PC 04-10-00CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRHJ 10, 2000
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris
Staff present:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Michele Rodriguez, Planner
II; Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern; Peter Gilli, Planner l; Carmen
Lynaugh, Public Works; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Eileen
Murray, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 27, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting
The approval of the March 27, 2000 minutes was postponed to the April 24, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
7-U-00, 2-EXC-00, 10-EA-00
Rodney Bergman
10200 Miller Avenue
Use Permit to construct new garages and carports, modify landscaping and convert non-living
spaces to nine new studios/apartments at an existing apartment complex (Fountainbleu).
Fence exception to locate an electronic security gate at Sorenson Avenue.
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of_~pri124, 2000
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
2-GPA-99, 33-EA-99, 19-U-99
Santa Barbara Grill (Hagman Group)
10745 North DeAnza Boulevard
General Plan amendment to allow the conversion of retail commercial development potential to
office/industrial development potential and applying it to the subject site to allow its
redevelopment from restaurant to office.
Use Permit to allow the demolition of an existing restaurant and the construction of a three-story
(50 feet) tall, 40,000 sq. ft. building with surface and underground parking on about 1.37 acres.
t~equest removal from calendar.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 10, 2000
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
16-U-98, 43-EA-98
Adzich Properties
10216 Pasadena Avenue
Use Permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single family detached residences on
a net 12,480 square foot lot.
Request continuance to ~4pri124, 2000 meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to postpone Items 7 and 9 to the April 24, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0z0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to remove Item 8 (Santa Barbara Grill) from the calendar
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of an invitation to a Santa Clara
Valley Water District work study session on their Ordinance 83-2 on April 25th; an unsigned letter
relative to the Andronico's application, letters from Debra Jamison, Steven Patt, R. Bennett, Board
of Directors of the Commons of Cupertino, Jeff and Jean Dias.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: Ms. Anna P. Black, resident, expressed concern with the proposal
for the new library, in that she felt that the location for the new library should be sought first and
then input~from the community. She suggested adding another level to the present library rather
than build a new one. She said she was opposed to locating the new library between city hall and
the present library.
Chair Harris encouraged Ms. Black to attend the City Council meeting to express her opinion.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
5-ASA-00
Big Guy, Inc.
Lot 2-16, Tract 9054 Oak Valley
Architectural review of a new 4,778 square foot single family residence
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
1-DIR-O0
Mary Graham
10135 Scenic Blvd.
Request to move an oak tree and replace with an evergreen tree at a single-family residence
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
1-INT-00
Hayoung Lee
19777 Wheaton
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 10, 2000
Interpretation for a 540 sq. ft. addition to a single-story, single family residence regarding front
yard definition.
Com. Doyle requested the removal of Items 2 and 3 from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 1-INT-00 of the Consent Calendar
SECOND: Com. Corr
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Discussion of Consent Calendar Items:
2. Application No.: 5-ASA-00
Com. Doyle noted that the terrace was in the 10 foot side setback. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community
Development Director, said that it coul'd be clarified in the motion that it would have to conform to
the required setback requirement, and an adjustment would be made.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 5-ASA-00; approval based on
submitted plan set and material board; however the terrace must conform to the
side yard setback requirements of 10 feet
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
3. Ap~plication No.: 1-DIR-00
Discussion ensued regarding the replacement of the oak tree. Chair Harris asked the applicant to
address the two issues relative to the proposal to replace the oak tree when there was not
significant evidence that the tree was damaged, only mention that some time in the future there
might be some damage; and replacement of the oak tree with a deciduous pear tree rather than an
evergreen tree.
A representative of the applicant said presently the oak tree was not damaging the retaining wall at
the neighboring property; however it was presented to the Planning Commission because'it 'meets
the requirement of the ordinance that states "can cause potential damage to existing or proposed
essential structures." He said at the time the agenda was written they did not have clear
knowledge of the type of tree that the homeowner wanted to plant, but the homeowner later
showed preference for two 24 inch box sized flowering pear trees. Mr. Piasecki explained that
staff's concern was that the tree was one foot away from the retaining wall and because of the
height of the retaining wall, it could cause significant damage to the wall, and the wall would be
difficult to repair.
Ms. Mary Graham, applicant, distributed photos of the area, and said that she was open to
suggestions regarding the type of tree replacement. She said that because of the height of the
retaining wall, she felt that the damage would be significant. The photos of the tree were shown
on the overhead. She said when they moved into the home in 1989 the tree was about 1/3 of its
present size.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
She noted that there was a letter from the neighbor indicating he was not opposed to the change.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 10, 2000
Com. Doyle said that he could not recall in his tenure removing a tree with the size range of 70
inches. He noted that when replacing trees, attempts are made to replace the trees with native
trees. He said that he was opposed to removal of the oak tree. Corns. Corr and Kwok said that
they were also opposed to removing the oak tree. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the split
in the trunk line and said he was in favor of the removal of the tree because of the split and
unpredictability of the tree splitting and causing damage. Chair Harris clarified that a multi trunk
oak tree is a characteristic of the growth habit which doesn't necessarily mean the tree is damaged
or is a risk issue. She said there was no evidence that there is a problem, and testimony does not
indicate a present danger. However, if the tree was replaced, she said that it should be replaced
with a large tree, not too smaller ones.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to deny Application 1-DIR-00
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar
days.
