PC Packet 05-26-2015CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of the April 14, 2015 meeting
Recommended Action: approve or modify the draft minutes of April 14, 2015
Draft Minutes of April 14, 2015
2.Subject: Draft Minutes of the May 12, 2015 meeting
Recommended Action: approve or modify the draft minutes of May 12, 2015
Draft Minutes of May 12, 2015
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
3.Subject: change in operational hours and outdoor seating for Starbucks
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
May 26, 2015Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: Approve the Conditional Use Permit per the draft resolution
Description:
Application No(s).: CUP-2015-01
Applicant(s): MBH Architects (The Sobrato Organization)
Location: 20676 Homestead Road APN# 326-10-066
Conditional Use Permit to allow early hours of operation (before 7am) and outdoor
seating in excess of 20% (up tp 90%) of the number of indoor seats for a coffee shop
(Starbucks)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution U-2015-04
2 - Plan Set
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
May 26, 2015Planning Commission AGENDA
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).
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.
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.
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 OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. APRIL 14, 2015 TUESDAY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2015 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., byChairperson Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson:Alan Takahashi
Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Staff Present:Asst. Dir. Community Development: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Piu Ghosh
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVALOF MINUTES:
1.Minutes of February 24 , 2015 Planning Commission meeting:
It was noted thaton Page 1, the motion to approve the February 10, 2015 PlanningCommission
minutes should be deleted and replaced with: “Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and
carried 4-0-0-1, Vice Chair Takahashi absent, to approve the February 10, 2015 minutes as
amended.”
MOTION:Motion byCom. Paulsen, second by Com. Sun, and carried 4-0-0-1, Vice Chair
Takahashiabstained; to approve correction to February 10, 2015 minutes.
Com. Gong noted that themotion summary for approval of the January 27, 2015minutes should be
corrected to read 3-0-1-1
MOTION:Motion by Com. Paulsen, second by Com. Sun, and carried 3-0-2, Vice Chair
Takahashi and Com. Gong abstained, to approve correction to February 24, 2015
Planning Commission minutes relative to the January 27 minutes.
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Dr. Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident:
Said he was not able to access the current agenda from the City website earlier in the week. He
expressed frustrationinattending the meeting unprepared and said that the result is no public
participation in the city matter. Said he continues to have difficulty in accessing information from the
city website.
GaryChao:
Said Dr.Lum has experienced problemswith his printer at his home in the past. A staff member will
contact Dr. Lum about the problem.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING: None
OLD BUSINESS:
2.GPA-2013-02 General Plan Amendment for Housing Element Updates as required by
City of Cupertino state law. Discuss and make recommendation to the City Council to adopt
Location: Citywide the 2014-2022 Housing Element per the Draft Resolution. Tentative City
Council Date: May 19, 2015
Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
In Nov. 2013 the City Council authorized the project and its budget; stakeholder interviews were
conducted in Dec. 2013, community workshops held periodically between Jan.and Dec.of 2014,
study sessions and open houses with the Planning Commission, City Council and Housing
Commission between Jan.and Dec. last year. An EIR was prepared for theproject; therewere
environmental related CEQA meetings in springand summerof 2014 and have been other outreach
and notification to the citizens and development community at large mailed to allcity addresses in
Feb.and June of lastyear.
Explained that the Housing Element isone of the 7 state required elements of the General Plan; it is
the only element that requires certification by the Calif. Dept. of Housing and Community
Development, HCD.HCD allows a grace period; the update allows the city to adjust housing policy
to respect evolving needs of the city to reflect demographic changes, economic trends, etc.Without
certification of the Housing Element the city risks litigation, loss of funding for housing and
transportation, the possibility of having to find additional housing sites or automatic approval of
housing on sites at a state mandated minimum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. There is a
missed deadline penalty of a four year update cycle as opposed to an 8 year update cycle for the
Housing Element. The Housing Element content is also dictated by state law, the housing plan itself
is composed of several different pieces. The City of Cupertino’s Housing Element content is split
into two sections in the General Plan; the housing plan which is largely the policiesand programs is
reported in Chapter 4 of the General Plan which is the Housing Element itself; the remainder of the
content is in the technicalAppendix B.
The Planning Commission had reviewed priority sites as recommended by staff in November and
made recommendations based on that which was then reviewed by thePlanning Commission and
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
3
Council provided and selected the Housing Element priority site at its December 2014 meeting. They
selected sites based on two different scenarios; the first scenario they selected sites of up to 1400 units
and the second scenario which anticipates that one of the sites which is the Vallco Shopping District
does not get a specific plan adopted within three years of May 31st of this year; there would then be a
fallback option which would be scenario B. In Scenario A the sites selected were the Hamptons,
Vallco Shopping District, the Oaks, Marina Foods and a smaller site called the Barry Swenson site
which is almost half an acre. In Scenario B Vallco goes away and instead adds some additional units
at theOaks, increases some units at the Hamptons, includes the Homestead Lanes site as an additional
site and then adds the Glenbrook site as an additional housing element site.
Referred to overhead presentation,city’s regional housingneeds allocation, the city’s RHNA is 1,064
as city receives a credit of approximately62 units because those have been units that have been built
since that RHNA has been prescribed for the city. Based on conversations with HCD, HCD
recommends about a 40% surplus over the city’s RHNA to allow flexibility in cases that sites don’t
get developed with housing, and it allows the city flexibility in terms of development. That is how
they got the 1400 established as the RHNA forScenario A. City Council authorized staff to submit
the draft housing elementto HCD for its reviewand HCD did complete its review in January, and
upon discussion with HCD which required certain revisionsto the housing element, they were
revisions related to clarification about emergency shelterswe could reuse certain language we had
in our prior housing element which was reinserted; provide concrete timeframes to certain
strategies; provide revisions in response to a public comment letter that HCD received from the
law foundation of Silicon Valley which was to update certain timeframes. It provides some
informationon factors that limit affordable housing production in the city in the pastand also to
address indirect economic displacement. Those revisions were made; in addition to those
revisions that HCD required, there were some minor revision also made to the draft to clarify text,
remove certain redundantlanguage,to update the home program status when we had first brought
the draftthru the Housing C/ PC and CC; we weren’t part of the home program at that point. We
also updatedpark impact fees for thecurrent fiscal year. Upon HCD review the city got a
conditional letter of compliance on Feb. 5th of this year, so if the Housing Element gets adopted as
it is presented tonight, we do have conditional letter of compliance from them and we stillhave to
resubmit to them for their final certification.
Relative to environmental review, an EIR was prepared in conjunction with the GPA project for this
project as well; the draft EIR was circulated for 45 day public comment period in the summer of 2014
and response to comments was prepared and completed in the Fall of that year; the final EIR was
certified by the City Council in December of 2014. At this point no further CEQA review is required
for this project.
It is anticipated that the City Councilwill hear this itemon May 19; upon adoption the Housing
Element would be submitted once again to HCD for its final review; they have 90 days to review the
Housing Element again. If there are no substantial changes, the Housing Element should be found
compliant; if new changes are made, the HCD may need additional time to review the document and
the city will not have an adopted housing element by the May 31st, 2015 deadline. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the final 2014-2022 Housing
Element in substantially similar form to the draftresolution presented with one correction notedthat a
chart appeared in the Housing Element twice.
Scenario A is if Vallco can get their specific plan and their zoning adoptedby May 31, 2018; if
Vallco doesn’t get their specific plan adopted by that timeframe, then the city would have to initiate
rezoning for all the sites that are shown in Scenario B as Housing Element sites in order to make
those be eligible to be Housing Element sites at that time. They are in theHousing Element butthe
rezoning would have to be done at that timefor those particular sites within 3 years.
The City Council decided thatthey wantedtoallocate389 units in the Housing Element to Vallco; it
is the Planning Commission’s prerogative if they want to re-recommend 200 units to the Council and
the Council can consider thatwhen it makes its final decision; however staff needs to talk to HCD
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
4
again to see whether they would be comfortable with 1200 units in the HousingElement for thecity.
At this time they were comfortable with 1400 in ScenarioA.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he was not on the Planning Commission during the Housing Element process, although he
attended some hearings and community workshops. He commended staff on the superb jobthey did
on the document. He said he became informed in reading the Housing Element and from reading the
book Love of Cities, he became inspired to express his love for Cupertino in helping to implement the
Housing Element in a way thatis both beautiful and functional for the residents of Cupertino. He said
he was appreciative of all residents who were present at the meeting demonstrating their love for
Cupertino by showing up at a public meeting and expressing theirviews.
Piu Ghosh:
Said that currently the Hamptons has 34 BMR units; In the Housing Element it anticipates they would
continue to keeptheir 34 units; however there is only 12 years left on the BMR and due to the recent
Palmer case, cities can no longer require BMR units in rental units. For the new units the Hamptons
puts in, the city cannot require affordable units; the city isin theprocess of updating its residential
mitigation fees and they would still be subject to that.
Staff:
Said they are addressing the Housing Element again because state law requires that before a Housing
Element is adopted HCD needs toreview a draft of the Housing Element; but it also requires that the
draft Housing Element be heard through the different bodies that would recommend adoption of the
Housing Element, which is why it had to go through the Housing Commission, Planning Commission
and get authorization from City Council to submit the draft to HCD. Once HCD reviews the draft
they gave the conditional approval of that draft and said it meets state law. State law also requires
that once that draft is reviewed by HCD there must be public hearings in order to adopt the final
Housing Element. This series of meetings starting in Feb.are those public hearings for adoption of
the final draft.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said he had discussions with staff clarifying some of the RHNA requirements, specificallyhow they
categorize the income levels. Said it appears they are just going through the motions from the
standpoint saying they are looking at RHNA and understand there is a target for a formal Housing
Element but have no power to do anything to implement anything other than possibly thefees but that
is pretty much their only recourse; is that accurate?
ColleenWinchester, Assistant City Attorney:
Said state law prohibits the city from requiring housing at certain income levelsexcept for the BMR
requirements.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Asked if it is a case of RHNA not necessarily catching up to the implications of litigation; on one
handthere is a requirement, and on the other hand there is the Palmer ruling that says you can’t do
that; theresult is ending up with no affordable housing.
Piu Ghosh:
Said theonly thing that the Housing Elementlaw acknowledges is that if sites that are zoned at20
dwelling units per acre are selected, those sites are considered to be adequate for affordable housing
regardless of what the developer ends up putting on it. Said all the sites inthe Housing Element are
zoned at above 20 dwelling unitsto the acre so theydo meet that requirement. They do have BMR
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
5
requirements if the housing is ownership units and if it is rental they have the fee which they are
proposing to increase so that they can build some affordable projects.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said the reason he wanted thediscussion is that it generally is an issue in Cupertino from the
standpointthat property values continue to rise; it is wonderful if one can afford to own propertyin
Cupertino, but if they can’t, but work in Cupertino, they have to commute. The housing plan is an
important piece of how we look at the futureand at least do what we can to provide some level of
affordable housing.
C.J.Valenzuela, Sr. Housing Planner, City of Cupertino:
Discussed the affordable housing program in terms of what is done with the funds collected. There
has been a housing mitigation program since 1993; a fee update in 2004 and going into another one
starting in 2014, coming up in 2015. The fee revenue generated for the housing mitigation fees are
deposited into the city’s BMR affordable housing fund and annually the city publishes an RFP to
various organizations throughout Santa Clara County, nonprofitdevelopers, public service providers;
proposals are received from those various organizations; and the money reinvested in the community
in the form of acquisition loans or grants to nonprofitaffordable housing developers or substantial
rehabilitation. Other projects include housing for domestic violence victims, complex for 100% HUD
defined disabled tenants, and a single family residence for shared housing for seniors with very low
rents. The funding levels are based on a mix of volume of projects; is a fee based revenue. The
average balance before Apple contributions is averaged at $2.5 to$3 milliondollars; and presently
the fund is about $7 million; the average per acre price in Cupertino is about $5to 6 million dollars.
Com. Sun:
Asked if they were going to be involved in the community element for the Housing Element or not at
all.
Piu Ghosh:
Said presently they only have placeholder language in the General Plan about the benefit program and
it is still under development. It is for Council to consider and whether it wants to implement a
program; it may be implemented on Housing Element sites but they might have priority, they do not
have much information on it yet.
ColleenWinchester:
The community benefit program that is part of the GPA Part 2will go back to the City Council; the
community benefit issue is still under consideration as far as an allocation issue, as opposed to
anything else. The Housing Element is separate from a community benefit program, and is being
addressed at the meeting.
Chair Lee opened the meeting for public comment.
Randy Shingai, Miramar Ave., San Jose:
Said the Housing Commission met on April9th to approve Resolution 1504 for changes to housing
mitigation fees; staff recommended the fees for residential housing be increased by 500%; and for
non-residentialhousing to be increased from 2/3 to over 333%. He said that many people are
concerned with the city’s progress on its RHNA goals and theproposed increases; he is not certain
what they voted on, and he assumed they went along with staff’s recommendation. When the City
Council gets it on May 5th they approve something else. He asked how the city could go ahead and
approve a Housing Element without that information? People are going to lose confidence in the
process because things are being changed behind their backs; it is wrong. He said they should wait
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
6
until the changes to the mitigation fees are approved by the Council; take those and incorporate them
into the Housing Element and then approve that for the Council to approve; otherwise itis a sham;
people have no faith in government.
