11 Parks & Rec code/Blue Pheasant
I
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No.ll
Agenda Date: October 17, 2006
Application: MCA-2006-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City Wide
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.68 relating to the permitted and
conditional uses in the Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council not take any action and remove the item from
the calendar.
BACKGROUND:
The Blue Pheasant bar and restaurant operates in a City-owned facility adjacent to
Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The restaurant has been in business for over thirty-five
years. Until Spring 2004, the Blue Pheasant stayed open until 2 AM on weekends,
where most customers go there for dining, dancing and cocktails.
The City of Cupertino acquired the Blue Pheasant clubhouse building with Blackberry
Farm Picnic Grounds and Golf Course in 1991, and inherited the lease. At the time of
purchase, the lessee was in the final years of a 10-year agreement with an option to
renew for an additional 10 years. The City honored the ten-year lease extension per
the Blackberry Farm Sales Agreement. Eighteen months prior to the March 31,2004
lease expiration, staff negotiated a new lease (through 2009 with another renewal
option) and reduced the hours to 11 PM restaurant/bar closure. The 11 PM closure
was important to the surrounding property owners.
(l- ,
MCA-2006-03 - Parks and Recreation Zone, Ch. 19.68
October 17, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The current owner of the Blue Pheasant, Mike Tsachres, in 2005 asked the City (as
property owner) for a General Plan amendment, zone change and a use permit to
allow the bar to open until (the historical) 2AM. The City Council initiated the
application process, but ultimately denied the request. Several Council members felt
that changing the General Plan designation from Park to General Com."TIercial was
contrary to the intent to use the property for open space.
Mr. Tsachres has recently requested one hour extension to 12 AM on Thursday, Friday
and Saturday). On June 6, 2006 the Council granted the request to initiate the hearing
process for a Code Amendment to create a mechanism for issuing a use permit in the
PR zone allowing Mr. Tsachres the opportunity to apply for later hours. The Council's
direction did not guarantee that Mr. Tsachres will be successful in obtaining the use
permit.
Staff received a letter from Mr. Tsachres dated October 10, 2006 (see exhibit 1)
withdrawing his request for the later hours of operation. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Council take no action and remove the item from the calendar (see
recommendation section).
The following summarizes the discussion by the Parks and Recreation Commission
and Planning Commission:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
On September 7, 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Code
Amendment proposaI and made its recommendation to the City Council. However,
there was some confusion about the recornrriendation because the Commission made
two contradicting motions. The first motion was to recommend denial of the
Ordinance Amendment and the second motion recommended approval with
conditions addressing noise and parking impacts.
On October 5,2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission clarified that its
recommendation to the City Council is for a denial of the Code Amendment proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
On September 26, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the Ordinance
Amendment proposal and recommended that the Council deny the request based on
the concerns that the neighbors raised at the hearing. Please refer to the attached
September 16,2006 draft meeting minutes for detailed discussions.
In addition, the Commission requested that the Council clarify the definition of the 11
PM closing hour for the restaurant. Currently, the restaurant closes its door at 11 PM.
According to the restaurant owner, patrons that are inside the restaurant prior to 11
1'-- 2-
MCA-2006-03 - Parks and Recreation Zone, Ch. 19.68
October 17, 2006
Page 3
PM may take their time to leave the establishment after 11 PM. This concerns some of
the neighbors because patron of the restaurant will take another 30 minutes to an hour
to leave the restaurant premise. The Council should define whether if the 11 PM
closing hour means that the restaurant must be cleared of any customers or deny entry
to new customers but the remaining patrons could stay after 11 PM. Please see the
attached Minute Order 6418.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff received a letter from Mr. Tsachres dated October 10, 2006 (see exhibit 1)
withdrawing his request for the later hours of operation. In light of Mr. Tsachres'
withdrawal request and the fact that the Ordinance Amendment request was initiated
on behalf of Mr. T,sachres, staff recommends that the Council take no action and
remove the item from the calendar.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
;
Approved by:
W-
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Planning Commission Minute Order #6418
Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes, September 26, 2006
Exhibit 1: Withdrawal Letter from Mike Tsachres dated October 10, 2006.
Letters and emails received from neighbors
~~.- 3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6418 (MINUTE ORDER)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THE 11
PM CLOSING HOUR OF THE BLUE PHEASANT RESTAURANT
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2006-03
City of Cupertino
City Wide
BLUE PHESANT 11 PM CLOSING HOUR
The Planning Commission is requesting that the City Council provide clarification on
the 11 PM closing hour of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. Currently, the restaurant
closes its door at 11 PM. According to the restaurant owner, patrons that are inside the
restaurant prior to 11 PM may take their time to leave the establishment after 11 PM.
This concerns some of the neighbors because patron of the restaurant will take another
an additional 30 to 60 minutes to leave the restaurant premise. The Council should
define whether if the 11 PM closing hour means that the restaurant must be cleared of
any customers or deny entry to new customers but the remaining patrons could stay
after 11 PM. Please see the attached Minute Order 6418.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Saadati
Wong
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
APPROVED:
I s I Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Is/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
n-L{
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
September 26, 2006
Chair Miller:
.. Said he supported staffs recommendation and staff could choose the tree replacement species.
. Said that safety is first and trees should be removed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application TR-2006-15,
including the addition of the findings that the eucalyptus tree is part of the approved
landscaping plan for the church subject to Chapter 14.18 ,pi the Municipal Code
pertaining to heritage and specimen tree per the model re~i6.tion.
Amended Friendly amendment by Vice Chair Giefer to add Wl\t they specify the
Motion: privacy planting along the fence lines trees, 3, )fand 7 as a native Deodora
Cedar and that they be 36 inch box size to aid i1the privacy between them and
their neighbors. " i
Mr. Jung:
. In response to Com. Wong's question about the ,cecommendation, he said that staff
recommended the Flack Leaf Paper Bark primarily bec,,,use it was on the list of privacy trees in
the RI zoning ordinance, and also with the intent/Of having a tree that could grow to a
considerable size so that eventually it could rep1~ in stature the eucalyptus trees that are
presently there. The same applies to the Canary Isl'rid Pine, which is another tree that over time
will grow to the height that is comparable to tt1e existing eucalyptus trees. Th~y are both
evergreen trees and from a form standpoint, . ff felt that they would be more appropriate
because they have a tendency to have a co1u ..' 'r form rather than a conical form.
. The 24 inch box was reasonable in size; ther fare landscape islands there; they are not that large
and to plant a 36 inch box tree, the is1an ,eeds to be 3 feet by 3 feet wide. The 24 inch box
will have a small root ball and will have hance to adapt itself to that island vs. trying to force
something.
?
Vice Chair Giefer:l
1
. She said that once the eucalyptus ar emoved and the stumps ground out, the new trees can't be
planted where the stumps are gro . out; planting has to be adjacent to it.
. It will not be directly in the is1 , ' but toward the back fence line. If the soil is going to be
replaced, and it is going to beactly where that tree is, that is a different issue and I would
agree on that.
Com. Wong:
. If you suggest that, when plant the Chinese Pistache, we will run into the same concerns.
. It would be suitable to h :e them planted as close as possible in the island, because it is a point
of parking and the trees 'elp shade the patrons, the' church goers and the swim school patrons,
and we want.to plant a~e that is compatible with the landscaping plan for the parking lot.
. Said he agreed with s ~fthat the Deodora Cedar or Atlas Cedar tends to grow wide vs. the other
ones which grow str ight up.
. The other concern . ~having an easier maintenance free tree and the paper bark tree is part of the
privacy and lands ping trees that have been preset by the ordinance.
V
Com. Chien:
. Said they can mix and match trees; however, the findings today say that per the arborist's
suggestion, that the total combined replacement trees equal to about $9,000. He said he
supported Vice Chair Giefer's recommendation for Deodora Cedar; however, if that is a large
tree or is cost prohibitive, the applicant could find a smaller tree for the other areas, because
they are trying to place a value there.