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: 15-EXC-99
Applicant: Ann Dor
Location: 22525 Balboa Road
Fence exception for an electronic security gate in accordance with Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code.
Staff presentation: Chair Harris noted that the item was presented to the Design Review
Committee and they felt it was a broader issue than an architectural issue and should be dealt with
at the full Planning Commission level for the community to participate in the process.
Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff
report. He noted that the applicant was applying for a fence exception for an electronic gate
needed to protect the property from theft, vandalism, dumping and trespassing which had been
occurring. He discussed the issues outlined in the staff report: common areas, gate removal, gate
precedent within the city, other similar development situations, and history of the road sharing
agreement and quiet title. He illustrated on the vicinity map the proposed new location of the gate,
close to the bottom of the driveway, and which met with the approval of the Public Works
department. He explained the conditions in the model resolution relative to gate removal at the
owner's expense if the road becomes public or if two additional properties become developed and
is required by the majority of the common access developed property owners. Staff recommends
approval of the new location for the security gate.
A discussion ensued regarding the conditions in the model resolution. Chair Harris suggested that
the language be clarified relative to the gate removal clause, referring to the owner's (applicant's)
expense; stating that the parcel number should be included for the applicant. Relative to the
voting rights of the property owners, Chair Harris said that she felt the property owners should
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 10, 2000
have voting rights for each parcel they owned, as some owned more than one developable parcel.
(If a property owner owned 2 developable sites, he would be entitled to 2 votes).
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
She noted a letter on file from John and Ginny Ellis, who were opposed to the gate at the foot of
the hill.
Mr. Terry Brown, representing the applicants, reiterated the need for the security gate. He said
that although there are separate APN numbers on the parcels, they have been merged and each of
the owners has the right to a single building site, unless they come before the Planning
Commission to subdivide the property further. The construction of Balboa Road to this point has
been done with the understanding of the Public Works Department that there are a maximum of
five additional parcels possible. Mr. Brown said that he has worked on many projects in
Cupertino, and the Dot parcel has been subject to more theft, chicanery, and vandalism than all the
other properties combined. He noted that the roadway agreement provides that anyone who would
otherwise have access off Balboa Road, (the paper street) would have access by way of this new
road and all they have to do is to agree to share the cost of having developed the roadway.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that specific findings would have to be made
to approve the electronic gate. There was consensus that the finding (g) be included in Section I1:
"That the development is secluded and the gate is needed for demonstrated security issues."
MOTION:
SECOND:;
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 15-EXC-99 as amended
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
3-U-00
Fredric Divine Associates
10465 S. DeAnza Boulevard
Use Permit for late evening hours to midnight and for installing a parking lot drop box at a video
store in an existing shopping center (McClellan Road and So. DeAnza Boulevard).
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Planner I, said tha. t__staff had two options for the drop box
proposal; the applicant's proposal (Exhibit A) and the staff's proposal (Exhibit B). Staff also
recommends upgraded landscaping along DeAnza Blvd.
The applicant explained his preference for the drop box on the parking island (Exhibit A) because
of safety reasons relative to the employees leaving the store to retrieve the videos from the drop
box. The drop box at this location is visible from the store and the employee remaining in the
store would be able to see the employee outside retrieving the videos that were deposited. He said
the drop box does not generate a lot of traffic. He noted that their other video stores were open
until midnight and they were requesting the same hours for the Cupertino store. The applicant
questioned the requirements for additional landscaping. Chair Harris clarified that the reason for
the recommendation for additional landscaping was to screen the activity from the street. She
offered the applicant the opportunity for a continuance to discuss the landscape requirement with
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April I0, 2000
staff; the applicant declined. Mr. Piasecki commented that the original landscaping plans for the
center did have more intensive landscaping across the front area.
Chair Harris summarized that the ,three issues were: midnight closing time; which drop box
location is preferable, or none; and additional landscaping requirement.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Com. Corr said that staff's recommendation for the drop box was appropriate; hours are
appropriate; and the requirement for additional landscaping was appropriate. Com. Kwok said
that the midnight closing hour was appropriate; applicant's proposal for drop box is appropriate if
openings are in both sides of the box; additional landscape screening needed. Com. Doyle said
that staWs proposal was appropriate, which required upgraded landscaping; however, closing time
should be 11 p.m. Com. Stevens said that the midnight closing hour was acceptable to remain
competitive with the other video stores; staWs proposal for the drop box is appropriate. Relative
to the landscaping, he said it was an entire project and the video store should not have
requirements that are not consistent with the entire center. He said he did not agree that they
should be required to provide additional landscaping unless it was part of the entire center.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved approval of Application 3-U-00, to include closing hours of
midnight; drop box be located in the area proposed by staff; and that landscaping
upgrades be included according to the model resolution
Com. Stevens
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-1-0
10.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
2-U-00, 4-EA-00
Johnson Lyman Architects
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit for the demolition of a cinema and retail space and the construction of a new 32,160
square foot market and cooking school (Andronico's) at an existing shopping center.