Said he lives in the Cupertino Union School District and is a member of the Parcel Tax Oversight
Committee for the Cupertino Union School District, and the Bond Oversight Committee, and his son
graduated from Cupertino Union Schools and Cupertino High School. When talking about the
community, you are talking about the school districts; three of the trustees don’t live in Cupertino.
Said he would like to see the city meeting its RHNA goals, if they did a better job there would be
fewer overall housing units built; a bad job results in more overall housingunits.
Piu Ghosh:
The Housing Elementis a policy document which sets out the city’s policies and talks about the
programs at a very broad level; after that is adopted the actual programs are then separately decided.
Council acts upon fees; the Planning Commission does not have general authority or recommending
authority on fee structure so the Housing Commission as a housing policy body did make a
recommendation on those program fees; and it will go to City Council on May 5th at which point the
City Council will decide on the fees and then the Housing Elementgoes to City Council on May 19th
after the fees are adopted. The Housing Elementitself does notmention fees, does not incorporate
the fees in there; it just talks about a program with fees that will be adopted at a separate time.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Asked if the magnitude of the fee would in any way impact or change the housing plan as written?
Piu Ghosh:
Responded no; in the Housing Element there is also a list of development fees which talks about
application and park fees and others; but changeannually. The document does not need to be up-to-
date at that particular point during that housing plan period.
C.J. Valenzuela:
Said they had the program since 1993and were not proposing to change the program, just proposing
to update the fee. He clarified that the program hadbeen in the prior Housing Element.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she did not realize until Vallco wasdropped in the Housing Element pool a couple of months
ago that the 389 housing units were going to east end schools: Sedgwick,Hyde and Cupertino High
School. Said heropinion has changed onthat; they are already having main street impact going into
the schools; obviouslyhave housing sites that have been set up as they are going through the Housing
Element.
She said she felt as a Californian that HCD has no regard foranyone in Cupertino; they don’t like the
peoplewho live in Cupertinoand want them to move away. They have no regard for any
infrastructure in the city, political upheaval, impact to schools; she said she feels alienatedand
disconnected from the entireprocess. Said she was confused about Vallco’s role in the Housing
Element. Vallco is very predominant in the General Plan Amendment; manythings are being done to
accommodate Vallco in the GPA; Vallco is rolling around in the Housing Element; it has caused
upheaval; it is like the stone that got thrown into the pond. What is Aand B? Three years from now
if Vallco doesn’t come to fruition, is the Housing Element going to be upset and start taking over; are
they going to take over Vallco? She said shefelt they would come and seize land; perhaps it is time
to start talking about a rent control in the city. What does HCD think about rent control?
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
7
Lisa Warren,Cupertino resident:
Said in the real estate world zip code 95129 is considered Cupertino and is listed as Cupertino. Mr.
Shingai has demonstrated how involved he is in the Cupertino community, farmore than many
developers who are presenting themselves as Cupertinians. She said she supported the idea that
peopleliving outside Cupertino, if they are active community members in a positive way, should have
their views considered. She said that Mr. Shingai has had online discussions with residents in the
95014 area on the subject.
Claire Arnold, Hyde Ave., Cupertino:
Said she was concerned about the process. Said she approved of the RHNA, the low income housing;
shehas a disabled son who if not for the program, wouldnot be able to reside with her in Cupertino;
also has an older son who would notbeable to live with her. Said that when people talk about low
income housing, she felt it fair that people should have their children near them. She said she was
supportive of Randy Shingai.
She referred to an email to a parent in the Cupertino School District about the increases in school
enrollment; it is clear to herthat more classrooms are going to be needed by 2020. She feels that
Lynbrook High will grow and it is likely that all 5 schools will be close to 2500 students each within
20 years.
Said she felt the City Council and Planning Commission have not addressedthe fact that schools are
important in this area. The traffic is terrible from 7:30 a.m. till 9:00 a.m. every day. She has
encouraged Councilmembers andpeople who are involved in theprocessto go and see the traffic.
She expressed concern about the traffic congestion and the poor driving skills people exhibit under
stress when they are trying to get their children to school on time. She said it was important to
impress to the City Councilthat it is a safety issue and she expected people to take responsibility for
it.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Gong:
Asked Ms. Matchniff to state their intention of maintaining the 34 BMR units and additional units.
CarlyMatchniff:
Said they had an agreement with the city to continue thoseBMR unitsfor 13 years; it would be 12
depending on being able to achieve approval of the site. Those units would continue and they would
pay the housing impact fee which is soon to be adopted and would negotiate that with the city
whether that is on the new units, or the combination of the units. They have not yet discussed the
ultimate terms of that housing impact fee; but that would be a significant amount of money from the
per square foot fee that is being suggested. Theirintention is to maintain 34 units for the duration of
the 12/13 years but not additional; the Hamptons does not have intentionto increase the BMR units
per se. Said they have a 30 year agreement and have fulfilled that agreement and now the city is
adopting the housing impact fee which is significant.
Com. Gong:
The option ofScenario B is triggered in 3 years; how does Ms. Matchniff plan for the eventual,
perhaps significant increase in their allotment?
Carly Matchniff:
Said they need to make a determination if they are going to move forward with Scenario A or wait to
see the disposition of the Vallco development and go to Scenario B. She said it is an assessment they
need to make if they move forward with A and then the Vallco development did not go forward and
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
8
there would be the additional option in the future to discuss that with the city. At this pointthey
would either choose to move forward with A or wait for the period of time. The current thinking is to
move forward with Scenario A.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he, for personal and professional reasons, sharedthe concerns about low income housing and
housingfor the disabled in Cupertino. In looking at the HousingElement and in discussing the issue
with staff, he said he felt it was not the time to bring specific issues forward; there are other issues
that have been decided by Council that will also come upagain and there will be opportunities to
address. Said he felt it important tomove the Housing Element along to the State deadline at this
time.
Staff:
Responded to a concern raised by Dr. Lum earlier in the meeting regardingposting of the meeting
agenda on the city website. She reported that the agenda was uploaded to the city website on
Thursday April 9th at 2:03 p.m.; it was unfortunatethat Dr. Lum was unable to access it; he is also on
the e-mail list of those who receive the agenda and the update directly from staff.
Chair Lee:
Commented that it appeared Dr. Lum conducted a search on the calendar; the problem of accessing
the information and agenda from the website may have been a process problem.Said she concurred
with Com. Paulsen that they should adopt the Housing Element to meet the deadline, because it is not
good for the city to be penalized and open to potential litigation.
Vice ChairTakahashi:
Said he generally agreed; however, felt it was unfortunate that the deadline was forcing their hand. It
has been a long process and coming to the end of the process, and they cannot accommodate
everything that comes up.
Com. Gong:
Said she was in line with Vice Chair Takahashi’s thinking; however, theirduty tonight is to review
the Housing Element and the other elements are part in parcel; they have been tasked with the
Housing Element specifically.
Com. Sun:
Addressed the issue of Dr. Lum’s concern and inability to access the agenda information from the city
website for the Planning Commission. Said he proposed to city staff that they announce the subjects
on the agenda to the public by putting the topic on the website so they know what will be discussed,
what the subject is, to allow more time instead of just giving the agenda to the public. The Planning
Commissioners experience the same frustration; the agenda is received Thursday which only allows
them 3 to 4 days to review the entire agenda packet. If they know the particular sites that are going
to be discussed in the next meeting, they will have more time to prepare. It has been proposed to city
staff and hopefullywill provide more time for the public and the commissioners to review the
upcoming agenda items.
He clarified that he was not questioning whether Mr. Shingai was a Cupertino citizen, all citizens
have rights to concerns about public issues; but merely was curious about his interest in Cupertino
issues. He said he supported and encouraged all residents of Cupertino and other cities to express
their opinions atthe podium.He added that the Housing Element is partof a General Plan
Amendment which has been discussed many times. He said he supported staff’s recommendation.
Com. Gong:
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
9
No additional comments.
Chair Lee reviewed closing comments:
There were 4 residents who spoke; represented many concerns of other residents. Relative to Mr.
Shangai’s comments, she saidshe served on the Housing Commission for a couple of years; anyone
who also shares his views on the impact fees for housing for developers should attend Housing
Commission meetings and express their views. The Housing Commission usually looks before they
implement something, they and staff work together to look at other cities and make sure those impact
fees are in line with other cities. It is important for cities to updatethe fees and make sure they are in
line with other cities.
Ms. Griffin said she felt like ABAG and HCD doesn’tcare aboutthe residents of Cupertino; the
Housing Commission, staffand CJ work together to make sure that there are appropriate means for
legal services for housing, the fair housing, and housingfor disabled persons.
Speaker Claire Arnold shared residents’ concerns about traffic in the area particularly in the area of
the schools.
The Teen Commission works with Public Safety to implement walkingto school, biking to school,
carpooling to relieve some of the congestion. The city looks in the General Plan at the stoplights and
monitor the levelsof service (LOS).
Com. Paulsen:
Commented that years ago former Planning Director Steve Piasecki commented that they moved
traffic well through Cupertino, perhaps too well. There is a new state law that affects this and says
that no longer will the quality of an intersection be determined on how long a car has to wait at a
stoplight. The criteria is changing and it will also encompass how long a bicycle and a pedestrian
waits and how they are affected in that intersection. The details of this are yet to be worked out but
it’s deep in the Housing Element, and there are no specifics. As an 8-year member of the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission he said he felt it was good news and it will portend some positive changes
with regard to traffic in the coming years.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said it has been a long process for staffand commended them on their patience and diligence in
finalizing it. Said from his perspective the RHNA requirements are very clear;the affordability
element unfortunately is not well addressed, but he felt staff doesn’t have any leeway in addressing it.
Other concerns with the RHNA requirement is the 1064 minimum vs. our 1400, 40% overage is that
the right number; is there a more conservative number that can be utilized thanthe 1200 or something
along those lines?
Said he understood the need for flexibility from the standpoint that projects change and there is a lot
of fluctuation; the site might come off the list and needs to be replaced, but he said he did not
understand if 40% is the right number. The whole GPA process has been dynamic over time and the
Housing Element is one of the cornerstone key pieces; they are getting close to getting that across the
finish line. The two major concerns the public expresses on all the GPA elements are impact to
schools which is something that they are not supposed to address from the standpoint of the Housing
Element.
At former Com. Paul Brophy’s last meeting they discussed the General Plan Amendment specifically
hotel vs. office and the housing wasn’t addressed because it was going to be separate. At the time
Com. Brophy had a strong feeling towards the General Plan Amendment and was very vocal over his
concern over allocating office space. Since that timehe has felt it is something of concern because
thebalance of jobs vs. housing and job growth vs. housing growth are nowhere near in balance, so
adding a lot more jobs in terms of office space and that is creating more traffic, but people can’t live
here so they have to drive further. What we have in place fits the elements of density, the land
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
10
available which is very limited and trying to stay on the arterials such that access is as good as
possible with regard to 280 and 85, those freeways are getting very congested. He said he supported
the proposal at this time.
Com. Gong:
Said she echoed Com. Takahashi’s statements; and was concerned they were allocating or proposing
1400 units, not necessarily the number but looking at the sites proposed. As opposed to other years it
appears that they will really be built out and it looks like the numbers will be achieved; the concern is
they will have more than RHNA is asking to build. It is a reasonable layout of the sites; they are all
on the main streets which will cause more congestion on those streets; however, even small increases
anywhere will cause congestion.
Said they were restricted fromconsidering school impacts; looking at what their responsibility is,
with what staff has created and presented, staff has done a fine job, and she supports what has been
presented.
Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second byCom. Paulsen, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to
adopt Draft Resolution No. GPA-2013-02 as modified with desk item for 2014-2022
housing element.
NEW BUSINESS; None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held.
Housing Commission: Meeting cancelled.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners:
Chair Lee reported on last monthly meeting held in March.
Discussed restricting truck traffic within 500 feet of the school; CityCouncil is working on it. May
limit it to 3 tons, trying to get Class A bike lanes in the city; voted for $430K road improvements.
Staff had their first meeting with schools relative to traffic and safety. There will be further
discussion on y Council members meeting with Committee members. There was discussion about the
possibility of the Oak Valley residents providing bus transportation to the schools to help with the
school traffic problem.
Lincoln Elementary School was not interested in participating in the Voltageprogram. Kennedy
Elementary School has a strong walk/bike to school program. Citywide parks master plan is coming
up; they want tomake play structures more natural.
Distinguished artist: want another category for younger artists; want tomake a public art walk and
will work withParks and Rec; DeAnza cultural event; publicart catalog was well received.
Mayor had idea of enticing Super Bowl attendees to come to Cupertino and not just San Francisco
and San Jose.
TIC Commission –ALERT system report.
Teen Center had concert last week; annual action council; April 25 MV High School, Dr.Ted Talks,
variety of speakers; Big Bunny Fun Run.
Cupertino Planning Commission April 14, 2015
11
Com.Gong reported on the April 1st Mayor’s meeting:
Public Safety Committee has a newCaptain.
Because Bike/Walk to school has not been successful in past years the Commission sent a survey to
schools through the sheriff; it was recommended to do online survey for better responses.
The Voltage program is moving the walk/bike from Lincoln to another school and provide incentive
to students. There have been numerous complaints about the Apple bikes being abandoned, Apple
employees safetyin general.
