.01 U-209-09 Kiddie Academy OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
' ' � CTTY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 950143255
G V P� RT �� a (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planningCcupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: May 11, 2010
Application: U-2009-09
Applicant: Cindy Cheng
Application Summary: Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to
operate at an existing commercial building located at 19875
Stevens Creek Boulevard including exterior parking lot
modifications to add an outdoor play area.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the Use
Permit U-2009-09 for an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to operate at an existing
commercial building and exterior parking lot modifications to add an outdoor play area
per the model resolution (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Comments
On January 26, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed daycare use, and
continued the item pending the completion of a parking and traffic study to address the
adequacy and safety considerations of site access and circulation, including the
operations of driveways with respect to parking, pedestrian safety, stacking, queuing
and traffic flow. The Commission also commented on the following items (Staff
comments are in italics):
1. The daycare center may not be an appropriate use for the site because of its
adjacency to retail/commercial uses and possible conflicts with those uses.
2. Lighting plan should be revised to adequately confirm lighting calculations and
address impacts to adjacent residents per the General Commercial Ordinance -
already addressed in Condition of approval no. 6
3. Lack of a secondary entrance from the rear to the daycare facility may create
circulation and parking issues - plans have been revised to add a secondary entrance in the
rear.
1-1
U-2009-09 Kiddie Academy May 11, 2010
Page 2
Public Comments
A summary of the public comments received at the previous hearing are as follows:
1. The owner of the office building to the east requested that the applicant provide an
8-foot masonry wall along the play area to buffer any new noise and visual impacts
to their tenants -Commission should decide if an 8 foot masonry wall is warranted.
2. Request that the northern masonry wall adjacent to residential uses be constructed
prior to any site improvements being allowed to minimize dust and noise impacts
on the northern residents - Commission can direct the all 8 foot masonry wall be
constructed prior to any site improvements being allowed.
3. Concerns regarding lighting impacts onto residential properties, and lack of privacy
landscaping along the northern perimeter of the property - already addressed in
Condition of approval no. 6
DISCUSSION
Per Commissiori s direction, Fehr and Peers was retained to perform a
transportation/parking analysis based on the revised site plan, which provides a
secondary entrance at the rear of the daycare center.
The traffic and parking analysis reviewed the onsite and offsite traffic, parking,
circulation and any potential impacts. In addition, field observations were conducted at
a Kiddie Academy (San Jose) in operation to confirm vehicle trips and parking intensity.
The operations were observed on a Thursday, during the typical peak hours of a
daycare center (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 5:00-7:00 p.m.). The conclusions and
recommendations from Fehr and Peers are summarized below:
Parking Demand and Supply
The parking analysis compared the proposed parking for the project with the City's
parking requirements and as well as the observed parking rates from the field surveys
(See table below):
a ���r E�c�zn�i�.ce �liserved Park�ng itate?�
R.ei�: �. sp.%�� se� ft. + �: sg.��:� chiicIren�
L��. +c�e 1 s ' f�.5 eh�ldren
�.�., � _:. . R ,
Proposed Daycare (143 22 parking spaces required 25 parking spaces required
children
Existing Furniture Store 68 parking spaces required 68 parking spaces required
16,800 s . ft. '
Total Re uired 90 arkin s aces 93 arkin s aces
Total Provided 93 arkin s aces 93 arkin s aces
Note:
"1. Ad'usted: Accounts for the maximum number of students on-site.
1-2
U-2009-09 Kiddie Academy May 11, 2010
Page 3
The project meets the parking requirements in the Ordinance as well as the field
observation rate. The Consultant observed the SJ Kiddie Academy operating at 91 % of
peak attendance (74 out of 81 children); consequently the observed parking rate was
adjusted to accommodate the peak attendance. In addition, typically parking demand
rates are adjusted with a circulation factor (5-15%) to capture vehicles that are driving
through the parking lot looking for a space. Circulation factors typically are depended
on the type of land use and parking turnover. Based on the proposed daycare use with
a very high turnover rate, the Consultant suggested a 5% circulation factor be applied to
the parking rate.
Please refer to the attached report (Attachment 5) from Fehr and Peers for detailed
explanation. It should be noted that the City has in the past approved daycare uses
under the general parking provisions prescribed by the Ordinance. However, in this
case, the Commission directed additional study be done due to concerns on the project's
unique parking lot design and circulation constraints. In either case, the proposed
parking arrangement is sufficient.
In order to maximize parking capacity for patrons of the daycare and commercial use, a
condition has been added to require employees of both uses to park in the rear parking
lot. Regarding bike parking, the Consultant recommends that the bike rack design
should be the inverted U-style consistent with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
requirements.
On-Site Vehicle Circulation and Parking
Generally, Fehr and Peers found the proposed on-site circulation and parking lot layout
to be adequate. However, the drive aisle along the westerly side of the building is
approximately 18 feet wide and is too narrow for two-way operation. The Consultant
recommends the following enhancements. The left drive aisle should be striped for one-
way northbound operation. A solid white stripe approximately five to six feet away
from the building running the length of the side of the building allowing pedestrians a
walkable space to access the front of the retail store from the back parking lot
The Consultant also notes that in the event vehicles enter into the one-way front
parking lot and do not find a space, they will have to exit back out onto Stevens Creek
Boulevard, reenter the site and drive to the rear parking spaces using the driveway to
the west of the building. It is not anticipated that a substantial amount of vehicles
would perform this maneuver because parents generally know when and where spaces
are available to drop-off or pick-up their children based on their daily routines.
Staff recommends that a condition be added to require all daycare users to park in the
rear parking lot so that the front parking lot is reserved for the retail tenant. A similar
condition was required at the Growing Tree Montessori School across the street where
1-3
U-2009-09 Kiddie Academy May 11, 2010
Page 4
the front parking lot was reserved for Chicago Title. This will ensure that the success
of the retail tenant and significantly simplify the vehicular movements. Any concerns
on the potential impacts from activities in the rear parking lot will be mitigated by the
new eight foot masonry wall and the added landscaping screening along the northern
property line.
Off-site Circulation
According to the Transportation analysis, the on-site pedestrian circulation and site
access are considered adequate, and there were no other concerns related to stacking for
the adjacent rear driveway that exits onto North Portal Avenue.
In addition, no significant project impacts associated with off-site vehicle queuing were
identified. However, the Consultant is recommending that adjustments be made to the
signal timing at Stevens Creek Boulevard/North Portal Avenue and the left-turn pocket
on North Portal Avenue be restriped and extended to accommodate traffic going
southbound on Portal Avenue making a left turn onto Stevens Creek Boulevard from
the project site. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that a revised site
plan be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
Lighting
Per the General Commercial (CG) Zoning Ordinance, the project lighting has to be
shielded so that the light is completely contained within the project site and doesn t
shine on to the adjacent residential properties. The applicant intends to comply with this
requirement. In addition, a masonry sound wall and privacy trees will be provided to
screen views from the site. Staff has also included a condition that the applicant shall
provide a complete lighting plan that meets the lighting requirements of the CG
Ordinance to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior
to building permit issuance.
Additional lssues for the Commission's Consideration
At the last hearing, the residential neighbors to the north have requested that the
northern wall be constructed first to provide adequate screening during construction. In
addition, the office property owner to the east has requestec� inat a new inasonry wall be
constructed along the property's eastern property line.
1. The Commission can direct the all 8-foot masonry wall on the northern property line
be constructed prior to any site improvements being allowed to help further abate
dust and noise impacts on the northern residents.
The General Commercial (CG) Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 8-foot high sound
wall between commercial and residential properties.
1-4
U-2009-09 Kiddie Academy May 11, 2010
Page 5
2. The Commission should also decide if an 8-foot masonry wall is warranted on the
east property line, as requested by the easterly neighbor to minimize any potential
noise and visual impacts.
The applicant is currently proposing a wrought iron fence and landscaping along the
eastern border. The noise analysis conducted by Environmental Consultant Services
concluded that the project will not have significant noise impacts to the adjacent uses.
In addition, the first floor of the adjacent office building is about four feet higher than
the level of the pay area (putting the windows at about seven feet above the play area,
further reducing any noise impacts from the play area).
Day Care Use in the Heart of the City Specific Plan
On February 16, 2010, the City Council approved amendments to the Heart of the City
Specific (HOC) Plan. The new HOC plan, which went into effect on April 16, 2010,
limits child care centers and other uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods
or services to no more than 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and/ or 50 % of the rear of the building. Prior to the revision, there was no
limitation on the frontage occupied by such uses. The intent of the new provision is to
ensure that non-retail uses such as a daycare and associated operation will not hinder
successful retail.
Kiddie Academy proposes to occupy 33% of the building frontage. Due to the fact that
the project was submitted on December 9, 2009 (prior to the date that the HOC plan
went into effect) and with the condition that requires all daycare users to park in the
rear parking lot, staff is recommending approval of the project as proposed.
Reviewed by: Approved by:
G '
Gary Ch o arti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Model Resolution
Attachment 2 Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 26, 2010
Attachment 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 26, 2010
Attachment 4 Plan Set (with revised sheet indicating a new rear access, A-1a)
Attachment 5 Fehr and Peers Transportation Analysis dated May 5, 2010
G � Planning � PDREPORT � pc U reports � 2009ureports � U-2009-09 _PC OS-11-2010.doc .
1-5
Attachment 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAYCARE CENTER
IN A COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 19875 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2009-09
Applicant: Cindy Cheng
Location: 19875 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, as amended, and the purpose of this title;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: _
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for the Use Permit is hereby recommended for
approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. U-2009-09, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May
11, 2010, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein.
1-6
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Kiddie Academy of Cupertino, CA;
Cupertino Business Plaza, 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA" consisting
of 9 pages labeled pages A-0, A-1, A-1a, A-2, A-3, A-4, L-1, E-0 and 1 except as
may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. USE APPROVAL
Approval is granted to allow a daycare center with an outdoor playground with
a maximum daily attendance of 143 children. The number of children may be
increased without use permit modification if the applicant can demonstrate
adequate parking supply for all tenant uses to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development and that the increase is consistent with any applicable
Building and/or Fire Codes (including but not limited to accessibility, fire safety,
and building occupancy.
3. NOISE CONTROL
Noise levels shall not exceed those as listed in Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code.
4. RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT
The applicant shall record a reciprocal access easement benefiting the adjoining
properties (to the east and west) and make the necessary improvements to open
up the parking lot to the property to the east.
5. DAYCARE PARKING
In order to ensure the success of the retail tenant, all daycare users shall park in
the rear parking lot. In addition, at least six (6) designated parking spaces for
pick-ups or drop-offs shall be provided in the rear parking lot. Appropriate
signs for the pick-up/ drop-off spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to final occupancy approval.
Appropriate directional sign shall be posted at the dr:��eway entr�nce to direct
daycare patrons to the rear parking lot. The location and design of the
directional sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to final occupancy approval.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall submit a final landscaping plan to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. The final landscaping plan shall
be consistent with the City's Xeriscape Landscaping Ordinance (including the
1-7
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 3
latest State mandate on water efficiency) and use drought tolerant and pest
resistant plant species to the maximum extent possible. In addition, the shrubs
planted along the easterly property line must be verified by a professional
arborist as appropriate for privacy screening purposes or they must be replaced
with appropriate shrubs/trees suitable for screening mitigation.
7. LIGHTING
All lighting shall conform to the standards in the General Commercial (CG)
Ordinance. All lighting source shall not be visible from the adjacent residential
properties and shall be designed to not spill over into the residential property to
the north. The final lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
8. SOUND WALL
The applicant shall install an eight-foot masonry sound wall along the easterly
property boundary to further buffer any potential noise and/or visual impacts.
The applicant shall submit a final wall design to the City for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
9. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered
major by the Director of Community Development.
10. REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates
that the conditions of this use permit have not been implemented, or where the
use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, the Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the
decision maker granting the original use permit, and notice a public hearing in
accordance with Section 19.124.040 of the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance.
11. GREEN BUILDING MEASURES
The applicant is encouraged to incorporate green building measures when
feasible and/ or appropriate. The green building measures may include but are
not limited to: low VOC paints, maximizing recycled ��ailding m�terials, using
porous concrete, using energy efficient mechanical equipments and lighting
(including solar energy), maximizing onsite water retention, and using draught
tolerant and pest resistant landscaping.
12. DESIGNATED DAYCARE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP
The applicant shall submit a final site design to the City for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits demonstrating adequate drop-off and pick-
up locations in the front and rear parking areas per the Transportation
Consultants recommendations. In addition, a sign designating the pick-up/
1-8
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 4
drop-off spaces shall be installed. The sign shall include the time periods of
operation, and a time limit for the space. After the Kiddie Academy begins
operation, the number of pick-up and drop-off spaces shall be reviewed to
determine if additional designated pick-up and drop-off spaces are needed.
13. EMPLOYEE PARKING
In order to maximize parking capacity the retail tenant, the employees from the
businesses associated with this center shall park in the rear parking lot.
14. LEFT DRIVE AISLE
The left drive aisle shall be striped for one-way northbound operation. A solid
white stripe approximately five to six feet away from the building running the
length of the side of the building would allow pedestrians a walkable space to
access the front of the retail store from the back parking lot. The applicant shall
submit a final site design to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
15. BIKE PARKING DESIGN
The bike parking spaces shall be provided via inverted U-style design. The
applicant shall submit a final bike parking design to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
16. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The project shall conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
applicant shall submit a final site design to the City for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits.
18. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
1-9
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 5
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
19. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
The developer shall install traffic signal improvements at the Stevens Creek
Blvd/Portal Avenue intersection. The improvements include lengthening the
southbound left-turn pocket as directed by the City Engineer, and funding
emergency vehicle pre-emption equipment.
20. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BNIl'
plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans.
21. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
Should pavement replacement exceed the 10,000 square feet threshold, the
Developer will be required to satisfy the state mandated c.3 stormwater
treatment requirements.
Should this happen, the developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable
surface area for the placement of storm water treatment facilities on the tentative
map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan to satisfy c.3 requirements
is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source
control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which
must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water
Management Plan (subject to third party review), Storm Water Facilities
Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance
Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment
BMPs are required.
22. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be ��ated on the_plans.
23. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, �he developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show
the timetable for all erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
24. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department
is needed prior to obtaining a building permit.
1-10
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 6
25. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager
in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development.
26. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County
Fire Department as needed.
27. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of
the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
28. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area.
29. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from any agencies with easements on the property
(including PG&E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and/ or equivalent
agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits.
30. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County
Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits.
31. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers system shall be reconfigured in any remodeled or reconfigured
area of the interior of this occupancy. Final fire �rotection plans shall be
submitted to the City for A Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans,
calculations and a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this
department for review and approval new construction to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
32. PLAYGROUND ACCESS
The fenced-in playground shall not obstruct emergency access to the building.
Gates to this area must conform to the applicable provisions of CFC 503.6 and
506.
1-11
Resolution No. U-2009-09 May 11, 2010
Page 7
33. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary
District prior to issuance of building permits.
34. SANITARY DISTRICT
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary
District, including fees and/ or permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11� day of May 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
1-12
Attachment 2
CiTY OF
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
� Cupertino, CA 95014
C U P E RT I N O (408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: Tanuar,v 26, 2010
Application: U-2009-09
Applicant/Owner: Cindy Cheng
Property Location: 19875 Stevens Creek Boulevard
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
USE PERMIT (U-2009-09) to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to operate at an
existing commercial building. The application also includes a new outdoor play area in the
existing rear parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Use Permit
per the model resolution to the City Council.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designation: P(Mixed Use Planned Development)
Specific Plan: Heart of the City
Acreage (Net): 1.78 acres (77,537 square feet)
Building SF: 25,200 square feet
Building Height: 26 feet (one-story)
Floor Area Ratio: 32.5 % �
Parking: 93 spaces
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt
1-13
Kiddie Academy Daycare Center U-2009-09 January 26, 2010
Page 2
BACKGI�4UNI�:
The proj�ct site is l�cated at 19875 Stevens Creek Boulevard on the narth side of Stevens
Creek Boulevard, between Blaney Avenue and �'ortal Avenue. �he site is Iocated east Qf
the Cupertino Executive Suites and �vest of Yoshinoya restaurant and an affice building.
There are single family residences to the north of the site and to the south are townhomes
and the IVlarketplace Shopping Center. Currently the site is occupied by a furniture store.
_ ` .w. _. .
-- - _ - - -
� �. � ____ _ �,. _ : ..�..�
F ' � '.
� �
. � � ' � �' `"' �t`� _ . � �, � , � .
x o- mr., ,i� .. ,cf . . :' f ..� .
�',. '� .`� K ,. vr - 7 �. . 7.c ��<! ' :.]It � � ` . � R
M` ( . . f �`f�-^l �.� � � �� y •!• �� F � (� 4. �
y
�. _ •r � " s; + f� � � , � .
�� ' , . � �. � � . �o � � � r: n �� P � � +. � � � *
� :
, , � ._ , * .
., , ,
L r��✓
- . . � � ,:. . . , ,. ' .. , . c .,
f.g� k
1 '8: r � ��'� � . �.�,. �_..da'71-_.�fu'C�(�'.z :�3rY.....� •s: t�":,,,�<.5.. .n:.i� �. ..a.e.':.1�rer .a+H ,yy��
� �@' sR
'y! + ��� ��.a r 1� � �. , � :. � ��.4A,2^v � F ' . ..� h � - Y .
. .. �''"M'� r. " e'� . ,A� .o� '' f�
y�. � ^ e . w; °t 2+ -�i r � r+� � . _ _
...Yit '� � �� di .,, � � � ..�- � i," � '. F:' �r; � � g� � � -��� . l -
. , ...,,�:.
'..' ,
, , r � " � �� - � �`. � ' � .. . ^ j �� � � � Lr „�,�� �.yr�
. �
�' � ,.
` _��
. �N;.
p �. Y i• � , ,
��P"y�+fr,� ~ �' � �� ' "^''� .. � �`,
� y �, r � �, � �. �
� ��� � � ,�+�._«u '� yF'.s � y " a:' s s� � 't�: �- „a r i ;r F a � _ � � _ �
, � �� �' `y' ! �. � �;' ,. . � � #5 "� . t' ."� 1 t �� � - :;� ` �I€.3 � �' � �&;. 'e
, � ;r���.';
, y �
t . ��{ � . . . ..� H._.. ,, .� � ' ',��! .;: A �'`F. . r `` 4
°.�.. � Y :J w' � � � • � + t :�"� �� T � � 'i � � � � � � � � RS
� � � �l . . ... . .. ` �
f ���� - C h �^F� x�' .�4� � •�i��,��tr�"'k ;� . ''v*'; . . ' '
.� � � ����� � �`
�4 � , ,f , ,� --, ;'- .
A �l.a»xs� r`, , rF ` ., "v� �. �x'" 3 e..: �:. �'e.. ,� �. _ .
y , ; . .- , c� . r' . . b i' i'�.' •
.,r i'w
.- w ' . '. . ��. :� �. � .�.
� � � .' � � .. �7'>'Y,�. .i ' .
� il
. , r � , � �- r���• .� � ._.
� ` M JF � ?
. _ � y � �`�'... A
.� r ,.
,, ,
_. 4r ,. � z�� � -.w
- ,
� • �� - � ' • � '7�'1 . . . � �'�i�... .
. -
.. : � ,�,1�1 �'� ^ i '; o
�
�„ - '1S' .,+.5 :}.., •. . �� , y ..; �"� ��-y n, .. �^�° '�'l'� a
' � „ � . r . �. c - � Y' ..:` ' . . , . ;�. e �.av`� yr--•.��',�.� . ..r� . '�€�,T� �$ . � '
{ a *
� �� `
�::' ` � � ,,; �'l� � � ��* , _� `
� �{,, �' ti. . . +,� .
.A:� 4 e..� x'.�� ' ; �.. , � N � �," � , 1 � �'�� �� f . . Y # � ' y� .�- . � *
�y,� r • 91� a , ;� p ,� .� t : .
� _ *''.
. , . �
. . , .
