PC Packet 01-27-2015CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: draft Minutes of November 25, 2014
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft Minutes of November 25, 2014
Draft Minutes 11-25-2014
2.Subject: draft Minutes of December 9, 2014
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft Minutes of December 9, 2014
Draft Minutes 12-09-2014
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most
cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to
a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
3.Subject: Use Permit Modification for Smoke Eaters Restaurant
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
January 27, 2015Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: approve the application per the draft resolution
Description:
Application No.(s): M-2014-01
Applicant(s): Julio Espinoza (Smoke Eaters Restaurant)
Location: 10650 S De Anza Blvd
Modification of a Use Permit (U-1988-11) to extend the operating hours past 11pm
and to allow a separate bar at an existing restaurant
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Smoke Eaters Business Plan
3 - Plan Set
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.Subject: Director's Report
Recommended Action: accept report
Director's Report
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
January 27, 2015Planning Commission AGENDA
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially
appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s
decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is
described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you
wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a
speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to
discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If
you wish to address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by
during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above.
Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note that Planning Commission policy
is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs
special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the
meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning
Commission meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be
made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives
linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
33CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
DRAFTMINUTES
6:45P.M. NOVEMBER 25, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofNovember 25, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. byChair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant CityAttorney: Colleen Winchester
Associate Planner:Colin Jung
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Draft minutes of October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, andunanimously carried
5-0-0to approve the October 28, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as written.
2. Draft minutes of November6, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION:Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Gong, andcarried 4-0-1, Vice Chair
Lee abstained, to approve the November 6, 2014 Planning Commission minutes
as written.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
2
PUBLICHEARING:
3. EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42, Hillside Exception to allow the development of a5,213 sq. ft.
(EA-2014-07)single family residence with a 1,412 sq.ft. basement on slopes
Darrel Harris (Yao/Li greater than 30%; Tree Removalpermit to allow the removalof
Residence) 21730 Rainbow Dr.three specimen sizeCoast Live Oaks. Postponed from
October 28, 2014Meeting. Planning Commission decision final
Unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the overhead presentation for the application for Hillside Exception to allow the
development of a 5,213sq. ft. single-family residence with a 1,412 sq. ft. basement on slopes greater
than 30%, and Tree Removal Permit request to allow the removaland replacement of three specimen
size Coast Live Oak trees.
He reviewed the proposed site plan, house elevations, geotechnical review, and geologic review. The
city geologist reviewed the reports, conducted his own research and a site visit and concluded that the
project is geotechnically feasible if you follow the structural recommendations of the consultants for
both the house foundation and the retaining walls. The city geologist recommendedminimizing the
use of a filtration system as a solution for drainage; instead the city geologist was recommending
what has been applied to other hillside homes, relying on a stormwater detention tank. The city
geologist also recommended that the mass grading not be allowed during the rainy season. He
reviewed the history of the informal trail through Rainbow Drive to the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve which has been in existence for over two decades and used by local residents. The property
owner has agreed to move the existing easement to a more accessiblearea in exchange for the city
abandoning the dedicated easement in his front yard; he will create anew pedestrian access easement
through the rear of his property near the same area where the existing informal trail exists. It is
uncertain how much of arealignment the property owner would decide he needs to do; if he decides
to realign the trail away from the driveway, he will be required to create a new access across the rear
of his property or sides which may involve some additional grading and switchbacks to create a
usable trail; and also that the trail access to the property must be maintained throughout the life of the
hillside exception and this includes during the residential construction of the project.
He reviewed the Tree Removal request as outlined in the attached staff report.
The ERC reviewed the proposal on October 16th and recommended the adoption of a mitigated
negative declaration; and asked the Planning Commission to look at the feasibility of a trail across the
property. Staff recommends approvalof the hillside exception per the findings and approval of the
tree removal request per the findings.
Staff answered Commissioners’ questions.
Colin Jung:
Said staff does not feel the existing easement is very usable asit is too steep; it was never improved
and goes through two properties. While there is an option of creating an improvement across the
property for that established easement, they don’t have the authorization or approval to cross the
adjacent neighbor’s property; it would be similar to a small trail segmentthat would stop at the
property line. Staff prefers the existing alignment or new alignmentthatcreates the same access to the
land and has lined up the approvals with the adjacent property owners, for real access vs. future
access.
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
3
City Attorney:
The city has an existing easement elsewhere on the property; the people who own the property are the
applicants and the city has an easement going across but in a location that is not being used; then the
city would vacate that easement and acquire the easement where the used trail currently is or in
another alignment.
Colin Jung:
Said one of the adjacent property owners is an avid user of the trail and has said she would be willing
to sign off on an easement that would cover that portion of the road. The adjacent property owner is
Barry Barnes who does business with the city and he said he did not have an issue with granting the
easement and he did not ask for any compensation.
Gary Chao:
Said that Barry Barnes’ would have to sign for the easement to formally take place on his property.
There needs to be other conversations with everyone using the driveway, especially at the terminus of
Rainbow Drive that has a gate blockingvehicular access, where people merely walk around the gate.