{\~ S-
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
September 26, 2006
Ms. Wordell:
. Asked if they could leave some options, that you prefer n ives within certain constraints.
/.iiii
Chair Miller:
. Said he was not at ease designing the landsc e architecture, and would have staff do it. He
said he did not support an increase, staff' ought that a 24 inch box tree will give a better
chance of growing vs. 36 inch.
. He said he supported staff's recomm ation, and could add further guidance, but not specific
trees, just specify non-native vs. na .
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she supported the Ian ge, concurred with Com. Chien's observation about the value of
the replacement trees.
Amended
Motion:
Com. \V, g accepted the amendment for Nos. 3, 4 and 7, that it shall
be 24' ch box, native evergreen trees based on the approval of the Director of
Co unity Development. Second accepted by Com. Chien. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Com. Saadati left the meeting and did not return.
4. MCA-2006-03
City of Cupertino
Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.68 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code related to permitted and conditional
uses in Park and Recreation (PR) Zones. This amendment would
create a new conditional use in this zoning district, which would
allow the Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight, subject to a
conditional use permit. Tentative City Council date: Oct. 17, 2006.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the proposal for Municipal Code amendment of Chapter 19.68 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code related to permitted and conditional uses in the Parks and Recreational (PR)
zones. The amendment would create a new conditional use in the zoning district which would
allow the Blue Pheasant restaurant to operate until midnight subject to a future condition of use
permit. .
. He reviewed the history of the operating hours of the Blue Pheasant restaurant, which until the
Spring of 2004, the closing was 2 a.m. Eighteen months prior to the March 2004 lease
expiration, staff negotiated a new lease through 2009 based on the 11 p.m. restaurantlbar closure
time. The 11 p.m. closure was important to the surrounding property owners, but was a
limitation on the business viability. Since acquiring the business in May 2005, the new owner
has been closing the premises at 11 p.m.
. Mr. Tsachres, the new owner, is requesting that the closing time be extended to midnight, three
nights per week.
. Staff supports the proposed zoning code amendment since it allows the same rights to an
existing commercial use, the Blue Pheasant, that other commercial uses in Cupertino have,
which is the right to apply for a use permit.
. He clarified that the condition of the 11 p.m. closure was that no more patrons would be
permitted in the facilities after 11 p.m., but the patrons already in the facility were not required
to leave the premises.
(, ._~
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
September 26, 2006
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding regulations for hours of operation in other
cities, history of code enforcement concerns, and clarification of conditional use permits for 2 a.m.
closings.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. The justification for staff's recommendation is that we want to make this amendment because it
allows the same rights to an existing commercial use; however, other commercial uses within
the city can petition us to stay open till 2 a.m. but we have determined to include the stipulation
that the applicant can only apply for a conditional use permit through midnight. Questioned
why it says midnight rather than 2 a.m. which is when the State of California would require him
to close.
Mr. Chao:
. Explained that it was the requested hours from the applicant and/or restaurant owner.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said that if the owner stayed. open to 2 a.m. it would have to be a commercial zone, but is a
Parks and Rec zone. Businesses are permitted to stay open until 2 a.m. if they are in a
commercial zone.
. In this case, we would not particularly favor changing the area to a commercial zone or even
that portion of the park area because it abuts a residential area. There is a compromise having
this type of business next to residences, in a Parks and Rec zone.
Chair Miller:
. Said that patrons cannot enter after 11 p.m., but the patrons inside can potentially remain inside
as long as they want.
Ms. Wordell:
. That is true in the current ordinance; if this comes back for a conditional use permit, that can be
addressed as it was for another restaurant in Cupertino that was especially sensitive and they
had special restrictions placed on them. (Chi1is)
. With respect to Chili's they had to close at 10 p.m. and people had to be out, and they had till 11
p.m. for the employees to leave.
. The closing time was enforced because of the residential area directly behind the restaurant.
Ms. Murray:
. Clarified that Chilis had a parking lot in the back which abutted residential homes at the time.
She said there had been many complaints about car noise during the late hours.
. Stated that Mr. Tsachres had been addressing the former problemS with the noise in the parking
lots at the Blue Pheasant during the late hours, and code enforcement was also more prevalent in
that area, trying to reduce the problems.
Chair Miller:
. With respect to the justification, it seems like we are not comparing apples to apples because of
the different zoning. The other places that we talk about in Cupertino are in a commercial zone
and this is a Parks and Rec zone.
. Without this application, you are saying the current situation will continue where patrons who
are there can continue to stay there; there is no way to adjust those hours without him applying
for this. In another words, if we satisfy this request and we also at the same time, say 12 a.m.
means 12 a.m., the patrons have to be out.
({ -1
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
September 26, 2006
Ms. Wordell:
. You would say that at the conditional use permit stage.
Com. Wong:
. Asked the city attorney if they had looked at the lease between the city and Blue Pheasant.
There are no hours spelled out in the lease; so if the lessor wants to do it, they can just go
beyond 11 p.m.
Ms. Murray:
. Confirmed there was an 11 p.m. closure in the lease. The lease and the closure were negotiated
in a lawsuit and at that time the City Council in approving the lease, Mr. Lowenthal clarified at
the Council meeting, that closing meant closing the doors at 11 p.m. and no new patrons were
allowed in. There was no discussion at that time of an actual time when the building was to be
emptied or all patrons and employees out of the building. It was not a part of the negotiation,
nor a part of the public meeting with the City Council.
Mike Tsachres, owner of Blue Pheasant Restaurant:
. Said the issue of the 11 p.m. closing has been going on for the last year and he would like to
hear from the residents who had concerns, so that he could address their concerns.
. He explained the reasons it was important to have the one additional hour of operation in the
evemng.
. Said that when he purchased the restaurant he lost business because of the earlier closing time.
However, the 11 p.m. closure creates a continuation of losing a business, specifically whoever
arrives between 11 p.m. and midnight and cannot enter the nightclub, will not return. Day afer
day, there is a loss of customers.
. When the restaurant opened, there was a problem with the people parking across the street from
the restaurant. We have security and additional signs on the street indicating that it is not a
parking area for restaurant patrons. We approach patrons entering the restaurant who have
parked on the street and try to persuade them to go to the post office to park. Weare constantly
monitoring the customer to minimize any troubles with the neighbors to avoid any friction. It
has reduced the problems and complaints. The Sheriffs Department also, assists in the parking
lot on the weekends.
. He said he felt the additional hour of operation would not cause additional problems because all
patrons and employees would be gone from the building and parking lot.
. He said that if business does not improve, he will be forced to put the restaurant on the market
as it is not producing to its potential.
. He explained that he had invested approximately $30,000 to improve the facilities.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Terry Hertel, Byrne A venue:
. Said that there has been improvement since the 11 p.m. rule.
. Thirteen months ago the community voted to have the closing time be 11 p.m. and he said he
felt it should remain 11 p.m. closure. ,
. He said that prior to the 11 p.m. closure and Mr. Tsachres' ownership, there was prostitution on
the property when the facility was open until 2 a.m. The earlier closing time eliminated that.
. He said there are still large quantities of empty bottles on Friday morning and Saturday morning
and many customers drink before they enter the premises. Most of the cars parking on Byrne,
Orange, and Granada has stopped.
l \- 0
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
September 26, 2006
. He said that staying open until midnight would allow people more time to drink and the noise in
the parking lot will likely resume. He said the community wants the lot empty by midnight.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said that a former Homestead High School teacher, Mary Lou Lyons provided information
about the Hoo Hoo House which was an eating establishment. or roadhouse in the area for
almost 90 years. It was located near the Blue Pheasant and Cupertino Symphonic Band played
there Friday and Saturday nights and they were likely a rowdy group also. Although the Blue
Pheasant is now located in a recreational area, and if considered a historical section of the city,
there is historical precedence for having a roadhouse there.