Tentative City Council hearing date of Apr# 17, 2000
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, provided a brief overview of the
application for a use permit to demolish approximately 17,430 sq. ft. of retail and, cinema space
and construct a new 32,160 sq. ft. market and ancillary~g-0~oking school (Andronico s) at the Oaks
Shopping Center. During the last two meetings a number of changes were made to the center
design, among them to integrate the architecture of the Andronico's market into the look of the
existing center, match the roof pitches and materials, repetition of concrete columns match,
creation of more pedestrian accessible type amenities. He said the dance academy would be
relocated to another section of the center; truck circulation was reviewed; truck loading and
unloading hours to be limited to morning and early afternoon hours which are considered non-
peak times; changes to the rear elevations were made with additional landscaping, display boxes,
addition of trellis work; pedestrian connection across the asphalt re-established; and landscape
strip added to screen loading dock. He said that comments from the public relate to concerns
about traffic. Staff has proposed in the conditions of approval that the access issue be addressed
with Andronico's to improve how it works.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 10, 2000
Com. Kwok questioned if any parking spaces were being eliminated with the changes; Mr. Jung
responded that there was a surplus of 22 spaces. He also stated that the traffic would be one way
for trucks and vehicles, with a sign for exit only.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, explained that staff will measure the before and after
traffic volumes on the key streets and assess whether the supermarket will have an impact on the
neighborhoods. If so, staffwill meet with the neighborhood and address the impacts by installing
traffic calming measures in the neighborhood. In terms of the Glenbrook crosswalk, there is a
proposal to integrate with the senior center Memorial Park crossing, and the issue would be
addressed for the crossing both at the apartments and Memorial Park. He added that "no parking"
signs wc~uld be put on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He discussed the anticipated trip generation
figures generated by the supermarket. The results of the intersection LOS analysis indicated a
performance standard LOS olD, and a B- for both existing and background conditions; and a C+
for the project. Mr. Chong reviewed the diagram which illustrated the traffic generation and
answered questions.
Mr. Chong reviewed the exhibit illustrating the eastbound left turn spillback, and said that based
on current analysis, it was anticipated as adequate. He noted a glitch on the timing plans for the
lef~ turn, and added green time; however, said that another traffic count would be done next week
to look at the p.m. peak hour, to determine whether there is a need to extend the left turn pocket,
and at the same time put a condition of approval if there is impact for the applicant to contribute to
extending the left turn lane. Mr. Chong said that the letters received were related to operational
improvements, and said he has agreed to meet with one of the key participants to review the key
issues, esp?cially at Stevens Creek and Mary Avenue.
Chair Harris read portions of the contents of the letters and asked that Mr. Chong respond.
"Current flow from Mary onto Stevens Creek Boulevard is already difficult; the light for traffic
turning onto Stevens Creek is very short which means that to keep traffic from backing up on
Mary, drivers must make turns on red after the required stop. Often they are competing for space
to make their turns, with drivers making a U-turn from eastbound Stevens Creek who then turn
into the Oaks Center." Mr. Chong explained that an arterial management project to update the
controllers and signal timing plans would address the issue. Once put into the plans, he said they
would go out and adjust the timing to address any spillbacks or bad timing issues.
"Aren't 85 and 280 closed to trucks?" Mr. Chong responded that a portion southbound of 85,
south of Stevens Creek was closed to trucks.
"What is the cost to the City of Cupertino for traffic considerations related to this development,
specifically new traffic lights and new street or other constructions. Is there any?" Mr. Chong
said that future plans included putting some safety improvements at Stevens Creek and 85, such as
larger signal heads, and modifications to the traffic signals.
Chair Harris questioned if there were cause for new streets or construction related to the
application. Mr. Jung said that only private improvements related to driveway entrances that the
applicants would be financing; none to the city of Cupertino.
Chair Harris read into the record further inquiries for response. "This is an issue brought up
related to Stevens Creek Blvd. A lack of a pull in lane for buses at the Mary Avenue westbound
bus stop; this is a very heavily used bus stop that forces buses to occupy the right traffic lane while
Planning Commission Minutes S April 10, 2000
picking up and dropping off passengers." Mr. Chong responded that it was an issue to be
coordinated with the VTA who operate the buses, who determine the desirable locations l~or
turnout. He said if it was an ongoing concern, staff could meet with VTA to discuss if it was
possible to relocate the turnout.
"Lack of a right turn lane in the westbound direction to turn onto Mary Avenue." Mr. Chong
responded that the rule of thumb was having 300 right turns; and currently it was projected to have
220; therefore he did not anticipate an immediate need.
"Close proximity of the first entrance into the Oaks to the Mary Avenue intersection which
routinely causes traffic backups when cars slow or stop to negotiate the right turn into the center."
Mr. Chong acknowledged the problem, and said it was part of the scheme to work with the owner
of the development on how to address the driveway issues. He said he did not have a solution at
this time.
"Proximity of the second entrance to the right turn lane entrance to the freeway." Mr. Chong said
they would work with the owner and with the Planning Department.
"Steep bank of the second entrance ramp with a sharp turn at the bottom of the ramp; any cars
pulling out of parking spaces or pedestrian with bags or carts will quickly overwhelm the ramp's
ability to hold cars trying to enter the shopping center." Mr. Chong responded that it was another
issue to work with the Planning staff and the owner.