A more formal definitive pedestrian path needs to be carved out to allow a more formal entrance to
the area.
Com. Takahashi:
Asked if after gaining full legal access through the easements, would the trail then be more formally
recognized with signage?
Colin Jung:
He reiterated what he said in terms of the other conversations they need to have with other neighbors
including the applicant later because when you approach the terminus Rainbow you are presented
with a big gate and if youdon’t know better you wouldn’t trespass or attempt to go around it. They
could talk to the group of owners who benefit from that entrypoint later on to figure out a good way
of dealing with the issue. There are some security issues, but it is desirable to have an access point
for the pedestrians, where they can see it and not be turned away from using it.
Com. Takahashi:
For the two tree removalsthat staff is recommending, is it possible to have some typeof conditional
element associatedwiththe removal of those trees, i.e., move forward with the project, determine if
the trees are indeeddetrimentally impacted or dying and removed after the fact to see if they possibly
could survive.
Gary Chao:
Said the Planning Commission could provide staff the direction for them to work with the applicant
and city arborist to try to save those treesto the maximum extent possible.The applicant will be
responsible for providing the trail improvements. If he decides to eliminate the access point which is
likely because of the intersection with the driveway, he will have to create alternative access; either
condition 33 or 34 in resolution.
Chair Brophy:
Addressed the issue of compliance with the fire department’s standards relative to turnaround where
they want to be able to do it even if there are cars parked there. This would account for a large
amount of the grading. He said he understood the concernof the fire dept. in having access to a
property in case of emergency, but given the concern about doing anundue amount of grading, could
they go back to the fire dept. to see if there is a way that can not only save the applicant money but
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
4
also deal with the long term issue of whether or not grading affects the risks of landslide despite
doing state of the art design.
Colin Jung:
Said they worked with the fire dept.and the design of the turnaround does reflect the fire dept.
requirements for their trucks, and is there anopportunity to go back to the fire dept.and ask if that is
necessary or is there another alternative to minimize the flat area they are asking for. He said that if
the Commission desires, they can direct staff to work with the applicant to have that conversation
with the fire dept. that the Commission desires to minimize grading. Are there any alternatives?
They need that amount of space and see if there is any other less impactful turnaround.
Daryl Harris, Architect:
Commended Colin Jung on the excellent report; said they were pleased with the outcome and are
willing to work with the conditions as stated.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Rose Ann Wolpert, Rainbow Drive:
Said she has been using the trail for many years and appreciatesthat it is maintained. Her main
concern is that they would be able to still use it. She questioned the timing of the trail installation;
and asked if the new switch backs which will be needed are going to be installed ahead of time,
because if they are not, the proposed area is very steep. She said she would like to see that happen
before the other part of the trail is blocked.
Said she shared ownership of the private drive with the applicant and also with another neighbor and
was concerned that the road wouldlikely be damaged during construction; and asked whether it is
possible to have a performance bond or some assurance that will fund any damage to the roadway.
Lisa Giefer, Regnart Rd.:
Complimented Colin Jungfor his hard work as it isdifficult to get all the necessary property owners
to agree on what the right thing to do is. Said she and others appreciated having the trail which she
has used for more than 20 years. The realigned trail is steeper than the existing informal trail; how
will they know what that new trail is going to look like; who will determine what that form factor is?
The current trail is a deer trail, if considering a lot of switchbacks thatmight also cause erosion
issues in the future. The resolution has information about trail maintenance stating that if a tree does
fall on the trail, the owner is responsible for removing the tree. If torrential rains occur in the future
and the trail gets washed out, who would be responsible andwhat are the metrics for getting thattrail
reestablished? Said she wanted assurances for that issue as well as assurance that they would be able
to use the trail throughoutthe project; they want unhindered access to the trail throughout the
construction and staging. Said she was grateful that all the property owners are in agreement that
they should continue to have access to that trail.
Said her home was north of the hill, and she was fortunate to have a view, but had concerns regarding
the retaining walls and screening. The information online doesn’t talk about screening the downslope
retaining walls and the upslope retaining walls. Residents who live north of the project will likely
have a clear view and she wants to make sure they are not looking at concrete walls.
Said she agreed with Com. Takahashi to have the trees slated by staff for removal; give them chance
and see if they survive the construction; if they don’t they can be removed later. Said she supported
the project provided they make sure the trail is accessible, it doesn’t need to be ADA compliant. She
said she appreciatedall the work thathas gone into the project so far.
Helene Davis, Palos Verdes Ct.:
Said she has also been using the trail for over 20 years, and thanked the homeowners, Mr. Barnes,
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
5
Jonathan Yow, Cathy Li and the Wolpert families for agreeing to keep access to the trail. Said she
wanted access to the trail while the project is underconstruction; her personal feeling about signage
after the trail was complete was not to have any signage; keep it a neighborhood secret, the way it has
been for 25 years. She thanked staff for the work done on the project and expressed her appreciation.
