PC 05-10-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINiJTES
6:45 P.M. May 10, 2005 TUESDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAIvIBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gilbert Wong
Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller
Commissioner: Angela Chen
Commissioner: Lisa Giefer
Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Taaghi Saadati
Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Ciddy Wordell
Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the Apri14, 2005 Planning Commission Study Session:
Com. Giefer requested the following changes:
Page 4, 4'" paragraph, line 7: Delete "sometime" and insert "someone to"
Page 5, 5`" paragrap6: Delete the word "up"
Page 24, "Beverly BryanP', Change "M.D." to "PhD"
E-mail request from Com. Saadati for the foRowing changes:
Page 25, last line: Change the word "economy" to "economic"
Page 26, third bullet, last line: Insert "provide" after "can"
Motion: Moved by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the
Apri14, 2005 Planning Commission Study Session minutes as amended.
(Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Chen abstaia; Com. Saadati absent).
Minutes of the Apri126, 2005 Planning Commission meeting:
E-mail request from Com. Saadati for the following changes:
Page l l, last line: delete the first use of "almosY'
Cupertino Planning Commission Z May 1Q 2005
Page 19, first line of last bullet under Com. Saadati: Change "and" to `bP' and insert "and
iY' after "city".
Chair Wong noted that on Page 4, second last paragraph, c6ange "Howe" to read "Pau".
Com. Giefer:
Page 14, 5th bullet: Insert "iP' after "specifically".
Motion: Moved by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the April 26,
2005 Planning Commissian minutes as amended. (Vote: 3-0-1;
Com. Chen abstain; Com. Saadati absent).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Wong noted receipt of a communication from Jim
Davis relative to Item 3.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. U-2005-02 Use Permit to allow veterinary services
Michelle AlTieri in a proposed retail store (Petsmart, supplier o£
(Petsmart); 20558 Stevens pet products and services) Planning Commission
Creek Boulevard. decision final unless appealed. Request
removal from calendar.
2. U-2005-04 Use Permit to use vertical mazkers and statuary
Rabert Lindberg (Gate of at an existing cemetery. Planning Commission
Heaven Cemetery) decision final unless appealed. Request
22555 Cristo Rey Drive postponement to June 14, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. C6en, to remove Application
U-2005-02 from the calendar (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent)
Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. C6en, to continue discussion of
postponement of Application U-2005-04 to the end of the meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
• Requested that the Parks and Recreation Department notify neighbors in advance of any
functions that aze put on. .
Chair Wong:
• Mr. Whitaker brought up a good point; last weekend ~aca~-3et~aa~ World Journal had a
mothers' day celebration at the library, and the city did put up `no parking' signs in the
neighborhood. It would have been helpful to canvas the neighborhood and let the residents
lmow. I have an office condo across the street, and noticed that the cars have been pazking
inside private property. I am confident that Therese Smith will note that and deal with it
accordingly.
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 10, 2005
3. U-2005-05, GPA-2005-02, Use Permit for a restaurant, bar and nightclub.
Z-2005-03, EA-2005-04 • General Plan Amendment to change the
City of Cupertino (Blue Pheasant) land use designation from Parks to
Restauraut) 22100 Stevens Creek Commercial to accommodate an existing
Blvd. restaurant, bar and nightclub. Rezoning of a
2 acre parcel from Public Park or Recreation
(PR) to Planned Commercial (P-Com)
City Council date: May 17, 2005.
Ms. Ciddy WordeR, City Planner, preseuted the staff report:
• The application is for a use permit, General Plan Amendment, rezoning and a negative
declaration is recommended.
• Reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report.
• The prospective buyer for the nightclub will represent the Use Permit the city is the applicant
for the General Plan change and the zoning change.
• The neighborhood residents' main issues relative to the nightclub are pazking and noise.
• The prospective operator is proposing a nuxnber of ways to mitigate the noise and parking
concems expressed:
o Reduce the hows of operation.
o Not to allow any new customers in after midnight.
o No drinks served after 12:30 a.m. Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
o Employees park on the street.
o Have employees help escort patrons out.
o Adding some parking spaces, if needed.
• Although not required to say you have to enforce occupancy because you should be enforcing
occupancy, we have stated that as a condition of approval so that it is cleaz that it is expected
and will be enforced.
• Also talking about a condition for a six month review so that the measures can be evaluated to
see if they aze effecfive.
• There may be 10 additional spaces possible on the interior frontage road if we provided an
alternate access for emergency vehicles and two spaces whose lines have been eliminated over
the years in the parldng lot; possibly 20 spaces on Stevens Creek Boulevard toward the east,
and four spaces toward the west.
• Staff is recommending approval of the changes.
Ms. Therese Smith, Director, Parks and Recreation:
• Explained the history behind the hours of operation of the nightclub, which has been operating
for over 30 years; closing at 2 a.m. on weekends.
• The operation started prior to annexation into the city; the property did not come into the city
until 1991 when the city acquired it and subsequently annexed it. At that time we were at the
end of 10 year ]ease with a 10 year renewal the Rasmussens had. The lease expired in 1994
and was renewed under the terms that had been previously negotiated before the city bought
the property; the lease expired in 2004.
• As part of the Pazk Master Plan we have a design that wil] increase the parking of that lot from
92 to 125 without having to go in and redesign the golf course, and wil] probably do that
beginning in 2007.
• 2004 was the first time the city had the opportunity to change the operation. The Ciry Council
first considered the issue in the Fall of 2002, 18 months prior to the end of that lease term;
staff wanted the operator to come in for a conditional use permit prior to the renegotiation of
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 10, 2005
the lease; the applicant decided they would prefer to close at 11 p.m. rather than go through the
public process.
• The business has been on the market for about a year; the Council has the right of assigiment;
the prospec6ve buyer who is in escrow, is the buyer who the Council determined they are
comfortable with signing the lease.
Mr. Kilian:
• It is clear the lease was signed in 2004 with a closing of 11 p.m. The Rasmussens did close at
11 p.m. until the first applicant for an assignment to the lease came to the City Council; the
City Council did not feel that the applicant had sufficient elcperience to take over the lease and
denied the assignment. Thereafter the Rasmussens stayed open until 2 a.m. in violation of the
lease. The city brought suit to force them to close by 11 p.m.; the court heard the case in
January in terms of a preliminary injunction; the court decided not to grant the preliminary
injunction because the harm to the Rasmussens would be greater than the harm to the city in
keeping it open until2 a.m. A trial date is likely 8 months to a year away.
• At this time the Rasmussens are staying open until 2 a.m. because the court did not grant the
city's preliminary injunction for them to close.
Vice Chair Miller:
• If the lease is for 11 p.m., why is there a recommendation to change the lease to 1 a.m.?
Ms. Smith:
• A number of prospective buyers have looked at the business and because the city has the right
of assignment, they come in and talk to us. The business has been on the market for over a
year and the overall consensus is you woulddt buy the Blue Pheasant and turn it into
something else; you wouldn't spend the money to buy a business that has a 30 year history of
being one thing in order to make it something else.
• If it is going to sell and the Rasmussens are prepared to retire, some relief to the 11 p.m.
closure is needed, which several prospective buyers have stated.
• This is the first buyer acceptable to the City Council who is willing to go through the process.
We are currently getting $84,000 per year in rent; there have been suggestions that the
building should become something else. The difficulty is that it is 40 years old, not up to code
in any way and any change in use would trigger a complete overhaul of the structure, which
we don't have a reason to do at this point; we don't have another use for the building and we
do not have the money to do it; we would be cutting off a current revenue stream.
• When we went through the public visioning process for the Stevens Creek corridor, we ]earned
that the golf course and the appurtenant restaurant and bar were seen as amenities to have; they
wanted it improved, better menu, more upscale clientele; but overall it was seen as an amenity.
• At this point, there is no compelling use to turn it into anything else.
Mr. Kilian:
• Clarified that the Planning Commission is determining whether or not to amend the General
Plan and the use permit the City Council will make the decision as to what the lease would or
would not be.
• However, the city has been approached by a number of owners and no one wants to occupy the
business as a restaurant that closes at 11 p.m.; it would not be economically feasible. The Blue
Pheasant would be in competition with other night clubs that still remain open until 2 a.m. and
I think staff looked at this as preferable to a 2 a.m. closing and was a compromise.
• The lease is subject to fiu-ther negofiation.
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 1 Q 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
• Relative to zoning, in general, the Planning Commission is responsible for the General Plan
and the point of an zoning ordinance is to separate incompatible uses, and here what it looks
like we are doing is taking a small section of an area primazily zoned for residential, and
changing it to a commercial zone which some people might call spot zoning.
• From a philosophical standpoi~t, I am not suggesting that we don't try to reach a compromise
on the Blue Pheasant, but it is not clear to me that a General Plan amendment and a rezoning
of the small section of area is necessanly the right approach to doing that.