Mr. Dave Johnson, Johnson Lyman Architects, said that John Sutti, Bill Andronico, Reed Bennett,
and Mark ;Dick were present, and were in general agreement with the conditions specified and
were ready to move forward.
Chair Harris questioned if the parking lot was going to be restriped. Mr. Johnson said that the
Andronico's side of the parking lot would be restriped to meet the city standards. He addressed
the shopping cart issue, stating that Andronicos had a program to return the carts to the storage
area by the front of the store and were aware of the issue.
Com. Corr asked staff to clarify for the public the Planning Commission's role in terms of adding
and deleting businesses in this and other shopping centers. Mr. Piasecki clarified that the city was
not requiring the demolition of the theaters, and said that as long as the theaters are viable and can
operate in a market sense, the city has no input into w)_e~ther they continue operating or cease to
operate. He said the city does not get involved in market decisions, because market
determinations are complex matters and are influenced by market supply and demand fomes. He
explained that the city was responding to a private application from Andronicos and the property
owner. He said that the one thing the city desires is viable shopping centers, and it does not matter
so much whether it is theaters, bookstores or markets that make them viable, but they are
interested in seeing that the centers are viable centers and they serve the community in the market
sense.
Mr. Reed Bennett, General Manager for Oaks Shopping Center, said that the center entered into a
mutual agreement with the theater over a year ago which gave them the ability to replace them as a
tenant, which specifically involved a financial burden on behalf of the ownership. He said he felt
Andronicos would provide a chance for renaissance for the center. He said he submitted a letter
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 10, 2000
which illustrates their willingness to cooperate with staff in terms of issues of circulation, and
ingress and egress.
Mr. Brian Hiles, Assistant Manager of the Oaks Theater, apologized for the false perception that
the management of the theater was not interested in the possible demise of the theater. He said it
was a false perception and said that prior to becoming an employee, he was a long time patron of
the theater and considered it an icon in the community. He appealed to the Planning Commission
as a patron to consider not tearing down the theater. He suggested that Andronicos consider an
alternate }ocation; but said he was in favor of any alternative that would make both parties happy.
He also expressed concern about the DeAnza College traffic converging upon the center.
Ms. Cheryl Geddes, resident, Commons of Cupertino, ekpressed thanks to Chair Harris for
reading the letters submitted because of the time constraints. She said that it has been difficult
getting information about what is going on, and as of 4 p.m. there was no information available
relative to the agenda, which made ii difficult for her to respond. Ms. Geddes said that she
distributed a packet with photos and exhibits earlier this evening to staff. She said it was clear at
the last meeting that staffwas not particularly familiar with the shopping center and trafficlssues,
and perhaps the councilmembers and commissioners were not as familiar as they could be.
Referring to the vicinity map, she said that on one hand it was good to talk about the ramp as
being a problem from the community's perspective, but then to read a rebuttal that states it is not a
problem was a contradiction. She said that it was a major problem. As a community and resident
of the Commons, she requested that the city consider closing the entrance off completely, and if
there is going to be a large Andrnnicos in the center, make access be off Mary Avenue; even if it
meant putting in signaling or otherwise changing the entrances off Mary Avenue. She said they
were not fiimiliar with the design review process and perhaps should have known about this many
months ago and would have been able to participate and provide comment at that point. Ms.
Geddes said it was clear that they could cut and paste a picture of Andronicos, and move the
building to the other side and solve a great number of problems. She said it would eliminate the
truck loading problems that were discussed the last time, the backing up, all the issues related to
the truck loading. It provides a much more attractive arrangement, putting it up against the sound
wall, which is where most major shopping centers go. If there is a sound wall, they tend to back
the grocery stores up against the sound wall. She said that if they were involved earlier in the
process, they might have been able to offer some different thinking that could have been applied
to the project. In terms of traffic, a proper traffic study would have been requested before
approval of the project .because as a community they are uncomfortable with the notion of
approving a project without knowing what the impact is_.~ She said Mr. Chong eluded to the fact
that he had spoken with someone and she acknowledged that she was the person and said she
appreciated his willingness to meet with regard to the traffic study to make sure that all of their
concerns were relayed. She said she did not agree with the numbers in the traffic reports; stating
that 539 trips per peak hour on a Sunday is equivalent to 9 extra cars per minute, which is a lot of
cars. One left turn lane is not going to solve that problem; most of those trips are not going to
come out of the people who live off Mary Avenue. Ms. Geddes suggested locating Andrnnicos
along Stevens Canyon Road, as there are five other supermarkets to chose from within 1-1/2
miles. She said in terms of the community impact, loss &the movie theaters is difficult for some
of the community to comprehend, as it is the only Iow cost entertainment option, the next closest
theaters are at El Pasco and cost more than $8.00. She said she spoke to people who said the
theaters were viable. She requested that the Planning Commission not make a decision until the
traffic study has been accomplished, and the whole thing more thoroughly thought through and
perhaps avoid a rush to decision on the process. Ms. Geddes reviewed the suggested layout for the
Planning Commission Minutes l0 April 10, 2000
store against the back wall in the unused area, which saves the trees and allows for a different
orientation with a small caf6 eating area in front, provides interesting circulation for the traffic
without having to depend upon the ramp off Stevens Creek. She illustrated how steep the right
turn is into the Oaks by the Shane Company, and illustrated how the trucks unloaded their supplies
and delivered to customers. She said the problem with the circulation is a generic problem to the
shopping center that should be addressed in terms of servicing the businesses that are there; and
said for a successful center, you have to accommodate the suppliers to that center. She added that
having a major entrance as the principle entrance to the supermarket on top of that is a recipe for
disaster.
