PC Packet 12-9-2014CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft minutes 11-10-2014
Recommended Action: approve or modify the draft minutes of 11-10-2014
Draft Minutes
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most
cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to
a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
2.Subject: Modification to a Development Permit for Apple
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
December 9, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: recommend approval of the modification per the draft
resolution
Description:
Application No(s): M-2014-02
Applicant(s): Vanessa Chow (Apple, Inc.)
Location: 10250 Bandley Dr.
Modification to a previously approved Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to amend
a Condition of Approval relating to pedestrian access to an adjacent parcel
Plannning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution M-2014-02
2 - Resolution 6708
3 - Letter from Apple - 102114
3.Subject: The Counter restaurant at Biltmore
Recommended Action: approve the development applications per the draft
resolutions
Description:
Application No(s): ASA-2014-12, U-2014-07
Applicant(s): Jared Taylor (Golden Property Development, LLC)
Location: 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd
Architectural and Site approval to allow facade and site modifications for a restaurant
and bar in a new retail center (Biltmore);
Use Permit to allow a separate bar at a proposed restaurant located in a new retail
center (Biltmore)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution U-2014-07
2 - Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12
3 - Plan Set
4 - Business Description
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
December 9, 2014Planning Commission AGENDA
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially
appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s
decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is
described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you
wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a
speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to
discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If
you wish to address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by
during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above.
Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note that Planning Commission policy
is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs
special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the
meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning
Commission meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be
made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives
linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
DRAFTMINUTES
6:45P.M. NOVEMBER 10, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofNovember 10, 2014 was called to orderat 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. byChair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson:Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant CityAttorney: Colleen Winchester
Assistant Planner:Kaitie Groeneweg
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Draft minutes of October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
toapprove the October 28, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.Cancellation of the 12/23/14 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0to cancel the December 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting
Cupertino Planning Commission November 10, 2014
2
3.R-2014-13 Appealof a two-story permit approval by the Director
Applicant: Mohsen Jalili of Community Development to allow the construction
10355 Stern Ave.of a new 2,872Sq. Ft. single family residence.
Appellant: Amitava Biswas Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
10550 Sterling Ave.
Patricia Kornesczuk
10566 Sterling Blvd
Location 10558 Sterling Blvd.
Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the appeal of a two story permit to allow a 2,872 sq. ft. single family residence, as outlined
in the attached staff report. A Power Point presentation was provided reviewing the Basis of Appeal
Nos. 1 through 6 including the staff responseto each appeal.
Vice Chair Lee:
Asked staff to explain the meaning of predominant neighborhood pattern and what a neighborhood
would have to go through in order to create something where only a single family house could just be
one story.
Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development:
As part of the review the R1 ordinance callsfor general level of compatibilityin terms of massing and
also design of homes; however this has been implemented in the past up until now by homes meeting
the required envelope and setback and height requirements. Most if not all of thesingle family
residential neighborhoods are in astateof transition, meaning there aremany homes built in the 50s
and 60s, and inrecent years there are lot of homes that have been redeveloped and rebuilt that are
more newer, modern. The R1 ordinance does not call for matching of a predominanttheme or style,
it calls for meeting the prescribed ordinance standards.
In the past, one or two neighborhoods got together and petitioned the city to have the zoning
ordinance changed so they can have an extralayer of standard to their liking. Adding a layer of
standard can entail a single story only or some sort of special setback along the front or the back;
however it requires a rezone procedure and does require the neighborhood to get together to file for a
zoning change request. The majority of the neighborhoodwould have to consent to such
requirements; in this particular location the project site isnot located in one of those special R1
zoning districtsthat had that more restrictive overlay; this is in the standard R1 zoning district which
is basically the samethroughout the city. The petitioner claims that the proposed two story house
infringes upon their solar rights, they claim it is too massive and will cast a shadow on their property.
He refers to a section of the ordinance which talks about solar rights. The ordinance basically by
defaultis protecting solar rights throughstandards set forth in the R1 ordinance.
Reviewed the noticing process followed for the application. The city sent out two notices to neighbors
within 300 feet because halfway throughthe process the applicant and property owner decided to
tweak the second floor, consequently they had to send another courtesy notice to the neighbors to
inform them there was a revision to the proposed plans, primarily the second floor design.The City
Council, at the last R1revision, decided not to send out full plan sets to folks because they felt it was
not environmentally friendly. Staff will email plan sets to those requesting them or they can go to
City Hall to review them.
A secondnotice is sent out after approval of the project; atthat time notifications are sent out to those
members of the public who have expressed comments orconcerns in the public commentperiods or
review period, in which case they mayprovide new input or additional file for appeal which the
petitioners did.
Cupertino Planning Commission November 10, 2014
3
Com. Sun:
Asked staff how many times before the public hearings did the petitioner come to City Hall to talk to
staff. Staff said she met with the neighbor multiple times during the comment period; however has
nothad any meeting since they filed the appeal; she offered to meet with them after they filed the
appeal on October 6th. Because we see the base for the appeal, they have one city staff responsive;
there is a lot of factual dispute.
Gary Chao:
Said that KaitieGroeneweg met with the petitioner and also talked to the petitionerand applicant via
phone, email and correspondence; the appellant can attest that staff has asked that the appellant work
with the petitioner and see if they can get together and work out their differences and they can talk
more about that effort. Staff feels they have done their part in termsof reaching out and responding
to the petitioner; it may not be the answer that wanted to hear, but they were fully aware of the city’s
intent to approve prior to staff approval.
Amitava Biswas, Appellant:
Said that throughout the process there has consistently been information omitted, pages missing from
the reports, and incorrect information given out. It was not mentioned that there would be a basement
and the pages of the plan with the information about the basement were missing from both noticings.
When he requested a geotechnical report, the second report was not sent which points out a great
amount of risk. The decision was not reported and when he checked to see what happened with the
decision, he learned he only had 8 hours to file an appeal. There were also other instances that raised
red flags that they were being manipulated.
There are two ordinances, one is not consistentwith the neighborhood pattern and all those things
happened because nobody challenged it and people are not lawyers. There is a second ordinance
which clearly statesthat the granting permit will not result ina condition thatis detrimental, injurious
to property or improvements.
He said he had a list of events as evidence and which can prove that therehavebeen consistent
omissions which appear to have been conveniently done and preplanned. In addition to all the
violations of the two sections and the solar rights, it is clear that you can’t put shadeon the other
property and he said he had a plan to put solar panels. The building is not a two-story building, but is
actually a three-story building with a substantial basement.
Patricia Kornesczuk, Co-Appellant:
Said she was concerned that they were notinformed at the beginning there would be a basement, as
well as the geological issue of being in an earthquake fault pattern which could affect their homes.
Said she was disappointed the applicant wasn’t honest about what was being built.
Chair Brophy:
Asked if they wanted to keep the privacy screen between the applicant’shouse and her lot. Ms.
Kornesczuk said she thought the windows would re shaded or pearlized.
Manesha Gravell, Co-Applicant:
Said many contentions and issues have been raised but most relate to problems resulting from how
the city has proceeded with things. He said they have been cooperative in redeveloping the
neighborhood; every three or four homes has a two story homenext in line. They have been holding
the property for the last 8 or 9 months trying to redevelop it and are still making rounds. Said he met
with appellant Amitava Biswasand made significant changes to the plan proactively and he still has
objections; the biggest one being that he doesn’t want a two-story house. He said he felt they had
been very accommodating and there has been no malintent in his dealings.
Cupertino Planning Commission November 10, 2014
4
Mohsen Jalili, Co-Applicant:
Said that the appellant is concerned about the solar, which the city approved. He commented that his
home is not so large that it covers the shade to the appellant’s home. The appellant is also concerned
about the height, setback of the zoning is 15, other area in Cupertino setback is 10, 5 feet from inside
but this particular zoning is 15, meaning theywe have option of 5, 10 or 7-1/2. He said they chose 20
feet from his side and 5 feet from her side.He noted that the engineers are liable for their actions; he
said he is neither a soil engineer nor a geotechnical engineer. The engineers reported that it was okay
to have a basement; they are responsible for their action and he as a builderis responsible at least up
to 10 years for what he is doing according to the court and city regulations. He said it was
unfortunate and frustrating that they have been put in the position they are in, and he doesn’t want to
work against any neighbors; but wants the project to move on in a friendly manner and right way.
Hamid Balzavid, Project Design Architect:
During the design process several decisions have been made to address petitioner’s concerns. One is
the minimum setback based on code and ordinances which have been set from the beginning in order
to protect neighbors’rights, and at the same time the new builder’s rights for having a new home
either beingbuilt to live in or have next to your house; all these building envelopes, regulations,
setbacks, height are in concert with the solar angle andthat is being studied. Said they revised their
plans several times in order to work with the applicanton their concerns and reach agreement to
please everyone.
