The URL can be used to link to this page

23. U-2009-08 PW Market Homestead Rd.�c�'C.19s OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENTUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - plaiuzingtpcupertino.org CITY COUNCIII STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. a 3 APPLICATION SUMMARY Agenda Date: May 4, 2010 Consider Application Nos. ASA- 2009 -08, U.- 2009 -08 (EA- 2009 -11), TR- 2010 -08, Ken Rodrigues (FBJ Homestead Associates, LLC), 20620, 20580 & 20680 Homestead Road (PW Market APNs 326 -10 -051, 326 -10 -060, 326 -10 -063: a. Approve a Negative Declaration b. Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 146,458 square feet of new commercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center. The approval also allows a 24- hour drive - through pharmacy and a second drive - through at one of the satellite buildings to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. c. Use Permit to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 146,458 square feet of new commercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center. The approval also allows a 24 -hour drive - through pharmacy and a second drive - through at one of the satellite buildings to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. d. Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of up to 124 trees as part of a proposed development application 23-1 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (PW Market) May 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -11 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the following: 1. Negative Declaration - EA- 2009 -11 (Attachment A & B) 2. Use Permit - U- 2009 -08 (Attachment C) 3. Architectural & Site Approval - ASA- 2009 -08 (Attachment D) 4. Tree Removal Permit - TR- 2010 -02 (Attachment E) Staff is additionally recommending that the Council: • Not approve the second drive - through proposed for one of the satellite buildings (pad 2) and • Add additional language to Condition No. 17 of the Use Permit Resolution regarding the Construction Management Plan. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/ Residential Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Acreage (Net): Building SF: Existing Proposed Building Height: Floor Area Ratio: Parking: Planned General Commercial and General Commercial -rg [P(CG) /CG -rg] N/A 15.029 acres (654,663 square feet) 153,000 square feet 203,792 square feet 35 feet maximum 31.3% 3.98 spaces/ 1000 square feet Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Yes Yes Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the project and recommended approval on a 3 -0 vote (Commissioners Kaneda and Giefer absent). Please refer to the April 13, 2010 Planning Conn nission staff report for full project details (Attachment F and Attachment G). The project site is located at 20580, 20630 & 20680 Homestead Road on the south west corner of Homestead Road and N. De Anza Boulevard. The site consists of an existing commercial shopping center located over three parcels that are adjacent to another small 23 -2 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (PW Marl et) Mav 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -11 Page 3 commercial strip center at the corner of Homestead and De Anza B1 -\ -d. and a Good Year Tire store to the east. The project is surrounded by a variety of uses including a hotel, a mini- storage facility, condos /to�%nhomes, apartments and a new park under construction. Please see Figure 1 for details. DISCUSSION: Parking The project provides 793 parking spaces for the entire shopping center (3.89 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet). The City's Parking Ordinance requires "general retail" uses to park at four parking spaces per 1000 square feet. Using this ratio, the project requires 816 spaces and is deficient by 23 spaces. The City's Parking Ordinance does not have a category for commercial shopping centers. Hov, the Ordinance provides for alternative parking consideration through a parking study prepared by a licensed traffic /parking engineer. 23 -3 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (PW Market) May 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -1 Page 4 Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants Inc. was retained by the City to conduct a parking study for the project (see Attachment H). The parking study compared the City's Parking Ordinance requirements to industry standards, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual and parking surveys of other centers with similar project characteristics. The study concluded that the proposed parking supply is adequate to meet the parking demands of the center. For a detailed discussion about parking, please refer to Attachment F. The Planning Commission reviewed the conclusions of the parking study and agreed with staff's recommendation that the proposed parking is adequate. If the City Council would like the project to provide a higher parking ratio, the following two alternatives may be considered: • Require the applicant to enter into a shared parking agreement with the property owner of the Good Year Auto Service Store. This will result in the potential sharing of 15 parking spaces. • Require the applicant to reduce the project square footage to 199,246 square feet. This will allow a parking supply rate of 3.98 spaces /1000 square feet. Drive - throughs The General Plan Policy 2 -91 states that: drive- throughs shall be permitted only when adequate circulation, parking, noise control, architectural features and landscaping are compatible with the visual character of the surrounding uses and residential areas are adequately buffered. Historically, the City has discouraged drive- throughs due to site design, architectural, and circulation concerns. Typically, drive- through features do not interface well with other uses in shopping centers and are difficult to integrate architecturally. They also counter the ideas of externalizing uses and encouraging pedestrian activity, both of which are key ingredients to successful and vibrant shopping centers. Drive - throughs also complicate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and create queuing as well as safety concerns. The pharmacy drive- through is located between the proposed pad building #1 (Rite Aid) and the existing shopping center at the south west corner of Homestead Road and N. De Anza Boulevard. Staff believes that this is a visually unobtrusive location, does not impact pedestrian or vehicular traffic and supports the drive - through. Staff does not recommend approval of the second drive - through for the satellite building (pad 2) for the following reasons: • Since the building is in a prominent location on the site, the landscaping required to screen the drive- through aisle from the parking area will visually sever the entire 23-4 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (MA Market) Mai- 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -11 Page D building from the shopping center. Providing a seating area for a restaurant instead, would help provide an active outdoor use that would help to integrate the building with the rest of the shopping center. • The added traffic and complex vehicular movements resulting from the dri -, °e- through will create an unsafe envirorunent for pedestrians walking from the satellite building to the shopping center. • The queuing needs of the drive- through will impact the circulation in the parking lot making an already tight parking situation less efficient (see Attachment I). New PAID a , NEW PAD 8,050 SF 6= SF -- - - Are.as of Pedestrian ` - /Vehicular Conflict J Area where additional landscaping v,111 be required for screening The Planning Commission recommended approval of the drive- through for the satellite building with a condition requiring the applicant NI,-ork with staff on the design of the drive - through. Staff has worked with the applicant through the design revie-, process and does not recommend the drive- through for the abovementioned reasons. Separated Sidewalk: Origirially staff had recommended that the proposed frontage improvements be provided along the entire stretch of Homestead Road and Francon Court. Frontage improvements would primarily consist of neN , \ 7 curbs and gutters, nejv drainage facilities and a new detached sideivalk with neNv landscaping (see Attachinent G). The Plarunirng Commission recommended that the frontage improvements be provided along Homestead Road termiunating at the first (northern most) driveway along Franco Court. Staff agrees v ith this recommendation and the conditions of approval have been amended to reflect the change. 23 -5 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (PW Market) May 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -11 Page 6 Gateway Sign and Public Art Requirements The General Plan identifies six gateways at major entry points for Cupertino (see Attachment f). In addition, General Plan Policy 2 -8 - Strategy 3, requires review of properties next to community entry points when they are developed or redeveloped for opportunities to reflect the gateway concept. The project site is adjacent to one of the major entry points identified at the intersection of Homestead Road and N. De Anza Boulevard. Similar to other projects such as Main Street Cupertino and Oak Park Village, staff is recommending that the applicant contribute $25,000 towards a gateway feature along De Anza Boulevard. The Planning Commission is recommending that the amount for the Gateway Sign be subtracted from the Public Art requirement. The City has a General Plan Policy that requires that new developments provide an art feature worth 0.25% of the project proforma up to $100,000. It should be noted that since the applicant cannot provide a project proforma at this point, it is difficult to determine the Public Art requirement and the balance available if $25,000 for the gateway feature is subtracted. Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Fee The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council waive the BMR fees for the project and also consider a City -wide moratorium on BMR fees for all projects until the economic improves. Staff recommends that a moratorium on BMR fees should be considered on a programinatic basis. Phasing Plan Originally the applicant had proposed a two -phase project where the first phase would be the construction of the pad buildings along Homestead Road followed by construction of the larger tenant spaces in the rear building. The applicant is requesting a change in the phasing as follows: 1. Phase 1A: Construction of Pad Building #1, the Rite Aid Pharmacy building and associated frontage and parking lot improvements, 2. Phase 1B: Construction of Pad Buildings #2, #3, and #4 and associated frontage and parking lot improvements, and 3. Phase 2: Construction of the rear shopping center building and associated parking lot improvements. Please refer to Attachment I for additional details. Staff supports the new phasing plan and the model resolution has been revised accordingly. The Planning Commission did not comment on the applicant's revised phasing plan. 23 -6 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, Homestead Square (PW Market) May 4, 2010 TR- 2010 -08, EA- 2009 -11 Page 7 Construction Management Plan Staff recommends that Condition No. 17 of the Model Resolution be updated to address the concerns of an adjacent property owner. The property owner, Mr. Vidovich, is concerned about access to the Good Year Auto Service store during the construction period. Staff recommends adding a condition to keep continuous access to the Good Year Tire Store from De Anza Boulevard via the northern driveway. If driveway closure is required, prior notice, consent and alternative access arrangements need to be provided by the project applicant. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Reviewed by: "v/ Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I Attachment J Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Initial Study Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolution No. 6594 for U- 2009 -08 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6595 for ASA- 2009 -08 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6596 for TR- 2010 -08 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Plan sets dated March 12, 2010 Traffic and Parking Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers, Inc. dated April 1, 2010. Letter from applicant, Ken Rodrigues, dated April 20, 2010 with associated exhibits Map showing the City's Gateways C:\Documents and Settings\piug\Desktop\ U- 2009 -08 ASA - 2009- 08AS.docx 23 -7 Attachment A i u3uo i orre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777 -3251 FAX 408 777 - 3333 — )77 - UPERTINO Community Development Departmeni I. — .A , -STUDY , ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff Use Only EA File No. EA- 2009 -11 Case File No. U- 2009 -08 ASA- 2009 -08 Project Title: Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of - 95.666 s.f. of existing commercial space and the construction of approximately 147 790 _ s.f. of new commercial space. Project Location: 20580, 20620, 20680 Homestead Road. Project Description: The project involves the demolition of three major tenant spaces in an existing shopping I center and their reconstruction The project also involves the demolition of a fast food restaurant building and the construction of four commercial satellite buildings. Environmental Setting: Existing shopping center located on two properties on Homestead Road There are two satellite buildings on one of the properties one of which will be demolished A tire shop is located to the east of the shopping center. A shopping center is located to the north -east of the proiect site with inter - connectivity. A hotel is located to the south -east of the proiect site. There are apartments and condominiums located to the south west and north of the property. A new park is being constructed to the west of the property across Franco Court, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - +/- 14.029 ac. Building Coverage – 31.3% Exist. Building – 153,000 s.f. Proposed Bldg. - 205.124 s.f. Zone – P(CG)& CG -ra G.P. Designation – Commercial /Residential Assessor's Parcel No. – _326 10 051. 326 10 060 and 326 10 063 If Residential, Units /Gross Acre - N/A Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ North Vallco Park Special Center ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual ❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non - Residential, Building Area - 205.124 s.f. FAR - 31.3% Max. Employees /Shift - N/A Parking Required 821 Parking Provided 816 Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES El NO ❑ 23 -8 INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5: - -- Environmental- Resources - -- - - 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. _County Sheri 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 36c San Jose Water Company B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History 38. FEMA Flood Maps /SCVWD Flood Maps Center, 1976) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 14. Geological Report ( site sQ ecific� _ 40. County Haz Waste Management Plan 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 41.. Cody Heritage Resources Inventory 16. Zoning Map 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak 17. Zoning Code /Specific Plan Documents Site 18. City Noise Ordinance 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances 18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution Site Prevention Plan 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater C. CITY AGENCIES Site Discharge Permit Issued to the City of 19. Community Development Dept. List Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay 20. Public Works Dept. Regional Water Quality Control Board 21 Parks & Recreation De ar�ment 43c Hydromodification Plan p � 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w /project of similar scope /characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series INSTRUCTIONS A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical ") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ✓Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ✓Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) 23 -9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The project involves the demolition and reconstruction of a portion of an existing shopping center. The project also involves the construction of four new satellite commercial buildings. The project proposes to add a total of 52,124square feet net to the shopping center. The project is consistent with the zoning on the property. The project is also consistent with the 2005 General Plan and its policies, since the General Plan land use designation for the project area is Commercial /Residential. z' c6 U I c I � C c 0 ( O �' = i c co c4 ISSUES: c a C CL [and Supporting Information Sources] c E !— M o N c LM � ; CU O 0 c E! Z 0 E. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a El I ❑ , ❑ Q scenic vista? [5.9.24.41,44] f b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ i j ❑ ! FR including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [ 5,9,11,24,34.41.44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ - I ❑ I ❑ IXI character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1.17.19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or j ❑ i ❑ p ❑ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ 1.16,44] Items a through c — No Impact There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the project will have no adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources. The project involves reconstruction of an existing shopping center; therefore, the project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Item d — Less than Significant Impact Four new buildings are being proposed. These will all have interior lighting. However, there are requirements in the General Commercial Ordinance, Chapter 19.56.070(F) has specific regulations that will prevent any significant adverse impacts. ti. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 23 -10 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] i , ❑ r I the applicable air quality plan? [5.37. I b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ a o. == I contribute substantially to an existing or o cc +. 4 • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ; ❑ . ❑ ❑ j 0 CO o CL 0. ZE CDEEi M— c y�a'? I NcE a cn m -u in o; a�_ � i I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ El pollutan conc [4.37.44] _ substantial number of people? ('I,37 44] a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique i ❑ ❑ ❑ f O Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide I Importance (Farmland), as shown on the , maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5 b) Conflict with existing_zoning _ fo_r________— ❑_— _____ ❑___ ❑__ �___._� agricultural use, or a Williamson Act I contract? [5.7,23] I c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 1XI environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? [5.7 Items a through c -- No Impact The project site is currently developed with three commercial buildings; therefore, the project will not impact agricultural land or resou 111. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ , ❑ 0 the applicable air quality plan? [5.37. I b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ I ❑ O contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5.37 ,42,44] 1 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ; ❑ . ❑ ❑ j 0 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an i applicable federal or state ambient air quality j I standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for i ozo precursors) [ I � i I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ El pollutan conc [4.37.44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ ! O substantial number of people? ('I,37 44] 23 -11 Items a through e — No Impact The proposed buildings are not anticipated to conflict with any applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standards, or create objectionable odors within the surrounding area. Standard mitigation measures will be applied to the project as conditions of approval to mitigate odors and dust resulting from construction - related activities. As an added condition of approval of the development, any proposed restaurants shall be required to install filtration equipment such as activated charcoal filters etc. to minimize odors and other pollutants. _ IV.- BIOLOGICALRESOURCES -- Would the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ! ❑ ❑ ❑ [91 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, i sensitive, or special status species in local or i regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I [5.1 0.27.44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5, 10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ El federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20.36 d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ; ❑ j L7 of any native resident or migratory fish or I i wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or j impede the use of native wildlife nursery site [5. 12.21.26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ D D ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [ 1 i ,12.41 ] 23 -12 a CU U ISSUES: I +-, .- L)I C O CO 0 0 M CO s U CL [and Supporting Information Sources] °' o I z E CL a in Cn — i Items a through e — No Impact The proposed buildings are not anticipated to conflict with any applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standards, or create objectionable odors within the surrounding area. Standard mitigation measures will be applied to the project as conditions of approval to mitigate odors and dust resulting from construction - related activities. As an added condition of approval of the development, any proposed restaurants shall be required to install filtration equipment such as activated charcoal filters etc. to minimize odors and other pollutants. _ IV.- BIOLOGICALRESOURCES -- Would the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ! ❑ ❑ ❑ [91 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, i sensitive, or special status species in local or i regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I [5.1 0.27.44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5, 10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ El federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20.36 d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ; ❑ j L7 of any native resident or migratory fish or I i wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or j impede the use of native wildlife nursery site [5. 12.21.26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ D D ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [ 1 i ,12.41 ] 23 -12 Items a through d and f - No Impact The project site is already developed as a shopping center. There is no change of use and therefore, no biological impacts. - -- Item - e = L - ess tflan Significa�t�lmpact - - -- -- —�- - — 120 trees are being proposed for removal with this project. Adequate replacements are being proposed for the removed trees in compliance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. An arborist report has been prepared for the project site. The arborist has identified 12 trees for relocation on the project site. A condition of approval for the retention and relocation of these 12 trees will be added to the oroiect. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the I I >1 c c c ISSUES: CU ca CO 0 +r N a� 0 c6 M + r +• H a. 0 M [and Supporting Information Sources) I (; r- FI N = NEE E ❑ CL the significance of a historical resource as CO defined in §15064.5? [ 5. 13. 41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ j ❑ O Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural I ❑ ❑ i ❑ 0 Community Conservation Plan, or other c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ O paleontological resource or site or unique approved local, regional, or state habitat geologic feature? [5,13 ] , conservation plan? [5.10,26.27] I I those interred outside of formal cemeteries? I Items a through d and f - No Impact The project site is already developed as a shopping center. There is no change of use and therefore, no biological impacts. - -- Item - e = L - ess tflan Significa�t�lmpact - - -- -- —�- - — 120 trees are being proposed for removal with this project. Adequate replacements are being proposed for the removed trees in compliance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. An arborist report has been prepared for the project site. The arborist has identified 12 trees for relocation on the project site. A condition of approval for the retention and relocation of these 12 trees will be added to the oroiect. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the I project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [ 5. 13. 41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ j ❑ O the significance of an archaeological 1 res pu t o §15064.5? [5 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ O paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13 ] , d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ i ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1.5] I ! I Items a through d - No Impact The project site is not within a sensitive archaeological area of the city and has no historical, archaeological, paleontological (Dr geologic resources. Therefore, the development application will not have any adve effects on cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 23 -13 I j I 2 j °� = U� , ISSUES: c = [and Supporting Information Sources] 0 c E �U = t- M o � .E � °' °- F- %,_ N 'c � I o z E CL E o CL Cl) -J in .r i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ I ❑ ❑ 0 delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo ! Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2.14.44] ii) Stron seis mic ground s hakin g? ❑ ❑ 0 [2.5, 10.44] -- - - - - - I iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including ' ❑ I ❑ ❑ f D liquef [ 2;5,10:39.44] f iv) Landslides? [2.5.10.39.44] ❑ ❑ I ❑ ! Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ I ❑ { loss of topsoil? [2.5,10 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ i D unstable, or that would become unstable as I I j a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2.5 { 1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ O in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems i where sewers are not available for the I disposal of waste water? [6.9.36,39] items a tnrougn e - No Impact According to the Geologic and Seismic Hazard Map of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site is located in a VF, Valley Floor, zone. The VF zone includes all relatively level valley floor terrain with relatively low levels of geologic hazard risk. The General Plan also includes policies that would reduce potential impacts from seismic risk to acceptable levels. The project shall be conditioned to comply with all structural requirements during construction of the development project. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ; ❑ I ❑ _7X the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 23 -14 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32.40,42,43.44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, sub -waste .w[thin one_ uarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? [2.29.30.40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a j list of hazardous materials sites compiled i pursuant to Government Code Section , 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42.40.43] ❑ ❑ ❑ I o c c 0 1 CO c c ISSUES: 0 CO o .cv CO o c and Supporting Information Sources .E L PP 9 In •E �I _ Z °' E o.a' o! �E' 1 CL cn - � 05 O —� U5 ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32.40,42,43.44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, sub -waste .w[thin one_ uarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? [2.29.30.40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a j list of hazardous materials sites compiled i pursuant to Government Code Section , 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42.40.43] ❑ ❑ ❑ I o e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ; ❑ ❑ 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ FX_1 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ i ❑ ❑ 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation j plan? [2,3 h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ j ❑ 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death i involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i where residences are intermixed with I wildlands ?[ Items a through h — No Impact The development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, j increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The project site is not within a tWo -mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield /Saf�3 - 15 Jose Airport) and is not listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. ❑ ❑ ❑ ! I] 1 ❑ I ❑ . i ❑ IXI e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ; ❑ ❑ 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ FX_1 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ i ❑ ❑ 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation j plan? [2,3 h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ j ❑ 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death i involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i where residences are intermixed with I wildlands ?[ Items a through h — No Impact The development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, j increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The project site is not within a tWo -mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield /Saf�3 - 15 Jose Airport) and is not listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. ( VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ I 0 waste discharge requirements? [20.36.37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ I ❑ i ❑ i 0 supplies or interfere substantially with I groun rech such that there_ would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a - - --- - -- - lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of p re-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20.36.42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ CJ ❑ i ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ Q quality? [20.36,37] 1 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ' ❑ ❑ a hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ Q structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2.38] I i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, j including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2.36.38] I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ i rX mudflow? [2.36.38] Items a through i — No Impact The proposed development will not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements, create excessive runoff, substantially deplete ground water supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a 100 -year floor zone, or expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or tsunamis. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. 23- The project is going to incorporate adequate stormwater management techniques that v,till m inimize runoff. All waste water will be directed to the sewer system I it r O O ISSUES: cc �� m t `° t o� i — ; M `- �Mv! I-- - ca I v O a [and Supporting Information Sources] c E N c �� a' a U) c z °- CL (n tJ) v J fA ( VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ I 0 waste discharge requirements? [20.36.37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ I ❑ i ❑ i 0 supplies or interfere substantially with I groun rech such that there_ would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a - - --- - -- - lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of p re-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20.36.42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ CJ ❑ i ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ Q quality? [20.36,37] 1 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ' ❑ ❑ a hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ Q structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2.38] I i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, j including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2.36.38] I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ i rX mudflow? [2.36.38] Items a through i — No Impact The proposed development will not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements, create excessive runoff, substantially deplete ground water supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a 100 -year floor zone, or expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or tsunamis. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. 