Ms. Nadine Deede, resident, said that Mary Avenue was a major exit from her neighborhood. She
expressed concern about the traffic, and competing with traffic making U-tums from eastbound
Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said there are delivery trucks as early as 6 a.m. parked between the
Shane Company and the east side of the shopping center. She said she felt the proposed parking
would not be adequate for the large size of Andronicos. She questioned if there was a ratio of
parking spaces per square foot and type of business. She said that the trash collection vehicles
would probably begin their collection as early as 6 a.m.
Ms. Ann Robertson, Oakdale Ranch resident, said that the Oaks Center was developed to service
the needs of the community, and asked that consideration be given to what is being traded off.
She said there is no downtown in Cupertino, but the Oaks Center serves the west end of Cupertino
and has provided recreation and entertainment for students and families. Residents are
questioning the need for another gourmet food store within such close range to the others.
Mr. Ray Pick, Oakdale Ranch resident, agreed with previous speakers about the loss of the theater
and bookstore as assets. He said the theater is the only theater in town, and residents are aghast
that the theater is closing. He compared the grocery store traffic with the theater traffic and
questioned how the numbers were arrived at, noting that he felt the grocery store would have more
increase in traffic than was shown on the charts illustrated. He said there was nothing addressed
about customers finding a back door into Andronicos. He expressed concern about the loss of
parking spaces because of the restriping and the loss due to the docking area.
Mr. Peck read into the record a letter from Carolyn Miller, President of Oakdale Ranch
homeowners association: "Members of the City Council and Planning Commission; this letter is in
regard to the recent discussion regarding the Oaks Center change and expansion. It looks as
though the city planners of Cupertino have been entice~b.y the glitter of silver and not thinking of
the very people they ought to be representing. A grocery store definitely removes the appeal, not
to mention the additional burden of traffic, added to Stevens Creek, Mary and Stelling. The
Council put a great deal of time and effort into exploring and limiting the construction of monster
home building when they instituted the FAR regulations, but doesn't seem to be following the
same plan for community development in regard to the Oaks Center. One of the appeals of
Cupertino since we don't have a downtown like Los Altos, Mountain View, Saratoga and Los
Gatos is the Oaks Center. The sense of community with the Oaks and Memorial Park and ! would
add the Senior Center provides an alternative to the City Center need. The intersection of Stevens
Creek and Mary is impacted enough from DeAnza students and vehicles during the day and
anyone would agree that leaving Flint Center and flowing into various traffic routings is
tumultuous enough without adding more constant vehicles created by the market. It has been my
personal experience to have waited through the left turn signal from Stevens Creek to Mary two or
three light changes before being able to make the turn, this during mid-morning hours without
Planning Commission Minutes ~ April 10, 2000
DeAnza or Flint Center traffic. Forgetting a sense of community could be the very thing to lessen
interest in living in Cupertino, after all there needs to be a reason to be here beyond schools and
convenient commute to work. Residential values, property values could be affected negatively.
As a realtor, one of the things I occasionally have to overcome with families moving into the area
is the lack of downtown. The Oaks Center, restaurant, shops, adjacent Memorial Park and Flint
Center helped to alleviate the lack of City Center. I would earnestly request that more
consideration than to earning revenue be explored. An environmental study should be a place to
start. Perhaps public opinion on a need for a grocery store would be another. More awareness to
this issue to residents would be most certainly reveal positive and negative things about this issue.
The limited information published in the Cupertino Courier is hardly enough to make the
population aware of what the city planners are doing. I thank you." (End of letter)
Ms. Debra Jamison, Rumford Drive, north of the Oaks Center, said that she submitted a letter
outlining her general objections to the proposal. She said that she is familiar with the area as she
frequents the intersection as a runner,' walker, a cyclist and a motorist. Relative to traffic, if the
figures presented do not include traffic from the new senior center, the figures should be deemed
invalid as the numbers would increase the traffic at the intersection. She said that the traffic
figures should not ignore the special events occurring at the park, Flint Center, DeAnza and the
Oaks Center. She said there were already many markets in the area, and although she was not
opposed to a small gourmet food shop and deli in the area, but another full service supermarket is
not appropriate for the site. She said that the added traffic would negatively impact the quality of
life for the neighborhood. She said she felt the loss of the theater would diminish her quality of
life and another supermarket would not increase it. She expressed concern also for the safety of
cyclists and pedestrians in the area. She concluded by stating that she felt there were other
alternatives for increasing the viability of the Oaks Center, including gourmet food alternatives.
Mr. Chong said that the traffic count used from thc senior center was from 1998 and thc expansion
would have to be factored in for more trips generated.
Ms. Wing Ping Yu, resident, said she is a frequent shopper at all the supermarkets in the area and
did not see the need for another major supermarket in the area. She said the area with Flint Center
and the theater is a cultural area and attracts people to Cupertino. She suggested that the exit by
the freeway onramp be closed because of the heavy traffic going onto the freeway onramp, even in
the middle of the day. She expressed concern also about the lack of parking spaces for the
supermarket in the center and said that the entire traffic circulation issue should be addressed
before approval of the project .....