TIC Commission: held hearing regarding cell antenna.
Teen Commission had Walk One Week; suggested it be extended 21 days to form a habit; held
Sounds in the City event on April 10th; they have requested the Ted Talk on April 25th.
The Library has given out ACE Awards to recognize outstanding and innovative staff members; also
will implement a kiosk in front of library doors where a survey can be taken on the effectiveness of
the library and what improvements can be done. There is a proposal to install a rolling headline
billboard in the library to inform of city activities.
Housing Commission is working on the Housing Element. There was a consensus that most of the
persons attending their meetings did not want more housing.
Fine Arts Commission is giving emerging artist award to 18 to 30 year olds and adding 3 more
awards for elementary, middle and high school artists. Application deadline is June 2015.
Parks and Rec: Received a national awardfor neighborhood watch program. Also created a park
finder for Cupertino parks, which can be downloaded on Apple. The parks can be located and booked
for use.
City Council is working on the community benefits program to support respect school advocates.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No written report.
Report from C. J. Valenzuela on housing mitigation fee recommendations:
Said that currently forownership residential developments between one to six units, there is a fee of
$3.00 per square foot; residential ownership developments that are 7 units or greater have an onsite
BMR requirement of 15%; rental developments as annotated about Palmer is a fee based program for
market rate rental $3.00 per square foot; for non-residential it is $6.00 per square foot. The Housing
Commission is proposing to recommend to City Council on May 5th for ownership developments
between 1 to 6 units for detached single family residences $15.00 per square foot; small lot single
family residences or townhomes, $16.50 per square foot. There are two categories for higher density
housing, multi-family attached housing up to 35 dwelling units per acre, which can include attached
townhome, apartment or condo $20.00 per square foot. Multi-family attached townhome, condo or
apartment greater than 35 dwelling units $20.00 per square foot. On the ownership part it does not
apply to existing rebuilds or any second units of that nature; it is new construction. For the residential
housing mitigation fee for rental developments, it is $20.00 per square foot for developments up to 35
dwelling units per acre or greater than35 dwelling units per acre.The non-residential category for
office, research and development/industrial $20.00 per square foot for hotels are recommending
$15.00 per square foot and for retail $10.00 per square foot. He said some of the categories were still
lower than the neighboring jurisdictions for some of thecategories. They are in line and competitive,
but there are some jurisdictions that have even higher fees adopted.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the May 12, 2015 meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MAY 12, 2015 TUESDAY
ROOM 100 EOC
The regular Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2015 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in Room
100/EOC, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., byChairperson Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TOTHE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson:Alan Takahashi
Commissioner: Geoff Paulsen
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner:Don Sun
Staff Present:Asst. Dir. Community Development: Gary Chao
AssociatePlanner: Tiffany Brown
Assistant Planner:Erick Serrano
Director of Public Works:Timm Borden
Deputy City Attorney: Valerie Armento
APPROVALOF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.U-2015-01, ASA-2015-02 Conditional Use Permit for a full service separate
LYFE Kitchen (Christine Schachter) bar within a restaurant. Architectural and Site
19399 Stevens Creek Blvd.approval to allow enhancements to the exterior patio
building (Shop 5) at the Main Street Cupertino project.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
2
Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewedthe application for a Use Permit for a separate bar at a proposed restaurant, and
Architectural and Site Approval to allow enhancements to the exterior patio for the existing building
(Shop 5) within the Main Street Cupertino project, as outlined in the attached staff report.
Referred to a Power Point presentation, and reviewed the site plan, surrounding buildings, operational
details, parking, proximity to residential use, and security. The Sheriff’s office has reviewed the item,
project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Use Permit U-2015-01 for the separate bar
proposed for LYFE Kitchenand also patio enhancements for ASA-2015-02 with added condition that
staff will require applicant to maintain and upkeep the outdoor patio features.
Gary Chao, Asst. Director of Community Development:
Explained that the condition would give staffthe ability to have the conversationwith the
applicant/owner; there is nota specific time period; the type of furniture usedmay last fiveor ten
years.
When the furniture becomes weathered from sun damage, staff can have the conversation with the
property owner and the applicant and inform them to work with staffto get it repaired or replaced;
items such as umbrellas, umbrella coverings and seating. If they fail todo so, worst case scenario,
staff can bring thembackto the Planning Commission for review of them not conforming to the
Commission’s resolution. Said he was confident that the conversation wouldn’t end up being the
code enforcement scenario as they would be motivated to maintain their property in good condition.
Com. Gong:
Asked why the separate bar and outdoor patio was not included in the original plan.
Gary Chao:
Said from a staff perspective it is typicalwhen a master use permit comes in at the time when they go
throughthe master use permit process, they wouldn’t necessarilyknow which tenant, or it could be a
retailer or a restaurant that they are planning for.It is customary for the tenant later on once they
have secured their lease to come in and do their own architectural and site improvement; which is
what they desire this evening, to either enhance it or modify it to suit their needs.The exterior of the
building is almost finishedand with the restaurant approvalLYFE Kitchenwill then proceed to apply
for a tenant improvement package with the Building Dept. which will help them construct the inside
of the restaurant as well as some of the features that are being approved today.
Com. Sun:
Said in recent years the pattern hasbeen that most restaurants apply for bar modifications later. He
asked staff what the reason was that some restaurants apply for the restaurant first and later the bar; is
it something related to state or city regulations? Secondly, forthis particularproject, the final
decision can be either by theDirector of Community Developmentor Planning Commission; what is
the reason the Director of Community Development could not make the decision, but forwarded it to
the Planning Commission?
Gary Chao:
Relative to the bar, the latesttrend on new restaurants is coming in and then asking for a fullbar, the
applicant can explain in the terms of the market place. Said he considered the restaurantsfull service
family oriented, they usuallycome with an ancillary bar that people sit in front of; they can describe
to you what atmosphere they are going for. Said he did not know why in previous years that
restaurants came in fora counter bar and then later came in and ask forsomething different. The
trend with newer restaurants,venturing into dining experience in the Bay Area, is that full service
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
3
restaurants now tend to have a bar. It is the experience they are going for; there is no city policy; in
previous yearsthere is a prior ordinancethat neither encourages nordiscourages one way or another.
In termsof thedecision before youthis evening, part of the decision could have been approved by the
Dir. of Community Development, which is the architectural site approval part. The other part which
is the full bar which also triggers a use permit requestseparatefrom the architecturalsite, as per
ordinance requires approval by the Planning Commission. It is usually customary for staff to
forward a project to the higher decision making body as a courtesy because wefeel it makes sense
that the Planning Commission gets the benefit of seeing what they are proposing in terms of site and
architecture as well.It is a courtesy on the part of staff to forward the lower level process to your
level toget it approved at one time; and also it is easier for the publicto follow the application as
well.
Darin Kim, Applicant:
Said they are a LYFEStyle restaurant, walk in, order food but everything thereon is served to you;
not full service butclose. The brand is farm to table, organic, sustainable,and familystyle. They
have a site in Palo Altoand are trying to accomplish the samefor Cupertino.
Regarding the changes from the master plan, they are a tenant with specific needs, one of whichis the
patio; they came in after the fact stating what they wanted, and got city approval to do that. That is
the reason they are in theprocess now.
The bar issue relates to licensing; they would like to have an alcohol permit for each store they open
but in most cases can only get beer and wine because the hard alcohol licenses are limited by a
lottery; said they won a lottery and wanted to put one in Cupertino. The hours of operation are
indicative of any type of bar or nightclub, they want to establish a casual drinking atmosphere to go
along with the food; their chefs are designing specialty menus and drinks different from the
marketplace because they want to tie it to their concept of a healthy turn towards alcoholic drinks and
beverages than normal course of business.
Com. Paulsen:
Said one of his goals as a commissioner, was to try to breathe some night life into Cupertino; it would
be ideal to have another place to eat at after 10 p.m. He asked if their approval tonight would limit
their hours or could they extend the hours in the future?
Darin Kim:
Said it might; if there is an opportunity to extend the hours, they would definitely consider that; as
long as they were not handcuffed by any regulations, they would reapplyfor that.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he would be willing to approve a permitthat would say 10 p.m. or 9 p.m. closing with asterisks
that it could be modified by applicant at future date, giving flexibility. People would liketo have a
place to go and eat after a movie; however, he said he wouldn’t want to jeopardize their business by
requiring those hours; but if the market dictated, it would provideflexibility.
Gary Chao:
Said it was a good idea; however, the applicant did not apply for a conditional use permit for an
extended hour. The next restaurant agenda item has three things requested, one of which is extended
hours so it does require some additional fees. It needs to be advertised accordingly so the public can
participate in the public discussion. While it is a good idea, the applicant can consider it and if they
wanted to pursue it, staff would be happy to accept their application and facilitate the process.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
4
Com. Gong:
Said she enjoyed their Palo Alto restaurant; the new restaurant would be a welcome additionto
Cupertino.
Darin Kim:
Said they were drawn to Cupertino because of its demographics; felt it is a lifestyle fit, it is a trend
that is occurring across the nation but more so in very aggressive cities. With Apple in Cupertino,
much oftheir clientele in Palo Alto comes from the tech industry so they feltCupertino was a logical
fit, in addition to the fact there is a great Main Street development going on with the Apple campus
going in. It was exciting to have the opportunity to get a second store in California.
Com. Sun:
Also asked the applicant why they had not applied for the extended hours; because of Main Street
they want to have more night life to attract more people into the city. Said he concurred with other
suggestions toadjust hours so they don’t need to come back again. He asked what the common
challenge was that other restaurants face from operations perspective.
Darin Kim:
Said part of it is branding, they feel they have a fantastic brand but more people have toknow about
it; in areas where they are not well known, it takes more time to get off the ground; in areas where
they are well known, they already have anxious people to get in such as Cupertino.
Said the conditions relative to the outdoor furniture were appropriate, but he was concerned what the
standard was.
Gary Chao:
Explained that the level of standard relative to the maintenance and upkeep referred to the wear and
tear and appearance of the outdoor furniture, awnings, and canopies and similar items.Over a period
of 5 to 10 years the furniture fades and fabrics tend to wear and things may look shoddy and unkempt.
The condition would be used to have the conversation with the owner if they fell behind on the
maintenance and upkeep.For the most part it is going to be a conversation; staff will work with the
applicant in terms of timing the permitting process; most of the time there is not going to be need for
permitting. It goes without saying even without thecondition staff would be still having that
conversation but in this case it is a reminder to the restaurant owner as well as staff to be looking out
for that hopefullyyears away.
Paul Reishus, Project Architect:
Said it would not be a problem, at the Palo Alto site they are addressing replacing the furniture; itis
not at the shoddy stage yet, but they want to put best foot forward as a restaurant as well.
Gary Chao:
Suggested a condition that requires the applicant to maintain the outdoor patio, specific items not
called out since they may change; would include patio umbrellas, chairs, tables, benchesand possibly
trellis later.
Paul Reishus:
Said the patio was part of the plan; they are doing some enhancements, adding a signature rail on
furniture andumbrellas discussed and some ambient lighting with appropriate levels for dining.He
also discussed the Palo Alto Restaurant, its similarities and differences to their other restaurants.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
5
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she was pleased to have the restaurant come toMainStreet,with hopes that Main Street would
rival and surpass Santana Row. Said it was nice to have the new types of restaurants and cafes
available especially full service family because there is a need in Cupertino. Asked for explanation
of bar service in the early morning hoursthat breakfast is being served? Will the bar have TVs
similar to sports bars? How will dogs be handled on the outdoor patio with the patrons?
Darin Kim:
Said the hours of alcohol servicewill be dictated by theirlicense; If permitted to serve alcohol in the
morning and someone wants an alcoholic beverage they would serve itas long as they are in
compliance. The bar area in their restaurant is called a barista area and was typically behind the
counter. They have made the counter an ordering counter and everything else has been moved over;
they would still be mixing smoothies, drinks or coffees over at thebar area also.
Said they were planningto have some TVsin the bar areafor sports events or if the patrons wanted to
watch TV and relax. If patrons want to stay longer in the evenings they may be able to expand their
hours. Relative to dogs in the patio area, provided that the property ownerand the developer allows
dogs to be there,they are very dog friendly. Several of their locations allow animals that aren’t
service animals on the patio just as Lazy Dog does.
Valerie Armento, Deputy City Attorney:
Said that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) will govern the permit with regard to when
alcohol can be sold and the CountyHealth Department will likelyhavesome rules and regulations
regarding animals.
Chair Lee:
Said the city doesnot have jurisdiction on dogs and animals in restaurants, hours of operationand bar
service.
Gary Chao:
Said that the previous restaurant was approved to allow dogs on the premises.
Dean Isaacs, Sandhill Properties:
Commented that he takes his dog to the patio area in the Palo Alto restaurant, and does not object to it
being allowed in the proposed Cupertino restaurant.
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Com. Gong:
Said it was a great addition to Cupertino, and she was looking forward to the restaurant opening,
which the applicant indicated would be November 1st.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said it was exciting to see Main Street start to take shape and it is something the community has
lacked; having a place where there are options: dining, retail and other entertainment, will enhance
that and he was looking forwardto it.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
6
Com. Sun:
Said they welcome small business restaurantscoming to Cupertino; the new restaurant will face a lot
of competitionas there are many new restaurants coming. He said he hoped they could maintain
their high quality of service and food quality. He said he didn’t expect Main Street to competewith
Santana Road but did anticipate and welcome people from other cities coming to Cupertino. Said he
had no objections to the project.