Richard Knock, representing resident John Bunz:
. Opposed to the application.
. Said Mr. Bunz' main concern is parking. If the parking situation could be resolved and not
changed by some shifts in the hours, it would be within the bounds of things he would be at ease
with.
. The permit would apply for a six month trial and would then monitor the noise in that time if the
six months would also monitor the parking, which would be a good addition to the items
brought up.
Marjan Kashvad, resident:
. Opposed to the application.
. Discussed the parking problems on the weekends; the parking lot is full and cars are parked on
the streets, and the Sheriff has to be called on several occasions.
. Said that there continues to be noise from the site which has a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
. She said that if the closing hour is extended to midnight, it will bring in a different type of guest;
people from other bars who have been drinking prior to coming to the Blue Pheasant.
. The restaurant business is suffering because there is no focus or nurturing of the restaurant;
what is happening is, in order to compensate for the lost business of the restaurant, the nightclub
comes in, and that pressure is kept pushing back on the residents.
. This land was bought, the residents paid for it through taxes; and trusted the city to manage it
for the city's well being and welfare. Every time you push the times and the cars, the residents
suffer the brunt of it. The $30,000 in improvements was the city's money, not the owner's
money;
. She reported that last year the city lowered the rent for the business to $2900 per month for the
entire year. the rent for this year should be $7,000. She suggested that the city work with the
business owner on a number so that the owner can focus on the restaurant business to make it a
success.
Ms. Kashvad:
. Said she was not opposed to the restaurant, and supported it although she did not patronize it
because of her frustration about the management.
. She said she felt the owner puts the emphasis on the nightclub because he said the restaurant
was not profitable, putting all the pressure and focus on the nightclub business. She said she felt
it could improve if the city worked with the owner to improve the restaurant operation.
Theresa Horng, Cupertino resident and realtor:
. Opposes the application.
.. Said that the restaurant owner is unable to enforce the patrons leaving at 11 p.m. with the 11
p.m. closing time; and the parking lot is still full at 11 :30 to midnight.
1\~1
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
September 26, 2006
. The customers create noise in the parking lot and leave litter in the streets.
. She said one hour will not change the success of the restaurant, and the owner should try to
improve the business of the restaurant and consulta business consultant if necessary.
Marianne Klinkowski, Phar Lap Drive:
. Opposed to the application.
. Has resided directly across from the Blue Pheasant restaurant for 26 years; in the 80s the
restaurant closing hours were 2 a.m. and there were many problems. With the 11 p.m. closing,
things have improved; however, patrons remain in the nightclub for hours after closing.
. Parking on the street is dreadful; the residents pay $40 annually for permit parking on their own
street because of the Blue Pheasant.
. She said the applicant purchased the business with the 11 p.m. closing, but with a history of a 2
a.m. closing. She questioned whether he was edging increment by increment toward another 2
a.m. closing.
. She said there was trash, litter and noise outside the premises and on the parking lot and
surrounding area. She has had to call the Sheriff's Department to ask for help with problems.
. Recommended the enforcement of an 11 p.rn. closing; lights out, everybody out. Although it is
a nice restaurant, they don't need a bar in a residential neighborhood.
Sunil Malkani, resident:
. Opposed to the application.
. Concurred with previous speakers on the issues.
. Things have improved in the last two years, but there are still incidents of the beer bottles, noise
and people parking on streets.
. Said that code enforcement does not show up when called at 11 p.m. or midnight.
. He said he did not understand how the business could be suffering since the parking lots are full
almost every weekend between 8:30 p.m. and 11 :30 p.m.
. He said a lot of time is spent revisiting the issue of the 11 p.m. closing time.
. Reiterated that the 11 p.m. closing is not really 11 p.m.; it goes onto midnight or later.
Tessa Ennals, Florence Drive:
. Opposed to application.
. Said that in a questionnaire to the Oakdale Ranch HOA about social events and .concerns
involving the city, of 25 responses to question about extending the hours of the Blue Pheasant,
9 were strongly opposed to the extension; 4 somewhat opposed; 5 in favor and 7 no opinion.
The bylaws of the association do not allow any official position be taken on the issue.
John Ennals, Florence Drive:
. Opposed to the application.
. Expressed concern that the process laid out in the letter sent to determine if the Blue Pheasant
have longer opening hours is not working well.
. Pointed out that he attended the Parks and Rec Commission meeting regarding the issue and
said that the documents and information for the present Planning Commission meeting did not
have continuity with what was said at the Parks and Rec meeting. He noted th?-t the documents
stated incorrectly that the resolution was passed, when it was rejected 2:1 by the Parks and Rec
Committee.
. He said there was also some discussion and a recommendation made as mentioned tonight
where they would rather have a trial period of 6 months before any change be made to zoning.
That passed 2:1. He expressed concern that none of this particular information was in the
Planning Commission packet of information. There is also no summary of the data that was
r\~(o
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
September 26, 2006
. presented, nor the surveys that were presented tonight. Instead there are emails attached
showing support from nearby residents who are not at the meeting. That was not the majority
position of those who spoke at the Parks and Rec meeting.
. He said he was concerned with the discontinuous process and that information was being lost
that was given at each successive meeting.
. He questioned how the process would get the get the correct information from the Parks and
Rec staff to the various Commissions to have some continuity; who actually decided not to tell
you the actual voting record, who decided not to include the public input.
. He said he was told by Mr. Tsachres that he was led to believe by someone in the city that the
extension of one hour shouldn't be a problem; in fact he is upset it is taking so long to get this
on the agenda. Who was this person; how can someone in a city department convey that
message after a unanimous 5:0 vote by the City Council not to change the 11 p.rn. closing time.
Who in the city came up with the new process we are going through to accommodate this
request when a year ago we told him it was impossible. I would like to lmow when the Parks
and Rec department are going to concentrate on a cohesive approach to the management of the
resources under their control and stop worrying how to run a profitable nightclub.
. Many years ago the Parks and Rec department told the residents the problems of late opening of
the Blue Pheasant would all be taken care of when the lease terminated and the facility could
then be used for a purpose more in keeping with the objectives of the Parks and Rec charter.
. He requested that the ordinance not be changed, but that efforts be devoted to better define the
existing ordinance so that the tenant and future tenants understand the meaning of an 11 p.m.
closure. He said it appeared that once the doors are closed, people could potentially stay until
daybreak.
. He reported on data he collected in July and August when he visited the parking lot at various
times to assess the use of the parking lot, monitor the arrival and departure of the cars, ascertain
whether or, not cars were parked on the street, and assess the impact on the neighborhood
relative to noise and littering.
. He said the current situation is in a fragile balance; the residents aclmow1edge that it is slightly
better than before, they were living with the current levels of disturbance and would rather not
tip the situation over the edge again.
Mr. Chao:
. Said staff talked to the Parks and Rec Director Therese Smith about the specific issue and it is
felt that the Commission may have been somewhat confused in terms of the process, in terms of
how they should make the motion to carry out their message to the Commission and City
Council.
. The conclusion was that they did make a motion at the end to recommend approval provided
specifically that the two items were addressed, that the noise and the parking implications be
evaluated and potentially at the use permit stage a six month trial period be looked at.
. They wouldn't have made that suggestion if their intent was not to recommend approval of the
ordinance amendment; in a sense they did make a motion to deny; but that was the confusion;
they also made a motion to include those two conditions at the end, and I think that the
conclusion was that the fmal motion superseded the previous, with the conditions that they
recommend that the use permit be looked at.
Com. Wong:
. Recalled that there were two new commissioners and one senior commissioner who was absent,
and another senior commissioner from another commission had to recuse himself because he
was within the 500 feet.