23- The project is going to incorporate adequate stormwater management techniques that v,till m inimize runoff. All waste water will be directed to the sewer system I Items a - c — No Impact The rezoning application will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or naiural community conservation plan. The site is currently developed as a shopping center and is surrounded by both residential and other commercial buildings. The project is seeking to transfer 97,181 square feet of commercial development allocation from the Heart of the City area, leaving thE! Heart of the City area with a remaining commercial allocation balance of 43,803 square feet. General Plan Policy 2 -20(4) allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographical area. According to the General Plan, redistribution of development allocation may occur between planning areas provide that there are no significant environm impacts. � I X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the j project: I , I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ i Fx� mineral resource that would be of value to i the region and the residents of the state? [5.10 b) Result in the loss of I i availability of a ❑ 11 0 locally- important mineral resource recovery i site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items a and b There are no known mineral resources on the project site. XI. NOISE -- W ould the project result in: 23 -17 0 C ISSUES: V (� I c ;�, ca .0 V ! E- . �' 0 q o L ` U U , cu U cc z CL [and Supporting Information Sources] a; y Q- N a , �v> —c' IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ i ❑ ❑ 0 community? [7,12.22.41) � ! I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ O j policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdicti ove the proj (includi but not limited ' to the general plan, specific plan, -± j local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7.8,16.17.18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ O conservation plan or natural community conservation pla [1,5,6,9.26] j Items a - c — No Impact The rezoning application will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or naiural community conservation plan. The site is currently developed as a shopping center and is surrounded by both residential and other commercial buildings. The project is seeking to transfer 97,181 square feet of commercial development allocation from the Heart of the City area, leaving thE! Heart of the City area with a remaining commercial allocation balance of 43,803 square feet. General Plan Policy 2 -20(4) allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographical area. According to the General Plan, redistribution of development allocation may occur between planning areas provide that there are no significant environm impacts. � I X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the j project: I , I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ i Fx� mineral resource that would be of value to i the region and the residents of the state? [5.10 b) Result in the loss of I i availability of a ❑ 11 0 locally- important mineral resource recovery i site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items a and b There are no known mineral resources on the project site. XI. NOISE -- W ould the project result in: 23 -17 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] j c I � � r° ! c a ca M ' I . c4 O ca ca +• +. I 01 ca 0 M c Ln c Q 1 rn Q- Z Q. i o Q =off � E 'un a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencie [8. 18,44] LE b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or gro noise levels? [8. 18 El c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8.18.44] e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8, 18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to , excessive noise levels? [8.18] I ❑ L i a 0 0 F ❑ o ❑ i I Items a through c and e through f — No Impact The proposed expansion of the existing shopping center will not expose people to noise in excess of noise standards or ambient noise levels, and excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Additionally, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or private airstrip. Item d — Less than Significant Impact The proposed development will create some intermittent increase in ambient noise levels during the construction activity on the site. However, these will be regulated by the City's Noise Control Ordinance. XII. POPULATION AND DOUSING -- Would the project: i i i a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or 23- indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or o ther infrastructure)? Items a through c — No Impact -- - -- - T-he- project- site -is cur -r-ently- developed- as- a- shcpping- center:— T- herefore, the- proposed -- development will not displace existing housing and will not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. Additionally, the scope of the project will not induce a substantial growth in population directly or indirectly. Xlil. PUBLIC SERVICES i a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain .......... t .. I vv, vv r✓viwv Lit i1� v1 other performance objectives for any of the i public services: cl � Fire protectio [19.32.44] +-1 f ( ❑ r p I ++ ISSUES: *�M' .E �� 'c as H�M oC cL 'c [and Supporting Information Sources] acs'., N a' �- z Pa rks? [5,17,19 I o ❑ I i ❑ — O p fac i l ities? [19.20,44] i ❑ ❑ 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing i ❑ f ❑ ❑ i 0 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16.44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ I 0 necessitating the construction of replacem housing elsewhere? [3 Items a through c — No Impact -- - -- - T-he- project- site -is cur -r-ently- developed- as- a- shcpping- center:— T- herefore, the- proposed -- development will not displace existing housing and will not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. Additionally, the scope of the project will not induce a substantial growth in population directly or indirectly. Xlil. PUBLIC SERVICES i a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain .......... t .. I vv, vv r✓viwv Lit i1� v1 other performance objectives for any of the i public services: Fire protectio [19.32.44] ❑ ( ❑ I ❑ 0 . Police protection? [33,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? [ 29,30,44] ❑ ❑ I ! ❑ I 0 Pa rks? [5,17,19 ❑ ❑ I i ❑ 1 O O p fac i l ities? [19.20,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Items a — No Impact The project site is currently developed with a shopping center within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, police and public facilities. Therefore, the development application will not create additional impacts onto existing public services. XI RECREATIO -- I a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17.19.21.26.27.44] 23 -19 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] � I b) Does the project include recreational ❑ i ❑ ❑ I p facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ! ! might have an adverse physical effect on the - { en [ 5,44] Items a and b - No Impact The proposed project is the expansion of an existing shopping center. This use does not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other - - -- recreational- facilities.. -T -he- proposed project also -does -not include recreational facilities or - - - - require the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- C i Would t he projec i Z , o o c l I El ❑ Ca MU 0 F- Ca OQ c C E N C Q 1 C Z CD 0 U E E capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at •- Cl) intersections)? [4.20.35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, El El � I b) Does the project include recreational ❑ i ❑ ❑ I p facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ! ! might have an adverse physical effect on the - { en [ 5,44] Items a and b - No Impact The proposed project is the expansion of an existing shopping center. This use does not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other - - -- recreational- facilities.. -T -he- proposed project also -does -not include recreational facilities or - - - - require the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would t he projec i a) Cause an increase in traffic which is j ❑ ' ❑ I El ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic 1 - load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to I capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4.20.35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, El El (� ❑ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20.44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ I ❑ I ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or ( I a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4, ?] I ! d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ i ❑ 0 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible I uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20.35,44] I i I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ El [2,19,32.33.44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ [17.44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or El ❑ ! ❑ I ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)' [4.34 Items c. d, e and Q - No impact The proposed project does not impact air traffic, does not substantially increase hazards 23 -20 due to a design feature and does not result in inadequate emergency access. The project will provide the requisite number of bicycle racks, as determined by the Parkin Ordinance, Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Coce, on the site. Items a, b and f – Less than Significant Impact A traffic analysis has been prepared for the proposed project. The traffic consultant, Fehr and Peers, has determined that the traffic impacts of the proposed development to the signalized and CMP intersections are less than significant. The traffic analysis has also determined that the impacts on the freeways are also less than significant. Th parking an alysis f or th propos proj a lso determines t hat the parking a re less than significant. Parking provided for the project does not meet the City's parking ordinance requirements. The ordinance requires 4 parking spaces per 1000 s.f. for general commercial uses. In addition, there may be uses that are located in a shopping center (i.e., food services and specialized schools) that require more restrictive parking standards. The proposed project provides 3.98 parking spaces per 1000 s.f. However, the parking ordinance, Chapter 19.100.040(F)(2), allows projects to conduct a Special parking study to determine the parking needs of the proposed project. A special analysis was prepared by Fehr and Peers. The study evaluated the parking standards set forth by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, and concluded that acceptable parking demand for these types of projects ranges from 3.5 – 3.9 spaces per 1000 s.f. This supports the proposed parking supply for the shopping center. In addition, Fehr and Peers surveyed two other retail centers as well as the existing project site to gauge actual parking demand for a comparative study. The survey concludes that the parking demand for these centers ranges from 1.83 spaces /1000 s.f., at the existing shopping center, to 3.98 spaces /1000 s.f., at one of the reference sites. Based on the parking study, the parking being provided by the proposed project is adequate. The proposed development has a large number of large format tenants that do not generate as much traffic as restaurants. A majority of the shopping center, close to 85 %, will be large format tenant spaces. Only about 15% of the total s.f. of the shopping center may be available for small format businesses and/or restaurants. Given these factors, the lower parking supply is determined to be a less, than significant impact. XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment i ❑ A ❑ i ❑ i x requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Cont Board? [ i b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36.222836] 9 3 21 C I ; ISSUES: � .� H ,? :5 R ` F .� M I o Co C Q.' [and Supporting Information Sources] o E� N OT Q. �, o N rn E Z E i a uk - J� c — - -JCn - - -- — Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Coce, on the site. Items a, b and f – Less than Significant Impact A traffic analysis has been prepared for the proposed project. The traffic consultant, Fehr and Peers, has determined that the traffic impacts of the proposed development to the signalized and CMP intersections are less than significant. The traffic analysis has also determined that the impacts on the freeways are also less than significant. Th parking an alysis f or th propos proj a lso determines t hat the parking a re less than significant. Parking provided for the project does not meet the City's parking ordinance requirements. The ordinance requires 4 parking spaces per 1000 s.f. for general commercial uses. In addition, there may be uses that are located in a shopping center (i.e., food services and specialized schools) that require more restrictive parking standards. The proposed project provides 3.98 parking spaces per 1000 s.f. However, the parking ordinance, Chapter 19.100.040(F)(2), allows projects to conduct a Special parking study to determine the parking needs of the proposed project. A special analysis was prepared by Fehr and Peers. The study evaluated the parking standards set forth by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, and concluded that acceptable parking demand for these types of projects ranges from 3.5 – 3.9 spaces per 1000 s.f. This supports the proposed parking supply for the shopping center. In addition, Fehr and Peers surveyed two other retail centers as well as the existing project site to gauge actual parking demand for a comparative study. The survey concludes that the parking demand for these centers ranges from 1.83 spaces /1000 s.f., at the existing shopping center, to 3.98 spaces /1000 s.f., at one of the reference sites. Based on the parking study, the parking being provided by the proposed project is adequate. The proposed development has a large number of large format tenants that do not generate as much traffic as restaurants. A majority of the shopping center, close to 85 %, will be large format tenant spaces. Only about 15% of the total s.f. of the shopping center may be available for small format businesses and/or restaurants. Given these factors, the lower parking supply is determined to be a less, than significant impact. XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment i ❑ A ❑ i ❑ i x requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Cont Board? [ i b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36.222836] 9 3 21 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] I U CL in c) Require or result in the construction of ❑ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5.22.28.36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serv t he project that it ha a _ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5122,28.36.44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local P ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? i Ri = O R$ o C i E.. a p t M .0 CU U F' v cv o U ca CLi N Q- i z Q y� c ol N -J E ❑ i ❑ i 0 ❑ ❑ Q i ❑ ❑ 0 items a through g — No Impact The proposed development application will not exceed waste water treatment requirements or require construction of new or expanded water/ waste water/ treatment facilities, or be served by a landfill. There may be construction of some stormwater facilities on site; however, they will not cause environmental impacts. The project site is currently developed with an existing shopping center that is served by sanitary sewer service. 23-22 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be compl by City Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ H degrade th qu ality of the environment, -- -- substantially reduce the habitat offish or — wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - b) -Does- the - project have e- impacts -that- are --- - -C7 - -- ❑---- - -❑ -- C�— -- - individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ El effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PREPARERS AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided it this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete d sclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project reviEM procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature — Print Preparer's Name P I U � H 06H 23-23 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leastoneirnpact that is a "Potentially Signi�icaritlmpact" as indicated by the checklist the -- following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ I Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation I ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRO IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the prop d project, nothing further is required. ERC Chairperson 11 v Dat Date 23-24 Attachment B CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE March 3, 2010 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on March 3, 2010. PROTECT DESCRIPTI AND LOCATIO Application No.: U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08 (EA- 2009 -11), TR- 2010 -08 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (FBJ Homestead Associates, LLC) Location: 20580, 20620 and 20680 Homestead Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use permit and Architectural and Site approval to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of commercial space and to construct approximately 147,790 square feet of new coininercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces at an existing shopping center FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee :-econunends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant envirorunental impacts. s / Aarti Shrivasta Aarti Shrivastava Director of Cominunity Development g/crc/REC EA- 2009 -11 23-25 ATTACHMENT C U- 2009 -08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6594 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF 95,666 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 147,790 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE ARRANGED AS FOUR NEW COMMERCIAL SATELLITE BUILDINGS AND THREE NEW MAJOR TENANT SPACES IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER FOR A TOTAL OF 203,792 SQUARE FEET, ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ANDA 24 -HOUR DRIVE- THROUGH PHARMACY SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Corrunission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Conumission has held one or more public hearnngs on tlus smatter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plain and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U- 2009 -08 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Conumission Meeting of April 13, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U- 2009 -08 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (PW Market) Location: 20580, 20620 and 20680 Homestead Rd 23-26 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on the plan sets submitted by Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners Inc, titled "Homestead Square, PW Market /Homestead Retail" consisting of 27 pages labeled "Title, Al -A21, C1.0 -C3.0, L1 and L2" as submitted by the applicant, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 147,790 square feet of neNv commercial space arranged as four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center for a total of 203,792 square feet, with associated site improvements as shown in the approved exhibits. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 9.3,849 square feet of retail commercial allocation from the Heart of the City Specific Plan area allocation. 4. LOT MERGER The applicant shall merge the tluee lots identified in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Tax Assessment Rolls as APN: 326 -10 -051, 326 -10 -060 and 326 -10 -063 into one legal lot. 5. DRIVE - THROUGH USES Approval is granted for a 24 -hour operation of the pharmacy at Pad Building #1 identified and the associated drive - through. Applicant will work with staff to improve the functionality of the second drive - through lane proposed at Pad Building #2. Hours for the drive- through shall be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 6. PHASING PLAN The following improvements will be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Conn nunity Development and the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy of the Phase 1 buildings (Rite Aid and the three pad buildings along Homestead Road): a. Separated sidewalk b. Street landscape improvements c. Pedestrian improvements in right- of -Nvay recommended by the Fehr and Peers, Inc. Traffic Report, dated April 1, 2010. d. Parking lot improvements in area associated with Phase 1 construction as identified on sheet A20 of the approved plan set. 7. ENTRY FEATURES ON EXISTING SHOP CENTER The applicant shall work with staff and the City's Consulting architect to design entry features that integrate better visually and architecturally with the existing buildings. 8. DETACHED SIDEWALKS Detached sidewalks shall be provided along Homestead Road and along Franco Court up to the northern most driveway on Franco Court, the location of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 23-27 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 3 9. LOCATION OF STORMWATER EQUIPMENT Prior to issuance of building permits, the final design and location of the stormwater management equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. Proper easements and agreements from adjacent property owners shall be provided by the applicant if necessary. 10. PARKING The applicant shall provide a minimum of 793 parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. Future tenants in the shopping center must obtain a business license and an administrative parking analysis is required to ascertain that parking is sufficient on the site. 11. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking /bike racks for the proposed con building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Final location of the bicycle parking /bike racks shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Cominunity Development. 12. LIGHTING PLAN The final lighting plan shall be consistent with the requirements of the General Coirunercial (CG) Ordinance and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Conununity Development prior to issuance of building permits. 13. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying the appropriate fee in the fee schedule applicable at the time of payment of fees for 52,124 square feet of new construction on the site. 14. INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall obtain a reciprocal ingress/egress agreement from the adjacent property owner /s to the north -east of the property. The agreement shall be approved by the City and recorded on the property as a covenant prior to issuance of building pern 15. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art, in locations approved by the Fine Arts Commission, prior to final occupancy. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one - quarter percent (1/4 %) of the total project budget less $25,000 payable toward the Gateway Fund, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission prior to installation of the public art. 16. GATEWAY FUND The applicant shall pay $25,000 toward the installation of a gateway feature / sign in the project vicinity. This amount shall be considered part of the Public Art requirement. The amount shall be paid to the Public Works Deparhnent. 23-28 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 4 17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building perinits. The construction management plan shall include the following: a. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 75 feet of any residential property. b. Adjacent homeowner associations and /or property managers shall be notified by the applicant or his designee at least one week prior to each major construction stage. c. Contact information for construction related concerns shall be displayed prominently and a hotline shall be established by the applicant/ developer to facilitate/ remedy concerns or complaints. d. A copy of the construction management plan shall be provided to adjacent commercial property owners prior to the commencement of construction. 18. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Deg elopment prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: 1. Increase the width of the planter betN all parking areas and the side property line to five feet in compliance with Section 19.10D.040(N)(5) of the Parking Ordinance. 2. Trees planted along Homestead Road shall be London Plane Trees, to match those already planted to the south and the east of the property. 3. Plant a double row of London Plane trees along parking lot frontages on Homestead Road. 4. Increase landscape screening in planters to the south of the Rite Aid loading dock and replace the proposed Canary Island Pine; with species that provide better screening, are drought tolerant and reduce damage to paving. 5. All shrubs shall be a minimum planted size of 5 gallons. 6. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, California DWR's Model Water Efficiency in Landscaping Orcinance and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 7. The revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 19. TREE PROTECTION As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retainned. This plan shall include all applicable recommendations made by the City's Consulting Arborist report dated January 8, 2010. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: • For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to ar.y project site work. • No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. 23-29 Resolution No, 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page • No tzenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the Cites consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. • Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four -inch depth. • Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. • Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. • A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. Should any tree die due to construction activity or neglect, appropriate replacements shall be planted subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 20. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide detail drawings of the plaza areas depicted on the site plan. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Conunnunnity Development prior to issuance of building permits. 21. SIGNAGE & SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this Use Pern application. The applicant shall be required to submit an application for a sign program and signage prior to installation of any signage on site. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. 22. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The final building colors and materials, including all awnings, trim materials, tiles, stone veneer etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permit. 23. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so that they are not visible from public sheet areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/ colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. Any mechanical equipment screening must have noise attenuation and be designed by a certified professional noise consultant to minimize noise impacts onto adjacent residential residents. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 24. 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 of the associated restaurant(s). Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 23-30 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 6 25. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 26. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished buildingand site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition. permits. 27. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 28. 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 Goveriunent 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 Goveriunent Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complyung with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 29. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 30. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 31. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 32. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 33. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 23 -31 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 7 34. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 35. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre - and post - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 36. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 37. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the , City Engineer. 38. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and 'inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees b. Grading Pernnit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6% of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $3,982.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 minimum $2,000.00 TBD ** TBD TBD By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG &E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvement C. On -site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. Ho-,A , ever, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 23 -32 Resolution No. 6594 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Pace 8 39. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 40. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 41. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation cf a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 42. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMPs, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plar., Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are required. 43. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 44. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 45. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 46. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. 23-33 Resolution No. 694 U- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 9 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development G:''Pla)rnrirnglPDREPORT RES120091 U- 2009 -08 res.doc APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 23 -34 ATTACHMENT D ASA- 2009 -08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO, 6595 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSICN OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF 95,666 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 147,790 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE ARRANGED AS FOUR NEW COMMERCIAL SATELLITE BUILDINGS AND THREE NEW MAJOR TENANT SPACES IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER FOR A TOTAL OF 203,792 SQUARE FEET, ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ANDA 24 -HOUR DRIVE - THROUGH PHARMACY SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II o:_ this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Conn nission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: A. The proposal, at the proposed locatio:.1, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; B. The proposal is consistent with the pur -Doses of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; C. The proposal will use materials and design elements such as horizontal siding, composition roof and simplified building forms that complement the existing and neighboring structures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in tlus Resolution begiruung on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application 23-35 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 2 No. ASA- 2009 -08 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA- 2009 -08 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (PW Market) Location: 20580, 20620 and 20680 Homestead Rd SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on the plan sets submitted by Keluzeth Rodrigues and Partners Inc, titled "Homestead Square, PW Market / Homestead Retail" consisting of 27 pages labeled "Title, Al -A21, C1.0 -0.0, L1 and L2" as submitted by the applicant, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. LOT MERGER The applicant shall merge the three lots identified in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Tax Assessment Rolls as APN: 326 -10 -051, 326 -10 -060 and 326 -10 -063 into one legal lot. 3. PHASING PLAN The following improvements will be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy of the Phase 1 buildings (Rite Aid and the three pad buildings along Homestead Road): a. Separated sidewalk b. Street landscape improvements c. Pedestrian improvements in right -of -way recommended by the Fehr and Peers Inc Traffic Report dated April 1, 2010. d. Parking lot improvements in area associated with Phase 1 construction as identified on sheet A20 of the approved plan set. 4. ENTRY FEATURES ON EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER The applicant shall work with staff and the City's Consulting architect to design entry features that integrate better visually and architecturally with the existing buildings. 5. DETACHED SIDEWALKS Detached sidewalks shall be provided along Homestead Road and along Franco Court up to the northern most driveway on Franco Court, the location of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 23-36 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 3 6. LOCATION OF STORMWATER EQUI Prior to issuance of building permits, the final design and location of the stormwater management equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. Proper easements and agreements from adjacent property owners shall be provided by the applicant if necessary. 7. PARKING The applicant shall provide a minimum of 793 parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. Future tenants in the shopping center must obtain a business license and an administrative parking analysis is required to ascertain that parking is sufficient on the site. 8. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking /bike racks for the proposed commercial building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Final location of the bicycle parking /bike racks shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 9. LIGHTING PLAN The final lighting plan shall be consistent with the requirements of the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 10. INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall obtain a reciprocal ingress/ egress agreement from the adjacent property owner /s to the north -east o_E the property. The agreement shall be approved by the City and recorded on t:[ property as a covenant prior to issuance of building permits. 11. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art, in locations approved by the Fine Arts Commission, prior to final occupancy. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one - quarter percent (1/4 %) of the tota:! project budget less $25,000 payable toward the Gateway Fund, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Ccmmission prior to installation of the public art. 12. GATEWAY FUND The applicant shall pay $25,000 toward the installation of a gateway feature/ sign in the project vicinity. This amount shall be considered part of the Public Art requirement. The amount shall be paid to the Public Works Department. 13. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. The construction management plan 23-37 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 4 shall include the following: a. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 75 feet of any residential property. b. Adjacent homeowner associations and /or property managers shall be notified by the applicant or his designee at least one week prior to each major construction stage. c. Contact information for construction related concerns shall be displayed prominently and a hotline shall be established by the applicant/ developer to facilitate/ remedy concerns or complaints. d. A copy of the construction management plan shall be provided to adjacent commercial property owners prior to the coirunencement of construction. 14. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed .and approved by the Director of Con Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: a. Increase the width of the planter between all parking areas and the side property line to five feet in compliance with Section 19.100.040(N)(5) of the Parking Ordinance. b. Trees planted along Homestead Road shall be London Plane Trees, to match those already planted to the south and the east of the property. c. Plant a double row of London Plane trees along parking lot frontages on Homestead Road. d. Increase landscape screening in planters to the south of the Rite Aid loading dock and replace the proposed Canary Island Pines with species that provide better screening, are drought tolerant and reduce damage to paving. e. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, California DWR's Model Water Efficiency in Landscaping Ordinance and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. f. The revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 15. TREE PROTECTION As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. This plan shall include all applicable recommendations made by the City's Consulting Arborist report dated January 8, 2010. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: • For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. 23-38 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 5 • No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. • No trenchng within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. • Wood chip mulch shall be evenly s,:)read inside the tree projection fence to a four -inch depth. • Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. • Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. • A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. Should any tree die due to construction activity or neglect, appropriate replacements shall be planted subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 16. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide detail drawings of the plaza areas depicted on the site plan. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Corrununity Development prior to issuance of building permits. 17. SIGNAGE & SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this use permit application. The applicant shall be required to submit an application fo:- a sign program and signage prior to installation of any signage on site. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. 18. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The final building colors and materials, including all awiungs, trim materials, tiles, stone veneer etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of budding permit. 19. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on - =he building or on the site shall be screened so that they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/ colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. Any mechanical equipment screening m -ist have noise attenuation and be designed by a certified professional noise consultant to minimize noise impacts onto adjacent residential residents. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be 23-39 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 6 reviewed and approved by the Director of Cominuruty Development prior to issuance of building permits. 20. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 21. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The P1aru Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 22. 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 Goveriunent 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 BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 23. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 24. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 25. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 26. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 27. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 23-40 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 7 28. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and /or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 29. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 30. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 31. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 32. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fee., including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 6 % of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $3,982.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 minimum $2,000. C O TBD ** TBD TBD By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG &E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvement C. On -site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. 23-41 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 8 -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 33. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 34. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 35. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 36. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. 37. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 38. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 39. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 23-42 Resolution No. 6595 ASA- 2009 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 9 40. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the P1arming Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Karieda ATTEST: / s / Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development APPROVED: / s / Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission G :IPlanningTDREPORTIRES12009USA- 2009 -08 res. doe 23-43 ATTACHMENT E TR- 2010 -08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6596 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UP TO 124 TREES AT 20580, 20620 AND 20680 HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR- 2010 -08 Applicant: Ken Rodrigues (PW Market) Location: 20580, 20620 and 20680 Homestead Rd SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to approve the removal of 124 trees that are by an approved development plan considered protected trees subject to Chapter 14.18, the Protected Tree Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on tl matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Cominission finds: 1. That the aforementioned trees are in conflict with the development proposal; 2. That the application for Tree Removal, file no. TR- 2010 -08, is hereby approved; and 3. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR- 2010 -08, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The approval is based on the plan sets submitted by Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners Inc, titled "Homestead Square, PW Market/ Homestead Retail" consisting of 27 pages labeled "Title, Al -A21, C1.0 -C3.0, Ll and L2" as submitted by the applicant, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 124 trees marked for removal in the Tree Inventory List provided by the applicant are approved for removal. All trees are identified by metal tags with a number on them. 23 -44 Resolution No. TR- 2010 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 2 2. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT The removed trees are to be replaced with 134 24" box trees, species of which shall be reviewed and approved, prior to final occupancy on the subject property by the Director of Community Development. 3. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Plannning Cornrnission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda /WT48M��I s Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission G:\ Planning PDREPORT � RES � 2010 \ TR- 2010 -05 res.doc 23-45 ATTACHMENT F � r9 - OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - planning�cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: April 13, 2010 Application: U 2009 - 08, ASA 2009 - 08, TR 2010 - 08, EA 2009 - 11 Applicant /Owner: Ken Rodrigues /FBJ Homestead Associates, LLC Property Location: 20580, 20620 and 20680 Homestead Rd APPLICATION SUMMARY Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 147,790 square feet of new commercial space arranged as four new commercial satellite buildings and three new major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center for a total of 203,792 square feet. The application also requests for approval of a 24 -hour drive - through pharmacy and a second drive- through at one of the satellite buildings to operate from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM. Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of up to 124 trees as part of the proposed development application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following to the City Council: 1. Neg Dec, EA- 2009 -11 (Attachment 1 - Initial Study & Attachment 2 - Neg Dec) 2. Use Permit, U- 2009 -08 per the model resolution (Attachment 3). 3. Architectural & Site Approval, ASA- 2009 -08 per the model resolution (Attachment 4) 4. Tree Removal Permit, TR- 2010 -02 per the model resolution (Attachment 5) Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Commercial/ Residential Planned General Commercial and General Commercial -rg [P(CG) /CG -rg] Specific Plan: N/A Acreage (Net): 15.029 acres (654,663 square feet) 23-46 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Paae 2 Building SF: Existing Proposed Building Height: Floor Area Ratio: Parking: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: 153,000 square feet 203,792 square feet 35 feet maximum 31.3% 3.98 spaces /1000 square feet Yes Yes Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND The project site is located at 20580, 20630 & 20680 Homestead Road on the south west corner of Homestead Road and N. De Anza. Boulevard. The site consists of an existing commercial shopping center located over three parcels that are adjacent to another small commercial strip center at the corner of Homestead and De Anza Blvd. and a Good Year Tire store to the east. The project is surrounded by a variety of uses including a hotel, a mini - storage facility, condos /townhomes, apartments and a new park under construction. Please see Figure 1 for details. •47 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 DISCUSSION Project Description Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Paze 3 The proposed project encompasses three parcels (see Attachment 9 - Plan Set). The parcel on the northwest of the project site is a drive - through fast food restaurant, Carl's Jr. The parcel in the middle has a pad building with TOGO's, Great Clips and a Laundromat. The larger shopping center spans across two parcels and is occupied by Kinko's, Michaels, T.J. Maxx, P.W. Market and Rite Aid. The site is accessed by two existing driveways from Homestead Road and one driveway each from Franco Court and N. De Anza Boulevard. The applicant proposes to demolish the Carl's Jr. building. The project proposes the construction of four pad buildings along Homestead Road. The largest pad (Pad Building #1) to the east of the site is a 17,340 square foot building which will have a 24 -hour Rite Aid pharmacy with a drive - through service. The other three pads are smaller retail /restaurant buildings at 5,460 square feet 6,250 square feet and 6,900 square feet each. The applicant also requests extended operating hours for another drive - through use in Pad Building #2, the building closest to the Rite Aid building. The applicant also proposes to demolish approximately 91,736 square feet of the existing shopping center at the rear including PW Market, Rite Aid and an empty tenant space and, construct 110508 square feet of new commercial space in their place. The applicant 23-48 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Pa5ze 4 indicates that the spaces will include one 48,028 square foot section for PW Market and two 31,240 square foot tenant spaces. Minor facade improvements are proposed for the remaining rear tenant spaces. Proposed site improvements associated with the project include a new parking lot with 793 spaces, landscaping improvements, including the removal and replacement of 124 parking lot trees, and new trash enclosures. The terminus of each driveway from Homestead Road will have a small plaza area with water features, enhanced paving, enhanced landscaping and seating areas along the rear buildings. The project will also provide two public art features along Homestead Road to meet its Public Art obligations. The applicant is also proposing merging thE> three parcels encompassing the project site into one. Architectural Design New Construction The architectural elements materials on the new buildings have a Mediterranean /Mission architectural theme. The architectural design of the building incorporates the use of different textures to provide visual interest. Materials include Spanish clay -type roof tile, plaster and stone veneer. Other details include Spanish style tower features, gabled entry features and arched arcades to provide visual articulation. The new construction portion of the shopping center will match the height of the existing shopping center entry features and parapet wall heights. The pad buildings along Homestead Road have a more modern flair to the Mission style architecture proposed in the shopping center at the rear of the project. The buildings on the front, including the Rite Aid building, atl incorporate the use of plaster and Spanish style tile. The addition of the four pad buildings along Homestead Road will also activate the street edge by putting smaller retail uses along the street. To provide visual interest and articulation along Homestead Road, these buildings include storefront windows, entry awnings and dining patios. The Rite Aid building is set back from the street behind a parking area. However, enhanced paving and landscaping in front of the building provides additional visual interest. The drive - through pharmacy for Rite Aid is located on the eastern side of the building to minimize visual impacts. The building also has a loading dock that faces the retail buildings to the rear. The applicant proposes to .screen the dock with landscaping which will be discussed later in this report. The drive- through use being proposed for pad #2, the building closest to the Rite Aid building, is located behind the building. Existing Shopping Center Exterior improvements proposed on the existing shopping center building includes minor upgrades including new exterior paint, a new arcade between the existing entry 23-49 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 _ Paae 5 areas to add continuity between the new portion of the shopping center and the existing portion of the shopping center and new entry features at each of the existing tenant spaces. As seen in Figure 5, the new entry elements appear detached from the buildings and do not integrate visually or physically with the existing roof design. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant work with staff and the City's consulting architect to design entry features that integrate better visually and physically with the existing buildings (Examples shown in Attachment 6). Another option for the Planning Comission's consideration is to remove the improvements to the older buildings until a major remodel or redevelopment is integration with the new portion. Figure 5: Proposed faux entry feature at each remaining tenant proposed and resources are available for a better 23 -50 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Page 6 General Plan Allocation The project will require a net commercial allocation of 95,849 square feet. Since there are no remaining commercial allocations left from the "other commercial areas" pot in the General Plan, staff recommends that the project commercial allocation be taken from the Heart of the City (HOC) Special Planning area which currently has 140,984 square feet available. The General Plan allows flexibility of development allocation between geographic areas. The remaining square footage in the HOC planning area after the transfer will be 90,192 square feet. Site Improvements Parking Lot Connectivity The proposed project proposes opening up driveways to the parcel at the corner of Homestead Road and N. De Anza Boulevard. Cross connections and shared driveways between commercial properties enhance pedestrian activity, minimize impact on adjacent roads and facilitate an efficient use of land /site design. All of these factors can help bolster businesses and shopping activities. Consequently, it has been a common practice of the City to require reciprocal accE'ss easements and /or physical improvements to facilitate parking and driveway connections between commercial y properties. In the late 1980s, the City required the property owner of the parcel at the corner of De Anza and Homestead to record a covenant agreeing to enter into a reciprocal access agreement as part of their development approval with the intent to complete a driveway connection between the two properties. A condition has been added to the Model Resolution to require a similar agreement of the applicant. 23 -51 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Paae 7 Parking The proposed project provides 793 parking spaces for the entire shopping center at 3.89 parking spaces per 1000 square feet Based on the City's Parking Ordinance, Chapter 19.100, the project has 23 spaces less than the 816 spaces required for "general retail" uses at 4 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The Ordinance provides for alternative parking consideration through a parking study prepared by a licensed traffic/ parking engineer. Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants was retained by the City to conduct a parking study for the project (see Attachment 7). The parking survey included the following methods to determine parking demand for the project: • Using the ITE Manual standards, the parking provided by the project (3.89 spaces per 1000 square feet) exceeds the 85% percentile parking demand for similar shopping centers (3.5 and 3.8 parking spaces per 1000 square feet). • A parking survey of the existing site concluded that peak parking demand was 2.13 spaces per 1000 square feet. The proposed project provides considerably more parking at 3.89 spaces per 1000 square feet. • A parking survey of two sites in addition to the existing site was also conducted. The parking survey concluded that average peak demand for a shopping center of this type is between 3.52 -3.85 spaces per 1000 square feet which is lower than that proposed by the project. It should be noted that one of the selected sites, the Grant Park Plaza Shopping Center, has two grocery stores, a Nob Hill and a Ranch 99, with more of a regional draw than a typical shopping center of this type and, therefore, has a parking peak demand of 3.98 spaces per 1000 square feet. Since 76% of the proposed project will have medium format tenant spaces with large inventory requirements, it will not generate traffic to the extent that Grant Park Plaza would. Additionally, there will be some ability for people to combine shopping trips from one store to the other. Based on the parking study and project characteristics, staff believes that the parking proposed by the project is adequate. However, if the Planning Commission would like the project to provide a higher parking ratio, the following two alternatives could be considered: • Require the applicant to enter into a shared parking agreement with the property owner of the Good Year Auto Service Store. This will result in the potential sharing of 15 parking spaces. • Require the applicant to reduce the project square footage to 199,246 square feet. This will allow a parking supply rate of 3.98 spaces /1000 square feet. Ligliting All new lighting will be required to conform to the standards in the General Commercial 23-52 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 HomestE�ad Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Page 8 (CG) Ordinance, and the final lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. 24 -hour Drive - through Pharmacy and 6:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m. drive - through on Pad 2 There are no negative impacts anticipated from the operation of the 24 -hour drive - through pharmacy. The closest residential areas are over 150 feet from the drive- through. The hours of delivery and loading / unloading are regulated by Cupertino Municipal Code, even though the drive - through area operates for extended hours. There are expected to be no noise or light impacts from the operation of this drive - through use. However, staff does not recommend approval of the drive - through proposed on the pad building #2, the building closest to the Rite Aid building, due to concerns about impacts on vehicular and pedestrian circulation. It should be noted that General Plan Policy 2 -91: New Drive -Up Services allows the approval of drive - throughs only when there is adequate circulation and the architectural features and landscaping is compatible with the visual character of the surrounding uses. Tree Removal & Landscaping Parking Lot Trees The project proposes removing all 124 parking lot trees (see Attachment 8). These will be required to be replaced with 134 new trees that are native species, drought tolerant and/or are suitable for planting adjacent to paving and sidewalks. Staff proposes the following conditions for parking lot trees and landscaping: • Increase the width of the planter between all parking areas and the side property line to five feet in compliance with Section 19.100.040(N)(5) of the Parking Ordinance. This is the minimum width required for trees to grow successfully in landscape strips. • Trees planted along Homestead Road slaall be London Plane Trees, to match those already planted to the south and the east of the property. • Plant a double row of London Plane trees along parking lot frontages on Homestead Road. • Increase landscape screening in planters to the south of the Rite Aid loading dock and replace the proposed Canary Island Pines with species that provide better screening, are drought tolerant and reduce damage to paving. Canary Island Pines do not provide screening at a lower level, are not drought tolerant and pose a hazard to pedestrians from dropping cones. • The revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 23-53 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homestead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Page 9 Phasing The applicant is proposing that the project be constructed in two phases. In the first phase, the pad buildings along Homestead Road and some parking lot improvements shall be made closer to the pad buildings. In the second phase, the larger shopping building and the rest of the parking lot improvements are expected to be completed. The construction of the second phase of the project is contingent upon funding. Staff recommends that some of the public improvements be constructed in the first phase of construction. These include the separated sidewalk along Homestead Road since the buildings in Phase 1 are along these streets and parking lot improvements recommended by the Traffic Consultant's report to improve pedestrian connectivity. Neighborhood Input On March 13, 2010, the applicant met with 11 residents at a neighborhood meeting arranged by the applicant to introduce the project to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The main concerns of the residents were about the potential noise impacts from construction activity. The applicant assured neighbors that courtesy notification of the major construction stages such as demolition, roofing and parking lot improvements will be provided. A condition of approval requires review and approval of a construction management plan prior to issuance of building permits as well as notification of adjacent homeowner associations and /or property managers at least one week prior to each major construction stage. In addition, contract information for construction related concerns shall be displayed prominently and a hotline shall be established by the applicant/ developer to facilitate /remedy concerns or complaints. Gateway Sign The General Plan identifies six gateway entries into Cupertino. Policy 2 -8, Strategy 3 also looks at reviewing new development next to community entry points for opportunities to reflect the gateway concept. The project site is adjacent to one of these entry points and a condition of approval has been added to require a contribution towards a gateway feature. Signage The applicant has provided conceptual designs for signage for illustrative purposes only. These conceptual signs are not a part of this application. A separate application for review and approval of a sign program and signage will be required for the project as a condition of approval. Environmental Assessment The Environmental Review Committee approved the negative declaration (Attachments 23-54 U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08 Homes7:ead Square (PW Market) April 13, 2010 Pa5ze 10 1 & 2) for this project since there are no significant environmental impacts from the re- development of this property. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: tyg!k� Gary ao City Planner ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Approved by: 4�Q Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Initial Study Negative Declaration Model Resolution for U- 2009 -08 Model Resolution for ASA- 2009 -08 Model Resolution for TR- 2010 -02 Consulting Architect's solutions for entry features to remaining stores Traffic and Parkutg Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers, Inc. dated April 1, 201.0. Tree Inventory List provided by the applicant. Plan Sets C: \Documents and Settings \piug \Desktop \U - 2009- 08ASA- 2009- 08AS.docs 23-55 Attachment H Draft Transportation Impact Analysis PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion f� FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 675 San Jose, CA 95113 SJ09 -1111 April 2010 23-56 Draft F',eport PW Market /Homestead Retail Expansion Prepared for: City of Cupertino Prepared by: Fehr & Peers APRIL 1, 2010 23-57 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................................................ ............................... i ProjectImpacts ......................................................................................................... .......................:....... i SiteAccess and Circulation ...................................................................................... ............................... i 1 . INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... ..............................1 2 . EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 RoadwayNetwork .................................................................................................... ............................... 5 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................... ............................... 5 ExistingTransit Service ........................................................................................... ............................... 7 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations ....................................... ............................... 10 Level Service Methods ...................................................................................... ............................... 10 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................. ............................... 13 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service ....................................................... ............................... 13 FieldObservations ................................................................................................. ............................... 14 3 . BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ............................................................................... .............................15 BackgroundTraffic Estimates .................................................................................. .............................15 Background Roadway Improvements ..................................................................... .............................15 Background Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... ............................... 15 4 . PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ .............................18 ProjectTraffic Estimates ........................................................................................ ............................... 18 Project Roadway Improvements ............................................................................ ............................... 23 Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................... ............................... 23 IntersectionImpact Criteria .................................................................................... ............................... 24 IntersectionImpacts .............................................................................................. ....:.......................... 24 Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service ......................................................... ............................... 24 ProjectFreeway Impact Criteria ............................................................................ ............................... 25 ProjectFreeway Impacts ....................................................................................... ............................... 25 Site Access and On -Site Circulation ...................................................................... ............................... 26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................... ............................... 26 TransitFacilities ..................................................................................................... ............................... 27 ParkingFacilities ...................................................................................................... .............................28 5. CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS .................. ............................... 31 CumulativeTraffic Estimates ................................................................................. ............................... 31 Cumulative Roadway Improvements ..................................................................... ............................... 31 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................ ............................... 31 Cumulative Intersection Impact Criteria ................................................................ ............................... 31 Cumulative Intersection Impacts ........................................................................... ............................... 31 23-58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location and Study Area ................................................................ ............................... 3 Figure 2 Proposed Project Site Plan ......................................................................... ..............................4 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................... ............................... 8 Figure Existing Transit Service ............................................................................... ..............................9 Figure 5 Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometries, and Intersection Controls ................................................................................................................... .............................12 Figure 6 Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometries, and Intersection Controls .............17 ....................................................................................... ............................... Figure 7 Project Trip Distributions and Assignmert ................................................. .............................21 Figure 8 Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometries, and Intersection Controls. ................................................................................................................. ............................... 22 Figure 9 Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometries, and Intersection Controls ................................................................................ ............................... 