��. .�...:.c�r.. ,. , . -� � . f
`��.�. r � '- sJ., � ! � . r .� � `. ;��. y �
� � q � s � 3 � � .� � �.w . .. .� r � �+Y. �y.:�. ..,t.4.. . . � . —' �r . �1'°; f��.` , _ _+-�� ���` �:�r
.�rF� tk�
�.°i�'e����; _ '^' �'�`'" ..�+ .,. ._.,,w�.t�,•::��'� � .�► �' . Hi�•w
,
. � � . .. . . . . .. . .. . : � . . . : ., . ., .. . . � .. � � -.. , . E . ` .: . .
. . . .. � ' . . . - � � �.i'::
. �-i 5 . - ...
� - �''.p F,: . � . . . . . .
. .. . < ... . . Y:. - -
. ,fi'�' ..�� ♦ .
� - . . �M1. i r � � ' _
i..�S1 ` -� ' � �� +L.� ,
� 7d�',.'�tt . y, ', y ,,�
3
I � 4v ��': �.. � � �, }`:�� � `�� � �
, .., �` i:.:n�' �� . " � ..f�N►�s � 3 � t i .
�- ,... „ "'""- �••a .-���..:.�,en��`�� �;�.. �
�{ ��' � .'"_ • ��'�` y i°.TaK - `�r � � t s: � � � �� .
`� � . { t TT ����_ � ,�v' ,� :
� �iR:: F I;a� ��` x� �
, .. � � �� - - ' �'�. - �,
,�µ . :-, , ,
q#*��,i. -. :- -' • - . � c.� r _ .. . —�'.'.� _.---._ .._ ._ ,.�.s� y � �i. , �' _�� _:.
On january 22 , 2008, an Architectural Site Approval was approved for modifications to the
existing 25,200 square foot CQI7lI�T1eI Clal �1.�11C11IZb 1IZC� IJaI k1I1b lot improvements (ASA-
ZOO7 t0 aCCOI11I7lOC�atC f�12 COI1Ve�`SIOI1 Of t�12 Ia1b2 S1IZble telZaTlf SjJc1CC 121t0 flffe�I1 (15)
f211aIZt S�aCeS. T�Ze d��IlCd11t �1aS C�E'C1C�2C� IZOt �O p10CeeCI Wlt�1 f�12 �aTb2 fEI1dIZf COIZVE'1'S10IZ
projecf and instead proposes a daycare use to take up approxiznately 8,400 square foot of
existing builc�ing space (approximately 33 % af the total building space).
DISCLJSSION:
Pro�osed Da�yca re Use
Accordulg to the General Commercial Zoning �istrict, daycare centers require a LJse
Permit. In addition, the propQSed project requires final appro�cTal by the City Council due
to its siz.e being in excess of 5,000 square feet.
1-14
Kiddie Academy Daycare Center U-2009-09 January 26, 2010
Page 3
The daycare provider, Kiddie Academy, provides the following operational information:
Day of operation: Monday thru Friday
Hours of operation: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. (staff recommends 7:OOa.m. - 6:30p.m.)
Maximum Capacity: 143 children (Infant to school age)
Childcare Staff: 15
Administration: 3
Typically, special considerations are required to allow businesses to open prior to 7 a.m.
based on the General Commercial Zoning requirements. Given the project's proximity to
residential use and the hours of operation associated with recent daycare approval across
the street (Growing Tree - 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.), staff recommends that the hours of
operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Outdoor Plat/ Area
State law requires that daycare centers provide outdoor play areas for children. The
applicant intends to meet the state requirement by providing approximately 5,050 square
foot of play area directly behind the daycare center. The location would enable the
children to use the play area without having to cross the driveway or parking lot. The play
area is set back 76 feet from the residential property line to the north, 16 feet from the
property to the east and 220 feet from the property to the west (see site aerial on page 3 of
the staff report).
The proposed play area will consist of:
• Three (3) play structures, divided by age group, and individually fenced
• Grass landscaping around play structures
• Six (6) foot perimeter fence
• Protective bollards around the north and west perimeter of the play area, spaced
every five (5) feet to protect fence from cars (If warranted, Planning Commission
may require additional curbing along the perimeter of the play area to provided
further protection).
• Landscaping near the perimeter fence �
Parking Lot Connectivity
The General Plan (Policy 4-9) encourages properties with frontages on major streets (i.e.,
Stevens Creek Boulevard) and secondary streets (i.e., North Portal Avenue/ North Blaney
Avenue) to provide direct access to driveways from the secondary streets in order to
improve public safety and vehicular circulation. In commercial areas, cross connections
and shared driveways between commercial properties enhance pedestrian activities and
facilitate for more efficient use of land/site design. All of these factors can help bolster
businesses and shopping activities. Consequently, it has been a common practice of the
City to require reciprocal access easements and/ or physical improvements to facilitate
parking and driveway connections between commercial properties.
1-15
Kiddie Academy Daycare Center U-2009-09 january 26 , 2010
Page 4
In the early 1980s the City required the adjacent (easterly and ��esterly) property o�nTners
to record reciprocal access agreeinents as part of their development approval with the
intent to complete a drivevvay corulection along the rear of th� properties from North
Blaney Avenue to North Porfal Avenue.
� � �.-. -�wr �.p�"i d r t —`-.., — � -�- ws ..� — *�:. _ 7i .-� .1 � :� -
� k � � � k.�. � � '' f I� ♦ � � �
.4 � w i6s .� � Y� �, •' +tN � ���� ' ! t *'. w. �- ' �T�. F���
� . r
�.�`� �.....� � M � ._.. t "�" � . S,� � :'� �� '' � ":��1",K- '`
a
� . a , l�,{�� " �"--- ��.� -.�- � . � s ._ ... _ � � ..�. , , F � y� ' .,�,�`� '�,:, .. - � R � � ��� � �
y � � �.
� _ . . -� � , ; �_ �. . ; . . . . . - ,
e _ _ _.,_ ... .�._..u: ,r�,xyyn.. �, _.e. b e ""'e',� � � .._ !.�
�� �� � � � � � � .�.", o � ?� ..' .�
�'�`-- � � 9 ��.� � �� ;- .� . .. . ..� � �:.
' "°"" `� � � � �''; '�
lik ' _< �: .;.� � �_.� �-y..�. � l �: r i ..,1 �"'
, - � s — � _.... ._.
. ... . � , N r ��" iW - � .. �� .�
� I � � . .�..�
f i�� . . ���� ��� ��•9F" .. �'r . -.i� � . ai� � t ;.:� ��� �.'' � � �� � � .
._ _ . . � ,J r' ,�' � ��.. . L� . . . � . , •,. � } 'r , � . �� � .11, .
� �� ' [Z�.. � i'� �f� , I ��-. . , i .. . .,
f �`�' j � , #�_,,. �, � � � � s t�'
. � � Y Nyb,.� _ "S`� . 'f . � � -� '� . _ M ,j � } �� r . �`� � -� :..; . �
� • ' i. i � .. . �. , ,. - r � � lY.�rf�?? 1 ,. ` ,m+"y •.
{p �t �'kAli 1 � {���,y l •;�{ � . ., , � . ".!� :r � 1
c.� �;� «.�#.�.M�F.aK° - �".. .. _. {�� - .
� .1'� . .aC. SAt .
� � ` � � ��� � � .-,�;. � '"
- � ' , . _ : ,,.,. ,. , .��`
w , , >• .f.. �...
.k- � . � .., • �. _. , . •
� .. �,� : f .. ] , , ... i � � _ . � � � �a.��
L .. . ` kYsa 1� .. .p.� . J i4^ ���� � i r,.. 'i' �'t
`��� 'A� � n � �ii . . � :, . _ .. .,.�.. _ t i � ; �# „ � i� �t � .. ''.e ,ra
T
• . ,.. '�
� ,..,. � 3a+.�wc , . ,�,.,,,,... yy � . „a�, � �.. � , .. - --. . . . . . - - ---..
. ' •- � � ��14
� � , h; �%a�... " � r/��•� . ' �t r . .r _
*,
. .�
� .:��. ,,. ...: . �,� :a.r.� r t �i�r�R. � . _ CT� + ., F'Y .. . . .
� � _ . > > . ... � T�X?G�ri. L� :. � '.i.: . 1. .c ��h a • sr: ; . ` - . . � . . . � � r• . . .. ��,
� �{w � .' y . Mb-.JAF
. '�-� , �Y �9M r i y � � _�. _ �:i� . :��'�� �'�S�k � +�
.
. �,
, ri4 . ..� . . . . .
i — x
' ), ' � " A' - . , r.rw�wx '�.+
� � .,
, �
, �
., �•► � y `�' � ' +� � ';aAR� t u�'xb. '°Fi+�. ,*`.�... � �'F
. . � � '� ° ��`� � , ' � `� .. h
..... ....,� . .. � . __ .. .�{> .�" . �...�..z' _,,.lr:_. ._. � _ ._ _�'. _�...��:.
North Bl�1ey Avenue to North Portal r`�venue Connection
Reciprocal Driz�ez�.�a y Access � I��Zprovernejzts
As part of this approval, the applicant is required to record a reciprocal access easement
benefi�ing the adjoining properties (to the east and west) and make the zzecessary
improvements to operz up tlze parkillg lot to the adjacent properties.
Based on the current parking lat colzfiguratioil of the adjoining commercial properties, the
following improvements are necessary to realize the parking lof �oiuzections to the
adjoining properties.
• For the co�ulection between the project , - --��. _ . _i - �:=�.. :�� ; .-- ... ;
r �. _- . • r _ , , �
site and the property to the east ' � `~�� . � � " =
, ,� -,r— , � � �
im rovement would include the ��. ' ; �';� � � � -, ' �.. .-� ',_ _ �
� . ,, �\ ,
� : i , �� := �.�. ,
relocation of a li�ht pole, and the .� ,�,, � --
. � .. ,� `� � — ,�
removal of a ortion of an 2X1St111� ��� •� ,:�
p b , , �
planter s�rip and a chain link fencing `' _' ; ���.�'� �,,,� :; : � _ ." y� � � .
that borders the two properties. No :-n�t r� �: �� ±- "�r� Y �. � ��� �• � :'� 4
a. � � � -., . ' .3; rw_
�� ti f , : � �i�., r, � ta ,�, , . ,
U arkirl� stalls ��Till be dis laced. ( see ;� l• `y ;".�,� :,''f f �� n ' ,��. � � y �,,. - . - - ,��.:�.
1 b � \ ...,. _ • • ?'`,:}'� .�S_�`. d�h
icture to the ri�ht) - ` � � i . ` �� ' �`r °.�
� '�' � ,,; :� ' ;
� b ' •' �., t ' � �yt � .;
� � � � 1 , i . �Pl�� �� ��:t� 'T: ' � j � ' . �� • �
. i��"? d i d �.. � ..�:, n - "la , ;
.,+� �.� 't T. � `�it�th: ♦ k�. :... . - � -
:Lv1 t�u., �'Y�R,... . r "�., r � . • . -. , .... , . . � � e ��'1 � '�5.�~�^r.. � -r.. �
`_. _ _ .. i,A..:VAC��wi \ �
. ��
East Coz
1-16
Kiddie �cademy Daycare Center LT-2009-09 Januar}T 26, 2010
Page 5
• For the connection bet�veen the project ; � F, s°�� ���''�t������;� ��' � Ai -��*
� -1.� �� ` ��;, 'i� y �.�' � sa . ��..� � .r� � S
and the property to the wes�, ,� �` ��� ����;����, AF -�
. f F c � Tr ' t , �J� J
im rovements �vould entail the `t � �� ��`-�` �` �� ��g "���:"
� ;� . �.- - �° ¢y � ., - � :
^'��� . aC �� � _ - � , {
deletialz and/or removal of �� , . �� ��A ,�. ;
'� � 't � %� . � �. �. . ,� ` _ Y
a raximatel four arkin� stalls, the � ' i``` 'T � j:M- � ° � �' -, ;' v ,
�� Y p b � , ,. � - �.
- �,; � , ;� , �
'� j0 ' r- � 1 t a �''�'� r. '.�'. :'�+�
existinb chain link fencing, two trees, �..,. -,.�. ��°`��°�'� '�"°� � �
� "".�""_ t -" - � ' ,y . ; i1 � � ei, � �°�'`
and an existing curUec� planter (see �: . �-- �- _ .,.. ._.� �-� �- �
, .
� ,M C . }.1 t ' � R
�
_ .,.,..� ....... ��
! , . . , : , . ` '�'�',,,,.'".
pictures bela�nj). � � � �' �"�"�°�`�'�� ��
�
. "�' - . � ��'�. 4 . -r �� , r .. w � .�
.. . . � �� � . «.�. �(a . '�
.� :,�
_ '�,. '1. , � -v.�� �
���est Connection
Both of the property owners of fhe adjoining sites have revie�ved the project. The properfy
o�vner to the east supports the new parking lot desigtz (including a new coruzection along
the easterly property 1u1e) provided that noise aizd vehicular circulation concerns from the
day care operatian are addressed (see Attachment 1, noise and �Tehicular circulation
discussed Iater in the staff report).
,_. _ : _ __ ._.____ _ _ . _ _ � _ __ _
The property owner to the � °; �.'�� �- �-~- �� �° • � . � � � �
M- � �� ; {'�T �t r.
!'�� � . . � ��'� �
west is opposed to having � _ � -- � �, . .�_ �. °� �; �a:
, . �,; , ' . � u ,, i� �� ;i+��
�... ��I y 6 � �,w.�`� ������....',. �", � �
any new coiuzection with the '�_ � :��� � � N. ,
. � ��� y : ;,� . . , ,.�
project because of concerns y � � ��. ,eIf.
� ;-�
'�� ' �� ' ���� V �� � � � �
r � �FF ' 7 �: .Y: t'. s � x � �i .d� , � . � � F
with security issues and �� � . ��fi p � - �� �. r - f --� , � � � ,�� � ° f
.. , � � I � I I �• � I I I • �r ��� �� Gx~
potential cut through traffic. � -�` - _ ` - , �' �"�
�_ _ ,
�. `� . r �� c. _ , , t �# .y 'X 7 n � �
Staff therefore recoi�1rrtends � �� � J ��.��� _ - � - �' �� � � �= g�
�' ..� c
'9� . .3'� 4 .�if���.����', _ i ��i_ i � �.�:lc!
that the arkin lot on the ,.' � � , +�- . �� � � �' '�� _ � � : � —.` • ::;:a � , ;' � r -°�_ .�
p g � "�� ' �� ^ - ' . ' .r , � +
a a :�" ;'�. � i
project sife be desi�zed� to - � � _ F a,�* - �_ , .. _ `-�:. � -.
` ' �r� ��: p. �
accommodate the future _� ��° ����;; -- - - : �;
��, ;�� . �
7 '� arkina lot coruzections �'�� �
: ���
I" �7 . - � . � F��"`.::_' ....
�,
.
�: . ., :
. �, :� : t I : c� E
between with the property ;�,,, -, _ : ..,,
� "'' �; � Z _ . -. �' Tl ti ,,.
to the west. Physical ` '�' " ~�
,�: ��,
bi� p ��F � � .� � ,y �
�`
, � i �����t.. ��jr���� � '�'.�" � - �� �
,�
im rovements fo the �. ��h�� q ,a-.
�. �
a ti��a ,� +
p �w� - 1 � - ���' .
��- . I1���� F�Y'. . .,..,...il�., .. . . `..,
western property will not be �� :�-K ,. ._ �: � ,�; - ��. � . � ;: �
�
..Y; r .: . yr°; . .' :.: -is;.
required until such time that ' �� ' :,
' � �� ( �is r ra �
� � f � - F }Rl' r f y �Wal4�
�, .� afi ' � �.. A,,,� _ ;�- _ tcy �
a project triggering City y. � :$ � �; , . . � : : �_ � ° . " . u..
. . . .
( , �:�.a"*w;I T . ^,..s �':+�4F �...�' x � 3GT ' sa � � � �im. ,. :_ � . ` '
discretionary review is _ _ : ,,. z . -�
x y* .ewe�' ! , �,:�'t , w ;� " [� �' L„ �
. . `� L,4ri . "•.. ^ . . .. . '� � " � ....M-.Kr..w� ` � N. - ,
re uired. �� � �t.` � y� ,�: .;. � _ � �
q ��, +t�, � .:is,.� — _ �-- �n � _ . R;� � e•,:..
���� r_' i't�".: , c:.. w
�... . __
, ,
.. ,. - - - ' �a..�: �
. t`.'» . , � . s _ :15D_h
� '�; . 4
,,,�, �� g� ^ �..
� �: ��-'� � � � a ti �. ... . ,.
i t`:+-, �.�f.�y'1� 0.'v��..a�.�..... __++S`s �.a�45&,i�'.:..�ss ��' ... - �w•.
1-17
Kiddie Academy Daycare Center U-2009-09 January 26, 2010
Page 6
Additional Site Improvements on the Project Site:
As part of this application, the applicant will be providing additional site improvements
including new trees wells, landscape planters and swales, the existing asphalt will be
resurfaced and repaired, and new light fixtures will be provided where needed. Please
refer to Attachment 4 and the plan set for the detailed list of all of the improvements.
A condition has also been added requiring the submittal of a final landscaping plan to the
City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The final landscaping
plan shall be consistent with the City's Xeriscape Landscaping Ordinance (including the
latest State mandate on water efficiency) and use drought tolerant and pest resistant plant
species to the maximum extent possible. In addition, the shrubs planted along the
easterly property line must be verified by a professional arborist as appropriate for privacy
screening purposes or they must be replaced with appropriate shrubs/trees suitable for
screening mitigation.
A condition has also been added requiring that all new lighting shall conform to the
standards in the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance, and the final lighting plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building
permit issuance.
Noise
A noise impact and mitigation study was conducted by Environmental Consulting
Services to evaluate the potential noise impacts on adjacent properties by the proposed
daycare. The noise engineer visited local daycare centers with similar size play areas and
with similar number of children playing outside to establish the baseline noise levels. The
primary noticeable noise would be intermittent and brief in the play area. With the types
of activities typical of daycare play areas, the number of kids estimated to be outside at
any given time (a maximum of 28 children at one time), and the distances between each
age-related play area, these activities would be within the City Noise Ordinance limits,
and would not be expected to create any noise impacts in adjacent areas (please see
Attachment 5 for the detailed noise analysis). In addition, the General Commercial Zoning
Ordinance (19.56.070 E.d.) requires a minimum 8-foot high sound wall between a retail
and residential properties. The applicant will be increasing the height of the existing
concrete masonry wall from 6 feet to 8 feet along the northern border, which will help
provide visual and noise screening to the adjacent residences. -
The owner of the office building to the east has requested that the applicant provide an 8-
foot masonry wall along the play area to buffer any new noise and visual impacts to their
tenants. The applicant is currently proposing a wrought-iron fence and landscaping along
the eastern border. The noise analysis indicates no significant impacts to adjacent uses. In
addition, the first floor of the adjacent office building is about four feet higher than the
level of the play area (putting the windows at about seven feet above the play area which
will further reduce noise from the play area.
1-18
Kiddie Academy Daycare Center U-2009-09 January 26, 2010
Page 7
Although the noise study and the physical conditions do not indicate that there will be
noise impacts, staff has added a condition requiring a new masonry wall to be installed
along the easterly property boundary for the Planning Commissiori s consideration.
Trash Enclosure
Applicant is providing a new trash enclosure, located toward the northwest corner of the
rear parking area. The final trash enclosure design will be reviewed by the Community
Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
��/ �� �
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Attachment 1: Neighbor Comment Letters/Emails
Attachment 2: Plan set
Attachment 3: Site Improvement List
Attachment 4: Public Works Memorandum
Attachment 5: Noise Stud�
Attachment 6: Kiddie Academ� Operational Information
Attachment 7: Kiddie Academ� Pla� Area Units, b� Playzuorld S�stems
G: � Planning � PDREPORT � pc U reports � 2009ureports � U-2009-09.doc
1-19
Attachment 3
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 26, 2010
arti Shrivastava:
• Said it only worked as a second unit; anything beyond that, the threshold of having to eet
t to create new lots is something that staff would not support; nor would th support
con s. It could be memorialized so that that anybody who purchases it ' the future,
underst s that.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she did not have reference; she felt it was unlikely t someone would want to further
subdivide. She acknowle d what staff said but said it s just something that came up.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was willing to let it slide unless e is a strong feeling otherwise. Whether or not to
put in the clause on the green buildin oul ey do a count or a formal vote.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Leave as is.