Com. Paulsen:
Concurred with previous comments; it is a goodaddition to Cupertino.
Chair Lee:
Concurred with all comments; supportsfull service bar in the restaurant;andsupportsthe
enhancements to the exterior patio and building. She said she also liked the design.
Motion:Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 toapprove
Application U-2015-01with the addition of the condition of use to maintain the outdoor
furniture and to upkeep to reasonable commercial standards, and to approve
ASA-2015-02 with the condition of use as stated.
2.U-2015-02, ASA-2015-08 Conditional Use Permitfor a separate full service bar;
Jared Taylor, Golden Property Dev.live entertainment and latehours of operationancillary
Eureka!Restaurant to the restaurant. Architectural and Site Approvalto
19369Stevens Creek Blvd.allow enhancements to the exterior patio building
(Shop 3) at the Main Street Cupertino project.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Tiffany Brown, AssociatePlanner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Use Permit for a separate full service bar, live entertainment, and late
hours of operation ancillary to the Eureka! Restaurant; and Architectural and Site Approval to allow
enhancements to the exterior patio for existing building (Shop 3) within Main Street Cupertino
project, as outlined in the attached staff report.
She reviewed the slide presentation, reviewed the background of the application, including the project
site, operational details, patio features, exterior modifications, other project information. Sheriff’s
office has reviewed the project and supports the project.
The project is exempt from furtherenvironmental review. Staff recommends adoption of the
resolution with the same added conditions for the patio features (55.00)which would include a
condition requiring the applicant to maintain and upkeep the outdoor patio features.
Staff answered questions relating to the floor plan, placement of music, hoursof operation; particularly on
weekend when they may want to remain open longer hours.
Com. Sun:
Expressed concern that later weekend hours may disturb the neighboring residents. Suggested that
staff discuss the possibility with the applicant.
Gary Chao:
Said they would review the proximity to residential; although they had no concerns in terms of the
hours proposed relative to the nearestresidential. He noted that the SantaClaraSheriff’ssubstation is
located in Main Street project, across from the interior plaza.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
7
As a condition of the project the Main Street project will facilitate a home for the Santa Clara
Sheriff’s police station so they can havea deputy at that location. For anything beyondthat he
encourageda conversation with the applicant about their needs and how they feel about it. The
Sheriff’s Dept.has reviewed this and supportsthe project.
Jared Taylor, Eureka!Restaurant:
Said it was a good experience working with staff in designing their space to fit in and meet the goals
of activating Stevens Creek Blvd.
Said they were drawn to Cupertino; Eureka!Restaurant focuses on going into up and coming markets
where there is a lot of techand they want to have a restaurant inCupertino,particularly the Main
Street project. Eureka!Restaurant is different than most restaurant chains; every location is not
exactly the same; they pride themselves on the uniqueness of what is designed inside therestaurant, to
try and fit into the community and try and bring something that is not the same as every single
Eureka!. There are currently 14 locations in the US, mostly in Southern California; they are
proposing a future location in Mountain View.
The proposal is for a full service, sit down dine-in restaurant with a full line of alcoholic beverages
for onsite consumption. They propose a higher quality in terms of the sale of alcoholic beverages;
selling more craft beers than brands such as Coors Light and Bud Light; and bourbons andscotches
and unique liquors. The sale of their food exceeds the sale of alcoholic beverages and they pride
themselves in being a unique restaurant first and foremost.
Relative to live entertainment, they are proposing to have a live two or three piece band; there is no
stage; all musicwill be played inside the tenant space. Consumption of alcoholic beverages will not
be permitted on the patio as the State ABC requires there be a railingaround the patio facing Stevens
Creek Blvd. if alcohol is consumedon the patio; and they are not proposing a railing around the patio.
The proposed closure time is midnight during the week and 1:00 a.m. on the weekends. They said
they want the residents of Cupertino to be able to have a nice evening in town and their goal is to
have people from surrounding communities want to come to Cupertino.
He said that Eureka!Restaurants was featured on a recent cover of the magazine Nations Restaurant
News and Review as one of the top break out brands in the country for its uniqueness.
Com. Sun:
Said he was not concerned with the hours of operation as long as the neighboring residents were not
disturbed. Hesuggested a trial period of three to six months for the later hours to ascertain whether
the neighbors are negatively affectedby the extended hours. Said he did not have concerns about
crime in the neighborhood, but was concerned about potential disturbance to the neighboring
residents.
Jared Taylor:
Said the kitchens were open the same times as the restaurant, andthey would like to stay open till
1:00a.m. with the initial approval. He said he thought there was already a condition proposed and
that staff hadthe opportunity to review any complaints. He questioned if it was possible to be
potentially approved until 1:00 a.m., and if there were a multitude of complaints staff would have the
ability to drop back closing time until midnight.
Relative to policing people taking alcoholic beverages to the patio, he said that State ABC requires
that a sign be posted that no alcoholic beverages will be allowed on the patio and no beverages will be
served on the patio.
Com. Paulsen:
Said it was a good project; he liked the musicand would not propose tolimit the music to inside only.
There is a long tradition of outdoor music worldwide; it could be an amenity. If outside music is
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
8
permitted it would be self-regulating between the local residents and Sheriff’s office. Questioned if
they would haveenough toilets for patrons?
Jared Taylor:
Said in other restaurants there were no problems with number of toilets according to the California
Plumbing Code.
Gary Chao:
Clarified that the Planning Commission will make sure it is in the resolution stating no service of
alcohol along the front of Stevens Creek Blvd. It was an error calling that area a possiblearea for
serving of alcohol.Said it could be added as a condition if the Planning Commission desired. Also
could put in a condition about amplified sound. If the applicant wanted to serve alcohol on the patio
they wouldhave to get permission from ABC as well and come back and modify the use permit.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Lisa Warren, resident:
Relative to a comment about the patio being higher or lower than the street, said she preferredbeing
lower such as at Aqui where it doesn’t feel like you are on the street.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
Said she was excited to see a full service, family stylerestaurant,which is sorely needed in the area
since the loss of IHop, Chili’s, and Marie Callender’s. Having therestaurants coming into Main
Street will activate this end of town. Said they want to activate Stevens Creek Blvd. but don’t really
need the alcohol out there. Said she liked the idea of having live entertainment, and would feel
comfortable with last call at 12:30 a.m. for alcohol service. If last call on weekend is 1:00 a.m. then
last call should be 15 minutes or half hour before that. Loree ShoppingCenter is currently on the
housing element list so itwill go to housing at some point; also the Barry Swenson property is across
the street next to the apartments and it is on the housing element site as a blank lot and the apartments
there. Said she appreciated the sensitivityshown, they want to have night life there, just don’t want it
in the street, or on the sidewalk and coming into the neighborhoods. Said she would prefer to go to it,
not have it come to them.
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Chair Lee:
Asked staff to address closing time for full service separate bars.
Gary Chao:
Said in the past the Planning Commission has had conversations with the applicant about the meaning
of 1:00 a.m.call; does it mean it is last call or 30 minutesprior? Itis something to discuss with the
applicant who can provide more detail in terms of the operation but doable to add more detailin terms
of what is expected when it comes to 1:00 a.m. Staff is comfortable with the hours as is.
Jared Taylor:
State ABC permits sale of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption from6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Said they are proposing to close at 1:00 a.m. and would rather not have a condition which requires the
last call at a certain time; it is just one more operational thing to deal with; would prefer to leave it at
1:00 a.m. and leave the language covering it but not quite that muchdetail.
Com. Gong:
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
9
Said in previous applications they approved the wording that alcohol services at the restaurant shall
be limited to 12:30 a.m. with the hard closing time at 1:00 a.m. and the outdoor patio shall close at
11:30 p.m. She asked Jared Taylor if that was acceptable to him.
Jared Taylor:
Suggested a compromise at 12:45 a.m.
All Commissioners:
Concurred with 12:45 a.m.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he was in favor of the applicant in terms of not putting restrictions; and would not support
closing the patio.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said he would not want to have the patio closed; it is a key attraction for patrons. He was also in
favor of the applicant and no restrictions.
Jared Taylor:
Said he accepted the condition relating to the outdoor furniture being maintained.
Com. Gong:
Said it was a good addition; the whole Main Street is filling out well; it is the perfect location for a
late night drink or dessert. Said she supported the project; if it makes the public and fellow
commissioners more comfortable she said she would support the 12:45 a.m. alcohol stop with the
hard closing at1:00 a.m.; and the otherconditions as well as the outdoor furniture.
Com. Sun:
Said that in the past several yearsthere havebeen many bar applicationswhere there were concerns
about safety, noiseand also disturbing the neighbors’sleeping hours. In this particular project there
is not too much concern about safety and the other issues. Said if fellow commissioners were
comfortable with it, he would support the12:45 a.m. call to stop sale of alcohol.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he was excited about theproject; in terms of noise, it is not a stand-alone dive bar where people
are going to party and make noise afterwards because thereare going to be eyes on the street,
including DeputySheriff’s eyes. Much of the noise, the music, the patio issues will be self-limiting,
they will adjust based on experience with operations so would not place any additional restrictions.
There is a noise ordinance that will be adequate to cover the noise and then complaints could be made
as they are under the existing ordinance and even the time to cut off sale of alcohol is not that critical
because it is more an operational issue; you may decide to self-limit depending on your experience at
the site. Said he would not put any limits, but would not necessarily go against a 12:45 a.m. call to
halt alcohol sale; 15 minutes will not make or break it.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said he supported the project as proposed. There is a significant need in the community; late night
entertainment is hard to come by in the city. Thereis a demandand people go to other cities to fulfill
that demand which is unfortunate. The location and layout, all the elements, tend to self-mitigate the
major concerns people generally have with late night entertainment which is a good situation to have
and to keep people at Main Street longer; it is a good thing as well. Relative to restrictions, there is
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
10
the noise ordinance and the Sheriff is stationed across the patio. He said last calls were difficult to
enforce. If people are set on it, he would consider it.
Chair Lee:
Said she supported the conditional use permitfor the separate full service bar. Also support the
architectural and site plans as presented.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Takahashi, second by Com. Paulsen, to approve Application
U-2015-02, agree with all findings in that resolution as well as draft resolution
ASA-2015-08 with the inclusion of a statement about conditions of the patio furniture
and the findings in that draft resolution.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT:
Motion by Com. Gong for a friendly amendment to include that there shall be no alcohol served on
the patio facing Stevens Creek Blvd.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he felt it was duplicative with the ABC.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Said he was somewhat reluctant as he could envision wanting to have a glass of wine on the patio.
He asked that if in the future it was deemed acceptable and they put a railing, is that something they
would bring back to the Planning Commission for approval on; how would it work in the future if
theywanted to modify it?
Gary Chao:
Said if nothing is mentioned then the condition does allow that possibility; nd it would come back to
staff and ABCit is not coupled with something else that would render the Planning Commission
decision; ABC would have to concur and authorize it.
Vice Chair Takahashi accepted the friendly amendment; Com. Paulsen seconded.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he would be willing toaccept it, railing or no railing. Vote: 5-0-0
3.CP-2015-01 CIP Conformance to the General Plan
EA-2015-01 Recommend approval of the CIP andNegative
City of Cupertino Declaration to the City Council. Review of the
Citywide Location five yearCapital Improvements Program
(FY 2015-2016 to 2019-2020)
For conformity to the City/s General Plan
Erick Serrano, AssistantPlanner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for the Planning Commission’s annual review on the city’s FiveYear
Capital Improvement Program for FY 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. Each year the City Council adopts a
five year spending plan for capital improvements throughout the city. The funding is not fixed or
committed during the five year term; fundingmay shift in the second through fifth years as priorities
change and project schedules accelerate or decelerate during the lifetime of the project. That is the
reason the review focuses on first yearfunded projects only. Cupertino MunicipalCode requiresthat
the Planning Commission review the CIP for consistency with the General Plan and make a
recommendation to City Council. Overall the first year funded projects are consistent with the
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
11
General Plan; the staff report details are attached; including a list of projects whichwill conduct their
own environmental analysis (Page 2 of staffreport).
He reviewed the General Plan consistency findings including: (1) Projects that improve the safety and
functioning of the City’s primary circulation system; (2) Transportation projects that manage
neighborhood traffic, decrease reliance on use of private cars, promote pedestrian activity and provide
Safe Routes to Schools; (3) Projects that maintain the usability of the City/s Parks and Recreation
inventory; and (4)Projects that maximize the use of native plants and minimize water use.
On May 7th, the ERC reviewed the Initial Study; based on the findings of the Initial Study the ERC
recommended the granting of a Negative Declaration for the review of a CIP since no significant
cumulative impacts were found. Each project that was not categoricallyexempt will have its own
separate environmental assessment which could include additional initial studies when they reach the
design level phase.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend a Negative Declaration for the proposed
five-year Capital Improvement Program and find that the proposed CIP is consistent with the General
Plan per the draft resolution and recommend approval to the City Council.