/( -, I
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
September 26, 2006
. He said his interpretation was they were trying to say they did not support the project and
wanted to make amendments to it regarding the noise and the parking, but because they were so
new, they didn't know the proper process.
Chair Miller:
. Expressed concern that information wasn't being communicated between the various committee
and commission meetings and that details from the meetings were not being passed on. He said
it was important to have the detailed discussions and/or actions taken on the various topics in
order that all the committee and commission members were kept well informed on the issues.
Albrecht Schoy, Phar Lap Drive:
. Opposed to the application.
. Submitted a copy of a petition opposing the matter and email correspondence for the record.
. Summarized the questions from speaking with numerous residents relative to the Blue Pheasant
operation.
. He said many residents believe the nightclub operation has proven to be a nuisance as defined in
the Municipal Code and would like some comments on deliberations.
. He said many residents feel that the restaurant owner is neglecting the restaurant business in
favor of the nightclub business.
. Have the claims of the restaurant owner that his business has decreased by 40% ever been
substantiated, and by whom?
. He said that the owner previously stated he would keep the business open regardless if the
closing time was changed; however, the residents are questioning why the city and Parks and
Rec pushing for the conditional use permit.
. He stated that the Elephant Bar can run a viable business with closing at 10:30 p.m. and
questioned why the Blue Pheasant could not with an 11 p.m. closing time.
. He asked if there were other recommended solutions to consider.
Jung Chen, Oakdale Place:
. Said that the restaurant owner signed the lease mowing there was an 11 p.m. closing time.
. He said as a resident, mowing the city was so flexible to adopt code changes, he could
potentially apply for a code change to build a ten story building in a residential area, which he
opined was not the message the city should be giving.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Clarified that Mr. Tsacbres was not the applicant and he has not submitted an application. She
stated that it is a city application for a code change to make it possible for Mr. Tsachres to make
an application for a code change.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
. Suggested that there be follow up regarding the dumpsters and delivery trucks on the premises
at 5:30 a.m. and following up with the Code Enforcement department if necessary.
. He expressed concern about how to enforce the closing time, getting patrons to leave the
premises after 11 :00 p.m. and getting the parking lot-c1eared out with minimal noise.
Ms. Wordell:
. Clarified that the closing time meant people do not have to leave and clear the parking lot by a
certain time. Also, if there are specific problems, they are reported as complaints or
[(.-( :L
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
September 26, 2006
emergencies and there would be a response. If it is a disturbance in the parking lot, it would be
reported to the Sheriff's Department at the late hour.
. If the neighbors have a code enforcement complaint in the evening hours, they can contact code
enforcement the next business day. If it was something that needs immediate attention, they
should call the Sheriff's Department.
Ms. Murray:
. Clarified the role of the Sheriffs Department and code enforcement in responding to complaints
about the Blue Pheasant. She said that there have not been many violations since Mr. Tsachres
took over ownership of the facility.
. She noted that although the residents in the area have concerns, they do not report all concerns
to the Sheriff or code enforcement.
Com. Wong:
. Stated the importance of residents documenting any complaints and concerns by calling the
Sheriff's Department in the evening and calling the City of Cupertino. Without the
documentation, it is difficult for the city to convey the message to the owner.
Ms. Murray:
. Reiterated the 11 p.m. closing means that no customers will be permitted to enter after 11 p.m.
. She reviewed the closure hours for various restaurants in Cupertino.'
Com. Wong:
. Said tonight's application is not about the hours, but about the conditional use permit to allow
the applicant at the Blue Pheasant to provide a vehicle or tool in a public recreation zone so that
they can remain open later.
. Said Mr. Tsachres explained his concerns of opening a business. The biggest concern is the city
inherited an establishment that is in a park. The neighbors and emai1s received strongly support
the historical institution the Blue Pheasant; they serve good food, and there is no problem with
having a lounge there. It would be better suited to be located in a commercial zone.
. Said he was not comfortable
. I don't feel comfortable supporting the request for setting a precedent; having the public hearing
provided good feedback, positive and negative constructive criticism to help improve the
business.
. He suggested that if the owner wants only one hour extension, the city might compensate him
by renegotiating the rents to avoid the city having to find another person to run this particular
business, as the city supports the restaurant.
. Said at this time, during the public hearing and during the testimony and stiff report, he did not
support the conditional use permit.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said that when Mr. Tsachres previously requested an extension of hours, she supported
extending the Thursday, Friday and Saturday hours. At that time her reasoning was that the city
needs to decide what kind of business was suited for that particular location. The Blue Pheasant
has been the same type of business for many years, and the ownership of the land has changed,
going from private to the city as a park.
. The Blue Pheasant business has remained the same for many years, and the city needs to either
give the business what they need to compete in the open market; in this case it is longer hours
on three specific nights; or say this is not the type of business they want there. We want to have
a breakfast, lunch, tea time, close the doors or we need to allow the tenant to be successful.
(1-13
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
September 26, 2006
. She said she was pleased to see that things improved somewhat since the last time the
application was before the Commission with regards to parking and noise; and said she hoped
the trend continues to work in the residents' favor.
. She said she supported staff s recommendation because they need to help make the business
successful, or as a city need to change their mind about what kind of business should be located
there.
Com. Chien:
. Asked the Assistant City Attorney what the legal difference was between a nightclub closing
time and a restaurant closing time.
Ms. Murray:
. Explained that in this particular case, the lease was negotiated in a lawsuit and the lease states
"the nightly closing time of 11 p.m." She said it was also defined at a City Council meeting
orally.
. She said that she did not have a written 1egal definition of restaurant and nightclub closing
times.
. Said that alcohol permits are issued and controlled by the ABC.
Com. Chien:
. After all the input, we as commissioners need to look at this from a business ovvner perspective
because we are the ovvners of this building, and when you look at it from that perspective, you
can say it would be good to have the restaurant hours extended so that it can survive; however,
you would never make a business decision jeopardizing your other businesses. Your other
businesses are all of you here today, and those residents of Cupertino. I would never make a
decision that is good for one business but jeopardizes the other, and the problems are clear to
me. People have told us that noise and parking is a problem and I believe that the later it gets,
the worse the problems get. I am convinced that the combination of the late hours and the
problems that exist are caused by the late hours and I don't feel comfortable to extend the hours
which I believe would exacerbate the problems.
. Staff has a responsibility when any applicant comes in for a residential application to present all
the avenues, choices, what can be done ~d what can't be done. He said he felt the business was
excellent, and because the city is the property ovvner, they need to work with the ovvner to see
how it can work. He said however, that he did not feel extending the closing time to 12
midnight would be a solution.
. Said he would not support the staff recommendation for the stated reasons.
Chair Miller:
. The issue here is that the city is running a business which is in conflict with some of the other
objectives of the city, and that is to provide recreational facilities and to make sure that the
neighborhoods are protected and that noise and those kinds of issues are handled.
. Said the last time the application was presented, he voted against extending the hours, for the
reason that the bar did not belong in a Parks and Rec zone. He said he was not changing his
opinion at this point.
. Mr. Tsachres has been doing the best he could to manage his patrons and try to deal with the
parking, and it doesn't seem to be working. There are some other solutions, but it seems like
there are solutions that the city needs to decide if they are ones they want to take, such as
increasing the size of the parking lot or working with Mr. Tsachres to provide valet parking or
doing better policing. Those solutions haven't been brought up or discussed.
. Said based on the presentation tonight, he had no reason to change his previous vote. He said he
would not support staff recommendation to extend the closing hour.