Vote: Motion faile . -3-0.
Motion: otion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1-0, m. Giefer
voted No; to approve Application U-2009-07, ASA-2009-07, TM-2009-0 er the
model resolution.
.._____� 2. U-2009-09 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility
`!—" Cindy Cheng (Cupertino to operate at an existing commercial building. The
Investment Partners, LLC) application also includes a new outdoor play area in the
19875 Stevens Creek Blvd existing rear parking lot. Tentative City Council date:
February 16, 2010.
Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for a Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to
operate in an existing commercial building, including a new outdoor play area in the existing
rear parking lot; as outlined in the staff report.
• She reviewed the proposed daycare use, parking lot connectivity, drop off/pick up area; key
site improvements; outdoor play area; and noise. Staff recommends that the hours be
restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in accordance with other daycares in the city.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council.
• Answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application.
• A discussion ensued regarding the parking, traffic circulation and drop off/pick up. Com.
Miller expressed concern about the potential traffic generated from the proposed daycare
center through neighbors' parking lots. Staff said the ideal solution would be to merge the
driveway and have one driveway, so that there is not a fence in between; which is the most
efficient way of maximizing space for setback and landscaping and efficiency purposes.
• Said in this case, they are fixed with the situation; they have the project site to deal with the
circulation and cannot presently touch any of the other infrastructures currently there without
consent from the adjacent property owners. Both the Fire Department and Public Works
Department looked at those concerns. Similar to the other school project, there can be a
condition to ensure that certain features are addressed or that some circulation be re-evaluated;
Public Works and the Fire Department can provide feedback and make sure that it is on solid
gound before the project is approved and the building permit is issued.
1-20
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 26, 2010
Cindy Cheng, Applicant:
• Said she felt the day care facility would be an asset to the City of Cupertino.
� Responded to Com. Miller's concern about traffic circulation. She said that leaving the
opening time at 6:30 a.m. would help the circulation because the earlier operations begin, the
earlier the parents can drop off and the retailers don't open until much later.
Com. Miller:
• Said that there would need to be very clear signage to make sure people are going in the right
direction, and starting earlier would help in the morning. The main issue is the pick up in the
afternoon; will there be staggered hours; what is the potential for a large number of people
coming by to pick up children all in the same half hour or hour period?
• In terms of the driveway on the west side to get to the rear parking area; would it be one way
or two way? (Response: two way).
Cindy Cheng:
• Said that the original plan to subdivide and leasing the space in the back to single tenants with
rear entries to the site, was no longer being considered because of the economy and
construction costs. They chose to go with bigger tenants and dividing it into two-three
maximum tenants with Stevens Creek frontage and back exit.
Chris Camarada, Kiddy Academy:
• With regard to the drop off, parents generally start dropping off children about 6:30 a.m.; it
differs from a school in that the program does not start at 6:30 a.m. and 148 cars will not be
coming to the building. The parents will come in about 10 minute increments of time and
somewhere between 7 and 12 parents will come at that time. In terms of the stacking issue, it
is not really a drop off where a teacher walks out to a car, gets the child and brings him into
the building; parents are required to park and escort their child into the building and enter a
PIN code into a security lock so that they can bring their child into the classroom. That time
takes about 7 to 10 minutes; the parent then leaves the building, gets back into their car. Pick
up is the same type of scenario.
Com. Miller:
• Is there a pick up place in the back for the afternoon?
• Said that potentially there may be a problem with the parent and child walking in the driveway
to get to the front of the house, while cars are also driving in the driveway.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Catherine Sprinkles, representing property owners on east side of owners of the office
building, the Trainas: � -
• Spoke in support of the masonry wall that was suggested between the child play area and their
building. The play area is immediately adjacent to the property line and the play structures are
closer to their property line and are at the center of the play area. The property owners are
concerned about the noise that will be generated. The operational plan indicates that at least
24 children will be in the play area from 9 a.m. unti14:30 p.m. with the exception of 12 to 1:30
lunch time. The property owners feel that it will generate steady noise that could be mitigated
by the masonry wall.
• She addressed the concerns about the reciprocal access through the client's property. The
concern is a stacking concern if there is drop off in the back, which may result in stacking
across their parking/driveway area, preventing their customers from getting to their parking.
1-21
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 26, 2010
She said according to the plan presented, it may not be a major issue.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Said they owned a residential property behind the furniture store and had been there when the
two adjoining office buildings were both orchards and as the properties have been developed,
have had some interaction with the businesses. Said they had concerns with the sound wall on
the north side was not in the model resolution; and noted privacy screening plants on the east
side but not noted on the north side.
• The cunent lighting plan shows luminaries in various locations adjacent to the residential
property. On the properties to the east and west, they do not have lighting located there, and
does not shine lighting against the residential property. He illustrated on the lighting plan map
where the lighting would reflect back onto the residential property, even with the 8 foot wall or
at least until the screening plants grow taller than the 8 foot wall to screen the property.
• Said they have not been contacted by the current property owners regarding the project.
Louise Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Asked that if the project is approved, the masonry wall be constructed first, so that they could
avoid the noise, dirt and dust.
• She expressed concern about the lighting. During a recent drive through the property she
noticed that up against the wall on the west side there was no lighting against the wall until
you got to the apartments, and then huge lights shone into the bedrooms. She requested that
the lighting be limited and softened. She also expressed concern about the trees being cut
down as they did soften the lighting.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Asked staff to address the lighting, if shields can be placed, can the amount of lighting on the
residents be decreased?
Gary Chao:
• Said that commercial properties per the general commercial zone, have rather prescriptive
lighting limitations or criteria. It has to be cut off so basically there has to be shields, and is
designed that the source of the light will not be seen from the adjacent residential property.
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows that the projection of the lights will be
completely contained within the property so that they don't spill over into the adjacent
residential properties. (Site plan E-0, 2-26) Reminded that they are going to construct a new 8
foot sound wall on the back which is going to further offset some of the visual implications
that one of the residents brought up. In addition, there is going to be row of Coast Redwood
trees along the back that should screen views onto the site.
• Between that and the condition in the resolution that covers the conditions addressing lighting
implications, staff will ask the applicant to provide a final lighting plan to demonstrate that
they met the ordinance before issuance of the building permit.
• Relative to the construction management plan, a condition and part of the resolution addresses
that, requiring that a plan be prepared for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of building permits. It includes construction hours, staging
areas, dust and dust control, the sequence of construction, noise considerations, proper contact
information disclosed to the adjacent property owners in the event there is a complaint, they
can find somebody on site 24/7 to report instances; and the Planning Commission can add
specific things such as the fence. The construction management plan will have to be outlined
and prepared prior to issuance of building permits.
1-22
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 26, 2010
Com. Kaneda:
• What are the requirements of trespass going off the edge of the property.
Gary Chao:
• Said it cannot go beyond the commercial property; the lights that are going to be installed
along the north properly boundary would have to be designed so that it would cast light only
toward the interior of the lot and not toward the opposite side, and that the property be cut off
in design so that it doesn't have any light pollutions. Once the light plan is further detailed
staff will ask that a final plan be prepared by a lighting engineer with the precise specs and
with the height and lights and cut out shields for staff to review.
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was also concerned about the issue of the cars coming in; the daycare center is unlike
an elementary school, in that the cars are spread out both in morning and evening hours. As
long as the remainder of the building is unoccupied there shouldn't be a problem, but Ms.
Cheng is likely to find other tenants to fill that space. He said he was concerned about the
busiest times of 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. when cars may be backed up in the parking lot trying to
get out/in, cars hanging out onto Stevens Creek. He said he was not comfortable seeing any
calculations reassuring that the problem won't exist.
Gary Chao:
• What you can do as an option is to require that a drop off or circulation parking plan related to
the daycare be provided for further scrutiny that will show queuing, staging or stacking
vehicles and also the schedule breakdown of any overlap use.
• He said they would have a condition relating to that, and if it means that based on the plan
there is a deficiency, that due to the peak hour there is going to be too much conflict, it would
be reviewed by the traffic engineer; and if it means that they have to reduce the number of
children or curtail their hours, that would be a necessary part of their review. He said without
a detailed plan, he could not answer any additional questions relating to that until such plan is
prepared.
Com. Miller:
• There will likely be the need for parents to park in the rear and then go pick up their child and
possibly even park in the rear and drop their child off. Does staff have any concerns that there
will be two-way traffic on that west side driveway, and also pedestrians walking there.
Gary Chao:
• Staff would have concerns for children walking around the 18 foot driveway with no curbing.
Aarti Shrivastava: �
• Said the approval was based on the premise that the majority of the people most all of the time
would park in the front and there are enough spaces in the front to manage the demand. There
may be the odd situation that is different, but the assumption is that they will park in the front,
and the operation is set up for that.
Com. Miller:
• Said there were 26 parking spaces out front; it requires 67 parking spaces; they may be empty
at 6:30 a.m., but in the afternoon when there is pickup, there is going to be potentially a
situation where they are all full and that the only choice for the parking is to park in back and
walk the children around front.
1-23
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 January 26, 2010
Com. Miller:
• Said there were a number of solutions but they are not shown here.
Gary Chao:
• Said the Commission has the ability to provide staff with directions or staff can explore
alternative locations; in this case along the back if access is available, that they could
potentially pick up children and provide some of the relief from the back.
Com. Miller:
• The staff report states that they don't see an issue with noise on the east side, does staff want
to add that the noise level the children will generate should not be an issue for the east side
office building.
Gary Chao:
• The noise analysis is attached to the staff report, showing the maximum outside noise level
would be approximately 55-60 decibels, below the city's ordinance level. The emphasis of
this report is that the noise generated is more intermittent; the children are not always out there
all the time, they have difFerent schedules.
• The noise consultant surveyed similar daycare uses to get at the real life accounts of how the
noise would perform.
Chair Brophy:
• To the extent that there are many unknowns including their exact schedule, Kiddy Academy
would have a good sense of what the typical peaks are; it is not known what will happen, what
the parking demand will be from the remainder of this building down the road; presently it is a
furniture store which is a low parking generation use. Given the history of this building with
one furniture store after another, it should be assumed that there may be different types of
commercial uses down the road; and given that layout, and the narrow driveway to the back
spots, he said he was not comfortable moving ahead without some sort of allowance for the
issue that might exist.
Gary Chao:
• The Planning Commission has the ability to continue the project; either for staff to return with
analysis with regards to that; or a consultant may have to be hired by the applicant to provide a
factual basis to bring the Commission to the comfort level where they can approve the project,
or it can be conditioned to be administered by staff, making sure that issue would be
addressed. I think it is clear that concerns have been expressed about the circulation and also
the peak hour demand and queuing of vehicles and people dropping off children.
Aarti Shrivastava: � � -
• Said they could do a stacking analysis to see what can be expected, which is an analysis that
certain assumptions will be made. They can also look at something more typical and see if it
can support it; and if it doesn't support it, what reduction in number of children would they
have to do in order to support it. It could look at both ends and it can be put in the condition
stating they would do a stacking analysis, or it can come back to the Planning Commission.
Com. Giefer:
• Said that they had shared concerns and discussed some of the project attributes, but she was
not sure that the site was the right location for a daycare facility; it is a continuous area both
with business, offices and restaurants. The project across the street that was approved was
1-24
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 26, 2010
somewhat of a mixed use area where there was intertwined residential backed up to a parking
garage as opposed to traditional R1 housing. The proposed site is problematic because it is not
set up for this type of operation in mind. She said taking a higher level view of it, it doesn't in
her mind look like the right type of site for this sort of function; it is being forced; they are
looking at how to improve circulation. There will be other retail operations in there that at this
point they do not know what they may be, and they may or may not have competition for those
parking places both in front and back. The site is fraught with issues that staff can study more
and provide further recommendations, but in summary it doesn't appear to be the right site for
a daycare operation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Commented on the site for daycare, stating that they were always difficult to put in; there is a
requirement for outdoor space which is primarily the problem as well as the stacking issue.
With that and tutorial schools, staff is always trying to see how they can fit into these areas. If
it is absolutely something that staff felt would never work, they would have said so. She said
staff felt the project had a chance of working primarily because they worked with Public
Works and they were comfortable with the assumptions of stacking. Staff felt it could be
overcome with the requirements set forth. It is always an issue, because where do you put the
outdoor space, how does this juxtapose with any uses that are existing or desired features; staff
tries to limit it to a small percentage of the center.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the applicant has gone through some expense, time and effort; but he was not
satisfied to approve it tonight; however, was not opposed, if they are so inclined, to provide
them an opportunity to demonstrate how it would work to allay their concerns and effectively
continue the item until such time as they are prepared to come back.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed that it should be continued until they can analyze the pick up/drop off and
parking issues.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said that the issues were narrow driveway and the fact that it was difficult for people to walk
to the front to pick up their child and drop them off; and the fate of the furniture store in the
future. She said there was still work to be done and she would support them working on it
further; however, it would be difficult given what they working with; and they probably know
that it is not the best place for a daycare facility.
Com. Giefer:
• Expressed her opinion of the project earlier in the meeting.
Chair Brophy:
• Said that normally he would not do a continuance, because if it was purely a traffic
engineering issue, they are not the correct body to deal with that, and it would be a technical
question for staff, and they would work in changing the language.
• He said he understood that the site was attractive to a daycare operator because of the unused
land in the back, which could be used for an outdoor play area. He said he was inclined to
� agree with Com. Giefer that the site just isn't a workable site for a daycare center.
• Said they approved a number of educational uses in the last year that had some technical
issues, but not the type of the issue at hand. The combination of the shortage of parking in the
front, the narrow driveway to the back, and the uncertainty as to what the remainder of the
1-25
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 26, 2010
building will be used for in the future, makes him question whether or not the issues can be
resolved through work on the part of the city traffic engineer with the applicant.
Com. Miller:
• Said that the applicant should be allowed to decide, since it would take more time, money and
effort to move it forward, and if they were willing to do so, he was willing to listen to what
they have to offer. Someone with some creativity and expertise might come up with a solution
that works.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed, and he did not want to be the designer on this project. He said there were
potential solutions if they want to move forward, that their designer needs to look at it and see
if they can solve the problem. If the problem is solvable, it may just be an issue of being the
wrong location for a daycare facility.
Chair Brophy:
• He said he did not think that is was necessarily the wrong location, although not an ideal one.
The issues of the narrow driveway, the limited amount of parking in the front may not be
inherently unsolvable.
Com. Giefer:
• Said those are finite details; they will not make the driveway any wider and are not going to
add additional parking in front, and as pointed out, the front parking spaces are handicapped
already. She asked how much access those spaces will provide.
Chair Brophy:
• Explained to the applicant that there was not consensus to move forward with the application
tonight; and asked if she felt it was worth continuing it to look at what the traffic issues are, to
see if they can be solved.
Cindy Cheng:
• Said she felt that continuing the application would be appropriate. She said they were
considering adding a drop off in the back because of the PIN they have to enter in order to get
in the facility, there could be two monitors, one in the front and one in the back area. If the
front drop off is full, the parents can drop off or pick up in the back, which would alleviate
some of the circulation problems. The rear entrance would not be a main drop off; it would be
an alternative drop off and pick up, so there wouldn't be a back up going through the
neighbors' parking lot.
Com. Giefer:
• She raised the issue of what type of businesses they want to have frontage along Stevens
Creek; do they want daycare facilities to greet people to the shopping district? The one
approved near Chili's was in the back and did not have street frontage. She said she had an
issue with daycare on Stevens Creek as part of the overall street frontage, in an area that had
been earmarked for shopping, office and planned residential; and it would not change for her if
they figure out how to seamlessly drop off and pick up and get all the ingress and egress from
every neighbor. She said conceptually she had an issue with this type of business on Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
1-26
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 26, 2010
Chair Brophy:
• Said that to the extent a daycare center is being proposed for this site, it illustrates that it is
very difficult to fill up space on Stevens Creek because daycare centers are not high rent uses.
The building has turned over many times; and in the future if they are able to get a stronger
Stevens Creek Boulevard, the daycare center may not be the type of use that will be able to last
there. If the property owner at some future date has a user, whether it be residential,
commercial, or retail, the space could easily be replaced. He said he understood the concern,
but felt it is a reflection of the realities of the real estate market.
Com. Giefer:
• Said she appreciated Chair Brophy's input and experience and helping the applicant with that
answer; but she pointed out that they have to provide some vision and direction for the
community; and it was an issue for her.
Cindy Cheng:
• She said that the way the building is situated, with more parking in the back, most retailers
want the parking in the front, just like the adjacent building. The daycare center can utilize the
valuable land in the back; it is safer for the children. It is also very difficult to lease out to
retailers when most of the parking is in the back.
Com. Miller:
• Said that Com. Giefer had a good point; however, it is clear that there is more demand for
daycare in Cupertino than there is daycare available, and Cupertino is not serving that need
adequately. There are daycare centers in Cupertino, one on DeAnza Boulevard which seems
to work fine in the middle of a commercial district. This daycare center is taking a relatively
small percentage of the frontage of the building and it is a function that needs to be served and
this is not the ideal spot; but if the applicant can resolve some of the key issues including the
circulation and safety issue, it is worth considering.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-1-0, Com. Giefer
voted No; to continue Application U-2009-09 to the February 23, 2010
Planning Commission meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NE USINESS: None
REPORT O HE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Revie ommittee: Meetin ancelled.
Housin� Commission: Co neda reported that there was a presentation of some
interesting online applicatio o e for managing the Federal application process for
Funtrack??
Ma or's Mont eetin With Commissioners: meeting held.
Econo 'c Develo ment Committee: No meeting held.
REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1-27
G ENERAL NO �
1. "CONTRACTOR" shail be used to represent all the subcontractors, material
suppliers and other trades necessary for the completion of the wortc.
2. Prior to bidding, conUactor shall become familiar with ihe site, wntrac!
documents, codes, matters and conditions which may affed the operatio� and
completion of the work. There will be no allowance for contractor failing to do so.
3. Contractor shall prevent debris from being deposited on adjacent mall areas,
contractor shall obtain all the necessary pertnits required for the r8moval of debris
from the site.
4. Contractor shall assume complete responsability for the safety and protection of
workers and all other people around and about the site, as required by local
regulations.
5. Contractor shall be responsible for the worlc compliance with codes, regulations
and requirements vf the govemmental agencies.
6. ConUactor shall verify existi�g conditions at the project site as described in these
contract documents prio� to beginning the woric.
7. In the event of canflicts and / or discrepanaes between these contract docurt�nts
and the conditions on site, the contrador shall immediately submit infoRnation to
the designe� for resoludon prior to preceeding with any related woric.
8. Do not cut, drill thrvugh or damage arry structure located within the parameters of
this project without first consulting with the designer or struch�ral engineer.
9. Contractor is ras�nsible for checking and verifying field conditions for accuracy
of locations and dimensions.
10. Contractn� is responsible for c�rdinating the waric, induding but nat limited tn
arc.hitedural, strudural, mechanical, plumbing (sprinkler system), fire protection,
eledrical and lighting.
11. All field welding shall be perFormed by a ticensed welder while under the
supervision of a building inspecGo�.
12 The intent of the Contract Documents is to indude all items necessary for the
proper execution and compledon of the work. The documer�ts are complimentary
and what is required by one shall be nequired by all. If the contrad documents are
not completed as to minor details of a required construdion system or with regard
to the manner of cambining or installing parts, materials, or equipment and there
exists an accepted trade standard (or mall standards) for tood and woricmanlike
construction, such standards shall be deemed to be a requirement for the contrad
documents.
13. Contractor shall fumish all labor, equipment, materials and services requir+ed or
reasonaby inadental to the successful comple�o� of the work.
14. Cantracbr shall pay all peRnits and fees, licenses and insPedio�s necessary.
15. All costs of overtime woric required by the nature of this wortc, except
emergenaes, shall be induded.
16. Contractor shall submit all lie� releases along with payment appl'�catlon.
17. No worlc defective in construction quality or defident in any requiremenis of the
c�ntract shall be acceptable in consequence of the awners or designers failure to
discover. No partial and/or final payments shall be construed as an acceptance of
defective work and improper materials.