Com. Sun:
Said the appellants mentioned several times there are omissions about geotechnical report and other
reports. He asked staff to explain aboutthe claim of intentional omissions from the report.
Gary Chao:
Said there has been no omission of any information relating to geotechnical reports as claimed by the
petitioner; there are file records of email correspondence between staff and the petitioner responding
to his request to see the geotechnical reports. It is confusing because of the fact that there is a
basement for the project; there has been 2 geotechnical reports prepared, onefor the basement and
one for the main house; and both reports conclude that while it is in the liquid faction zone and is
closer to the creek, but with certain measures being implemented for that the project, there is no
concern. The conclusion of the geotechnical report has been reviewed by the city’s geotechnical
consultant; the full set of the various geotechnical reports prepared by the property owner as well as
the peer review comments prepared by the city’s geotechnical engineer are available for Planning
Commission perusal. Typically geotechnical reports don’t go before the Planning Commission, the
building official is required to make sure that whatever construction that is being proposed is going to
go through another thorough round ofbuilding code, fire code, plan check process which case
additional structural foundation soils investigation will be prepared, reviewed by the city and
inspected and carried out.There is another phase of the plan check process prior to the construction
that has not been discussed and is still in the works; the property owner has to make sure that the
construction meets the standard building code as it pertains to all bay area cities.
Com. Takahashi:
Asked staff if the basement seismic report was an addendum or was it a second report generated after
completion of the first report becausethere was a basement addedto the plans?
KaitieGroeneweg:
Said it was not part of the first round, it was a supplementalreport provided during the second round
of noticing. Now it is because the basement was added to the plans afterthe first report was done.
Cupertino Planning Commission November 10, 2014
5
Com. Takahashi:
Said the appellant’s claims are serious from the standpoint of deliberate omissions; from the
standpoint of records and sequence of events to show that the second report was available for public,
is an important thing to establish; what needs to be done to make sure that is the case?
Gary Chao:
It has been made available throughout the process; the petitioner can go to City Hall to review the
file. The report has been emailed to him per his request.
ChairBrophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Sun:
Said his preference was to approve the project, and deny the appellant’s appeal; partly because the
audience is already angry, and he felt the basisfor the third floor has not established the grounds to
appeal. He suggested that the procedures be reviewed to prevent future omissions, regardless if they
are deliberate or not. He said he did not feel that the omissions were deliberate. Following today’s
appeal, they can work together to resolve the issues regarding solar rights.
Com. Gong:
Said that based on the appeals presented, as written in the application, staffhas done a good job in
responding to the appeals and it appears that the responses were answered positively. She said she
did not have basis for approving the appeal.
Vice Chair Lee:
Reviewed the six bases for appeal. The first basis from the appellantwas the geotechnical concerns.
Said she reviewed the mitigation measures and the draft resolutions and feltthey should be sufficient
as far as it has exact wording that the construction cannot impact the neighbors’foundations or
houses. Gary Chao also mentioned that there is an added layer for buildings and inspections over and
over andbuilding codes that are met after the project havebeen approved.
The second basis for appeal with predominant neighborhood patterns,the R1 ordinance should apply
andit has been reviewed and amended several times and itis not to negate the ability of providing for
a second story and for turning over into second story because it is a mix; a neighborhood in transition;
the R1 ordinance doesn’t prevent from having a second story and that was not the intent. That has
been reviewed many times and appears to be what the city wants. Property owners should have their
rights for a second story as prescribed in the ordinance which is 28 footheight.
The third basis was failureto provide notice and the fourth was due process; staff feels like there has
been due process that noticing was provided as required.The fifth and sixth basis relate to the solar
rights which goes back to the 28 feet; the project data suggests the applicant has met and exceeded it
bylowering their maximum height to be good neighbors and they have also exceeded the setbacks
according to the project data.
Staff said that if a neighborhood wants tobe part of a special zoning, part of adistrict, the neighbors
can gettogether and apply for rezoning; it is a long process but it can be done and there has been
some neighborhoods that want to preserve it and have another layer of special standards,which is
very restrictive. She said she personally would not want another layer if she had property in
Cupertino. Some of the neighborhoods in thearea want it so it would take a lot of time; if there are
neighbors that want that, they need a majority; it is not a special district. Said she did not support
granting the appellant’s request, would likely vote no for the appellant’srequest and deny the
application for appeal.
Com. Takahashi:
In terms of the project and its impact, to all the elements of the R1 zoning as well as all the
Cupertino Planning Commission November 10, 2014
6
accommodating factors that theowner/architect have put into place to mitigate as much as possible,
the impact on the neighbor, are consistent and positive elements that warrant approval of the project.
The appellant has a strong feeling an injustice has taken place in/and somewhat of a deliberate act,
that is the claim; which is a serious allegation. He said based on the facts, he supportedthe project
but wants to be sure that the allegations and omissions stated are actually not valid; and it appeared to
him that it may be a case of change of plans somewhere along the line in terms of adding the
basement and that having a ripple effect. He said he doubts there has been deliberatedeception going
on but it is at least worth making sure that the plaintiff’s claims areunfounded.
He said that Vice Chair Lee’s points are valid from a standpoint of consistency with the R1 zoning
effort, zoning codes and providing the larger of the setbacks in terms of the 15 feet and how thatis
divided. Asfar as property values, which is typically a major concern for the residents, this addition
will tend to increase property values which is a benefit to the overall neighborhood as long as there is
a level of consistency which the city is attempting to look for in the plans.
Chair Brophy:
In cities that are neighborhoods going throughtransition in asimilar area, it is sometimes a difficult
process; there are homes built in 1950s that were 800 to 1,000 sq. ft. one floor units. As the aerial
indicates, there has already been substantial change in the neighborhood and with tearing down or
rebuilding of one story homes into two story homes,to the extent that applicants meet all the
requirements in terms of height, setbacks, maximumFAR, and there is norequest for exceptions, the
Planning Commission tendsto assume that lacking something unique about the site, they will go
ahead and approve it. He said he did not feel anything was unique in this case;and he agreed with
colleagues and would vote to deny the appeal by the appellant.
MOTION:Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to deny the appellant’s appeal to Application R-2014-13, and uphold the
Community Development Director’s decision, and approvethe DraftResolution
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Discussed the hillside exception
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners: Chair Brophy will attend the upcoming meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report submitted.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on November 25, 2014
at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:December 9, 2014
Applications:M-2014-02
Applicant:Vanessa Chow(Apple, Inc.)
Location:10250 Bandley Drive
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Modification to a previously approved DevelopmentPermit (DP-2012-04) to amend a condition
of approval relating to pedestrian access to an adjacent parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprovethe Modification(M-2014-02) in
accordance with the draft resolution(Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation:Commercial / Office / Residential/Industrial
Zoning Designation:P(CG,ML,Res 4-10)
Building Area:24,056 square feet
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:Yes
Zoning:Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND:
Apple, Inc. submitted an application requestingto remove a condition of approval to record a
reciprocal cross accesseasement over the pedestrian walkway betweenthe Apple cafeteria
(referred to as Caffe’Macs)and the parcel to the north (10201 N. De Anza Boulevard),currently
leasedby Apple. The condition was incorporated in the original project approval(DP-2012-04,
condition 8 of Resolution 6708, attachment 2) to facilitate pedestrian movement of employees
between the office building to the north and the cafeteria.Caffe’ Macs is a private restaurant
available only to Apple employees.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
2.
M-2014-02 Apple, Inc. December 9, 2014
DISCUSSION:
Currently, Caffe’Macscan be accessed from both Alves Drive and Bandley Drive. A third access
through the pedestrian pathwaywas proposed by the applicant and supported by Staff to be
available for the sole benefit of Apple employees.See map belowto reference where the
pathway is located.
Required Reciprocal Cross AccessEasementon the Subject Properties
Rather than encumber the properties with a recordedeasement, Apple is proposing to amend
the lease agreement with the adjoining property to allow for the pedestrian accessto the cafeteria
(See attachment 3). The removal of the requirement to record a reciprocal cross access easement
over the pedestrian walkway will allow Apple to maintain a secure access to their property in
the event the parcel located at 10201 N. De Anza Boulevardis leased to another occupant.Given
the easement was originally proposed by the applicant and pedestrian access to the cafeteria will
be maintained through the lease agreement and existing public sidewalks, staff recommends
approval of the proposed modification.
M-2014-02 Apple, Inc. December 9, 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The developmentpermit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per sections15301 (Existing Facilities)and15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines because the proposed use occurs within an existing facility and minor
alterations will be made within an urban, developed environmentthat is consistent with the
General Plan.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH:
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Notices mailed to property owners
adjacent to the project site (300 foot)
(10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Postedon the City of Cupertino’s Web site
(one week prior to the hearing)
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT:
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –65964).
The City has complied withthe deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: October 22, 2014
Deemed Complete:November 19, 2014
Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until January19, 2014) to make
a decision on the project. ThePlanning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless
appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision.
