PC Packet 08-08-2017CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of June 13, 2017
Recommended Action: approve or modify Draft Minutes of June 13, 2017
Draft Minutes of June 13, 2017
POSTPONEMENTS
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.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on
simultaneously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Subject: General Plan Amendment for corrections to the Land Use Map and
Zoning Map Amendment for corrections to the Zoning Map to correct
inconsistencies between the City of Cupertino ’s records and certain map
designations. Application No(s).: GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01; Applicant(s): City of
Cupertino; Location: city-wide; APN(s): 326 49 034, 326 49 035, 326 49 039,
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
August 8, 2017Planning Commission AGENDA
357 07 029, 357 06 014, 357 06 019, 326 27 030, 357 09 053, 342 52 006, 342 48
999, and 326 41 115
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
(Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council:
1) Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA;
2) Adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to correct
inconsistencies between the City's reords and the map designation;
3) Adopt an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to correct inconsistencies between
the city’s records and the map designations
Tentative City Council date: September 5, 2017
Staff report
1 - Draft resolution
Exhibit A Maps and Map key
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
August 8, 2017Planning 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).
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.
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.
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
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JUNE 13, 2017 TUESDAY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2017 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Don Sun.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Don Sun
Vice Chairperson: Geoff Paulsen
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Commissioner: David Fung
Commissioner: Jerry Liu
Staff Present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Benjamin Fu
Assistant Planner: Ellen Yau
Associate Planner: Gian Paolo Martire
Deputy City Attorney: Angela Munuhe
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Minutes of the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
The following change to be made:
Page 11, bottom of page, 3rd bullet (Com. Fung) “What kind of city does Cupertino …. has tossed
around those thoughts?) should read as spoken by Vice Chair Paulsen, not Com. Fung) Delete
from Com. Fung’s statement and amend to read as Vice Chair Paulsen’s statement.
MOTION:Motion by Com. Liu, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously
carried 5-0-0 to approve the May 23, 2017 minutes as amended.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. U-2017-02 Use Permit to consider allowing a separate bar facility
Philip Camino (Stout within a newly proposed restaurant (Stout Burgers and
Burgers and Beers)Beers) at the Nineteen800development
10088 No. Wolfe Rd. Ste 100
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 13, 2017
Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to operate a separate bar within the restaurant, occupying
the southwest last vacant tenant space along the major Wolfe Road frontage as shown on the site context
map, located within the Heart of the City south of 280 and north of Stevens Creek Blvd. It is a sit-
down restaurant designed around a central bar area, with 14 bar seats and 54 interior dining seats;
operating hours are 11 a.m. until 11 p.m. daily. Parking has been evaluated by staff to ensure that the
use will be compatible within the 1900 development; restaurantswith a bar facility proposed are parked
at a higher ratio, one staff for every 3 seats rather than 4 seat requirement. There are excess of more
than 100 stalls; it is not anticipated that the minor use change within the existing tenant space will affect
parking. The Sheriff’s Department has reviewed the proposal and they did not identify any current
public safety concerns; they have a substation adjacent to the Main Street development that operates
24 hours a day. The projectis categorically exempt from CEQA. Noticing was done to the Metropolitan
residential and surrounding development; no comments were received.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds the project exempt from CEQA and approve the
Use Permit to allow the bar facility in a proposed restaurant in accordance with the draft resolution.
Staff answered questions regarding the proposed project.
James Dang, Partner, Stout Burgers and Beers:
Described the proposed bar/restaurant which will serve micro-brewed beers, wine and burgers in a pub-
like atmosphere. There is no current plan to have outdoor seating.
Ellen Yau:
Said that if the applicant chose to include outdoor seating at a later date, they would submit an ASA
application.
Chair Sun opened the public hearing.
Kevin McClelland, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and Small Busness Development Center,
Silicon Valley:
Said one of the objectives of the Chamber is helping restaurants to survive and thrive in the difficult
economy and it helps if they don’t lower their standards but do everything possible to help them open
quickly, which would minimize their debt occurred. He said he was hopeful they would move forward;
they have been through the process and staff recommends moving forward.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she was pleased to see another restaurant on Wolfe Road; good to have the area active with many
restaurants/bars; it is a nice complement to Main Street, activating the entire area. Said she felt the
hours were appropriate because of the residentials adjacent; it will be an active area with many people
walking. Questioned the 11 p.m. closing time relative to last drinks served, how long staff remains on
premises, etc. Asked for clarification on customers’ ages, etc.
Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Chair Sun:
Addressed the concerns raised by Jennifer Griffin relative to the bar/restaurant operation. Regarding
the presence of children, he said he felt the parents and most of the people who are going there will take
care of their children and they also have the Sheriff Dept. to take care of that part also. The issue of ID
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 June 13, 2017
cards, there are so many bars there, it is not a question that needs to be considered. The next thing is
about the timing; in the MainStreet1800 the residents know their environment, they chose to live there
and most of the bar and restaurants are open until 11 or 12 and some go to 1:00 a.m.; as long as they
don’t complain to the Main Street Management there should be no problem. We encourage all the
restaurants and help them to survive and prosper; it is quite an easy case for most of the commissioners
here since they don’t raise any questions.
Com. Liu:
Said he supported the application; it will be an asset to the community.
MOTION:Motion by Com. Liu, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously
carried 5-0-0, to approve Use Permit U-2017-02, and find the project
exempt from CEQA
3. U-2017-04 Use Permit to consider allowing a separate bar and hours
Marc Dimalanta of operation past 11 p.m. at a hotel restaurant (Marriott) located
Marriott Hotel within the Main Street Cupertino mixed use development
19429 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to consider allowing a separate bar and hours of operation
past 11 p.m. at a hotel restaurant located within the Main Street Cupertino mixed use development as
outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the project site located at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek
Blvd. and Tantau intersection. The project includes office buildings, parking garage, rental loft
apartments, hotel and retail development. The office and commercial components of the project have
been constructed; the Loft apartments and Marriott hotel are currently under construction.