33 Figure 10 Cumulative With Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes, Lane Geometries, and IntersectionControls ................................................................................... .............................34 23-59 LIST OF TABLES Table ES -1 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service .................... ... ••• ............................ ............................ iii Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Sentice Definitions ......................................... .............................11 Table 2 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions ................................................ .............................11 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................. .............................13 Table 4 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service ................................................... .............................14 Table 5 Background Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... .............................16 Table 6 Estimated Trip Generation ................................................................................ .............................19 Table 7 Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... .............................23 Table 8 Project -Level Freeway Segment Levels of Service ........................................ ............................... 25 Table 9 Average Passenger Load Values ................................................................... ............................... 27 Table10 Parking Surveys .............................................................................................. .............................29 Table 11 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .................................................... ............................... 32 APPENDICES Appendix A: Intersection Turning Movement Counts and RoadWay Volume Data ...... .............................35 Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations ................................................................. ............................... 36 Appendix C: Approved and Pending Development ...................................................... .............................37 23-60 PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 ,; . -. _ Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed PW Market/Homestead Expansion project. The proposed project includes construction of approximately 50,000 square feet (s.f.) of additional commercial space. An alternate project description included 17,340 s.f. of pharmacy with drive through window; 129,249 s.f. of shopping center space; a 58,222 s.f. supermarket; and a 430 s.f. gas station (12 fueling stations). The current proposal does not include a gas station and would generate less net new trips than the previously proposed project. Therefore, the transportation analysis was based on the more conservative approach that analyzed the site with a gas station. The project site is located on the southwest quadrant of the Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard intersection and is bounded by Franco Court, Homestead Road, and De Anza Boulevard.The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 3,902 net new daily trips, 156 net new AM peak hour trips (85 inbound /71 outbound), and 388 net new PM peak hour trips (195 inbound /194 outbound). These project trip estimates include the pass -by reductions per ITE guidelines. PROJECT IMPACTS Intersection operations were evaluated at seven (7) study intersections with level of service calculations during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PI\4) peak periods for Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative No Project Conditions, and Cumulative With Project Conditions. Levels of service for the study intersections under each scheme are presented in Table ES -1. All local and CMP study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service for the both the AM and PM peak hours. Thus, intersection impacts are considered less - than - significant. Freeway segments were evaluated at two (2) segments. Based on the VTA's Congestion Management Program guidelines, both schemes will have a less -than- significant impact on the segments. The project's impact to the pedestrian and bicycle - acilities is considered less -than- significant since adequate pedestrian facilities are provided and the proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Fehr & Peers recommends that alternative routes be provided and signed during construction phases of this project, to provide accessible travel paths for pedestrians. The proposed project is expected to generate some transit trips; bus stops are located on Homestead Road /Hollenbeck Avenue- Stelling Road and Homestead Road /Sunnyvale Saratoga Road -De Anza Boulevard. Due to the low project demand and available capacity, the existing transit facilities will be able to accommodate the increase in transit trips and the project will have a less- than - significant impact. A parking study was conducted to evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed parking supply based on the mixed -use development. The study included three sites with similar land uses intended to project on -site parking demand and resulting supply for the project. Overall, the project's parking impacts are considered less - than - significant. Fehr & Peers recommends the final site plan be reviewed for adequate bicycle parking facilities to meet city requirements. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The site plan has good vehicular access with the existing driveways on Franco Court, Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard, as well as new shared driveways with the existing retail building located on the corner of Homestead Road /De Anza Boulevard. These driveways provide adequate capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the project site. Parking circulation is, expected to function adequately, with two -way 24- foot and 26 -foot double loaded parking aisles throughout. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking stalls are accessible and located conveniently to the entrances of the buildings. The site plan proposes fp x r FEHR cSz PEERS v— TPANSPOP.TATION CONSULTANTS - PIN Market/Homestead Retail Expansion = ~f; April 2010 new pedestrian walkways to connect the Homestead Road sidewalk directly to the main buildings. Based on the site plan, the circulation elements on the site should provide adequate and safe facilities for the proposed site uses. f FEHR &- PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 N W W f? FEHR &_ TRANSPORTATION PEERS CONSULTANTS TABLE ES -1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Cumulative No Existing Background Project Project Cumulative With Project A in Crit. A in Crit. A in Crit. A in Crit. Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS V /C' Delay Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' V /C' Delay" 1. Homestead Road / AM 41.3 D 41.9 D 42.1 D 0.007 0.3 41.9 D 42.1 D 0.007 0.3 Stelling Road PM 47.1 D 48.7 D 50.7 D 0.025 2.8 48.7 D 50.7 D 0.025 2.8 2. Homestead Road / AM 10.2 B+ 10.3 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.01 0.1 10.3 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.01 0.1 Franco Court PM 11.1 B+ 11.4 B+ 11.7 B+ 0.027 0.4 11.4 B+ 11.7 B+ 0.027 0.4 3. Homestead Road / De AM 37.7 D+ 38.8 D+ 39.3 D 0.006 0.5 38.9 D+ 39.4 D 0.006 0.5 Anza Boulevard [CMP] pM 39.4 D 45.1 D 50.5 D 0.036 9.8 _ 45.8 D 51.2 D- 0.036 10.0 4. Homestead Road / AM 27.4 C 27.4 C 27.5 C 0.002 0.1 27.5 C 27.5 C 0.002 0.1 Wolfe Road PM 32.7 C- 39.3 D 39.5 D 0.000 0.0 39.6 D 39.8 D 0.000 0.0 5_ 1 -280 Northbound AM 23.8 C F C 24.1 C 0.001 0.0 24.1 C 24.1 C 0.001 Ty Ramps / De Anza _ Boulevard [CMP] f L I .L V 2 1.4 Ul' L1.3 Ul- U.UUS U.0 L'1.4 V+ L I .J l.+ U.UUS U.0 6. 1 -280 Southbound AM 20.0 B- 20.3 C+ 20.3 C+ 0.001 0.0 20.3 C+ 20.3 C+ 0.001 0.0 Ramps / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] PM 19.6 B- 20.1 C+ 20.1 C+ 0.003 0.2 20.1 C+ 20.1 C+ 0.003 0.2 7. Stevens Creek AM 36.3 D+ 36.3 D+ 0.002 0.0 37.2 D+ 37.2 D+ 0.002 0.1 Boulevard / De Anza =52.7D- Boulevard [CMP] PM 59.4 E+ 59.8 E+ 0.003 0.7 63.5 E 64.0 E 0.003 0.8 Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. 2 LOS = level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX LOS analysis software package. LOS D standard for City of Cupertino intersections. LOS E standard for CMP- designated intersections is. 3 Change in the critical volume -to- capacity ratio (V /C) between Background and Project Conditions (Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions). 4 Change in Critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions (Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions). [CMP] = Congestion Management Program- designated intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2010. N W W f? FEHR &_ TRANSPORTATION PEERS CONSULTANTS This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed PW Market retail expansion project located in the City of Cupertino. The proposed project is located on the southwest quadrant of the Homestead Road and Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road /De AnzG Boulevard intersection and includes approximately 50,000 square feet (s.f.) of additional retail space. Currently the project site contains approximately 153,000 s.f. of retail space. The proposed project site location is shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 presents the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system in the vicinity of the site, and to identify improvements required to mitigate significant impacts (if needed). Potential impacts were evaluated using methods approved by the City of Cupertino, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Congestion Management Agency of Santa Clara County. The following intersections (shown on Figure 1) were evaluated for potentially significant impacts: 1. Homestead Road and Hollenbeck Avenue- Stelling Road 2. Homestead Road and Forge Way- Franco Court 3. Homestead Road and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road -De Anza Boulevard* 4. Homestead Road and Wolfe Road 5. 1 -280 NB Ramps and De Anza Boulevard* 6. 1 -280 SB Ramps and De Anza Boulevard* 7: Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard* * Designated CMP intersection The existing conditions of the following freeway segments were also evaluated: 1. 1 -280 between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard 2. 1 -280 between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road The operations of the study intersections were analyzed during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours under the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions — Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one - hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions — Existing Condition peak -hour traffic volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed or occupied developments in the area. This scenario is the basis from which project impacts are determined. Scenario 3: Project Conditions — Background Condition peak -hour traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed expansion. Site access, on -site circulation, and parking conditions specific to the schemes are also analyzed in this scenario. Scenario 4: Cumulative No Project Conditions — Background Condition peak -hour traffic volumes plus traffic from pending developments in the area. _ SO �l FEHR PEERS h TRANSPORTkTION CoNSULThNTS - PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion _ April 2010 =� Scenario 5: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions — Cumulative No Project Condition peak -hour traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed expansion. The project is anticipated to add low traffic volumes to the freeway system. Therefore the project will have a less- than - significant impact to the freeway segments and no project -level freeway analysis was conducted. Potential impacts to existing and planned, non - vehicular modes of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as transit systems, are a so included in this analysis. The remainder of this report is divided into five chap The existing transportation system in the study area and the current operations of the key intersections are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 evaluates traffic operations under Background Conditions for approved but not yet constructed local developments. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadways by the proposed expansion and impacts on the transportation system under Project Conditions. Chapter 4 also includes a discussion of site access, on -site circulation, parking conditions, and potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transi systems. Cumulative traffic conditions for both with and without the proposed expansion are discussed in Chapter 5. FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS N w 0) F EHK & P EERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS December 2009 SJO9 -11' PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion Project Location and Study Area Fic 1 ro 0 Cr rn 0 0 C n o > Q a, w �[ N ro > O -0 a C 'S Ln 0 2 01 O W. Homestead Road kk E. Homestead Road 1r ru o o Project Site I D Pruneridge P > > Avenue - u- v C rp M z ' 11 111ill 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 Jill' Jill 1 111111 , 1 :1 m ra N C ' Q v z Stevens Creek Boulevard 7Scale [ Not LEGEND: ® = Study Intersection N w 0) F EHK & P EERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS December 2009 SJO9 -11' PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion Project Location and Study Area Fic 1 0 TABULATION TRASH ENCLOSURE KEY U TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 1 L5J TWIT ENCLOSURE TYPE 2 I TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 3 L4I IRASH ENCLOSURE IYPE4 [5: 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 5 NOTE' FOR ALL TRASH ENCLSOURE DETAILS SEE S14EET AIR PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN PW MARKET W'1 ver v„ A2 PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion 4 V TR E H IZ & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Proposed Proiect Site Plan March 2010 SJ09 -1111 Figure 2 EXISTING PROPOSED SITE AREA •/•16.028 AC (664.003 SF) -1. 15.020 AC (654,603 SF) BUILDING AREA 153,000 SF 203,702 SF- F.A.R. 23A% 31,1% 0 OF STORIES ONE ONE MAXIMUM HEIGT1 30 Jul PARKING 048 STALLS 793 STALLS UNI•STALL 031 STALLS 772 STALLS I IANDICAPPED 17 STALLS 21 STALLS PARKING RATIO 6,5 STALLS 11000 SF 4 STALLS 11000 SF HOURS OF OPERATION 7 AM TO 11 PM 6 AM TO 11 PM 24 HOURS - RITE AID USE RETAIL RETAIL ZONING DESIGNATION PICO d CO -m m.arEV use •v n.ro P /CG 6 CO -rp (raee0 VJE n0 nl10 GENERAL PLAN ay.,enni. cnuuEncw. mam.n CornmorclvllResltlMllnl varrEn.i. cc>.nrencw. mrnnrr Conmrerv.Avl/RveMnrlliol PAVING AREA 420,800 Sr 164.3 %) 340,602 SF ( 52.1 %) 1ANDSCAPF AND 00,755 SF ( 12.3 "F.) 110.20P SF 116.8 %) HARDSCAPE AREA TRASH ENCLOSURE KEY U TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 1 L5J TWIT ENCLOSURE TYPE 2 I TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 3 L4I IRASH ENCLOSURE IYPE4 [5: 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 5 NOTE' FOR ALL TRASH ENCLSOURE DETAILS SEE S14EET AIR PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN PW MARKET W'1 ver v„ A2 PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion 4 V TR E H IZ & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Proposed Proiect Site Plan March 2010 SJ09 -1111 Figure 2 This chapter describes the existing conditions of the roadway facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit service, plus existing traffic volumes, and intersection operations. This chapter also includes a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the transportation system and the corresponding results. ROADWAY NETWORK The project site location and the surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Interstate 280, De Anza Boulevard, Horrlestead Road, and Hollenbeck Avenue provide regional access. Driveways to access the site are located on Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Franco Court. 