Mr. Kilian:
• The other altemative is to have it remain as a non-conforming use and that is not to the city's
advantage. It depends on which philosophy you look at; the philosophy at least from the
stafYs point of view, is to try to zone properties to reflect their actual use rather than creating
non-conforming uses. In this situation, it was unfortunate when the city purchased it that it
didn't zone it commercial at that time, but it purchased it as a pazk.
Mr. Piasecki:
• An option that the Planning Commission has is to consider a more flexible classification, Parks
Rec/Commercial which would give the best of both worlds; you could have this use as long as
the City Council decides if they want to keep the use, if they ever decide to change it out to
Parks and Rec, you don't have to go through this process again at a later date.
Vice Chair Miller:
• On the report there was a recommendation of a six month review; at that point in time if this
application was approved as recommended, and the six month review showed that things were
not any better, does the Planning Commission based on that have the opportwiity to rescind its
approval?
Ms. Wordell:
• Our thought on that was it wouldn't be for revocation, it would be to see if it was operating
smoothly; it was a review and not for revocation.
Mr. Kilian:
• Because we have to shortly thereafrer sign an amendment to the lease to reflect the changes
made; I would look at the six month review as other options besides changing the time of
operation, because that will be cast in concrete once the lease is executed. You can't come
back six months and say, I am sorry your lease is no good.
• Probably in the lease language we would have something like this is the hours of operation,
subject to whatever the conditions the city has imposed or will impose. I dodt think we can
have a six month review and then deny the use permit when the lease is signed for 10 years.
• If the recommended hours of operation are not worldng, we do not have the option of cutting
them back to 11 p.m. or 12 midnight, if it is in the lease.
Ms. Wordell:
• It is to review the conditions to see that they are adhering to the conditions and that the
condirions aze operating as directed, which is the review part.
Vice Chair Miller:
• On your slide you indicated there might be space for parking 20 additional cars on Stevens
Creek Boulevard; how would you accomplish that?
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 10, 2005
• Relative to the property immediately to the east, is the dirt access road available for pazking or
is it someone else's private property?
Ms. Wordell:
• Parallel parking; it was the traffic department who estimated that, they didn't do scale
dimensions for us tonight because they wanted to get direction first. That was the estimate.
• The property belongs to the city, and part of that would be a potential for emergency vehicle
access, and if they wanted to use the frontage road for parking, emergency vehicles would
need another access to exit off Stevens Creek Boulevard. It would have to be approved for
parking.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Said that a negative was that the frontage road gets closer to the residential units further up
Stevens Creek Boulevard and up along Byme Avenue.
• If we thought we needed that, we could probably come back to you after we have analyzed it;
but we tried to stay away from there because of the proximity; however, it can be looked at.
Vice Chair MiRer:
• Said he received an e-mail suggestion to reconfigure the golf course to add more parldng to
resolve the parking issue.
Ms. Smith:
• Said that reconfiguring the golf course is not an alternative, but a$2 million proposition.
• As part of the Park Master Planning we have a design that will increase the pazking of that lot
from 92 to 125 without having to go in and redesign the golf course, and wil] probably do that
beginning in 2007.
Com. Giefer:
• Relative to the dirt road and access road, it appeazs that it is a potential area for parking as
well, without encroaching upon the neighborhood.
• Suggested additional parking spaces available by the practice golf range azea, in front of the
plaque.
• There are potentially other scenanos where the parking ]ot could be improved; the batting cage
could be removed to add potential parking spaces.
Chair Wong:
• Would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation in conjunction with the Use
Permit, does that fall into our purview because I believe that iYs timing ofthe use permit.
• Can this place close at 11 p.m., vs. why are we looking at closing at 1 a.m.?
Mr. Kilian:
• Suggested asking the prospective owner if he would buy the restaurant if closing time is 11
p.m.
Chair Wong:
• What is the required parking if it was required to close at 1 a.m.?
Cupertino Planning Commission ~ May 10, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
• According to the parking matrix on Page 3-3, the night time parking requirement is 85; the
current parking lot more than meets the ordinance parking requirements, but as we pointed out
that it is really the practice of the nightclub that tells us it is under-pazked.
Chair Wong:
• The matrix says daytime 119 spaces and at night 73 patrons plus 12 employees, total 85; if you
look on Page 3-25 the applicant predicted a peak of 128 on Friday nights. If they came in one
caz which I doubt, it is spilling over into the neighborhood which is my concern.
• That is one thing we need to take into considerarion.
• Another thing you brought up is that you had a traffic engineer go out into Stevens Creek and
estimate 20 spaces. I wish we lmew for sure it was 20 spaces, taldng into consideration the
bus stop that Vice Chair Miller brought up. Also on Frontage Road you said that it can take up
10 spaces as well, but you did not explain if there was a fire you might need Frontage Road to
go up Byrne into the dirt path. In this staff repod it doesn't explain how these extra parking
spaces will be put in here and it is incomplete for me.
Ms. Wordell:
• Those details could be brought back at the six month review because the expectation is that the
operation is going to mitigate any parldng overflow and in six months we review that. If it
hasdt taken care of it, then we can bring back the details of what additional measures aze
needed to be sure we could park onsite.
Chair Wong:
• Shouldn't we be proactive and solve these problems and set up the plans prior to them
opening; because I think the neighbors aze tired of hearing that we are going to mitigate it.
• T'he new applicant is trying his best, but I would like to see all the Is dotted and Ts crossed and
have it perfect, and if there was concern the residents can say you didn't implement this.
Ms. Wordell:
• That could be a direc6on that you could go in, one consideration would be that if there were
expenses involved now that you might not need later, that is also a consideration; but I think if
you wanted to pursue other options now you would have that ability.
Chair Wong:
• Regarding the compatibility, the Planning Commission has a right to say yes or no regarding
rezoning the area. The park is surrounded by residential azea and does staff feel comfortable
that we are having a commercial zoning right in the middle?
Ms. Wordell:
• Staff is comfortable with it as we view it as an existing use that we are trying to make
conforming, and it is limited to this use.
Chair Wong:
• In one of the emails there was suggestion that the golf course didn't have a clubhouse or
somewhere for them to congregate; and if for some reason they decided the hours are not
good during the use permit, could this be used as a clubhouse restaurant/bar facility?
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 May 10, 2005
Ms. Smith:
• We don't own the business; the business is for sale and with it comes the lease which is a big
part of what the business is; we don't have the right to go in and change it.
Vice Chair MiRer:
• How long have the complaints and concems about noise and parking been occurring?
Ms. Smith:
• In the past four years, the city has not had the ability to condifion a permit and do not have it
yet; that is what we aze trying to get.
• The complaints go back a number of years and much has to do with overcrowding of the
facility.
Com. Giefer:
• Asked if the pumphouse next to the Blue Pheasant was ]isted as a historical site.
Ms. Smith:
• Said she understood it was a calling tower for the racetrack formerly on Phar Lap; it has been
moved and was of enough significance at that time that the developer was required to move it.
• The current plan does not encroach upon the structure.
Ms. Wordell:
• Said they were proposing to identify it as a historic interest in the new General Plan.
Mr. Tsachres, applicant:
• The rules and steps we are planning to implement to control the issues of noise and puking
spaces were well stated by staff.
• I am here to provide examples of how these rules and steps were implemented and what effect
it will have.
• He explained the rules implemented at different time of the day relative to puking and noise;
and the participation of the security guards in directing patrons to park in appropriate places.
• He discussed the number of customers patronizing the restaurant and night club during the
week of May 1 s` , noting their arrival times and what times the lines formed, waiting to get into
the nightclub.
• He said that by regulating and controlling the people when they are coming into the restawant,
you keep it to the number that it is supposed to be; you don't allow anybody to come in and eat
after 12 midnight, with the proper sign posted at the door.
• He said he did not feel there would be a problem in implementing the rules and have plenty of
space in the pazking lot. There may be a problem with the customers, but he is willing to
adhere to the rules and enforce them and it would produce good results.
• The level of noise from the line of people waiting to get in later in the evening was not at a
disturbance level.
• Sooner or later I put it the way I want it I don't want conflict with the neighbors or the city; I
want to have a nice place for people to come and dine at.
• If required to close at 11 p.m., I would not purchase the restaurant since there is not enough
business just with the dinner service. There is no lunch business. The only activity takes place
on Friday and Saturday night, and I have to leam to control it to produce some money or there
is no way out.
• The facility is lmown for dancing; and not well lmown for dinners; the kitchen is too small to
cater large events.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 May 10, 2005
Chair Wong:
• Have you every considered using the facility for catering weddings and banquets and still
closing at 11 p.m.
• There is a need in Cupertino for banquet halls; perhaps with re-marketing, it might be
successful in catering.
Ms. Tsachres:
• Said that the banquets during the holiday season would not bring in very much income.
• Said he had ideas on how to run the restaurant and would not change just to produce more
money; that is why he agreed to the terms of six months review.