The current application is for the restaurant portion of the hotel for the separate bar and hours of
operation past 11 p.m. He reviewed the operational details including the size, seating and proposed
hours of operation as noted in the overhead presentation; the prior approvals; and the late night and
separate bar operations in the vicinity. Relative to noise mitigation Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter
10.48 Community Noise Control is the governing ordinance chapter; also the Sheriff’s Department has
an onsite station, Main Street security is in operation 24 hours per day and City of Cupertino Code
Enforcement is also involved with enforcement of the Municipal Code chapters.
The Director of Community Development reserves the right to commence proceedings to revoke the
use permit. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under existing facilities. The
recommendation is that the Planning Commission find the project to be exempt from CEQA and
approve the Use Permit in accordance with the draft resolution.
Staff answered questions relative to the proposed project.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Referred to the issue of outdoor seating and questioned if there had been any movement on the
Council’s part to change the ordinance relative to not having more than 20% seating outdoors, and
which was discussed at last year’s goal setting that it was an outdated ordinance. In terms of
enforcement; if this facility were to expand its outdoor use, could they not do so beyond 20% of their
outdoor seating?
Gian Paolo Martire:
Said they could; it needs a Use Permit approval to expand it past 20%; said he was not aware of Council
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 June 13, 2017
making any direction or giving discretion to commence revision of the ordinance to revise the
Municipal Code to allow for more outdoor seating. The appropriate stage would be during the
discussion of the work program.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Relative to the comment about helping restaurants to survive in this competitive environment could
there not be a general closing hour for the entire property and then restaurants could stay open until
that time or close earlier if their business model so suggests. That way they don’t have to come to the
Commission each time they want to change their hours. Has staff given that any thought?
Gian Paolo Martire:
Said it would require modification to the overall use permit; and the question is do we want to bring
that modification to the whole Main Street easement back up to the Council and it is really up to the
property owners if they want to take that route also?
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he was not sure they should recommend it at this time as he did not want to cause any trouble in
terms of the public getting excited about late night hours. It seems difficult for a business to have to
come to the Commission each time they want to stay open an extra hour.
Gian Paolo Martire:
Said no complaints have been received.
Said the Marriott operates as an extended stay type hotel focusing on business users coming, and many
times those users come in late at night and when they arrive they may want a late-night snack. The way
staff has seen this is if it is open at least the option to 2:00 a.m. they have the option to go downstairs
and get something to eat. At the same time this is what the applicant is asking for; it is always within
the Planning Commission’s discretion to make the recommendation for them to be allowed to be open
until 2:00 a.m.
Marc Dimalanta, Architect:
Said they worked withthe property owners the past 6-9 months on the concept and also on how it would
work, intertwining with the property as well as the hotel. In terms of the hours, the idea was that the
hotel will be used by business travelers who may arrive late; it would be ideal to have the restaurant
stay open as the last restaurant available; and an option to pull it back within the operations if they see
it’s not necessary. Today they are returning to complete the original application for the bar use and for
the hours; the General Manager will discuss security in his presentation.
Mike Rohde, Sandhill Properties, Main Street, Cupertino:
Said they have a Sheriff’s substation with the sheriff onsite all the time; very little issues at Main Street.
They have 24 hour security patrolled by multiple officers on foot, golf cart, Segway, vehicle, bike; they
are in good shape from a security standpoint and security staff will be onsite during those late night
operational hours, 24/7.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Relative to the hours mentioned earlier, would it be easier to have the option for any tenant to stay open
until 2:00 a.m. if they wanted to, or is it better to have them come to the Commission on a case-by-case
restaurant-by-restaurant basis?
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 June 13, 2017
Mike Rohde:
Said it would be easier and save the Commission time, save the applicant time and money and be a
more streamlined process; and they would support that.
Gian Paolo Martire:
Said the process to accomplish that would be to have the original Use Permit modified to add that
condition of approval.
Mike Rohde:
Said it was a great gathering place and when the hotel opens in Sept/Oct time period and the Lofts
opens in Oct/Nov it will have the urban glue that will connect everyone.
Chair Sun:
Said his concern was all the bars and restaurants close at 1:00 a.m. and if they grant the hotel bar still
open to 2:00 a.m., they are going to treat people different from the business; he said he wants people to
have enough business to make Cupertino a good place and Main Street also; if they grant one particular
business open especially for the bar business open till 2:00 a.m. if other applicants come to the
Commission to ask for another opening, gradually it is going to approach the residential areas, and that
is going to make a decision harder. For the hotel guests, let them stay or purchase a bottle of beer to
go back to their room. That makes the management much easier.
Mike Rohde:
Said it was a unique casewith the hotel; the hotel will be its own entity. As stated earlier, many travelers
travel near and far to come to Cupertino and having late night hours for the bar/restaurant would provide
a needed service. He clarified that it was not just a bar, but a full-blown restaurant, they will serve
patrons at a bar setting and some tables.
They would like the opportunity to have it open to 2:00 a.m. and if they deem that there is an issue,
they can always scale back. The difference between Main Street and other properties is that they have
a full time, fully staffed security department along with a Sheriff substation; if things got out of hand
they would be able to respond quickly. Said they are enjoying a good relationship with the neighbors,
there have been no issues with any of the neighbors and they are willing to work with anybody. They
would like the Commission to consider the 2:00 a.m. option.