18. All horizontal dimensions are to/from face of consUudion, (U.O.N.). All vertical
dimensio�s are from top of finish floor, (U.O.N.)
19. Due to the difficulty af anticipating every unsatisfactory condltion that might exist
in cannection with the existing work where alteratio� or reoonstrudion worfc is
proposad, the following clause shall be applied ta any reconstruction or alteradon
work; " The intent of the drawings and specifications is to aeate a new o�
remodeled store in accordance with Title 24, Califomia code af regulaiions.
Should any condition developed not covered by the contrad documents wherEin
the finish woric will not comply with said Title 24, Califomia code of �egulations, the
oontracto� shall submit informatlon to the designer for resolution prior to
proceeding with any related worlc.
Attachment 4
�
19875 STEVEN'S CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO CA
�
VICINITY MAP
SITE OF PROJECT
0
a
0
�
�
STEVEN'S CREEK BLVD.
DEMOLITI�N
1. GENERAL:
SCOPE OF WORK
USE PERMIT FOR "KIDDIE ACADEMY" DAY CARE OF
CUPERTINO
TO INCLUDE:
1. REMOVE ALL EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,
HVAC AND FINISHES TO ALLOW FOR DAY CARE CENTER
2. CONSTRUCT "KIDDIE ACADEMY" DAY CARE CENTER
3. ADD NEW DOOR OPENINGS TO REAR OF BUILDING FOR "KIDDIE
ACADEMY" DAY CARE
4. RE-STRIPE PARKING AT FRONT OF BUILDING TO INCLUDE 2- VAN
HANDI- CAPPED PARKING SPACES, AND 3-LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
5. RE-STRIPE PARKING AT REAR OF BUILDING TO INCLUDE 2- VAN
HANDI- CAPPED PARKING SPACES, TRASH ENCLOSE, PLAY
GROUND AND LANDSCAPING
SHEET INDEX
PROJECT DATA:
Demolition is not limited b what is shown on the drawings. The intent of the
drawings is to indicate the general scope of wo�1c required.
2. Demditio� shall be done carefully to prevent unnecessary damage. Damage
incumed during demolition whether to mall su�faces or store shall be repaired
Pr�mPUY•
3. Contractor shall salvage all existing equipment. Fumiture (if existing) and other
items as specified by the owner. Prior to starting construction or demoliGon,
contractor shall meet with the owner to decide disposition aF items mentioned
above.
NOTICE:
Contracbor (or owner) shall verify all dimensions and sUuctural details prior to arry
demolitian or construdion. Notify this office, Patel SUuctural Engineers to verify on
site oonditions that nequire darification. Written dimensions on these drawings
shall have precedence over scaled dimensions and condiGons. Co�trador shall
verify and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job.
A-0 COVER SHEET
A-1 SITE PLAN
A-2 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
A-3 PLAY GROUND PLAN
A-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
L�1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
E-0 EXTERIOR��LIGHTING PLAN -PHOTOnn�Ric
1 ORIGINAL GRADING & PAVING PLAN
BY RUTH $ GOING
USE AND SCOPE: (no changes in use)
OCCUPANCY GROUP: M,B
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V—N
GROSS SITE AREA: 78,149.00 S.F.
FLOOR AREA: 25,200.00 S.F.
STORIES OR FLOORS: ONE STORY / FIRST FLOOR
AUTO. FIRE SPRINKLERS: YES
PARKING: 93 SPACES
CODES: 2001 CBC, 1997 UBC, 2002 CPC
2001 CPC, 2001 CEC, 2002 NEC
PARKING REQUIREMENTS: SEE SHEET A1
APPROVALS:
AT PAVEMENT
USE BLUE
BACKGROUND
PROPORTIONS
5 SYMBO� OF ACCESSIBILITY
A 1 "° �
iNr�tranoru� , oF
accESSie�urr
70� SWARE INCH
� MIN. REFLECTORIZED
PAINTEU SICN
,� ,� BIUE PAINT TO MATCH
COLOR /15090 U1° "'�'�'
FEDFRAL STANDARD f1O �� ���
595a ihewn.�pwti�i�nwe ra
�Id�CC�b P�f
may bs torsd away at
ow�sn upenx
6'-B� ABOVE FlNISH T°•'d "'^kN' '^°/ e`
CAWANIZED STEEL GRAUE OF PARKING ��„� �
POLE PAINTID FLAT l0T ..........."
BIACK
e
I � PORCElAIN EMBED�ED
� I I= �.�J.�— ����� p p� STEEL REFLECTORIZED
SIGN
q -� °� - W/ MINIMUM 1' HIGM
LEffERING
• CONC. FOOIING
� a AT BUILDING ENTRANCE
F--=--i
4 ADA SIGNAGE AT PARKING SPACE
A1 "°�
393.24' PROPER7`f LINE �
(E) A/C PAVING DRIVWAY �
(E) OFICE PARKING
a
�
>
�
�
W
�
�
J
m
�
�.I..�
W N
L.L_
U
� �
W I
� �
L.I.J �
~ i
�
Q
W
�
�
�
� a
I � ❑� PROVIDE 6 BIKE RACKS (E) ELECTRICAL PANEL �
TO BE RELOCATED m
� � — --- ��
�� � B a I �° I REMOVE (E) PL4NTER TO R g� RE SPRINKLER
I � � I e I I ALLOW FOR NEVY BICYLE
, a i �e i i RncKs
0 I � i �= i � 6
rn � �-� f A1
� � -- -
Z Zo , - o .
� 1� �$ O6 O �e.
I w
� �
❑e
I LANDSC FE
(� � PL�INTER
I O � �e. V
� o
. �
i �
I �
�i wosc�aE
CAP
Pl�1NTF.R
W O
J� O
6
�, o , o
WI � �
a
� HC
� .
a ,
� o
W
a �I
N �� Q o
� rnI � a
� Z �
,� a � H�
.�.
w
� � a
I v O
� I �wosc�E
i PLANTER
�
I o �
I
I � B ._�.
� i
e
i ;a
�; � O
I 1
�a
, �
I
1
� � �
b
I
C
❑
�
�
C
�
❑ �
Qi DROP-OFF Ac PICK-UP
AT FRONT ENTRY FOR
'KIOOIE ACADEMY" �
p r _, .
� REMOVE (E) PIANTER
I I
I I
I I
L_J
� fZESTAURANT �AND OFFICE
� � � � � � � �.
EXISTING RETAIL AREA
ADA NOTES:
1. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL PER CBC 11336.5
a. ARE CONTINUOUSY ACCESSIBLE.
b• HAVE A MAXIMUM 1/2" CHANGE IN ELEVATION.
�• MAXIMUM CROSS-SLOPES OF 1/4" PER FT.
d. WHERE NECESSARY TO CHANGE ELEVATION AT A
SLOPE IXCEEDING 5� (i.e., 1:20), SHAI.L HAVE
PEDESTRIAN RAMPS COMPLYING WITH C8C
SECTION 11338.5.
e• HAVE A MINIMUM 48" WIDTH.
2. ALL INTERNATIONAL SIGNS OF ACCESSIBILITY
SHALL COMPIY W/ CBC FIGURE 11 B-6 &
SECTION 11178.5.8.1.1 AND SHALL BE LOCATED
AT THE EXISTING BUILDING ENTRANCE.
3. ALL GROUNO FLOOR SURFACES ALONG ACCES-
SIBLE ROUTES AND IN ACCESSIBLE ROOMS &
SPACES INCLUDING FLOORS, WALKS, RAMPS AND
CURBS SHALL BE STABLE FIRM AND SLIP
RESISTANT.
9 ._�.
T-O'
cIF/1N NEW ClASS II (CRANKCASE TYPE)
BICYCLE RACKS lYP. OF 6
N
�y r---i n
0
� � o � � �
I
� � o 0
I I « ':
�o -
I o I �
I r
L_
REMOVE (E) PIaNTER TO
❑ ALLOW FOR NEW BICYLE
RACKS
6 CLASS II BIKE RACK
A 1 "° � II
i/E
EASEMENT 18'-0� 15"-0'
REQ.D'S
� I O
6
�•-�• 4• �,-�• I
9'-0' -0' '-0'
I \� O
0
1 22'-0� 18'-0" 18'-0'
, w
�� a
� U O
�. �,
= g
N
Q Z
.. �
�
W �
g
a � �
W
�
Q
3
Y
� g
3
W
� y_e•
U
3 ' rnnsH
A 4 s ENC�osur� � ��
a o �
i
w I
�
❑ U � I �
� G1W lA9N N �
° C
� 2t g 4 �
o I O
Z �
� �
O O I
I �
I
I
a �
�
+ �
�
� REVISIONS
, , TOP OF POST AND
PICKETS CAPPED Wf1H CfTY COMMENTS
(TOP OF POSn 3 PlASTIC � 1 1-03-09
rs. t i/2' x� i/2'
T0� RAIL
T.S. 3'X3' X 1/4" Sit.
POST O 6'-0' O.C..
ournoe oF TM �•
PUY AREA 3/4' S0. TUBE PICKEfS
O 4' O.C., TYP.
T.S. 1-1/2' X
1-t/2' BOTTOM
(E) A/C PAVIN s (E) A/C PAVING
+a - o'
I I I I
I I � � �
I �12' DIA. X 3�-O-1 I
I I DEEP PIERS O I I
I I�H TS 3'�(3" O I I
I I 6'-0' O.C.. 1YP. I I
I I I I
L_J L_J
1O FENCE SECTION FENCE ELEVATION
�7� TUBE STEEL FENCE DTL.
A 1 �° �
SITE DATA:
2—
STO RY u5E Mp SCOPE ��a ��E D USE
SFR (m chanqea in uae)
o OCCUPANC'f GROUP: M
I
� CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VN
FLOOR AREA: 25.200.00 S0. FT.
STORIES OR FLOORS: ONE STORY / FlRST fL00R
I AUiO. FlRE SPRINKIERS: Y6
cooES: zoai cac.
1997 UBC,
z�z ��.
2001 CPC, I
� ------------- 20Ui CEC�
I 2002 NEC
�
� � KEY NOTES:
o a�� �o��
� IXISi1NG AC. PAVING
, a D(ISTING ACCESSISBIE PARKING STALL WRH
/ r+/c sn�eo�
I 2- � onmric MoNUMewr sicn
' STO RY � � ��rn� ���
6 NEW LANDSGPING
SFR
i � IXISTiNG DfTERIOR ELECTRICAL SWITCH 6FAR
I TO BE RELOCATED
❑8 NEW TR�SM ENCLOSURE
i a NEW PARKING STN1 PAINT STRIPING TO
MATCH D(ISTING
i PROPERTY LINE
I �� NEW CONCRETE WAU(WAYS
12 DfISTiNG PAINT STRIPING TO REMIAN
I 1 D(IS11NG WALKWAY
NEW PAIMED H/C SYMBOL
I W � NEW PUY AREA EWIPMENT
J 1 NEW 3' WIDE PAINTEO STRIPE PATHS �
I i�
--------_-- a NEW 6' iUBE FENCE (e�e dataila thia aheat)
� � TOW AWAY SIGN AT PROERTY ENiRANCE N
W
i O � y INCREASE EXISi1NG CMU MfALL WITH NEW �
� CAIU BLOCKS TO 8'-0' A80VE GROUNO
, a � s�ocK ia' �oNC oa�irrc nv �
W d CONCREfE CURB FOR DRNNAGE
¢ I 2� oarnNC arcH e�siH �
U �
M PAVERS AT NORTHERN PARKING STAl1S SEE
p 9 � 8• 8•-6• N I p ^ UNDSCAPE PUN
U � I O -.] I � � KIDDIE O� �D PICK-UP LOCAi10N FOR
v � I� � ALL ASPHALT REPNRS AND REPIACEMENi `� '
. � Z WORI( SFIALL MNNTAIN DHAINAGE TO (�
� � O a O o I s I G�RADING dc T PAVING� I PUN P BT RUTH dc �..J J
� GOINC W
KIDDIE ACADEMY DAY CARE
(E) PARKING
� o i�
WHEEL STOP, •i
Tra.
r C�x o 7 0 0 0 �o 0 0 o
A1 6 2 i Q
.' � • �� . Y?£11Q-�/(. �'� . . �X • •
�� � �� 16 �
� � ua s arz °0LLA �
.� ` � �
� urr �s aw x �� I
�r saT� w�1A� 1� ,� �""'
(T�'r
� � PLAY GROUND I ,�,,, y W p I
7 ' � 6,240.00 S.F. ""��rr�s x �'"� _ I U uia e�w O
� �
Z I ~ x N 21 I
G -I X ♦ FFIICi X�J � \ � 0 � �� �i X � �� ; I ? O
J
11 lil�� I �1 ^ Z .
� v �
� _ �
�� ' r i 't � • 6 �
h ♦ �
3 , r- �
� ; � i�j� � , �� X � 9! !� � 0 �
I a ! x A1 � �
s
auss �3! 17 �
' 1 Niwo a..KZ �m.�e „u« x -' � w i '� \/
iw
� se�.rux �• us � � I
-x - -x - -x -,.,e�--x - - -x ---- - U�-- --------
Ens��r
REQ.D'S
�,
�
1 1 /2 STORY OFFICE
/////// E) PARKING
I � (SEE DRAWING 1) �
DENOTES ACCESSIBLE PA7H OF TRAVEL
2 � � FROM STREET OR ACCESSIBIE PARKING
I STORY SPACE TO PRIMARY BUILDING �
/ Err�,wcE
i S FR �
� W �
I l i
� O
� z
I� _ . _ �
I �
I �
I INCREASE (E) CMU WALL WITH �
, NEW CMU BLOCK TO 8'-0" �
I ABOVE GROUND � �
LEGEND:
O N0. OF PARKING SPACES
I I SEE KEY NOTES I
_�
� O
�
W �
Z �
U U
J O rn
� �
Z�
a 00
��m
� N
U � �o
� ; O
¢ "
�
(n Y
w a
Q ^
tD
� �
Q
U
I O
I �
,�
W
a.
U
� z
J g
m �
W �
L.L �
U
�
Z
W
>
L�l
�
�
Ln
�
�
�
�
DATE: 10-09-08
SCALE: AS SH WN
f --�------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------�,
� �� � �
PROVICE � Bik.E RAChS � e��
� (E) A�C PAVIr�JG DRIVWA�� �- I
� I
� `�, r -- -----� ---� �
w
�
Q
n
u
�
Q
J
W
�
f,Ei SiGN
�\
I' �
� /
� �
Q
�
.-�
w /
�; i
�� I i
i
, i �
, I i
�
, i
I I
i
, i
I i �
I I
�
, �
�----- ---
. a—.—: '� ■ B' �nirc . - ■ — '� - � — j� s --�— �
-�—r' ` � • • ` • • • •
7uBE SrEEL FEr�cE Ro�o�
�m�wr� • 4' GAlE r 4' GAIE 80LL/
O° ' GRASS
.r�a ~ IIMIT OF CRASS I ��ru�.r.
. .. .�S� waF�ce p LAY G R 0 U N D "•,•
I
I
I
I
� I
I
I
� « �
V � �
('J (
� I
I
I
I
I i
I
/� I
1
(51 I
� I
�
I
I
7 �
I
� '
I
I
�
I
�� �
�
��) I
I
I
I
I
I
�s �. ; _ �
------- '�---------�
�
SITE PLAN
THESE PLANS AND SPEGIFIGATIONS ARP SUBJEGT TO A GONFIDENTIALITY �GREEMENT AND A /_�� J �,}� + Q__ �},�
NON-GOMPETITION A6REEMENT. THESE PLANS AND SPEUFIGATIONS GONTAIN GERTAIN DISTIN6UISHING 4.0 1v QLP�� fl
GHARAGTERISTIGS OF THE KIDDIE AGADEMY SYSTEM AND AS A RESIH.T, GONSTITUTE GONFIDENTIAL ANp
PROPRIETARY I�ORMATION OF KIDDIE AGADEMY DOMESTIG FRANGIiI51N6, LLG.
THE PLANS, DESI6N5, AND SPEGIFIGATIONS FOR A KIDDIE AGADEMY GNILD GARE LEARNINb �� �� O .,,I„ 1
GENTER w � u MODIFIED FfEREIN IN RESPONSE TO SPEGIFIG GHAN6E5 SOU6MT BY THE KIDDIE ^��� v
RE VI S IONS
� CITY COMMENTS
1 1 -03-09
ADJACENT TENANT (unoccupied)
0 � �
U� U�
U U
28 STACKED
CUBBIES
AREA 8 AREA 7
SCHOOL AGE 5 YRS
28 KIDS 12 KIDS �
980 SF t �T�K� 420 SF
(980 SF) cues�ES (420 SF) � � �
0 0 / � � �.
i � T01 L
� _� �
�/ (��� ��� � /�rl � i
i � i�� 1 i�l ti
� (�a � , �Si � � ,� �
\ �/ � \ `— / / \J / •
/
1 HOUR RATEO CORRIDOR
a
� DF
��� �� � � ��
� i � � i
�� `\ / `\� / / r, � �
L�J 4
�oT O � � 1
Z c�osEr _ TOILET ���� _,
a �� AREA 6
F a
w CLOSEf 24 K�IDS
� L08BY 840 SF
(840 SF)
� � 0
0
�
DIRECTOR o 0 0
� owNER V V
!;�:.(;.,N.=1�1 I I��i.-.l: �.I I �I ' I
= -� 4 :I:ii ..- ��F .;F , C
F���=:h.� �. �`�_ _ � �G=Er rE ���=�'� - �•:11P ; RE::'D F'F;��': ?E':'�
=.FE - riF=��l �� - �_:� �,i _
�__,� ' T�=CC�L=F' �._ L -��_ �+=0 _.._
',� ,(;� -.�� _ •1
, ' " F'" - --
_- - _ ,F J _� _ ��,� '
..__ _ - �i�F':; .�� ', '=�iJ .' ..�>
- _ -: / ~ 'f �:i I % 1 =�:•'� �?� i ..-
- , . , --��-, ,�,�;,- �'� -- - :�� - - -
WORK TABI£ JO' X 4E'
1 PRFP. 9NK W/ INCROVAVE (an NOT PUlES W/ EXFiWST
ORAW 80. fhMt aEor�) FAN ABOVE
Q MW �W , 3 Q 2 ,
Sg
V ��ovo� 3 8 1 6 5
, u
� Y
AREA 4 � �'" t2 tt �0 9 Q
� 3
24 Y K�I S d w
0
840 SF � a�s�ruc w/ �-�sroR c e�NS AREA 1 �
(840 SF) � � �
� � INFANTS
� W / D - 12 KIDS �
24 STACKED �• �� 420 SF
CUBBIES � R ff (421 SF)
w +�
o � � �
C
1 HOUR RATE� CORRIDOR
a
TOIL 12 �,�,«
� cueeies
i �
- i � -
, � DF
i
2 `--- z
AREA 5 � � �
� � AREA 2 He
840 SF A y �53 TO�OD
(859 SF) 9 KIDS 420 SF
+19 315 SF (420 5�
(3zo s� a
+s
U� U�
U U
� NORTH
�
� FLOOR PLAN
A2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
• WALL LEGEND: KEY NOTES:
� DCISTiNG CONCRETE BLOCK WALL � 1 rL�TED Co�DOR
2 36' HIGH DOOR
�(N) FULL HT. WALLS W/ 3 5/8" X 20 GA. MTL STUO O 3 10" HIGFi w�LL
24' O.C. dc 5/8' CYP. 80�RD BOTH SIDES. CORRIDOR 4 DE►xs�nc wNt (r�.00rt TO RooF)
SHALL BE i HR. iZ4iED. 5 .
�(N) WALL TO UNDERSIDE OF T-BAR C�LING OR HARD �.