• Said it was not a desNnation place for lunch or dinner.
• Said the new lease was for a 5 year term; one year has already been expended. There is an
option for another 5 yeazs based upon rent to be negotiated.
• He said he did not want to change the style of the restaurant.
• Answered questions about the capacity.
• Customer outreach included meeting with the residents, explaining his plan for the restaurant;
phone calls to residents about their concems. Said the key to remain in harmony with the
neighbors was to control the way the operation is run. The majority of the people likes the
facility and wanted him to stay and give him a chance to be successful.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Eugene Chiang, Dos Palos Court:
• Said he was not aware the operation was not licensed for 30 years.
• If the business cannot be sold, what happens to the city's financial gains.
• Said he felt it was not appropriate to rezone just for the business; there is plenty of locations on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to locate the business.
• Suggested using the restaurant as a clubhouse for the golf course.
Chair Wong:
• Clarified that the restaurant was legal, but non-conforming.
Marjan Kashvad, Phar Lap Drive:
• My home and family has suffered because of the nightclub activity for yeazs.
• Distributed a copy of the staff report, with a letter explaining issues of concerns.
• Asked that the commissioners consider her concerns and issues.
• This is not a parking problem; parking is just one of the problems; for years the ciTy has been
aware of all the challenges that the citizens had to go through with the nightclub activity; it is
the type of guests and activities; coming and going, caz alarms, vandalism, and people leaving
trash in the area.
• Only the first par[ of Phaz Lap has permit parking, the cars keep flowing back into the part that
has no permit parking.
• The cus in the permit zone area aze the ones grossly violating the law; the remainder follow
the law, they come back to the back side of Phar Lap and pazk. The maximum capacity is 165,
according to the report, there are 117 spaces; the xnajority of the night club guests come in
single cars with single drivers.
• Focus on the inside of the neighborhood out; this is a city property purchased with the
taxpayers' money.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 May 10, 2005
• Please postpone voting tonight and take the time to read my concerns and issues. The process
is being pushed up, and residents have not been able to express their concems.
• I am not opposed to the restaurant; residents want the closing hour to be 11 p.m., and no
rezoning.
Albrecht Schoy, Phar Lap Drive:
• Opposed to rezoning.
• Expressed concem about the new prospective owner; in their first meeting they discussed
problems such as closing time beyond 11 p.m.
• Did not feel the concerns were adequately reflected in what the applicant reported.
• There was discussion that the main problem was the clientele coming after 1 I p.m.
Chair Wong:
• Explained that tonighYs meeting was a recommendation to the City Council; the public
hearing is to hear input from the residents about their concerns.
• City staff will make a recommendation for rezoning and for the use permit.
• The Planning Commissioners present will make a recommendation to the City Council; the
residents will have another opportunity to voice their concems to the City Council.
Mr. Schoy:
• I have resided in my home for 8 yeazs and the problems from the nightclub have gotten
progressively worse over the 8 years; especially since Shabooms closed.
• When I moved into my home, it was difficult to judge the severity of the issue because of the
time of day.
Com. Chen:
• Clarified whether the city operates the business as a restaurant or clubhouse, if there is any
commercial business being conducted on the site, it has to be rezoned to commercial.
• Said that she heazd that it was acceptable that they would approve to operate a business up to
11 p.m. as a restaurant or clubhouse; but all of those are commercial uses; so the rezoning
would allow the site to be operated as a business.
George Carapiet, Phar Lap:
• I have been acquainted with Mr. Rasmussen for many years and also lmow the former owner
of the property before the city acquired it.
• I regret that I solicited votes for residents to vote for the city to purchase the property for a golf
course for the young people, and for the older people who could not afford membership in a
private club.
• I have no problem with a restaurant there and no problem if the applicant is confident that he
can control it. I suggest that he be put on probation for six months and show the city as well as
residents that he can control what he says he can.
• I find it difficult to understand that the applicant can state that the business is not profitable,
yet from Friday and Saturday nights from 11 p.m. until 1 a.m. he makes enough money that he
is interested in buying the facility.
• I have been in the restaurant business 25 yeazs and I lrnow the area.
• Zoning may be dangerous to the value of our properties; it is a residential azea; the restaurant
came after.
• The dance floor of the nightclub is overcrowded at night.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 May 10, 2005
William Kuncz, Phar Lap Drive:
• I think the proper focus of the emotion heard is really on the parking issue.
• I support the rezoning to its appropriate use; I think the restaurant should be allowed to stay
open until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m.
• The common thread of most of the issues is the overflow pazking into the neighborhood. If
that is controlled, the main thing is to keep the pazking on the south side of Stevens Creek; if
you keep the people on the southside of Stevens Creek, you are not going to be having people
challenging their parking permit.
• The ultimate success for determining whether this is good for the neighborhood is the day we
can take down those restricted parking signs in the neighborhood.
• There needs to be something drasrically done to expand parldng, because if you can keep the
patrons of the Blue Pheasant out of the neighborhood, I think you will see much of the
emotion die down, and a lot of the polarization that goes on in the neighborhood would go
away.
• I support the rezoning and use permit to one.
John Anells, Florence Drive:
• I reside away from the area of commotion, but am here to speak in support of my neighbors.
• At one time I had an office in the Oakdale Ranch neighborhood association.
• I speak against the rezoning, and am amazed that the city has been unable to execute on the
plan which we have been promised for years. We had to wait until the lease ran out and then
we seem to have negotiated the lease inconectly and were unable to enforce what the city
promised to us which was an 11 p.m. closing.
• It has come to the point that I feel as others have expressed here that it is a done deal; the
mayor has already been quoted saying that the new owner is a godsend which is a comment
that baffles me.
• I am concerned that this is an issue which will have to be disclosed upon a real estate sales and
that is a big issue in our neighborhood. Nobody wants to have that situation.
• The residents should have parking permits to pazk outside their homes.
• I would urge you not to surrender the opportunity to solve this problem in favor of the
neighborhood; if rezoning takes away control of the ciTy and I would urge you not to do so. I
have been at Planning Commission meetings where that situation existed. When the theaters
closed, you said we couldn't do anything about it because it is zoned commercial and they can
do whatever they want; well you are the city, you own the property, you can do what you like;
I urge you to listen to the neighbors.
John Shea, Wallace Drive:
• I have talked to people who go to the club to meet others; we need to remember that we need
places to meet other people, and I talked to a lot of people who use the facilities and they
appreciate it.
• My wife and I enjoy the Blue Pheasant but we do not go there between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m.
• I considered the idea of using shuttle buses from DeAnza College for the hours between 11
p.m. and 1 a.m. to alleviate the parking problem at the restaurant, and the neighbors' concerns.
• I appreciate the neighbors' concerns, parking is a problem in our communiry.
Chair Wong:
• How far does the pazking on Phar Lap Lane go into the neighborhood? Where does it stop; the
public has a right to pazk on the public street.
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 May 10, 2005
Com. Giefer:
• It appears to go two blocks into the neighborhood beyond the second cul de sac and then stops.
Residents in neighborhoods with permitted pazking azea get two parking permits per residence
to display in their rear view mirrors of their autos. I am surprised there aze residents living in a
permitted azea who don't have the permits.
Chair Wong:
• Why are we recommending it to close at 1 a.m.? Does the city ordinance state that they have to
close at 11 p.m.?
Ms. Wordell:
• A night club is a conditional use in a commercial zone which requires a use permit to operate
beyond 11 p.m.
• The pazk zone doesn't have any conditional uses, so it wasdt really appropriate to say that is a
use that could occur in a park as a night club past 11 p.m.; we are trying to make it fit into
what it is, which is a commercia] use that requires a use permit.
• The current operators had the opportunity to go through a procedwe to change the closing time
from 11 p.m.; they chose not to.
Mn Kilian:
• The City purchased Blackberry Farm in 1991 subject to the existing lease which had 13 years
remaining.
• There are people who have input both ways on the nightclub; the City Council at that time was
not comfortable saying there was no night rime use there as there has always been a night time
use; they agreed to execute a lease. However, they wanted the closing at 11 p.m.
• Ideally the Rasmussens could have come in two years ago and said they wanted to confinue
with the lease and the city is willing to do something like Mr. Tsachres is proposing. They
chose not to go through the public process; they had a buyer that would close at 11 p.m. but
that buyer was not acceptable to the city at that time, because they had no experience in
running a bar or restaurant. The assigiment was rejected by the City Council.
• Normally what would happen is at the end of the lease, the owner of the business would come
to the city and ask for an extension of the lease; in conjunction with that, there would be a use
permit, like we are asking for now; so that we have conforming
properties, we don't have non-conforming uses any more. But the Rasmussens chose not to do
that; they took the fallback posifion because they were refiring and it did not matter to them.
Chair Wong:
• What the staff is asking the Planning Commission for tonight regarding the use permit, is if the
Planning Commission recommends to City Council to have a conditional use permit for a
nightclub between 11 p.m. to 1 a.m.