Greemie Van Buren, Rainbow Ct.:
Said she usedthe trail once a week and commented that the trail is a little steep, and was the easy way
to get to Fremont Older. She said she was pleased that they were keeping the trail and not getting rid
of the access. She expressed concern that there were many bushes in the area where the new trail will
be and she hoped they would clear the bushes for the new trail and make sure that the trail was
walkable, even if somewhat steep. She said she would like to continue hiking to Fremont Older
Preserve.
Rich Schumacher:
Said he had been using the trail for many years and appreciatedwhat everyone has done to maintain
access. He said he liked to climb the hill with his mountain bike.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Chair Brophy:
Noted receipt of emails, all but one for maintaining the trail access to Fremont Older; one stated
opposition to the removal of three specimen sizeCoast Live Oak trees, and opposition to hillside
exception to build a 5,000 sq. ft. house.
Reviewed the concerns voiced by speakers.
1.Ensure that there be unhindered access during the staging and construction of the house.
Colin Jung:
Stated it was covered under the last condition of exception of resolution, maintenance of pedestrian
access; “property owner shall maintain pedestrian access through the property to facilitate
……………not be unreasonably withheld.” That covers it now and prior to the construction of the
house;the applicant will be granting the easement and getting a vacation of the existing easement,
and at that time we will have a better ideawhen we know where the easement is, what he is thinking
about in terms of the trailaccess and Public Works Dept. has already beeninformed of this so they
will be looking at that with an eye toward what improvements need to be made if any on the land to
maintainthat trail access.
Chair Brophy:
2.Some speakers expressed concern that the new trail wouldbe steeper than the existing one; he
asked if there would be any problem maintaining a steeper slope over time, and how do they
know if it will be designed in a way that will be usable by a reasonable number of people?
Gary Chao:
Thanked the speakers for their positive comments. Said in terms of maintenance, Ms. Giefer was
correct, there is a condition that requires maintenance. The words “unhindered” and “accessible” are
the key words that relateto the responsibility that the applicant has in terms of maintaining an
accessible, unhindered pathway to and from the Fremont Older preserve.
To that extent staff will do their best to work with the applicant. They still havethe option of keeping
it where it presently is; the goal is to at least come out ofit no worse than what exists now in terms of
the grade. Hopefully the new condition will be better; it will be on your path and freshly prepared;
but it is expected to be accessible and unhindered; if a tree falls over, it is the applicant’s
responsibility to take care of the tree. If for some reason the trail becomes inaccessible, we can talk to
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
6
the property owner about clearing the path. That is the extent of the maintenance we are expecting
from the trail. The design will be reviewed by the city engineer.
Chair Brophy:
Asked if there were any issues anticipated relative to thevisibility of the retaining wall from
properties to the north?
Gary Chao:
The presentation shows an unscreened wall, downslopewall; there is a condition under tree
replacement that talks about Oak replacements towards the removed Oak and staff is specifyingthe
location of those 6 Oaks in front of the downhill sloping walls.Hopefully in a few years, once mature,
they will offersome screening. If the Planning Commission feels that thereshould be more than the
Oaks, theycould specify that staff go back and work with the applicant to look at the design because
it could be stepped down one notch or create another planter wall infront of it so it is more cascaded
or stepped down. There are opportunities to grow vines or plantings for the effect of the 6 Oaks in
front of it and in the backdrop if there are any gaps or openings in between, it will be filled with
vines. There is apallet of options to considerdirect staff and perhaps ask applicant for his opinion.
In terms of the back wall, it is not seen; it is thebackside of the house; if there are concerns they can
be discussed with the applicant about putting siding materials on some of the walls that maybe
visibleso it is more terraced instead of straightwall; realizing some of the terracing featuresstepping
down strategies potentially you incur more grading because you are cutting into and maneuveringthe
dirt more.
Chair Brophy:
Make sure that as part of the trail any bushes or shrubs will be cleared to make sure it is walkable.
There was also a question about damage to the private road; how do we handle that to the extent the
contractor will have to be coming in onthe private road?
Gary Chao:
Said it is governed by the Public Works Dept., part ofthe review from Public Worksis to look at the
language specified in the easement; the common access easement that is recorded on the applicant’s
property. Many of the caseswhere it talks about maintenance and upkeep or even ex-vacations of the
conditions in which it ought to be maintained; meaning when the property owner goes throughthe
construction, if they haveto open up trenches or modify a portion of the road, Public Worksstaff is
going to ensure that they restore it back to that stated condition. Many timesthere are bonds to
ensure that be carried out prior to thefinal occupancy of the project.
Staffencourages since there is one adjacent neighbor, that the parties involved get together and sort
out in advance some of the expectations; as a courtesy a construction management plan will be
required so that the timing of construction, hours of construction will be sorted out before
commencement of construction is allowed. Staff encouragesconversations and coordination between
the two private parties as well.
Colin Jung:
Referred to the resolution and discussed the changes to be made.Said that they couldadd a condition
thatthe applicant shall preparea landscape plan to be approved by the Director of Community
Development with the purpose of screening visible retaining walls.