CEILJNG W/ 3 5/8" X 25 GA. MTI. STUD O 24' O.C. � '
N O T E: A LL F U LL H T. W A LL S � R E S T R O O M W A LL S S H A L L ❑
8E W/ R13 INSULAiION 9 •
� a
�'
W �
W a,
Z
C,� U
w o rn
� � �
z�
¢ °°
� N �
� N
U � m^
� � o
a "
H
(n Y
�
J Q
W a
H �
Q �
a�
�
z
�-_
�
�
�_L._
�
U
� II I
O II
�
�
W
0
Q
U
Q
W
�
0
�
DATE:
SCAL :
Q
U
O
f--
�
w z
�
�
U �
� O
J
m O
L�
Y
�.L.� Q
�.L� w
� ' ^
U �,
�� � �
, Z O
'w �
> �
w
�—
�
�
�
�
�
.-
�
I 0-09-08
4S SHOWN
�
�
4' U�T�
��
E ; �
�
. L
�^+
'�
��
Q
��
0� 21�
�W
��
�
...
� iVFA;vT ! 1'CDG'LEF i � � � i � �
1 � �� � :
{ P�
E
E € �
E
� ,%
� ,�' ; ----,
� � �-----,
E � r
x � �--� ��.�L�. � x x � x x
�c�'-1�,« -�--- � � �1
-----_ ----, �
� ;
r
3
t
F
r.,BA
�� �Y.���vD�� t;r ?�;��€_ ; , ,
S7A�h� r- J'd''€'H Pi:Sl�i f � 1 i- .(�7 �1 Ti=
�Li{".,Ki�[ ;
t �
� �,_.� uE:;��E� E �l �,� � �' ��'
, ���� � � j ���E f ('�
� H." � � [" � � ��'� ; 9 w.J V i ) � � t \ 1� P'1 � f.«
!•IC�l.�S � �'� +„u' .._... 1 `i�t�
I�
i t
_?" FL?P, '"`-- D �
TRArJSFcr� ; t�?
,
:,'*�ER+iSY i C. �
'���EE� , x�,
}�.�7�� }
� ��
�---'-� ��,�� � �-
i »23 SG � �7 � SLfC�E
�, � � �W�
� �
GRASS �
X 4 G�TE � �4' FcN�E � x
� �D
�
�� Q
•:::��
1; J �
; � �
�� C t�
V ! �
C7J d '
Q
�
D
i x x
��i= T SUR�kCE ��TY'S:
���r;�� f ���� ��J� �F
P�E�Crt�O� 691 SF
S�H ��L AGE 885 SF
TOTAL 1,�9� SF
E t n r r� r� i 3 r� r n,� -- r� T v�`
vF`t���
�
i
� � �----�
� ��-'` j ��~'-���''-.~~� �
�P �iF # +1R
� j t �
E
� � � . t : �'- ; ,i^ ' � f ^ ; : ^-�
; � �� �1 E � �. :� _ �.3 � ,
; � �� .
i --..-� �---� r�-�-�---
�.____.�
1. /^+ f'�
�,: : �i � :�
� �'�l� � � � `
���T 5�.���A��
_______________� � �"�'P � _ ___._
a ~ .r_
��
f �_.� __.___..............._.......... t
i � � �,
_ �� � -, i?^ �.�
� ��'t 'a '� `'��...
',.�-. �•'•� ` y
i � � ,�: � € ' s " : "
i � � �• �
i _ �, � :ti `=?
� �.�
� otfi�.�?
t , _.: �� -
� i fT Li ['•S
"': i.a .��. .�'� F'
i � � � .
t1: j
v �
s �
'n'� � ��� �» �
'� ' • �'.��"
�� �� �
� ;.,
� �
W �
�� �
'!; ^a "�� 'v7
� �1 �' _
K ('1 7' `;
! ` 3A f'� fT! T ,��
� L �-- � .
� �o r ? �
Y ! 3 � � �
!.i � �y� �
T; � ;1 r � .�S'.
' y i. �
D ,
>�, :,.a
m ^j; ^•
. __
a
� -� :�S
���
•t •, �1 iI7
�
� ^�' :T.
�
� ���D SL��:�� �� �':�li`�� < � t�£�K
�.,
;�����
���ka
������
�
X �C
a' �1 � E'�V'f1��C
�
3
�
� �-�
.._.__..�
� x :� � � x � Y ----,
� o � � � w � ��
����
� � �i�i!i�l,'�'�1,���� ,
� � i � �. � �!�`i � � � ,,.�- > -
�'� 'v :� �` � �""�- � � � � �
��'��•"�.•` �
� L:: i `i ; � �
'��� �'' �� f
"`"`- ;ai�aUk: :o � 5:��'�cr rrtc>ur:ied;i
u:�T.'3� ���;i!: £� � �
M � �
�
� A �:
� �
4 �
s
�
�
��
:,
i�
':!
: �
:i
:;
}�
s
+� �� i�Y� j .�„ � � �� �
�
J�G
X
� f
t
4
�.1.� �
X � � f:%
�r
�.1 ; �
E.z-- ? x �
� ^ t.
�' a
3
� ;
;�-
3
3
1
X �
;
'.r �
�� t
fJ + j
� � <
� .
. � '>.
7�C �
3
i
. .i 1
x �,a;�� 1 i
��� z� ��R� �,�� �
_`� ��`��
�-
r- _.._.� �
,
;�
-------_.._M._._..___ �..� '- ; �
� F 1
� k �
}--'Z f ��9t
� �
`� ;� � j t
� ` � �
o� � �
�7 f
x E
� �
1 �
i � t
; � � �
� j i.l..i
r
£ 1
f � �
f 98�`;
t
f � ;�
k
r � �..�� A
:s� ; �. ,�
; :-- �C
f =�
i
f �� �
3
i �
3
i � �•C
! �
f �
f �
f 3
i 3 �
; � �
� � S
; � i
,t �
r, � �i ; f st$
' . `,' � � � E a
� `s' .^, 2 � � 'r :v �� �
i,.i �,? � � � � � r� � �> � "4 i,] �� � � .J ! � :
' . .. 4 �1 � '�:��'�.�..
:-
. �
��
i
� , ..,..�._..._
i
�
�
1
i i
2
�
!�
�;
3�
� � .............
;;
��
�
�
..___...._...
7( X X X ;( X � � �"""r # r'�'-� �( ?� � � °�---- X � ;� � - � '
�� �� ,��n ���t�.,�+s�o�.s ,� :�aa.�c- � ,� �.��rn���.�� ��=�r � �,
��..���c�� .���r � �s.aRt� ,+� �c���c�a�� c.�rtr�<�a ��*�� r�:��sr��€-�_�
�� ����a� � � �r.�ai� ,W,�� sw��r! ,a� � � �i. �ri��rttr � c.�r�Ea��,�.. :�
?��t�� t',��r' :�!��tm o� �c;rx3te ,a�,�' uvt�; r�� ��:t��. :.�.
� ��.� � � � � � � �' �A � � ������..� �. ��, � � 3���,�,� � � ����� �,�,�.�- �� �,� :.����
�-3 L".�17�.'Q i•t�z,� i3�i MCis'7i�1� .�;�1 i�t F!� �'.�^� ° -+�'•'•G61 ° �!� .'T°..�A�55 '.�4.`�iiT 1'37' a'ti�.�. �G;I7C3is„x�
,��r� �;��s� �.���c�r. � ,�rn+�� �rfw� � �_��s � �c��r� �c,�Y ��r:�,
�� � ��tc�=���� � r��v s�� r.� ,� t�r �r� �s�,�>tr�; � �>�ft� � � i :�;
rJS+"{�f'�i�l� isiL�+���'�l ���'� �,f�� a� �i7�J �����5 �.�+���i'Wr�i� 1�'� ��. .'�i��ii��fi
S �.z`�. �.�L..../ .a.l�� � �� i�,,3�•1�>� .�A✓�!+!`,'' !.�/�i2���+ 4e/�� Ci�'f ��.l�' . TfJ � �.OfiAT1c�, iT iJ � �..�flG`�N�t,.�I1.IT( � 7�
����..�+��� � �3�t15� �!!'i.+�?1�' Tv� �i�l'•77' Ai�it �+RLSNi'T�t , DR�v�[ Aci�3 �FC �"„,t�i. �i� f C? ,a,t7;�T .�
.Ml"x7r '�"f � P?'w�N� r� �SG� "[`f3 THE PR��+T3�:�� TQ TH� AF' "<°`i.!�':s+�l�17''��' �s:;s��"€� ,�Gra►w'�'.' ���
l.s ��.�.,�i ����� � "� '`'�� " ' "c � ' �`�• �.� ?�z'i"i4�f3R� �3Y' 'fr•?�E �Ufi.Dilr??�4 GG?�`s AW.3 �.i�Fil.� �,�R'_ L=C��'�+"ar�a�r �'t)t"✓t'� !!4 'T'�i?�
, ,t :��i�'�llm .�s;. r�I�.� 3K1�:'� ,+�rit4C'.+'�t•!�' i t+k'i R..�'aF"C7�€ 33:.}"f'f :7�t ?..�.��a$,..< 3 `Y' �� d��,"t° YiC)S.r�� � <�°'i;�i
���:�!�i'� ���i�S ���r'�:
.�� : ` �? s� �,�,' �1
,�� ;� ���
� ���
J
`�. �`? < ,, ., ' �r
e ��
�, �
La �_ � ,YR . c r.�r4�4'� � ^ � : :rtT� ��
-o
[vrv« i�r rirvi�n I
GAL. CONC. FIILED
LLARD
PAVING
1'-2"
4 BOLLARD DETIAL
A4 S�E: ,,z- a ,�-o-
0
i
N
N �
P LAN
scuF: i �+• - � •-o
TTS AN1L11 BUIDINC CALOlt r••
P�n sxe' u�ra rare �e c,�
� � /2' oFtP witnurahn
YEUL SDNG OR E0. wELDED
ro u�.� srm rwwc. 1u
w�m.� eiwiw caa+
CONC. APRON PAD
REVISIONS
CI1Y COMMENTS
1 1-03-09
V Q
6L
W �
W �
Z
U' U
LLLV/ I IVI V
sc�uE: t/4' - t'-o' J O rn
� �
z �
a 00
� N N
3 TRASH ENCLOSURE ��
U �o
� �.i o
� >�
A 4 s�: ,�-�oWN � Q
V, N
_ _ '_���_�_� � Q
W a
� �
�
(E) ROOF LINE BEYOND �'� ���
�� ���
��
��
��
�
� (E) PAINTED CMU BLOCK ��� �`
���� ��\ COLOR: light tan �� ��
\� � �
�� ��
� ��� `� �� �
�
�� �
��� ���
���� ����
0
w
2" 5Q. METAL RECESSED TUBE �E) CEI
COLOR: brown OLOR:
(E) CEM ENT PLASTER
COLOR: dark tan
(E) FOAM TRIM
COLOR: ligth tan
(E) HALF-ROUND TRIM ; � � �
COLOR: light tan '; , i�; � �; ��� ,
. � %' I �
.� �, F<< k�l r _.+' � . ,� .{ � . .
\I/
(E) 6" TILE (E) CEMENT PLASTER
COLOR: mexican/tan COLOR: ligth tan
NEW 307Q EXIT DOORS AT NEW
"KIDOY ACADEMY" DAY CARE
(E)10'X10' ROLL-UP DOOR -� �(E) 3070 PAIR DOORS TO REMAIN �(E) 4070 PAIR DOORS TO REMAIN
TO REMAIN -SEE NOTE -SEE NOTE -SEE NOTE
NorE: REAR ELEVATION
EXISTING OPENINGS WILL CHANGE PER FUTURE 2
TENANT NEEDS PER PLAN SUBMITTED FOR
APPROVAL DATED 01-22-2008 A 4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2" SQ. MEfAL RECESSED TUBE
COLOR: brown
f PLASTER
'k tan (E) CEMENT PLASTER
(E) CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: dark tan
COLOR: dark tan� �
a °D �
, , �
I ' i� •'� ��
; . � .,
; . . .
� . I.• �
i �� � � � �_ k� . .� .
�-
(E) CEMENT PLASTER
COLOR: ligth tan
NEW 3070 PAIR OF STORE FRONT DOORS
TO BE INSTALLED AND LOCATED AT EXISTING
STORE FRONT WINDOWS. ALL FUTURE STORE
FRONT DOORS & WINDOWS MAY CHANGE
nrnr�lnl�ln n�l rr�IA�IT AI['C c
(E) FOAM TRIM
COLOR: dark tan
' ` I
�/ \� I
�� �� . . . , , i.
� i i « =� +
(E) 3070 PAIR OF STORE E 6" TILE
FRONT DOORS COLOR: mexican/tan
%i\\
' --
��
II — --- — �II� (I
... I u I ...
(E) CEMEPIT PLASTER
COLOR: dark tan
0
�
+ . : _. �. _ :. . . .� � - -�- �
(E) CEMENT PLASTER
COLOR: ligth tan
(E) 3070 PAIR OF STORE FRONT
DOORS AT "KIDDY ACADEMY" DAY
CARE
��� FRC�NT FI FVATIC�N
Q
N
Q
�
�
�
V 1
W
z
V 1
�
W
O
z
, � I
�
W
L__L
�
U
Q
U
O �
Z J
F— Q
� �
w W
� �
�
U �
o �
J z
m �
Y Q
�� W �
w W
I � J
U W
� �
w o
� �
W W
� X
� W
�
�
�
�
DATE: 09-30-09
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PLAN T LEGEN D s' ��►�� ' �TM
� eo�r.a►�ic.a�ca�r,oN wv� si� arY. �r,,awcs
�� L�i Ca,G STMIDARD FORI'1
r arlautus r��xrt�� r�cx
� 3EG'XJOIA SET1P£ft1/tRENB 'APf08 SLtlE' - COA3T RSDIUDOD 24' BOX
!R� I�_�1 r.QdSP4R4 d ►_� - nl 4
g1 ACsApN�TFIJb �1PIQICAN29 LILY-OF-TIdE-NIL.E 1 CsG.
92 RAPF�IOl.EP18 i. 'DANC�R' MDIA 4�AUlTEIOIB� g C�G.
S3 ESGALLCNIA FRADESI 9 GG
°,�.� R05A 'RED I`�IDILAMD' �JB I�OBE 3 Cs�G.
� csu�c nrx�ico�.4 sE s c�,c.
36 LICatJSTRtl"1 J. 'TflcAT�J'1' 1'EXA PR1vET 5 GrC.
s� xnosr►a cor�s� .� ^x s c�c.
gg STIPA ,41alVDM�4CEA �WT'!+-TAIL GRA9b 1 GG.
EXISTMfa_TIFEES MID °.�HfQLB3
En FRA�ca�us ui�E� EvE'�1 ,a,sE+ 1�• co t8� n ca�+R+ a�rec�
� P18T.4CFFIA Cid1�EN.918 ^' �9E P19TAC'.NE 8' to fZ' 2
ET3 P'TR11b CALLERI'11NA YAR ° O LL+ERlN r s PE 4' to 1'1' 8 bOr� oN ADJACB�R 61TE
.
ET4 Fi�?AJCR�JS 3PP. �{
�y PIQLWS YAR PLllM 2' Z ON ADJA�IT SITE
ETb GEIJERA PAR VIFOLIA AtJ91RAL1AN WILLOW 7 I ON ADJAC�IT 91TE
� p�g gpp PLGrI, 4' 2
ET8 SEaJOIA 8EP1PERVI1QEt�lB COAST iQEDUJOOD 3' I GN ADJ.4CEN'f SIl'�
8E 1PE
8 DcISTO�Ks 3HRLD9 M1D TO RB"tAM YARI - dOP! aN ADJAG�NT 81TE
NOTES:
L AN Al1TOMATIC IIQRIGATIOIr g1�gTEM WILL gE f�pyIDED FOR ALL NEW PLANTING At�EAB. l�1 I l S O N� A S S O C I f�TE S
Z li� EXISTMG IRRlCsATION AT TI� F1�ONT OF TF� Bl11LDQdCs WILL BE REPAIRED OR 1�P1„�.4GED A3 AIECE59/1R1'.
3. ALL DcISTING TR�E9 ARL TO REMAM ExcEP'r As NoTED. EX�sTn�Cs Tt�s oH� s�7E .41QE To CE GoRREGTIVEL'r PI�D. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE / SITE PLANNING / ASLA
4. ALL DcISTMG TREES ON 81TE f1RE M FAIR T� GOOI� C,ONDITIOPL 2560 NINTH STREET ■ SUITE 315A •(510) 644 - 9602
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 • FAX (510) 644 - 9604
6. R�PLAC�EN'T L.4IW WILL DE DUJARF TALL FESCUE HIX ° .
b. A 2' LA7ER OF BARK CHIP MIJLGFF WILL DE PL..4GED M ALL T�W 9FNQlld / ARE,48.
1. 3EE 3EPARATE DRAWNGB fsOR IrFORhfAT10N GN SITE ATID PARlGNCs LOT LK�HTOHCi
E
(E) ROW OF TREES -
ALL 12' TO 18' CALIPER.
W fRs�sARlA CHILOEN8IS GoAbT BTI�?AU�EI@�1' FU1TS �� °�'� T�•' �' O.C. ON ADJACENT PROPERT`(. � ES1
CONFIRM SPECIES. � �
--� �--�� ��---� ��---. ��--�� �--�� ��� ��---� �--�� �`.�-�� ��--�
i�� \� i � �� ! `�� � \� / \�� i � `� /� � / \�� /�� �� �� `�� �� `��
i �� � �� / � � � / � � �� / � � � i �� � � � �
� I � I L__ l 1 � 1 / 1 I � \ 1 � � 1 1
i i_ _Q--- �, t--- O ----; i ----o ---%- j----o ---1--- i ----0 ---T--r----- _ -- � i ---- o ----f--� --- - ------r-�--------- L= i ---- � ----��---- ----t- ----,�
Q _ -_----__ _ � _ �- _ -t- ------�- --------- � - -- _n �-�-_--_ --�-� _ -_==i =+_- _4_ -_�„►_�- -_�-� =----- - -
(�-------------------- \ - - - � i i i � � � � �z�
� � i i � i
� � S1 T1 S4 �` � �` � �` �i �` �i �� �i �` � �� �i �� � �` � �� � T1 ��
� I 1 1 5 ��---��� E51 ��---��� ���--�� �� --�� ��---�. ���__�.� ��---�� ��---�. ��___��� G1 ���--�� � �� -�
° , (E) A/C PAVING DRIVWAY S1 I
� I C�� ETZ 6 NEW BIKE RACKS Jl Ss
51 4 I
/
�_� � 1 �------. � - TO BE 0. �E�RE SPRINKIER 8 2 S3
� 56
�� I 1 g�� G1 l Q I S2 ENCLOS RE
� �` j ��� � � o I REMOVE (E) PUWTER TO 3 T2 I
ET3 � �}'� �� �� je j � 5 FoR NEW BICYLE
�
� � I � \ 6- ! j I i---�� ES1 l_ J 55 S7
--� , � � • . . �� 37 2 �
I � c, � �
/ � Tl URB OPENING. T(P. G� '
� I
2 T1
� �� i 3 NEW PIANTING 2
� "FINGER" ISLANDS IN SOUTH T � � G �� I
� � j �� PARKING LOT. � � 4 �
� �I � . . . _ �
�i� a 4 � �
�
I` � � r 4 � �i EXISTING RETAIL AREA
� W �
� v
� � G1 �� � � z • I
W � , � . g _ - �
W i Si ❑ . • � � � (
� �� �
� I a � Tl 3 � I a a~ I
U ��� I 2 � G1
/ I I � � ❑ 3
r n j � A 8 � � ET4 Hc ' ' ' � I
lJ 1 , ,\ �`\ i � / Z T1 S1 S6 T1 S1
� � � � i � � 0 58 �� S1 2 9 �� 9 I
W � ��J �. 3 v 27 4 5 3 �
`• 6' �i ,- , z � s, �
W � _- ' � _' Er4 " Hc p . . . g I i
.�� � � i �. �
� / ` � � \ i i \ W HC HC
(/ 1 6 " I 1� � 1 v $7 I
V J � � I � 2 '
` I , I � ES � f GE o 0 0 'e o o I
/
�� if 8 � j � . . . . . . . . .