Vice Chair Miller:
• What is the effectiveness of valet pazking; we have some areas in town such as BJs where it is
totally valet pazldng. Would it eliminate tMs problem in the neighborhoods based on our
experience or not?
Ms. Wordell:
• Valet parking was something they could hold in reserve as an option if parking does not work
out.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 May 10, 2005
• It is clear the goal is not to have overflow parking and if there is overflow parking, there would
be other means to address it, which would include an option of valet parking. Valet pazking
has been effecrive at the restaurant on DeAnza Boulevard.
Mr. Kilian:
• It may be one of the things to consider in six months as one of the mitigations if there is a
problem.
• Presently it is not part of the applicanYs proposal and there are no studies that support it.
Com. Giefer:
• As part of looking at this business, have we considered extending permit pazldng further down
Phaz Lap and on the adjacent cul de sacs to the left as you drive down Phar Lap away from the
restaurant.
Ms. Smith:
• I do not believe the neighbors would like to have the problem solved that way; I don't think
permit pazking is seen as that much of a convenience.
• The additional pazking spaces from the Stevens Creek TraiUBlackberry Farm Stocklemeir
property, will be in 2007.
• There are some neighbors waiting to see what the outcome will be before they circulate a
petiHon.
Com. Giefer:
• I agree with that, but I am hying to think of ways we can help the neighbors keep the patrons
out of the neighborhood.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
• At one time the Blue Pheasant was operated in a manner that was not a nuisance to the
neighbors, you would have to take that into consideration, and say if we could do it in the past,
maybe we could do it again.
• I heard from the neighbors that they don't want the business to disappeaz entirely; some
support the current a application, some want the hours rolled back.
• From a Planning Commission standpoint, I find it difficult to support a rezoning for a
particular application in what some people call a spot rezoning.
• From a philosophical standpoint, I think it is important that we have a zoning ordinance that
we keep the number of exceptions to the zoning ordinance to a minimum and do a rezoning
and General Plan amendment so that a restaurant can extend the time that it is open by 2 hours.
• I am opposed to the rezoning; however, I am not opposed to working with the applicant to
work out a reasonable solution to solving these issues to see if over a period of time we can't
improve the situation so that the Blue Pheasant continues to operate and the neighbors are
comfortable with that level of operation.
• Rezoning is not the appropriate way to go about it; it sets a precedent that in my view is not
good.
Com. Chen:
• It is a successful business in Cupertino and it seems like the community supports the business,
and the neighbors also agree that it can be operated as a business; however, there are some
issues that need to be resolved.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 May 10, 2005
• Operating hours and parking are issues that need to be resolved; but zoning and General Plan
amendment is appropriate to me to allow the land use to match the actual use of the site.
• I support General Plan amendment and rezoning; however, I would like to reserve the City's
rights to use the site as a pazk in the future.
• I propose to do a General Plan amendment and rezone this site to Park/Commercial or Planned
Commercial.
Com. Giefer:
• I support rezoning to Park/Planned Commercial for this type because I think it gives us greater
flexibility for the current lessee or the restaurateur who will pick up the ]ease. In the future if
we find we do want a pazk plan or we do want a golf clubhouse, whatever the city's needs are
that may change, it would provide more long term flexibility for the specific area.
• We did citywide noticing on this application and I am surprised at the small number of
responses we got of people who came. I reflect back to the General Plan task force where so
many things were controversial and in general, the Blue Pheasant was looked upon as
something of value within Cupertino in its current iteration as a night club and restaurant.
• It occurred to me from what I read and some of the testimony we have heard tonight, that we
really have a capacity problem; both with people going into the restaurant and parking their
cars illegally.
• I went there with some friends about a yeaz ago and I was shocked at how many people were
crammed into the space, and feeling that there were more people present than were permitted.
I feel that they are not limiting the amount of people coming in; and if you are not taking
control of the amount of people you are bringing into the facility, then people aze going to be
parking everywhere.
• I would be more supportive of giving the new operator a chance of running a successful
business there and trying to control the real issues which are over-use of the restaurant bar,
having too many people crammed into the restaurant. Some of the ideas he shared with us
were good ideas on how he would limit that.
• I was also impressed with the fact that he had done some analysis of the traffic flow in terms
of restaurant tickets. I think that with conffol and looking at the right variables, you could run
a successful business there; and not necessarily have to be open until 1 a.m. each night. Is it
possible to close on week nights and Sunday at 11 p.m. to give the neighbors some relief from
their issues?
• I am concerned if we do have a parking issue and we are still overflowing I would want to
make sure we are acHng proactively to try to resolve and remedy those parking issues, by
either getting the Sherift's department to patrol and cite people illegally pazked or implement
valet parking. That is key to the friction between the restaurant and the neighborhood.
• They need to bring a better clientele who are not leaving garbage in our city. I feel strongly
with regard to that
Ms. Wordell:
• Indicated that the 1 a.m. closure was for Thwsday, Friday and Saturday.
Chair Wong:
• Com. Chen's suggestion is that if we rezone it Parks/Commercial, how can we have the
restaurant stay there? If we were not to rezone it, can the restaurant stay there?
Ms. Wordell:
• The restaurant cou]d operate until I 1 p.m.; under the Park it could be considered ancillary; it is
the late night nightclub that is really not park use; it is outside of a park use.
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 May 1 Q 2005
Chair Wong:
• If we keep the existing zone as park, then the restaurant can stay, but the nightclub cannot stay.
Mr. Kilian:
• That is correct; it is in the abstract, the park allows for a restaurant with regular hours to stay
open as an adjunct to a park, but if there is a nightclub, you cannot have that in a pazk zone,
you must have a commercial zone and you must have a use permit to stay open past ll p.m.
• That may be theoretical because we also have a pending lawsuit that will determine how long
they can stay open under the lease as well, and that won't be determined until about 8 months
to a year from now.
• The downside is a court could say they can stay open until 2 a.m., and then we would be
subject to continuing to open unti] 2 a.m., that is a potential under any kind of ]awsuit scenario.
• By rezoning it to commercial, you have the ability to grant a use permit and you have the
flexibility to have conditions.
• If you don't change the zoning, there is nothing before you to decide; there is nothing you can
be involved in with the community; whatever the law is or whatever a court says, is how long
they would be able to stay open.
• You can deny the amendment to the General Plan and the zoning, but then there is nothing
about working with the neighborhood, working with the applicant; there is nothing for you to
decide, because what it is, it is, under the codes. The only way you can get use permit control
and flexibility for use permit control, is to put it in the proper zone that it is used for now, and
that is commercial; and a General Plan designation that says commerciaUpark.
• If you don't grant the zoning, we are done here. The applicant goes home and he lives by
whatever the zoning codes or court says.
Vice Chair Miller:
• It is still a legal non-conforming use and the control is at the contract stage with the applicant,
when the lease renewa] comes up; is that hve or not?
Mr. Kilian:
• In four years when the lease comes up, the city then could decide that it doesn't want to have a
restawant or a bar there, it can decide that they want the restaurant to close at 11 p.m. The
question is then can you find a tenant who is willing to pay rent for a restaurant use only.
• Those are all economic decisions that the City Counci] would decide; if you want control over
parking or noise, or any of the other things that occur after 11 p.m., you have to do that
through a use permit procedure; you don't have any control as a non-conforming use.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Can we change the use permit and not change the zoning?
Mr. Kilian:
• No, there is no use pernut available in a pazk zone; they are all permitted uses; there are no
conditional uses to a pazk zone.
Chair Wong:
• Expressed appreciarion to the residents for coming to the meeting and to the applicant for
reaching out to the community.
• What the applicant suggested was a good idea; however, I do have some reservations.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 May 10, 2005
• My main concerns are I am not completely satisfied with the pazking; I think that staff needs to
go back and look at those 10 spaces on Frontage Road as well as the 24 spaces on the street.
• I am concemed about emergency vehicle access if we took those 10 spaces on Frontage Road.
• I support the idea of extending the permit program; I know that the residents dodt like it, but
then the inconvenience of having folks pazking in front of you; maybe what the applicant
suggested can relieve that, but that needs to be addressed.
• I do want to allow flexibility for the city; however, regazding the use permit I have a difficult
time supporting operarion past 11 p.m. because the residents have since 1994 been hoping for
some relief and for the past 10 yeazs haven't seen that relief.
• As the city attomey explained, once we enter into a lease, it is hazd to break the lease; that
would tie us in for another'four years, and I am not comfortable putting those community
members who live close, there for another four years.
• I am leaning toward Vice Chair Miller's comment in that when we brought this property, the
vision for Blackberry Farm was to have it as a pazk. I would like to see the restaurant there; it
is an institution for Blackberry Farm, and it should be used as a clubhouse, and that is, as
explained by the city attomey, a decision by the City Council. We are looking at the rezoning
and the land use.