Gary Chao:
Said the house is pushed as much into the hill aspossible. If you want to terrace the front of the wall
you essentially have tobuild another wall to be in front of it for no purpose other than just create a
more terraced look.
Cupertino Planning Commission November 25, 2014
7
ColinJung:
The hillside standard is that all visible retaining walls and grading cuts need to be screened from
public view and there is already language that it needs to be screened by public view.
Chair Brophy:
Commented when it first came up at the ERC meeting recently, they potentially could have had a
difficult problem if people wantedto maintain the access throughproperty owned by the applicant
that has been public access for twenty or more years. Often staff ends up refereeing squabbles
between neighbors; he said he appreciated that not only the applicantandhis architect, but the
adjoining neighbors and the people nearby who used the trail have worked to find a solution that
works for everyone. He complimented Colin Jung for his hard work in putting the project together.
MOTION:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second byCom. Gong and unanimously carried 5-0-0to
approve EXC-2014-09, TR-2014-42 and EA-2014-07, per the model resolutions and
also adding condition that the property owner prepares a landscaping plan to be
approved by the Community Development Director, with the purpose of screening
visible retaining walls;Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accept the
final draft resolution with changes discussed during staff presentation.
Friendly amendment by Com. Gong:To add condition to minimize grading at all
possible situations and also to put forth the best effort to save trees Nos. 6 and 30.
(Vice Chair Lee accepted Com. Gong’s friendly amendment)
Chair Brophy:
Clarified in terms of grading; work with the Fire Department to see if they will consider a design that
would not requireas much earth movement.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORTOF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Tonight’s agendaitemdiscussed.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners: Report at next meeting.
Economic Development Committee: Meeting cancelled for lack of quorum.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Written report submitted.
Dec. 9 –two items being scheduled: minor modification to a previously approveduse permit for
Apple Cafeteria; and The Counter Restaurantin the Biltmore retail, coming infor use permit for a bar
Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on December. 9, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
DRAFTMINUTES
6:45P.M. DECEMBER 9, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofDecember 9, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. byChair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant CityAttorney: Colleen Winchester
Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg
Assistant Planner:Gian Paolo Martire
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Draft minutes of November 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, andunanimously carried5-0-0
to approve the November 10, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as written.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Written communication relative to Item 3 was noted.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLICHEARING:
2.M-2014-02 Modification of a previously approved Development Permit
Vanessa Chow (DP-2014-04) to amend a Condition of Approval relating to
(Apple, Inc.)pedestrian access to an adjacent parcel.
10250 Bandley Dr.Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2014
2
Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewedthe application for the modification of thedevelopment permit for the Apple cafeteria
(Caffe Macs)as outlined in the staff report. The modification is for removal of condition 8 of
Resolution 6708 as approved by the Planning Commission on September 2012; which condition
required that there berecorded on the property and the parcel to the north a reciprocal cross access
easement for pedestrian walkway between Caffe Macs and the parcel to the north at 10201 No.
DeAnza Blvd. which Apple leases, but does not own. The removal of the requirement to record a
reciprocal cross access easement over the pedestrian walkway will allow Apple to maintain a secure
access to their property in the event the parcel at 10201 No. DeAnza Blvd. is leased to another
occupant in the future.
Staff recommends approvalof the application.
Staff answered Commissioners’ questions relative to the application.
Vanessa Chow, Apple, Inc.:
Addressed questions regarding the lease term which is for over 10 years. She said the access point is
restoring what used to be the DA2building; people would walk past that property line to go to the old
Japanese restaurant. In the future if they don’t lease that building the majority of Apple staff will walk
down Bandley to go to the restaurant. The population overthere is probably only 200 to 300 people
from that particular building using that access; the rest of the populationusesBandley Drive.
Com. Sun:
Asked what the urgency was if they had a ten year lease; why not wait for the leaseto expire?
Vanessa Chow:
Said the reason is the entitlement; they need to change thetitle to the property; it is between two
private properties. Technically they do not need an easement to enforce that mutualaccess between
the two properties.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; noone wished to speak; the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Vice Chair Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to
approve Application No. M-2014-02 as presented.
3.U-2014-07,Use Permit for a separate bar at a proposed restaurant (The
ASA-2014-12 Counter Burger); Architectural and Site Approval toallow
Jared Taylor (GoldenProperty façade and site modification for a new restaurant and bar
Development)in a Mixed Use Development (Biltmore).
20030 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for a Use Permit and Architecturaland Site Approval to allow a new
restaurant at the Biltmore Apartments, as outlined in the attached staff report. She reviewed the
project site, architectural and site modifications, operating hours, proposed indoor and outdoor
seating. She noted that during the noticing process, staff received one comment from a concerned
neighbor regarding the proposed bar. The bar is consistent with the land use and is ancillary to the
restaurant operations. Proposed architectural and site modifications include window awnings, new
indoorand outdoorbar area with retractable glass windows and additional landscaping. The applicant
is also proposing an outdoor patio area which will include a new fire pit, outdoor heaters, patio
umbrellas and wood paneling in the bar area.
Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2014
3
The city’s architectural consultanthas reviewed the plans and staff supports the modifications.
To further activate the streetscapestaff recommendsthat the applicant work to further eliminate the
spandrel proposed on the front elevation along Stevens Creek Blvd. Currently the spandrel is
consistentwith the original development approval which incorporated large storefront windows to
promote transparency and connectivity with the streetscape.
Parking is consistent with the zoning ordinance;a total of 38 stalls are being provided. Employee
parking will be offsite as required by the parking management plan. A condition of approvalhas
been added to the draft resolution; if parking issues arise in the future, staff can make modifications to
the plan to address any concerns. A security plan was provided and reviewed by the Sheriff’s
Department who have no concerns with the project.
The projectis environmentally exempt from CEQA; staff recommends approval of the Use Permit
and Architectural and Site Approval for the separate bar facility, per the draft resolution.
Staff answered Commissioners’ question regarding the application.
Gary Chao:
Explained why outdoor seating was not factored into the parking requirement. If the outdoor seating
provided isancillary to the restaurant, which it is in this case; historically the city has allowed a few
seats to be part of the ancillary mix, because sometimes people desire to sit inside or outside,
depending on the weather. If it becomes too excessive or it is a hugedining area and it is a main
serving area they want to count it toward parking. Said the intent of that conditionis staff would like
to have the opportunity to workfurther with the applicant becausethey feel more could be done to
make it more aesthetically and architecturally pleasing. Said they understood that there would be
some frontage areas to be hidden behind some sort of wall or spandrel, spandrel being the last resort,
but they would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to consider other measures; ideally if
they can move some things inside to make that happen to make it so itis clear glass, which is the
preference. Secondary to that if there are some ways they can get either a casement window to
display, wall graphics or even one of their interior wall signs or whatever gives some light as opposed
to just non-active shaded full glass; that is the intent of the condition and staff is happy tolook at the
wording of that condition to suit the Planning Commission.
Relative to possible noise from the bar, the noise aspect of the project was considered as part of the
main use permit when Prometheus came in to do the mixed use development. Prometheusowns both
the apartment in the back and the retailstores in the front, hence it is easier to deal with one property
owner that can help mitigate any concerns or get to things faster. There are already conditions as part
of previous use permit that also applies to this approval that the property owner or restaurant would
have to adhere to the city’s noise ordinance. There is a process for folks feeling they have exceeded
the decibel reading; thecode enforcementofficers will go out there and work with the property
owners to address that. All of the mechanical equipment placed on their roof would haveto meet that
daytime/nighttime decibel reading; and also there is a condition that deals with that from the previous
use permit that would involve the Prometheus property management group.
Jared Taylor, Golden Property Development:
Said they have spent a great deal of time working with staff on the project to put together their overall
design, which is a tenant improvement in the existing shell building that the city of Cupertino staff
had a great deal of involvement in designing as well. The Counter restaurant is an iconic burger
restaurant especially in the Bay Area; drawingin a goodclientele of families, people having lunch;
and they feel that the restaurant location is going to help activate Stevens Creek Blvd. with people
eating on the patio, sitting by the firepit. Said they accept the proposed conditions of approval except
further discussion on Conditions5 and 12a which relates to the spandrel glass. Said they were willing
to work with staff to propose something other thanspandrel glass; he showed a slide presentation of a
variety of options available including pots with landscapingin front of the windowsand community
Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2014
4
artwork. He emphasized that the language in ConditionsNo. 5 and 12a should not require them to
redesign the interior of the restaurant because if they have to move the cooler or bump back the inside
of the window 4 feet for a viewing area for some type of artwork or signage they would lose 4 feet of
space. It would be a deal killer for them as the kitchen is already packed so tight. He reiterated they
were proposing a high quality commercial use with multiple locations from the same operator
throughout the Bay Area that has proved its ability to operate a high quality restaurant establishment.
Peter Katz, Co-owner of the Counter:
Said he looked forward to being in Cupertino, and reiterated that it was a family restaurant. Said
they worked diligently to fit the kitchen elements into a non-traditional shaped space and any
requirements to reduce the available space for the kitchen would make it a non-starter for them.
Marty Lopez, Prometheus Real Estate Group:
Specific to the parking there have been spaces defined specifically for theretail and for the
residential; said they went to greatlengths to identify those through signage andsuspect theywill do
more as they move through the process. Parking hasbeen provided as required; in the entitlement
process for both the residential as well as the retail component; said it was a major consideration
from staff as well as for theirownpurposes.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as there was no one who wished to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Chair Brophy asked staff to respond to the applicant’s concern aboutthe architectural requirements.
Gary Chao:
Said staff acknowledges it is difficult to further change the interior of the particular space. Said their
intent is aligned with what the applicant is saying, and they fully intend to work withthem to further
address those two currently proposed spandrel window fronts with some other features.