{(~(L{
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
September 26, 2006
Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong, to deny Application
MCA-2006-03. (Vote: 3-1-1; Com. Wong, Chair Miller, and Com. Chien Yes;
Vice Chair Giefer No; Com. Saadati Absent)
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to present a Minute Order to City
Council to clarify the lease between the City of Cupertino and the Blue Pheasant
Restaurant regarding 7b, the Use of the Property, stating that the use of the
property shall be consistent with the rules and regulations of the City's PR zoning
district which includes the nightly closing time of 11 p.m." City Council to clarify
if it means that the premises shut down at 11 p.m. and everybody has to exit the
building, or is there another interpretation.
Com. Chien:
. Said he wanted to limit that purview to what goes on inside the building, not the parking lot.
Com. Wong:
. Said he wanted interpretation of what the lease states and was open to the suggestion of adding
something to it.
Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Saadati absent.
Chair Miller declared a recess.
5. MCA-2006-02
City of Cupertino
Citywide location
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter .18 (Heritage and
Specimen Trees) Tentative City Cou date: Unscheduled.
AId Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
. Reviewed the background of the Municipal Code endment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and
Specimen Trees )as outlined in the staff report.
. On August 15, 2006 the City Council con, cted a preliminary study session on the city's
Heritage and Specimen Trees Ordinance provided comments to the Planning Commission
to address additional tree protection me es for possible incorporation into the ordinance.
. City Council provided comments the Planning Commission on topics including tree
protection, approval authority, pe ties of unlawful tree removal, noticing, and solar panels
which are summarized in the staf eport.
. She reviewed the public co nts received including a request to allow tree removal where
trees block solar energy pa s, and to request that PG&E reduce pruning of trees and use
special insulated wires to ow trees to be closer to the wires; and to support tree protection in
, the city during construc . n. It was expressed that the tree removal fees were excessive. It was
also requested to co der adding redwood trees, sycamores and black cottonwoods to the
protected tree list.
. The recommenda . ns for additional protected trees were reviewed and are included in the staff
report, Page 5- d 5-3.
. She reviewe e penalties imposed by other cities for trees removed without a tree removal
permit appr a1; and the revisions to the draft model ordinance.
. Discussi items for the Planning Commission to consider include adding or removing trees
from t protected tree list; determining a defInition for what is considered unsafe or a dead
tree; ecide the approval authority for a tree removal permit; and retroactive tree removal
pe 'ts, whether they be done at staff level or at the Planning Commission level; and decide
H-( )'
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
September 26, 2006
what type of penalties .to be imposed for unlawful tree removals; and what type of tree
replacement requirements to impose if added as a penalty requirement; consider placing
noticing on trees during application or appeals processes; and to consider allowing tree removal
of protected trees where trees impact a property due to overcrowding and over-planning.
Com. Chien:
. Asked the arborist his opinion on using the width of the canopy, as proposed in the ordinance, to
determine things such as value, rather than using the width of the trunk.
Barry Coates, City arborist:
. The trunk diameter at 4-1/2 feet above grade is the standard used by arborists all over the world,
and since it is a standard used everywhere and the trade understands it, and it is the first item on
which a tree's value is calculated, that should always be included. However, that doesn't mean
that you couldn't add the canopy dimension as part of your evaluation; the trunk diameter is
merely an easily accessible definition of tree mass. It is not simple to measure the canopy mass,
but it is simple to get to the trunk.
. The trunk diameter measurement is designed to evaluate the size of the tree. Adding the canopy
mass to it as part of the evaluation is a very valid idea, because the canopy represents the tree's
value to the city and the neighborhood more than the trunk diameter does.
. Said the biggest deterrent for cities to use to prevent people from cutting trees is regulations and
fines. If somebody cuts down a tree and the newspaper publicizes what is done about it, it is an
effective deterrent for illegal tree cutting.
. Regarding the criteria U$.ed' for adding trees to the list, he said that the arborist evaluates the size,
its health, its structural condition, whether it is damaging pavement or a structure and all of
those go into an equation yielding an opinion. For example a Coast Live Oak that is a beautiful
specimen but is structurally a disaster, they may recommend its removal even though it is a
healthy specimen. That is happening in Saratoga now and a lot of controversy about it, but if
'the tree is hazardous, whether it is healthy, is irrelevant. There is a definition of the different
native oak species in the document; previously just native oaks were protected.
. Said that he felt educating the public on the process was important. He suggested a brochure, or
a door hanger about cutting and removing trees that could be distributed when someone
purchases a home or submits an application to reconstruct a home in Cupertino.
Com. Wong:
. Discussed the fee schedule and said the high cost may be a deterrent to applying for a permit to
cut the tree. He questioned if having a lower fee would encourage them to follow the process.
Barry Coates:
. Said that in Saratoga, many times people will cut the tree down and pay the fme. The fmes are
not large enough to be relative to the value of the home or their opinion of the value of the tree
being gone are not sufficient to prevent them from removing trees. He said he was not sure if
having a lower fee would encourage the people to apply for a permit to remove the tree.
. Provided a history of his background.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she liked native trees because they thrive in the area, use less water, and produce less
pollen. She said she tries to rectify trees that have come before us both here and planning as
well as the DRC where they do landscape plan reviews; and is attempting to balance between
native species andlor problematic species in Cupertino. She asked for the arborist's opinion on
different species.
((-(&
Blue Pheasant Restaurant
22100 Stevens Creek Blvd
Cupertino Ca 95014
Oct. 10, 2006
David Knapp
City Manager
City of Cupertino
Cupertino, CA 950104
Dear Mr. Knapp
With this letter, I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my
Request (date it March 26,2006) to be on the City Council Agenda at
October 17, 2006 for the One hour extension for Thursday- Friday &
Saturday of the Blue Pheasant restaurant.
For more than a year now I have been humiliated by the remarks and
comments made by the commissioners and insulted by the faulty
accusations made by the full time enemies of the Blue Pheasant.
I believe the request was fair for all parties, but nobody really cares for
the restaurant and it is time to find another way to solve this issue.
cc. Therese Smith
\ (.-{ ~
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Tuesday, September 12,200611:13 AM
Gary Chao
FW: Against Blue Pheasant to operate unitil midnight
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Young [mailto:ayoung212@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:54 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Against Blue Pheasant to operate unitil midnight
Dear Sir/Madam,
I won't be able to attend the meeting on 9/26 concerning the application
MCA-2006-03. I would like to speak against allowing the Blue Pheasant to
operate until midnight.
When I drive by Blue Pheasant at about 9:00 pm especially on weekends, there
are many cars parking on Stevens Creek Blvd. and people wandering around
making noise.
Extending Blue Pheasant operation time would even disturb the neighborhood
more.
The surrounding area is supposed to be a quiet neighborhood. However, their
operation brings in people who would like to make troubles.
So, I strongly against to allow Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight.
Thanks for your attention,
Albert Young,
Cupertino resident.
1
l\,---(J
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11: 14 AM
Gary Chao
FW: Blue Phesant
-----Original Message-----
From: Victor G. Mossotti [mailto:mossotti@usgs.gov]
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:56 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Blue Phesant
Dear Commission
In my view, the BP has the right to stay open until midnight. The BPhesantt
was in it's present location long before the neighborhood transformed into
a bedroom community. It has served the community as the one and only adult
night-spot/club for many many years. Gang people don't get into fights
there. People simply have a grand time.
God knows we need a place to let-off little steam.
Victor G. Mossotti
22964 Longdown Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
I (.-{ q
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11: 15 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: MCA-2006_03 Public Hearing Comments
-----Original Message-----
From: WestDennis@aol.com [mailto:WestDennis@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 20064:44 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: MCA-2006_03 Public Hearing Comments
Planning Commission,
MCA-2006-03
APN: 357-10-007
New conditional use in zoning district that would allow the Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight, subject to
conditional use permit.
Comments.
I have been a resident of Cupertino since 1975 (31 years) and drive by the Blue Pheasant at all hours to reach my home off
Foothill Blvd.
Even though I see many cars at times, the Blue Pheasant always looks like a peaceful place.
I have been to several Lockheed Martin dinners that were very good.