\ � I � T� �
�- � I I �i � G1 • • � I
` �. � IOIOYMIt
� ��---� 1 �,...�,,. � � � .� a.t °""°�
�
� I i ��,� � i 4 , �ai.�a x aro 4
` � I� � �� S 1 L �..._ S 1 I I
4 �; i i � � 5 � � P LAY GR OU N D I ,,,, a w,o, ,,,,, �� I
��--�,� � ��� � � 3 0 6,240.00 S.F. x �"""'a G1
I x � S7 I
� � / � . . . 6
REPLACE �-�----�/ i 1 ❑ �� � ��� I o S1 I
(E) u►wN �N , �� �,' KIDDIE ACADEMY DAY CARE �, X, �x—� p � '� I
STREETSIDE I i � � �• . ( 2
❑ T� 4
PLANTING Q I i � � I I
STRIP. i �,,..,.,,,�,
� I i S1 � . . . � G1
� 4 x S1
�p � � �-� �• � I '
v ; ; a T, ;, REMOVE (E) PLANTER � � � 0 6 i��
� � I I �� s a+R�a nua � 2� ' r ��/� i � I
j (''1 L_J / esaru � � � / � �a � �7 � �
I I i � � � � t a �— �/� � ---L \
rt� � -r —1�---�- —r-X ------X �rr.��X .. X -- x - --- --t � -- __ �
INCRFJISE (E) CMU WALL TO
B'-U' ABOVE GROUND
.(tlb)
_ NORTH
�
R
QMISC. 1 1-8-07
QMISC. 12-18-07
QMISC. 10-20-08
4QMISC. 10-4-09
/j�MISC. 11-2-09
�
�
W
W '�
Z �
C7 U
W O rn
� � �
I
s�
� N
U�o
_ � a
� Q ..
�
(n Y
J �
W a
H- �
Q �
� �
Q '�
N'�
Q
�
�
V 1
V /
�_l__�
z
V I
�
W
O
z
�
�
W
�
�
U
v
O
f--
�
W
�
�
U �
0 �
J
m w
�
w U
�' �
U �
� �
Z
W
J
W
H
(/')
�
�
�
�
r
DATE: 10-30-07
REVI
C11Y COMMENTS
11-03-09
��
a
•
Q I
�
� ( LCi
1""'1 4
�
W
W
� �
V S
i
T n 1
lJ 1
� ♦ « ♦ ♦ + + a + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ a + ♦ r ♦ a ♦ ♦ • � ♦ ♦ • a ♦ \
0.4 0. 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 0. 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 ; .3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 6 0.5 . 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0 0.4 0.4
� 5 39 .24' PR
* .8 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.9 0. 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.7 1. \ 0.8 0 6 0.9 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.0 .0 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.,5_, �.0 0.7 0 6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0� �
PROVIDE H� RAC (� ELECTRICAL PANEL � 0 L � � �
BE RELOCATED () A/ PAVING DRIVWAY � o
♦ r + r + r + + + r r + + * + a r . � ' t r T a � t � + ♦ • ♦ ♦
.7 .5 1.3 0.9 0.9 0. _ 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.5 1 1.7 2.4 2.3 1.8 .2 . . 0. 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.0 0. 0 0.9 . 2 1.8 �
I � ° °
(E) FIRE PRINKI,EA TRAS
� + 1.5 .5 + 0 5 1. °- RISER � 2. 1.7 0.9 0. 0. 0.8 0.6 0.9 0. 6 0 DNCLO� p.7 .� �.g i�l �i
0
_ �e❑ 0 � � I
. . . ° 6 « . . , . , * . , .
2 .4 1.3 .2 0.9 A 2, 1.8 1.0 0 . .2 0.7 1.2 0. .8 a . �.0 1. 1.3 1� 1.3
6, • • I
* .6 1. � 8 + . . . . . . .
L P 1.9 �
i
i � i
+ 1. 2 1. 3 2 �2 . . . 9 1. 3 0 '0 1� . 8 f 1. 0`1,�� 6l� " 9 . 1 1�
S (N) ❑ � +
LANT �
�.0 1 8 1.
�
�
1. 1.3 �1 1. 1 4 � ��
)
DSCAPE �
ER
1. .4 i. 3� i. �.8
6
.2 1.1 + 0. � # 0.
❑
1.7 .2 '0 � 0.
� g �3 •R µ zr��• ' a ° .
W o 5 ac �
� (E) S PE 1.0 1.D ; .1 1. + .0
W 3
(g) ING
H 1. 1. N1� . 1.7
� LAND ❑
' ^ PLAN
Ul C �
1.9 1.2 �.. "L.
1 .i ' i.s . a
i
� � .6 1. 1.6 +. 1.4
� DRO OFF S PICR-OP
AT ONT ENTRY FOA
"RIDD E ACADEM�1
1.9 1. 2 0 �1.5 .4 LJ
� ❑ ' �
, Z
, 1.0 1. 2 1.3� + .5 �,
( ) DRI .A� I
' I I
, + .7 '0.7 0.� `.8 ��
�
Cupertino Kiddy Academy - Patel Construction Company
Lighting Systems
2322 6th Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Calcs by: Cain Boulden
Voice: 510-982-3937
Fax:510-704-4568
cainb@ltgsys.com
10/15/2009
Filename: cupertinoKiddyAcademyH_10-15-09.AGI
1. THIS LIGHTING DESIGN IS BASED ON LIMITED INFORMATIafV SUPPLIED BY OTHERS
TO LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC. SITE DETAILS PROVIDED HEREaW ARE REPRODUCED ONLY
AS A VISUALIZATION AID. FIELD DEVIATIONS MAY SIGNIFICIINTLY AFFECT PREDICTED
PERFaRMANCE. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, CRITICAL SITE INFaRMATION (POLE
I �V'ATT�1Nf ARTFNTATTf1N hYNINTTNf; NFTC'i-IT. FTf _ 1 SHnlll I'] RF C(Y]RI]TN�TE❑ WITH
EXISTING RETAIL AREA
KIDDIE ACADEMY DAY CARE
:�
� . � � � �' `"�- . . ; ., . , �� ,�
�
i��� .�
4 ,
1 . * 2 .Z � 1.1 + 0 ` + E + 0 . 9 9 � � � p 8, • .1� � . 0
. 0 6 i
+ 2 . 7 � . 9 I 1 . 0 * � i * . 7 �0� �0 . 9 • * + . 9 � 1 � 6 * .
� � � � � . . � � � �
0
# 2 , 1. 8 1. 0 0. 0 Q 9 0. 7 �0 . 9 + 0 . 8 0. 0. 9 0. 1. 2 �1 `
I
i i ♦ ♦ 4 f f ♦ 6 ♦ h
.9 2.4 • 1.1 '0.5 .6 6' 0.8 1
i �
� 4 i i i ♦ ♦ ♦ i ♦ '2 ♦ � + � ♦ �
8 1.2 0 7 0. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0. 1.4
I� 0
� 6 Q
1� �� Y�' �� • 7(E) i 0�-�HA�C� �. 0 0.7 . 5 �0. 6 �0. �0. 9 1�
�
4 � o 0 0 �
2. 4 Rc 1 i xc 0. 0. 5 . 7 1 + 0 fi .1 0 7 . 6 0. o. 2 `. 8 � . 6 ❑
W� �p,
6❑ i �
� � 7 * - - � TYP -� .� _ . . 7 �� 1 *
o ,
Y _ � _ - � - � : wLyes -X - .af' ��`�.- I
�r- �
� 4 „�„�
1.9 "� 4'� ~ �1 . �0.5 �0.7 1.1 ''�` 1 1 0 7�, 1.0�J7 }
� ;�? ` = a cMS � � X �� I
....... R �r
� ��.�� �. I � , 5 I ....,...� I
_-T.. �._.. - -
� I:�
' �µ� i.s �. LA. G D. 6; 'o.�n�,� 5. 'o. � g��.i. i.o i . o
��. •��. _ �,• . s �n.� i �
�•• (SS O
! ���� . � ...� __" _'_" '�"' � X ///���
1 ' '�""�'.... '_' _" '. � I
; _� 9"'�' 1 1 � _,0 « ,S �0' S�g 0.6i 0.5 0 '� + 0. � 5 .5 0.7 1.0 1
.� � i �.,..�:; i °
�+k° n+ +^.. ,;,,� + + � + �+ t J � �� + � � SCAPE ` + � +
2. 7 1. 1. 0 L? ��.-� 5 0. 8 .LO (�a:� . . 4 0. 5 1 z 1. 2
J - -- -:,,._: :-.-- � ,. ..�;_ ,,� �
�,_�.M� _ :�..� i _� �::::� :.� : :
: . � . ..,
^• 4� �7
♦ 4 i ' y I X + +^ 2�j :� / ♦ � i ♦
2. 3 1. 7 0. 8 . 4 `� 0. fi 1 3� 1.�: ;;`9 n V �: 6� '1 0. 6 0. 4 0. 5 0; 1. 5
� • : �...,._ _ �,
' � � • / I 6 I
� �� lII�PAQ RIDLi
�' I
1 SITE PLAN
Calculation Summary
T.�}�cl ('al r^T�mo Tit1i tc AVQ MdX Mi n �vn/Mi n Ma�r/Mi n
�
�
�
� �
� U
� �
-+-� �
(� -
� �
V / �
�
� m
� �
-+-� �
� �
� �
� �
-�--�
�
N
�
N
�
N
Q
�
�
V 1
C�
W
z
V J
�
W
�
z
�I
�
W
�
�
U
Q
U
O
Z
F--
�
W
�
� z
U �
�
0
J �
m z
Y ~
W =
W �
', � _J
' U
, � �
Z �,
w
>
W
H
�
�
�
�
�
�
DATE: NOV. 2009
CALE: AS SHOWN
�' '
.�
�
;, .�.►:�ti� .��LEa
� . t _f. �•F .: . . :•� ::e' La.ni'• .-��. wAa�
. . • . ' .� ' • �. . .�. . . . . .,: - .,1;.'� :.......; •!};� ' ..
'_ ' . . _ ' ' • • �'1� ;t �':��'�?�.�.•',�:^ ' _ 'j. .
. . . . .. . . _ ,. .. . , ` i ' . i' :�n}'
, � .� .. . .. .. ' �.' • . . .
. r _ :i. . � , • . , • .
. ' ' ' • • 'r'':r��'�. .� . - . .
.. " . . . • j. . - . • , . "
� � !� .�3 � , �l,4 � ' ' . . •• ceNe� eu�n�
.- ' � ` ,_„_,_ ,_ ,_,,,,,_ _ _._.y�.____ _ ' ' , * � � ,� - �, � ..r.�;,;
1 • � G. 0 �5 s '. . j �AG. i� ' .�`.;' ^ � i .� � , . . .. ' • • • -.`•....: .. ' ' •• ' ' • ' ' . , .. �-. . ' , . �r-. •,"' , •'�, ,�..., T � �1 f} .,,� +-
� 'q4 •� 4G'�V Pl �
� ' � � � � �'�� �. � �
; ,� ».�� ._�_.._ .-.---'-�--- .... --- ...--------'; -/� �� : ' ` � I +
` .._. ... �` --� � i4r..d,�` ;�„ � ��� f � �
� � �o �4t,7 i ;. .�, `�'� 0:
--. _ . _ _ _�____. �' _ ` 1 • ' `L� a + ; , • -'�, �i
S � � �t . .� .
i �' ,�' ,,; � . it�.o� , f �'• '
� _ _.�—_.�� . _ . ►� , „``•� {
.. _ • i c.b t1p• � � � a.5 � : . ��:�,' • 3 C ` �;t" t c
1 i�.� 4, tin.. 195•4 ��.; i ' 1 • , R]Ol�lld .� ' ' . a �
� .; � 6
� � • �a! . 1,5,1� � : t►�v� 11?.1? �
:c � . _ _ . . -. - . _.. _ -�__ . .- +� � � ._. ,. _ .. � r=.ti .
.� . � � • � ' .. t
� � -- - - --- ---__^__+— -- { �.�� .._.. • _� 'v � �' � I �� ,��.
. � ' _. ". 2 E h. f t,. ' ' - � '��.
- " . .. .._. _....__ . �.___r__. .__ _._.._.t_ � _. ,, ; ^_..�.._ _ . ._ , v Y V� � ; �` -
�r� :. ..p , .�, d` � d• . I], L E S + `�, � I �,
. � F . � v+
,� � . . . .. _ .— .. _ . � 1= �_ ' r "` �' S T c� R E •� � � �, '� �� � �•
- � � � � ' ` � � ._ .. t; � � a
- � � �_.. `r'� .� _ . � y i C� . 1 5� � �! �
j ._.. . �, 25,2 n _tic�_�t . � , a
' . .J . � � � • d ', � '• j Q • � 4 0+ � � � `
� _ � __ " ._ �_._._.... � . � '` IN. LQI�Q E�E�!, 197•5� . . "� ; i �:°. 1 �:
I . ._... �' _ O .�....��-�...,.�..,z:...s,.�.�WN..w ,�.,�. �
. q �� U tJ �{3 ' t, j : �� � , , � !`" l� ' ' � � ' !-� y J'
.4 � .--- i � a, . �._� /� , , ' w , ti in I -�.� /
�0 � - � " y i � �' o � /�
I4V.I J — �
d � • L _ •,�� , � . .�._ Z ' t "
Y ' . ,'�, � �°
, , --.-�- � � , ; f �. . Q � � .
� ,;� 5 .� ��.�, � � ,
__ �� - � --- � ---_t_ � � -� �-- - (�' � �� U . , � ���
� � �. `
, ,. ,�, ... � . , : �� � �' ,, , � � , .
� c.t,. ' � _.-----� � � �,� � � Q� '� ._� �, � / � `��`
_ nia. �9s 1 � �fi � i �
;� .NV. t .� t• ` r � . �.�le �O: ��� �
�., " i _ � . � , p �I� � %' .
` .. __ - - . ----�,� , - , ' /� � ��� �' ' ��' T�
. • - Iy,,' r,' — •—JI •- .`` ' --;--�--�--- � .�t ' �,J � 1 (.� O � y . '•` IHVif4'1�1 � '
. , '. M -�` � ` y g '-�v � ��. � rr
c , — �r--- � - � ��. � � � r s ��� � � �.
, ( . �� . ��'c: iQ�-Ci� �.� CO'_�1.'.� Zs l7� � 1,. �O�-Q�� 'L� Z,g� ° '�� � � \ %•� � t � � - I) AN17AttY h
' ' ~ r.e ..J_ ... .. � _ 1 _ ! r � • ► �i• • � � ,C � w _ \ • � � � / .
�O � �, 'y CnN��Gu
" C :i�.�_% ' � `�`� ,�1�� �. v J� ! � ` � �o
- � I ;n � 11�,.5� � �: � �'.. .. . . .. • . � . .. ^ � lr � ° 't i47.o
� �.r.._. � '�•���� � � ..� �� � '� � :�. ...� � _ � '�r.. � �-� J
� ' t - � .lII? �; � ° ` � � ,, � p y . " ¢�'M�,2 ' � � ' i a pt.Ar/Tw� � Q i ,1,
� ����'� S'u� ,� K {ZG N Ss •aOt '1HV.111��LL �_ _ IOS� �R.C.P�• 7� � I: '�C.O I�.CpV6R..
•�s - .._L _ _; s.•ooi , �- � aiM. t�7.oC
- ��r..qs .� ' i �__� ' � LT 1 �N�, iq4•31
� � 1 I; � 1'1i � � -�INV� 19Z�5 ` t v � GS ���u �r ri Z. �� �� r .
00 l 7�^ 0 � � /� � �:1
� �' � I 1 i� � ' �°- r • b=a � f+s -
_ .Jt.� ..._ ._ _ _--•---'-------- . .._ .._.�.Q.. . ._..._ � .�__tt . � .... .. Y��...' .�.�..�.� ' ..
� ' � ,
��3.��4 ; � 14 � � 75
.7 • '
(J'�,Ti�/�' .hW� .ti..._.....
C� ; �,•r.. : �,
FREITAS CONSTRUCTION CO.
�� •�.w. O�.M�i w..
�
' C . .,
�IRC R�w� •'y1.rw..�
� (, •1 , - ' . �'\ •MI 1� :
A � � ': r -: ,•. � � � .;�,...
�� �
!
. ` s � : �� • C `� - " � • �!w'
�l'
� + � • � : �a k��,:. r L, .
�' � , v � y � : � . � .�. • • I � �
` ,�, '. bt'FA.•.S ���:t�
.,r '1. • .•r . . : 5 r i .
�� � ,. � ! �n+. . .. , •�:ev
� � ��. ,;
:yia► 7
i � .*, �_ _ . 1= r . _ . ..
�� ..�' _' '°> • + �•_.` �
......�, ,�'��"
' _ Y� ` '��.,(� . . +5.� y . j� •.r �("- -•
t 4 �:;cLi.� 'r : .. _
�•� 11.�.ti .
� t�i. � . � 1• �.. �� ..T , y
\� `
Pfi2tL1NG AGG�45 f7RIVE\V��Y � h�RKiNc'�
d.o Q .
�
�Z`' A/G PA V I N G oN 2'� Al � P A V 1 N cD �N !n" Cor�P, 11qyE I R'� A/ G PA V I hJ G c�N
�p coF�v. �an� co" ec+�tiP, P�Ahe .
TO�'J`L P�IZKING liCo Ct�2�
� L C� T � � � �..1
•h e a e. � " : ( �- o" ' �
��r�
G R�b.t� I�l G l�*�1 f7 P A V l 1�1 G� O;���_
� t�tJtl:dt�3.a�, roUiJDp.�tioNti.TRSeti �Nf� AI.L DC7RIf �aPe�LL ryi 4GMCNBl7 fRVN�7fiG y1Ta,
TTLC6 tLooT++ h�+y►�G Vi6 2E�novco Tc a► �A►NII�UA DEpTH ap 2 FcaT.
Ta ��olL 5 FrA �� h6 KC/M V�r] Tc A OGYTH oF 6 I►�=++c�'.
6u•i6re.•�.a� �cItJ�L� P�� Sc�Q�fcle� T�+ /� ocv-n� oP � iw�cHcS ANO eanpAeTe� -re q
. . .. - .• . . , . _ QEj,q'TIVt �/APAGTlON Of qC�P A�j DE7E,RJ�IWED �NQ�R �:+Tl�NRA(LO �iQEG�FIa=A'fID1�1�i.
:_` •`..� ; �:.: • . •.-i, .. .. . • � .:: i i?+E %a}rE �iH�e.L CoNhtR, Op uttJ4HeD /Lnc�c OR GR�V�G CauFO�-M�NG Tu ^ L�ly�i 'Z
i;: j• •j:q,.� ... :
:.•: . . '.•a• • . .. . . .'.r; ...:tir.�►CF 9ELTIOIJ 2Lo . 'f►1G �i.4�s� C?tJiL4E �iHA1.L Plb GmrNAG7'L'n TC A P�.tLAT1Vi
�,' � v•'d� '. 'P�GTfaN Of 'j� %�
��.
N � �: � '��t'O� IlCING �IND PLAGING Gf /�iiPilA4T CONC{z,ETG tiN-4�L, CGNG'OfI� TG N1�E � Or
� �,.�o NOTEt 2 P�C.9ting �snitxry �TroN � a.
4 ' --•- aterals for �his DroperLq.
• ��'4' G."NT, s At 'bhR Drsseat t111e mm�e olLl�y HE OOUNI.� 5EA1� GOP.T 4H'�Li- CONFo(=M "T'O %rGG'f!O V 37 . f0 R
�'�, :� � � t'ruaA�ntous gEsti�b :
to the exlatin� prop�r,.y lina.
(OP hOtL �tl f��; .::' • • ...-�- `�� j G P/���NG � TheY ttill be dedica�ing 1�' E p�ATEZI� j. Al�l d D�GIVG �F RE1nr{�ottCan GoWCLLB.'fS DRA1N Pl9E b41Al.f,.
-!';,. : '' J At y that LSata, aonCraa�or :�121 q' A
YLaN7eR �-� � � '.� "'-' - ' N o[z.ri ;o EGTrnN G� . '
' ,'� � hare to run additional 15' line F y • .
/�.'•,' -' •� K � bo ineide at' sidrrrp11:, vhere NITAi=.`( �i E�v£C?: PIPE �F}Ac.L �E CLA`( <iEWE.tL P1PE', THE //�.TERtAL. A�JV PLI.CI^t3
[CrtG r.WLr! - ••-' • '',, ' �� (p COKf�' �J�`7 clean-wts will be ittatallad. Gf TRENGt�i�E'�.