He proposed that the Planning Commission consider a revision to Conditions 5 and 12a; propose that
the two areas are much the same, to change it to “the applicant shall work with staff prior to issuance
of building permit to further enhance windows 5 and 6 to include featuressuch as, but not limited to,
clear glass artwork, backlitfeatures and/or other similar architectural or decorative features as
determined to be appropriate by the Community DevelopmentDirectorwith the intent that it is to
further enhance the aesthetics of those two store fronts” which would be acceptable to them. Said it
was not their intent to require The Counters to redesign their interior layout unless they want to.
Said he was pleased that the applicant is stating they are open to clear glass even though that is not
their preference; the intent is to be transparent and open up to the community so it’s activated as
opposed to tinted glass, faux glass, storefronts facing the interior.
Chair Brophy:
Noted for the recordreceipt of one email from Mary Agnes, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., who was
concerned with the concept of havinga bar. Mr. Taylor responded to that specific point. Said it was
not obvious to him what the problem was withthe existing design; why not just accept it as is and
remove Conditions 5 and 12a.
City Attorney:
Recommended the revised wording from Gary Chao; the language to state thatthe motion is to
approve the resolution with the language as suggestedby staff.
Applicant:
Said the languagewas agreeable;but he requestedthat the language include a statementor
Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2014
5
acknowledgement that no interiorredesign wouldbe required and that the existing floor plan PL2
could be approved as is for design purposes.
Gary Chao:
Clarified that the Planning Commission was not approving or disapproving the interior floor plan; it
is not within the purviewof this architectural and site application. Said they understood what Mr.
Taylor is saying; the focus is more on the flexibility that they elect to provide in the wording of that
condition because they are not approving or disapproving the floor plan.
Chair Brophy:
Said when looking at the plans, he didn’t see anything that degrades from the appearance of Stevens
CreekBlvd., whichhe described as undistinguished. He did not understandwhy they didn’t just
strike Conditions 5 and 12a, but said his colleagues may feel differently.
Com. Takagashi:
Said he felt the PlanningDepartment was trying to achieve consistency throughout Stevens Creek
Blvd., and it has led to new development. Said it was preferable from his perspectiveif the Planning
Department and applicant could work together to achieve an optimum solution that doesn’t
significantly inhibit the business case and the layout.
Vice Chair Leeand Com. Sun:
Said they agreed.
MOTION:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to
recommend approval of ApplicationASA-2014-12,U-2014-07 with the following
amendments to Conditions 5 and 12a prior to issuance of building permits: the
applicant and staff shall work together to further enhance building windows 5 and 6
which may include but not be limited to clear glass, artwork;backlit features or
similar decorative features with the intent to further enhance the two storefront
windows.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No recent meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners:
Library Commission:
Current library building had its 12th anniversary celebration; burying time capsule and did survey at
the anniversary celebration and found that people were very positive about the library and would like
to see even more programs there. The $80 fee for non-resident library cards has been eliminated.
TIC Commission:
Starting a deployment by AT&T of a high speed system; it hasbeen frozen by AT&T subject to
resolution of discussions about neutrality and what that means.
Cupertino Planning Commission December 9, 2014
6
There will be an appeal to the City Council on December 16 of the cell tower application at
Cupertino High School.
Fine Arts Commission:
A public art catalog will be presented to Council in December; also preparing their work plan.
Bike and Ped Commission:
Updating the bike plan; planning a workshop.
Public Safety Commission:
Recommended change of code to allow kids to ride their bikes on the sidewalk.
Parks and Rec Commission:
City has hired a planning firm to study the StevensCreek Corridor, McClellan to Stevens Creek Blvd.
Also the city will conduct a citywide master plan for parks starting in January. A consultant has been
hired to study signage for city parks.
Teen Commission:
Conducted some debatesfor candidates for the school district and assembly elections. Also have a
program Giving Tree to donate Christmas gifts for needy children.
Mayor’sReport:
Mayor reported that there was a workshop discussing the recent fatal bike accident on McClellan and
will follow up discussion at the December 16th meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Cupertino High School antenna application meeting on December 16 may be postponed to January.
December 16th City Council will be conducting a second reading for the General Plan Housing
Element. The Council did proceed with the Housing Element and General Plan amendment with the
intent that staff will work with HCD to get their input on the housing element and report back to the
Council with possibly a certification date of May 2015 for the Housing Element.
Interviews for new Planning Commissioners will take place in late January or first meeting in
February. Also recognition of Chair Paul Brophy will be at ameeting likely in February. No January
meetings are scheduled.
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting. (No January meetings scheduled.)
