Loading...
PC 05-26-2015CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED MINUTES MAY 26, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2015, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Council Chambers, 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: Assistant Planner: Asst. City Attorney: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Minutes of April 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: Gary Chao Erick Serrano Valerie Armento • Com. Gong noted that in the motion to approve the February 24, 2015 Planning Commission minutes should read that Com. Gong voted to approve the minutes, change vote total to read: "5-0-0" and delete wording "Com. Gong abstained" 2. Minutes of May 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: • Com. Paulsen said that the word "co-mission" should read: "comission". MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the April 14, 2015 and May 12, 2015 Planning Commission minutes as amended. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 26, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING: 3. U-2015 -04 open Conditional Use Permit to allow for a new coffee shop (Starbucks) to MBH Architects (The Sobrato Organization) 20676 Homestead Rd. at 5 a.m. and close at 11 p.m. and to have outdoor seating in excess of 20% of the number of indoor seats. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Erick Serrano, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a new coffee shop (Starbucks) to open at 5 a.m. and close at 11 p.m. and to have outdoor seating in excess of 20% of the number of indoor seats as outlined in the staff report. • He referred to the PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the site and surroundings, site plan, proposed first floor plan, hours of operation, parking, existing uses, and environmental assessment. He noted that the minimum required parking spaces per the Use Permit was 793 spaces; the existing center provides a total of 842. The traffic impact analysis assumed a 10% restaurant use; with that use Starbucks itself would be roughly 1.16% of the entire shopping center square footage. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA for existing facilities. • Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit to allow early hours of operation and outdoor seating in excess of 20% of the indoor seating at a coffee shop located at 20676 Homestead Road. Staff answered questions relative to the application, including hours of operation, tenants in the center, and parking. Amber Reed, Starbucks: • Clarified the correct address was 20676 Homestead Rd. • Explained that the Starbucks inside the Safeway Store was a licensed store, served by Safeway employees, and will remain open. There are also three company owned Starbucks in Cupertino; two with 1500 square feet, and limited patio seating. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was pleased to see Starbucks going in there, and said it would be a good anchor for the remodel of the center. Asked about the possibility of the Starbucks site having an alcohol license and how would that affect the patio dining? Does Chipotle have an alcohol license in that center? Will Starbucks be adding different types of food at the restaurant and have servers for the outside tables? She also asked what the hard opening and closing times were. Said experience with the Starbucks there is it would end up with the two closest parking bays outside that will become dedicated to Starbucks as it is at the Safeway Starbucks off Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek Blvd. She said they should think about where people are going to be parking for Starbucks. Gary Chao: • Responded to Ms. Griffin's questions; Chipotle has applied for an ABC license; the application has nothing to do with whether Starbucks in the future would apply for an ABC license. The Planning Commission decision does not preclude them from applying for one in the future. Said he was not familiar with ABC requirements in terms of outdoor seating; they will make sure it is enclosed and meets their requirements, but the site as proposed has no bearing on what ABC will or will not require. Staff does not know whether Starbucks will be applying for an alcohol license. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 26, 2015 Chair Lee: • Expressed concern about parking problems; Marketplace is doing well; it is the most successful strip mall in Cupertino and money has to be spent on traffic improvements looked at for the CIP relating to the left tum lane into Marketplace. When the centers do well people can't find parking because it is queuing up on Stevens Creek. The traffic during lunch time is terrible. Com. Gong: • Said Starbucks is going in there, what the Planning Commission is doing tonight is addressing their request to have earlier hours. Said she was aware of the concern about parking; parking is always a major concern. Chair Lee: • Said she was not opposed to the early hours of operation; they are asking for more outdoor seating in excess of20%. More parking is needed during the busy times, noon, afternoon and late night. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Com. Sun: • Said he had no objection to the operating hours; but shared Chair Lee's concern about the outside seating. For this particular project there is no problem as there is ample parking. In the future other shopping centers or another applicant may apply to double their outdoor seating space. If examples have been set to allow them to double the space and increase parking, it may cause some future trouble. · Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said he assumed any project that exceeds the ratio as defined would have to come before the Planning Commission and be approved and they could look at each applicant's request for parking vs. the available parking. Said he did not feel they were setting precedents,.because they are not changing the ordinance. Valerie Armento, City Attorney: • Said when looking at a particular project approval they are going to be considering each application on its own merits; determining whether or not the outdoor seating is ADA compliant; under the ADA there has to be sufficient space in between the seating in order for there to be accessible sidewalks. For all these kinds of considerations the Commission is going to look at the number of parking, whether or not it is still ADA accessible and ADA compliant, whether or not the particular applications meets the requirements. ChairLee: . • Said her concern is they are not changing the ordinance; it has been in the work program to be on the To Do List but it has been shuffled toward the bottom, such as on tlw parking problem because some things are.over parked and under parked. They have had some issues where the parking calculations are hard to tailor; everything is different. Vice Chair Takahashi: • Said there has always been a lot of vacant parking and he understood the concern, but in this particular case he felt having outdoor seating and energizing an area is in the best interest of what they want to achieve in general in the city and that particular center doesn't have a lot of options right now. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 26, 2015 • Safeway has put in some outdoor seating but other than that Chipotle and Starbucks are going to be the only places where there is outdoor seating. It is always important to look at traffic and debate traffic because it is near and dear to everyone's heart but he said he was confident there is no traffic problem at this specific site even with the unknown vacancies. He said the Marketplace is a different nut to crack. Chair Lee: • Said they don't need to apply for anything special if it is up to 20%; the planned outdoor seating is good; they don't have to redo and tear out anything; when they were building it they planned for some outdoor seating. Said she was not arguing against it as it is a perfect place for outdoor seating; it might be a lot considering they don't know what the other restaurants will do. Com. Gong: • She said as the city attorney stated, they view each project on its own merits; this project has come for this particular site; Starbucks isn't a full service restaurant with a typical lunch and dinner crowd and the hours afforded to those typical restaurant establishments. Taken together and focusing on this specific project by the merits of what has been presented, taking into account concerns, they cannot discount this and not pay attention to this project. Globally as they consider this, they have to consider this as it is presented for what it is, for the establishment it is, and at the location it is. Said she heard the global concerns, but the particular application, location, establishment is what they need to consider. Erick Serrano: • Said they are required to have 28 parking spaces; in the staff report the number of stalls required is 28; the total parking needs for the center is about 814; a surplus of about 842; again the original parking analysis looked at it and said there was a need of 793 parking spaces. Gary Chao: • Summarized Erick Serrano's statement, looking at the special parking analysis or at the ordinance based analysis, in both cases the project proposed by applicant meets it both ways, meaning the conservative approach; if you don't agree with the parking analysis either way it meets the city's requirement and the parking analysis which was approved by the city. Com. Sun: • Said for this particular project there is no problem; only future concern is if a restaurant has double seating, half inside, half outside, they can only meet the requirement for the indoor seating; that would be okay. On this one they meet both ways already. He said he did not have a problem if this was the case. Gary Chao: • Said they would have to meet the parking for the entire outdoor area. Com. Paulsen: • Concurred that they were looking at this project tonight and also that they liked outdoor seating, which adds a sort of a sense of community and vibrancy to the city. Regarding the parking there will likely be some changes in the future as the housing changes, mix of tenancy changes, changes in foot traffic and bicycle traffic, bicycle parking as well; and these are things that can be considered in the future with various projects as they come up. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 26, 2015 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Takahashi, second by Com. Gong and carried 4-1-0; Chair Lee voted No, to approve Application U-2015-04 as written with the findings as listed in the draft resolution. Chair Lee said she voted No as she preferred that the applicant make the request once all the other tenant spaces are used up. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housing Commission: No meeting. Economic Development Committee Meeting: Com. Paulsen reported: • Discussion that there would be no changes to the General Plan Amendment; no changes in housing to what was adopted by City Council; some discussion from guests about community benefits; speakers from Apple about where to cluster housing consultants working on that; some discussion about industrial residential mixed uses and discussion about housing capacity in the city. Topic about English only signs in stores. Someone spoke about the need for housing services for foster kids, sober living environment, and homeless people. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: • Com~ Paulsen reported discussion included apartment complex; General Plan Amendment Housing Element; Metering of projects in Mtn. View and Morgan Hill. Arts Commission: • Has awards pending for Youth Ages 6-18. Also discussed DeAnza Visual Arts Center. Parks Commission: • Review of their CIP projects for the year; Soils tests on the Lawrence/Mitty Park. TIC: • Discussed. controversy of cell phone towers; Privacy Opt Out with AT&T Plans; also Smart City Initiative. Teen Commission: • Musicians in Sounds of the City; Idea guest lecture program; also involved in Walk One Week; Library Commission: • July 1st non-resident fee will be eliminated; when San Jose increased their hours, they had 80% increase in use; continuing to look at designs for library expansion as part of Civic Center plan. Cupertino Planning Commission, 6 May 26, 2015 Misc: • Mayor discussed transportation; city suing VTA for Highway 85 issue. Public Safety Commission: • Discussed RFID program for elementary school children. City Attorney: • Reported that at the May 19 Council meeting, the Council did not adopt the new procedures for General Plan Amendments; it is going out for further community outreach. Gary Chao reported: • May 19 Housing Element was approved by Council; they decided not to make any additional General Plan amendments; consistent with what staff recommended; they didn't end up adopting any General Plan authorization process pending additional outreach; specified a 90 day moratorium for any potential General Plan amendment applications while they are soliciting additional input. The last direction relates to potentially wanting to have additional input from public regarding December action which was the 20/40 community vision document. They wanted staff to bring back a red line version of that document so the public can fully understand what sort of language and revision to the text were made so they can decide if there needs to be additional discussion on that. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No written report. ADJOURNMENT: • The meeting was adjourned to the June 9, 2015 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. Approved as presented: July 28, 2015