CC 07-07-2020 Item No. 2 Civic Center Parking Analysis_Written CommunicationsCC 07-07-20
#2,
Civic Center
Parking Analysis &
Recommendations
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:42 AM
To:Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Written Communication, 7/7/2020 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2, "Civic Center Parking"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chao, Sinks, and Willey and City
Manager Feng:
While I serve as a library commissioner and this letter will include references to actions and
documents submitted to Council by the Library Commission in the past, my comments are my own
and are not to be attributed to the Library Commission.
Please accept this letter as written communication for the 7/7/2020 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2:
"Subject: Presentation on Civic Center Parking Analysis and Recommendations
Recommended Action: Provide input on the recommended actions to reduce parking
demand and to increase and manage parking supply at the Civic Center"
Comments
(1) I support the Staff recommendation to preserve Library Field as the treasured open space the
community appreciates today. No "carve outs", "cut throughs", or trimming to accommodate more
parking. Furthermore, I encourage Council to recognize Library Field as a city park at its earliest
opportunity.
(2) For the scope of the Cupertino City Center Parking Study ("Parking Study"), I feel the Library
Commission could have helped focus the scope of the study to include options to improve the
management and efficiency of the existing parking supply and use of real estate already dedicated to
parking use. The objectives of the parking analysis described in the staff report appear to identify
"increase parking supply" as predetermined conclusion:
"The purpose of the analysis is to:
1) Assess existing parking demands
2) Recommend solutions to increase parking supply
3) Evaluate and recommend methods to discourage parking vehicles at the Civic Center"
Could the community also be served by an omitted item 4), "Assess flow in, through, and out of Civic
Center destinations to improve access to the area and management of existing and anticipated
uses"?
The Library Commission has offered its ideas for Council to consider for improving access to Civic
Center destinations without expanding the footprint of the existing parking lot. Find the Library
Commission's suggestions here (written communication, Council Meeting, The purpose of the
analysis is to:
2
1) Assess existing parking demands
2) Recommend solutions to increase parking supply
3) Evaluate and recommend methods to discourage parking vehicles at the Civic Center):
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=761896&GUID=A1CFD5C4-3556-4158-8926-
4846C58EF8F8
Highlights from the Library Commission's recommendations:
+ PDF pp 3-4, Suggestions for Improving Access to the Cupertino City Center
+ PDF pp 24-26, Suggestions to Address Misuse of Time-limited Parking Stalls in the Civic Center
Parking Lot
+ PDF pp 38, "Attachment C" Reconfigured Parking Lot Idea to Accommodate Driver-side Standalone
Book Drop and Short Stay Parking (design mock up)
(3) I recognize that City and Library District employees who have roles that face the public most of the
time or as needed must be on site for most/all of their work day. However, as a result of social
distancing required to preserve public health now and for the foreseeable future, is it reasonable or
optimal to expect that all employees who reported to Civic Center workplaces daily in February 2020
will do so in the future, even after the current pandemic resolves? What portion of transportation or
parking demand projected from February 2020 or earlier is relevant today?
(4) Civic Center destinations are served by multiple public transit routes, including but not limited to
VTA Route 55 (a connector to Caltrain) and VTA Routes 23/523 (connectors to BART), but the Staff
recommendations do not include mention of programs to encourage the resident community to use
public transit to travel to and from the library. For example, students attending De Anza College,
Cupertino High School, and Homestead High School all have public transit options that can transport
them from school to Civic Center destinations.
(5) Overall, it seems the Parking Study focuses on solutions for weekday employees and de-
emphasizes strategies for addressing weekend and occasional evening need when community visits
to Civic Center destinations are likely to be high. I do hope that whatever plan Council adopts will be
considerate of encouraging community members to walk, bike, scooter, skateboard, or travel by
transit to Civic Center destinations whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 7, 2020 1:24 PM
To:City Council; Deborah L. Feng
Cc:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:2020-07-07 CC Agenda Item 2-Civic Center Parking Numbers don't math
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members and City Manager Feng,
In reviewing the material for Agenda Item #2‐Civic Center Parking I’ve found 2 issues:
1. Again, the Staff Report has NO PAGE NUMBERS! This makes referencing material difficult and time consuming
for all involved. Please insist that page numbers appear on all city documents.
SUGGESTIONS:
a. It appears there is a template for city staff reports. Add page numbers to this template and require
everyone to update their files to use this template.
b. Reject/do not approve/sign off on any staff report that does not have page numbers.
2. Staff Report, page 2 of 9, table of “current availability of parking spaces” the total number of spaces (add up all
the numbers) is 308 but the total number of spaces in “Attachment B – Existing Parking Map” is 322 (add up all
the zones). This is a difference of 14 spaces!
Q: Which is it, 308 or 322?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin