Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05-28-1974CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 28, 1974, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY HALL, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SALUTE TO THE FLAG Chairman O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. with the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Comm. present: Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe Comm. absent: Adams Staff present: Director of Planning and Development Sisk Director of Public Works Viskovich Assistant City Attorney Kilian Associate Planner Cowan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 13, 1974. Page 15, paragraph 4, second line: Delete the word "most" and replace with the word "more". Moved by Commissioner Gatto, seconded by Commissioner Woodward to approve the Minutes of May 13, 1974, as amended. Motion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Regular Adjourned Meeting of May 1, 1974. Page 4, first paragraph, second line: Delete "etc.". Moved by Conunissioner Gatto, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the Minutes of May 1, 1974, as amended. Motion carried, 4-0 Minutes of Adjourned Meetings of May 15 and 23, 1974 not available at this time. PC -152 Page 1 PC -152 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING POSTPONEMENTS City of Cupertino: Public hearing to consider 1973 Comprehensive General Plan. Upon recommendation of the Planning Director, it was moved by Comm. Gatto,. seconded by Comm. Woodward to continue the General Plan discussions on the hillsides and the goals to June 12, 1974. AYES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Adams Motion carried, 4-0 'WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -- None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman O'Keefe announced that due to the magnitude of Agenda Item 5 (The Vallco Park Regional Center Use Permit), he wanted to discuss with the commissioners and the audience whether this item should be discussed first at this meeting. Further, he wanted to discuss the possibility that this be the only matter discussed at this meeting. The staff stated there had been a verbal but not a written request to have Item 7, AndreaTs Delicatessen taken off calendar. Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Cooper to take off calendar Agenda Item 7, application 9-U-74. AYES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Adams Motion carried, 4-0 . Comm. Gatto said he could appreciate Chairman O'Keefe's suggestion but in all fairness to those on the Agenda he would like to go through the Agenda as it is written. Comm. Cooper would prefer to spend the entire evening discussing the shopping center although the other items are also very important. She felt that they could be more properly dealt with at another meeting, scheduled as soon as possible. It would be better to hear the entire proposal for the Regional Shopping Center application at one sitting. 4. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Woodward stated that normally he would wish to follow Comm. Gatto's thinking but since the Regional Shopping Center is uppermost in most minds, this evening, he would prefer to tackle it. Mr. John Denman, resident of De Anza Oaks, stated he would like the Planning Commission to follow the Agenda. The people .interested in the application 31-U-71 amendment' have been to two previous meetings on this matter and would like to have it resolved at this meeting. He further stated that if Vallco Park is going to take an entire meeting,then let them come back another time. The Westfield Company representative stated they would like very much to get on with the discussion of their applications 20-U-73 and 10 U-74, but that they would acquiesce to stay with the Shopping Center discussion at this meeting since it is of such magnitude. Mr. Paul Harrison, De Anza Oaks resident, stated their problems at De Anza Oaks are in need of immediate action. Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to continue Items 3 and 4, the Westfield Company, to May 28, 1974. AYES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Adams Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Comm. Woodward to continue the entire Agenda with the exception of Item 5 (Application 6-U-73) to May 29, 1974. AYES: Comm.. Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Adams 2. Application 31-U-71 of DE ANZA OAKS: AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT to amend the approved Use Permit Development Plan for the 211 -unit single-family, residential., cluster development within a P ( Planned Development with residential use intent) zone. Said property is located southerly of and adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 1600 feet west of Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing. PC -152 Page 3 PC -152 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE MAX 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Associate City Planner said that in February a gentleman wrote to the City regarding parking problems and the City Council directed the staff to place this matter on the Planning Commission Agenda for this and other reasons. The original Use Permit was approved in 1971. Since.that time there has been a series of changes, both authorized and unauthorized, resulting in a significant change in the overall plan. He then went over the entire development plan. The Site Plan shows 31 units deficient