Respectfully Submitted: ________________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3 Agenda Date:January 27, 2015
Applications:M-2014-01
Applicant:Julio Espinoza(Smoke Eaters Restaurant)
Location:10650 S. De Anza Boulevard
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Modification of a Use Permit (U-1988-11) to extend the operating hours past 11pm and to allow
a separate bar at an existing restaurant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprovethe modification of a Use Permit (M-
2014-01) in accordance with the draft resolution(Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation:Commercial / Residential
Zoning Designation:P(CG)
Commercial Building Area:3,610 square feet
Bar Area:312 square feet
Number of Seats:
Bar:16
Restaurant:112
Patio:32
Parking Spaces (Shopping
Center):
Required:225
Provided:264
Hours of Operation:
Existing:11 am –11 pm
Proposed:11 am –1 am
Project Consistency with:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
M-2014-01 Smoke Eaters Restaurant January 27, 2015
General Plan:Yes
Zoning:Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND:
Existing Center and Surroundings
The proposed project site (existing Smoke Eaters Restaurant), is located as an extension of the
De Anza Centre shopping center. To the west of the site are retail uses; offices andsingle family
residential uses are located to the east; the De Anza Centreto the north; and retailto the south.
The nearest residential property is approximately 177 feet away from the siteto the east.
A conditional use permit was approved in 1988 allowing the operation of a sit down restaurant
at the subject site. The Use Permit included a condition of approval (condition 2 of Resolution
4069) limiting alcohol sales for the restaurant to a service bar only and the hours of operation
between 7am to 11pm.
In 2010, the City approved a modification to the sit down restaurant (DIR-2010-48) permitting
the expansion of the outdoor patio to include 32 seats, bringing the total number of restaurant
seating to 160.
M-2014-01 Smoke Eaters Restaurant January 27, 2015
Application Request
The applicant, Julio Espinoza,on behalf of Smoke Eaters Restaurant, is requesting a
modification of a Use Permit (U-1988-11) to extend the operating hours past 11pm and to allow
a separate bar at the existing restaurant.The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance requires that
the PlanningCommission review and approve requests for restaurants with separate bar
facilities as well as business operating hours past 11pm.
DISCUSSION:
OperationalDetails
Smoke Eaters is a full service restaurantthat currently sellsbeer and wine for onsite
consumption.Concurrent with the request to add a bar and extend the hours of operation to
1am,the applicant has submitteda separate application to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for a Type 47 License for the onsite consumption of liquor as
well as beer and wine. The addition of the barwillnot add seating to the restaurant.Sixteen
restaurant seats will be replaced with 16 bar seats. In addition, the project will occur completely
within the interior of the existing restaurant and will not involve any exterior modifications or
expansion of the building. A condition has been added to limit the service hours for the patio
area to 11:30pmand to stop service of alcohol at 12:30amwith a hard close of the restaurant at
1am. Please refer to Attachment 2for theapplicant’sdetailed business plan.
Parking
The parking demand for the existing restaurant is based on one space for every four seats for
the restaurant and a portion of the patio seating plus one parking space per employee. By
converting a portion of the seating area for the bar, additional parking will be required at a rate
of one space per threeseatsforthe sixteen bar seats, one space for every four seats for the
restaurant and a portion of the patio seating,plus one parking space per employee.Currently,
the parking demand for Smoke Eaters is 43 spaces. With the addition of the bar, the new
parking requirement is 45 spaces.
Cupertino Parking Ordinance Requirements
Existing Condition 43 spaces (1 space per 4 seats + 1 space per employee)
Project (Restaurant + Bar)45 spaces (1 space per 3 seats (bar) + 1 space per 4 seats
(restaurant)+ 1 space per employee)
The De Anza Centre,which spans over multiple parcels, currently provides264spacesto
service theentire shopping center. The Parking Ordinance allows shared parking facilities to
serveone or more contiguous propertieswith a conditional use permit, and calculatesthe
parking demand byusing Table 19.124.040(C). This table factors in the peak operating hours of
the various uses within the shopping center to determine the peak parking demand.Based on
Table 19.124.040(C), a total of 225spaces is required forthe De Anza Centre. The site currently
provides 264spaces, leaving a surplus of 39 spaces.
M-2014-01 Smoke Eaters Restaurant January 27, 2015
Proximity to Residential Use
The project site is not immediately adjacent to any residential uses. The closest residential
propertyis located approximately 177feet to the eastand 300 feet to the west.Therefore,the
project is not expected to cause any significant impacts to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Security
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office has reviewed the project and does not foresee any
security concerns or negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. A condition of
approval has been added to require the property owner to address security concerns in the
event that they arise and pay foradditional Sheriff’s enforcement timeif required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per section 15301(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelinesbecause the proposed use occurs
within an existing facility and minor alterations will be made within an urban, developed
environment.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH:
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Notices mailed to property owners
adjacent to the project site (300 foot)
(10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Postedon the City of Cupertino’s Web site
(one week prior to the hearing)
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT:
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –65964).
The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: October 31, 2014
Deemed Incomplete:November 25, 2014
Deemed Complete:December 17, 2014
Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until February 17, 2015) to make
a decision on the project. ThePlanning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless
appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision.