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 –DraftResolution for M-2014-02
2 - Resolution No. 6708 for DP-2012-04
3–Letter from Apple, Inc.
M-2014-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVINGA MODIFICATION TOA DEVELOPMENT PERMIT(DP-2014-02)
TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT TO RECORD A RECIPROCAL CROSS ACCESS
EASEMENT FOR A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY CONNECTING AN EXISTING
DINING FACILITY (CAFFE’MACS) AND AN EXISTING OFFICE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 10250 BANDLEY DRIVE AND 10201 N. DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:M-2014-02
Applicant:Vanessa Chow, Apple, Inc.(on behalf of Apple, Inc)
Location:10250 Bandley Drive
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENTPERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the
Modification of a Development 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:
a)The proposed development, 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;
b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the application for Modification of the DevelopmentPermit are hereby recommended for
approval,subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2
thereof;
1.The application to modify a Development Permit,Application No. M-2014-02 is hereby approved,
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. M-2014-02,as set forth
in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2014, and are incorporatedby
reference as though fully set forth herein.
Draft Resolution M-2014-02 December 9, 2014
Page-2-
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
All previous developmentpermit conditions of approval, in accordance with Development
Permit DP-2014-04as approved by the Planning Commissionon September 11,2012,shall
remain in effect, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2.REMOVAL OF RECIPROCAL CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTREQUIREMENT
Condition No. 8of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6708 pertaining to a Reciprocal
Cross Access Easement for a pedestrian walkway betweenCaffe’ Macs located at 10250
Bandley Drive and the office building located at 10201 N. De Anza Boulevard as indicated on
the original approved exhibits and as approved by the Planning Commissionon September
11, 2012, shall be eliminatedas a condition of approval for Development Permit Application
DP-2012-04.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December2014, 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:
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Dir.of Community Development Planning Commission
DP-2012-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6708
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24,056 SQUARE FOOT CAFETERIA AND 27,785
SQUARE FOOT UNDERGROUND GARAGE; AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 4,010 SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT BUILDING FOR A NET SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE OF 20,046 SQUARE
FEET LOCATED AT 20625 ALVES DRIVE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DP-2012-04
Applicant:John Noori
Property Owner: Apple, Inc.
Location: 20625 Alves Dr (APN: 326-34-069)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the
application; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a) The proposed development, 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;
b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City's zoning ordinances.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in
this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begiruling on page 2
thereof,:
The application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2012-04 is hereby approved 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. DP-2012-04 as set forth in the Minutes
of Planning Commission Meeting of September 11,2012 and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
Resolution No.6708 DP-2012-04 September 11,2012
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated August 22, 2012, consisting of 35 sheets labeled 0.0, 0.1, 1.1,
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.0, 3.0.1, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2,
7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 entitled, "Alves Restaurant, Apple, Planned Development
Permit;' prepared by Foster + Partners; Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc.; and
Carducci & Associates Landscape Architects, except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution. The above Condition of Approval shall supercede Condition of Approval No. 1,under
conditions admininstered by the Community Development Department, delineated in U-2012-04.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The Conditions of Approval delineated herein shall supercede those outlined in DP-2012-01. Unless
otherwise specified or modified by these conditions, the conditions of approval within U-2012-04,
ASA-2012-09, and TR-2012-04,shall remain effective.
3. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROTECT AMENDMENTS
Development Permit approval is granted to a new 24,056 square feet cafeteria building; and
demolition of an existing 4,010 square foot restaurant building for a net square footage addition of
20,046 square feet.
The P1aruling Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director
of Community Development.
4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The City shall deduct 2,588 square feet of commercial General Plan allocation from the City Center
Area to the North De Anza Blvd Area.
5. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
With staff approval, the following revisions to the plan set will be incorporated to improve
circulation, as outlined in the report prepared by Fehr & Peers Transporation Consultants dated
September 4,2012:
a) Underground circulation improvements, including:
Ensure the elevator is large enough to accommodate cyclists and their bikes
Add a 'Stop' bar and pavement legend where circulating vehicles meet entering vehicles
at the base of the ramp
Add'Only One-Way' pavement legend within parking aisle
Optional: Reduce the number of bicycle parking spaces zuithin enclosed spaces to no more than 10.
to qualifij as Class I bici cle facilities
b) Street level and ramp circulation improvements,including:
Create a buffer between bike path and pedestrian entrance along north elevation, or
encourage bicyclists to walk bikes
Concentrate more bicycle racks near the entrance off of Bandley Dr
Provide overhead cover for outdoor bicycle racks
Add double yellow line on garage ramp to delineate opposing directions of traffic
Install a stop sign,bar, and pavement legend at the garage exit ramp
Align accessible ramps off of the northwest and northeast corner of Bandley Dr and Alves
Dr to face center of crosswalk
Add sign prohibiting pedesirian use on garage ramp
The above Condition of Approval shall supercede Condition of Approval No. 5,under conditions
admininstered by the Community Development Department, delineated in U-2012-04.
Resolution No.6708 DP-2012-04 September 11,2012
6. NOISE ANALYSIS
Prior to issuance of building permits, a noise analysis must be performed measuring the noise levels
generated by the mechanical plant room adjacent to the northern property line. If any recommended
mitigation measures are identified as part of the report, they shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the Director of Community Development.
7. OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Prior to final occupancy, a written agreement (covenant) agreeing to join an open space maintenance
district is required to be submitted to ensure that off-site landscaping is uniformly maintained
if/when such a district is formed. In the interim, the property owner shall maintain the landscaping
to the satisfaction of the City.
8. RECIPROCAL CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT
Prior to final occupancy a reciprocal cross access easement agreement for the pedestrian walkway to
the north will be required to be recorded, the final language of which will be reviewed by the City
Attorney's office.
9. HOUSING MITIGATION
The project is subject to a$5.33/square foot housing mitigation fee (FY 2012-2013). Said payment
shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 2012, Regular Meeting of the Plaruling
Commission of the City of Cupertino,State of California,by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTES APPROVED:
s
aa
r
d i
1___-
ary oy iiy Planner Marty i er, hair
mm nity Development Planning ssion
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:December 9, 2014
Applications:U-2014-07, ASA-2014-12
Applicant:Jared Taylor(Golden Property Development)
Location:20030 Stevens Creek Blvd.
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
1.Use Permit(U-2014-07) for a separatebar ata proposed restaurant(The Counter
Burger).
2.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-12) to allow façade and site modification for
a new restaurant and bar in a Mixed Use Development (Biltmore).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprovethe UsePermit (U-2014-07) and
Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-12) in accordance with the draft resolutions.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation:Commercial/Residential
Zoning Designation:P(CG,Res)
Conceptual Plan:Heart of the City Specific Plan
Commercial Building Area:7,000 square feet
Restaurant Area:3,735 square feet (53%)
Number of Seats:
Indoor:76
Bar:15
Number of Employees:14 maximum
Parking Spaces
Required:24
Available:24
Hours of Operation:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
3.
U-2014-07& ASA-2014-12 The Counter December 9, 2014
Monday –Sunday 10am –11pm
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:Yes
Zoning:Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND:
Pervious City Approvals
The City Council approved the Biltmore MixedUse Developmentin September2011(DP-2011-
05,DP-2011-06, and ASA-2011-20).The approval allowed for 80residential units and a7,000
square footretail/commercial buildingalong the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage.The
development is currently under construction and is expected to be operational byearly 2015.
Existing Center and Surroundings
The project site is located within the Heart of the City Specific Planarea, approximately 125feet
west ofthe south-westcorner of Stevens Creek BoulevardandSouthBlaney Avenue. To the
west of the site is an office and retail center(Chicago Title Company); to the east isa restaurant
(Village Falafel);to the northare office and retailcenters; and to the south are the existing
Biltmore apartments.The closestoff-site multi-family residential homes are approximately 250
feet away from the siteandthe closest single-family residential homes are approximately 400
feet away from the site.
DISCUSSION:
Application Request
The applicant, JaredTaylor,representing The Counter,is requestinga Use Permit to operate a
separate bar within anewrestaurant. The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance requiresthat
the Planning Commission review and approve requests for restaurantswith separate bar
facilities.The issues related to the separate bar facility generally include the availability of
parking, proximity toresidential uses and security concerns.In conjunction with the proposed
bar, the applicant is requesting an Architectural and Site Approval to allow façade and site
modifications.
The Architectural and Site Approvalpermit,could beconsideredby the Director of Community
Development at an Administrative Hearing.However, when applications are combined the
zoning code requires concurrent review, by the highest City body that can approve the project.
Since a Use Permit is also being requested, these permits must be reviewed at a Planning
Commission Hearing.
