Loading...
PC 05-12-2015 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED/AMENDED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. MAY 12, 2015 TUESDAY ROOM 100 EOC The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2015 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in Room 100/EOC, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Alan Takahashi Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Staff Present: Asst.Dir. Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: Tiffany Brown Assistant Planner: Erick Serrano Director of Public Works: Timm Borden Deputy City Attorney: Valerie Armento APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. U-2015-01,ASA-2015-02 Conditional Use Permit for a full service separate LYFE Kitchen(Christine Schachter) bar within a restaurant. Architectural and Site 19399 Stevens Creek Blvd. approval to allow enhancements to the exterior patio building(Shop 5)at the Main Street Cupertino project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 12, 2015 Tiffany Brown,Associate Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Use Permit for a separate bar at a proposed restaurant, and Architectural and Site Approval to allow enhancements to the exterior patio for the existing building (Shop 5)within the Main Street Cupertino project, as outlined in the attached staff report. • Referred to a Power Point presentation, and reviewed the site plan, surrounding buildings, operational details,parking,proximity to residential use, and security. The Sheriff's office has reviewed the item, project is categorically exempt from CEQA. • Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Use Permit U-2015-01 for the separate bar proposed for LYFE Kitchen and also patio enhancements for ASA-2015-02 with added condition that staff will require applicant to maintain and upkeep the outdoor patio features. Gary Chao,Asst.Director of Community Development: • Explained that the condition would give staff the ability to have the conversation with the applicant/owner; there is not a specific time period; the type of furniture used may last five or ten years. When the furniture becomes weathered from sun damage, staff can have the conversation with the property owner and the applicant and inform them to work with staff to get it repaired or replaced; items such as umbrellas, umbrella coverings and seating. If they fail to do so, worst case scenario, staff can bring them back to the Planning Commission for review of them not conforming to the Commission's resolution. Said he was confident that the conversation wouldn't end up being the code enforcement scenario as they would be motivated to maintain their property in good condition. Com. Gong: • Asked why the separate bar and outdoor patio was not included in the original plan. Gary Chao: • Said from a staff perspective it is typical when a master use permit comes in at the time when they go through the master use permit process, they wouldn't necessarily know which tenant, or it could be a retailer or a restaurant that they are planning for. It is customary for the tenant later on once they have secured their lease to come in and do their own architectural and site improvement; which is what they desire this evening, to either enhance it or modify it to suit their needs. The exterior of the building is almost finished and with the restaurant approval LYFE Kitchen will then proceed to apply for a tenant improvement package with the Building Dept. which will help them construct the inside of the restaurant as well as some of the features that are being approved today. Com. Sun: • Said in recent years the pattern has been that most restaurants apply for bar modifications later. He asked staff what the reason was that some restaurants apply for the restaurant first and later the bar; is it something related to state or city regulations? Secondly, for this particular project, the final decision can be either by the Director of Community Development or Planning Commission; what is the reason the Director of Community Development could not make the decision, but forwarded it to the Planning Commission? Gary Chao: • Relative to the bar, the latest trend on new restaurants is coming in and then asking for a full bar, the applicant can explain in the terms of the market place. Said he considered the restaurants full service family oriented, they usually come with an ancillary bar that people sit in front of; they can describe to you what atmosphere they are going for. Said he did not know why in previous years that restaurants came in for a counter bar and then later came in and ask for something different. The trend with newer.restaurants, venturing into dining experience in the Bay Area, is that full service Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 12, 2015 restaurants now tend to have a bar. It is the experience they are going for; there is no city policy; in previous years there is a prior ordinance that neither encourages nor discourages one way or another. • In terms of the decision before you this evening,part of the decision could have been approved by the Dir. of Community Development, which is the architectural site approval part. The other part which is the full bar which also triggers a use permit request separate from the architectural site, as per ordinance requires approval by the Planning Commission. It is usually customary for staff to forward a project to the higher decision making body as a courtesy because we feel it makes sense that the Planning Commission gets the benefit of seeing what they are proposing in terms of site