in terms of off-street parking. The staff's recommendation is to.require the developer to install garage door openers. The application was approved with 4.4 off-street parking spaces per unit. The Associate Planner said that in the future, more time is going to be spent on preliminary plans to minimize the possibility of incorrect plans being used. He noted that some fences have been extended into the open space areas and Open spaces near the sound wall. It was noted that several of the large oaks have been lost, however, consultants hired by the developer have stated that this is not necessarily due to construction in that area. Mr. Bob Hardesty, Deane Company representative, described some of the difficulties and how they originated. He believed that the tight backup space behind lot number 35 was designed by the architect. He further stated. the space between lots 35 and 29 is the same A distance as the roads running through the development. It was Mr. Hardesty's understanding that the Use Permit Development Plan was schematic -and the requirement was that there were not to be significant changes made. It was his contention that most of the changes on the map have been cleared through the City. He said they offered garage door openers, at cost, to the people who wished to have them. The property owner of lot 35 chose not to purchase one from him. To his knowledge, they did not come to the City for approval of moving some of the fences and extended some of the patios into the open space. He confirmed there is no landscaping on the hill between the sound barrier and that row of units. He said the tree surgeon has stated he did not believe tree damage was due to construction. Mrs. Sandra Harrison, lot 60, De Anza Oaks, said she had statements to make in regard to the issues of the parking, oak trees, and the backyards along Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said they were told if they purchased a home on Longdown that they would get larger backyards, extending up to Stevens Creek Boulevard. That row of open space is full of weeds and she believes the homeowners would vote to allow those people with homes in this area to have that open space, with the provision that they would care for it. She said there is no landscaping around the entire perimeter of this development. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mrs. Harrison said two of the three oak trees that have died dicT so immediately after a 12' trench was dug next to the trees. She submitted colored slides of the general trend of neglect shown. The tree roots were exposed for a year before the developers were forced by the City to have the trees inspected and treated. After looking into the matter, she recommended that nothing should go inside the drip line of •the trees. She objected to the addition of a parking space in the grove of oaks across from lot 35. She said Mr. Griese has been cited for illegal construction in his garage, which adds to his. parking problem. The general feeling in this subdivision is that the off—street parking spaces should be labeled "Visitors and occupants of the development should use their garages and driveways". She had no idea that her house was not placed correctly on the lot. She has spent considerable money on her 12' patio and landscaping. The Assistant City Attorney answered the Chairman that the encroachment could be resolved in several different ways. A grant of easement by the Homeowners Assoc. is one solution. The problem here is that the Director of Public Works feels the fence lines should conform with lot lines to minimize future problems in the case of resale.. Another-.solution.would be a grant of fee title. Another possibility would be that after five years all these people could file suit to gain this property. The Director of Public Works stated that if the instrument is to be an easement, he would prefer to have it all done at once. The Assistant City Attorney answered Chairman O'Keefe that an easement would be the most efficacious way to handle this matter, although it would require separate documents. A transfer of fee title would be quite difficult. If there is substantial violation some action could be taken to. effect the sale of property. Comm. Cooper felt the problem with the parking spaces would have to be solved in another manner. Chairman O'Keefe stated that the Planning Commission realizes the homeowners have a very real problem here and that the matter requires more study. Comm. Gatto asked if there is a legal remedy in regard to the loss of trees. The Planning Director said that anybody who does something to the trees to cause their death must come to the City with an acceptable plan for replacement. PC -152 Page 5 PC -152 Page 6 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28,.1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Denman showed slides describing the weeds and pointing out the fire hazard. A letter from the Homeowners Association is on file at the City recommending an extension of his patio. He said his is the worst case in this development. He further stated the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association would grant an easement. Mr. Bill Griese, 10130 Firwood Drive, wanted to comment on three areas of discussion: open space, trees, and parking. He feels that most of the homeowners would agree there would be no problem of extending the property line to the sound barrier. This would decrease the financial responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Between lots 78 and 83 there is a large, common area that will have a few trees. There is no provision for watering of that area. He would like to see a provision for watering made a requirement of the developer. In regard to the trees, most of the people are there because of the trees. He under- stands the homeowners will be liable for these trees in whatever condi- tion they are once the developer has completed the project. Problems could show up years later. In regard to the parking situation, Mr. Griese said his unit, number 35, is the end of Phase II. He stated he was never able to find out what was going to go in next to him. He feels there will be a serious parking problem throughout the entire subdivision. He has one garage and one carport, and he owns two cars and a motorcycle. He stated that the lady living with him cannot maneuver her car in such a restricted area. He keeps his motorcycle in the garage, as he has previously had two motor- cycles stolen. He needs one additional parking space. He stated the garage door openers would make it more convenient for the people to use their garages and he felt this was the responsibility of the developer. Mrs. Joanne Ross, lot 58, said she lives directly across the street from the two oaks that have died. She submitted pictures taken in 1973. She did not want to state that the trees were deliberately destroyed, but she questioned whether they have been adequately protected. She would like very much to have those trees that remain, preserved. Mrs. Linda Denman, 22801 Longdown Road, wanted to discuss lots 5 through 18 which don't have any back yards. She said they moved to De.Anza Oaks from an apartment and would like very much to have -a back yard in which to garden and to have a patio for barbecueing. She said nobody has assumed the responsibility of that open space and she and her husband would be more than happy to care for the portion immediately behind their unit. Mr. Tom Cherry, lot 5, offered to come back another night to discuss his request, in light of the heavy agenda for this meeting. 4 I MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Cooper was answered by the Assistant City Attorney that the Planning Commission has the ability to revoke the Use Permit if this is not overridden by the City Council. The problem, of course, is that many of the units are built and occupied. The Planning Director went through the conditions recommended by the staff. These five conditions can be found in the. April 18, 1974 memo from him. The subject: Proposed Amendments to the De Anza Oaks Development Plan. Comm. Cooper would like to see an easement given to the people so they may have backyards. She would also like to see that area landscaped by the developer and maintained by the homeowners. The common ground between lots 78 and 83 should be landscaped and sprinklered. Garage doors should be given to the person without one and a rebate to those who had purchased them at cost. The dead trees should be replaced with the largest specimen trees available. The Assistant City Attorney answered Chairman O'Keefe that if the Use Permit were revoked an injunction could be filed against further use of that property and criminal action filed. However, this is not practical once a developer has developed and moved on. Chairman O'Keefe stated he feels that the homeowners should receive the property they thought they were getting. Comm. Gatto said that if the approved development plan_calls for landscaping this should be the developers responsibility. Mr. Denman.said the landscape plan calls for natural land- scaping; that is a pretty broad statement. The majority of homeowners along that area would be willing to landscape at their own expense. Mr. Hardesty said it is their intention to put in the fences and the landscaping in those areas. He added the parking is per the approved plan. One of the residents on Longdown Road was concerned about the fences being extended to the sound wall and the residents in the middle of the block not being able to haul dirt, etc. into their backyards without going through the front door of their home. This will be worked out through the Homeowners Association. Comm. Woodward also advised the Homeowners Assoc. should have a covenant with those homeowners that they will maintain the easement. PC -152 Page 7 PC -152 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 4-0 Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Chairman O'Keefe to approve the amendment to application 31-U-71, subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Directors memo of April 18, 1974 with the following changes to those conditions. Condition 1 shall reflect the exhibit with the deletion of all blue spaces. Condition 2 is all right. Condition.3 is all right except that it will be modified to reflect the deletion of the blue spaces. Condition 4 will have the addition that all lots where the property lines are extended shall have some means of access along the sound wall to allow maintenance of the individual .properties. It will be left up to the option of the Homeowners Assoc. to work up an easement or covenant to solve the mainten- ance of the property. The developer shall assume financial responsibility of the landscaping. Condition 5 is all right. The addition of a new condition number 6 - that all dead trees shall be replaced with minimum 24" box specimen trees and that irrigated landscaped areas shall be put in per the City's requirements. I Comm. Cooper believes that the No Parking and Visitor Parking signs should be more clearly designated. As to conditions 4 and. 5, the Assistant City Attorney would like the City to have the authority to require a final map. He also asked if there is a time limit in which to resolve these encroachments. Comm. Gatto and Chairman O'Keefe asked that the provision that these encroachments shall be completed within 18 months of the completion of the development be added as one of the conditions. AYES: Comm. Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman O'Keefe NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Adams Motion carried, 4-0 Chairman O'Keefe called a recess at 9:50 P.M.. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 P.M.. t MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5. Application 6-U--73 of VALLCO PARK, LTD.: USE PERMIT to allow construction of a regional shopping center containing a total of approximately 765,000 square feet of commercial floor area in addition to the existing Sears facility within a P (Planned Development with a regional shopping center commercial use intent) zone. Said property is located southerly of and adjacent to Freeway Route 280 at its intersection with Wolfe Road, extending southerly on the westerly side of Wolfe Road from said Freeway to Stevens Creek .Boulevard and extending southerly from said Freeway on the easterly side of. Wolfe Road to Vallco Parkway.. First Hearing. The Planning Director reviewed the procedures of the Use Permit and then asked that the Assistant City Attorney discuss the rules of the Environmental Impact Report. The enactment of the toning has been held in abeyance by the City Council. At the June 3rd meeting the City Council will review the EIR and make some decision on the rezoning. The letter from Dennis Riches was read into the record. The Assistant City Attorney said this Use Permit i.s under the PD Ordinance. There is an EIR. This is not a public hearing on the EIR, but rather a public hearing on the Use Permit. The final decision is made by the City Council. As a recommending body, the Planning Commission has the authority to question all information brought forward and has the right to ask for additional information. Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager of Vallco Park, stated he had with him two representative$ ofthe architect and developers who prepared the Environmental Impact Report. He stated he has attended all but 3 of the 106 public hearings on this project. He then synopsized the history of development of Vallco Park since its inception in 1963. As an industrial park with mixed, related uses there are 260 non-commercial acres in Vallco Park. In August of 1968 there was a zoning change to allow for the Sears store and in January 1969 Sears was granted a Use Permit. At that time, there was the general concept for •the shopping center. In April of 1973 the Goals Committee recommended that Cupertino should have a regional shopping center of high quality and in June 1973 Vallco Park was selected as the location for it. On April 15, 1974 the City Council had its first reading of the ordinance for this zoning. On May 10, 1974 Superior Court Judge Chargin upheld this zoning. PC -152 Page 9 PC -152 Page ' 10 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING Mr. Ward went on to describe the development of Vallco Park, including the dedication of major thoroughfares and the creation of a Local Improvement District for the improvement of these major thoroughfares. As to the Hilton Hotel, he said the lenders are waiting to see if the City has an adopted general plan. Mr. Ward said Vallco has spent $6,500,000 on off -site work, has pro- vided 10,000 jobs, and has developed 52 acres of landscaping. There has also been a substantial amount of taxes and assessments. Mr. Ward went on to say that we are going to have to put the jobs in Cupertino rather than have the traffic merely pass through Cupertino.. The people have to shop somewhere, and they would have to use the same streets to go to other regional shopping centers. It is better to drive a shorter distance to do this shopping. Senate Bill 90 was said to be the answer to tax problems for the homeowners, but there are deficiencies not provided for in that Bill. Mr. Ward explained that it is important for the City and for the neighboring residents to have the shopping center on both the east and west sides of Wolfe Road. Vallco has reduced the size of the center and lowered the profile: There are many gardens planned in the mall. The firm doing the EIR decided the automobile crossing over Wolfe Road would create an impact so it has now been decided to take the east -west traffic through a tunnel under Wolfe Road. Mr. Ward said it was -their opinion that the recent election showed the citizens of Cupertino want controlled growth. He is aware of a petition signed by some 740 persons registering objection to the regional shopping center at Vallco Park. They feel the size of the center will add social problems. It is his contention that 33 people rather than 740 people have looked at the plans, models, pictures, etc., and that their interpretation of the project has caused the balance of these people to sign the petition. Many of these people have received wrong information. This commercial development will be a service to the people in the area. He then asked the Chairman for permission to speak