U-2014-07& ASA-2014-12 The Counter December 9, 2014
OperationalDetails
The Counteris a full service, sit down restaurant and bar that offers lunch and dinner options to
customers. The proposed floor plan includesaseparate bar area integrated within the
restaurantand an outdoor patio area.The applicantproposesto have76indoortableseats,15
bar seats and a maximum of 14employees per shift. Attachment 4provides operational details
from The Counterregarding the proposed restaurant.
Architectural & Site Approval
To accommodate the new restaurant several façade modifications are proposed to the retail
building, including replacing one of the existing storefront windows with an indoor-outdoor
bar area with retractable glass windows. Proposed modifications also include site
improvements along the building frontage by providing landscape planter boxes, a fire pit, and
window awnings. Additionally, a newoutdoor seating area is proposed along the Stevens
Creek frontage of the building. The City’s Architectural Consultant has reviewed the site and
architectural details and supports the design. Staff supports the proposed façade modifications
since they areconsistent with the architectural theme of the remainder of the building.
Conditions of approval have been added to the draft resolution to ensure that the proposed
modifications are of high quality and consistent with the intent of the original approval.
Parking
The project area parking supply was reviewed and approved by the City Council in September
2011. The 7,000square foot commercial/retail buildingwasrequired to provide 55spaces,with
the assumption that theentire building would be occupied byrestaurantuses. The following
table summarizes the specific parking requirements for the proposed restaurant:
Seats Required Parking Ratio Total Parking
Required
76 Indoor Table 1 space/4 seats 19
15 bar seats 1 space/3 seats + 1 space/employee 5
14 employees per shift 1 space/employee 14*
Total Provided 38*
* Employee parking will be provided off-site at the Cupertino City Center as required by the
parking management plan of the center.
In addition to the above referenced seating, the project is allowed to have up to 12outdoor patio
seats that are considered ancillary to therestaurant operation and not counted towardsthe
parking requirements.A condition of approval has been added allowingthe City to review the
parking demand of the restaurantand require adjustments to its operation and/or the parking
management plan, if substantial parking concerns are observed.
U-2014-07& ASA-2014-12 The Counter December 9, 2014
Proximity to Residential Use
The new restaurant will be located in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Areawhichis
envisioned to serve as a gathering place. The vision for the area and project siteencourages
commercial and retail use,with supportive residential development. The residential portion of
the project is located in aseparate building from the retail portion of the project buffered by
parking spaces, a drive isleand new landscape trees. The applicant has incorporated measures
into the operations to ensure that there is adequate buffering from the residences including
sound insulating walls and installation ofan odor abatement system.Therefore, the project is
not anticipated to impact the residential units within the project nor the nearbyresidential
neighborhoods.
Security
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office has reviewed the project and does not foresee any
security concerns or negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. A condition of
approval has been added to require the property owner to address security concerns in the
event that they arise and reimburse the City in the event of additional Sheriff’s enforcement
time.
OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW
The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, the Santa Clara County Fire
Department, the Cupertino Sanitary District, and CalWater reviewed the project and have no
objections. Their pre-hearing comments/conditions have been incorporated as conditions of
approval in the draft resolutions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per section 15301(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelinessection 15332 (In-Fill
Development) because the proposed use occurs within the city limits and is surrounded by
existing urban uses.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Notices mailed to property owners
adjacent to the project site (300 foot)(10
days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (one week prior to the hearing)
Postedon the City of Cupertino’s Web site
(one week prior to the hearing)
U-2014-07& ASA-2014-12 The Counter December 9, 2014
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –65964).
The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: October 6, 2014
Deemed Incomplete:November 3, 2014
Deemed Complete:November 24, 2014
Since this projectis Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until February 9, 2014) to make
a decision on the project. ThePlanning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless
appealed within 14 calendar days of the decision.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the project since the project and conditions of approval address all
concerns related to the proposed developmentand all of the findings for approval of the
proposed project, consistent with Chapter 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be
made.
Prepared by: Kaitie Groeneweg, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
Assist.Dir. of Community Development Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 –DraftResolution for U-2014-03
2 –Draft Resolution for ASA-2014-12
3–Plan Set
4–Business Description
U-2014-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMITTO ALLOW A SEPARATEBAR AT A PROPOSED
RESTAURANT LOCATED IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTAT
20030STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:U-2014-07
Applicant:Jared Taylor(Golden Property Development)
Location:20030 Stevens Creek Blvd.
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR DEVELOPMENTPERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a UsePermit
as described in Section I.of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinanceof
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
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;
The new restaurant will be located in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area which is envisioned to serve
as a gathering place that supports the creation of a Main Street like environment. The vision for the area
and project site encourages commercial and retail use, with supportive residential development. To further
mitigate impacts the applicant shall incorporate adequate measures into the operations to ensure that there
is adequate bufferingfrom residences including installation of an odor abatement systemand the applicant
has prepared a security plan. Therefore, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare.
2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
The proposed use complieswith the Cupertino General Planand Municipal Coderequirements,including
but not limited to,parking regulations, hours of operationand security measures.
Draft Resolution U-2014-07 December 9, 2014
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after carefulconsideration ofthe initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2thereof,:
The application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2014-07is herebyrecommended for approvaland
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-2014-07as set forth in theMinutes
of Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received November 19, 2014 consisting of 10
sheets, labeled PL-01, PL-02, PL-03, PL-04, PL-04.1, PL-05, PL-06, PL-07, PL-08 and PL-09 entitled,
“The Counter Burger, 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Innovation
and Design Architecture; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3.COVENANT DISCLOSURE
The property is undera Cupertino planned development zoning and property purchasers should
check with the City to determine the specific restrictions under the Planned Development Zone and
related permits.
4.OPERATIONS
a)The restaurantshall be operated withinthe area delineated on the site plan exhibit.
b)The restaurant is approved to operate Monday to Sunday from 10am to 11pm.
c)The number ofseats includes 76 indoorseats, 15 bar seats. The outdoor seating located in the
patio area will be verified at building permit issuance. The outdoor seating will be limited to a
maximum of 20% of the total allowed indoor seats or 12 outdoor seats, whichever is more
restrictive.
d)Staff parking is located off-site per the Parking Management Plan.
e)Changes to the restaurant operationsdetermined to be minor shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Community Development.
5.STOREFORNT WINDOWDETAILS
The storefront windowsfronting Stevens Creek Boulevardshall be kept open and transparent. The
final storefront design and window display shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
Draft Resolution U-2014-07 December 9, 2014
6.PEDESTRIAN CIRCULARION
Prior to building permit issuance the pedestrian circulation from the parking lot and public right of
way to the restaurantshall be reviewed to ensure that accessible paths of travel are being
maintained.
7.SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved withthis use permit application. The storefront awnings and patio
umbrellas are not approved for any signage. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Program.
8.RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts from the
restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems shall be installed prior to final
occupancy ofthe associated restaurant(s). Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
9.BUSINESS LICENSE
The business owners shall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenses prior to building permit
issuance.
10.ALCOHOLICBEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE
The applicant shall obtain and adhere to the appropriate California Alcoholic Beverage Control
License(s) in conjunction with the proposed service.
11.SHERIFF DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the satisfaction of
the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from
documented incidents in the development at the City’s contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff
Department at the time of the incident.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or other measures as
prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement.
12.FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of
Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor variants as deemed
appropriate. Specifically, the following items shall be addressed prior to building permit issuance:
a)The storefront windows on the front elevation shall be kept open to be consistent with the intent
of the original approval and maintain transparency and connectivity along Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
b)Additional planter boxes shall be added along the base of the storefront windows on the east
elevation to soften the appearance of the proposed spandrel. Alternatively, the spandrel at the
base of the windows can be removed.
c)The window awnings shall be metal or other durable material.
d)The window awnings shall be added to each storefront window.
Draft Resolution U-2014-07 December 9, 2014
e)Landscaping shall be added in front of the low wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The
proposed landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the planning department to building
permit issuance.
f)The planning department shall review the final design of the patio area including the patio wall,
seating, lighting, shade umbrellas, landscaping, operable folding bar window and fire pit prior
to building permit issuance.
13.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established
and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the
landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the
landscape installation report is submitted.
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b)Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c)Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either
be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other
factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
14.BUILDING TREATMENT
The building exterior treatment (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments, lighting, patios walls, retractable bar windows, and
landscaping) shall be consistent with the Mixed Use Complex. Any exterior changes determinedto
be minor shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.
15.SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not
visible from public street areas or adjoining developments.Screening materials/colors shall match
building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the
mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary
screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of building permits.
16.ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
17.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
Draft Resolution U-2014-07 December 9, 2014
18.MODIFICATION OF RESTURANT OPERATIONS
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the operation of
the restaurantto address any documented problem or nuisance situation that may occur.
19.MODIFICATION OF PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the operation of
the restaurantto address any substantial parking concerns. Including, but not limited to, making
adjustments to the restaurant operations and/or the parking management plan.
20.REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the
judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the conditional use
permit have not been implemented, or where the permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the requirements of the municipal code.