:.,i��: ., .,. � •+ . SANiTA�LY �E�vst2 Sf+�ILL GoNPo¢�7� Tr� !�sEC TICnJ 7i. BACK F►lL
. . . ' ` 4� A.-� �E fitFtF1a.1 cou�t.aGT�n.
Per MMc�ee 11-ltf-ak -� G H ri A 9 1 N :' S• H d. l. I.. � i E Q F P a R?u► N� 7 =� L r N 7 C o N e R G T� W I"� H.� 1 Z,� 4 s� �� t
..-�... � ..�. a� e.�•�r ra-o;.i e�► �s� .wNV �lNA4 �aNFowe�. :e aPP�� e..�� �oR��ot.,y oF
1 nf �~ �_���"�'(' r� .�� ' �T • •� :�EG'f1oN SI. � � . . . .
CC�N C_.�� `{ ''" �Z �' �2 y � 7 (�ET ���t '�'-��`` :�� ��'�'��R�% � �� t , ; 1 � � 7NE AP�OVE hECTfQN.'I' REQ�R TO yEC.TfONy o� T1{E �i7A7E oF C13,L�FoRN1A
1 C..�" \,-� � ' /. . • '�a�iJL'.��YY/i..JlirLtZL�.�.wi1:.SrS�VI.».Y
� � r — r �� . . •. • -'DEPnRT^E�T •O� iut�Lic woc�c-4 �,TiiNvr�¢:n 9��i�cCA�tOnf�,•aR JAN. 1 Go.
hGA4� 1 - -t7 • . • • " • . , . • . ' . • _ • ' _ . • .. _ . , .
.
�-.� � .,..._._.__�.
^' r 1 1
~ � }'
, l � �j i
• • (!1 Y
✓ , ��
i
, 1 ,
,i►r�. i��.i�
('' , �"��
•� �
�
'--� C.oNc, c,ur��y
' �.
.,�'�
�
� �
x
.� , � � r
� � �
., ^
�., �
�� ` : .a
� � � �
b
;1
I
, �� • 1
n t�. � �
t
I �!� 1
� �' a
_ �.T Q
I Nr
4 5 �- o" ,
a �1 p.i -
( h1'rt.c�Y o�v�c4Tt�aN ;
�
,�d ,q .�.d. I/MH�
u H wJ.idaod � a+oky e�lr uk{°^'
�prdetir ��� Ay e(a L[OMfI� 10
�r�s'.en �J : . 4 ; �v� � � . �
,�,u b,, oan �n � �� ci �
i
�
I_U
. I �
-.J
,�
,,
�
' �i
�1.�
�
U�
�
�
l�
i � �
� •
I ��� ���r r• «•J• ' T .
� � .. • ;.'- � , . .
� � J .-- �,
} ,t , I .h �� /�n"
i j V
( r � �..
� " � � I,L�� �� .,
; , ��� W ��G ; , .
{
1
�
I Q
j PcR �v �. .�
( :. ._ .. .. ' ... _.' '� �
; x
L4T4 2 �C 3 W
. �l�4N'f� V►�.Th.0 !.1'� w
yu�,p�Vf�Ir�N J �
'u
tr�.aN �.�r _a v � 1 �.� .-- - �---- • -
, ...�.� '..' . ; i . .. �. . � ..
��
1
-- . . . : �
--._.. .. . .1 W
. . .. ._.. .. . �►
. �
�
�yj� F �a UEAf�►�CEQ �
�,Faaov.c � _. j L _ -
� �f� ,51�G� 1 �:� ( ^ •� -
� �+" - � i . " �
>.�t r i; `� f t .���
CA7E � . _ � _. .. . 1 L� _; i.
SAR4TQGA � 1 j (SUNWYVA�B k'a.
_ ._._ ... � �. -
.__. .. _. ; �
i•
�
ViCIt�ITti' /A/�.I� :�
PI.ANS CHEG
fl BY
�/.�/ GS
OA� u� � ,
, t f �1 's �
p71 T r.� c.a �
/ �, � .
Ofi7" � ,�,. •• . �
p:,;� _�.. •-
'}►pp ROYED
m arecvr=het ►�,rn rNC arr oF
{�PtkS��ro CADtd D 0 W�CLS
�- 7 � �,ow uu
� e � v� •� �° �n.n+ M1�t
!r �1,• , � Pt 1�% � r �;,�a_nf
� �tv _i���y� ���
Ni �u .s/. L�- ' . .. � p � u.
� �� ,; wt d . . }.c ' •t�.t a'.c:uf
±1:�:L !:: ; t: r. e.�, e.: a a. s� a�
�,� �y { \:�.�N'�� {:Nf�►i"..W
d sih ., V � in�+
t
I
1
Attachment 5
�
FEHR +�t. PEERS
TRANSPORTAFi�N CQNSUlTAN15
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 5, 2010
To: Gary Chao, City of Cupertino
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Jason Nesdahl PE, Fehr & Peers
Greg Ripa, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Kiddie Academy Transportation Engineering Study
• SJ10-1169
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the methods and results of the transportation
analysis performed for the proposed Kiddie Academy of Cupertino child care education center
near the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue in Cupertino, California. The
Kiddie Academy would be located in an existing building located on the site which also houses an
existing fumiture store. The proposed project includes an 8,400 square foot (sfl building area that
will serve up to 143 students. Figure 1 presents the location of the proposed education center
and Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan.
This study is being performed to satisfy the City of Cupertino requirements. The analysis includes
estimating trip generation, evaluating traffic operations including queuing, evaluating on-site
circulation, evaluating site access, reviewing parking layouts, and estimating parking demand.
The traffic operations evaluation was conducted at two intersections:
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard & Portal Avenue
2. Portal Avenue & Dentist Office Driveway ,
DATA COLLECTION
Intersection turning movement counts were collected at the two intersections described above to
perform the operations analyses. In addition, field observations were conducted at the two
intersections and at an existing Kiddie Academy in San Jose, Califomia. The observations at the
Kiddie Academy were conducted to obtain information about the operations of an existing site
and used to project trip generation and parking demand at the proposed site.
Roadway Vo/umes and Observations
Intersection operations were evaluated using the highest one-hour volume counted during the
midweek morning (7:00 — 9:00 AM) and evening (5:00 — 7:00 PM) peak periods. New tuming
movement counts were conducted at the two study intersections in late March 2010. The turning
movement counts indicated that the moming peak hour was from 8:00 to 9:00 AM and the
evening peak hour was from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Attachment A contains the traffic counts used in
this analysis.
Field observations of the study intersections were conducted during the same AM and PM peak
hours discussed above in March 2010 to verify the calculated operations. The observations
indicated that the study intersections are operating at or near the calculated levels of service.
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrand peers.com
1-37
Gary Chao and David Stiilman �
May 5, 2010
Page2of16 FEti[t c5�. P[.ERS
,as»sroxrarsn� tn�s��rh�rs
Trip Generation and Parking Observations
Field observations of vehicle trips, associated parking demand, and pick-up/drop-off activity at an
existing Kiddie Academy in San Jose were conducted between approximately 7:00 and 9:15 AM
and 4:00 and 6:15 PM on Thursday, April 1, 2010. 74 of the total 112 enrolled students were on-
site on the day of the observations based on information from the applicant. The daily average
number of students on-site between March 1, 2010 and April 8, 2010 was 73 students and the
maximum number of students was 81 students. Therefore, the number of students on-site during
the observations can be considered an "average" day and the maximum number of students on-
site is approximately 9% higher than the number of students on-site during the day of the
observations. The applicant also indicated this would be an appropriate site to perform
observations because the number of students, staffing levels, and hours of operation would
generally be similar between the iwo facilities.
The observations indicated that the maximum parking demand was 12 vehicles in the AM peak
hour, the average pick-up/drop-off parking duration was approximately 7 minutes in the AM peak
period, and there were 57 total AM peak hour trips generated. The observations also indicated
that the maximum parking demand was 10 vehicles in the PM peak hour, the average pick-
up/drop-off parking duration was approximately 9 minutes in the PM peak period, and there were
44 total PM peak hour trips generated.
The existing Kiddie Academy in San Jose is located in a shopping center with other commercial
uses nearby that share parking spaces and driveways. Based on observations and proximity to
the Kiddie Academy site approximately 5 vehicles were assumed to be used by Kiddie Academy
during the peak period. Therefore, 5 additional vehicles were added to the parking demand during
both the AM and PM peak periods. This would result in a maximum demand of 17 vehicles
parked during the peak time period.
TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING ESTIMATION
The trip generation and parking demand were calculated for the proposed site. The following
sections summarize the analysis and results.
Trip Generation
The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project was
estimated by applying the applicable trip generation rates to the development proposal. Trip rates
were estimated from data collected during the Kiddie Academy field obsenrations and these rates
were used to estimate project trip generation. It was found that the peak AM trip rate was 0.51
trips per student and the peak PM trip rate was 0.39 trips per student. The peak trip rate was
calculated by dividing the highest number of trips observed in one hour of observations (57 AM
trips and 44 PM trips) by the total number of students at the San Jose Kiddie Academy (112
students).
The observed trip rates were adjusted to account for students that were not on-site during the
field observations. As mentioned previously, 74 of the total 112 enrolled students were on-site on
the day of the observations and the maximum number of students on-site was 81 during March
and early April 2010. Since the number of students on-site during the observations was not the
maximum, the rates were adjusted by approximately 9% to reflect what the rates would be with
the maximum number of students on-site. Increasing the observed trip rates by approximately 9%
results in an adjusted AM trip rate of 0.56 trips per student and a peak PM trip rate of 0.43 trips
per student.
1-38
�
I
w
c�
FEHP. � PEERS
TR�NSPORT�T,o„ �oNS��TANTS STUDY AREA AND PROJECT LOCATION
Apri12010 FIGURE 1
SJ10-1169
'�j� Kiddie Academy of Cupertino
•r
�
I
�
O
FEHR � PEEF'.S
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
April 2010
SJ10-1169
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
�j Kiddie Academy of Cupertino
-r
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page5of16 F�FiR & PCEFS
r��KS�axYnrror tUrs��taHts
The adjusted trip rates and resulting project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 80 AM peak hour trips (43 inbound and 37
outbound) and 62 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound and 34 outbound). Trip rates from the day care
land use rates indentified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th
Edition were used to provide a comparison to the adjusted observed rates. The ITE rates are
generally higher than the surveyed rates. For the purposes of this analysis, the adjusted observed
Kiddie Academy rates were chosen to estimate the project trip generation because the surveyed
rates are from another Kiddie Academy site that has similar operations and is more likely to
reflect operations of a new Kiddie Academy. ITE recommends using local data because the ITE
trip rates are an average of many surveys done throughout the United States over the past few
decades and these surveys may not represent local conditions.
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES
Time Trip Rates Trip Estimates
Land Use Size Period In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
� 143 AM 54% 46% 0.56 43 37 SO
Kiddie Academy students PM 45% 55% 0.43 28 34 62
Note:
1 Rates based on observed data at the San Jose Kiddie Academy location.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2010.
Parking Demand and Supply
The parking supply requirements found in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code' were compared
to parking supply rates observed at the Kiddie Academy in San Jose. Table 2 presents the rates
and parking spaces required at the proposed project site. The amount of required parking was
calculated by multiplying the number of students proposed at the Kiddie Academy of Cupertino
(143 students) by the required supply rate of 0.154 spaces per student, which results in a
required supply of 22 spaces.
Parking demand rates were estimated from data collected during the Kiddie Academy field
observations and these rates were used to estimate project parking supply. It was found that the
peak parking demand ratio was 0.152 spaces per student. The peak parking demand ratio was
calculated by dividing the peak hourly demand (17 occupied spaces) by the total number of
students at the San Jose Kiddie Academy (112 students).
Similar to the trip generation rates, the demand rates were also adjusted to account for the
maximum number of students on-site. Increasing the observed parking demand rates by
approximately 9% results in an adjusted demand rate of 0.165 trips per student. This demand
rate results in a total demand of 24 spaces (143 students proposed multiplied by the demand rate
of 0.165). However, this parking demand is typically adjusted with a circulation factor to determine
the parking supply needed.
' City of Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 19.100.040)
1-41
Gary Chao and David Stiilman �
May 5, 2010
Page6of16 F�hiR &. PEERS
tiAtFSPAR,A�tiq� COxSilt,�afi
Typically, parking demand rates are adjusted with a circulation factor to determine the parking
supply necessary to provide a sufficient amount of parking. A circulation factor is applied to
provide vehicles direct access to open spaces so they do not have to circulate through the site
searching for open spaces. Circulation factors rypically vary from 5 to 15% and are dependent on
the type of land use and parking tumover. The Kiddie Academy would have a relatively high
turnover during the pick-up and drop-off time periods, but for most of the day the turnover would
be low and a 5% factor should be adequate to accommodate the peak time periods. Assuming a
5% circulation factor, the above peak parking demand would result in a parking supply of 25
spaces for the Kiddie Academy.
Based on the site plan provided (see Figure 2), the project will provide 93 on-site parking spaces,
including disabled spaces, which are shared with the adjacent retail space. The 16,800 s.f. retail
space is required to have 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 68 s�aces. Combining the
requirements for the retail space and the education center, the required total parking on-site is 90
spaces (68 spaces required for the retail spaces plus 22 spaces required for the Kiddie
Academy). The 93 parking spaces provided at the proposed site exceed the parking requirements
of 90 spaces by three parking spaces.
As mentioned previously, the peak parking demand would result in 25 spaces needed for the
Kiddie Academy. Using this adjusted observed parking supply and combining the requirements
for the retail space, the total parking needed on-site is 93 spaces (68 spaces required for the
retail spaces plus 25 spaces needed for the Kiddie Academy). Therefore, the 93 parking spaces
provided would meet the parking supply needed for both the retail space and the education
center.
Bicycle parking spaces are not required by the City's Municipal Code, but the project will provide
6 spaces in two bike racks on the south side of the building.
1-42
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page7of16 F�t-ift�. PCERS
t�aNS�ORTAYI6H CAxSBtta�fl
TABLE 2
PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
City of Cupertino Parking Estimates
Pro osed Municipal Code from an existing
Land Use and Number of Parking Requirements Kiddie Academy
Parking Type Students Provided
Supply Spaces Demand Spaces
Rate� Required Rate Needed
Proposed Auto 93 0.154 22 0.165 25
Parking 143
Proposed Bike 6 0 0 0 O
Parking
Notes:
1 Supply rate (spaces/student) for Day Care category
2 Adjusted peak period parking demand rate (spaces/student) for an existing Kiddie Academy.
3 Spaces needed due to the adjusted peak period parking demand rate (spaces/student) for an existing Kiddie Academy
adjusted with a 5% circulation factor to determine the supply needed.
4 Parking is shared with the adjacent retail space and includes the disabled parking spaces
5 No cyclists were observed at the existing Kiddie Academy.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2010.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The traffic operations analysis was conducted to determine the intersection levels of service and
the queuing under the following three scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions — Existing volumes obtained from counts.
Scenario 2: Background Conditions — Existing volumes plus traffic generated from
other not yet constructed projects
Scenario 3: Project Conditions — Background volumes plus traffic generated from the
proposed Kiddie Academy child care education center
The levels of service were calculated for the project study intersections indicated below:
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard & Portal Avenue
2. Portal Avenue & Dentist Office Driveway
Intersection Volumes
As mentioned previously, new turning movement counts were conducted at the two study
intersections in late March 2010. The turning movement counts indicated that the morning peak
hour was from 8:00 to 9:00 AM and the evening peak hour was from 5:00 to 6:00 PM.
Background traffic volumes were forecasted based on not yet constructed projects in the area.
City staff provided a list of not yet constructed projects in the vicinity of the project site such as
the Main Street Cupertino project and the De Anza College expansion. City staff also provided
1-43
Gary Chao and David Stiilman �
• May 5, 2010
Page8of16 ���-�� � .�?����
TAAit9i�aRTh7f07+ C4x$tlltR?�i5
directions of approach and departure to these projects. The trips generated by these projects
were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on directions of approach and
departure to represent Background traffic volumes. A full list of projects and their directions of
approach and departure can be found in Attachment B.
Intersection Levels of Service
Operations of the study intersections were evaluated with level of service (LOS) calculations.
Level of service is a qualitative description of roadway operations from the driver's perspective
based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are
defined from LOS A, with free flow operations and little or no delay, to LOS F, with stop-and-go
operations and excessive delays. LOS E represents "at-capacity" operations.
The LOS method for signalized intersections described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board was applied in this
analysis. This method evaluates a signalized intersection's operations based on average control
delay. A Traffix model was used to evaluate all intersections in this analysis. Table 3 summarizes
the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
TABLE 3:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Average Control
Delay Per
Level of Vehicle
Service Description (Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression s 10
and/or short cycle lengths.
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short 10 to 20
cycle lengths.
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or 20 to 35
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
D progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop 35 to 55
and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle
E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent 55 to 80
occurrences.
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to �$�
over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. � -
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacify Manual - Special Report 209, 2000.
Unsignalized intersections (all-way stop controlled and side-street stop controlled) are evaluated
using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual — Special Report 209 (Chapter 17) method. Operations
are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-
controlled movement. This incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration,
stopping, and moving up in the queue. For side-street stop controlled intersections, the delay
reported in this study is represented for the worst-case minor street approach. For all-way stop
controlled intersections, the level of service is represented by the average control delay for the
1-44
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page9of16 FEhiR & [�CER�
fiAx37(IAYF7I4M Ct3H57i4�A%TS
whole intersection. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized
intersections. The ranges are lower than signalized intersections as drivers accept lower delays
at unsignalized intersections.
TABLE 4:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Average Control Delay
Level of Service Description Per Vehicle (Seconds)
q Little or no delay 5 10.0
g Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
� Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
p Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity > 50.0
exceeded
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - Specia/ Report 209, 2000.
Figure 3 shows the location of the study intersections and the corresponding traffic volumes at
the study intersections for each scenario. The results of the intersection level of service
calculations are presented in Table 5. Attachment A contains the traffic counts used in this
analysis and Attachment C contains the corresponding LOS calculation sheets.
� 1-45
Exisdng Conditlons
�
�
Q7
1. Stevens Creek Blvd. 8 Portal Dr. 2, portal Av. 8 Dentist Otfice Dvwy.
�,�^ � °i <
yv 8 =m 8
� � � � B2 j95) �.-
E—'1024 �1156) ) �
� 23 (74) I�
s��.o. cr.a owa o.�c�� oa�. o�
39�82)� ��� 0(0)� ��
612(16181 —'�
13(49�� yy� 2�11� <vv
e�.� �=-
Background Conditions
1. Stevens Creek Blvd. 8 Portal Dr. 2. Portal Av. 8 Dentist Office Dw✓y.
^ 3 � 3
�VNl� n ....
�
�` m 8
«� �93(707)
1 �' 1206 (1778) I
i� �� �23(741 �.L
7
sr.�.�: c�.r aVa ow�:� os,.. o.wy
40(851� 1�1 �IU)� 1�
1026�j2136) —�
13(5fij� N�'�i 2��1� c'N
m�o� —
Project Conditions
1. Stevans Creek Blvd. 8 PoRal Dr. 2. Portal Dr. 8 Denlist Office Dvwy.
i m � `�" <
%� -- � __=
� � 8 m � ` � ioi ��oe� m ¢
� I �-- i2�e jnzs�
I � ./'23(74) ��
♦ r
8ur�ns Croak &v6 OriYY 06n'Jwry.
fi0(98)� 1�1 111.�� 1 I
1034(21q6)—a
79�57j� �y� 1B�16j� �
��
���, �,�—
�1
NOT TO SCALE
�
FEHP. b;. PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Apri12010
s�io-»ss
Kiddie Academy of Cupertino
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
FIGURE 3
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page11 of16 �Ei-itt & I'[ERS
ta.�sraararto� 16�SPL�AHYS
TABLE 5
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing Background Project
Time e Crit. 0 Crit.