Ms. Christine Pearce, Gardenview Lane, expressed concern about the traffic concerns generated
by the addition of Andronicos, and the quality of life if the proposal is approved. She said she
sensed that the citizens felt there has been a rush and reaction inthe project, rather than a through
planning. She said she submitted a letter asking if a full environmental report should be
conducted, to allow an opportunity for the proposed changes at the Oaks Center to be thoroughly
considered by the community. She said of particular interest were the assumptions, the sources of
data and the calculations that were used to assume that there would be no significant impacts on
the traffic relating to such a vastly different use. She pointed out that the last traffic count was in
1998 and questioned the validity of 1998 numbers. Mr. Chong clarified that the numbers used
were from the trip generation handbook, which is a nationwide survey of different supermarkets
based on their square footage, sizes, typical profile. Ms. Pearce said she would like an
independent traffic study done associated with the project, and that studies, analyses and
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 10, 2000
mitigation should be done prior to approval of the project, not after. She referred to the
environmental impact assessment prepared by the applicant and questioned the "no" answer
relative to transportation impacts. She said that she was aware there was a process which was
probably followed to some extent, but she was grateful to the Cupertino Courier for an article that
made people aware of what was happening. She said, it may not be as the city said the
commission felt the marketplace was making it difficult for small inexpensive movie theaters to
survive. She said it appeared the commission is making a marketplace decision there and it does
not seem to be supported by the operation of the Oaks. Ms. Pearee stated that the commission also
has said that the staff believes the addition of Andronicos would provide a much needed grocery
store for Cupertino, particularly for residents in this area. She pointed out that she did not hear
one person step up and say "please another market on Stevens Creek". She questioned the market
analysis done by Andronicos which indicated it would be a good location and questioned whether
it would really bring back benefits that would be a result of an additional market in the area. She
submitted two petitions which were generated a week earlier when community members became
aware of what was happening with the theater and proposed market. The petitions ask for careful
consideration of the benefits of keeping the Oaks theater; one petition is signed by residents of the
community and the other petition is non-residents. She concluded by requesting a full
investigation of what really is in the city's best benefits and if the choice is to go forward, then to
back up and look at what the ramifications are of putting the Andronicos market on that site.
Mr. David Michelfelder, resident of Glenbrook Apts., said that he was a patron of the Oaks
Theater and he too would miss the theater. He echoed earlier statements that it is a quality of life
issue in the community, losing the bookstore, and the theater would really send a message in the
wrong direction. He said Mary Avenue was a high use area, and construction will be going on for
the senior ~:enter. The east side of Mary used to be no parking with a bike lane along the curb; it
was changed and now the parking is along the curb, the bike lane is out further into Mary Avenue,
making it much more dangerous exiting traffic for bikers, runners, walkers, and traffic in general.
He said it also makes it difficult if considering putting a crosswalk from the Oakstheater across to
the apartments, as there is not a straight stretch of territory to put in such a crosswalk. He said
traffic into a large supermarket would create a major gridlock. Mr. Michelfelder also expressed
concern that the traffic impacts are not being addressed adequately with all the activities in the
area and the traffic coming from Highways 85 and 280.
Ms. LenOre Slayden, Pregident of Cupertino Countrywood Homeowners Assoc., said she only
became aware of what was happening last night when a neighbor told her. She said she patronizes
Andronicos in Los Altos and felt that Cupertino did not need another one in such close proximity.
She said she felt it was not publicized adequately '~d that the traffic analyses is grossly
inadequate. She said she has been a patron of the movie theater since it opened, and was sorry
she did not know about its demise sooner, as she would have brought more residents from
Countrywood to the meeting to voice their opinions. She said she concurred with previous
speakers, and implored the Planning Commission to move slowly and cautiously. She said they
were losing a community asset, and although she liked Andronicos market, did not feel one more
was needed.
Mr. Reed Bennett, General Manager of the Oaks Center, said that everyone had valid concerns;
however he wanted to make it clear that the theater was not going to remain in the Oaks Center,
and if Andronicos did not go into the center, another business would. He reiterated hosewho are
hoping the theater is going to remain are hoping in vain; it is not going to remain at the Oaks
Center. He pointed out that the theater was not viable and they have reached a mutual agreement
Planning Commission Minutes ~3 April 10, 2000
with the theater to end its lease; it is financially driven and not related to the quality of life, but is
strictly a matter of finances. He said they have to create a renaissance for the center and believe
Andronicos is the way to do it.
Ms. Gail Lee, Rumford Drive, said that her main concern was with traffic with people coming
through the neighborhood. She said she was not in favor of speed bumps and other methods to
keep the traffic down. She said the next two proposals on the agenda also would increase traffic
down Stevens Creek. If the two plans get approved without a comprehensive study, there is going
to be have gridlock on Stevens Creek and at 85, the exit and entrance into DeAnza College. She
said she felt that the traffic should be addressed more thoroughly than it has been.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
There was a brief discussion relative to whether or not there would be time to discuss Items I I and
12 because of the late hour, or to continue them to the next meeting.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Kwok moved to continue Applications 5-U-00, 4-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99,
8-EA-00; 6-U-00, 3-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 9-EA-00 to the April 24, 2000
Planning Commission meeting
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
11.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Ldcation:
5-U-00, 4-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 8-EA-00
Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group
Lot 6, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center
(So. DeAnza Blvd.)
Use Permit to construct a new 217 room, 130,580 square foot hotel, restaurant and bar, on a semi-
vacant parcel and operate 24 hours.
General Plan Amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet.
Heart of the City Specific Plan exception to exceed the 40-foot height limit and to allow hotel use
Tentative City Council hearing date of May I, 2000
12.
Application Nos.:
Applicant:
Location:
6-U-00, 3-EXC-00, 2-GPA-99, 9-EA-00
Cupertino City Center L.a_n~d
Lot 1, Tract 7953, corner of Stevens Creek and
DeAnza Blvd.
Use Permit to construct a new 205 unit, 293,137 square foot multi-family residential building and
7,000 square feet of retail space on a vacant parcel (Stevens Creek Boulevard at City Center)
Various exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan which may include allowing an
apartment use, maximum height of building and side and rear setbacks.
General Plan Amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to penetrate the 1: I setback
ratio from Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Tentative City Council hearing date of May 1, 2000.
There was a short break to allow the applicants of the continued items to ~:etrieve their displays.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 10, 2000
Chair Harris asked staff to address the issue of the idea of dealing with the mitigations after
approval.
Mr. Jung said that in terms of the environmental review, much of what is done in terms of the
transportation LOS relates to the intersection level of performance and as the traffic engineer said,
based on the projected traffic volumes in existing traffic levels, the intersections will work within
the allowed maximum adopted LOS standards of the City of Cupertino. The other issues
involving the driveway entrances themselves are not part of the signalized intersection system
which the traffic engineer primarily involves himself, although he will be involved in the terms of
circulation of the center itself. Typically something like that is not an intersection problem, it is
more of a perception problem, and clearly the shopping center has been there for a long time and
has been designed that way and there are certain things to make it work better than it is working
now, but it is not really considered from staff standpoint to be an environmental problem. For
example, a number of issues that the traffic engineer is involved with relate to traffic operational
issues, such as where should a new siop sign go, etc., and none of those issues end up with the
environmental review committee; it is just something that is done on a day to day basis to make
the existing traffic infrastructure work better.
Chair Harris noted that it has been discussed previously that when an applicant fills out the
environmental impact report, they tend to view the impacts in a more positive light than a more
impartial party or a staff person would. Staff is to review the document and there is a place on the
document for the staff person to indicate that he/she did review it. She said it did not make sense
to have G transportation say causes an increase in traffic which is substantial, and then show there
is no imp~act, which is inaccurate. Simply from Mr. Andronico's and community members'
testimony, does not mean that it will increase the load on the street above the LOS that has been
designated, but there is an increase in traffic. She said that the section does not deal with changing
the LOS, but identifies issues that need to be addressed. Chair Harris said the theater uses a
significant number of parking spaces for a significant period of time; but the time of day the
theater has its activity is different typically from the time of day that the supermarket would;
therefore there may be an impact on the other businesses in the center that are active during that
time of day. She reiterated that it was permissible to say that the impact is not significant, but to
say that there is no impact invalidates this particular environmental review document. It needs to
be a worthy document so that the community knows it was addressed and concluded there was no
significant impact, or mitigation proposed, but to say no impact would not be accurate.
Chair Harris said that issues such as widening or closing_the entrance on Stevens Creek Boulevard
should be addressed prior to the project being approved. ~he concurred that the issue of the movie
theater was not under the purview of the Planning Commission, but suggested a partnership with
Flint Center or Parks and Recreation to sponsor family movie nights. She also commented on the
possibility of a movie theater elsewhere in Cupertino, but pointed out that the admission price
would likely exceed $3.50.
Com. Stevens said he concurred with the comment on the loss of the theaters, but said it is market
driven and out of their control. He agreed that the Oaks Center was a community asset and said
there were issues to address such as traffic. He pointed out that after waiting five days, he saw
three delivery trucks parked on Stevens Creek unloading their deliveries, and two inside of the
Oaks Center, stopping traffic. Com. Stevens said that they would also be considering two other
projects in the near future, but the feed from them will be from Highway 85, and he felt it was not
reflected in the figures. He said that they would result in massive traffic pattern changes going
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 10, 2000
understand where those other things are and address those independently. He said he felt it was
difficult to approve this proposal because everything was intertwined; and suggested separating
the inside issues from the outside issues to find a solution. He said that he enjoyed the Oaks
Center, although it had a depressing atmosphere when so many of the shops were empty.
