PC 06-13-2017CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AMENDED/ APPROVED MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2017
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2017 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Don Sun.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Don Sun
Geoff Paulsen
Alan Takahashi
David Fung
Jerry Liu
Staff Present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Benjamin Fu
Ellen Yau Assistant Planner:
Associate Planner:
Deputy City Attorney:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
l. Minutes of the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
The following change to be made:
Gian Paolo Martire
Angela Munuhe
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
Philip Camino (Stout
Burgers and Beers)
10088 No. Wolfe Rd. Ste 100
Use Pennit to consider allowing a separate bar facility
within a newly proposed restaurant (Stout Burgers and
Beers) at the Nineteen800development
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 June 13, 2017
Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Pemlit 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 dirling 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 develepmeet; Nineteen800 development restaurants with 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 project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Noticing
was done to the Metropolitan residential and surrounding development; no comments were received.
• Staff recommends that the Planrling 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 reconunends 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 rlice 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 Jenrlifer 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 MainStreetl 800 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
Marc Dimalanta
Marriott Hotel
19429 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Use Pemiit to consider allowing a separate bar and hours
of operation past 11 p.m. at a hotel restaurant (Marriott) located
within the Main Street Cupertino mixed use development
Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Pe1mit 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 comer 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 Pemiit 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 Pemlit 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
tenns 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 corning, 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 with the 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 tem1s 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 hav e a Sheriffs 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 dming 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 Conunission 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 Pemut 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 case with the hotel; the hotel will be its own entity. As stated earlier, many travelers
travel near and far to come to Cupe1tino 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 stores and 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 prope1ty 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 making changes
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 A venue; 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 perspectiv e having a little di versity in the closing hours
actually might be a good thing from the standpoint of everything not closing at once and ha ving
everybody coming out at one time, as w ell a s 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 thi s particular case, it seems
most if not all the risks have been adequately mitigated with regard to security concerns and from a
staff perspectiv e 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 w as a condition that allo w s the Director of Conmmnity Deve lopment to revoke the pennit if
issues reported were not resol v ed .
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 patiicular 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 suppo1i 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 tenns 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, agreed that 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 extenninalities 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 comer and therefore has absolutely no in1pact 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 c ase.
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 ev ents-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 y ear's time and let us know if there are,
a s concerns w ere expres sed, people wandering around ; if there are fi ghts , belliger ent s, arrests, but any
other kind of human interaction related da ta that would cause us to indicate that we should pull it back
to 1 :00 a .m. Sa id he fe lt it would be a good way to see if this kind of thing would w ork.
Cupertino Planning Conunission 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 conununity; 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 Conmlission 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 deternline 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 repo1is from the Sheriffs
office regarding any incidents for any other restaurants or bars in town thus far.
• Another point being that the Conunission' s discussion about bringing a project back after six months
or how many months you wish to deternline; in tem1s 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 Sheriffs 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 fa vor 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 conmrnnity input , this is a hotel type bar, if this were Eureka or one of the other restaurants
looking to have that addit ional 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 w ork; if the answer is there w ere
problems, I would say with regard to the inforn1ation 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 Str eet or hotel; he likes the businesses and hies
to support it as much a s possible; there is no particulars whether they operate to 2 :00 a .m .; the thin g is
if the hotel, you sa id it is just for the late guests or the tra velers; 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 reverse which makes him cautious; ifwe give them to 1 :00 a.m. and just go there 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 sununarized 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 Pernut. Said that was his reconunendation 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 tenns 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 tlus 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 thel:30
a.m. as well as the incident rep01is and the Sheriffs repo1is 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 p...:1-) 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:
Approved as amended: August 8, 2017