21.EXPIRATION
If the use forwhich this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been
suspended for twoyear or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit
application must be applied for and obtained.
22.INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation.TheCity may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
23.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 this90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
Draft Resolution U-2014-07 December 9, 2014
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9thday ofDecember,2014,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:
Gary Chao Paul Brophy,Chair
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Planning Commission
ASA-2014-12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINOAPPROVING
ANARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVALPERMITTO ALLOW FAÇADE
AND SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR A NEW RESTURANT AND BARAT
20030STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:ASA-2014-12
Applicant:Jared Taylor(Golden Property Development)
Location:20030 Stevens Creek Blvd.
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an
Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public
hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
1.The proposal, 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;
The new restaurant will be located in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area which is envisioned to
serve as a gathering place. The vision for the area and project site encourages commercial and retail
use, with supportive residential development. To further mitigate impacts,the applicant shall
incorporate adequate measures into the operations to ensure that there is adequate buffering from
residences including installation of an odor abatement system. In addition,theapplicant has
prepared a security planto mitigate security concerns. Therefore, the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site
Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning
ordinances, conditional use permits, exceptions, subdivision maps or other entitlements to
use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the
following specific criteria:
a)Only minor changes have been proposed to the existing building that do not affect the
overall architectural quality of the building. The project is not proposing to significant
alter the exterior of the existing two-story officebuilding.
Only the necessary site and building modifications/improvements associated with the restaurant
operation are proposed.
b)Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the
materials, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone
in which it issituated.
The location, height and materials of the proposed site improvements, landscaping features, and
patioarea harmonize with adjacent developments and are designed to complement the existing
surrounding professional, commercial and residential uses.
c)The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising
signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general
appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.
No outdoor signs are proposed or approved at this time.
d)With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development
should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive
effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design
measures.
The development is designed to buffer the residential portion of the development from
noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects. The residential portion of the
development is buffered from the retailportion by new landscaping trees,adrive aisle
and parking lot.All lights are directed away from the residential development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study,maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other
evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on PAGE 2thereof,:
The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2014-12is hereby
approved,andthat the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.
ASA-2014-12as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of December9, 2014,
and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1.APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received November 19, 2014 consisting
of 10sheets, labeled PL-01, PL-02, PL-03, PL-04, PL-04.1, PL-05, PL-06, PL-07, PL-08 and PL-
09 entitled, “The Counter Burger, 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,”
drawn by Innovation and Design Architecture; except as may be amended by conditions in
this resolution.
2.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including
but not limited to propertyboundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building
square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation
of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3.COVENANT DISCLOSURE
The property is under a Cupertino planned development zoning and property purchasers
should check with the City to determine the specific restrictions under the Planned
Development Zone and related permits.
4.OPERATIONS
a)The restaurantshall be operated withinthe area delineated on the site plan exhibit.
b)The restaurant is approved to operate Monday to Sunday from 10am to 11pm.
c)The number ofseats includes 76 indoorseats, 15 bar seats. The outdoor seating located
in the patio area will be verifiedat building permit issuance. The outdoor seating will
be limited to a maximum of 20% of the total allowed indoor seats or 12 outdoor seats,
whichever is more restrictive.
d)Staff parking is located off-site per the Parking Management Plan.
e)Changes to the restaurant operationsdetermined to be minor shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
5.STOREFORNT WINDOWDETAILS
The storefront windowsfronting Stevens Creek Boulevardshall be kept open and
transparent. The final storefront design and window display shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits.
6.PEDESTRIAN CIRCULARION
Prior to building permit issuance the pedestrian circulation from the parking lot and public
right of way to the restaurant shall be reviewed to ensure that accessible paths of travel are
being maintained.
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
7.SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved withthis use permit application. The storefrontawnings and patio
umbrellas are not approved for any signage. Signage shall conform to the City Sign
Program.
8.RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts from the
restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems shall be installed prior
to final occupancy ofthe associated restaurant(s). Detailed plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits.
9.BUSINESS LICENSE
The business owners shall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenses prior to building
permit issuance.
10.ALCOHOLICBEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE
The applicant shall obtain and adhere to the appropriate California Alcoholic Beverage
Control License(s) in conjunctionwith the proposed service.
11.SHERIFF DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The property owner shall address security concerns in the event that they arise to the
satisfaction of the City. The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff
enforcement time resulting from documented incidents in the development at the City’s
contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or other measures as
prescribed by the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement.
12.FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Directorof CommunityDevelopment prior to issuanceof building permits. The
Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor
variantsas deemed appropriate. Specifically, the following items shall be addressed prior
to building permit issuance:
a)The storefrontwindows on the front elevation shall be kept open to be consistent with
theintent of the original approval and maintain transparency and connectivity along
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
b)Additional planter boxes shall be added along the base of the storefront windows on
the east elevation to softenthe appearance of the proposed spandrel. Alternatively, the
spandrelat the base ofthe windows can be removed.
c)The window awningsshall be metal or other durable material.
d)The window awnings shall be added to each storefront window.
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
e)Landscaping shall be added in front of the low wall along StevensCreek Boulevard.
The proposed landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the planning department
to building permit issuance.
f)The planning department shall review the final design of the patio area including the
patio wall, seating, lighting, shade umbrellas, landscaping, operable folding bar
window and fire pit prior to building permit issuance.
13.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be
established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee,
either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or
any time before the landscape installation report is submitted.
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment
period and water requirements for established landscapes.
b)Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection;
pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching
turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding;
pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices.
c)Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may
be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing
plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water,
nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
14.BUILDING TREATMENT
The building exterior treatment (including but not limited to details on exterior color,
material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments, lighting, patios walls, retractable
bar windows, and landscaping) shall be consistent with the Mixed Use Complex. Any
exterior changes determined to be minor shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
15.SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they
are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening
materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening
shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The
location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
16.ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first
page of the building plans.
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
17.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard
to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation
of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development
Department.
18.MODIFICATION OF RESTURANT OPERATIONS
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the
operation of the restaurantto address any documented problem or nuisance situation that
may occur.
19.MODIFICATION OF PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the
operation of the restaurantto address any substantial parking concerns. Including, butnot
limited to, making adjustments to the restaurant operations and/or the parking
management plan.
20.REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where,
in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of the
conditional use permit have not been implemented, or where the permit is being conducted
in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, in accord with the
requirements of the municipalcode.
21.EXPIRATION
If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has
been suspended for twoyear or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use
permit application must be applied for and obtained.
22.INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or
approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the
City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation.The City may,
in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
23.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may includecertain 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
Draft Resolution ASA-2014-12 December9, 2014
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9thday ofDecember, 2014,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:
Gary Chao Paul Brophy,Chair
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Planning Commission
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:03:30 PM
11.14.14 PL-01COVER SHEET--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/10/14
TH
E
C
O
U
N
T
E
R
B
U
R
G
E
R
20
0
3
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
SH
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
IN
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
&
D
E
S
I
G
N
IN
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
21
8
T
H
E
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
N
.
L
O
N
G
B
E
A
C
H
,
C
A
9
0
8
0
2
PH
O
N
E
:
5
6
2
.
2
0
6
.
7
7
2
0
PL
-
0
1
C
O
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
PL
-
0
2
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PL
-
0
3
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
E
D
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
PL
-
0
4
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
PL
-
0
4
.
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PL
-
0
5
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
A
N
D
I
M
A
G
E
S
PL
-
0
6
3
D
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
V
I
E
W
S
PL
-
0
7
3
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
V
I
E
W
S
PL
-
0
8
3
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
V
I
E
W
S
PL
-
0
9
3
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
V
I
E
W
S
NE
W
T
E
N
A
N
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
F
O
R
A
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
I
N
S
I
D
E
A
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
H
E
L
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
,
N
E
W
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
W
I
L
L
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
D
NE
W
I
N
D
O
O
R
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
,
D
I
N
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
A
N
D
B
A
R
,
A
S
W
E
L
L
A
S
A
N
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
PA
T
I
O
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
S
P
A
C
E
W
I
T
H
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
A
N
D
A
F
I
R
E
P
I
T
.
A
L
L
AS
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
,
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
A
N
D
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
W
I
L
L
A
L
S
O
B
E
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
SI
T
E
SITEPLANNORTHPLANNORTH NOREASONDATE
3'
-
1
"
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
co
2
OF
F
I
C
E
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
B15
1
Fisher
3041
Dipperwell Assembly
C
HDD
D
D
D
H
C
PE
R
L
I
C
K
24
"
S
I
N
G
L
E
D
O
O
R
HC
2
4
F
S
PE
R
L
I
C
K
24
"
S
I
N
G
L
E
D
O
O
R
HC
2
4
R
S
2
D
O
O
R
PE
R
L
I
C
K
2
D
O
O
R
PE
R
L
I
C
K
C
G
ONLY
CLEARANCES-FOR COMBUST. LOC.