and architecture as well. It is a courtesy on the part of staff to forward the lower level process to your level to get it approved at one time; and also it is easier for the public to follow the application as well. Darin Kim,Applicant: • Said they are a LYFE Style restaurant, walk in, order food but everything thereon is served to you; not full service but close. The brand is farm to table, organic, sustainable, and family style. They have a site in Palo Alto and are trying to accomplish the same for Cupertino. • Regarding the changes from the master plan,they are a tenant with specific needs, one of which is the patio; they came in after the fact stating what they wanted, and got city approval to do that. That is the reason they are in the process now. • The bar issue relates to licensing; they would like to have an alcohol permit for each store they open but in most cases can only get beer and wine because the hard alcohol licenses are limited by a lottery; said they won a lottery and wanted to put one in Cupertino. The hours of operation are indicative of any type of bar or nightclub, they want to establish a casual drinking atmosphere to go along with the food; their chefs are designing specialty menus and drinks different from the marketplace because they want to tie it to their concept of a healthy turn towards alcoholic drinks and beverages than normal course of business. Com.Paulsen: • Said one of his goals as a commissioner,was to try to breathe some night life into Cupertino; it would be ideal to have another place to eat at after 10 p.m. He asked if their approval tonight would limit their hours or could they extend the hours in the future? Darin Kim: • Said it might; if there is an opportunity to extend the hours, they would definitely consider that; as long as they were not handcuffed by any regulations,they would reapply for that. Com.Paulsen: • Said he would be willing to approve a permit that would say 10 p.m. or 9 p.m. closing with asterisks that it could be modified by applicant at future date, giving flexibility. People would like to have a place to go and eat after a movie; however, he said he wouldn't want to jeopardize their business by requiring those hours;but if the market dictated,it would provide flexibility. Gary Chao: • Said it was a good idea; however, the applicant did not apply for a conditional use permit for an extended hour. The next restaurant agenda item has three things requested, one of which is extended hours so it does require some additional fees. It needs to be advertised accordingly so the public can participate in the public discussion. While it is a good idea, the applicant can consider it and if they wanted to pursue it, staff would be happy to accept their application and facilitate the process. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 12, 2015 Com. Gong: • Said she enjoyed their Palo Alto restaurant; the new restaurant would be a welcome addition to Cupertino. Darin Kim: • Said they were drawn to Cupertino because of its demographics; felt it is a lifestyle fit, it is a trend that is occurring across the nation but more so in very aggressive cities. With Apple in Cupertino, much of their clientele in Palo Alto comes from the tech industry so they felt Cupertino was a logical fit, in addition to the fact there is a great Main Street development going on with the Apple campus going in. It was exciting to have the opportunity to get a second store in California. Com. Sun: • Also asked the applicant why they had not applied for the extended hours; because of Main Street they want to have more night life to attract more people into the city. Said he concurred with other suggestions to adjust hours so they don't need to come back again. He asked what the common challenge was that other restaurants face from operations perspective. Darin Kim: • Said part of it is branding, they feel they have a fantastic brand but more people have to know about it; in areas where they are not well known, it takes more time to get off the ground; in areas where they are well known,they already have anxious people to get in such as Cupertino. • Said the conditions relative to the outdoor fiirniture were appropriate, but he was concerned what the standard was. Gary Chao: • Explained that the level of standard relative to the maintenance and upkeep referred to the wear and tear and appearance of the outdoor furniture, awnings, and canopies and similar items. Over a period of 5 to 10 years the furniture fades and fabrics tend to wear and things may look shoddy and unkempt. The condition would be used to have the conversation with the owner if they fell behind on the maintenance and upkeep. For the most part it is going to be a conversation; staff will work with the applicant in terms of timing the permitting process; most of the time there is not going to be need for permitting. It goes without saying even without the condition staff would be still having that conversation but in this case it is a reminder to the restaurant owner as well as staff to be looking out for that hopefully years away. Paul Reishus,Project Architect: • Said it would not be a problem, at the Palo Alto site they are addressing replacing the furniture; it is not at the shoddy stage yet,but they want to put best foot forward as a restaurant as well. Gary Chao: • Suggested a condition that requires the applicant to maintain the outdoor patio, specific items not called out since they may change; would include patio umbrellas, chairs,tables, benches and possibly trellis later. Paul Reishus: • Said the patio was part of the plan; they are doing some enhancements, adding a signature rail on furniture and umbrellas discussed and some ambient lighting with appropriate levels for dining. He also discussed the Palo Alto Restaurant,its similarities and differences to their other restaurants. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 12, 2015 Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased to have the restaurant come to Main Street, with hopes that Main Street would rival and surpass Santana Row. Said it was nice to have the new types of restaurants and cafes available especially full service family because there is a need in Cupertino. Asked for explanation of bar service in the early morning hours that breakfast is being served? Will the bar have TVs similar to sports bars? How will dogs be handled on the outdoor patio with the patrons? Darin Kim: • Said the hours of alcohol service will be dictated by their license; If permitted to serve alcohol in the morning and someone wants an alcoholic beverage they would serve it as long as they are in compliance. The bar area in their restaurant is called a barista area and was typically behind the counter. They have made the counter an ordering counter and everything else has been moved over; they would still be mixing smoothies, drinks or coffees over at the bar area also. • Said they were planning to have some TVs in the bar area for sports events or if the patrons wanted to watch TV and relax. If patrons want to stay longer in the evenings they may be able to expand their hours. Relative to dogs in the patio area, provided that the property owner and the developer allows dogs to be there, they are very dog friendly. Several of their locations allow animals that aren't service animals on the patio just as Lazy Dog does. Valerie Armento,Deputy City Attorney: • Said that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) will govern the permit with regard to when alcohol can be sold and the County Health Department will likely have some rules and regulations regarding animals. Chair Lee: • Said the city does not have jurisdiction on dogs and animals in restaurants,hours of operation and bar service. Gary Chao: • Said that the previous restaurant was approved to allow dogs on the premises. Dean Isaacs, Sandhill Properties: • Commented that he takes his dog to the patio area in the Palo Alto restaurant, and does not object to it being allowed in the proposed Cupertino restaurant. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Gong: • Said it was a great addition to Cupertino, and she was looking forward to the restaurant opening, which the applicant indicated would be November 1". Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said it was exciting to see Main Street start to take shape and it is something the community has lacked; having a place where there are options: dining, retail and other entertainment, will enhance that and he was looking forward to it. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 12, 2015 Com. Sun: • Said they welcome small business restaurants coming to Cupertino; the new restaurant will face a lot of competition as there are many new restaurants coming. He said he hoped they could maintain their high quality of service and food quality. He said he didn't expect Main Street to compete with Santana Road but did anticipate and welcome people from other cities coming to Cupertino. Said he had no objections to the project. Com.Paulsen: • Concurred with previous comments; it is a good addition to Cupertino. Chair Lee: • Concurred with all comments; supports full service bar in the restaurant; and supports the enhancements to the exterior patio and building. She said she also liked the design. Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Application U-2015-01 with the addition of the condition of use to maintain the outdoor furniture and to upkeep to reasonable commercial standards, and to approve ASA-2015-02 with the condition of use as stated. 2. U-2015-02,ASA-2015-08 Conditional Use Permit for a separate full service bar; Jared Taylor, Golden Property Dev. live entertainment and late hours of operation ancillary Eureka! Restaurant to the restaurant. Architectural and Site Approval to 19369 Stevens Creek Blvd. allow enhancements to the exterior patio building (Shop 3) at the Main Street Cupertino project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Tiffany Brown,Associate Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit for a separate full service bar, live entertainment, and late hours of operation ancillary to the Eureka! Restaurant; and Architectural and Site Approval to allow enhancements to the exterior patio for existing building (Shop 3) within Main Street Cupertino project, as outlined in the attached staff report. • She reviewed the slide presentation,reviewed the background of the application, including the project site, operational details, patio features, exterior modifications, other project information. Sheriff's office has reviewed the project and supports the project. • The project is exempt from further environmental review. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution with the same added conditions for the patio features which would include a condition requiring the applicant to maintain and upkeep the outdoor patio features. Staff answered questions relating to the floor plan,placement of music,hours of operation;particularly on weekend when they may want to remain open longer hours. Com. Sun: • Expressed concern that later weekend hours may disturb the neighboring residents. Suggested that staff discuss the possibility with the applicant. Gary Chao: • Said they would review the proximity to residential; although they had no concerns in terms of the hours proposed relative to the nearest residential. He noted that the Santa Clara Sheriff's substation is located in Main Street project, across from the interior plaza. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 12, 2015 • As a condition of the project the Main Street project will facilitate a home for the Santa Clara Sheriff's police station so they can have a deputy at that location. For anything beyond that he encouraged a conversation with the applicant about their needs and how they feel about it. The Sheriff's Dept.has reviewed this and supports the project. Jared Taylor,Eureka! Restaurant: • Said it was a good experience working with staff in designing their space to fit in and meet the goals of activating Stevens Creek Blvd. • Said they were drawn to Cupertino; Eureka! Restaurant focuses on going into up and coming markets where there is a lot of tech and they want to have a restaurant in Cupertino, particularly the Main Street project. Eureka! Restaurant is different than most restaurant chains; every location is not exactly the same; they pride themselves on the uniqueness of what is designed inside the restaurant,to try and fit into the community and try and bring something that is not the same as every single Eurekal. There are currently 14 locations in the US, mostly in Southern California; they are proposing a future location in Mountain View. • The proposal is for a full service, sit down dine-in restaurant with a full line of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption. They propose a higher quality in terms of the sale of alcoholic beverages; selling more craft beers than brands such as Coors Light and Bud Light; and bourbons and scotches and unique liquors. The sale of their food exceeds the sale of alcoholic beverages and they pride themselves in being a unique restaurant first and foremost. • Relative to live entertainment, they are proposing to have a live two or three piece band; there is no stage; all music will be played inside the tenant space. Consumption of alcoholic beverages will not be permitted on the patio as the State ABC requires there be a railing around the patio facing Stevens Creek Blvd. if alcohol is consumed on the patio; and they are not proposing a railing around the patio. The proposed closure time is midnight during the week and 1:00 a.m. on the weekends. They said they want the residents of Cupertino to be able to have a nice evening in town and their goal is to have people from surrounding communities want to come to Cupertino. • He said that Eureka! Restaurants was featured on a recent cover of the magazine Nations Restaurant News and Review as one of the top break out brands in the country for its uniqueness. Com. Sun: • Said he was not concerned with the hours of operation as long as the neighboring residents were not disturbed. He suggested a trial period of three to six months for the later hours to ascertain whether the neighbors are negatively affected by the extended hours. Said he did not have concerns about crime in the neighborhood, but was concerned about potential disturbance to the neighboring residents. Jared Taylor: • Said the kitchens were open the same times as the restaurant, and they would like to stay open till 1:00 a.m. with the initial approval. He said he thought there was already a condition proposed and that staff had the opportunity to review any complaints. He questioned if it was possible to be potentially approved until 1:00 a.m., and if there were a multitude of complaints staff would have the ability to drop back closing time until midnight. • Relative to policing people taking alcoholic beverages to the patio, he said that State ABC requires that a sign be posted that no alcoholic beverages will be allowed on the patio and no beverages will be served on the patio. Com.Paulsen: • Said it was a good project;he liked the music and would not propose to limit the music to inside only. There is a long tradition of outdoor music worldwide; it could be an amenity. If outside music is Cupertino Planning Cominission 8 May 12,2015 permitted it would be self-regulating between the local residents and Sheriff's office. Questioned if they would have enough toilets for patrons? Jared Taylor: • Said in other restaurants there were no problems with number of toilets according to the California Plumbing Code. Gary Chao: • Clarified that the Planning Commission will make sure it is in the resolution stating no service of alcohol along the front of Stevens Creek Blvd. It was an error calling that area a possible area for serving of alcohol. Said it could be added as a condition if the Planning Commission desired. Also could put in a condition about amplified sound. If the applicant wanted to serve alcohol on the patio they would have to get permission from ABC as well and come back and modify the use permit. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Lisa Warren,resident: • Relative to a comment about the patio being higher or lower than the street, said she preferred being lower such as at Aqui where it doesn't feel like you are on the street. Jennifer Griffin,resident: • Said she was excited to see a full service, family style restaurant, which is sorely needed in the area since the loss of IHop, Chili's, and Marie Callender's. Having the restaurants coming into Main Street will activate this end of town. Said they want to activate Stevens Creek Blvd. but don't really need the alcohol out there. Said she liked the idea of having live entertainment, and would feel comfortable with last call at 12:30 a.m. for alcohol service. If last call on weekend is 1:00 a.m. then last call should be 15 minutes or half hour before that. Loree Shopping Center is currently on the housing element list so it will go to housing at some point; also the Barry Swenson property is across the street next to the apartments and it is on the housing element site as a blank lot and the apartments there. Said she appreciated the sensitivity shown, they want to have night life there,just don't want it in the street, or on the sidewalk and coming into the neighborhoods. Said she would prefer to go to it, not have it come to them. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Chair Lee: • Asked staff to address closing time for full service separate bars. Gary Chao: • Said in the past the Planning Commission has had conversations with the applicant about the meaning of 1:00 a.m. call; does it mean it is last call or 30 minutes prior? It is something to discuss with the applicant who can provide more detail in terms of the operation but doable to add more detail in terms of what is expected when it comes to 1:00 a.m. Staff is comfortable with the hours as is. Jared Taylor: e State ABC permits sale of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Said they are proposing to close at 1:00 a.m. and would rather not have a condition which requires the last call at a certain time; it is just one more operational thing to deal with; would prefer to leave it at 1:00 a.m. and leave the language covering it but not quite that much detail. Com. Gong: Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 12, 2015 • Said in previous applications they approved the wording that alcohol services at the restaurant shall be limited to 12:30 a.m. with the hard closing time at 1:00 a.m. and the outdoor patio shall close at 11:30 p.m. She asked Jared Taylor if that was acceptable to him. Jared Taylor: • Suggested a compromise at 12:45 a.m. All Commissioners: • Concurred with 12:45 a.m. Com.Paulsen: • Said he was in favor of the applicant in terms of not putting restrictions; and would not support closing the patio. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he would not want to have the patio closed; it is a key attraction for patrons. He was also in favor of the applicant and no restrictions. Jared Taylor: • Said he accepted the condition relating to the outdoor furniture being maintained. Com. Gong: • Said it was a good addition; the whole Main Street is filling out well; it is the perfect location for a late night drink or dessert. Said she supported the project; if it makes the public and fellow commissioners more comfortable she said she would support the 12:45 a.m. alcohol stop with the hard closing at 1:00 a.m.; and the other conditions as well as the outdoor furniture. Com. Sun: • Said that in the past several years there have been many bar applications where there were concerns about safety, noise and also disturbing the neighbors' sleeping hours. In this particular project there is not too much concern about safety and the other issues. Said if fellow commissioners were comfortable with it,he would support the 12:45 a.m. call to stop sale of alcohol. Com.Paulsen: • Said he was excited about the project; in terms of noise, it is not a stand-alone dive bar where people are going to party and make noise afterwards because there are going to be eyes on the street, including Deputy Sheriff's eyes. Much of the noise, the music, the patio issues will be self-limiting, they will adjust based on experience with operations so would not place any additional restrictions. There is a noise ordinance that will be adequate to cover the noise and then complaints could be made as they are under the existing ordinance and even the time to cut off sale of alcohol is not that critical because it is more an operational issue; you may decide to self-limit depending on your experience at the site. Said he would not put any limits, but would not necessarily go against a 12:45 a.m. call to halt alcohol sale; 15 minutes will not make or break it. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he supported the project as proposed. There is a significant need in the community; late night entertainment is hard to come by in the city. There is a demand and people go to other cities to fulfill that demand which is unfortunate. The location and layout, all the elements, tend to self-mitigate the major concerns people generally have with late night entertainment which is a good situation to have and to keep people at Main Street longer; it is a good thing as well. Relative to restrictions, there is Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 12,2015 the noise ordinance and the Sheriff is stationed across the patio. He said last calls were difficult to enforce. If people are set on it,he would consider it. Chair Lee: • Said she supported the conditional use permit for the separate full service bar. Also support the architectural and site plans as presented. MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Takahashi, second by Com.Paulsen,to approve Application U-2015-02, agree with all findings in that resolution as well as draft resolution ASA-2015-08 with the inclusion of a statement about conditions of the patio furniture and the findings in that draft resolution. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Motion by Com. Gong for a friendly amendment to include that there shall be no alcohol served on the patio facing Stevens Creek Blvd. Com.Paulsen: • Said he felt it was duplicative with the ABC. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he was somewhat reluctant as he could envision wanting to have a glass of wine on the patio. He asked that if in the future it was deemed acceptable and they put a railing, is that something they would bring back to the Planning Commission for approval on; how would it work in the future if they wanted to modify it? Gary Chao: • Said if nothing is mentioned then the condition does allow that possibility; nd it would come back to staff and ABC it is not coupled with something else that would render the Planning Commission decision; ABC would have to concur and authorize it. Vice Chair Takahashi accepted the friendly amendment; Com.Paulsen seconded. Com.Paulsen: • Said he would be willing to accept it,railing or no railing. Vote: 5-0-0 3. CP-2015-01 CIP Conformance to the General Plan EA-2015-01 Recommend approval of the CIP and Negative City of Cupertino Declaration to the City Council. Review of the Citywide Location five year Capital Improvements Program (FY 2015-2016 to 2019-2020) For conformity to the City/s General Plan Erick Serrano,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for the Planning Commission's annual review on the city's Five Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. Each year the City Council adopts a five year spending plan for capital improvements throughout the city. The funding is not fixed or committed during the five year term; funding may shift in the second through fifth years as priorities change and project schedules accelerate or decelerate during the lifetime of the project. That is the reason the review focuses on first year funded projects only. Cupertino Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission review the CIP for consistency with the General Plan and make a recommendation to City Council. Overall the first year funded projects are consistent with the Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 12, 2015 General Plan; the staff report details are attached; including a list of projects which will conduct their own environmental analysis.(Page 2 of staff report). • He reviewed the General Plan consistency fmdings including: (1)Projects that improve the safety and functioning of the City's primary circulation system; (2) Transportation projects that manage neighborhood traffic, decrease reliance on use of private cars,promote pedestrian activity and provide Safe Routes to Schools; (3) Projects that maintain the usability of the City/s Parks and Recreation inventory; and(4)Projects that maximize the use of native plants and minimize water use. • On May 7t', the ERC reviewed the Initial Study; based on the findings of the Initial Study the ERC recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration for the review of a CIP since no significant cumulative impacts were found. Each project that was not categorically exempt will have its own separate environmental assessment which could include additional initial studies when they reach the design level phase. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a Negative Declaration for the proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program and find that the proposed CIP is consistent with the General Plan per the draft resolution and recommend approval to the City Council. Timm Borden,Director of Public Works: • Answered questions about potential projects; how budgets are created for projects; rights of way, traffic level improvements, LOS in various areas; things to facilitate pedestrian access across streets; bicycle and pedestrian connections. He briefly discussed how the budget was allocated. This year they completed an update to their ADA transition plan; every city is required to have an ADA transition plan that says they do not have to get up to speed with all their curb ramps, all facilities, access everywhere right away, but you have to have a plan to achieve it. This year the plan was updated with all the deficiencies throughout the city and the budget has been allocated to specifically deal with some of the ADA issues. However,many of the other projects deal with ADA issues. Staff is working on cataloging those in addition to the line item 4 ADA. Said they want to quantify what they are doing on an annual basis not just the line item shown. Com.Paulsen: • Referred to his time as a founding member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and language put in the General Plan about 10 years ago, which had to do with giving bicycles and pedestrians equal priority with regard to traffic flow. He referred to the plan which talks about the same kind of thing that they need to emphasize, alternate modes of transit in addition to just automobiles as well as a new law that says that levels of service(LOS) at intersections need to consider the LOS for pedestrians as well as bicycles. Said he reviewed the draft bicycle plan and looked at the proposed CIPS and there is nothing to improve the LOS for pedestrians; he said he was thinking of several cities that have bulbouts at intersections as well as the pork chop right turn access for cars along Homestead in Sunnyvale where they are making it a bicycle only pork chop. He said he felt it was not consistent with the General Plan when not giving up any car real estate of streets for bicycles or pedestrians and they need to re-examine the CIPs in light of that. • Recommended they look at bulb outs and road diets on some of the larger streets. Com. Sun: • Asked how the items were prioritized; location of the project, among the first, second and to the fifth year; is the C1Ps managed