Said they would likely not be doing any more restaurants as they are close to their number but the
remaining tenants will mostly be retail and the other areas that are being filled are below the lofts and
they are not going to be putting any restaurants in there now and will have another spot that will be
close to Lazy Dog that they will lease and that will likely not be a restaurant. Main Street was thriving;
all tenants doing well.He reviewed the current status of retail storesand scheduled openings. Presented
an update on businesses; said people are walking to Main Street.
Chair Sun opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she has followed the Main Street property since it belonged to Toll Brothers; it has been a 14 year
evolution of the property from an old orchard farm to what it is today. When discussing makingchanges
to Main Street they need to remember the history of the property and why there are certain conditional
use permits, etc. Said she felt it was important to remember that the hotel was originally supposed to
be on Stevens Creek Blvd. and supposed to have a ballroom and banquets rooms, which they are
probably achieving.
She said she felt a closing time of 2:00 a.m. was rather late for the property; 1:00 a.m. would be more
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 June 13, 2017
appropriate since it is not a nightclub area; it is in a suburban area, people are living on site. Said as a
resident of the area since 1985 she did not want people wandering around that area at 2:00 a.m.; there
was a recent murder on Tantau Avenue; there needs to be a police presence and she did not feel
comfortable having people wandering around at 2:00 a.m. It is acceptable to have a 1:00 a.m. closing
time and perhaps there should be a private restaurant area for late travelers. It should not become a
destination for drinking when other places close in other cities; 1:00 a.m. is appropriate. Said they were
doing a good job and they were looking forward to its completion.
Kevin McClelland, Cupertino resident:
Said he managed the TGI Fridays in town in 1977 and was open until 2:00 a.m. every day for decades,
it was not a problem to have the restaurant open until 2:00 a.m.; it was more of a service to the
community than a nightclub of any category. Said the other issue of where you need to focus whenever
you are worried about nightclub or not, is with the product mix; The San Mateo TGI Fridays during the
same period in time ran a product mix of 60% food, 40% alcohol; 40% doesn’t sound like a lot, it is
really a bar; the Cupertino location did 22% alcohol and 78% food. The reality of it is that 2:00 a.m.
doesn’t equal nightclub, and he understood the concerns.
Said it was appropriate to have conversations and to express concerns; and be focused on alcohol
consumption; said they don’t have to risk turning Cupertino into a party town, the flip side is that if
they are all very aware of it, if there are problems they can deal with it. Opening themselves up to
opportunities, staying open to ideas and being able to service the public might be something they want
to do.
Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Com. Takahashi:
Relative to Vice Chair Paulsen’s thought of going back to the overall closing hours, he said he felt the
present process made the most sense from the standpoint that you could look at different locations and
their proximity to residents. This one is rather isolated from residents except for potential future
residents who haven’t moved in who will be established by the time they move. From a noise
perspective this application is not an issue for a 2:00 a.m. close. However, there was an application
months ago where there were some residents but its location was on the fringe and therefore us being
able to hear that and take that into account with regard to establishing hours is positive. If there were
no residential anywhere near it, then potentially I could see maybe a blanket but my recommendation
would be to continue looking at each application individually.
As for the specifics of 2:00 a.m., there is some concern from the Commission about setting a precedent
for 2:00 a.m. but again each application has its unique elements to it that I think we try to understand
and take into account. Therefore from my perspective having a little diversity in the closing hours
actually might be a good thing from the standpoint of everything not closing at once and having
everybody coming out at one time, as well as the hotel where I would assume and I am betting Marriott
has numbers with regard to what percentage clientele of the hotel are guests. That is a factor; while we
have been reluctant to approve something as late as 2:00 a.m., I think in this particular case, it seems
most if not all the risks have been adequately mitigated with regard to security concerns and from a
staff perspective if there were noise issues and/or any other elements between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.
it would come up and would be brought to the applicant’s attention, and if there were continuing issues,
the permit could be jeopardized.
Benjamin Fu, Asst. Director of Community Development:
Said there was a condition that allows the Director of Community Development to revoke the permit if
issues reported were not resolved.
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 June 13, 2017
Com. Fung:
Having later hours is whatever makes sense to the hotel management in terms of where there is a return.
Said he would consider having later hours on the other nights to keep people from walking out to go to
the other places which are open later on Main Street. Said his only concern in reviewing the proposal
was whether there would be an issue with noise in the outdoor area late at night.
Said that location is relatively isolated; in particular he was concerned if it was going to be close to the
Lofts, but doesn’t appear to be; not a major issue; it would be the first thing watching for in terms of
things to be concerned about; otherwise no issues. If they chose to set a time which is not that late, he
said he didn’t have an issue with that either; if it is 2:00 a.m. he said he would support it.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he was not wedded to the uniform closing time for the development; that is up to the applicant to
decide. He said he supported the 2:00 a.m. closing. As a member of the Economic Development
Committee he tries to help businesses be successful in Cupertino. The restaurant business is very
competitive, and everything they can do to help a business stay profitable is a good thing. More than
that, Cupertino is changing; young people are here, they like to work late and like to stay up late; this
will provide an option to have some place to eat. Having the flexibility especially for banquets and
events, some cultures like to stay out later. It is important to give the flexibility, but also Cupertino is
changing and becoming a high class city. It is not the kind of place that will foster the dive bar, fights,
afterwards kind of place, especially with the Sheriff there and security. Said he was not concerned
about that in terms of noise. The city is changing and the Planning Commission recognizes that and
tries to help businesses make it in a tough environment.
