'op 'oo 'o.e 'oo 'op 'op 'p.a 'pe 'oo 'oe 'ao 'oc 'on 'pe 'op 'eo 'pp 'oo 'oo 'po 'p.p 'no by 'p.o oo o.o oo by 'pp 'oe 'po 'ap 'pp 'oo 'o.e 'oo 'o.o 'o.p oo 'po 'pn 'np 'e.e pp 'ac 'aa bo 'oo 'po 'p.e 'oe 'oo 'oe 'pe 'oc oL op 'pa 'oe 'pe 'op 'op 'po 'oo 'oo 'ea 'op 'oo 'a.e 'p.p 'pp b.p 'oe 'oc 'op 'p.p 'po 'p.o 'oe 'oo 'ao 'on 'ea 'op 'oo 'pp 'pa 'pp 'po 'e.o 'oo 'ep 'o.p oo 'oo 'op 'op 'oe 'oe 'po 'ap 'po 'ap 'np 'np 'oo 'op 'oe 'pe 'Pp op op 'pa 'oo 'pa 'op 'po 'op 'o.o 'eo 'eo 'p.e 'oo 'oe op 'ap 'p.p pa oe 'oo 'p.p 'eo 'o.0 00 'oa 'o.e o.o eo 'pp 'oo 'eo 'ap 'po 'o.P 'ee 'ep 'oc 'o.p po 'oo 'aa 'oD 'on EE EE EE { + ~ 1' { • naalviHXltaA lUlo Dl: IM.]00°allGi ~UNnmR' ` o unaacm. ,~ ao ac ~u ao me ~ a ~n ~~A u GRY ,gym -na' P[ um=ml.ac I O G V r{ F N {; GU 1 a' GUr L Id4 {A. pA M1 .Va ~: r. - :3• f (~ orvuo r u -Ti16 U J1N~`[^ ~~H Val] ~ S:CiO sA~i ;: ~i Uar 61prc_ pgl .,a90..r:a.MUre GyA E'aU ^_F'Nd ~urn1~Si At ~44Nt euMe 11 J:14VIe ~ ' F~~ilP1 a 4' II 1 1 M:.ll :;FIC. :i ..:~.II:N SDUPC_ w, M i~ eo Ac i ?U ?G 15 ry 26 ltYIUNS ,~ ~la~ ~<n~~:,ym;~;~ ~:~~,~n~a 2 JFrCaI 5451 Put ruPeF tnaora auttdnum re'~N uwrb. W.rO a]y9atlerN&1a,9anpala. .'~ LFII:IUSAABLI' ¢rnAmca gas c s d.,mnMnra~ +~ Ah:14raE, xp lags ae re3~ pw,a ra_+a.zae;aR ncrel paa]DOlcaan 5 mowuNc rnzxsa crnaaeDay a e;A,al rcaM 6 r r„r ]a paC spw.m Dan ntm 0.+t @v~, mx,wme.d o;aa MumnaOa@ zapaa I~ L/THON/,4 L/GHT/NG` ~ ~ ~~~~~~ FEATURES & SPECIFICATIDNS rmo r. usF roN~rnp @ ~ ~~ i ArcACa[nnl Area d Awdr: e! lom neneA a . o YF. ...: .,r, ~~ AS1 fy A .. +~+ pm~A nsAIM .. .. • ~~ METAL XALIPE: `ANf~150W ' NIGH PAESSXAE AAAIGM. 7GNl 1SAVY DRDEAINO INFDAMATIDN ',:,^r;•a-sa:..::AnAC_ . - : ;na@aara@DAnnA.Anwvmdalm E,nr.I....p CI 1751.1 I. " :~, I; °~' J- - - - - - L - - n, A ~ ome:rr w,. •u .. .lP t..^ I,eN Illy "' !11W luAu ~' ~ .~ ,.. IWX V. •. M ax M1al u .i - __ -__ I - ~:;M'W7 i ..:. ~ RJE"t..Y i aaw. oae.~. „. .- , a:. n~cgmnom Axes, rmymies~ fA]A sure uw mamb;~pam ~o LnGlar luTdni '- ' l J ~• _ _ wm,oeeK axm~eA, asywreAm en Inm r 'j O.J'rU_tiASdE WA r r o; w~rerecm ~~:. Mr:. ~o~2.r A.AII I~[i g ~I, y II/' MA~ ~t ~ ~u...@ J nmr a_-mz 11Wfpl"-alA DATE: MARCFIa,zooe MCG JOB #. 06.102.01 UPPER LEVEL PARKING DECK CUT SHEETS DATE REVISIONS Scale : NTS 0 Q MCG ARCHITECTS 2GW ALL XIGHfS PESERVEG NOTE. Thls mfprmatipn.s cpnC¢plual m nature anC s suClacl w aQlus,meny panning IuuTer v@hA~anpn arrtl CliBnl. i anyM1 and Gpvemmemal AgM y approvals No werranpes p. gwnnA¢s N any h~nC are given pl implieC by Ine WphdH GWdnoi Shna I.: AS7-h1 S :~. Ifq CUPERTINO VILLAGE CUPERTINO, CA I~ L/THON/A L/GHT/NG` FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS w-fAD:n es .. m,. ". CWIS AU UN-.u ~~. .. . ~ Aor~L;al Mnenlad L m na lie 1~. BRA. tliNnr .~ ~ a W 1 ~ a. M ~,. .. Y!" ^ 1 - • ^ c' ~ ! ~ METAL XALIXF JL J ' """ r ' ' ' ' HIGH DRESSGRESGGNM RuOAfGCEM [,:~iA n r[M np .. . ~ ' . ll ~ ~ AERIS , .. yc!AW X ~ - . ,. -fr- iur u~, _ Sunda/n aunena ont-0SW1 .. ~ lKfMr. - I ~ :d4 I., .1 .,. : ...,. . ORDERING INFORMATION Ea.I,D' AsvrnsMSAV,msnPl ASWI I •-. m., is V_r4a Mwm i FSWr ~JI_ GAt . Iql .., ~ i.. : .41111 191 a .tA] ili li u. ! . ~ ... ~ ~~ 1!141 S0.:g ly ,ntim to ~,. GM i i , '~ ~ utAt Aw !ATAi YV@AT ~~ir Flel - ~x.,.d - 4 k In! r.t ym SP . [lOYI ::xi. i. i :~ :'. :n- ~ ~ . A.,. ~ tp~ i~. Aanv ., .. :NAi 4n .m D ,. .: , ,..., :. :. ~, ~.. ,. ~. i { . PAU :.. psor .:ILA „ usr.. w m~: e ~,s + n u. •~ n 1. ~n w. .....