PC 12-09-2014 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. DECEMBER 9,2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair 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 City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
Assistant Planner: Kaitie Groeneweg
Assistant Planner: Gian Paolo Martire
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Draft nzinutes of November 10,2014 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong,and unanimously carried 5-0-0
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
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 2 December 9, 2014
Gian Paolo Martire,Assistant Planner,presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for the modification of the development permit for the Apple cafeteria
(Calle 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 be recorded 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 approval of 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 DA2 building; 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 over there is probably only 200 to 300 people
from that particular building using that access; the rest of the population uses Bandley Drive.
Com. Sun:
• Asked what the urgency was if they had a ten year lease; why not wait for the lease to expire?
Vanessa Chow:
• Said the reason is the entitlement; they need to change the title to the property; it is between two
private properties. Technically they do not need an easement to enforce that mutual access between
the two properties.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; no one 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 to allow
Jared Taylor(Golden Property fagade 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 Architectural and 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
indoor and outdoor bar 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 3 December 9,2014
• The city's architectural consultant has reviewed the plans and staff supports the modifications.
To further activate the streetscape staff recommends that the applicant work to further eliminate the
spandrel proposed on the front elevation along Stevens Creek Blvd. Currently the spandrel is
consistent with 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 approval has
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 project is 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 is ancillary 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 huge dining area and it is a main
serving area they want to count it toward parking. Said the intent of that condition is staff would like
to have the opportunity to work further with the applicant because they 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 it is 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 to look 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. Prometheus owns both
the apartment in the back and the retail stores 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; the code enforcement officers will go out there and work with the property
owners to address that. All of the mechanical equipment placed on their roof would have to 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; drawing in a good clientele 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 Conditions 5 and 12a which relates to the spandrel glass. Said they were willing
to work with staff to propose something other than spandrel glass; he showed a slide presentation of a
variety of options available including pots with landscaping in front of the windows and community
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 9, 2014
artwork. He emphasized that the language in Conditions No. 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 the retail and for the
residential; said they went to great lengths to identify those through signage and suspect they will do
more as they move through the process. Parking has been 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 their own purposes.
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 about the 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 with them 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 features such as, but not limited to,
clear glass artwork, backlit features and/or other similar architectural or decorative features as
determined to be appropriate by the Community Development Director with 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 record receipt of one email from Mary Agnes, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., who was
concerned with the concept of having a bar. Mr.Taylor responded to that specific point. Said it was
not obvious to him what the problem was with the 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 that the motion is to
approve the resolution with the language as suggested by staff.
Applicant:
0 Said the language was agreeable; but he requested that the language include a statement or
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 December 9, 2014
acknowledgement that no interior redesign would be 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 purview of 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
Creek Blvd.,which he described as undistinguished. He did not understand why they didn't just
strike Conditions 5 and 12a,but said his colleagues may feel differently.
Com.Takahashi:
• Said he felt the Planning Department was trying to achieve consistency throughout Stevens Creek
Blvd., and it has led to new development. Said it was preferable from his perspective if 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 Lee and 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 Application ASA-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 Meeting With Commissioners:
Library Commission:
• Current library building had its 12'' 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 has been frozen by AT&T subject to
resolution of discussions about neutrality and what that means.
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 December 9, 2014
• 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 Stevens Creek 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 debates for candidates for the school district and assembly elections. Also have a
program Giving Tree to donate Christmas gifts for needy children.
Mayor's Report•
• Mayor reported that there was a workshop discussing the recent fatal bike accident on McClellan and
will follow up discussion at the December 16"'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 16t" 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 a meeting 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 Elfiis, Recording Secretary
s�
Approved as presented: January 27,2015