Com. Liu:
In terms of the uniform hours, agreedthat having the flexibility to set the different hours for the different
businesses makes sense; in terms of issues of security and noise, he said it is a credit to the property
management to provide the 24/7 security and he felt it is a very safe place. Said he felt that noise is a
separate issue from security because often there is a level of annoyance where it is not bad enough to
call the police because they haven’t done anything illegal, but at the same time could be troublesome.
In terms of the issue that we are all talking about, the late hours 2:00 a.m. from 5:00 to 6:00; why do
we even regulate hours to begin with because if there weren’t limits on it, that would be maximum
economic encouraging of development, and cities do that because their exterminalities are generated
when you run a business in terms of some of the noise pollution and that is why there are ordinances
for this, and so the question is where do you draw that line?
Said he was comfortable with 1:00 a.m., that is where the businesses are today; so I would be
comfortable with midnight for Thursdays and 1:00 a.m. I am having some doubts about 2:00 a.m. is
the point that Chair Sun brought up which is if this moves to 2:00 a.m. then I can see the other businesses
wanting to do that, and where do we stop? It is the same argument that we used to encourage economic
development; you can move it to 3:00 a.m., you can move it to 4:00 a.m.; soon it will be like Shanghai
where everything is open all the time. It comes down to how we see our city, I understand that and I
would be comfortable with it later if it were the venue for late travelers, but the fact that we are talking
about having events in there, and I worry about it being a hot spot for all the people everywhere else
on Main Street when things close at 1:00 a.m. going there. I would like to have more community
conversation about that because I feel like once we move that, everyone is going to want to do 2:00
a.m. Summarized that he was comfortable with 1:00 a.m., not really sure about 2:00 a.m. at this point.
Chair Sun:
For the Cupertino businesses, most time I vote to support businesses making their own decision as
much as possible; for this one, the rite of the hotel, whatever operation you want to do is no problem;
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 June 13, 2017
the Commission will generate, we don’t want to touch too much about the operation part of your
business. For this particular one, I am not concerned either the hotel or any other restaurant or the bar,
it is more in general for the Cupertino city if we have operation, some kind of audience to regulate or
make a decision or give us some general guideline for particular case, like a hotel, this one especially
in the center of Main Street, all the restaurant and bars close at 1:00, open at 2:00 so all the other
businesses are closed and all the people who didn’t finish their drinks all drive to the hotel. I don’t
insist very strongly but if we vote I still prefer if we close at 1:00 a.m. only for the bar part and you can
make some open at 7 in the morning to provide special food for the people or just close at 1:00 a.m.
Com. Takahashi:
In response to Com. Liu’s concerns, 2:00 a.m. is the state law for when the latest bar can be open; that
mitigates at least further hours. Probably the point of discussion is whether or not do we really feel we
are setting some level of precedence where, say Lazy Dog, what is their options from the standpoint of
do they have to reapply for a new Use Permit to come back to ask for the extra hour?
Gian Paolo Martire:
Said they have to modify the original Use Permit; they have to return to the approval body which
approved the original Use Permit.
Com. Takahashi:
Said it is in their control from the standpoint do they believe granting a 2:00 a.m. closing to the Marriott
Hotel opens the door; and is it a justifiable case for any other applicant that already has their use permit
that is less than 2:00 a.m. to come back and ask for a modification; what is our position on that? Said
he would like to think that what they discussed with regard to looking at each case individually and
having it weigh on its merits is the controlling mechanism to not have that precedence just apply to all
the businesses. Based on your location and other elements they feel the current 1:00 a.m. granted is
sufficient and would deny that; or perhaps it is being successful at 2:00 a.m. and the particular location
is on the far corner and therefore has absolutely no impact to noise and residents; then maybe they
grant that. Said he went back and forth with this point from the standpoint of are they setting precedents
or are they still assessing each applicant case-by-case and granting those hours based on the merits and
location of that, and as long as that is the case, he felt he could still support the 2:00 a.m. for Marriott.
Chair Sun:
Said he felt it is the 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., it is not considered the particular hotel or particular business;
it is possible for the hotel to be granted 1:00 a.m and then see in 6 months if the business really needs
to be open until 2:00 a.m., then some strong evidence is necessary to go to the p.m. that maybe much
easier to do the case.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he respected each commissioner; they have good discussions, and he felt consensus is a powerful
thing; in terms of seeing how it goes, they could look at the data very closely and perhaps could allow
them to stay open to 2:00 a.m. on the condition that the hotel gather certain data, the number of people
in the bar between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.; if they can do interviews to see if those people are people
flighting over from other restaurants that close at 100 a.m., or if they are business travelers coming in
or if they are events-related; it would be helpful; and also any record they could keep of trouble, if they
could report that to staff and staff could provide a report after a year’s time and let us know if there are,
as concerns were expressed, people wandering around; if there are fights, belligerents, arrests, but any
other kind of human interaction related data that would cause us to indicate that we should pull it back
to 1:00 a.m. Said he felt it would be a good way to see if this kind of thing would work.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 June 13, 2017
Com. Fung:
In a previous discussion about Fresh, the costs involved in having the restaurant open, cost of having
the kitchen open, having servers, cleaning up; the extended hours, if this is something that works for
the hotel and can provide that service, said he did not have a problem with that. In very much the same
way it provides a benefit of sorts to the Main Street community; if the way they have sufficient critical
mass to operate, because the other places have closed; he said he did not think it would actually trigger
everybody wanting to stay open. If you had a lot of people leaving that is possible, but he did not feel
it is going to trigger a chain reaction because everybody has this cost of operating.
Chair Sun:
He said they would not worry about the operation cost; that is not part of their consideration;
the only thing to consider is what particular hour is necessary to make the city make the decision for
the rest of the businesses.