~,,,, .~~.. p . f.i P[ i. : eSaE .n nf. '..: A I . gmd: rr ~ sna, A,N1. d~5-E ]M G`.-0 SHEET E2 1851rlarket Street San kancisco, Caliiomia 94102016 X415,914.6002 ®415,914,1656 mcpan~itecture,can EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE C C 4 ~t S~o~' <# r y. Grace Schmidt From: Beth Ebben Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:02 PM To: Gary Chao; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: Cupertino Village---Cupertino City Council Meeting on April 15, 2008 For you..... -----Original Message----- From: Xin Li [mailto:xinli98@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:59 PM To: Beth Ebben; Gilbert Wong; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Mark Santoro Cc: Xin Li Subject: Cupertino Village---Cupertino City Council Meeting on April 15, 2008 Dear Cupertino City Council Members, Really appreciate your efforts in considering the parking issue in the discussion of the Cupertino Village redevelopment plan and permit. I was in the April 1st City Council meeting and filled the speakers card, but unfortunately, I was called off for some emergency stuff. I watched the meeting video later on and I really appreciate Council member Mark Santoro's effort to get the feedback from the nearby Sunnyvale residents by visiting the neighbors in person before the meeting. I would like make some comments on the Cupertino Village redevelopment plan in the Cupertino City Council meeting scheduled on April 15. I would like send you my comments in case I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow. 1. According to the applicant's redevelopment plan, there are about 33 (or 35) parking stalls shortage. The applicant proposed to use 2nd level of the proposed parking structure for valet parking for the retail employees. My strong concern for this proposal is that the 2nd level valet parking will bring big noise, light and smogs pollution to the neighbors because the employees usually take off in the late night, even in the middle night for the fact that some restaurants are closed 11:OOpm and the employee will leave after that time. 2. Please note that because of the historical reason, the Good Samaritan United Methodist Church has an agreement with the owner of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center that the Church members may take up to 200 parking spaces in the shopping center. That's why there is a gated door between the shopping center parking and the Church in the redevelopment plan. Did the parking stall calculation considered this factor in? The Church is also a very successful church and there are many members presented in the church activities, and most of church activities are in the weekends, which are the peak time frames of parking. If this factor is considered, the parking stall shortage in the shopping center is far more than 35. 3. It's estimated that every square feet of retail space will bring about $4~5 tax revenue to the city. The problem is if the parking condition and traffic become extremely bad after the redevelopment and the customers flow will be decreased and in turn, this might lower down the tax dollars bring in. All in all, I strongly opposite the redevelopment plan and would like the applicant make a overall planning on the parking, say construct amulti-level parking structure in the south side of the shopping center (current bank and Bar location) after the lease expired. 