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner
M-2014-01 Smoke Eaters Restaurant January 27, 2015
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 –DraftResolution for M-2014-01
2 –Business Description
3 –Plan Set
M-2014-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVINGA
MODIFICATION TOA USE PERMIT (U-1988-11)TO REMOVE A RESTRICTION TO ALLOW A
SEPARATE BAR AND EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO 1:00AMAT AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT(SMOKE EATERS) LOCATED AT 10650 S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:M-2014-01
Applicant:Julio Espinoza(on behalf of Smoke Eaters Restaurant)
Location:10650 S. DeAnza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the
Modification of a Development Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public
hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has
satisfied the following requirements:
a)The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
The proposed project will be within the existing Smoke Eaters Restaurant which has operated at the site
since 2010. The closest single-family residential property is located approximately 177 feet from the
proposed interior bar. Adequate security measures are incorporated into the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The proposed use complies with the Cupertino General Plan and Municipal Code requirements,
including but not limited to, parking regulations, hours of operationand security measures.
Draft Resolution M-2014-01 January 27, 2015
Page-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in
this matter, the application for Modification of the UsePermit are hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
1.The application to modify Use Permit, U-1988-11,Application No. M-2014-01 is hereby approved,
and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are
based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. M-2014-01,as set forth
in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 2015, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.MODIFICATION OF USE LIMITATION IN REGARDS TO LIQUOR SALES AND HOURS OF
OPERATION
Condition No. 2of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4069limitingalcohol service and
hours operation as approved by the Planning Commissionon June 16, 1988, as a condition of
approval for Use Permit Application U-1988-11, shall be modified to expand the hours of
operation to 1am and to the allow a separate bar for alcohol servicewith up to 16 bar seats.
2.RECIPROCALPARKING AGREEMENT
The property owner shall enter into a private agreement with the owner of the contiguous
lots that make up the De Anza Shopping Centre (APN 369-38-039, 369-38-037, 369-38-038, 369-
37-027, and 369-37-025) for a reciprocal parking agreement. The agreement shall run with the
land and shall be recorded prior to final occupancy.
3.APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received December 15, 2014consisting of
1 sheet, labeled UP1.0 entitled, “Proposed expansion of service –bar counter to an existing
restaurant: Smoke Eaters,” drawn by Julio Espinoza; except as may be amended by conditions
in this resolution.
4.EXPIRATION
If the use for which this conditional use permit isgranted and utilized has ceased or has been
suspended for two yearsor more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit
application must be applied for and obtained.
5.OPERATIONS
a.Alcohol serviceatthe restaurant shall be limited to 12:30 am with a hard closing time at
1am.Theoutdoor patio shall be closed at11:30 pm.
b.The total number of seats within the restaurant service area shall be limited to 16bar
seats, 112 restaurant seats, and 32 patio seats, unless as otherwise allowed by the
Draft Resolution M-2014-01 January 27, 2015
Page-3-
Community Development Director provided sufficient parking is available within the
shopping center.
c.Exterior doors shall be kept closed at all times.
6.REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in
the judgment of the Director:
a.Substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use permit have not
been implemented, or
b.Complaints are received related to the tenant under this use permit, and the complaints
are not immediately addressed by the property management and/or the tenant, or
c.Where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code.
7.LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the
satisfaction of the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement
time resulting from documented incidents in the development at the City’s contracted hourly
rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or other measures as
prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement.
8.ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE
The applicant shall obtain and adhere to the appropriate California Alcoholic Beverage
Control License(s) in conjunctionwith the proposed service.
9.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to
the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of
any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development
Department.
10.INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and
the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’
fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant andCity shall use best
efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and the applicant
shall pay all compensation for such legal counsel, following the applicant’s receipt of invoices
from City, together with reasonable supportingdocumentation. Such compensation shall
include reasonable compensation paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff and
shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and
any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. If the applicant and the
Draft Resolution M-2014-01 January 27, 2015
Page-4-
City cannot in good faith agree on joint counsel, the City shall have the right to retain counsel
of its own choosing, separate from the applicant’s litigation counsel.
11.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditionsconstitute written notice of a statement of the amount
of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
1.FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
Prior to preforming any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the
Building Department all applicable construction permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January2015, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Dir.of Community Development Planning Commission
Subject: Report of the Community Development Assistant Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Appeal of the Personal Wireless Service Facility at Cupertino High School
On January 20, 2015, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning
Commission’s August 26, 2014 decision to approve the Wireless Service Facility.
Climate Action Plan
On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted resolution 15-001 for an addendum to the
2010 General Plan EIR and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
General Plan Amendment and Housing Element
On February 4, 2015 between 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Community Hall, the
City will be hosting a community workshop to discuss important General Plan
Amendment topics such as the amount of future development allocations, building
heights along arterials, and the community benefit program. As per the direction of the
City Council, inputs from this workshop will be presented to the Council in Spring 2015
for consideration.Please visit www.cupertinogpa.org for additional information.
Planning Commissioner Academy
The League of California Cities will be hosting the annual Planning Commissioners
Academy on March 4-6 in Newport Beach. Topics will include: covering essential planning
tools and topics like affordable housing and CEQA basics, streamlining government
policies, state policy matters and complete streets. Joint sessions will range from wildfire
planning to a socialmedia survival guide for public officialsand the challenge of creating
cities and towns that are at once economically stable and environmentally responsible.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org