G
G
CWICWOCWO
H
D
H C
C
D
D
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
Z
A
W
I
T
H
A
R
T
.
PA
T
I
O
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
T
O
B
E
V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D
OF
F
I
C
E
EN
T
R
Y
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
BLANEY AVE
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
U
N
I
T
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
T
-
I
N
B
E
N
C
H
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
T
O
B
E
CO
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
L
L
.
L
O
W
G
R
O
W
I
N
G
PL
A
N
T
S
T
O
B
E
P
L
A
N
T
E
D
I
N
F
R
O
N
T
O
F
LO
W
W
A
L
L
,
A
N
D
W
I
L
L
B
E
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
SP
E
C
I
E
S
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
T
H
E
S
U
R
R
O
U
N
D
I
N
G
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
12"
OP
E
R
A
B
L
E
F
O
L
D
I
N
G
W
I
N
D
O
W
SP
A
N
D
R
E
L
/
F
R
O
S
T
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
SP
A
N
D
R
E
L
/
F
R
O
S
T
E
D
GL
A
S
S
36"
POS
44"
HO
S
T
36
"
(EX) COLUMN
WA
I
T
I
N
G
B
E
N
C
H
3 6"
LO
W
G
L
A
S
S
W
A
L
L
F
O
R
NO
I
S
E
/
W
I
N
D
S
C
R
E
E
N
44"
36
"
44
"
FI
R
E
P
I
T
SPANDREL/FROSTED GLASS BELOW TABLE
44"
44
"
EXISTING 2000 GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR BY LANDLORD.REFER TO APPROVED LANDLORD PLANS AND PERMITTED DRAWINGS
PL
-
0
4
1
PL
-
0
4
2
PL-043
PL
-
0
4
4
PL
-
0
4
5
PL
-
0
4
6
PA
T
I
O
U
M
B
R
E
L
L
A
1
PL
-
0
5
2
PL
-
0
5
NE
W
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
B
O
X
NE
W
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
B
O
X
PA
T
I
O
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
PL
-
0
4
.
1
1
PL-04.12
PL
-
0
4
.
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69
70 71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94 95
96 97
98 99
10
0
10
1
7 PL-05
71
"
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:03:53 PM
11.14.14 PL-02FLOOR PLAN--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09.22.14
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
SE
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
U
N
T
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
O
O
S
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
34
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
I
X
E
D
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
42
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
B
A
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
9_85
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
O
O
S
E
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
10
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
B
A
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
6
_
16
TO
T
A
L
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
10
1
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
85
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
16
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
16
S
E
A
T
S
OF
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
:
(2
0
%
O
F
8
5
=
1
7
S
E
A
T
S
M
A
X
)
TOILETS NEEDED PER RESTROOM:2TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE INTERIOR RESTAURANT:3000 SF OUTDOOR PATIO:735 SF TOTAL RESTAURANT:3735 SF
PA
R
K
I
N
G
/
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
U
N
T
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
:
76
S
E
A
T
S
19
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
O
T
S
(
1
S
P
A
C
E
P
E
R
4
S
E
A
T
S
)
=
M
A
X
7
6
S
E
A
T
S
BA
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
(
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
N
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
)
:
15
S
E
A
T
S
05
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
O
T
S
(
1
S
P
A
C
E
P
E
R
3
S
E
A
T
S
)
=
M
A
X
1
5
S
E
A
T
S
OU
T
D
O
O
R
P
A
T
I
O
:
10
S
E
A
T
S
00
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
O
T
S
(
1
S
P
A
C
E
P
E
R
4
S
E
A
T
S
,
F
I
R
S
T
1
2
S
E
A
T
S
E
X
E
M
P
T
)
=
M
A
X
1
2
S
E
A
T
S
TO
T
A
L
10
1
S
E
A
T
S
24
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
S
P
O
T
S
NO
T
E
:
S
T
A
F
F
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
O
B
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
O
F
F
S
I
T
E
P
E
R
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
T
H
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
NOREASONDATE
3'
-
1
"
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
co
2
OF
F
I
C
E
1448
SOLID TOP
2T
B151Fisher3041Dipperwell Assembly C
HDD
DD
D
H
C
PERLICK24" SINGLE DOORHC24FS PERLICK24" SINGLE DOORHC24RS2 DOORPERLICK2 DOORPERLICK
C
G
GONLY
CLEARANCES-FOR COMBUST. LOC.
G
G
CWICWOCWO
D HC
H
D
H C
H C
C
D
D
PL
-
0
4
1
PL-04 2 PL-043
PL
-
0
4
4
PL
-
0
4
5
PL
-
0
4
6
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
H
H
H
A1
A1A1
A1
H
B1
B1
B1
B1
H
H
A1
A1
A1
H
A1
B1
B1B1B1
P2
P2P2 P2P2
P2
P2
P2
P1
P1P1P1
P1 P1
P1P1
B1
K
K
KK-
E
M
K
K-
E
M
K
K
KK-
E
M
K
K
A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
A1
A1
A1
EX
EXEXEX
EB
1
EB
1
EB1EB1EB1 EB1
P2
P2
P2
P1
P2
P2P2P2FF
F F
FF
F
F
EM
C
EM
C
EM
W
EM
W
EM
W
EMW
PL
-
0
4
.
1
1
PL-04.12
PL
-
0
4
.
1
3
7 PL-05CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:04:16 PM
11.14.14 PL-03REFLECTEDCEILING PLAN--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/10/14
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
TY
P
E
C
O
U
N
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
M
O
D
E
L
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
A1
1
6
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
C
A
N
P
E
N
D
A
N
T
P
R
O
G
E
S
S
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
C
Y
L
I
N
D
E
R
P
5
7
4
-
3
1
P
E
N
D
A
N
T
M
O
UN
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
E
X
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
.
B
L
A
C
K
F
I
N
I
S
H
B1
1
6
6
"
R
E
C
E
S
S
E
D
D
O
W
N
L
I
G
H
T
N
O
R
A
N
H
I
C
-
6
L
M
R
A
T
EB
1
6
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
W
I
T
H
G
L
A
S
S
T
O
P
L
I
GH
T
L
I
G
H
T
Y
A
R
D
I
R
O
K
O
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
S
M
O
U
N
T
I
N
G
S
E
T
EM
C
2
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
L
I
G
H
T
-
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
C
E
P
H
I
L
I
P
S
4
4
R
L
1
R
W
H
I
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
EM
W
4
W
A
L
L
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
L
I
GH
T
P
H
I
L
I
P
S
4
4
R
L
1
R
W
H
I
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
EX
4
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
C
C
E
N
T
L
I
G
H
T
L
U
M
I
E
R
E
C
A
M
B
R
I
A
2
0
3
-
F
M
D
I
M
M
A
B
L
E
L
E
D
,
F
L
U
S
H
M
O
U
N
T
O
N
J
-
B
O
X
T
O
C
A
N
O
P
Y
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
F
8
1
5
W
T
R
A
C
K
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
M
O
N
O
P
O
I
N
T
,
D
I
M
M
A
B
L
E
,
2
8
D
E
G
R
E
E
F
L
O
O
D
B
E
A
M
B
L
A
C
K
F
I
N
I
S
H
A
M
E
R
L
U
X
H
O
RN
E
T
1
5
L
E
D
E
B
T
C
T
B
1
2
0
W
F
3
0
0
0
-
D
I
M
T
R
A
C
K
F
IX
T
U
R
E
.
T
R
A
C
K
:
J
U
N
O
T
8
B
L
&
T
2
B
L
H
7
6
"
R
E
C
E
S
S
E
D
A
D
J
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
R
O
U
N
D
T
R
I
M
L
E
S
S
A
C
C
E
N
T
DO
W
N
L
I
G
H
T
A
M
E
R
L
U
X
H
O
R
N
E
T
R
E
T
R
O
6
A
1
5
L
E
D
E
M
B
B
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
IL
-
A
R
T
L
-
N
C
L
1
3
0
-
1
1
TR
I
M
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
B
R
U
S
H
E
D
A
L
U
M
K
9
2
x
4
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
T
R
O
F
F
E
R
TE
X
A
S
F
L
U
O
R
E
S
C
E
N
T
1
3
1
A
3
3
2
M
V
(
2
)
K-
E
M
3
2
x
4
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
T
R
O
F
F
E
R
TE
X
A
S
F
L
U
O
R
E
S
C
E
N
T
1
3
1
A
3
3
2
M
V
(
2
)
O
N
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
C
I
R
C
U
I
T
P1
9
1
2
"
Ø
B
U
C
K
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
HI
-
L
I
T
E
M
F
G
.
C
O
.
,
I
N
C
.
H
-
S
P
-
9
2
6
1
1
2
-
9
3
/
1
2
8
IN
T
/
C
-
O
R
C
8
-
9
3
/
I
N
C
C
O
R
D
C
A
N
O
P
Y
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
P2
1
5
1
9
"
Ø
B
U
C
K
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
HI
-
L
I
T
E
M
F
G
.