Timm Borden, Director of Public Works:
Answered questionsabout potential projects; how budgets are created for projects; rights of way,
traffic level improvements, LOS in various areas; things to facilitate pedestrian access across streets;
bicycle and pedestrian connections.He briefly discussed how the budgetwas allocated. This year
they completed an update to their ADA transition plan; every city is required to have an ADA
transition plan that says they do not have to get up to speed with all their curb ramps, all facilities,
access everywhere right away, but you have to have a plan to achieve it. This year the plan was
updated with all the deficiencies throughout the city and the budget has been allocated to specifically
deal with some of the ADA issues. However, many of the other projects deal with ADA issues. Staff
is working on cataloging those in addition to the line item 4 ADA. Said they want to quantify what
they are doing on an annual basis not just the line item shown.
Com. Paulsen:
Referred tohis time as a founding member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and language put in
the General Plan about 10 years ago, which had to do with givingbicycles and pedestrians equal
priority with regardto traffic flow. He referred to the plan which talks about the same kind of thing
that they need to emphasize, alternate modes of transit in addition to just automobiles as well as a new
law that says that levels of service (LOS) at intersections need to consider the LOS for pedestrians as
well as bicycles. Said he reviewed the draft bicycle plan and looked at the proposed CIPs and there is
nothing to improve the LOS for pedestrians; he said he was thinking of several cities that have
bulbouts at intersections as well as the pork chop right turn access for cars along Homestead in
Sunnyvale where they aremaking it a bicycle only pork chop. He said he felt it was not consistent
with the General Plan when not giving up any car real estate of streets for bicycles or pedestrians and
they need to re-examine the CIPs in light of that.
Recommended they look at bulbouts and road diets on some of the larger streets.
Com. Sun:
Askedhow the items were prioritized; location of the project, among the first, second and to the fifth
year; is the CIPs managed by your department; how is the decision impacted by the public input?
Timm Borden:
There are priority and criteria on how those projects are developed; many of the projects come out of
public processes; they could be several master plans; presently there are several parksprojects that are
in the fourth or fifth year of the budget and that ismostly because we are developing master plans
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
12
now; we don’t want to go in and build something and then end up that the community wanted
something different. We are going to go through some master planning process first and then capital
projects will fall out of that. We have some placeholders in the third, fourth and fifth years of the
budget; just knowing that things will come out of these master plan processes after we get the public
input. Some of the year one, year two projects have gone through some public comment period
because they have been proposed in future years in the past or they may be safety projects that we
want to prioritize; or they may be a grant fund that we have to build within a certain timeframe. Last
year we were prioritizing the environmental education center because of grant funding; that is why
that rose to the top.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
Spoke about a blacksmith shop had been located at the northeast cornerof Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road since 1875; the replica was made by one of the descendants of the original
blacksmithshop and the original tools are still there. The shop operated until about the 70s or 80s.
Said she was pleased that they have expedited thepotential purchase of Lawrence/Mitty Park which is
a 30-year realization for the area. The property has had the potential of people wanting to put housing
on it and there are probablypeople still wishing to put housing on it. She commendedthe city for
putting on the list to be funded.The neighborhood has been patient and arewilling to wait for things;
it is also reach 5 of the San Tomas Aquino Saratoga bike trail pedestrian trail.
Lisa Warren, resident:
Said she wanted to comment for the record about the language relative to conforming to the General
Plan. There was a group of people trying to find out what happened to the old and the new; it has
been difficult to do that because there are people requesting red lineditems that they don’t have. If
they are going to approve something basedon a statement made more than once, it should be
consistent with the General Plan, and know which General Plan you are talking about and make sure
those things don’t change. Many things have changed in the General Plan that the public is not aware
of; the items may be unchanged but thereis no clarity at this point.
Chair Lee:
Asked staff to clarify.
Gary Chao:
The CIP program was reviewed against the newest General Plancalled Community Vision 2040 and
was improved by the City Council most recently last December. City Council took atwo-part
approach and approved the community vision, which is the bulk of the General Plan and they deferred
thedevelopment policies to this month, May 19 when they are going to look at heightplane
development allocationand other development policies not related to this program. For the most part
to confirm what Lisa Warren had asked, this is based on the latest and greatest of the City Council’s
approval in this General Plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
13
Vice Chair Takahashi:
As a followup, specifically these locations, which ones are intersectedwith changes in the General
Plan that havebeenapproved? They seem to be spread out.
Gary Chao:
Said it was all over the place in the new General Plan. Said that the principles behind the General
Plan policies that wereusedto review against the CIP program have remained the same; you are
talking about the connectivity, the pedestrian safety, things like that and if you look at the staff report
there are categories usedand policies cited; they were in the prior General Planjust in different
places, and given the new reorg of the General Plan we have identified them in the General Plan and
applied it.
Historicallyit’s principles behind the General Plan policy that we usedto review against the CIP
program and they haven’treally changed that much.
Com. Paulsen:
With regard to the circulation element of the GeneralPlan was there any discussion among staff about
conformance with the prioritization statements mentionedearlier and the CIP prioritizations as well as
the new law regarding level of service (LOS)?
Gary Chao:
Said that Timm Borden couldspeak more on the LOS but the City Council is the entity that
prioritized the programs; they hadreoccurringprogram topics from last go around that is continuing
onto thisprogram and when it reaches them, they also will look at it. Staff can take the
commissioner’s comments to City Council for theirconsideration but Council is the body that
prioritizes and sets the goals.
Timm Borden:
Relative to the LOS there was a senate bill approved that changes the way LOS is measured;
however, how that gets implemented has not happened yet, the State Dept. of Office of Planning has
just released new guidelines on how they will switch from an intersection LOS policy to a vehicle
miles travelled policy that does take into account in a much better way in Bike and Ped. What will
likely happen is there will be comments that come in on the state document and then the VTA as the
regional body will disseminate new guidelines on how to implement the vehicle miles travelled
policy.
Com. Paulsen:
Commented that in his opinion it wouldn’t hurt Cupertino to be cutting edge; SanJose is beginning to
eclipse Cupertino in terms of its traffic innovations. He said he was pleased about the
Lawrence/Mitty Park, it issomething Parks and Rec Commissionworked hard on.
Com. Sun:
Relative to public input, in the first years the project received a lot of public input; what has been
done to get more public input, andin the future what can be done to improve the ways to get more
public input before going to City Council?
Timm Borden:
Said he was certain they could improve; they have come a long way doing a lot of master plan work;
the master plans themselves are well vetted. They work hard to get the public engaged and get
comments on that master plan becausethey want to use those master plans as a method to start
building projects. The projects just through that master plan process have been very well vetted
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
14
through the public and they have priorities through that master planprocess. There are other projects
that start with planning effort so you will see one that talks about redoing some of the major
landscape median islands such as on DeAnza and Foothill. They won’t touch a plant or speck of dirt
there until they go through a very public process. They will always want to get the community
involved as much as possible on city projects; they will always look to do better whether itis
townhall meetings or web based tools.
Said that in the previous week the City Council postponed a study session item to June 2nd to discuss
what they will be doing with their municipal facilities andwhat strategy they will use to meet the
required reductions. There will also be a water conservation ordinance whichwill replicate what the
state and water districtsare doing; the types of things such as reducing the number of times lawns are
watered, not washing your car, etc. and will put them into the Municipal Code. There will be some
public areas that will still be greenfor the residents to use for recreation purposes; some areas will go
brown,some areas will return to twice per week watering; sports areas and active areas in parks will
be kept green.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he was reluctantly considering voting No on the recommendation because of the inconsistency
with the language in the circulation element in the General Plan, and the nature of the traffic light in
the CIPs that are brought forward.
Vice Chair Takahashi:
Asked if their job was to determine if the CIP is consistent with the General Plan; yes it is, or no it is
not. The Planning Commissioners are not supposed to prioritize projects; that is the City Council’s
job.
Do they see something they believe is inconsistent with the General Plan, therefore cannot come up
with findings that state it is consistent with the General Plan?
Com. Paulsen:
Said it is not so much something that is inconsistent; it is something that isn’t there that would be
more strongly consistent. We don’t have a proposed CIP that I think would fully endorse and
embrace the circulation language in the General Plan. It is not so much a sin of co-mission as a sin of
omission.
Com. Sun:
Asked the Deputy City Attorney to explain how they are supposed to make the decision whether to
vote for the consistency with General Plan or vote for the CIP individually.
Valerie Armento, Deputy City Attorney:
The way it was stated by thecommissioner who was explaining what he understood the process to be
was exactly right, you have a very limited focus which is to determine the CEQA document the
Negative Declaration; make a recommendation on that and then discuss if what is being presented in
the CIP is consistent with the current General Plan. To the extent that Com. Paulsen thinks there
would be more for example, you are free in your capacity as an individual to make that comment to
the City Council, but the focus of a Planning Commission is what is on that slide and is very narrow.
Reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is not to prioritize, the City Council prioritizes
projects.
Com. Paulsen:
Said he understood, and withdrew his objection. Said he felt it was not appropriate to go to City
Council as a private citizen, but wanted the minutes to reflect his sentiments.
Cupertino Planning Commission May 12, 2015
15
Motion:Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to approve Applications CP-2015-01 and EA-2015-01
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS; None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
Chair Lee attended the meeting and reported that the CIP Conformance to the General Plan was
discussed.
Housing Commission:
Com. Paulsen attended the meeting and reported that cell phone towers at the school district was
discussed, as well as promoting the arts.
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting.
Mayor’s Monthly MeetingWith Commissioners:Report last meeting.
Miscellaneous:
Com. Paulsen reported that Com. Sun recently held a successful, well attended public forum on how
to communicate effectively in public forums. He congratulated him on a successfulevent.
Com. Paulsen reported ona recent meeting with 8 concerned citizens about the Main Street project.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
No written report.
Gary Chang introduced Erick Serrano, a new Assistant Planner with the city.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the May 26, 2015 meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:May 26, 2015
Applications:U-2015-04
Applicant:MBH Architects (Starbucks)
Location:20676 Homestead Road
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Conditional Use Permit (U-2015-04) to allow for a new coffee shop (Starbucks) to open at 5 AM
and close at 11PM, and to have outdoor seating in excess of 20 percent of the number of indoor
seats.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprovethe Conditional Use Permit (U-2015-
04) in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation:Commercial / Residential
Zoning Designation:P(CG)
Tenant Area:2310 square feet
Number of Seats:
Indoor:38
Outdoor:45
Parking Spaces:
Required:28
Provided:28
Hours of Operation:Daily 5:00 AM –11:00 PM
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:Yes
Zoning:Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
U-2015-04 Starbucks May 26, 2015
BACKGROUND:
Existing Center and Surroundings
The proposed project site (Homestead Square Shopping Center) is located on the south-east
corner of Homestead Road and North De Anza Boulevard. To the east, north, south and west of
the shopping center are predominately multi-family residential areas. The projectsiteis
specifically located in a pad building on the eastern portion of the shopping center adjacent to
Franco Courtand opposite FrancoParkand the City’s Traffic Control Center.
Application Request
The applicant, MBH Architects, on behalf of Starbucks Coffee Company, is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow early hours of operation (opening at 5:00 AM), and to allow
outdoor seating to exceed twenty percent of indoor seats (45 outdoor seats;38 indoor seats).
The General Commercial (CG) Ordinance requiresthat the Planning Commission review and
approve requests for late evening activities which occurring between eleven p.m. and seven
a.m.The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow approval of outdoor
seating exceeding twenty percentof the number of authorized indoor seats at a restaurant.
Typically, the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor seating may be approved by the Director
of Community Development at an Administrative Hearing;however, in this instance, it is being
forwardedto Planning Commission for review and approval along with the Conditional Use
Permit request for the late night activities.
This application was inadvertently mislabeled CUP-2015-01. The application number has been
corrected to be U-2015-04.This is an administrative correction with no bearing on the project
application.
DISCUSSION:
Hours of Operation
Starbucks proposes early store opening hours(opening at 5AM)in order to be consistent with
other stores in the area (see Table 1), and to capture the earliest of customers who are in the
offices early in morning.
Table 1: Starbucks Location and Hours in Cupertino
Location:Hours:
20520 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Crossroads Shopping
Center)
Monday-Saturday: 4:30AM-10:00PM; and Sunday:
5:30AM –10:00PM
20745 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Target)Monday-Sunday: 8:30 AM –9:00 PM
22390 Homestead Road Monday-Friday: 5:00AM-9:00PM; and Saturday-Sunday:
5:30AM-9:00PM
11111 N. Wolfe Road (Cupertino Village Shopping
Center)
Monday-Friday: 5:00AM-9:00PM; and Saturday-Sunday:
6:30AM-9:00PM
10101 N. Wolf Road(Vallco Shopping Mall)Monday-Friday: 5:30AM-9:00PM; and Saturday-Sunday:
6:30AM-9:00PM
U-2015-04 Starbucks May 26, 2015
As shown in Table 1, the proposed early hours of operation is overall consistent with Starbucks
location throughout Cupertino, with the exception of the Starbuckslocated within Target.The
Starbucks inside Target coordinates its hours of operation with the hours of operation of Target.
Delivery times will occur between 8:00AM-10:00AM Monday to Friday, and between 9:00AM to
11:00AM Saturday and Sunday consistent with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 10.48.062 Nighttime Deliveries.