Com. Fung:
Said he agreed it was not their job to make them profitable; the difference between a hotel and a
restaurant is that people don’t live at the restaurant. Cost has to have some potential captive audience,
and look at it in terms of if there are people who are interested in using the service, it is a reason to
consider doing.
Chair Sun:
So far the question or issue is not regarding the particular 2:00 a.m. closing for this particular business,
it is good or not; it is our decision for the future and also for city staff working in the future. He asked
staff for input.
Benjamin Fu:
Said the Commission discussed a bit about a previous case where they asked for an extended hour and
there was discussion about business operations and market demand, that is going to determine what
hours these operations will open to and close at; so far for all the other independent restaurants/bars
not associated with the hotels; independent restaurant bars would not receive such interest to extend
hours; that is what they have now. He said he could not dictate whether this approval will increase that
demand or not but they haven’t seen anything and also haven’t received any reports from the Sheriff’s
office regarding any incidents for any other restaurants or bars in town thus far.
Another point being that the Commission’s discussion about bringing a project back after six months
or how many months you wish to determine; in terms of implementation and documentation staff will
need more direction on exactly what the Commission is looking for; how could the applicant document
what kind of data is needed; what is it that you need so we can provide an adequate evaluation; and
also that will set some level of precedent for future projects. Said he wanted to make sure that the
standard was set for that. Said they had not received any requests for extended hours.
Mike Rohde:
Said they need to keep in mind that they are asking for a 2:00 a.m. closure for only two days. He said
they would like to self-control; if they do have an issue, he would be the first one to raise his hand and
say they are going to have to close early from now on. They would like to have that flexibility. He
said he would compromise on the outdoor seating closure at midnight. They can track some numbers
and there will be reports from the Sheriff’s department and can also track from incident reports from
their internal security department, and they are willing to do that. He added that they have their own
police force at Main Street with a Director and Assistant Director and multiple officers.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 June 13, 2017
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said the data that people are concerned with is the incident reports; if they could get a report after a
year on those 2 hours of those 2 days, he was curious to see the results on what is happening in Cupertino
during that time slot; it would provide some wisdom and guidance for how to proceed in future
situations as well; the closing at midnight for outside is a good idea.
Mike Rohde:
Said he could work with staff to come up with an incident report document.
Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Com. Liu:
Referring to the comments about letting the market forces sort that out, said he felt it was a
philosophical one but he felt that it should not be the boundary that if the market will bear it; no doubt
if you are open until 4:00 a.m. there will be people in there too. I think it is really what I am concerned
about externalities. Said he felt it would set a precedent because if they say it is okay for a restaurant
to be open until 2:00 a.m., what do they say to the next applicant next door? He said he was concerned
because he did not hear the community asking for this; one speaker was in favor of it and the other was
opposed. The property owners want it because there is economic benefit, but he would feel more
comfortable if there were some people who want to see this open. He did not see evidence of
community pulling for something like this and given that there is a precedent set, he would be open to
some of the data collection, but without anything like that he was not there yet.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he agreed that many people were present for the day care center issue; it was a local issue, family
issue, and emotional issue; said he did not think business travelers care that much about an hour, it is
not that big of deal for them. Said he was interested because he felt there is concern on the part of long
term residents, about noise and how the city is changing; so this could be a two hour testing of the
waters and see how things go. If it looks like there is no problems with this kind of operation, perhaps
there will be other applicants, depending on the business model. This has become a city of later night
people, younger people, travelers, I think that is a cultural shift that we would want to accommodate
and gathering some data to see how that works would be helpful.
Com. Fung:
In terms of community input, this is a hotel type bar, if this were Eureka or one of the other restaurants
looking to have that additional time, there is more of an issue of does the community want this because
it is people from our community that would be the primary users. I suspect that is not the case in a
hotel; from my point of view I would say if we don’t believe that there is a danger of this being very
negative; if there are problems we have the ability to shut it down very quickly. This is a good
opportunity to collect data and make a decision based on did it really work; if the answer is there were
problems, I would say with regard to the information collected, I think it is interesting to know how
many people are there because if there are 3 incident reports it matters whether there were 80 people
there or 3 people there. I would agree with Vice Chair Paulsen, there is a good opportunity to collect
some data and see whether it really works; if it doesn’t we will know it quickly.
Chair Sun:
Said where they are is not considered particular Main Street or hotel; he likes the businesses and tries
to support it as much as possible; there is no particulars whether they operate to 2:00 a.m.; the thing is
if the hotel, you said it is just for the late guests or the travelers; actually it is not; it is open to the public
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 June 13, 2017
so it is all the restaurants around it when they close or we force them to close at 1:00 a.m. they are
coming here all the time to apply for extended hour, to add bars and to add this; we have a debate
and argue about it; and then if all the other businesses go to yours and that is open to public not travelers.
This hotel is in the middle of all businesses; there is so much competition; and when you open this one
it is going to go all the way to the other end at residential areas and also Main Street next to the hotel
is going to have new apartments that will get into the use too. Changing it to close at 2:00 a.m. is very
hard to reversewhich makes him cautious; if we give them to 1:00 a.m. and just gothere and if applicant
has some problems, we definitely need 2:00 a.m.
Com. Takahashi:
Said he felt they may not reach a consensus on the issue and they should attempt to get closer to a vote
and there won’t be a unanimous decision. He summarized that two persons were leaning toward 1:00
a.m. closure and checking it out; and three persons were supporting going with 2:00 a.m. closure and
collect data, and if that data says that there are issues associated with the hours from 1:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m. then request that the city amend the Use Permit. Said that was his recommendation because they
will not get a unanimous vote; three persons for 2:00 a.m. and two for 1:00 a.m.