Based on my past experience, I would vote to allow the Blue Pheasant to stay open until midnight.
It is hoped that a majority of the Cupertino Planning Commission will vote to allow the Blue Pheasant to stay open
until midnight.
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis L. West
10670 Cordova Road
Cupertino, CA 95014-3912
Telephone: (408) 255-2077
E-mail: WestDennis@aol.com
10/11/06
((~.20
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11 :12 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Regarding the Blue Pheasant
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Jones [mailto:northbaj@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 20063:50 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Public Hearing Regarding the Blue Pheasant
I see no good reason why the Blue Pheasant cannot stay open until midnight. We need businesses in this
community, and the Blue Pheasant has always been a special place to eat. If they can stay open until
midnight perhaps whoever is running it this time can make a profit from it.
Barbara Jones, 10380 Castine Ave., Cupertino
10/11/06
[I -11
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11 :14 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Blue Pheasant
-----Original Message-----
From: Houlsby, Dennis (SC) [mailto:dhoulsby@guidant.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 20069:33 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Blue Pheasant
Planning Commission Members,
I fully support the amendment to the Municipal Code to allow the Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight. The
Blue Pheasant is a one of the few adult restaurant/ lounges in Cupertino. It has been an asset to the community
long before I moved here 18 years ago. Even new acquaintances have fond memories of the Blue Pheasant
during some part of their life. Allowing the Blue Pheasant to continue to operate in its current location is in the
best interests of the community. I live above the Blue Pheasant off of Janice, and have no issue with noise or
traffic. In fact, I am not aware of any rowdy behavior that would warrant limiting its hours of operation even until
2:00 am, like other restaurant/lounges in Santa Clara County.
Regards,
R. Dennis Houlsby
10255 Mira Vista Road
Cupertino
1\ - '2;(
10/11/06
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, September 12,200612:16 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: blue pheasant
-----Original Message-----
From: terry hertel [mailto:waxman@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:37 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: blue pheasant.
The original agreement in allowing the new owner to take over was all about the hours. This is what we
addressed explicitly that the hours had to be kept at 11 :00.
As it goes he closes his door to new patrons at 11 :00. That is also last call. At last call you can purchase a few
drinks and they allow you to stay until 12:00am.
I spoke with the new owner this last Friday night. For some reason I decided to check out the place.
THE PARKING HAS IMPROVED AND WE NEIGHBORS UP ON BYRNE ARE NOT SEEING ALL SORTS OF
CARS PARKED ON OUR STREET AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT.
We have also noticed a reduction of alcohol related debris thrown on the SIDEWALKS AND BIKE PATH. ( I do
see more debris on weekends on the path) I still see people drinking in there cars prior to going into the place.
They then deposit the empty bottles and cases of beer onto the bike path.
The noise factor coming up the hill is allowing us to get two extra hours of sleep when most people sleep. Most of
us go to sleep at around eleven. The timing is perfect as we have all noticed the improvement.
I believe the average age of the people surrounding is 55 and up, a consideration needed to be addressed.
As I spoke with Mike at the door, I did not know about his request until he said he was going to the city to get the
hours extended.
I told mike that we have seen and improvement with less cars parked on our street. I also told him about the noise
reduction. Mike stated that he could care less about the parking and noise. He was not getting enough
people.........hmmmmm, the place was full and the bar tenders were maxed out in performance.
I have noticed that his lunch and dinner business is way off. it is obvious that the quality of food and service are
not up to community standards. This is where he is falling.
Now that we have an attorney familiar with the community and situation, is it now necessary to get him to
represent the neighbors?
Please let me know.
Terry Hertel
10015 Byrne Avenue
Monta Vista, Ca. 95014
10/11/06
l( -.,()
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 5:26 PM
Gary Chao
FW: Municipal Code Amendment re Blue Pheasant Restaurant
-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Lantz [mailto:ernestlantz@comcast.netj
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:22 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Municipal Code Amendment re Blue Pheasant Restaurant
I strongly agree that the Blue Pheasant Restaurant should be allowed
to be open for business untill midnight.
The Restaurant has been there for many years before housing came
across Stevens Creek Blvd.
It is a fine restaurant and people need to have a place to go for
dinner and dancing.
Sincerely, Malle o. Freudig
Palo vista Rd, Cupertino
1
(1- 2 '1
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 20065:25 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Notice for Appl. # MCA-2006-03
-----Original Message-----
From: PROsorio@aol.com [mailto:PROsorio@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20,200611:59 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Public Hearing Notice for Appl. # MCA-2006-03
I am in favor of approving the Blue Pheasant for conditional operation until midnight as long as noise control
and security are adequate. This restaurant has been serving the community for many years and has been a
responsible neighbor.
Thank you,
Penny Osorio
22172 Wallace Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
(( ~'2)
10/11/06
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Monday, September 25,2006 12:14 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Blue Pheasant, MCA-2006-03
-----Original Message-----
From: Tessa Ennals [mailto:tennals@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:43 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Blue Pheasant, MCA-2006-03
Please forward to Mr. Gary Chao and to the Planning Commission members.
I was surprised to read in Mr. Chao's Recommendation to the Planning Commission that "On September
7, 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Code Amendment proposal and
recommended to the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the amendment provided that
any potential noise and parking issues be addressed and mitigated at the future USe Permit approval
process." I hope Mr. Chao listened to the videotape of the Commission's meeting.
I was present at that meeting; only four Commission members were present and one recused himself
because he lives in the area close to the Blue Pheasant. My notes show that the Commission voted 2 to 1
AGAINST the motion before them (that the zoning be changed to allow extension to the hours of
operation). They then proposed a second motion, which was somewhat vague and muddled, to the effect
that they recommend a 6-month trial period of operation until midnight on Thursday, Friday and
Saturday nights. They voted 2 to 1 in favor of this second motion, although the Parks and Recreation
Staff member present expressed doubts that the second motion was appropriate as a separate motion.
One of the. Commission members was rightly concerned about how the situation during such a trial
period could be monitored.
Recently, the Oakdell Ranch Homeowners' Association sent out a questionnaire to all residents of the
subdivision, principally to determine the level of interest in the Association and solicit help in planning
social events. However, it did include a question on their opinion of the proposed extension to the Blue
Pheasant operating hours. Of the 24 responses received, 8 households were strongly opposed to the
extension, 4 were somewhat opposed, 5 were in favor, and 7 had no opinion. No doubt some will want
to speak at the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow. Nobody wants the Blue Pheasant to go out of
business--it is a local landmark and predates the Oakdell Ranch development. However, it would seem
that Mr. Tsachres is more interested in the nightclub part of the operation than in the restaurant business.
At the Parks and Rec. Commission meeting he stated that, when he signed the lease to operate the
business with a closing time of 11 pm, the City Council implied that he would have little difficulty in
10/11/06
\\-L~
labels
obtaining an extension to the operating hours in the future. Ifthis is the case, then the City mislead both
him and the Oakdell Ranch residents affected by the parking and noise issues associated with the prior
operation to 2 am. It is noteworthy that Mr. Tsac,hres currently has a very favorable lease rate, and no
numbers supporting his claim to be losing money have been forthcoming.
I am not personally affected by the Blue Pheasant, but sympathize with residents in the neighborhood
who live closer to the facility. I feel that the City, as the property owners, should address two issues.
(1) The inadequacy of the parking at the bar/restaurant. By the way, what will happen when there is an
entrance to the Stevens Creek Trail and the lot is shared by the restaurant at lunchtime, golfers and trail
users?