C
O
.
,
I
N
C
.
H
-
S
P
-
9
2
6
1
1
8
-
9
3
/
1
2
8
IN
T
/
C
-
O
R
C
8
-
9
3
/
I
N
C
C
O
R
D
C
A
N
O
P
Y
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
T7
5
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
T
R
A
C
K
7
'
-
0
"
L
E
N
G
T
H
A
M
E
R
L
U
X
T
R
A
C
K
FIRE SPRINKLER PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT SEPERATELY BY SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR FOR FIRE DEPARMENT / CITY APPROVALS.
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
FL
O
O
R
L
E
V
E
L
NOREASONDATE
FL
O
O
R
L
E
V
E
L
0'
-
0
"
B.
O
.
R
O
O
F
15
'
-
0
"
T.
O
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
25
'
-
0
"
TX
-
3
TX
-
3
TX
-
3
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
FL
O
O
R
L
E
V
E
L
0'
-
0
"
B.
O
.
R
O
O
F
15
'
-
0
"
T.
O
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
25
'
-
0
"
TX
-
3
TX
-
3
WD
-
4
WD
-
4
WD
-
4
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
WD
-
4
FLOOR LEVEL 0' - 0"B.O. ROOF 15' - 0"T.O. TRELLIS 25' - 0"TX-3TX-3 G-1G-1G-1 G-2G-2G-2G-2G-2G-2G-1G-1G-1
FL
O
O
R
L
E
V
E
L
0'
-
0
"
B.
O
.
R
O
O
F
15
'
-
0
"
T.
O
.
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
25
'
-
0
"
TX
-
3
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
1
G-
1
G-
2
G-
2
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
2
G-
2
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
1
G-
2
FLOOR LEVEL 0' - 0"B.O. ROOF 15' - 0"T.O. TRELLIS 25' - 0"G-2G-2G-2 G-2G-2G-2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
G-
2
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:04:32 PM
11.14.14 PL-04EXTERIORELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/10/14
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
MA
R
K
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
M
O
D
E
L
F
L
A
M
E
S
P
R
E
A
D
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
E
A
D
T
I
M
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
G-
1
C
L
E
A
R
G
L
A
S
S
T
B
D
C
L
E
A
R
T
E
M
P
E
R
E
D
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
G
L
A
S
S
G-
2
F
R
O
S
T
E
D
S
P
A
N
D
R
E
L
G
L
A
S
S
T
B
D
C
L
E
A
R
T
E
M
P
E
R
E
D
MT
L
-
1
S
T
A
I
N
L
E
S
S
S
T
E
E
L
T
B
D
S
.
S
.
NO
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
B
L
E
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
T
A
B
L
E
B
A
S
E
S
MT
L
-
2
B
R
E
A
K
M
E
T
A
L
T
I
G
E
R
D
R
Y
L
A
C
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
M
E
T
A
L
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
N
O
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
B
L
E
B
R
E
A
K
M
E
TA
L
O
V
E
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
A
N
O
P
Y
F
R
A
M
I
N
G
A
T
B
A
R
WINDOW
MT
L
-
3
M
T
L
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
T
B
D
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
N
O
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
I
B
L
E
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
W
N
I
N
G
F
R
A
M
E
S
TX
-
3
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
W
N
I
N
G
F
A
B
R
I
C
S
U
N
B
R
E
L
L
A
C
U
S
T
O
M
CL
A
S
S
B
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
W
N
I
N
G
F
A
B
R
I
C
T
O
MATCH EXISTING TRELLIS METAL
WD
-
4
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
O
O
D
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
T
B
D
2
3/
8
"
x
7
/
8
"
I
P
E
W
O
O
D
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
R
E
D
C
E
D
A
R
.
1
/
4
"
G
A
P
B
E
T
W
EE
N
P
L
A
N
K
S
C
L
A
S
S
C
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
P
L
A
NK
I
N
G
A
T
B
A
R
A
N
D
F
I
R
E
P
I
T
FL
O
O
R
I
N
G
B-
1
W
A
L
L
B
A
S
E
M
I
L
L
S
T
E
E
L
4
"
x
1
/
4
"
M
I
L
L
S
T
E
E
L
B
A
S
E
,
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
DI
R
E
C
T
-
T
O
-
M
E
T
A
L
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
B
R
U
S
H
E
D
A
L
U
M
.
N
O
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
W
A
L
L
B
A
S
E
WD
-
1
V
I
N
Y
L
W
O
O
D
F
L
O
O
R
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
E
F
L
O
O
R
S
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
M
T
I
C
O
A
R
O
W
7
7
2
0
B
L
A
C
K
CH
E
S
N
U
T
C
L
A
S
S
I
3
W
E
E
K
S
F
R
O
M
T
I
M
E
O
F
O
R
D
E
R
P
L
A
N
K
S
I
Z
E
:
3
"
X
3
6
"
/
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
L
A
N
K
E
D
/
B
A
S
E
:
B
-
1
;
CONTACT: DEBBIE HARVATH @ 480-612-5442
MI
L
L
W
O
R
K
PL
-
2
L
A
M
I
N
A
T
E
F
O
R
M
I
C
A
B
L
A
C
K
#
9
0
9
-
5
8
CL
A
S
S
A
M
A
T
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
SS
-
1
B
A
R
T
O
P
A
N
D
B
O
O
T
H
T
A
B
L
E
T
O
P
S
S
AM
S
U
N
G
S
T
A
R
O
N
F
H
1
1
4
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
CL
A
S
S
A
1
/
2
"
T
H
I
C
K
S
A
M
S
U
N
G
WD
-
2
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
O
O
D
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
P
O
P
L
A
R
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
2
3
/
8
"
x
7
/
8
"
P
O
P
L
A
R
S
T
A
I
N
E
D
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
R
E
D
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
ST
A
I
N
E
D
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
RE
D
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
WD
-
3
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
M
A
L
L
W
O
O
D
P
L
A
N
K
I
N
G
P
O
P
L
A
R
P
L
A
N
KI
N
G
2
3
/
8
"
x
7
/
8
"
R
E
D
C
E
D
A
R
.
1
/
4
"
G
A
P
B
E
T
W
EE
N
P
L
A
N
K
S
C
L
A
S
S
C
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
I
N
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
A
C
C
E
N
T WALLS
WD
-
5
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
O
O
D
T
A
B
L
E
T
OP
T
B
D
B
U
T
C
H
E
R
B
L
O
C
K
T
A
B
L
E
PA
I
N
T
PT
-
1
L
I
G
H
T
B
L
U
E
P
A
I
N
T
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
M
O
OR
E
H
C
-
1
5
1
V
A
N
C
O
U
R
T
L
A
N
D
B
L
U
E
C
L
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
D
I
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
A
T
S
O
F
F
I
T
S
PT
-
2
L
I
G
H
T
B
R
O
W
N
P
A
I
N
T
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
MO
O
R
E
H
C
-
8
5
F
A
R
I
V
I
E
W
T
A
U
P
E
CL
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
D
I
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
A
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
D
I
N
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
PT
-
3
L
I
G
H
T
G
R
E
Y
P
A
I
N
T
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
M
O
O
R
E
A
C
-
2
8
SM
O
K
E
E
M
B
E
R
S
CL
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
D
I
L
Y
A
V
A
I
LA
B
L
E
A
T
R
E
S
T
R
O
O
M
S
PT
-
4
D
E
C
K
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
M
O
O
R
E
H
C
-
6
7
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
B
R
O
W
N
-
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
T
E
R
B
O
R
N
E
P
A
I
N
T
(
T
Y
P
)
C
L
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
D
I
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
S
H
E
E
N
S
U
N
O
:
WA
L
L
S
-
E
G
G
S
H
E
L
L
,
C
E
I
L
I
N
G - FLAT, DOORS & FRAMES - SEMIGLOSS, ZERO VOC
PT
-
5
P
A
I
N
T
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
M
O
O
R
E
C
U
S
T
O
M
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
TI
N
G
A
N
T
I
Q
U
E
W
H
I
T
E
C
L
A
S
S
A
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
TE
X
T
I
L
E
TX
-
1
B
O
O
T
H
U
P
H
O
L
S
T
E
R
Y
N
A
U
G
A
H
Y
D
E
N
A
U
G
A
S
O
F
T
-
C
O
C
O
A
-
P
R
-
5
1
C
L
A
S
S
A
R
E
A
D
I
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
;
(
1
0
W
E
E
K
S
I
F
OU
T
O
F
S
T
O
C
K
)
BO
O
T
H
U
P
H
O
L
S
T
E
R
Y
TX
-
2
B
O
O
T
H
S
E
A
T
U
P
H
O
L
S
T
E
R
Y
M
A
H
A
R
A
M
L
A
R
I
A
T
4
4
0
4
0
1
-
0
1
1
C
H
O
C
O
L
A
T
E
C
L
A
S
S
A
F
A
U
X
L
E
A
T
H
E
R
B
O
O
T
H
U
P
H
O
L
S
T
E
R
Y
TI
L
E
TL
-
1
R
E
S
T
R
O
O
M
F
L
O
O
R
T
I
L
E
D
A
L
T
I
LE
F
A
B
R
I
Q
U
E
-
G
R
I
S
L
I
N
E
N
P
6
9
0
NO
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
1
W
E
E
K
1
2
"
x
1
2
"
-
G
R
O
U
T
:
C
U
S
T
OM
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
R
O
D
UCTS # 165 DELOREAN GRAY; CONTACT TAMARA GRANDUSKY FOR MATERIAL @
51
0
-
8
1
7
-
4
0
3
5
TL
-
3
T
H
I
N
B
R
I
C
K
B
E
L
D
E
N
B
R
I
C
K
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
T
H
I
N
B
R
I
C
K
C
1
0
8
8
P
O
L
A
R
W
H
I
T
E
C
L
E
A
R
,
J
U
MB
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
N
O
N
-
C
O
M
B
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
I
NT
E
R
I
O
R
B
O
O
T
H
W
A
L
L
.