Chair Sun:
Said he appreciated Mike Rohde’s suggestion, vote for the 2:00 a.m. closing time and include a
condition to close the outdoor seating area at midnight.
Com. Liu:
Said he appreciated the offer to close the outdoor seating area, but it doesn’t address the issue of the
cascade effect; if you have so many restaurants together and one is open until 2:00 a.m. there is a
competitive advantage type of issue which he was concerned about. It reverts back to Vice Chair
Paulsen’s earlier discussion about having more consistent hours for something; otherwise it seems you
are giving one business an advantage over the others, and everyone is going to want that and how do
they handle that?
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he would be interested if the applicant was willing to provide some data on how many people are
at the bar at 12:30 a.m. and how many are at the bar at 1:30 a.m., which would be an indication of how
many people came over from the other restaurants that closed. In terms of the floodgates, is it going to
be the hole in the dike that opens up the flood that everyone is going to stay open all night? Said he
did not feel they would become another Shanghai; however, Cupertino is becoming a different city. To
accommodate the weary traveler, perhaps the person wants to stay a little longer after a wedding and
talk, is not unreasonable; he said he didn’t feel the city would change overnight but this is going to be
something a two-hour test can do. Said he would like to see the data on the 12:30 a.m. and the1:30
a.m. as well as the incident reports and the Sheriff’s reports after a year.
Com. Liu:
Said he appreciated data but preferred to grant on a needed basis. Chair Sun said that if there was data
saying that there were events that could have benefited from going longer, and he was open to thinking
about data and how to collect that.
MOTION:Motion by Com. Fung, second by Vice Chair Paulsen (??) and carried 3-2-0
(Chair Sun and Com. Liu voted No) to find the project exempt from CEQA
and approve the Use Permit U-2017-04 with the modification that the outside
seating area close at 12 midnight.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 June 13, 2017
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:None
COMMITTEE REPORTS: No Committee reports given.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 11, 2017, at 6:45 p.m.
There will be no meeting held on June 27, 2017.
Respectfully Submitted: ___________________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
August 8, 2017
SUBJECT
General Plan Amendment for corrections to the Land Use Map and Zoning Map
Amendment for corrections to the Zoning Map to correct inconsistencies between the
City of Cupertino’s records and certain map designations. Application No(s).: GPA-
2017-01, Z-2017-01; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: city-wide; APN(s): 326 49
034, 326 49 035, 326 49 039, 357 07 029, 357 06 014, 357 06 019, 326 27 030, 357 09 053, 342
52 006, 342 48 999, and 326 41 115
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that
the City Council:
1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA;
2. Adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to correct
inconsistencies between the city’s records and the map designations; and
3. Adopt an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map to correct inconsistencies between
the city’s records and the map designations.
DISCUSSION:
Background
As a result of responding to public inquiries, along with city actions over the years,
Planning staff have identified parcels for which the general plan land use designation
and zoning is not internally consistent or correct or has not been updated to correlate
with known city actions, such as resolutions, ordinances, recorded tract maps,
purchases and agreements. Procedurally, changes and corrections to the General Plan
land use map and zoning maps require a general plan amendment and a re-zoning,
which includes a resolution and an ordinance approved by City Council based on a
recommendation from Planning Commission following a public hearing process.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01 General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps August 8, 2017
Page 2
Parcels to be corrected
While the comprehensive list with a corresponding map diagram is included in Exhibit
A of the draft resolution, a condensed list of parcels proposed for correction is
summarized below.
There will be no changes to the existing land uses, development rights, and regulations
of the affected properties as part of these corrections, because either prior city actions
Map
key
Current Corrected
City action/ Public
recordGeneral Plan
Land Use
(GPLU)
Zoning General Plan
Land Use (GPLU)Zoning
1 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA Tract Map 4735
2 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA Tract Map 4735
3 Public Facilities R1-10 Public Facilities BA Tract Map 4735
4 Parks and Open
Space R1-7.5 Parks and Open
Space PR Tract Map 5873;
City Council reso. 4307
5 Parks and Open
Space R1-10 Parks and Open
Space PR
City Council reso. 823;
Santa Clara County
Assessor's data
6 Parks and Open
Space R1-7.5 Parks and Open
Space PR
City Council reso. 823;
Santa Clara County
Assessor's data
7 Parks and Open
Space P(R1C)Parks and Open
Space PR City Council reso. 13-012;
Ord. 13-2104
8
Very Low
Density (1/2 acre
slope density)
PR Parks and Open
Space PR
City Council reso. 99-186
Stocklmeir farm acquired
in 1999
9 Parks and Open
Space PR Quasi-public/
Institutional P(Institutional)
City Council reso. 99-072
Roadway easement
vacated in 1999; City
Council reso. 14-211 and
Ord. 2124
10
Very Low
Density (1/2 acre
slope density)
P((R1) 0-2)Parks and Open
Space PR Tract Map 6190
11 Public Facilities R1-10
Low Density (1-5
dwelling units per
acre) Residential
R1-10
City Council reso. 12-008;
Grant deed document
#22566711 & #23244980
GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01 General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps August 8, 2017
Page 3
(resolutions, ordinances, and recorded maps/agreements) were not reflected in the
general plan land use and zoning maps or because the past action of the City was
erroneous (as discussed further below.)
Parcels #1-8 are public facilities or public parks and open spaces. The requested
corrections align the general plan land use with the internally correct zoning of either
BA (public buildings) or PR (parks and recreation).