(2) What is meant by "dosing time." It seems that this only means the time after which no more patrons
will be allowed in--the actual time that the owner ends bar service and stops the music is not defined by
this time. What is to stop him operating as long as he wants to? Here are two examples that reflect the
concern of nearby residents. On Saturday July 22 at 11.00 pm, 131 cars were still parked' at the property
and along Stevens Creek Blvd.; only 10 people left by 11.15 pm. On Friday, August 25th, at 11.30 pm,
125 cars were parked in the parking lot, on the dirt between the lot and Stevens Creek Blvd., on Stevens
Creek Blvd., in Oakdell Place and on Phar Lap Drive. Only one car left during a 5-rninute period. In
spite of there being patrons of the Blue Pheasant being parked outside their homes well after 11 pm,
nearby residents have not complained. However, if the hours are extended, the number of cars parked
near their homes and the noise as people leave at a later hour could well increase and impact their sleep.
Tessa Ennals, Florence Drive
(1--2 7
10/11/06
labels
Kiersa Witt
Subject: FW: Blue Pheasant (BP)
-----Original Message-----
From: terry hertel [mailto:waxman@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11 :30 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Blue Pheasant (BP)
Hi Kiersa,
I wish to address the Blue Pheasant request to get the code changed so they can stay open past 11 ;00 pm.
The eleven o'clock hour was the main issue in allowing the infested place to stay open in the first place.
We knew this was going to happen. allow him to assume the lease as it was and then he would start this action.
Since the eleven o'clock hour was enforced, a lot of good has come of it.
1. the neighbors surrounding and myself, can go to bed a eleven and get a good nights sleep. If they go to
twelve, we will be woken up from twelve until one or so. If the patrons get another hour to drink, they will be more
intoxicated. This creates loud outburst in the parking lot. Alarms going off as they get into their cars. Bottles
crashing onto the parking lot. Bottle hitting the side of the tank house and more debris.
2. at all three doors we here loud outburst now. If they are allowed to go later it will only go back to unacceptable.
3. Cars parked up onto Byrne avenue, byrne Court, orange and Granada for the most part have stopped.
additional hours mean additional people. These people drink in there cars and deposit the empties in the curb or
on our lawns left for us to clean up the following morning.
4. I would like to also mention that we now have delivery trucks starting to come at all hours again. Just this past
week a bread truck was dropping pallets at 5:30am. it woke us and we did yell at him. we have had others
recently and this must be controlled.
I just happed to go into the BP to look around a few weeks ago. At the door was I believe Mike. I mentioned how
the eleven o'clock hour had improved our quality of living. He replied that he could care less about that that he
is meeting with the city to get it changed.
In the beginning I brought his intention up at a meeting. All i can say is I told you he did not care about
the community and he is now admitting it.
Terry Hertel.
10/11/06
(I-La
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Tuesday, September 26. 2006 5:47 PM
Gary Chao
FW: Blue Pheasant Extension
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Vandersteen [mailto:anthonyvann@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:57 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Blue Pheasant Extension
To Planning Commission Members
My name is Robina Vander steen, and I
lived on Phar Lap drive for thirty four years. When
first moved here we were delighted to have a golf
and restaurant at the end of our street and the
relationship between the residents and the restaurant was
good. In fact our Homeowner's group had their annual dinner
at the restaurant every year. It is only in recent years
that this relationship has soured and the bad feelings can
be traced to the lax attitude that the previous owners
adopted toward the end of their tenure. There is no
question that inadequate parking at the Blue Pheasant is at
the root cause of the bad feeling that now exists and I
do not feel that the city has ever attempted to address
this. People who cannot park in front of the
restaurant ,park on Phar Lap in spite of the permit
parking there and it is rarely enforced. Permit parking is
a "solution" which actually penalizes homeowners. Giving the
current operator of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant an
extension allowing him to remain open until 12 pm after we
worked so hard to limit the night club operation to Ilpm
seems. certain to aggravate the situation allover again.
Fix the parking first, re-establish a good relationship
between neighbours and restaurant and then maybe longer
hours would be acceptable.
have
we
course
Thank you for your consideration
Robina Vander steen
1
((---)1
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.68
-----Original Message-----
From: Albrecht Schoy [mailto:albrecht_schoy@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:02 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fw: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.68
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Albrecht Schoy <albrecht_schoy@yahoo.com>
To: CityCouncil@cupertino.org
Cc: David Knapp <manager@cupertino.org>; Kiersa Witt <kiersaw@cupertino.org>;
stevep@cupertino.org
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2006 4:53:02 PM
Subject: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 19.68
Dear members of the Cupertino City Council,
Approving the proposed PR municipal code amendment will effectively result in rezoning of
parkland, only this time in a concealed manner. It arbitrarily violates the spirit and voter intent of the
original 1991 bond measure voted and being paid for by Cupertino residents. If passed, it sets a
dangerous precedence for the whole of Cupertino, opening up other currently and future existing
publicly and/or privately owned facilities located within the P&R zones to similar requests.
The current municipal code amendment is based on a false premise. Namely the notion that
businesses in parks should be treated the same as businesses in commercial zoning. Equalizing the rights
of businesses outside and inside parks contradicts the very principal that was setup in the fIrst place,
which is protecting the park and its neighbors. Nobody would advocate a business inside Yosemite
being treated the same as a business outside of it. Using the logic in the current proposal, there is no
stopping at this request. What protection is there against the business owner simply using the same
argument of inequality next time, until the business is treated exactly like a business in the commercial
zone? The owner knew exactly what business he was buying. Last year you voted unanimously (5-0)
against effectively commercializing this portion of our parkland while he was still in escrow. Currently
he is not even abiding by the closing time.
Why are we trying to adjust the law to the business instead of having the business conform to our laws?
The Parks and Recreation department should be willing to treat this situation with the care it takes to fit
into today 0 s environment. It is time to help this business to fit more harmoniously into this Park and
into todayDs neighborhoods and family oriented society. Suggestions have been made to the owner to
structure the business to make it a neighborhood asset rather than the source of concerns it currently is.
10/11/06
(1-]0
labels
The Parks and Recreation Director has dismissed this possibility form the start, thus prevented any
thinking in this direction. We, the affected neighbors, want a Blue Pheasant that provides a more family
oriented environment where our senior citizens can go and enjoy as well as our families with children.
The proposed approach is not offering a balanced and equitable resolution to the long-term problems
at hand. It attempts to take away residents rights to fair and equal protection under the law and pushes
once again the entire burden to the residents. Approving this municipal code amendment sets a
dangerous precedent, violates voter intent and negatively affects the adjacent neighborhoods. Last years'
laudable and unanimous city council vote has reaffirmed for the Blue Pheasant to remain under P&R
zoning, a decision fully in line with original voter intent. We ask you to continue with this positive
record and deny this municipal code amendment.
Sincerely, Albrecht Schoy
10/11/06
(I - 3l
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3: 1 0 PM
Gary Chao
FW: Oppose Blue Pheasant Hours Extension
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Fairchild [mailto:Ron.Fairchild@berryessa.k12.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:57 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Kiersa Witt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Oppose Blue Pheasant Hours Extension
To: Cupertino City Council and Planning Department
The purpose of this email message is to convey to you that we are
strongly opposed to any City Councilor Planning Department action that
would result in extended hours of operation for the Blue Pheasant Night
Club. We live two blocks down Phar Lap from the Blue Pheasant and do not
want the quality of our neighborhood negatively impacted by increased
late night traffic along with related noise and litter.
Ron and Patty Fairchild
22047 Clearcreek Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
(( - J L
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: OPPOSE Municipaly code amendment and extended hours of Blue Pheasant
-----Original Message-----
From: terry hertel [mailto:waxman@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:30 AM
To: mmiller@interorealestate.com; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; gwong212@aol.com; Taghi Saadati; Cary Chien; City
Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: OPPOSE Municipaly code amendment and extended hours of Blue Pheasant
Subject: Residents oppose the Blue Pheasant Restaurant extending its hours, and oppose changing its zone to commercial.