by your department; how is the decision impacted by the public input? Timm Borden: • There are priority and criteria on how those projects are developed; many of the projects come out of public processes; they could be several master plans; presently there are several parks projects that are in the fourth or fifth year of the budget and that is mostly because we are developing master plans Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 12, 2015 now; we don't want to go in and build something and then end up that the community wanted something different. We are going to go through some master planning process first and then capital projects will fall out of that. We have some placeholders in the third, fourth and fifth years of the budget;just knowing that things will come out of these master plan processes after we get the public input. Some of the year one, year two projects have gone through some public comment period because they have been proposed in future years in the past or they may be safety projects that we want to prioritize; or they may be a grant fund that we have to build within a certain timeframe. Last year we were prioritizing the environmental education center because of grant funding; that is why that rose to the top. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin,resident: • Spoke about a blacksmith shop had been located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road since 1875; the replica was made by one of the descendants of the original blacksmith shop and the original tools are still there. The shop operated until about the 70s or 80s. Said she was pleased that they have expedited the potential purchase of Lawrence/Mitty Park which is a 30-year realization for the area. The property has had the potential of people wanting to put housing on it and there are probably people still wishing to put housing on it. She commended the city for putting on the list to be funded. The neighborhood has been patient and are willing to wait for things; it is also reach 5 of the San Tomas Aquino Saratoga bike trail pedestrian trail. Lisa Warren,resident: • Said she wanted to comment for the record about the language relative to conforming to the General Plan. There was a group of people trying to find out what happened to the old and the new; it has been difficult to do that because there are people requesting red lined items that they don't have. If they are going to approve something based on a statement made more than once, it should be consistent with the General Plan, and know which General Plan you are talking about and make sure those things don't change. Many things have changed in the General Plan that the public is not aware of,the items may be unchanged but there is no clarity at this point. Chair Lee: • Asked staff to clarify. Gary Chao: • The CII' program was reviewed against the newest General Plan called Community Vision 2040 and was improved by the City Council most recently last December. City Council took a two-part approach and approved the community vision,which is the bulk of the General Plan and they deferred the development policies to this month, May 19 when they are going to look at height plane development allocation and other development policies not related to this program. For the most part to confirm what Lisa Warren had asked, this is based on the latest and greatest of the City Council's approval in this General Plan. Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 12, 2015 Vice Chair Takahashi: • As a followup, specifically these locations, which ones are intersected with changes in the General Plan that have been approved? They seem to be spread out. Gary Chao: • Said it was all over the place in the new General Plan. Said that the principles behind the General Plan policies that were used to review against the CIP program have remained the same; you are talking about the connectivity, the pedestrian safety, things like that and if you look at the staff report there are categories used and policies cited; they were in the prior General Plan just in different places, and given the new reorg of the General Plan we have identified them in the General Plan and applied it. Historically it's principles behind the General Plan policy that we used to review against the CIP program and they haven't really changed that much. Com.Paulsen: • With regard to the circulation element of the General Plan was there any discussion among staff about conformance with the prioritization statements mentioned earlier and the CIP prioritizations as well as the new law regarding level of service(LOS)? Gary Chao: • Said that Timm Borden could speak more on the LOS but the City Council is the entity that prioritized the programs; they had reoccurring program topics from last go around that is continuing onto this program and when it reaches them, they also will look at it. Staff can take the commissioner's comments to City Council for their consideration but Council is the body that prioritizes and sets the goals. Timm Borden: • Relative to the LOS there was a senate bill approved that changes the way LOS is measured; however, how that gets implemented has not happened yet, the State Dept. of Office of Planning has just released new guidelines on how they will switch from an intersection LOS policy to a vehicle miles travelled policy that does take into account in a much better way in Bike and Ped. What will likely happen is there will be comments that come in on the state document and then the VTA as the regional body will disseminate new guidelines on how to implement the vehicle miles travelled