Parcel #9 (~14,578 sq.ft. and ~54 feet wide) was originally offered and accepted as a
public roadway easement to the City for future development in the area of the
Diocese/Oak Valley. However, this easement was formally vacated in 1999, because
during development of the Oak Valley neighborhood, Oak Valley Road was located
approximately 500 feet to the south instead of in the area of the easement. Once vacated,
the land use designation of the easement was changed to Quasi-public/Institutional and
was zoned “Planned Development with Institutional uses” (P(Institutional)) to match
the zoning of the Forum. However, during the last General Plan Update in 2014, as a
result of inaccurate data from the County Assessor’s records, which showed this parcel
to be owned by the City, the land use designation and zoning designations were
incorrectly changed to Parks and Open Space and PR. The current change in the land
use and zoning designations is proposed to correct the City’s past erroneous action.
Parcel #10 is a portion of property offered for dedication to, and accepted by, the City
for open space purposes. However, this was not reflected in the City’s general plan land
use or zoning maps.
Parcel #11 is a privately-owned, single-family residential parcel. The northeast corner of
the subject parcel was once a surplus City-owned parcel that was sold to the adjacent
property owner of 10500 Castine Avenue in April 2014. The City retains some
easements on this portion, however, these do not adversely affect the usage of the
property. The transaction to merge the parcels into one single-family residential lot
occurred in 2016. However, the land use designation needs to be updated to reflect this
transaction.
The total effect of making these revisions does not add development capacity for any of
the parcels.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Maps are exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the general rule exemption. For reasons
GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01 General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps August 8, 2017
Page 4
stated above, “it can be seen with a certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment,” the proposed General
Plan and zoning amendments, and are, therefore, not subject to CEQA (CEQA
Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
PUBLIC NOTICING AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Legal Ad Agenda
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to hearing)
Display ad placed in newspaper (at
least 10 days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (five days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (five days prior to hearing)
NEXT STEPS
The recommendations made by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration of a resolution and ordinance. The resolution is effective
immediately. The ordinance requires a second reading and the zoning map will go into
effect 30 days after that second reading. The Planning staff will update the General Plan
Land Use Map and Zoning Map and post the updated maps to the City website and the
Community Development Department’s customer service counter area, with respect to
when each action goes into effect.
Prepared by:Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Approved by:Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft resolution
Exhibit A: maps and map key
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AND ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
AND ZONING MAPS AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2017-01, Z-2017-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
APN(s): 326 49 034, 326 49 035, 326 49 039, 357 07 029, 357 06 014, 357 06 019, 326 27 030,
357 09 053, 342 52 006, 342 48 999, and 326 41 115)
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City’s General Plan may be amended no
more than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, “an
amendment may be made at any time, as determined by the legislative body “ (Cal.
Gov. Code 65358(b)); and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) provides that: “If it deems it
to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted
general plan. An amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner
specified by the legislative body. . . .”; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan are made by a resolution of the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Zoning Code are made by ordinance of the City
Council;
WHEREAS, Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.152.020 provides the procedures,
approval authority and findings for amendments to the zoning map and changes in
district boundaries; and
WHEREAS, corrections are necessary because General Plan land use map and zoning
map must be internally consistent; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the General Plan land use map and the
proposed amendments to the zoning map will correct inaccuracies in these maps and
will not add development capacity or result in a change of land use, development
rights, or regulations for any of the affected parcels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the General Plan land use map and the
proposed amendments to the zoning map are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because “it can be seen with a certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment,” and are, therefore, not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §
15061(b)(3)); and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2017 to consider the proposed
amendments.
SECTION III: FINDINGS
In accordance with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.152.020 (Amendments to the
Zoning Maps and Zoning Regulations), the Approval Body may approve of an
application to change the district boundaries, if it finds all of the following:
1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with this title of the Municipal Code and the
City's Comprehensive General Plan.
Parcels #1-8 are public facilities or public parks and open spaces. The requested corrections align
the general plan land use with the internally correct zoning of either BA (public buildings) or
PR (parks and recreation).
Parcel #9 (~14,578 sq.ft. and ~54 feet wide) was originally offered and accepted as a public
roadway easement to the City for future development in the area of the Diocese/Oak Valley.
However, this easement was formally vacated in 1999, because during development of the Oak
Valley neighborhood, Oak Valley Road was located approximately 500 feet to the south instead of
in the area of the easement. Once vacated, the land use designation of the easement was changed
to Quasi-public/Institutional and was zoned “Planned Development with Institutional uses”
(P(Institutional)) to match the zoning of the Forum. However, during the last General Plan
Update in 2014, as a result of inaccurate data from the County Assessor’s records, which
reflected this parcel to be owned by the City, the land use designation and zoning designations
were incorrectly changed to Parks and Open Space and PR. The current change in the land use
and zoning designations is proposed to correct the City’s past erroneous action.
Parcel #10 is a portion of property offered for dedication to, and accepted by, the City for open
space purposes. However, this was not reflected in the City’s general plan land use or zoning
maps.
Parcel #11 is a privately-owned, single-family residential parcel. The northeast corner of the
subject parcel was once a surplus City-owned parcel that was eventually sold to the adjacent
property owner of 10500 Castine Avenue. The transaction to merge the parcels into one single-
family residential lot occurred in 2016. However, the land use designation needs to be updated to
reflect this transaction.
The total effect of making these revisions does not add development capacity for any of the
parcels.
2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed amendments to the General Plan land Use Map and the proposed amendments to
the Zoning Maps will correct inaccuracies in these maps and will not add development capacity
or result in a change of land use, development rights, or regulations for any of the affected
parcels. Therefore, the proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because “it can be seen with a certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment” and
are, therefore, not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for
the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).
Parcels #1-8 are public facilities or public parks and open spaces. The requested corrections align
the general plan land use with the internally correct zoning of either BA (public buildings) or
PR (parks and recreation).