at the end of the public testimony. Mr. Ralph Butterfield, of Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons Architects and Planners, said he has attended most of the public hearings on this project. He reviewed the original and the scaled down proposals. Now, all structures will be 1 -story. There are 8 acres of covered parking. The overall configuration is smaller and has been broken up. There will be skylights and full-grown trees in the malls with many plants and greenery. There will be a transparent element crossing the road for pedestrian traffic only, with small boutiques and shops. The development will have a rustic appearance, using wood, brick, copper and many organic materials. There will be a 25' buffer strip and an 8' wall runs unbroken at the property line adjacent to the residential. Existing redwood trees will be preserved. The present. 4 grade will be maintained along the property line and the 8' wall will be measured from the residential properties. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Butterfield said that when the first increment is built there will be a 36' landscaped strip along Wolfe Road. This will includ a double row of trees. The tunnel is a more costly solution to the automobile traffic, but will be visually more attractive. Comm. Cooper asked the distance on the west side between the property line of the residences and the masonry wall. Mr. Ward said the Bullocks store will be some 84' from the property line. There will be a 25' bermed landscaped buffer zone. Chairman O'Keefe asked for comments from the audience. Alma Dippel, 10402 Somerset Court, Cupertino, stated that the Planning Commission is about to make a decision that will affect thousands of people for many years to come. A petition has been signed by over 800 people now who do not want a shopping center in Vallco Park. She charged the EIR has mistakes and deletions. The decision here will have a substantial effect on the finances and the environment of this area. She objected to the size of the shopping center and asked that a further reduction in size be recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Mr. Al Middlebrook, 1.9651 Drake Drive, Cupertino, said he supported Mrs. Dippel's statements. His concern is for the noise pollution that will be generated by the center. He lives at the northeast corner of the side where the redwood trees are. The EIR did not go into a detailed survey in that area close to his. residence. The current noise levels caused by Freeway 280 are excessive. His property lies closest to the overpass. He has constructed an 8' solid wall between his property and the freeway and he finds no appreciable difference in noise level. He feels the height of these commercial buildings should be the height of the adjacent residences. Since the Planning Commission did not attend the presentation of the EIR, Comm. Cooper asked the consulting firm to speak to the traffic, air and noise impacts. Mr. Harry Serdin, of Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, the consulting firm that prepared the EIR, went into a detailed description of the anticipated pollution levels caused by the regional shopping center. There would be a 20% increase and therE would be serious impacts along Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. As to the noise impact, he projects no serious impact along Wolfe Road, Freeway 280 or Stevens Creek Blvd. unless the trucks, are next to the 8' solid wall. It was his contention. that Mr. Middlebrook saw no appreciable change in noise level after con- struction of his solid wall because it was only the width of his property. There will be a noticeable change when the entire wall is constructed. The freeway in that area is at grade level, and in some areas is higher than the homes. PC -152 Page 11 Pc --152 MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page .12 Comm. Gatto.stated the Federal Government has done studies on this and has found large areas of landscaping will reduce pollution. Mr. Serdin said this can have a -localized effect. However, hydrocarbons are a regional problem, not a local problem. The only way you can control this problem is to encourage transit. Keeping the traffic moving is another mitigating factor. Slow -moving traffic and cars waiting at a standstill create more hydrocarbons than moving traffic. Mr. Paul Heidrik, President of Bullocks Department Store, said they will have one or two gas -driven trucks per day. The noise level with that kind of equipment is minimal. Comm. Woodward commented on the letter received this day from the Department of Transportation. He asked how the applicant intends to mitigate the problem of over -burdened intersections which will break down movement at other intersections. Mr. Hans Korve, of DeLeuw, Cather and Company, said their report described a solution that will keep the traffic atC level. They do not state that adjacent intersections will break down. The basic conclusion of their report is that with recommended measures taken, it will take care of the traffic generated by the shopping center. They recommended multi- phase traffic signals. Comm. Woodward asked about pollution due to the idling traffic. Mr. Korve stated •that the left turn going north from Valico Parkway could be omitted. The person desiring to go that way could make their left turn at Stevens Creek Blvd. He said the level of traffic you see today is what you will see when the shopping center is