• I do want to allow flexibility for the city; I believe the did a good job in coming up with a
program and I wish them luck.
• At this point, I cannot support nightclub activities; I think it should be in other parts of the city.
Mr. Kilian:
• Relative to doing further studies, it is important that this be moved expeditiously to the City
Council, is the Planning Commission prepared tonight to make a decision, even if it is a 22
vote, so that the Council gets it in a relafively reasonable fime7
Chair Wong:
• I understand the city attorney's concern, but I didn't really hear all my colleagues say
regarding the nightclub activity; I thought I heard three saying no.
Mr. Kilian:
• That doesn't matter; I am saying can we have a decision tonight, rather than a continuance for
something else; or do you feel strongly about conrinuing it for some other purpose.
• It would be helpful to proceed expeditiously.
Chair Wong:
• That is up to the Planning Commission and it is a fair question that the city attomey had. Are
we ready for a motion; do we need more information.
Vice Chair Miller:
• As pointed out, there is some missing information. We are not clear on where the parking is;
there are still some questions around how effective we could add additional parking and there
are some issues relative to whether we should have nightclub ac6vities there or not.
• One of the residents did make a good point; there are other commercial areas in town where
nightclubs are more appropriate, such as the Oaks Center or Vallco.
• I am weighing that against the fact that the restaurant proprietors have been there for a number
of years, and suppose there was only a golf course there and someone came in and said we
would like to operate a night club and a restaurant there; would it be changed to commercial
use for that purpose. Would we be up here voting in favor of that? What is it that makes some
Cupertino Planning Commission 1 ~ May 10, 2005
of us want to vote to make this a commercial zone; is it because it is pre-existing, is it because
of the revenue that is generated for the city; what are the rea] reasons we are considering this?
Com. Giefer:
• Rather than answer that question, I feel I have expressed my view on this application.
• The issue is capacity; and the proposed new tenant and leaseholder of the business have taken
time to actually do capacity studies, understand what the flow of traffic within his business is;
and I do think that those 20 to 15 people will fall off, they will go somewhere else and find a
drink and dance if they can find someplace like that.
• I don't personally have an issue with the nightclub in this area because it has been the
traditional use for this azea; and I also have the lmowledge from the task force that this was
one area where people diddt have a problem; they actually agreed on something.
• In terms of the community at large, they felt fairly good about this business in this location.
• I see an advantage to us by making the zoning change, for what we want to do today and what
we may want to do in the future as a pazk azea or as a planned commercial space, so I would
support that.
• I would be more comfortable with the application if we limited the business hours to 11 p.m.
on both Wednesday and Sunday, and reduce the hours on the other nights from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m.
I think the owners will get some relief and if the new lease holder controls the capacity and the
inflow of people coming into the business, it will resolve the parking.
• I understand the residents' frustration; I would be very upset about this as well, but the fact is
this been going on for a long time, and my position does not change. Regardless if it was a
new application for a new nightclub, I would have to take the merits of that as it came before
me; as opposed to a hypothetical one. We have a real business case in front of us.
• I would like to reduce the hours on Wednesday and Sunday to 11 p.m. to give the neighbors
relief from the issues they are facing.
• We need to be vigilant on the parking when it comes for review and we need to think of a way
to try to resolve this and be creative.
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
4. GPA-2004-01, EA-2004-17 Genera] Plan Amendment to revise the General
City of Cupertino Plan. Tentative City Counci[ date: Not
Citywide location scheduled.
Ms. Wordell presented the staff report:
• Indicated that the two topics would include scheduling and discussing other issues for
remaining meetings.
• Ciry Council will receive at their next meering what the Planning Commission is deciding
relarive to the future schedule. They talked about it at their last meeting and they relayed some
concems they had about the process being extended. They do want feedback from the Planning
Commission on how you expect to wrap up the remaining dates.
• Discussed the potential meeting dates as outlined in the staff report.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
• The 10 yeaz 1993 General Plan review started in 2001 or 2002; the General Plan task force
started July 3, 2003 and ended October 2003, and we were told the process was supposed to
close sometime in mid-2004.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 May 10, 2005
• We aze now in 2005, 41 months later with only 5 months to go before the election. This
election is important because it is going to allow the citizens to convey to the City Council and
the City what they want.
• Suggested that the General Plan be concluded following the 2005 vote, so that the City
Council can get the direction that the citizens ue trying to get across. It won't be guesswork
that anyone is making; they will hear from the citizens in a democraric way.
• The communiry feels it needs to be heard one way or another; this way the anger and
frustrarion that has created extraordinary steps will stop being in need; the people can go on
about their business and normal lives.
• The people of Cupertino will have spoken to help guide the City Council in a mutual direction.
Alan Loving, Taylor Woodrow Homes:
• I appreciate your desire to bring your General Plan update to a conclusion; from our
perspective, we would prefer to have the opportuniTy to present our project which is very
important to us and the community, to as many commissioners as possible.
• I would prefer not to be in a situation where I would make a presentation to only three or four
commissioners.
Tom Hugunin, LaRoda Court:
• I don't think the General Plan should be rushed; it is a 20 year plan, and I would support that
you try not to compress the schedu]e, take your time and to thoughtfully make reasonable
decisions.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
• At the rime Rancho Rinconada annexed, there was an intact set of rules in the city. At the
time the plans were going to change, I found it disturbing, being a new resident to the city,
suddenly the building codes and the laws that my community had been lead to believe were
intact in this city, were going to change.
• I found it disconcerting that all the building codes and laws in the city that were intact at the
time of annexation aze now thrown up in the air.
• I understand that it is a 20 year plan, but I do think there needs to be a great deal of thought to
this plan.
• I hope that the plans the ciry comes up with aze going to be something we are going to be
proud of in 20 years; we had a good set of plans in 2000 and so far I have reservations about
what is occurring.
Discussion continued regarding scheduling meetings. There was consensus to schedule meetings
beginning at 6 p.m. on May 24, June 14, 15 and 28.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Relative to jobs/housing issue, distributed a chart illustrating the commercial, office/industrial
and a subtotal of the growth of the non-residenrial sector; with residential numbers and hotel
rooms.
• He reviewed the summary of jobs/housing ratios.
• Said commercial and industrial aze not the same; it is estimated that commercial is about 2
jobs per 1,000, typically low paying jobs; industrial is 4 jobs per 1,000; in Cupertino it is
typically 3.5 workers per 1,000.
• Suggested that it is appropriate to put into the General Plan to allow for some amount of
conversion.
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 May 10, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
• If we put into the General Plan for example that we aze allowing for $1 million in conversion,
would it make sense at buildout, do we want to see $93 million or would we lower that
number?
Mr. Piasecki:
• You would lower that number; what you might say is, that if it doesdt convert out, then we
aze not going to go any higher than that. If it does convert out, then it can be backfilled up to
that amount.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I posed the question last time if the rest of the Planning Commission wanted to look at hying
to achieve a closer balance going forward so that the numbers proposed for additional office
and commercial space did not, and the corresponding numbers we proposed for new housing
units did not make our jobs/housing balance perform more poorly than it is doing today.
• If we say we are out of balance now, that is the way it is and it is not realisfic that we can
change that; moving forward do we want to be in a position where we don't make it worse or
do we caze whether we make it worse or not.
• I don't think we should be making it worse; that says either we need to cut back on our office
space and some of our proposed commercial space, or we need to think about more housing
units than the 2300 that the task force recommended.
• I am not suggesting one or the other; but from a responsibility standpoint, I think we should
not be making proposals that put us more out of balance from a jobs/housing standpoint. I
revert to my argument that I think if we are going to allow fiu-ther growth in the city, that just
as housing is an infrastructure issue, just as water and sewer and electricity and the other
utilities are a requirement for growth; housing is a requirement for growth also.
• To ignore it means that we are saying our neighboring cities are responsible for providing the
shelter for the people who are going to work here. From a philosophical standpoint, I think it
is our responsibility.
Chair Wong:
• Does the General Plan say we are going to build more office?
Mr. Piasecki:
• The task force option and the other option have significant growth; they aze increased by 13
million square feet of additional office that you can have it there again; it is probably not going
to get built because the market is saturated. It likely will just be a number.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I am suggesting that the numbers we put in the General Plan should show that we are making
an attempt to balance jobs and housing moving forwazd, not necessarily that we are trying to
improve the current situation, but we are not making it worse.
• One way to do that, particulazly if it is not likely that office is going to get built, (that is the
highest generator of jobs) is that the particular azea get cut back, and the justificarion for doing
that is we are getting a number of applications asking to convert some current office space to
residential use. Instead of saying we are going to allow one million or 13 million in additional
office space, we cut that back substantially to 20Q000 or 300,000.