Parcel #9 (~14,578 sq.ft. and ~54 feet wide) was originally offered and accepted as a public
roadway easement to the City for future development in the area of the Diocese/Oak Valley.
However, this easement was formally vacated in 1999, because during development of the Oak
Valley neighborhood, Oak Valley Road was located approximately 500 feet to the south instead of
in the area of the easement. Once vacated, the land use designation of the easement was changed
to Quasi-public/Institutional and was zoned “Planned Development with Institutional uses”
(P(Institutional)) to match the zoning of the Forum. However, during the last General Plan
Update in 2014, as a result of inaccurate data from the County Assessor’s records, which
reflected this parcel to be owned by the City, the land use and zoning designations, were
incorrectly changed to Parks and Open Space and PR. The current change in the land use and
zoning designations is proposed to correct the City’s past erroneous action.
Parcel #10 is a portion of property offered for dedication to, and accepted by, the City for open
space purposes. However, this was not reflected in the City’s general plan land use or zoning
maps.
Parcel #11 is a privately-owned, single-family residential parcel. The northeast corner of the
subject parcel was once a surplus City-owned parcel that was eventually sold to the adjacent
property owner of 10500 Castine Avenue. The transaction to merge the parcels into one single
family residential lot occurred in 2016. However, the land use designation needs to be updated to
reflect this transaction.
The total effect of making these revisions does not add development capacity for any of the
parcels.
4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City.
As a result of responding to public inquiries, along with city actions over the years, Planning
staff have identified parcels for which the general plan land use designation and zoning is not
internally consistent or correct or has not been updated to correlate with known city actions,
such as resolutions, ordinances, recorded tract maps, purchases and agreements. Corrections
assure internal consistency and provide for orderly development by assuring that maps are
accurate and, in a timely manner, reflect city actions that have already occurred.
5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels.
There is no increase in development capacity and therefore is not detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the proposed
amendments in substantially the form as shown in Exhibit “A,” attached.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2017, 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:
Benjamin Fu Don Sun
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission
6
EXHIBIT “A”
<insert table and maps>
914854.1
Map keyAPNLot sq. ft. General Plan Land Use (GPLU)ZoningGeneral Plan Land Use (GPLU)ZoningOwnerCity action/public record1326 49 03439,332 Public FacilitiesR1-10Public FacilitiesBAPG&ETract Map 47352326 49 03539,332 Public FacilitiesR1-10Public FacilitiesBAPG&ETract Map 47353326 49 0396,875 Public FacilitiesR1-10Public FacilitiesBAPG&ETract Map 47354357 07 029161,168 Parks and Open SpaceR1-7.5Parks and Open SpacePRCity of Cupertino (open space)Tract Map 5873; City Council reso. 43075357 06 014138,888 Parks and Open SpaceR1-10Parks and Open SpacePRCity of Cupertino (McClellan Ranch)City Council reso. 823; Santa Clara County Assessor's data6357 06 019105,636 Parks and Open SpaceR1-7.5Parks and Open SpacePRSCVWDCity Council reso. 823; Santa Clara County Assessor's data7326 27 03028,600 Parks and Open SpaceP(R1C)Parks and Open SpacePRCity of Cupertino (Mary Ave. Dog Park)City Council reso. 13-012; ord. 13-21048357 09 053223,898 Very Low Density (1/2 acre slope density)PRParks and Open SpacePRCity of CupertinoCity Council reso. 99-186 purchased Stocklmeir farm in 19999342 52 00614,578 Parks and Open SpacePRQuasi-public/institutionalP (Institutional)Roman Catholic Bishop of SJCity Council reso. 99-072 vacated roadway easement in 199910342 48 999Very Low Density (1/2 acre slope density)P(R1) 0-2))Parks and Open SpacePRCity of CupertinoTract Map 619011326 41 1159,516 Public FacilitiesR1-10Low Density Residential (1-5 dwelling units per acre): R1-10 R1-10Private ownerCity Council reso. 12-008; Grant deed document #23244980* The corrected designation is highlighted in grayZoning abbreviations key:BA: Public buildingBQ: Quasi-public buildingOS/PR: Open space/Public park/recreational zoneP: Planned development R1: Single family residentialCurrentCorrected*
ST85
S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d
M c c l e l l a n R d
Bubb RdBubb Rd7
1
2
3
5
6
4
11
8
Los
Altos Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated
Linda Vista DrAlves Dr
G r e e n l e a f DrS
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
F
wy
Byrne AveHyannisport DrOrange AveWright AveNovember DrStokes
A
v
e
ScenicBlvdAinsworth
D
r
Ainsworth DrMann DrParkwood Dr
Parkwood D r
C
r
e
sto
n
D
r
CrestonDr Mary AveMaryAve
F o o t h i l l E x p w y109LosAltosUnincorpor
atedUnincorporatedUnincorporatedOakValleyRdCanyonOakWayCristoReyDrDeodaraD
r
DeodaraDr
ST85
S t e v e n s C r e e k B l v d
M c c l e l l a n R d
Bubb RdBubb Rd7
1
2
3
5
6
4
11
8
Los
Altos Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated
Linda Vista DrAlves Dr
G r e e n l e a f DrS
t
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
F
wy
Byrne AveHyannisport DrOrange AveWright AveNovember DrStokes
A
v
e
ScenicBlvdAinsworth
D
r
Ainsworth DrMann DrParkwood Dr
Parkwood D r
C
r
e
sto
n
D
r
CrestonDr Mary AveMaryAve
F o o t h i l l E x p w y109LosAltosUnincorpor
atedUnincorporatedUnincorporatedOakValleyRdCanyonOakWayCristoReyDrDeodaraD
r
DeodaraDr