Chair Harris said that she was not opposed to the Andronicos market, and noted that an analysis
was done by the property owner and tenant which indicated the community would welcome the
market and it would revitalize the center. She said she felt traffic was an issue, and that factors
such as the senior center expansion, the 200 unit apartment proposal for City Center and the hotel
project should be included. She recommended an environmental checklist that more accurately
represents what a citizen would think and that whatever mitigations are proposed for circulation at
this center go back to the environmental review committee Ko that it is publicly done. Relative to
the entrance on Stevens Creek, she said she would like to see it expanded; perhaps moved further
toward Mary Avenue and opened up and become the entrance for the supermarket. Chair Harris
commended Mr. Chang on his excellent presentation, noting that the eireulation document
presented was outstanding and represented a tremendous amount of work which clarified a lot of
outstanding issues. She said that the circulation mitigations for the entrance issues needed to be
complete, and staff present a proposal for a quality project. Although they did not have a copy,
she said there was a new condition, and she would like to see if it still applied. She referred to the
minute order in the staff report relative to cut through traffic, and said they discussed a minute
order regarding the movie theater. She suggested the following wording for a minute order
relative to the Oaks Theater: "Whereas the Oaks Theater has been a community resource for a
long time and has made the Oaks Center a gathering place and provided a service for family and
communi~ ... Whereas it will no longer be a part of the Oaks Center ... Therefore a partnership
with Flint Center or Vallco or Parks and Recreation for family movies or a community based
movie project, might be a viable solution to maintain the sense of community in the City of
Cupertino."
Com. Doyle said he felt they should split the process and indicate whether they want Andronicos
or another development on that site. The neighbors submitted a great deal of input and there are a
lot of issues they want addressed regardless of what goes on the site. He said if staff could work
with the community to try to clarify the issues and determine how to address them outside the
application, the application could move forward in a short period of time. He said they need to
understand what is viable.
Chair Harris said that she did not agree; and there was a..ILroposal for high intensity use, and it was
hoped that the center would be successful and would have a high intensity use. She said the
former high intensity uses were successful at one time and brought in a lot of traffic. She said she
felt it should not be divided, and the project should come forward with a complete plan in order to
be effective. The Planning Commission would decide if it was a good plan, and if not, say so and
move on.
Com. Stevens said that the traffic problem was a city problem, and not a location problem; and it
would only get worse. He reiterated that it was a problem that needed to be addressed. He said
the problem was not directly related to whether Andronicos goes in the center, because the success
of the center is a separate issue. He said he concurred with the application in that view, and said
that they could not ask the applicant to do everything.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 10, 2000
into the apartments and the hotel and there are only two ways to reach them, one being by the
Oaks Center. He reiterated that traffic was indeed a major concern; the public was stressing it,
and he said he wanted current facts and figures to use in addressing the issue.
Com. Corr said that the issue is not whether or not there is going to be a theater, but as an
application comes forward, the application needs to be weighed against all the other criteria as
would be done with any other applicant. He said he was pleased to see that in the traffic
engineer's report, it was reflected that there would be a traffic impact, and although updated
figures were requested, it was wise not to produce them at this time because anything produced in
the last two weeks would have been sorely distorted because of what was happening and not
happening at DeAnza College and other factors in town. The information on turns was useful in
terms of what would be projected through that intersection hnd what crosses through. Much time
was spent looking at those tums and it resulted in a tally of how many vehicles go straight
through. He said there were major .things in the works to help the traffic flow, that traffic
problems were a reality and it did not help to pretend that they did not exist. Com. Corr said he
felt the layout of the project was a good one and although they still needed information on traffic
studies, they were close to where they needed to be. He questioned ~hat the result would be if the
western entrance on Stevens Creek was closed; how many people use it; and how many people
would be negatively impacted. He said such a move would gain parking spots on the inside of the
center.
Com. Kwok said he agreed with Chair Harris relative to the EIR. He said he was not convinced
that they had a handle on the traffic, and that each time there is a B- that changes to a C+, it draws
people's attention. He also said that with new projects, more traffic was generated, but there are
ways to mitigate the traffic. He said he was not prepared at this time to support the project,
because of unresolved traffic issues. Although the Planning Commission could not control the
path of the movie theater, he said he shared the community's concern that it related to the identity
of the Cupertino neighborhood. He said that the fate of the theater did not dictate the project, but
he suggested looking at other alternatives to increase the economic vitality of the Oaks Center. As
was mentioned before, he also suggested a partnership with Flint Center or the Parks and
Recreation Department to show family movies or foreign films. Com. Kwok said he agreed with
the other commissioners that the project needed to be studied, and issues addressed before they
become too severe.
Com. Doyle pointed out that the Oaks Center has a high vacancy rate for a variety of reasons. He
added that the site had past traffic circulation proble~m__s associated with neighboring DeAnza
College, Memorial Park, and other special activities; and regardless of any changes to the
development site, the problems will still exist. He said the cut through traffic in those
neighborhoods would worsen regardless of what is on the site, because people will not want to go
through the Stelling intersection if they can take 30 seconds off their trip. He emphasized the need
to come back with a viable alternative for the center, not necessarily a grocery store, but a
workable alternative; because by not putting anything on the site or making a change on the Oaks
Development, the city is susceptible to a more massive redevelopment project. He referred to the
two large hotel and apartment developments being proposed, and commented that the applicants
would be eager to show other areas where they would like to put up much higher density projects.
Com. Doyle said that if they wanted to keep the small area and make it the Heart of the City, they
had to be certain everyone agreed to what it could do, and not be fooled into thinking that stopping
the development on this one parcel would solve all the problems. Work with staff to try to
Planning Commission Minutes la April 10, 2000
REPORT OF TI-I~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m. on April 24, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: April 24, 2000