• As staff indicated, there is a likelihood that there is SOQ000 square feet of office that is going
to be coming in for conversion; which leaves us a fair amount of cushion from an office
Cupertino Planning Commission Z~ May 1Q 2005
standpoint to accommodate future needs and it allows us from a numbers standpoint to balance
what we aze doing in the housing area.
Chair Wong:
• Regarding conversion from industrial to office, we need to protect our industrial base.
Presently the mazket is not doing very well and I dodt feel comfortable converting these azeas
into housing.
• We have to be strategic about where we put the extra housing and by doing infill, smart
growth along major thoroughfares, it is based on location. I see Vallco South area as a major
area of doing a good infill project by doing a vertical mixed use project and giving the owner a
density bonus for good design.
• I want to continue what I see at the Rosebowl at the Vallco project, and continue that along
Vallco Pazkway.
• Since we do need to meet these ABAG numbers, why don't we put that in that particulaz azea
and keep encouraging that.
• Regarding the Crossroads, I would have strong reservations adding more housing units and
keep that strictly commercial.
• There is a policy in the General Plan that they wanted to reduce the traffic ]evel of service to
either p or E; we are already going to D and to reduce it to E off Stevens Creek Boulevard
between Stelling and DeAnza Boulevard is not acceptable to me.
• I lmow we have to meet these ABAG numbers, but I do not feel comfortable in general as a
ciTy policy in the General Plan, that I feel comfortable doing conversion.
Vice Chair Miller:
• The first issue is whether or not we support conversion. One applicarion is going to come up
soon where there is a conversion. How many square feet of office aze we talldng about that is
going to be converted?
Mr. Piasecki:
• 170,000 to 180,000; I don't know the specific number, 180,000 square feet coming down, 94
units go in.
Vice Chair Miller:
• There was another one when we held the meetings with Sobrato, that they came in and said
they were looking to do a conversion on the edge of the North Vallco area next to the
Hamptons.
• Staff indicated the SOQ000 could possibly come in; where did you envision the other 200,000
coming from?
Mr. Piasecki:
• There has been some discussion about some of the other Hewlett Packard lands that have been
sold recently along Tantau Avenue, which abut existing residenrial neighborhoods on the east
side, for a total conversion of about 500,000.
• The point is to be strategic about where you would allow this under what conditions, and
strategically you would also hy to protect the nucleus of a tech park, which would be Apple
and Hewlett Packard. You would actually define this and say we are not going to allow
conversion in this nucleus but peripheral and adjacent to where you are creating
neighborhoods and if you go back to the model of the theme of the General Plan it is building
community; does a vacant office building do it for you or does a residential development
potentially adjacent to an existing residential development do it for you.
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 May 10, 2005
Chair Wong:
• My concem is that you are shrinking the tech park that we have. Once you limit our tech park
to this area and if Apple or Hewlett Packard wants to expand, the only way to expand is to go
up because on the periphera] we are adding housing.
Mr. Piasecki:
• Hewlett Packard has a 100 acre campus; they ue at very low densities and if you allow any of
these numbers you are talking about in these plans, you might be able to take the 500,000 that
has come down and give it to Apple and Hewlett Packard, they would have to build some
structure parking but they have room on their sites to accommodate this.
Vice Chair Miller.
• That was my thought; Hewlett Packard is a very low density campus and they have lots of
room there and they may want to expand.
• We are almost being somewhat strategic, with your statement you are hesitant about making
conversions, but perhaps we should take them one on one. What is your feeling on the Bubb
Road site; does it make sense to keep that as office or to allow a residentia] development
there?
Mr. Piasecki:
• One of the advantages with Taylor Woodrow is the units are in the existing General Plan and
they are not asking for a General Plan amendment. The others I mentioned are asking for a
General Plan amendment.
• We have Hewlett Packard coming in and taking down one building which is in excess of
100,000 square feet, and even though we would a11 agree that it is not the place to put housing,
they are taking it down because it is obsolete; it doesn't work for them anymore. They want to
rebuild it in 10 or 12 years; they dodt want to keep the building there that is so bad because it
may have asbestos or other problems that they just want to take it down. I think some of the
other landowners are doing the same thing, the building's lifespan is gone.
Com. Giefer:
• Vice Chair Miller brought up a specific point which would be good for us to comment and
deliberate on, and solve that one specific issue which is getting our ABAG numbers together
and conversion from commercial to housing.
• I would like to complete that discussion tonight so that we can move to other topics. I think
Chair Wong brings up an excellent point as well which is visioning; and I suggest a tentarive
agenda, let's work through ABAG imbalance, conversion between commercial to housing and
IeYs talk about our vision for where we see mixed use, where we see industrial; very
specifically, geographically for the plan, so that we are consistent in our future discussions,
does that fit into ow common vision is for the community.
Vice Chair Miller:
• That is a good point and the method I think is I felt that before we can start getting strategic we
have to agree on the numbers, and I was trying to get some agreement on what are the numbers
for housing units, and that is a function to some extent of the ABAG requirements and the
imbalance, so that is why we are getting into the discussion of should we be reducing our
commercial and industrial potential space.
• Once we agree on the numbers, Chair Wong was correct in terms of where do we place those
numbers; and I agree with him on his suggestion for Vallco South.
Cupertino Planning Commission ZZ May 1Q 2005
• Before we can get into where we place those numbers, we need to agree what the nuxnbers are.
Com. Giefer:
• For commercial, I think we can resolve that with housing; we have stated our preference for
housing and where it should be located.
• Your point is good regazding commercial and do we have the right number in the Genera] Plan
with regards to square footage for commercial today.
• With reguds to the ABAG numbers, do we have updated ABAG numbers and the task force
continually asked if it mattered if we followed ABAG's number. The task force felt that we
should disregard the ABAG numbers and we never found out as a task force what would
happen if we just said we don't agree with ABAG, we are not going to use them.
Mr. Piasecki:
• It is difficult for the City of Cupertino to ignore the ABAG numbers; I encouraged the task
force to come up with a recommendation for their vision for the community and not let a lot of
extemalities constrain them because they needed to have the ability to ]ook at this fresh and
not with a lot of constraints.
• We have an obligation to try to help house the people that work here and not pass it off on our
neighbors.
Com. Giefer:
• Fundamentally, using existing commercial, refurbishing it, tearing it down, I think that makes
sense, and I would agree that we could dramatically reduce the amount of commercial in the
General Plan. What do you do with the excess commercial that is no longer required, or if you
feel you have the potenfial to build eu6-Eke for the next boom, what do you do with excess
available today? In the past I have not been a proponent of converting commercial to housing,
but I want the Planning Commission to be awaze that on Page 3-11 in the draft General Plan,
the task force removed text that specifically discussed conversion of commercial to housing.
• On Page 28 is the origina] text that talked about conversion of commercial lands to residential.
"Commercially designa[ed land may be considered for conversion to residential uses when
it does not eliminate existing or potential neighborhoods serving commercial uses or
contradict Heart of the City policies. " That was something in the original General Plan that
was released to the task force, and it was something specifically deleted from the draft plan
that we have deliberating on. That may be text that we might want to consider putting back in
to leave our options open, on conversion between commercial to residential.
• I would support adding the text back into the General Plan so that we can conrinue the dialog.
Chair Wong:
• If you were to add that back in, that is a policy that the city would have to implement; it
wouldn't be a discussion policy.
Com. Giefer:
• $ is not a policy, it is a program supporting the policy; it is a program I understand may be
implemented as needed and approved or not.
• Not all the programs; my understanding is not all the programs in the General Plan will be
implemented, and the wording on it is "may be considered for conversion".
Ms. Wordell:
• It was in the administrative draft, not the current draft.
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 May 10, 2005
• We theoretically review our programs each year; once we get a General Plan adopted, once a
year we look at them and see if we are doing them, and you could set a timeline through them
as part of the implementation program.
Mr. Piasecki:
• If you adopted such a program, then you would probably need to infuse this plan with some
more housing units to make that possible, to actually implement that. Then you can decide
under that program what do we mean by that; how and where do we implement that.
• In terms of being strategic, you ought to be strategic about protecting tech pazk areas as well as
allowing some of the peripheral conversion to occur where it makes good common sense,
where it is positive.
• The healthy discussion you have to have is where, under what conditions, what would you
protect, what would you allow to convert.
• If you are going to do the concept Chair Wong is talking about for Vallco Parkway, you need
to put in more housing units than you currently have for South Vallco.
• I think you could be very careful and very sirategic and do it where it makes sense to you. The
applicants are going to come in under whatever conditions you allow.
Chair Wong:
• I fear that if we put back that policy and that is what the General Plan task force requested to
take out; you are going to open a huge floodgate because Cupertino is the place for education,
and is convenient for freeway access.