Outdoor Seating
In addition to the early store hours, Starbucksis proposing to haveoutdoor seating to exceed
twenty percent ofinterior seating. Starbucks is proposing to have 38 interior seats, and an
additional 45 exterior seats for a total of 83 seats. According to Starbucks, the increase in seating
will allow for greater opportunities to socialize, and provide an open environment to encourage
productivity and stimulate creativity. Typically, the limiting factors for the amount of outdoor
seating are sufficient parking and seating area. In this case, the building and site provides
sufficient parking and site area to support the proposed exterior seating.
Parking
The existing shopping center has a total square footage of 198,622, and has a parking totalof 842
parking spacesavailable. Table 2 below shows the parking required and provided for the
shopping center.
Table 2: Parking Analysis of Homestead Square Shopping Center
Uses
Area in
Sq. Ft.
Max Number of
Users Parking Requirement
Number of
Stalls Needed
Total
Starbucks (Specialty
Food Store)
2,310 83
1 for every 3 seats or 1
space per 250 square feet
whichever is greater
28
Shopping Center
(General Commercial)
excluding Starbucks 196,312
1 space per 250 square
feet of general
commercial
786
Total Parking Needs 814
Total Parking Stalls 842
Surplus 28
As shown in Table 2, the center would continue to operate with asurplus of 28 parking spaces
after the additional seating provided by Starbucks.
Proximity to Residential Use
The project site is not immediately adjacent to any residential uses. The closest residential area
is located approximately 250 feet to the southwest, 300 feet to the north, and 430 to the south.
Residences are buffered by streets, other commercial buildings, and to the southwest the
residences are buffered by a street, park, and a City facility. Therefore, the project is not
U-2015-04 Starbucks May 26, 2015
expected to cause any significant impacts to the surrounding residential 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 pay foradditional Sheriff’s enforcement timeif required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The use permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per section 15301(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelinesbecause the proposed use occurs
within an existing facility and minor alterations will be made within an urban, developed
environment.
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 (10 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10days prior to the hearing)
Notices mailed to property owners adjacent to
the project site (300 foot)(at least 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 with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: February 25, 2015
Deemed Incomplete:March 26, 2015
Deemed Complete:May 13, 2015
Since this project is Categorically Exempt, the City has 60 days (until July 13, 2015)to makea
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 project and all of the findings for approval of the proposed
project, consistent with Chapter 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, maybe made.
U-2015-04 Starbucks May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Erick Serrano, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Piu Ghosh /s/Gary Chao
Piu Ghosh Gary Chao
Senior Planner Asst.Director ofCommunity Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1 –DraftResolution for U-2015-04
2–Plan Set
U-2015-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW EARLY HOURS OF OPERATION AND OUTDOOR SEATING IN
EXCESS OF TWENTY PERCENT OF THE INDOOR SEATING AT A COFFEE SHOP
LOCATED AT 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:U-2015-04
Applicant:MBH Architects (Starbucks)
Location:20676 Homestead Road (Homestead Square Shopping Center)
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR DEVELOPMENTPERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Conditional UsePermitas 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 injuriousto property or
improvementsin the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; is approximately
250 away from any existing residential uses; In addition, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department has
reviewedthe project and found that the project project would not create a public nuisance;the project will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvementsin the vicinity, and will not be detrimental
to the public, health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
2.The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the purpose of this title and
complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Draft Resolution U-2015-04 May 26, 2015
The proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, since it is
consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). The project is consistent
with the underliningzoning regulation of planned general commercial.The main concern is in hours of
operation with proximity to residences. The project is located 250 feet or more away fromresidences, and
delivery tiems are to be consiseting with the zoning regulations. In addition, the project is consideredto
be CategoricallyExempt per CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration ofthe maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolutionbeginning on PAGE
2thereof,:
The application for a ConditionalUse Permit, Application no. U-2015-04, is hereby recommended
for approval and that the subconclusion upon which the findings and conditions in this resolution
are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. U-2015-04as set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 2015 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 May 5, 2015 consisting of 5sheets,
G-000-1, G-0004A, A-1001, A-2001, and A-2002 entitled “HOMESTEAD & DE ANZA” drawn
Dennis M. Heath ofMBH Architects; except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution.
2.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The application/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including
but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, propertysize, 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 coffee shopshall be operated withinthe area delineated on the site planexhibit.
b)The coffee shop is approved to operate daily from 5:00AM to 11:00 PM.
c)The total number of seats is to be 83 with 38 interior seats and 45 exterior seats.
d)Changes to the coffee shopoperationsdetermined to be minor shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
Draft Resolution U-2015-04 May 26, 2015
5.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.
6.BUSINESS LICENSE
The business owners shall obtain a City of Cupertino business licenses prior to building permit
issuance.
7.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.
8.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.
9.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant isresponsible 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.
10.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.
11.REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TheDirector may initiate proceedings for revocation of theConditionalUse 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.
12.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.
Draft Resolution U-2015-04 May 26, 2015
13.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.
14.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BYTHE FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.FIRE SPRINKLERS
The existing building is equipped with a fire sprinkler system. If the system within this space
requires modification, plans for such modification must be submitted to, and approved by this
office prior to commencing such work. A state of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection
Contract shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees
to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. NOTE: The
owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting
with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the
existing water service is required. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.
2.CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our
Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notation on subsequent plan
submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33
3.ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing building shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or
approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the
street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background.
Address number shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Number shall be a minimum
of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access
is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a
monument pole other sign means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1.
Draft Resolution U-2015-04 May 26, 2015
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26thday ofMay,2015,at theRegular 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 Winnie Lee,Chair
Assist. Dir. of Community Development Planning Commission
BLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURN
BLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURN
BLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURN
45'45'45'45'45'EP(E)FIRESPRINKLER ARCADE #3 1,526 SQ. FT.CC PHASE 1
P
HASE2 PHASE1PHASE2 HOMESTEADROAD
NORTH DE ANZA
BLVD.
FRANCOCOURT NOPARKING NOPARKINGANOPARKING
3P
L
T
H
I
R
D
P
A
R
T
Y
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
A/
C
A
I
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
AC
T
A
C
O
U
S
T
I
C
A
L
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
T
I
L
E
AD
J
A
D
J
U
S
T
A
B
L
E
AF
F
A
B
O
V
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
AM
P
A
M
P
E
R
E
AR
C
H
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
BO
H
B
A
C
K
O
F
H
O
U
S
E
CA
B
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
CL
C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
CL
G
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
CM
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
CT
R
C
E
N
T
E
R
CX
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
N
G
CX
A
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
N
G
A
G
E
N
T
DE
G
D
E
G
R
E
E
DE
T
D
E
T
A
I
L
DI
A
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
DI
M
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
DM
D
E
S
I
G
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
DN
D
O
W
N
EA
E
A
C
H
EL
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EQ
E
Q
U
A
L
EX
I
S
T
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
EX
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
FF
&
E
"
F
U
R
N
I
T
U
R
E
,
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
,
A
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
"
FI
O
F
U
R
N
I
S
H
E
D
A
N
D
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
O
W
N
E
R
FL
R
F
L
O
O
R
FO
H
F
R
O
N
T
O
F
H
O
U
S
E
FT
F
O
O
T
/
F
E
E
T
G
G
R
O
U
N
D
GC
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
HC
H
O
L
L
O
W
C
O
R
E
HD
W
H
A
R
D
W
A
R
E
HM
H
O
L
L
O
W
M
E
T
A
L
HO
R
I
Z
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
HR
H
O
U
R
HT
H
E
I
G
H
T
HV
A
C
"
H
E
A
T
I
N
G
,
V
E
N
T
I
L
A
T
I
N
G
,
A
N
D
A
I
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
"
ID
I
N
S
I
D
E
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
LL
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
MA
X
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
ME
P
"
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
,
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
,
A
N
D
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
"
MF
R
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
MI
N
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
NI
C
N
O
T
I
N
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
NL
N
I
G
H
T
L
I
G
H
T
NT
S
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
OC
O
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
OD
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
OF
/
C
I
O
W
N
E
R
F
U
R
N
I
S
H
E
D
/
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
OF
/
O
I
O
W
N
E
R
F
U
R
N
I
S
H
E
D
/
O
W
N
E
R
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
PD
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
PL
C
P
L
A
C
E
PM
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
RR
A
D
I
U
S
RC
M
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
RE
F
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
RE
Q
‘
D
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
RE
V
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
RN
D
R
O
U
N
D
SB
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
SC
S
O
L
I
D
C
O
R
E
SF
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
E
E
T
SH
T
S
H
E
E
T
SI
M
S
I
M
I
L
A
R
SP
E
C
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
SQ
S
Q
U
A
R
E
TE
M
P
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
TY
P
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
UO
N
U
N
L
E
S
S
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
N
O
T
E
D
VD
V
E
N
D
O
R
D
I
R
E
C
T
VE
R
T
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
VI
F
V
E
R
I
F
Y
I
N
F
I
E
L
D
AB
B
R
E
V
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
PX
X
X
-
E
S
XX
X
X
X
X'
X
X
"
XN
NO
R
T
H
A
R
R
O
W
X'
-
X
X
"
A
F
F
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SE
C
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
L
O
U
T
DE
T
A
I
L
C
A
L
L
O
U
T
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
T
A
G
DA
T
U
M
P
O
I
N
T
PA
I
N
T
T
A
G
DE
S
I
G
N
I
D
T
A
G
AB
O
V
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
HE
I
G
H
T
T
A
G
(
I
M
P
E
R
I
A
L
)
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
F
R
O
M
FI
N
I
S
H
F
A
C
E
T
O
F
I
N
I
S
H
FA
C
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
C
L
O
U
D
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
Y
M
B
O
L
L
E
G
E
N
D
X
XX
X
X
X
DO
O
R
T
A
G
D
XX
X
X
X
DE
S
I
G
N
I
D
T
A
G
X
XX
X
X
X
WI
N
D
O
W
T
A
G
W
1.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
V
I
S
I
T
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
,
R
E
V
I
E
W
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
H
E
L
L
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
S
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
O
R
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
,
AN
D
B
E
C
O
M
E
T
H
O
R
O
U
G
H
L
Y
F
A
M
I
L
I
A
R
W
I
TH
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
BI
D
D
I
N
G
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
2.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
W
I
T
H
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
MA
N
A
G
E
R
T
O
R
E
S
O
L
V
E
A
N
Y
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
,
O
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
,
O
R
P
L
A
N
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
A
N
C
I
E
S
PR
I
O
R
T
O
B
I
D
D
I
N
G
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
3.
A
L
L
W
O
R
K
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
E
D
I
N
S
T
R
I
C
T
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
L
O
C
A
L
,
CO
U
N
T
Y
,
S
T
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
F
E
D
E
R
A
L
C
O
D
E
S
A
N
D
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
S
.
4.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
V
E
R
I
F
Y
T
H
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
.
5.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
T
O
V
E
R
I
F
Y
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
,
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
CL
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
T
R
A
D
E
S
,
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
A
N
C
I
E
S
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
WI
T
H
T
H
E
W
O
R
K
.
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
R
E
T
O
T
H
E
F
A
C
E
O
F
T
H
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
SU
R
F
A
C
E
U
N
L
E
S
S
N
O
T
E
D
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
.
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
T
O
B
E
T
A
K
E
N
F
R
O
M
DE
S
I
G
N
A
T
E
D
D
A
T
U
M
P
O
I
N
T
.
D
O
N
O
T
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
.
6.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
P
A
T
C
H
A
N
D
R
E
P
A
I
R
A
L
L
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
S
,
FL
O
O
R
S
,
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
S
,
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
D
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
T
H
A
T
M
A
Y
BE
C
O
M
E
D
A
M
A
G
E
D
D
U
R
I
N
G
T
H
E
C
O
U
R
S
E
O
F
T
H
E
W
O
R
K
.
7.
T
H
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
O
B
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
F
O
R
FI
R
E
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
,
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
,
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
,
A
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
P
R
I
O
R
TO
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
S
U
C
H
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
.
8.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
R
E
T
A
I
N
O
N
E
S
E
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
L
A
N
S
T
O
N
O
T
E
AN
D
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
A
L
L
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
D
U
R
I
N
G
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
T
H
I
S
S
E
T
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
A
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
’
S
“
S
T
O
R
E
C
L
O
S
E
-
O
U
T
P
A
C
K
A
G
E
”
A
S
DE
S
C
R
I
B
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
ON
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
.
9.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
N
G
D
E
L
I
V
E
R
Y
O
F
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
F
R
O
M
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
C
O
N
T
RA
C
T
E
D
T
H
I
R
D
P
A
R
T
Y
L
O
G
I
S
T
I
C
S
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
A
N
D
V
E
N
D
O
R
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
H
I
P
M
E
N
T
S
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
F
O
R
M
E
T
H
O
D
S
A
N
D
L
E
A
D
T
I
M
E
S
.
10
.
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
F
O
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
A
N
D
D
E
L
I
V
E
R
Y
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
A
N
D
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
I
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
S
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
CO
L
U
M
N
L
A
B
E
L
E
D
"
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
"
.
11
.