4/14/2008 Thanks Xin Li 1757 Linnet Lane Sunnyvale, CA 94087 (408)252-5286 4/14/2008 CC ~I(rslo~ #l~ Grace Schmidt From: Judy Hsu [judyhsu1@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:53 PM To: City Clerk Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Cupertino City Council Meeting on 4/15/08 Dear officer, I'm the Sunnyvale resident living on Linnet Lane, which is right behind the Cupertino Village Shopping Center on Wolfe Road. As you may already know, this shopping center is full of customers especially over the weekends. Instead of making atwo-story building, we as the neighbors would rather they build the building below the ground. It still can make the shopping easy for the customers, and it can also make the near-by residents feel a little safer for our living environment. Please consider my opinion for tonight's Council Meeting, since I cannot make it to attend. Greatly appreciate your understanding. Sincerely Yours, Judy Hsu (408) 973-1814 4/15/2008 C C.~4~- 15 -o~j Page 1 of 1 wry Kimberly Smith From: Steve Piasecki Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:35 PM To: Gary Chao; Kimberly Smith Subject: FW: Residence object to the over development plan on Cupertino Village From: keyu then [mailto:keyuchen@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:35 PM To: Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Steve Piasecki Cc: keyuchen@hotmail.com Subject: Residence object to the over development plan on Cupertino Village Dear Mayor and Council Members: This is homeower Keyu Chen living in Linnet lane sunnyvale and I also homeower in Cupertino. I'm writing this letter to strongly again the proposed redevelopment plan of the Cupertino village. For one, this is a very over development plan, this plan will have significant negative impact to the neighborhood's peace, privacy, neighborhood view and property value. For two, this project will letting heavy traffic on Homestead Road, Wolfe Road and our neighborhood, there will be a lot more vehicles come in and out, it will not only cause traffic problem, but also safety and air pollution issue, we will be very unsecured, our children will be even at great danger, we can't count how many accidents happened in parking buildings and were caused by careless drives. In order to do the construction. many matured tree have to be removed, the residents will face sever noise and air pollution. We are against the plan for a safety, cleaner, healthier environment. For three, As a fact, In Cupertino Village, there are still some units available for lease. The owner(s) should utilize the existng business opportunities instead of spending more to add retail building and a two level parking structure. People come for shopping and dinning here because they enjoy the beautiful tree, quit neighborhood, and the warmth of a low-key country style living environment. For four, every one know that commercial zone must minimize it's impact to the adjunct neighborhood, this project, however, obviously against this rule. Every neighbor I talked to strongly against this project, this project has to be rejected. So, the best solution is placing the parking garage in under ground on front of Ranch 99 Thank you for your help. Sincerely Yours, Keyu Chen More immediate than a-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger. 4/ 15/2008