• We have to protect our tech park and if you open the floodgate to more housing in our outer
peripherals of the tech parks, sooner or later Cupertino will no longer be a suburban
community of just housing and schools, with no commercial or industry supporting our city,
and that is what I am concerned about. I lmow that we can control it, but I]mow that some
people in the community do not feel comfortable trusting government.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I agree that we should protect our industrial azeas; the only thing I suggested was there are
some sites that aze not producing or we are getting information that they are not being
effecrively used; and they are at the edge of a boundary beriveen industrial and residential and
if that is the case, conveRing them to residential and then allowing that space then moved to a
more effective area, is a good strategic approach.
• I am not suggesting we allow housing to infringe upon our industrial areas, but I am trying to
think about making ineffective properties more effective in terms of what they do for the
residents of the city.
Chair Wong:
• My main concem is that when the next boom comes to Silicon Valley, we are going to give up
Vallco South and give up the office/commercial and put mixed use in there; and I want a good
design there.
• There are three azeas important for protecting the tech pazk which would be Vallco North,
North DeAnza and Bubb Road, and there is a lot of pressure to tum Bubb Road into a
walkable downtown community for the Monta Vista area.
• I am concerned that we will be tuming into another Los Altos or Saratoga and just be a
suburban community.
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 May 10, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
• To put things into perspective, you have almost 12 million squaze feet on the groLmd, Los Alto
and Saratoga collectively don't have half that; you will not convert into primarily a Los Altos
type or Saratoga type.
• This will not change the landscape of Cupertino dramatically.
• What I suggest is to take some of the dysfunctional space and give it to our high end tech park
users, those are the companies that are paying sales tax.
Chair Wong:
• Com. Giefer had a good point, currently that policy is out of the General Plan, are there
enough commissioners who want to implement it back?
Com. Giefer:
• I didn't hear support for it.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I support it.
Com. Giefer:
• Out of fairness to the task force, they eliminated it and I do agree with staff that unless we aze
willing to raise the housing units in the General Plan, it doesn't make sense to add it back.
Chair Wong:
• Regazding my idea of being strategic of where to put these housing units, can we recommend a
policy if there is support from up here; for Vallco Park south, to set a policy for vertical mixed
use with a density bonus for good design.
Mr. Piasecki:
• The question to the Planning Commission is whether it is going to be a mandatory
requirement, or one they could elect to take advantage o£ You would have to make certain
that special units are available and sufficient commercial office is available to have them elect
that option.
• The Toll Brothers are well down the road of finalizing their plan and it is not what you aze
talldng about; it is more inconsistent with what we have seen in the past.
Com. Giefer:
• I am concerned because we have generally given a housing bonus if it is for affordable
housing; then we may give somebody a density bonus based on housing; and the wording of it
as a strategy, good design may be considered arbitrary because beriveen the four of us, what is
good design to me, may not be for another.
C6air Wong:
• The main point you may have missed was vertical mixed use vs. horizontal mixed use.
• I want to encourage more of what I see at the Rosebowl site.
Com. Giefer:
• I think we would all like to get rid of token mixed use and have greater buildup as we have
seen through the Rosebowl.
Cupertino Planning Commission ZS May 1Q 2005
• I need to consider that; I am not completely comfortable saying vertical mixed use, because I
think there are other things we can ask a developer to do, and affordable housing is a big issue
in our community.
Chair Wong:
• The Rosebowl was an example of a project that has been approved; I want to give it a try. I
lrnow some community members were concerned about it, but leYs try and see if it works and
if it does, I would ]ike to implement it as a policy vs. conversion.
Vice Chair Miller:
• That is reducing the flexibility instead of adding it.
Chair Wong:
• StafPs language is correct; to elect or make it flexible so that it encourages vertical mixed use.
I don't want to say discourage horizontal.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Relative to the Town Center project, what is your feeling; does that work where they have
some vertical and some horizontal?
Chair Wong:
• I have mixed feelings about it because I have property nearby; if I didn't have property
adjacent to it, I would not vote for the property because when we tucked the half story in there,
we promised the community that we would only build three stories; and then when we did a
design review at the Planning Commission level, we added that half story. Technically it is 3-
1/2 stories, but what made it fit was it fell within the parameter of 45 feet.
• In my travels I have seen that it is convenient to go down to the various services vs. having it
on the other side; I can see someone getting in their car and driving to the retai] portion.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I understand your reasons for not being in favor of that project; however, the question I was
asking was, this is a project that has both vertical and horizontal and I thought from that
standpoint, the project worked well. Why would you want to discourage that if we could get
another project that potentially could be good and have a mixture like that?
Chair Wong:
• When I saw the retail for the mixed use, I wish the retail component was lazger, and I see more
housing units in there vs. retail; the retail I saw was going to be a restaurant, a cafe, shoe shop,
or cleaners that would serve just that particulaz Town Center community; I want it to be a
destination.
• I see the Hewlett Packard property becoming a Santana Row type lifestyle center, in that this is
a period of time in the history of Cupertino that we can create and desig~ a beautifu] project of
both lifestyle center, get our ABAG numbers there, have a design, walkability and make
Cupertino a destination like Santana Row and Valley Fair.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I agree, but I think you don't have to insist that they develop the project in a vertical mixed
used as opposed to horizontal mixed use; you can require that with the development there has
to be a minimum amount of commercial space or maybe it is primarily commercial and the
bonus for doing commercial is that we allow you to have some residential; so that there are
Cupertino Planning Commission z6 May 10, 2005
other ways to require them to put more than a token amount of commercial space in, but still
allow them to have the flexibiliry to do it in a way they think is going to produce a good
design.
Com. Giefer:
• I think Chair Wong was suggesting we give a density bonus; if we have a preference, we give
a density bonus for going vertical which makes the most efficient use of our land. We can
stack housing units, we can have the business on the ground floor. In Pasadena the businesses
aze also on the second floor; they have a lot of entertainment lifestyle activities going on.
• I am not opposed to that concept, I am concerned about the arbitrariness of well designed,
because I don't think we all agree on that. I would be comfortable but I would have more
gimmes. If we gave them a density bonus, I am sure we would end up with more BMR units,
because they aze putting in more units if we say they have to build them, there is no in-lieu
fees in that condition.
Com. Giefer:
• Do we want to give direction to add this paragraph back into the General Plan or should we
just move forward? Should we give direction to staff to add the deleted policy with regazds to
the program.
Com. Chen:
• I would support adding the language back.
Chair Wong:
• Based on the 3:1 verbal vote, we will include that. We can sfill have a public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
• We have had some discussion that if it is comersion, it would only be on fringe areas and only
non-producrive as well; we have had some discussion here and I support that.
Vice Chair Miller:
• That addresses in part Chair Wong's concem, that we not infringe upon all the industrial
agreements completely.
Chair Wong:
• Still, I am worried that you open up the floodgate; and I look at Sunnyvale on Morse Avenue
north of 101, they are converting the industrial into housing. The market is dictating that.
Com. Giefer:
• I have been reading the strikeouts from the task force and comparing it to the draft General
Plan and trying to both look for simple things and other things I felt strongly about.
• An area of the draft General Plan that was watered down significanUy was mixed use. There
are several places within the Plan where mixed use was either eliminated or was watered down
from a more actionable statement to a more deluded statement. We have approved one
vertical mixed use project at the Rosebowl, we had a lot of discussion centering around that
issue; and there aze a number of different places where I think we should go back to the
original text and make it stronger, supporting mixed use within our community; in specific
areas where we strategically think it makes sense, such as the Heart of the City or along Vallco
pazkway; or areas like that where we have consensus.
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 May 10, 2005
Chair Wong:
• I think there is consensus on Vallco Park South; what about Monta Vista?
Com. Giefer:
• Monta Vista, nothing really has changed in the task force with regards to mixed use that comes
to mind. It is really more the Aeart of the City, Stelling to the end of Stevens Creek in
Cupertino; Vallco Parkway South and up on Highway 9. There were some references modified
in that area and along Stelling which with the current buildout there I am not sure it makes
sense or not. There was some language that was actually softened there as well.
Chair Wong:
• I agree with what you are saying that it should be specific areas that we have mixed use.
• Regazding the Heart of the City, we should stick to that particular plan, but in regards to the
Crossroad area on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stevens Creek and McClellan, page D-
19, Council and Planning work program; the task force made it cleaz they don't want housing
at the Crossroad azea as it abuts Rl neighborhood, so it would be suategic on where we put
high density housing in the Heart of the City. I was one of the ones who wanted to have
discussion at the General Plan task force, and it will all go through strategy.
• I would think carefully about having mixed use in azeas such as South DeAnza area between
Bollinger and Stevens Creek because that is abutting two Rl neighborhoods, the Faria
neighborhood as well as the Eaton neighborhood, and I have to carefully think about it. I am
leaning toward not supporting that.
Com. Giefer:
. ~iex-~ufl I open it for discussion as well, there other places that we should be considering
strategically; aze there other areas that it makes sense to have mixed use within our community
that we have not discussed; or do you think we should not be doing it?
Chair Wong:
• I think we should be doing it, but it should be concentrated mainly at Vallco Fashion Park
Mall and Vallco South.