F
O
R
T
H
E
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
O
F
T
H
E
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
,
T
O
“
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
”
,
S
H
A
L
L
M
E
A
N
T
O
PR
O
V
I
D
E
A
L
L
F
A
S
T
E
N
E
R
S
,
M
I
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
H
A
R
D
W
A
R
E
,
B
L
O
C
K
I
N
G
,
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
,
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
O
T
H
E
R
I
T
E
M
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
F
O
R
A
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
A
N
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
OT
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
N
O
T
E
D
.
12
.
A
L
L
I
T
E
M
S
U
B
S
T
I
T
U
T
I
O
N
S
M
U
ST
B
E
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
DE
S
I
G
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
.
13
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
I
T
E
M
C
U
T
S
H
E
E
T
S
F
O
R
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
MA
I
L
I
N
G
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
C
O
F
F
E
E
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
24
0
1
U
T
A
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H
MS
S
T
O
P
:
S
-
S
D
1
0
SE
A
T
T
L
E
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
9
8
1
3
4
(2
0
6
)
3
1
8
-
1
5
7
5
PR
O
J
E
C
T
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
S
DE
S
I
G
N
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
:
DO
R
E
E
N
W
O
N
G
ST
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
C
O
F
F
E
E
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
60
S
P
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
7
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
SA
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
9
4
1
3
3
(4
1
5
)
5
3
7
-
7
1
8
6
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
MA
N
A
G
E
R
:
KA
R
E
N
L
E
E
ST
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
C
O
F
F
E
E
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
60
S
P
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
7
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
SA
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
9
4
1
3
3
(4
1
5
)
5
3
7
-
7
2
0
3
LA
N
D
L
O
R
D
:
J
O
H
N
M
A
C
H
A
D
O
CO
L
L
I
E
R
S
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
45
0
W
E
S
T
S
A
N
T
A
C
L
A
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
SA
N
J
O
S
E
,
C
A
9
5
1
1
3
ARCHITECT:MBH ARCHITECTS 2470 MARINER SQUARE LOOP ALAMEDA, CA 94501 CONTACT: CELSO RIVERA (510) 865-8663 PHONE (510) 865-1611 FAX MEP CONSULTANT:ACIES ENGINEERING 111 W. EVELYN AVE, SUITE 301 SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 CONTACT: TOMISLAV GAJIC / MILAN PESAKOVIC (408) 522-5255 PHONE (408) 522-5260 FAX SURVEYING ARCHITECT:SALAS O'BRIEN 305 SOUTH 11TH STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95112 CONTACT: REENA MEHTA (408) 282-1500 PHONE (408) 297-2995 FAX CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE:DEANNIE BARTLETT STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY 60 SPEAR STREET, 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 (415) 537-7185
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
STARBUCKS COFFEE
(2
0
1
3
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
a
n
d
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
)
-
1
e
x
i
t
f
o
r
u
p
t
o
4
9
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
.
A
s
e
c
o
n
d
m
e
a
n
s
o
f
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
0
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
i
n
a
s
p
a
c
e
.
E
x
i
t
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
S
t
o
c
k
r
o
o
m
.
-
2
5
0
f
e
e
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
e
x
i
t
i
s
a
l
l
o
we
d
w
i
t
h
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
F
o
r
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
e
x
i
t
,
7
5
fe
e
t
m
a
x
.
t
r
a
v
e
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
4
9
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
o
r
b
e
l
o
w
;
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
m
a
x
.
f
o
r
G
r
o
u
p
B
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
i
e
s
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
-
E
x
i
t
w
i
d
t
h
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
4
"
.
I
f
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
l
o
a
d
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
,
th
e
e
x
i
t
w
i
d
t
h
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
3
6
"
.
-
A
i
s
l
e
w
i
d
t
h
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
a
b
l
e
s
,
3
6
"
m
i
n
.
EG
R
E
S
S
N
O
T
E
S
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
C
O
D
E
S
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
PL
U
M
B
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
&
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
EN
E
R
G
Y
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
E
N
E
R
G
Y
C
O
D
E
FI
R
E
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
3
C
A
F
I
R
E
C
O
D
E
FO
O
D
C
O
D
E
:
2
0
1
2
C
A
F
O
O
D
C
O
D
E
A
N
D
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
C
O
D
E
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
T
E
N
A
N
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
FO
R
A
N
E
W
S
H
E
L
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
SI
T
E
A
N
D
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
CG
-
N
O
C
H
A
N
G
E
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
RE
T
A
I
L
TY
P
E
O
F
U
S
E
:
A2
TY
P
E
O
F
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
:
RE
T
A
I
L
:
2
1
9
S
.
F
.
/
3
0
=
8
SE
A
T
I
N
G
:
1
0
4
6
S
.
F
.
/
1
5
=
7
0
BE
V
E
R
A
G
E
/
P
R
E
P
:
1
3
9
S
.
F
.
/
2
0
0
=
1
WO
R
K
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
:
4
2
9
S
.
F
.
/
3
0
0
=
2
NO
N
-
O
C
C
U
P
I
A
B
L
E
S
P
A
C
E
S
4
7
7
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
=
8
1
OC
C
U
P
A
N
T
L
O
A
D
:
VB
-
N
O
C
H
A
N
G
E
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
23
1
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
O
O
T
A
G
E
:
16
T
A
B
L
E
S
/
4
5
C
H
A
I
R
S
IN
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
3
8
(
2
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
)
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
4
5
(
3
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
)
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
S
E
A
S
O
N
A
L
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
:
SP
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
SP
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
:
5:
0
0
A
M
-
1
1
P
M
BE
T
W
E
E
N
-
9
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
T
O
1
1
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
(
N
O
N
-
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
)
W
E
E
K
D
A
Y
S
(
M
O
N
D
A
Y
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
F
R
I
D
A
Y
)
-
9
:
3
0
a
.
m
.
T
O
1
1
:
3
0
a
.
m
.
(
N
O
N
-
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
S
)
O
N
W
E
E
K
E
N
D
S
(S
A
T
U
R
D
A
Y
A
N
D
S
U
N
D
A
Y
)
A
N
D
H
O
L
I
D
A
Y
S
.
HO
U
R
S
O
F
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
:
(C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
C
O
D
E
(
C
M
C
)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
0
.
4
8
.
0
6
2
"N
I
G
H
T
T
I
M
E
D
E
L
I
V
E
R
I
E
S
A
N
D
P
I
C
K
U
P
S
"
.
DE
L
I
V
E
R
I
E
S
M
A
Y
N
O
T
O
C
C
U
R
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
T
H
E
H
O
U
R
S
O
F
8:
0
0
p
.
m
.
A
N
D
8
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
W
E
E
K
D
A
Y
S
(
M
O
N
D
A
Y
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
FR
I
D
A
Y
)
A
N
D
6
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
A
N
D
9
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
O
N
W
E
E
K
E
N
D
S
(S
A
T
U
R
D
A
Y
A
N
D
S
U
N
D
A
Y
)
A
N
D
H
O
L
I
D
A
Y
S
.
)
DE
L
I
V
E
R
Y
T
I
M
E
:
IN
D
E
X
O
F
S
H
E
E
T
S
STARBUCKS COFFEEHOMESTEAD ROAD
DEANZA BLVD
RENEWAL DATEC-12815SM.HEALICENSEDARCHITECT S T A TEOFCALIFORNIA06.30.15THINNED2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SCALE:STORE #:CONCEPT:PROJECT #:PALETTE:ISSUE DATE:DESIGN MANAGER:PRODUCTION DESIGNER:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ARCHITECT OF RECORD RLEED AP:C 2011 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANYR THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION,WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.2 4 7 0 M a r i n e r S q u a r e L o o p A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3 m b h a r c h . c o m As indicated
5/4/2015 2:07:38 PMX:\Starbucks\49908 - 631 Homestead and DeAnza - Cupertino - CA\5. Revit\2014_1022_631_Homestead & DeAnza_Cupertino_CA_cup_plan-check.rvt
G-0001GENERAL INFORMATION01392-029HOMESTEAD & DEANZA 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CA MCS -631 DOREEN WONG GR CRANN SHIMBH# 49908
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
-
U
S
GC
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
LL
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
SB
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
-
U
S
W
I
T
H
IN
S
T
A
L
L
GC
-
G
C
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
GC
-
L
L
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
LA
N
D
L
O
R
D
GC
-
S
B
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
ST
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
LL
-
G
C
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
LL
-
L
L
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
LL
-
S
B
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
SB
-
G
C
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
SB
-
L
L
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
L
O
R
D
SB
-
S
B
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
-
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
S
T
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
NNRevision Schedule RevDateByDescription 10/27/14PERMIT SET 102/25/15CUP SUBMITTAL 205/04/15RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS
SH
E
E
T
S
H
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
GE
N
E
R
A
L
G-
0
0
0
1
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
2
0
5
/
0
4
/
1
5
G-
0
0
0
4
A
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
L
A
Y
O
U
T
P
L
A
N
2
0
5
/
0
4
/
1
5
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
A-
1
0
0
1
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
2
0
5
/
0
4
/
1
5
A-
2
0
0
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
1
0
2
/
2
5
/
1
5
A-
2
0
0
2
S
I
T
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
U
D
Y
1
0
2
/
2
5
/
1
5
NO
T
E
:
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
FO
R
T
H
I
S
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
F
I
N
A
L
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
CU
P
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
:
-
H
O
U
R
S
O
F
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
-
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
2
2
2
30" X 48" CLR
30" X 48" CLR
13
9
S
F
BA
C
K
B
A
R
WOMENS RESTROOM MENS RESTROOM
41
6
S
F
WO
R
K
R
O
O
M
22
2
S
F
SA
L
E
S
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
AC
C
E
S
S
10
2
9
S
F
SE
A
T
I
N
G
CL
R
.
12
"
M
I
N
.
CL
R
.
24
"
M
I
N
.
30
"
X
4
8
"
C
L
R
30" X 48" CLR
R 2' - 6"
R 2' - 6"
CO
U
N
T
E
R
T
O
P
AT
2
'
-
1
0
"
A
F
F
CO
U
N
T
E
R
T
O
P
A
T
2'
-
1
0
"
A
F
F
CO
U
N
T
E
R
T
O
P
A
T
2'
-
1
0
"
A
F
F
CLR.
60" MIN.
CLR.
48" MIN.
CLR.
4' - 0 1/2"
CL
R
.
3'
-
0
"
3' - 2 3/4"
3'
-
1
3
/
4
"
4'
-
5
1
/
4
"
3'
-
6
1
/
2
"
3' - 0 1/2"
30
"
X
4
8
"
C
L
R
30
"
X
4
8
"
C
L
R
CLR
12" MIN.
CLR 24" MIN.CLR.60" MIN.
CL
R
.
48
"
M
I
N
.
30
"
X
4
8
"
C
L
R
30" X 48" CLR
CL
R
.
36
"
M
I
N
.
CLR.
50" MIN.
3'
-
0
"
2' - 10 1/2"
30
"
X
4
8
"
C
L
R
(E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
A
T
I
O
)
(E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
PA
T
I
O
)
(N
)
W
A
S
T
E
T
R
I
O
RE
C
E
P
T
A
C
L
E
.SEE ACCESSIBILITY NOTE 'G'.GACCESSIBILITY KEY A. 2013 CBC TABLE 11B - 221.2.1.1 NOTES THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF WHEELCHAIR SPACES PER SEATING.B. DINING SURFACE AT ACCESSIBLE TABLE IS 30" A.F.F. MAX.C. 30" x 48" CLEAR FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESS WITH KNEE SPACE OF MIN. 27" HIGH AND 19" DEEP.D. 32" MINIMUM CLEAR AT RESTROOM DOOR.E. 60" DIAMETER CLEAR FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESS.F. LEVEL LANDING THRESHOLD.G. BARRIER-FREE PATH OF TRAVEL. 3'-0" CLEARANCE BETWEEN FIXTURES WHEN SERVING ONLY ONE SIDE AND 3'-8" WHEN SERVING BOTH SIDES PER CBC 11B 403.5.1 H. POS AND CONDIMENT COUNTERTOPS ARE MINIMUM 36" IN LENGTH AND 2'-10" A.F.F. FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY.I. SEE SHEET I-4102 FOR RESTROOM DETAIL.J. REFER TO SHEET G-0002 AND G-0003 FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSIBILITY NOTES.K. HAND-OFF COUNTERTOP IS A MINIMUM 36" IN LENGTH AND 2'-10" A.F.F. FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY.L. GC TO PROVIDE TACTILE EXIT SIGN AT EXIT DOOR THAT COMPLIES WITH CBC SECTION CBC SECTION 1011 & CBC SECTION 11B-703 AS REQUIRED.M. GC TO PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL SIGN OF ACCESSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH CBC 11B - 703. AS REQUIRED. LOCATED AT BUILDING ENTRANCE, ACCESSIBLE TO AND USED BY A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES PER CBC 11B-703.2.1. AS REQUIRED. SEE DETAIL 1/G-0003.*WHEN NEW OR ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND/OR IDENTIFICATION DEVICES ARE PROVIDED, THE NEW SIGN AND/OR IDENTIFICATION DEVICES SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SECTION 11B-703 INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL SIGNS, AND ACCESSIBILITY SIGNS.RENEWAL DATEC-12815SM.HEALICENSEDARCHITECT S T A TEOFCALIFORNIA06.30.15THINNED2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SCALE:STORE #:CONCEPT:PROJECT #:PALETTE:ISSUE DATE:DESIGN MANAGER:PRODUCTION DESIGNER:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ARCHITECT OF RECORD RLEED AP:C 2011 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANYR THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION,WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.2 4 7 0 M a r i n e r S q u a r e L o o p A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3 m b h a r c h . c o m 1/4" = 1'-0"
5/4/2015 2:08:51 PMX:\Starbucks\49908 - 631 Homestead and DeAnza - Cupertino - CA\5. Revit\2014_1022_631_Homestead & DeAnza_Cupertino_CA_cup_plan-check.rvt
G-0004APROPOSED OUTDOOR SEATING LAYOUT PLAN01392-029HOMESTEAD & DEANZA 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CA MCS -631 DOREEN WONG GR CRANN SHIRevision Schedule RevDateByDescription 102/25/15CUP SUBMITTAL 205/04/15RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
(
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
)
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
L
A
Y
O
U
T
P
L
A
N
2
2
BLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURN BLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURNBLK_VEHC-TRCK-RADIUS-55TRUCK-90TURN 45'45'45'45'45'EP(E)FIRESPRINKLER ARCADE #3 1,526 SQ. FT.CC PHASE 1PHASE2 PHASE1PHASE2 HOMESTEADROAD
NORTH DE ANZA
BLVD.