Intersection Control Period Delay� LOS Delay� LOS Delay� LOS V/C Delay
1. Stevens Creek AM 16.6 B 15.2 B 16.3 B 0.022 1.8
Boulevard & Portal Signal PM 13.0 B 11.7 B+ 12.0 B 0.015 0.4
Avenue
2. Portal Avenue & Side AM 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.4 A
Dentist Office Street PM g.g A 8.9 A 9.0 q N/A N/A
Driveway Stop
Notes:
1 Whole intersection weighted average total delay is presented for signalized intersections and total control delay for
the worst movement is presented for side-street stop-controlled intersections.
2 LOS = Level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software
package.
NA = not applicable
Bold type indicates a project impact as defined by City standards.
Source: Fehr 8 Peers, 2010.
Both study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service under all conditions. The
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue intersection shows a reduction in average delay
with the addition of background traffic, which is counter-intuitive. The average delay values in the
table are weighted averages. Weighted average delays will be reduced when traffic is added to a
movement with a low delay, such as the through movements on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Conversely, relatively small volume increases to movements with high delays can increase the
weighted average delay substantially. .
ON-SITE CIRCULATION, SITE ACCESS, AND QUEUING
This analysis was conducted to ensure that the on-site circulation, parking configuration, and site
access is adequate to accommodate the proposed project traffic. The p�oposed site plan, shown
on Figure 2, was reviewed to ensure adequate on-site circulation, parking configuration, and site
access. Recommendations to improve the site plan are shown on Figure 4. The analysis was
also conducted to estimate outbound driveway queuing and the effects this queuing would have
on both traffic on-site and on•the surrounding roadways. The following�5ections sumrriarize the
analysis and results.
On-Site Circulation and Parking
The general on-site circulation patterns are adequate, which consists of three driveways and
multiple aisles. However, the drive aisle along the western side of the building is approximately 18
feet wide and is too narrow for two-way operation. Therefore, it is recommended that this drive
aisle be striped for one-way northbound operation with a solid white stripe approximately five to
1-47
Gary Chao and David Stiilman ,�
May 5, 2010
Page12of16 FEtiR& PEE�S
t�a�s?nxrrrtnr co�sn�,r��rs
six feet away from the building running the length of the side of the building. This line would allow
. pedestrians a walkable space to access the front of the retail store from the back parking lot.
A small front parking lot exists along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This parking lot is served by a
one-way drive aisle. Therefore, if the front parking lot is full and a vehicle does not find a space,
the vehicle would need to exit the front lot using the eastern driveway, travel westbound on
Stevens Creek Boulevard, and reenter the site using the western driveway in order to access
more spaces in the back lot. However, it is not anticipated that a substantial amount of vehicles
would perform this maneuver because parents generally know when and where spaces are
available to drop-off or pick-up their children based on their daily routines. Also, since the front
and back parking lots are separated by the existing building, it is recommended that a sign should
be placed near the front driveway indicating additional parking, pick-up, and drop-off spaces are
located to the rear of the building. The sign should make it clear that both the Kiddie Academy
and the adjacent retail space may use spaces in the rear parking lot.
It is recommended that designated spaces for pick-ups or drop-offs for the Kiddie Academy be
provided during the peak hours. At least six spaces should be provided for this purpose in the
back parking lot. Those spaces should be located close to the Kiddie Academy entrance to
minimize the distance parents and children would walk to enter the Kiddie Academy and to
minimize the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. A sign designating the pick-up/ drop-off
spaces should be installed to designate which spaces are reserved for this use. This sign should
designate the space, provide the time periods of operation, and provide a time limit for the space.
After the Kiddie Academy begins operation, the number of pick-up and drop-off spaces should be
reviewed to determine the appropriate number of pick-up and drop-off spaces needed.
Furthermore, it is also recommended that employees of both the Kiddie Academy and the
adjacent retail space should park in the back parking lot.
Bicycle circulation on the site is
addressed by the current plan. Bicycle
racks are provided along the southern
side of the building near the front
entrance. It is recommended that the - -
bicycle parking spaces be provided via ���
inverted U-style bicycle parking (please .�'�'"
see photo to the right). :.�* q>
a �... .
The circulation patterns for pedestrians
are adequate and direct. Drive aisles are ��
positioned so that pedestrians are `� *,_',` ����
directed towards the buildin from their ��' �
g � : �' ,������� '� .-:.; ,
vehicles. City staff should verify that
AmeriCans with Disabilities ACt (ADA) /nverted u-style racks are recom.-:^��nded for bicyc!e parking
compliance is achieved in the final site
plan. In particular, City staff should verify compliance with regards to a travelway between the
sidewalk on Stevens Creek Boulevard and the front of the building as well as a travelway
between the disabled parking spaces in the front parking lot and the front door of the Kiddie
Academy. However, delineation of an ADA-compliant path of travel between the sidewalk and the
building entry may cause the removal on one parking space.
1-48
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page13of16 �E�-{� � ['�E�.S
Td.�i�Sr�qiptiOM C4rSUl(A�CS
Site Access
Site access is provided by two driveways along Stevens Creek Boulevard and one driveway
along Portal Avenue. The westernmost driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is shared with a
neighboring building. The majority of vehicular traffic is expected to access Kiddie Academy from
this driveway. The other driveway along Stevens Creek Boulevard is an egress only driveway on
the east side of the property. The driveway on Portal Avenue will provide full access into and out
of the site. Sight distance at the project driveways is adequate. There are no tall shrubs or
monument signs that would restrict the sight distance and there are minimal amount of trees near
the project driveways. Vehicles turning into or out of the site would be able to see pedestrians or
other vehicles before making a turn.
Queuing
The purpose of the analysis was to estimate the queues at the project driveways and the effects
this queuing would have on both traffic on-site and on the surrounding roadways. The queuing
analysis was focused on four movements: the southbound left-turn and eastbound left-tum of the
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue intersection as well as the northbound left turn and
the eastbound approach at the Portal Avenue and Dentist Office Driveway intersection. The HCM
2000 Method described in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual was used in this analysis.
The southbound left-turn pocket at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Drive is approximately
120 feet long and can hold app�oximately five vehicles. The eastbound left-turn pocket is
approximately 220 feet long and can hold approximately nine vehicles. There are no northbound
or eastbound turn pockets at the Portal Avenue and Dentist Office Driveway intersection.
The results of the queue analysis are presented in Table 6 and Attachment C contains the
corresponding calculation sheets. Existing 95` percentile queues from the Traffix outputs are
generally greater than the queues obsenied in the field. Please note that the 95� percentile
queue will usually be greater than the "average/ normal° queue length under most conditions. The
95` percentile queue is typically used for planning purposes to estimate the amount of storage
space needed in a turn pocket.
Under Project Conditions, the 95` percentile queue shows up to eight vehicles in queue for the
southbound left-turn and up to seven vehicles in queue for the eastbound left-turn at the Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue intersection based on the surrounding roadway traffic
volumes and the estimated trip generation. These queues are an increase of one vehicle or fess
from Background Conditions. Therefore, the 95` percentile queues would be able to fit into their
respective turn pockets with the exception of the southbound left at Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Portal Drive intersection in both peak hours under all conditions.
Under Project Conditions, the 95�" percentile queue shows up to one vehicle in queue for both the
eastbound approach and the northbound left-turn at the Portal Averue and Dentist Office
Driveway intersection. No substantial queuing is expected in the outbound direction of the Dentist
Office Driveway because two vehicles or less exit the driveway during both peak hours under
Existing Conditions and the dentist office is not open during the peak hour of trip generation.
These queues are an increase of one vehicle or less from Background conditions. Please note
that there may be a time during the peak period where the northbound left-turn queue may block
northbound through traffic due to the lack of a turn pocket. However, based on inbound trip
observations of the existing Kiddie Academy, the northbound queue is only expected for a short
. duration of time.
1-49
;` 3;�� "� � � � �'� ��''� ... . k �,as.� � � s� ��. �� n .n��'.�a� �n'� � � s `� m ;'�. . C N W
4 �
�� a �`-- � � � � _ `� s � � `� � , �� ��° a Z
Y � ,�d a� � � z��a�� �n� � �' ��`�*� � x v � �� Gi Q �
� ,�� � a� �� �'. � �`� � A . � �-- �a��"� �'� � V � �
.
:��.-�„ ,,.` ��, "� , . ,��-�s .�-� ����,� ,��� � ..,� ; � �� � � LL
� �,.� :� '� ;� .s �'L ,si`s ,� :. s �'" �..; O
3 ' ��� � ���` � ��� � � � �' a �
�s'� :� � �'� -�-- ��� x .�� � � y Z
� ,: �.�s � G L. xy � �- `���� .ba3s�_ g� � � � W
�� � � � � � = J� L � .a � t . � -� U �
$ � �,src; � � a
_� �' � �N � a �
� : �,�- �� � �-�� . _
� _ _ � � ; � " ��'���� �� g �
� °' O
� � �
�. � � � � U
� � - i � �i' � ���s � �' k .� � � � �� �� Y
� i °�.� � � e�� a y�. W
�� ., , f � � ��� � � � �
3 M . y � � ..: hyaqM { �;: �. � : ,.,�°y�` Wy �3 � J+�
�� i ��
5 gssl+b`�' �° �.
� : k ((� mif � �' a �� � �Y� iva�. � � r �t
�a NL-� �n .. ��� � &i� ' ;F ra ����`'�"� �,����'�- �.�,.��s����
ci �� a
� • - y L 4 � .` % y, t n s � _�� ��as`��� � � �
�� � : � � - � . � � � ., �"° . � ���� -.,�;� .���.� �� �, �'� �^�, ,,.�. .
rn 4
� � ' e : . ` 1i � _ O . .� � � t�h�� i a� � � � x .� „ q� � ,�, .
`� �, �. p`�, � � di. � . � s���w� � - � � s ..� � �� �
, � »..,, '� '� �' %��� 8 �
� . � � ia. � � � �� ��sy�, � �� . � � :
�,`.�a�,»,a c� K ¢ _a ' '.1� .;�'"�+�s�� , .a., � �a �. �'.�:_
����
� �'� n t . T i. ` `� : � � t � � �l� � ��
�
� � a � u -a � � .� � � � v� ; ,� �� .
� �` �� � �-Q. �Z � �-. �,- � . � 4 �'j� � ���� 9 � � � s Y � � � �,�. �
�� a�. �''� •--ti fi €` o; � s ya �
�% �m �.�a i � � �� -r � _� f'= a� .��r��
� �.. �_..� :�� aE,. ,'�F`� C �:;���,. 9 0�° rn' 38 a
, � �
� r € ,�� � � ; � F , `� � �-� � � ��
,�-M�:
�:�,��T�� Y �e oo��� •N.i- < •�rwe«�� � �; ` � ;��.
, ..:.� . � , �
e � . fw [ � _ ..., ',:' » �,°�' �,� �. .y �"� �
e� �� � 1�'i� ��• � � � � � � �
� �% �a� � e. € �
_ _. '
'� �'' ? ' f o _ � ¢ G � �` � "�
`� �; �, � l -�: ` � '� a a�
�$ , � ' ;� � a , � � � .£ � i
' . 4 �: �� x i�ir �' i� ��`� �
�' ^ ` � �. � � �� �� =�� .���
� � � � �
� �� �� r��� � � �
� : 9 �` �- � ,� � ,� ,� �� x -�a� �
' °� � � '� 9 a� ;�" � `` �
'�a� � � �- �- � . �; 3� - � ��'` ���`�,. � � &
;,, ��. _ .. . . � a�u � = e� ��° �� �
�' ` �n�� z�s ��� �.���
^w , xr� � o c A y, , •- ,� �.� s � �£��i `� ��� '�` v.az,�r
�, �
� ` � : � v ° a � � C ��1 `MSr m #� ::�'i y r 1- � � � :
�S _ F ' y� a � , � M�� �� , c� �,� �`��, �
i = -�. . �" .ac+ s . a� : '�
g� � � �- ,�- - � ." � ��� Q ��� �� .. ,� r�rzx� ¢.� .
'�j� �' � � : � � '� �k �*�� � �+„�'�•'�` .' r�' '� P� �e �. a ` �. :
s. � ���£ ��' � � � :-� � N� a r�"�' S � � ���� ii '� � ... " ��:
1� s
�, � � � � ��t� � � � ) .� � � ��'
��,!1' � Q a��' ��.�$� � �
�`' < � �. �
� t � � � �� j � ���� � _ �. r �r :� � � . : y .,,,�� � � �"�,.
�� % e t� c� � ,� ¢ -�,�.. � 9� a � ti e � m: � .,�3 7.�� �a
c _
� Y 1 : � ' 1� ., � t��yt� GE II'� F� �, S 1^ 7 Sk O . �S � ��
��` `� ,��� � s ' � � a � � i� �� v a �'a � � �
� .; c EY k, f Q t f �.: �6:� � �g� ,s � � � '� .� ia - . ;� �x . I4�a�� �
ry '' `.e � � � u ���
. £ .0 `��� �:� : a+' .. �&�' ,� � Q G, � .�' � �x �}`g 3�
E ,g = � � , � , a a - � � � 3 r& _� � � E�c, E �
� � S' w . g �� . '° � _ �,�� � � �rT�'�� �� �
� � S '�, ia � '� e;� � a � a � �� a '�� ��
� _ �.
� � � :e c�°i 1�6 �.�� � �'° �� ��' � � r" ,��'� �^'� a �r.xr� ��
�� a �, ..,��.. �,,. � �-.��s`�� " _ � �� � �`� ,� ' � �� �� "
'� "� , t c : � � . .rc rC& � _ � �� � ��. ,.. ;,p� a ; 7� ' "�. ., �,. �'-
'�i 3'� .M �: *� s� _.�� ',�"�s i •, � � � . ����� �.: '�
� , � q �
'�a C -� y'' : �° y�''�""$``'k"y�''bE��'��w'���� � � �5'i�
R � ' . �y y � �'�'�� - �R
.� ��' _ ; �F � � �`� � f �'
QY S - � �fiS°� . . l �& ' e� % � k�g k . `�. �
� � � � � ' b i � & F � � �ka� �� �'a ���3 ��.
� . � � � � a, rs i f 3'yx � <.' , : y _
� � �t t� y .��1 ...,� , � _ L . ° i�^ti�.
¢ e � ' w'� i yR y §x„'��"�+� � �ug ,{,�,Sa� +�°i � .. � a�
4 � � ��` .'�i ��fl� �.`���'�'CSEt��i� �' ����»� ,��y� � �'a�:
� ,�"� , y� ��� ��,�� �._ � �� ��i , z �
4 .»+ a . < 53.SFn•� , c'� 2 ',. �
@N � ➢ �- F .�' "� � a�Ls1,w�' -. ��"'6 b�� ���'T. �a- V� �
� �y ,,t a -� .aH �e.x ^., � �, & f � �- � . q �5��:'� � . . ` . ., - '^� � � �
'u : � a, ;l' ,� �^'�� 4 r � r � 4� . •<-
�� � �r � .�' ° � �'�' . b����r "�i �,s���� �` '��r�'"��;���..����s�'"���'��s,�;d�g w H
k. � z .- � � �>aS �T �`y�.�?r
: s � � � ��y � ai � ,� ,« � � ��a r ���. ,� �� � � r � � �.' :. " '� � � '�;'� ; �� z
� � . �Z �• ° x�.; ����� a � � . �' ` ��e ' " 1-1 0
,\ � , . ; '. , ,�"k� ��� �� � �`„ �� �- /1 a
� �
- �� � �. ti' � ��� � �: S �' � �c.J �-
� 5 � �
F -�' �. g � ��� �, �� � �m . � � F�
' uh�
�,t�� '� �.�� ' m� �¢��� 1€ - °� o �
� '8' � 5� � �g. A P, � � � �� � � � Z N �-
���' g� ��� ��� - � x �. ,�;,Y�, . ,r._,dg�'� . -�,,. ..` �' � . � 17 0
�_ �s s �'� � �,. a � ,n� , ,� , �.�`�. `� � x c. { � c
.��; y_ ,�. '��-'� � .a�-r ���:� ,� = "�za - r.,� .n'� =�' �,�`°`" u.i r- Q in
1-50
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page 15 of 16 F E t-i R c� P E[ RS
r�aasrnArr�rqn to»su�rx�rs
TABLE 6
INTERSECTION QUEUES� Z
Time Existing Background Project
Intersection Control Period NBL SBL EBL NBL SBL EBL NBL SBL EBL
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard & Signal AM 1 7 3 1 S 4 1 8 5
Portal Avenue PM 4 6 5 5 7 6 5 7 7
2. Portal Avenue & Side AM 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dentist Office Driveway Stop PM 0 NA �a � NA �a p NA �a
Notes:
1 95"' Percentile Queues shown in number of vehictes.
2 Queue calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package.
3 NBL = northbound left-tum, SBL = southbound left-tum, EBL = eastbound left-tum
4 Eastbound movement is a shared left/right lane
NA = not applicable
Source: Fehr 8 Peers, 2010.
As mentioned previously, under Project Conditions, the 95�' percentile queues estimated to occur
would be able to fit into the left-turn pockets with the exception of the southbound left at Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Portal Drive intersection in both peak hours. However, the addition of
project traffic is not expected to increase the 95`� percentile queue at this location under Project
Conditions compared to Background Conditions.
The 95` percentile queues estimated to occur under all conditions would not be able to fit into the
southbound left-tum pocket at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Drive intersection in both
peak hours. A modification to improve the queue storage at this intersection would be to extend
the southbound left-turn pocket to rectify the storage space deficiency estimated to occur under
Existing, Background, and Project Conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Below is a summary of the findings and the recommendations proposed for the Kiddie Academy.
Summary of Findings
• The weekday peak-hour trip generation for the project during the AM peak hour is 80 trips
(43 inbound and 37 outbound) and during the PM peak hour is 62 trips (28 inbound and
34 outbound).
• The parking supply provided by the project is adequate to meet the City code
requirement. Using the adjusted parking rates, the 93 parking spaces provided would
meet the parking supply needed for both the retail space and the education center.
• The finro study intersections operate at less than 17 seconds of delay (LOS B) for either
the whole intersection or for the worst movement at the side-street stop-controlled
intersection under any of the peak hours or scenarios.
1-51
Gary Chao and David Stillman �
May 5, 2010
Page 16 of 16 � E 1� i[t �. P� E�.5
rt.��srqxrriror tnasu�,raats
• The 95� percentile queues estimated to occur under Project conditions would be able to
fit into the left-turn pockets with the exception of the southbound left at Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Portal Drive in both peak hours. The project is not expected to increase
the 95' percentile queue in this location.
• The general circulation patterns on site are considered adequate, parking stalls are
accessible, and site access is adequate.
Summary of Recommendations
It is recommended that:
• designated spaces for pick-ups or drop-offs be provided during the peak hours. At least
six spaces should be provided for this purpose in the back parking lot. Those spaces
should be located close to the Kiddie Academy entrance and a sign designating the pick-
up/ drop-off spaces should be installed to designate which spaces are reserved for this
use. This sign should designate the space, provide the time periods of operation, and
provide a time limit for the space. After the Kiddie Academy begins operation, the number
of pick-up and drop-off spaces should be reviewed to determine the appropriate number
of pick-up and drop-off spaces needed.
• a sign should be placed near the front driveway indicating additional parking, pick-up, and
drop-off spaces are located to the rear of the building. The sign should make it clear that
both the Kiddie Academy and the adjacent retail space may use spaces in the rear
parking lot.
• the drive aisle along the western side of the building be striped for one-way northbound
operation with a solid white stripe approximately five to six feet away from the building
running the length of the side of the building. This line would allow pedestrians a walkable
space to access the front of the retail store from the back parking lot.
• employees of both the Kiddie Academy and the adjacent retail space should park in the
back parking lot.
• the bicycle parking spaces be provided via inverted U-style bicycle parking.
• City staff verify that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance is achieved in the
final site plan. In particular, City staff should verify compliance with regards to a travelway
between the sidewalk on Stevens Creek Boulevard and the front of the building as well
as a travelway beiween the disabled parking spaces in the front parking lot and the front
door of the Kiddie Academy. However, delineation of an ADA-compliant path of travel
befinreen the sidewalk and the building entry may cause the removal on one parking
space.
1-52