Remember this is part of the sixty acres purchased by the people within the Parks and Recreation of the City of Cupertino,
Town of Monta Vista and County of Santa Clara.
I believe it was thirteen month ago, we went through this same ordeal, and the entire neighborhood thought our
overwhelming vote NO was fmal.
Commission and Council members. we do not want the hours to be past 11:00 PM daily.
To freshen your minds, the new proprietor stood up in front of the entire city. He agreed to close by eleven o'clock. Ion the
other hand, told you and the neighbors this exact situation would plague us. He got in and now he is pushing for hours past
eleven o'clock. Whether or not the law is changed, he will continue to push for another hour next year and another the year
after.
I have experience in dealing with his personality. Remember thirteen months ago when he told the neighbors how much he
wanted to please them? Two weeks ago Mike was at the door when I walked in. I was walking out at I I :00 PM. He was at
the door telling people who were exiting that they had to stay out. People were trying to get in, and he was telling them about
the eleven-o'clock rule. I greeted him and explained that the neighbors were sure pleased with the new hours. He said, "the
hell with the neighbors, I am having a hearing with the city and the hours will be changed." I said I sure hope not and he
reiterated himself. I also remember thirteen months ago, him stating that if the restaurant did not make it and he could get the
zoning change, he would build anything he wanted down there. "A bar, a 7-11, Pizzajoint or whatever," was his words. City,
you are asking for big trouble if this becomes commercial. It will worsen the atmosphere of Cupertino, and devalue the
homes that surround it. Enough is enough; the city needs to put its foot down before Cupertino loses its character and turns
into Milpitas. We have the best schools, and the best kids, and a nice atmosphere. Do you want this happening in Cupertino?
Since the Commission meeting last week, where we voted the hours to be kept at eleven o'clock, things have changed.
Listen to the recording. He is now taking advantage of closing his doors at eleven o'clock. His clientele who are in the
10/11/06
(1--]3
labels
restaurant are allowed to stay until twelve. I witnessed their parking lot full at 12: lOAM. He is now pushing the clock and
newly defined closing time. It seems that interpretation of closing got modified in his mind and we now see a change. THIS
IS NOT HOW THE LA W WAS WRITTEN!
You cannot allow everybody to stay inside until 12:00 am and drinking several more drinks. Then at 12:00 having a sort of
fire drill to get everyone out.
It seems that he got a break on his rent from the city of over $40,000.00. This did not go into improvement or promotions. It
went into his pocket. If you give him another break guess where the cash will go.
10/11/06
It -]~
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: Kiersa Witt
Sent: Monday, October 09,200610:58 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Proposed Municipal Code Amendment Related to the Blue Pheas
-----Original Message-----
From: Iiweisun@comcast.net [mailto:liweisun@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:58 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Kiersa Witt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Proposed Municipal Code Amendment Related to the Blue Pheas
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am opposed to the City Code amendment to allow the Blue Pheasant to remain open until midnight.
The Blue Pheasant is located on a P&R zone and not a Commercial zone. The owner knew this fact
when he bought the business. It is not ethical for him to now simply dismiss that fact and put our City
and the residents through all this again to try to run his business as if the property was located on a
Commercial Zone.
It will not be fair to the surrounding residents to be treated under a different Code vs. the other
Cupertino residents. We like to have the same protections as th~ other Cupertino residents.
Thank you,
Li Wei Sun
Oakdell Ranch
(\ - j )'
10/11/06
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: john_c_chang@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 09, 200611:47 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Kiersa Witt; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Application No. MCA-2006-03 (Blue Pheasant)
Dear City Council,
Unfortunately due to a business trip, I am unable to attend the October 17th meeting. However, I would
like to take this opportunity to let you know that I strongly oppose the proposed Code Amendment to
Chapter 19.68 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The City has failed to enforce her own code for Park
and Recreation zone closing time of 10:00PM for years, specifically for Blue Pheasant resturant. The
city ordinance clearly defines THE CLOSING TIME (lO:OOPM) for park and recreation zone (all cars
and people need to leave by the closing time). I think the City owes us an explanation why this point
was not brought to the concerned residents' attention during last year's hearing? It should never have a
11 :OOPM closing time issue. It should be 10:00PM all along. We trusted you to keep law
abiding residents protected. We can not support to amend the code to make ILLEGAL become legal, not
to mention that the action is just for Blue Pheasant alone. City should make the non-comforming
become comforming and not the way around.
I just do not believe that this is the right action to take, which would ultimately facilitate running a
nightclub business in a Parks & Recreation designated zone.
When we, like many of our neighbors, purchased our homes in the Oakdell Ranch, we believed we were,
going to be living across a park and golf course with a restaurant operating under the Parks & Recreation
zoning regulations and didn't expect that it would potentially be turned into a nightclub operating per
Commercial Zoning regulations.
The late night nightclub activities continuously bring cars, noise and disturbances to our neighborhood.
Let's not spend all this time and money to find a way to legalize an operation which continues to impact
our community in a negative manner. Let us work together to build a better Cupertino for Cupertino
residents.
Best regards,
Chih- Yeuan Chang
Oakdell Ranch
ft.- 3 ~
10/11/06
labels
Kiersa Witt
From: marjan kashvad [mkashvad@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09,20064:01 PM
To: Richard Lowenthal; Patrick Kwok; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney
Cc: David Knapp; Steve Piasecki; Kiersa Witt
Subject: Application: MCA-2006-03.
October 9,2006
Subject: OPPOSING the proposed Municipal Code Amendment to amend Chapter 19.68 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code related to permitted and conditional uses in the Parks & Recreational (PR)
zones, which would allow the Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight, subject to a conditional use
permit.
Dear City Council,
The Blue Pheasant is located on PR zoned land as to which the city's Codes are specifically directed
towards regulating the land uses within publicly owned parks, to ensure a balanced enjoyment of the
park, as well as to protect the rights of the surrounding communities.
Our City ordinances and codes as defined and enforced are intended to apply to ALL Cupertino
residents equally and to protect the rights ofthe residents individually as well as collectively in the same
manner. The proposed amendment, which would effectively open up the 2-acre land in the PR zone to
commercial business operation, is an attempt to surgically remove a section of our community and
govern it under less protective and different set of rules and regulations. This amendment would
undermine the existing statutory scheme, and would call into question any future election in which
Cupertino residents vote to spend tax money in order to reserve and protect city property from particular
kinds of exploitation.
In particular, when Cupertino residents voted for the measure in 1991 to pay for the purchase of the
Blackberry Farm and the surrounding land including the Blue Pheasant, they made their decision in
reliance on the notion that the money being paid for this purchase would preserve park and recreation
land for the residents to enjoy, and not with the knowledge or expectation that a part of that park they
are still paying for would effectively become a business operated under the commercial zoning
regulations, i.e.: a nightclub operating through midnight.
This proposed Amendment, if passed, would betray citizens' trust in the Council to protect the decisions
previously made by the citizenry and will not be in the publicj:s interest. I ask you to protect our rights
by voting it down.
Thank you,
[(-J7
10/11/06
labels
Marjan Kashvad
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
il-35
10/11/06
October 9, 2006
Reference: Application No. MCA-2006-03 (Proposed Municipal Code
Amendment Related to the Blue Pheasant).
Dear Cupertino City Council,
My wife and I are unable to attend the public hearing on October 17th
and would like to let you know that we both are opposed to the zoning
amendment.
We would like to ask you to vote for protecting our parks and help
regulate the businesses run in our parks complying with park zoning
regulations.
A late night nightclub doesn't belong in a park zone surrounded by
family oriented residential homes.
Let's put our focus and energy in fostering a neighborhood friendly
restaurant serving oUr community and not a nightclub stressing our
residents and negatively affecting our community welfare.
Thank you for your consideration and support.
Best regards,
Ge~ ~e~a:::r-+-f
Oakdell Ranch
fl- ]1