• I want to protect ow technical parks at North DeAnza, Bubb Road and Vallco North.
• Perhaps we should send a send a minute order to the City Council and say that we need input
from the public; what you are suggesting is very good and there are a lot of things. I agree that
we already passed the Rosebowl project and it is working there, and I think that we need more
time for all commissioners to see through and say that some things in the General Plan task
force were correct and some were not.
• I dodt want to change the whole thing, but we can't do it tonight.
Ms. Wordell:
• I shared with Chair Wong the format for what you will get back when you want to make a
preliminary recommendations, and I think it will be an easy format to work with because you
will go through page by page and anything you want to change is all in a row; you can use that
as your base and if you see something else that you want to add in that section, you probably
would be best if you wrote up your own version of exactly where you want to see those
changes.
• List the page, the policy, what change you want to see and plug it in.
• It would be helpful to have the information before the publishing.
Chair Wong opened the public heazing.
Cupertino Planning Commission Z8 May 10, 2005
Jennifer Griffin:
• The conversion of the General Plan updates is going to be a monumenta] effort; obviously if
we will be doing this for the next 20 yeazs it has to have a great deal of attention paid to it;
unfortunately I wasn't involved earlier because of family illness.
• I find the Rosebowl project extremely objectionable; it smacks of high density like San
Francisco.
• You are losing control of some of your retail because people will be owning property,
therefore if you were building this in a tech pazk you have lost conffo] of some of your tech
buildings because when you have residents who own your own their own homes, you can't
force them to abandon them to have changes in your building direction.
• Tech pazks should remain tech parks; homes should be in suburban areas or else perhaps as
rentals.
• Seeing what is currently proposed for Vallco, I shudder at the thought of what my area of
Cupertino is going to look like in twenty years.
• I am concerned about the height issues in the city; the view of the hills is the most important
thing in Cupertino; I hope that we will be able to have a view of the hills and that we dodt
have buildings higher than two stories.
• DensiTy, are we going to continue to subdivide exisring plots of land into denser and denser
building projects? Please don't have our buildings have the density of San Francisco and don't
overbuild now just because someone somewhere else says we must.
• Protect the integrity of our city; we need to have beautiful green lawns, leafy trees and
beautiful views. Protect our tech parks, our potential parklands and please protect our trees. I
plan to live here for a long rime and I hope that we can keep Cupertino the way it is.
Tom Hugunin:
• Relative to scheduling, a 6 p.m. meeting would violate the city's meeting ordinance for the
Planning Commission so it would not be a regularly scheduled meeting. I hope you check the
law on that, I dodt want you to violate it. I suspect that if you would hold a 6 p.m. meeting
you would have to notify all the people in the city by postcard which would incur an expense.
• Sundays - people go to church that day.
• There is still a lot to discuss in the General Plan without getting into specifics, I think it is
going to take more time to get this straightened out, and I don't see any way you are going to
meet the schedule, just from the comments I have heard. I am concerned about that; I think
you should go back to City Council and say it is going to take however long because we have
to do a good job.
• I will reserve my comments for a later date when the issues will be discussed further.
Deuais Whitaker:
• Relative to the scheduling; if public information is important to you, don't change the expected
date, we are all used to coming to these meetings, and you would alienate or leave out people
who would like to speak.
• Going back to the General Plan task force, the emphasis when we left was on more retail and
]ess housing; but now it seems to be on housing. What has been going on in my mind and
what I see aze ldds going away to school further than their neighborhood schools aze; I see the
city accepting the level of service to a D in high school, elementary and college; these are not
acceptable.
• The quality of life seems to be going down; we need to bring it back up.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 May 10, 2005
• Going back to the CCC the last Planning Commission meeting, one of the ABC people said we
are for no growth; and in the Chamber newsletter today it says we are for no growth; that is
incorrect.
• I need to revisit the ABAG numbers; those numbers came from the year 2000, it is now 2005;
how far away are we from new ABAG numbers. If we keep on talking about jobs housing
ratio, IeYs do it with the correctness that we should be.
• I keep hearing these buildings are vacant because they are old, but in reality the buildings are
vacant because the economy has been down. One of you said that making decisions on a
wrong day creates wrong decisions, and I think that is important. Remember the high school
district said they need commercial and industrial; they are different from the elementary
district.
• We talked about the 1200 higher numbers going to 20 yeazs down the road; what about the
infrastructure and future taxarion on this; we already got the tax on the high schools and the
tax on the ]ibrary and what else is coming.
• If you are thinldng about adding housing into the Crossroads, remember Monta Vista is
already over impacted and will be for many yeazs to come.
Chair Wong closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Chair Wong:
• Asked Com. Giefer to send emails to staff comments on setbacks.
Ms. Wordell:
• I didn't see any changes that anybody wanted; the direction to take if you want to change
something related to setbacks in the task force draft is to let us lmow.
Ms. Wordell:
• Clarified that a 6 p.m. meeting would not violate any rules. She suggested adjourning the
present meeting to the 6 p.m. meeting.
Chair Wong:
• Suggested that a press release to the major newspapers or email norice be sent regarding the
next meeting which will include the dra& EIR.
Vice Chair Miller:
• I spent a lot of time going through that, hying to achieve some kind of balance in numbers
between housing, commercial and industrial. There is a general agreement to do that, or not; I
would like to see us come to closure on that issue on that issue if we can.
• The way the numbers are in all the versions exacerbates the jobs housing issue, and I suggest
that we either reduce the commercial industrial space or we increase the housing or a]ittle of
both in order to move forward. not make the jobs/housing balance worse.
Com. Giefer:
• I think it makes sense for us to try to improve our jobs/housing balance; I would support
reducing the amount of commercial office industrial in the General Plan; my reasoning for that
is I recall staff indicated that it has been the same number in the General Plan for 20 years
already; and the likelihood that we actually need that incremental amount is unlikely. It seems
excessive to me in terms of the square footage.
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 May ]0, 2005
• Given the conversation we have had this evening regarding conversion and mixed use,
depending upon the public input received at subsequent meetings, I would also consider
potentially raising the housing units.
Chair Wong:
• 1 am not prepared to make a decision yet.
Com. Chen:
• I think with the general rule, we can go for not making the situation worse; but I think this
number is a good reference number but should not be a requirement; I am not ready to go for
reducing commerciaUindustrial and I also chose; maybe for the reason that I would support
more commercial use.
Vice Chair Miller:
• Relative to the suggestion about the minute order, I think given the discussion tonight I dodt
see us reaching closure on this by June 28`h.
• Staff should include that we are making every effort, even to the point of suggesting a Sunday
meeting to try and expedite it; there is a lot of ground to cover.
Chair Wong:
• Appreciate everyone for staying for late and putting in the time and effoR and hope that gives
staff enough direction.
• I feel it is important that you advertise the draft EIR and as soon as we find out from Council
what the direction is, and I hope Council will give us more time; there is a lot we need to
discuss among us and get community feedback that some of the things they are suggesting
goes against the General Plan task force.
• I would like to hear not only the General Plan task force again, but hear why they made those
suggestions, and I would like to hear a representative from the minority report and why they
feel strongly against this too.
• I would invite other stakeholders as well too.
• We are making a good effoR to complete this in a timely fashion; but compared to other cities
we are in the middle; so we are no[ that far off.
Com. Giefer:
• Suggested as part of the noticing for the next scheduled meeting, that staff utilize the task force
email distribution list and re-invite them as well.
Chair Wong:
• We want to emphasize community outreach for whatever meetings we have lefr; people aze
either disenfranchised with the process or they have no trust in us, and I hope that it is just that
more people are busy and aze somewhat discouraged.
• The public needs to come out; it is disappointing to see five audience members when we aze
talking about the future of Cupertino fa the next 20 years.
• Thanked Mr. Loving for postponing the item for 2 weeks.
The General Plan was adjourned to the May 24`" meeting, at which time they will also hear the
drafr EIR report.
Cupertino Planning Commission 31 May 10, 2005
5. Review of Mayor's Meeting Dates:
Scheduled dates are: June 1, August 3, and October 5, 2005.
6. Consider cancellation of August 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to cancel the
August 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0, Com. Saadati absent)
OLD BUSINESS:
Gate of Heaven application:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to postpone Application
U-2005-OS to the June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0;
Com. Saadati absent)
Water District returning: Scheduled for May 24, 2005.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Wong reported that the Blue Pheasant Restaurant was
on the agenda; next meeting will include the Taylor Woodrow homes as well as the Regnart Road
home application.
Housina Commission: No report.
Economic Development Committee Meetin¢: Quarterly; no meeting held.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetina With Commissioners: No meeting in May.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No added report.
AD.TOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed to the regulaz Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY: ` ~~'t'`x'~'Q~
Elizabeth . lis, Recording Secretary
Approved as amended: June 14, 2005.