FRANCOCOURT NOPARKING NOPARKINGANOPARKING SITE PLAN LEGEND ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
A-
2
0
0
1
1
A-
2
0
0
1
2
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
Y
M
B
O
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
V
A
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
Y
M
B
O
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
V
A
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
(E
)
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
V
A
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
P
O
S
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
P
O
S
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
V
A
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
P
O
S
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
P
O
S
T
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
ST
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
CO
F
F
E
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
W
I
T
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
U
N
C
A
T
E
D
D
O
M
E
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
W
I
T
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
U
N
C
A
T
E
D
D
O
M
E
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
WI
T
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
TR
U
N
C
A
T
E
D
D
O
M
E
S
23
E
C
B
D
F
45
28' - 4"32' - 0"35' - 8"13' - 3"
1
A
13
'
-
3
"
19
'
-
8
"
22
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
4
"
10
'
-
8
"
G
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
E
N
A
N
T
-
U
N
K
N
O
W
N
N.
I
.
C
.
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
E
N
A
N
T
-
U
N
K
N
O
W
N
N.
I
.
C
.
IN
S
T
A
L
L
N
E
W
W
H
E
E
L
S
T
O
P
S
,
T
Y
P
.
IN
S
T
A
L
L
N
E
W
W
H
E
E
L
S
T
O
P
S
,
T
Y
P
.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
I
K
E
RA
C
K
S
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
AP
P
R
O
X
.
8'
-
0
"
2
STARBUCKS COFFEEHOMSTEAD ROAD
DEANZA BLVD
A-10012RENEWALDATEC-12815SM.HEALICENSEDARCHITECT S T A TEOFCALIFORNIA06.30.15THINNED2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SCALE:STORE #:CONCEPT:PROJECT #:PALETTE:ISSUE DATE:DESIGN MANAGER:PRODUCTION DESIGNER:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ARCHITECT OF RECORD RLEED AP:C 2011 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANYR THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION,WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.2 4 7 0 M a r i n e r S q u a r e L o o p A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3 m b h a r c h . c o m As indicated
5/14/2015 10:50:24 AMX:\Starbucks\49908 - 631 Homestead and DeAnza - Cupertino - CA\5. Revit\2014_1022_631_Homestead & DeAnza_Cupertino_CA_cup_plan-check.rvt
A-1001ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN01392-029HOMESTEAD & DEANZA 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CA MCS -631 DOREEN WONG GR CRANN SHIMBH# 49908
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
2
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
-
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
Revision Schedule RevDateByDescription 10/27/14PERMIT SET 102/25/15CUP SUBMITTAL 205/04/15RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
0
0
'
-
0
"
1
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
BIKE RACK LOCATION22
4"x5"x3/8" STEEL PLATE,POWDER COATED -DRYLAC RAL 6006 (4) 3/8"Ø x 3-3/4"CONCRETE ANCHOR,EA. PLATE (E) CONCRETE SLAB1"x2" POWDER COATED TUBE STEEL POST, WELD TO PLATE, POWDER COATED - DRYLAC RAL 6006 EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES A. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE SIGNAGE INSTALLATION WITH THE SIGNAGE CONTRACTOR PROVIDING A MINIMUM SCHEDULING NOTICE OF 4 WEEKS AND 1 WEEK PRIOR TO SCHEDULED DATE OF INSTALLATION.STARBUCKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO PROVIDE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITH SIGNAGE CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION.B. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH AND INSTALL ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS INCLUDING ALL CONDUIT, WIRE,CONNECTIONS, AND BREAKER AT PANEL BOARD NECESSARY TO SERVE SIGNAGE.C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FIRE TREATED WOOD STUD BLOCKING, OR EQUIVALENT TO SUPPORT SIGNAGE.D. SIGNAGE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL ALLOWABLE MONUMENT OR POLE SIGNAGE WITH LANDLORD AND PROVIDE SHOP DRAWING(S) PRIOR TO FABRICATION TO STARBUCKS DESIGNER FOR APPROVAL.E. SIGNAGE CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SIGNAGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL CODES AND OBTAIN PERMIT AND LANDLORD APPROVAL.F. SIGNAGE CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY SHOP DRAWINGS TO STARBUCKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS NEEDED. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY STARBUCKS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IMMEDIATELY IF SHOP DRAWINGS OR INSTALLATION IS IN DISCREPANCY WITH STARBUCKS ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.G. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN, PATCH AND REPAIR EXISTING EXTERIOR AS REQUIRED.NOTE: SIGNAGE IS SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.1. PROVIDE 3" (75MM) HIGH BLACK ACRYLIC STORE ADDRESS ON GLAZING.2. NEW LOGO DISK SIGNAGE 3. NEW WORDMARK SIGNAGE.4. NOT USED.5. EXISTING STOREFRONT TO REMAIN. STOREFRONT GLAZING TO BE CLEAR, NOT SPANDREL OR OBSCURED.6. NEW OUTDOOR FURNITURE AND UMBRELLA.7. EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN.8. NOT USED.9. NOT USED.10. NOT USED.11. NEW METAL SCREENS. REFER TO FURNITURE SCHEDULE ON SHEET I-1106. TO SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.SHEET NOTES NOTE: SIGNAGE IS SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.
S
1
1
3
9
5
S
1
3
1
6
3
EQEQ
EQEQ
15
'
-
3
"
V.
I
.
F
.
15
'
-
1
"
2
3
20
6
7
8
6T
Y
P
5 TY
P
,
U
O
N
11
TY
P
TY
P
2
3
1
35
'
-
8
"
7
1
A-
2
0
0
2
3
A-
2
0
0
2
A-
2
0
0
1
3
S
1
1
3
9
5
S
1
3
1
6
4
EQ
EQ
EQ
EQ
V.I.F.18' - 6"
EQ EQ
2
3
7
5
TY
P
6
TY
P
6
TY
P
11
TY
P
E
C
B
D
F
A
12
'
-
4
"
10
'
-
0
"
22
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
8
"
13
'
-
3
"
2
A-
2
0
0
2
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SE
C
T
I
O
N
ST
A
B
U
C
K
S
S
T
A
R
P
A
T
T
E
R
N
WA
T
E
R
J
E
T
P
A
N
E
L
S
FI
N
I
S
H
:
T
I
G
E
R
D
R
Y
L
A
C
ME
T
A
L
L
I
C
-
0
9
/
6
0
6
0
0
BR
O
N
Z
E
M
E
T
A
L
L
I
C
2"
X
2
"
T
U
B
E
S
T
E
E
L
P
O
S
T
,
WI
T
H
T
O
P
C
L
O
S
E
D
,
TY
P
I
C
A
L
4"
X
4
"
B
A
S
E
P
L
A
T
E
1/4" BENT METAL SCREEN PER VENDOR. BOLT TO TUBE STEEL END POSTS A-20014
4' - 0"
4'
-
0
"
6"1
1
/
2
"
RENEWAL DATEC-12815SM.HEALICENSEDARCHITECT S T A TEOFCALIFORNIA06.30.15THINNED2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SCALE:STORE #:CONCEPT:PROJECT #:PALETTE:ISSUE DATE:DESIGN MANAGER:PRODUCTION DESIGNER:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ARCHITECT OF RECORD RLEED AP:C 2011 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANYR THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION,WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.2 4 7 0 M a r i n e r S q u a r e L o o p A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3 m b h a r c h . c o m As indicated
5/4/2015 2:07:25 PMX:\Starbucks\49908 - 631 Homestead and DeAnza - Cupertino - CA\5. Revit\2014_1022_631_Homestead & DeAnza_Cupertino_CA_cup_plan-check.rvt
A-2001EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS01392-029HOMESTEAD & DEANZA 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CA MCS -631 DOREEN WONG GR CRANN SHIMBH# 49908
SI
G
N
A
G
E
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
-
"
S
"
DE
S
I
G
N
I
D
C
O
U
N
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
P
.
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
SI
G
N
A
G
E
-
D
I
S
K
13
1
6
3
1
S
I
G
N
-
D
I
S
K
S
F
I
L
L
U
M
I
N
A
T
E
D
F
L
U
S
H
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
EV
O
L
V
E
D
-
4
8
I
N
1
2
2
0
M
M
VD
-
S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R
13
1
6
4
1
S
I
G
N
-
D
I
S
K
S
F
I
L
L
U
M
I
N
A
T
E
D
F
L
U
S
H
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
EV
O
L
V
E
D
-
6
0
I
N
1
5
2
5
M
M
VD
-
S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R
SI
G
N
A
G
E
-
W
O
R
D
M
A
R
K
11
3
9
5
2
S
I
G
N
-
I
N
L
I
N
E
I
L
L
U
M
I
N
A
T
E
D
F
L
U
S
H
M
O
U
N
T
E
D
WI
T
H
G
R
E
E
N
V
I
N
Y
L
-
1
8
I
N
4
5
5
M
M
VD
-
S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R
Revision Schedule RevDateByDescription 10/27/14PERMIT SET 102/25/15CUP SUBMITTAL
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
T
R
Y
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
S
I
D
E
E
N
T
R
Y
Sc
a
l
e
:
3
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
ME
T
A
L
S
C
R
E
E
N
D
E
T
A
I
L
Scale: 6" = 1'-0"4MTL SCREEN FOOTING
.
32
1
'
-
6
"
AP
P
R
O
X
.
F
R
O
M
F
A
C
E
O
F
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
24
'
-
1
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
18
'
-
1
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
16' - 9 1/2" A.F.F.21' - 2 1/2" A.F.F.22' - 5 1/2" A.F.F.5' - 0"4' - 2"(CENTER OF FRANCO COURT)APPROX. 68' - 4" FROM FACE OF BUILDING16' - 9 1/2" A.F.F.21' - 2 1/2" A.F.F.24' - 1" A.F.F.
22
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
5' - 0"
4' - 2"
RT
U
1
RT
U
2
VA
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
3
AP
P
R
O
X
6
6
'
-
4
"
F
R
O
M
F
A
C
E
O
F
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
24
'
-
1
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
17
'
-
5
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
22
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
21
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
A
.
F
.
F
.
VA
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
3
AP
P
R
O
X
.
4
4
'
-
8
"
F
R
O
M
F
A
C
E
O
F
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
RT
U
1
RT
U
2
1
A-
2
0
0
2
3
A-
2
0
0
2
2
A-
2
0
0
2
FRANCO COURT
VA
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
1
VA
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
2
VA
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
3
VA
N
T
A
G
E
PO
I
N
T
#
4
RT
U
1
RT
U
2
ST
A
R
B
U
C
K
S
RENEWAL DATEC-12815SM.HEALICENSEDARCHITECT S T A TEOFCALIFORNIA06.30.15THINNED2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SCALE:STORE #:CONCEPT:PROJECT #:PALETTE:ISSUE DATE:DESIGN MANAGER:PRODUCTION DESIGNER:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ARCHITECT OF RECORD RLEED AP:C 2011 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANYR THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION,WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES.2 4 7 0 M a r i n e r S q u a r e L o o p A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3 m b h a r c h . c o m As indicated
5/4/2015 2:07:31 PMX:\Starbucks\49908 - 631 Homestead and DeAnza - Cupertino - CA\5. Revit\2014_1022_631_Homestead & DeAnza_Cupertino_CA_cup_plan-check.rvt
A-2002SITE LINE STUDY01392-029HOMESTEAD & DEANZA 20676 HOMESTEAD ROAD CUPERTINO, CA MCS -631 DOREEN WONG GR CRANN SHIRevision Schedule RevDateByDescription 102/25/15CUP SUBMITTAL
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
SI
G
H
T
L
I
N
E
A
T
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
1
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
3
SI
G
H
T
L
I
N
E
A
T
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
4
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
2
SI
G
H
L
I
N
E
A
T
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
P
O
I
N
T
#
2
A
N
D
#
3
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
-
0
"
A
KE
Y
P
L
A
N
-
S
I
G
H
T
L
I
N
E
S
T
U
D
Y