policy. Com.Paulsen: • Commented that in his opinion it wouldn't hurt Cupertino to be cutting edge; San Jose is beginning to eclipse Cupertino in terms of its traffic innovations. He said he was pleased about the Lawrence/Mitty Park, it is something Parks and Rec Commission worked hard on. Com. Sun: • Relative to public input, in the first years the project received a lot of public input; what has been done to get more public input, and in the future what can be done to improve the ways to get more public input before going to City Council? Timm Borden: • Said he was certain they could improve; they have come a long way doing a lot of master plan work; the master plans themselves are well vetted. They work hard to get the public engaged and get comments on that master plan because they want to use those master plans as a method to start building projects. The projects just through that master plan process have been very well vetted Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 12, 2015 through the public and they have priorities through that master plan process. There are other projects that start with planning effort so you will see one that talks about redoing some of the major landscape median islands such as on DeAnza and Foothill. They won't touch a plant or speck of dirt there until they go through a very public process. They will always want to get the community involved as much as possible on city projects; they will always look to do better whether it is townhall meetings or web based tools. • Said that in the previous week the City Council postponed a study session item to June 2nd to discuss what they will be doing with their municipal facilities and what strategy they will use to meet the required reductions. There will also be a water conservation ordinance which will replicate what the state and water districts are doing; the types of things such as reducing the number of times lawns are watered, not washing your car, etc. and will put them into the Municipal Code. There will be some public areas that will still be green for the residents to use for recreation purposes; some areas will go brown, some areas will return to twice per week watering; sports areas and active areas in parks will be kept green. Com.Paulsen: • Said he was reluctantly considering voting No on the recommendation because of the inconsistency with the language in the circulation element in the General Plan, and the nature of the traffic light in the CIPS that are brought forward. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Asked if their job was to determine if the CIP is consistent with the General Plan; yes it is, or no it is not. The Planning Commissioners are not supposed to prioritize projects; that is the City Council's job. • Do they see something they believe is inconsistent with the General Plan, therefore cannot come up with findings that state it is consistent with the General Plan? Com.Paulsen: • Said it is not so much something that is inconsistent; it is something that isn't there that would be more strongly consistent. We don't have a proposed CIP that I think would fully endorse and embrace the circulation language in the General Plan. It is not so much a sin of ea Raissie conzission as a sin of omission. Com. Sun: • Asked the Deputy City Attorney to explain how they are supposed to make the decision whether to vote for the consistency with General Plan or vote for the CIP individually. Valerie Armento,Deputy City Attorney: • The way it was stated by the commissioner who was explaining what he understood the process to be was exactly right, you have a very limited focus which is to determine the CEQA document the Negative Declaration; make a recommendation on that and then discuss if what is being presented in the CIP is consistent with the current General Plan. To the extent that Com. Paulsen thinks there would be more for example, you are free in your capacity as an individual to make that comment to the City Council, but the focus of a Planning Commission is what is on that slide and is very narrow. Reiterated that the Planning Commission's role is not to prioritize, the City Council prioritizes proj ects. Com.Paulsen: • Said he understood, and withdrew his objection. Said he felt it was not appropriate to go to City Council as a private citizen,but wanted the minutes to reflect his sentiments. Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 12,2015 Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve Applications CP-2015-01 and EA-2015-01 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS; None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: • Chair Lee attended the meeting and reported that the CII' Conformance to the General Plan was discussed. Housing Commission: • Com. Paulsen.attended the meeting and reported that cell phone towers at the school district was discussed, as well as promoting the arts. Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Report last meeting. Miscellaneous: • Com. Paulsen reported that Com. Sun recently held a successful, well attended public forum on how to communicate effectively in public forams. He congratulated him on a successful event. • Com.Paulsen reported on a recent meeting with 8 concerned citizens about the Main Street project. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • No written report. • Gary Chang introduced Erick Serrano, a new Assistant Planner with the city. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the May 26,2015 meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth1-11tllis,Recording Secretary Approved as Amended. May 26,2015