completed. Comm. Woodward was concerned about the left turns onto Stevens Creek Blvd. from the service station at Sears. The Associate Planner said they have suggested the main exit be at the west end of Sears. - Secondly, by eliminating the bump, you take away a hazard and the person who wants to can remain in that left turn lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. The Associate Planner said there will be a comprehensive signing program informing people where they can go. The May 24, 1973 Traffic Report is based on the larger shopping center, which has been scaled down. The August 1973 addendum indicates a 30 to 40% reduction in traffic. Comm. Woodward requested an analysis of the letter from the State Department of Transportation. Chairman O`Keefe said he had some questions •on air quality and on noise. He referred to page 127 where it speaks about carbon monoxide levels. He asked if there is not a significant difference between the "build and no build". Mr. Serdin said there is a 22% increase, but it does not surpass the standards that we are looking at. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Serdin answered Chairman O'Keefe that the definition of "acceptable level of noise" is 60 dba. The solid wall will give a 10 dba reduction, and this is 10 dba below what most people consider adequate. Comm. Cooper said that upon reading through the EIR she has about 25 questions she would like answered. After much discussion, she agreed to give the consultants the questions and they could answer them at another meeting. Mr. Walter Ward said the traffic counts were all based upon leaseable square footage. The ice rink is a recreational use anc is not computed in the commercial zone. Mr. Korve said the impact of the ice rink was not covered in the May 24th staff report. Comm. Cooper asked for statistics on traffic projections of the core area. PC -152 Page 13 Comm. Cooper felt the EIR was very comprehensive, covering a wide range of subjects. However, she feels that ethically, an EIR should be impartial, and she feels this report is extremely partial, making it difficult for her to have confidence in it. For instanc , on page 20, she would like to know the total sewage to be pro- duced by the entire Vallco Park. Also, more information is needed on the electrical power supply; i.e., how much energy will be used and what P.G. & E. must do in order to supply the energy needed. On page 127, she asked if the 22% increase included pollution presently here. She was answered this figure was just for the shopping center. She felt there was need for an explana- tion of Table 48 on page 138. There was a discussion about the solid wall. It was learned it will be of hard material, such as brick or stone, which will reduc the noise more than wood could. Mr. Butterfield answered Comm. Woodward that the Bullock's load dock is at a 90° angle from the property line. Chairman O'Keefe felt the proposal for a TBA really had no place in the Vallco Park Regional Shopping Center. Comm. Cooper asked if statistics were available of Stanford or Valley Fair shopping centers as to sales per square foot. She wanted to know what the percentage of total revenue would be due to specialty shops and restaurants, as well as department stores. Mr. Ward said he would have this information for the next meeting. PC -152 Page 14 MINUTES OF TIIE MAY 28, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Comm. Cooper wanted to know, when talking about a reduction in area if it means reducing the total area by reducing each component or.by removing a major component, and if the effect would be the same in either case. The Director of Public Works stated that the smaller the shopping center, the less percentage of reduction there will be in traffic. Any further reduction in size of a shopping center would probably mean a reduction in the size of the property. Mr. Robert Leste, Vice —President and Director of Leasing; Phillip Lyon and Gordon, Los Angeles, said he does not believe that this is relevant to the function of the shopping center. The breaking point at'which a regional shopping center ceases to function is very close to the pro— posal presented. You must have enough variety of merchandise in order to attract a broad segment of the population. This is called synergism, the sign of a balanced shopping center. It means the total effect is greater than the sum of two or more effects taken independently. He said you cannot balance this type of shopping center by reducing it in size much more than has already been reduced. There does not appear to be a significant difference in terms of traffic in the smaller versus the larger center. Comm. Woodward asked in regard to Figures 27 and 29, whether the Miller Avenue traffic was addressed. He said there has to be some solution to Miller Avenue, even though it is not in Cupertino 'S jurisdiction. The Director of Public ;Works stated that the improved four lanes of Miller Avenue will handle the 1995 traffic without any problem. Comm. Woodward said that if the traffic becomes congested at intersections, cars will detour through residential streets. Tha Director of Public Works said this possibility is being studied. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Comm. Woodward, seconded by Comm. Cooper to adjourn this meeting at 1:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M., May 29, 1974. Motion carried, 4-0 APPROVED: /s/ Daniel P. O'Keefe Ciairman ATTEST: /s/ Wm. E. Ryder City Clerk