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
: 330-451-2031
TL
-
4
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
T
I
L
E
D
A
L
T
I
L
E
6
"
x
6
"
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
T
I
L
E
0
Q
4
2
A
R
I
D
G
R
A
Y
w
/
1
/
4"
E
P
O
X
Y
G
R
O
U
T
J
O
I
N
T
S
G
R
-
5
N
O
N
-
C
O
MB
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
B
A
S
E
:
D
A
L
T
I
L
E
6
"
x
6
"
C
O
V
E
B
A
S
E
w
/
1
/
4
"
E
P
O
X
Y
G
R
O
U
T
J
O
I
N
T
G
R
-
5
.
U
S
E FACTORY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CORNERS ONLY
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
N
O
R
T
H
T
O
W
E
R
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
N
O
R
T
H
OP
E
R
A
B
L
E
B
A
R
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
E
A
S
T
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
4
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
S
O
U
T
H
3/16" = 1'-0"5EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH B
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
6
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
N
O
R
T
H
A
NOREASONDATE
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:04:48 PM
11.14.14 PL-04.1EXTERIORELEVATIONS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 11/12/14
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-
N
O
R
T
H
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
E
A
S
T
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
S
O
U
T
H
NOREASONDATE
1' - 2"
2'
-
0
"
ST
U
C
C
O
F
I
N
I
S
H
#3
R
E
B
A
R
4
'
-
0
"
O
.
C
.
#3
R
E
B
A
R
W
/
M
I
N
3
"
C
O
V
E
R
PA
T
I
O
1'
-
0
"
8"
C
M
U
F
I
L
L
E
D
S
O
L
I
D
W
I
T
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
2
1
/
2
"
C
M
U
C
A
P
SE
A
L
A
N
T
1
1
/
4
"
D
E
E
P
A
L
U
M
N
.
.
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
1"
T
E
M
P
E
R
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
PO
L
I
S
H
E
D
,
E
A
S
E
D
E
D
G
E
1'
-
5
"
0'
-
1
0
"
1'-4 1/2"3'-2"
2"
6"
8"
F
I
L
L
E
D
C
M
U
B
L
O
C
K
HP
C
M
A
T
C
H
-
L
I
T
T
R
O
U
G
H
B
U
R
N
E
R
,
M
L
F
P
K
4
8
-
TR
G
H
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
P
E
R
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
S
P
E
C
.
CL
E
A
R
G
L
A
S
S
P
E
B
B
L
E
S
EM
B
E
D
D
E
D
A
N
C
H
O
R
BO
L
T
A
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
S
18" AFF
PR
E
-
C
A
S
T
F
I
R
E
P
I
T
T
O
P
.
A
R
I
S
T
O
N
E
C
A
P
O
R
E
Q
U
A
L
L-
A
N
G
L
E
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
A
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
WO
O
D
F
I
N
I
S
H
A
S
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
D
ST
Y
L
E
M
A
R
K
B
A
S
E
WD
-
1
B-
1
4"
PA
T
I
O
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
FI
R
E
P
I
T
T
R
O
U
G
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
PA
N
E
L
.
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
P
E
R
MA
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
S
P
E
C
6"
(N
)
F
I
R
E
P
I
T
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
6"
7.
9
"
I
N
S
E
R
T
36
"
1"
2"
6"
SU
B
G
R
A
D
E
MULLION
2'-9"
TABLETOP
2' - 10"
FR
O
S
T
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
BE
L
O
W
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
O
N
L
Y
MULLION
2'-5"
TABLETOP
2' - 6"
FR
O
S
T
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
BE
L
O
W
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
O
N
L
Y
15"
4
7
"
24"
ME
T
A
L
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
B
O
X
,
W
H
I
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
SH
R
U
B
/
P
L
A
N
T
S
T
O
B
E
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
DU
R
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
R
E
V
I
E
W
PLANT HEIGHT
3' - 6" MIN
18"24"
42"
53"
2'-4 1/2"
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
FA
B
R
I
C
C
O
V
E
R
,
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
TH
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
M
E
T
A
L
T
R
E
L
L
I
S
1
1
/
2
"
M
E
T
A
L
F
R
A
M
E
,
F
I
N
I
S
H
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:04:55 PM
11.14.14 PL-05EXTERIORDETAILS AND IMAGES--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/22/14
1
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
PA
T
I
O
W
A
L
L
w
/
GL
A
S
S
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
1
1
/
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
4
FI
R
E
P
I
T
D
E
T
A
I
L
CO
U
N
T
E
R
B
U
R
G
E
R
F
R
E
M
ONT - PATIO WALL w/ GLASS & UMBRELLAS
CO
U
N
T
E
R
B
U
R
G
E
R
F
R
E
M
O
N
T
-
L
O
W
W
A
L
L
BAR WINDOW DISPLAY AT NIGHT
CO
U
N
T
E
R
B
U
R
G
E
R
F
R
E
M
O
N
T - WALL AND RAILINGCOUNTER BURGER FREMONT - BAR DISPLAY FROM INSIDE
1
/
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MU
L
L
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
A
B
L
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
1
/
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
MU
L
L
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
A
B
L
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
NO
T
E
S
1.
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
A
B
R
I
C
A
W
N
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
U
M
B
R
E
L
L
A
S ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CONTAIN SIGNAGE
5
PL
A
N
T
E
R
B
O
X
D
E
T
A
I
L
6
PA
T
I
O
W
A
L
L
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
IR
O
K
O
W
O
O
D
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
b
y
TH
E
L
I
G
H
T
Y
A
R
D
1
/
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
7
AW
N
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
8
3D
V
I
E
W
A
W
N
I
N
G
2.
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
T
O
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
L
O
W
S
C
R
U
B
S
I
N
FRONT OF PATIO WALL FACING STEVENS CREEK
BL
V
D
.
P
L
A
N
T
S
P
E
C
I
E
S
T
O
B
E
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
E
N
T
W
I
T
H
S
U
R
R
O
U
N
D
I
N
G
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
.
3.
O
D
O
R
A
B
A
T
E
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
T
O
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
ED AND SCREEN APPROPRIATELY SO AS TO
NO
T
B
E
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
F
R
O
M
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
4.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
T
O
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
C
O
MMUNITY NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCENOREASONDATE
5.
S
T
A
F
F
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
T
O
B
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
O
F
F
S
I
T
E
PER APPROVED THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:05:12 PM
11.14.14 PL-063D INTERIOR VIEWS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/12/14NOREASONDATE
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:05:35 PM
11.14.14 PL-073D EXTERIOR VIEWS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/22/14NOREASONDATE
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:06:02 PM
11.14.14 PL-083D EXTERIOR VIEWS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 09/10/14NOREASONDATE
CUSTOM BUILT BURGERS REVISIONS Issue For:Current Issue Date:Sheet Title:Architect:Innovation and Design in Architecture, Inc.218 The Promenade North Long Beach, CA 90820 www.IDAexperience.com Plans, maps, specifications, studies,and reports not containing a ink seal imprint accompanied by an original signature by the licensed professional may have been fraudulently altered and shall not be considered an original copy.All information should be disregarded unless verified by the professional whose signature appears above.Copyright Protected 2014.8571 HIGUERA STREET CULVER CITY, CA 90232A R C H I T E C T U R E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet Number:PROJECT MANAGER:DRAWN BY:PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE:JC KS KSProject Address:Project Number:Stamp:Consultant:Project:1st Issue Date:
11/14/2014 1:06:27 PM
11.14.14 PL-093D EXTERIOR VIEWS--19-012-14Project Name 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CA 11/12/14NOREASONDATE