1 -280 is a north - south, six -lane freeway with an additional lane in each direction designated as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as carpool lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons or motorcycles, as well as select alternative fuel vehicles, between 5:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm on weekdays. The freeway extends from San Francisco in the north to San Jose, in the south. In the vicinity of the site, 1 -280 runs in an east - west direction and is located south of the site. De Anza Boulevard is a six -lane north -south arterial forming the eastern boundary of the project site. North of Homestead Road and south of Prospect Road, De Anza Boulevard is designated Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road. It extends from Sunnyvale in the north to Saratoga in the south. Homestead Road is a four -lane, east -west arterial that forms the northern boundary of the project site. It extends east from the City of Cupertino through the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Homestead Road is primarily fronted by residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Hollenbeck Avenue is two -lane, north -south roadway located west of the project site. Hollenbeck Avenue is named North Stelling Street south of Homestead Avenue. It provides access to residential neighborhood south of the project site and extends north to the City of Sunnyvale. Franco Court is a two -lane, north -south local roadway extending from West Homestead Road in the north to Celeste Circle in the south. Franco Court is adjacent to the project site to the west. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and off - street paths that are meant to provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Sidewalks are provided on all major roads and boulevards within the proximity of the site with one exception; no sidewalks are provided on the west side of Franco Court. All study signalized intersections are equipped with pedestrian signals. Crosswalks are provided on all study intersections with the exceptions of the following approaches: • Eastern approach of Forge Way /Homestead Road • Southern approach of De Anza Boulevard /NB 1 -280 ramps • Northern approach of De Anza Boulevard /SB 1 -280 ramps x FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �"" 3 r PIN Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 4 Bicycle Facilities Bikeway planning and design in California typically relies on the guidelines and design standards established by Caltrans in the Highway Design Mancral (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, 5` Edition, California Department of Transportation, January 2001). Chapter 1000 follows standards developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and identifies specific design standards for various conditions and bikeway -to- roadway relationships. Under California Law, bicyclists are allowed to use all roadways in California unless posted. Therefore, even for the roadways that have no designated (or planned) bikeways identified, a majority are open for cycling. Caltrans standards provide for three (3) distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below and shown on the accompanying figures. • Class / Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right -of -way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross -flow minimized. In general, bike paths serve corridors not servE�d by streets and highways or where sufficient right - of -way exists to allow such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets and numerous vehicle conflicts. • Class ll Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for bicyclists adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally five (5) feet wide. Adjacent veh cle parking and vehicle /pedestrian cross -flow are permitted. SOUCI WHITE STRIPE -. I I 1 . ; 1 ! : .f° - • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles, but have nc separated bike right -of -way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. fp FEHR PEERS` TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -_ PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 BIKE ROUTE SIGN \ r M) Bike lanes (Class II) providing direct access to the project site exist along De Anza Boulevard and West Homestead Road. Existing bicycle facilities within the study area are shown on Figure 3. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates fixed route, commuter, and paratransit bus service and light rail service (LRT) in Santa Clara County. Existing transit service near the project is illustrated on Figure 4 and is discussed in more detail below. Route 23 is a regular bus route that provides service between Alum Rock Transit Center and De Anza College via Stevens Creek Boulevard. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 1:00 am with 12- minute headways. Weekend hours of operation are from 5:40 am to 1:05 am with 15- minute headways. Route 25 is a regular bus route that provides service between Alum Rock Transit Center and De Anza College via Valley Medical Center. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:05 am to 10:15 pm with 30- minute headways. Weekend hours of operation are from 7:20 am to 7:45 pm with 30- minute headways. Route 26 is a regular bus route that provides service between Eastridge Transit Center and Lockheed Martin Transit Center. Weekday hours of operation are from 4:50 am to 11:45 pm with 30- minute headways. Weekend hours of operation are from 6:30 am to 10:30 pm with 30- minute headways. Route 59 is a regular bus route that provides service between De Anza College and Moffett Field /Ames Center. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:45 am to 7:00 pm with 60- minute headways. Weekend service is not provided. Route 53 is a regular bus route that provides service between West Valley College and Sunnyvale Transit Center. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:05 am to 6:55 pm with 60- minute headways. Weekend service is not provided. Route 54 is a regular bus route that provides service between De Anza College and the Sunnyvale Lockheed Martin LRT Station. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 9:35 pm with 30- minute headways. Weekend operations are provided on 30 to 60- minute headways between 7:55 am and 8:40 pm on Saturdays and 8:25 am and 7:40 pm on Sundays. This route operates on Hollenbeck Road west of the site. Route 55 is a regular bus route that provides service between De Anza College and Great America near the site. The hours of operation are from 5:32 am to 11:05 pm with 30- minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 30 to 60- minute headways between 7:50 am and 9:05 pm. This route operates east of the site on De Anza Boulevard. It should be noted that VTA has announced that service to most bus routes including the routes mentioned above will be modified in January 2010. FEHR &- PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS a o D Q) o < � w o v v - C 0 S f W. Homestead Road E. Homestead Road (U 0 0 0 " 0 Project Site ) v a Prunerid e m c t° - .___.___ f... (( __.__ Q , Avenue v f2 m Z :1 'C3 m ra N C Q v , Z Stevens Creek Boulevard LEGEND: ® = Study Intersection = Class II Bike Lanes N Not to Scale fp PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion TR E H R & PEEKS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Existing Bicycle Facilities December 2009 Figure 3 SJ09 -1111 - o m Q) 0 rn 0 v D > Q N v 0 m v Q, O � � � c c = rn ® W. Homestead Road 0 u kk E. Homestead Road 0 o v Project Site v v Pruneridge c ' ; Avenue v L m m N C 1 f a, 0 z Stevens Creek Boulevard LEGEND: ® =Study Intersection (D = Regular Bus Service 40 = Express Bus Service N Not to Scale PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion TR E H R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Existing Transit Facilities December 2009 SJO9 -111 Fig 4 M ww� PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 EXISTING INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS New traffic counts were conducted in June and October 2009 during the AM and PM peak periods at five study intersections. The remaining two intersections counts were provided by the City of Cupertino. Peak period turning movement counts are included in Appendix A. The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak -hour conditions. Per city guidelines, the AM and PM peak periods occur from 7:00 am to 9 :00 am and 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one -hour volume counted during each period. Per City staff direction, non - Cupertino - controlled intersections were also analyzed during the 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm peak period as well. Figure 5 presents the existing AM and PM peak -hour turning movement volumes, the existing intersection lane geometries, and traffic control devices for the study intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, representing congestion -free conditions, to LOS F, when volumes exceed capacity and stop- and -go conditions occur. LOS E represents "at- capacity" operations. Signalized Intersections The level of service calculation method for signalized intersections, approved by the City of Cupertino and the VTA bases, operations on average control vehicular delay calculated as described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with acjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections was calculated using the TRAFFIX 8.0 analysis software and was co - related to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for all of the signalized study intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D except: at certain locations. According to the City's General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard /De Anza Boulevard and the De Anza Boulevard /Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 60 seconds weighted average control delay). The same operations method is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. The level of service standard for CMP- designated intersections is LOS E. FEHR st PEERS_ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS a F x:7. PIN Market/Homestead Retail Expansion t . April 2010 TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Density (passenger cars per mile per lane) Average Control Delay Per Service Description Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression 5 10.0 and /or short cycle lengths. D B+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or 10.1 to 12.0 B short cycle lengths. 12.1 to 18.0 B > 58.0 18.1 to 20.0 C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and /or 20.1 to 23.0 C longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 23.1 to 32.0 C 32.1 to 35.0 D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 39.0 D progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles 39.1 to 51.0 D- stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 51.1 to 55.0 E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long 55.1 to 60.0 E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are 60.1 to 75.0 E_ frequent occurrences. 75.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to > 80.0 over - saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Freeway Segments Freeway segments are evaluated using VTA's analysis procedure, which is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 2000 HCM. Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The Congestion Management Program range of densities for freeway segment level of service is shown in Table 2. The LOS standard for the freeway segments is LOS E. TABLE 2 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Density (passenger cars per mile per lane) A _< 11 B 11.1 to 18.0 C 18.1 to 26.0 D 26.1 to 46.0 E 46.1 to 58.0 F > 58.0 Sources: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. FEHR PEERS ter.. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS * w= ; o N � L7 r In Lo C N go 74 (359) 403(600) —0 177 (200) N [J m � L� [7 to to 4111*t 123 (205) 433 (738) 188 (320) 190 (349) t 568 (747) ,r- 220 (88) Homestead Rd nt1 o ;:'_� "' c N � v Q •- N tfi c .. *--- 75 (145) 0 451 (767) 193 (363) Homestead Rd N N O N n 619 (701) v C Q c X1111 '� j 931 (499) t 14B 280 Ramps ��111 0 O `'- (7 � v �- v CI O 4 — 921 (1090) LL /� 26 (23) t-- 470 (538) F omestead d 29 (29) 1 445 (323) _/ U� 878 (1014) 7 (18) m L N N N O N n 619 (701) v C Q c X1111 '� j 931 (499) t 14B 280 Ramps ��111 0 O `'- (7 � v �- v CI C c W 216 (189) co rn r' t-- 470 (538) n` to m Q 1 445 (323) 4111 R 243 (534) Homestead I 234 (315) 256 (190) � —Co>� 359 (512) N � c 324 (372) Q c N c m 4 N r O L7 N L7 .' > M c m 111�� A IN SB 280 Ramps I 510 I (474) 3(9) I I I 445 (259) „� c LL_ v c n v � Q `v C G) Q N M » to N N N KEY: XX (YY) = AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion F E H R b: P E E RS EXISTING PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES, T R h k S P 0 R TATI Ott Co t; SUL -.ANT5 LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 5 SJ09 -1111 23 -75 0 o n ^� n` to m Q 279 (230) F— 812 (888) 4111 om 243 (534) Stevens Creek BIB 234 (315) 318 (803) 142 (387) —0 v co N � o KEY: XX (YY) = AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion F E H R b: P E E RS EXISTING PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES, T R h k S P 0 R TATI Ott Co t; SUL -.ANT5 LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 5 SJ09 -1111 23 -75 Existing lane configurations and peak -hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the existing levels of service for the study intersections during each peak hour. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 3. The corresponding calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE 3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Count Intersection Intersection Hour Date Control Delay LOS' 1. Homestead Road / Stelling Road AM 06/2009 41.3 D PM 10/2009 Signal 47.1 D 2. Homestead Road / Franco Court AM 06/2009 10.2 B+ PM 10/2009 Signal 11.1 B+ 3. Homestead Road / De Anza Boulevard AM 06/2009 37.7 D+ [CMP] PM 10/2008 Si Signal g 39.4 D 4. Homestead Road / Wolfe Road AM 0712007 27.4 C PM 10/2009 Signal 32.7 C- 5. 1 -280 Northbound Ramps / De Anza AM 06/2009 23.8 C Boulevard [CMP] PM 10/2008 Signal 21.2 C 6. 1 -280 Southbound Ramps / De Anza AM 06/2009 20.0 B- Boulevard [CMP] PM 10/2008 Signal 19.6 B- 7. Stevens Creek Boulevard / De Anza AM 10/2008 33.8 C_ Boulevard [CMP] PM 10/2008 Signal 52.7 D- Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds'per vehicle for signalized intersections using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. 2 LOS = level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX LOS analysis software package. LOS D standard for City of Cupertino intersections. LOS E standard for CMP- designated intersections is. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations by City of Cupertino & CMP LOS standards. [CMP] = Congestion Management Program - designated intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2010. EXISTING FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Freeway segment densities reported in VTA's 2008 Monitoring and Conformance Report were used to calculate the LOS for the key freeway segments during the AM and PM peak hours. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 4. The following freeway segments are operating at unacceptable levels (LOS F): • 1 -280 Southbound, SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard (PM peak hour) • 1 -280 southbound, De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road (PM peak hour) - = 5 FEHR Sz PEERS TRANSPORT,4TION CONSU LTA NTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion', April 2010 FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations of the study intersections were conducted during the morning and evening peak periods in June 2009. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak hour as shown in Table 3. All intersection queues were cleared after one cycle. Heavy vehicle flows were observed during both AM and PM peak hours at intersections along the De Anza Boulevard corridor. With the 1 -280 southbound on -ramp meter in operation, ramp vehicles occasionally queued back to the intersection of De Anza Boulevard /1 -280 southbound (SB) Ramps. Moderate congestion occurred on Northbound 1 -280 in the morning while heavy southbound congestion took place in the afternoon. No spill backs were observed from the off -ramps onto the mainline during either peak hour. FEHR & PEERS _ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS s-x TABLE 4 EXISTING FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE moommir Peal; Mixed -Flow Lanes HOV Lanes Density' LOS Speed Density' LOS Speed Freeway Direction From To Hour AM 25 C 66 8 A 67 SR 85 De Anza I -280 Southbound PM 87 F 18 20 C 70 De Anza Wolfe AM 36 D 61 8 A 67 PM 70 F 26 23 C 70 AM 47 E 46 31 D 65 Wolfe De Anza 1 -280 Northbound PM 29 D 65 9 A 70 De Anza SR 85 AM 37 D 59 19 C 66 PM 26 C 66 10 A 70 Notes: ' Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 2 LOS = level of service. 3 Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (flow) from the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering /exiting the freeway at the interchange. Unacceptable operations are shown in bold typeface. Source: VTA, April 2009. l FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations of the study intersections were conducted during the morning and evening peak periods in June 2009. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak hour as shown in Table 3. All intersection queues were cleared after one cycle. Heavy vehicle flows were observed during both AM and PM peak hours at intersections along the De Anza Boulevard corridor. With the 1 -280 southbound on -ramp meter in operation, ramp vehicles occasionally queued back to the intersection of De Anza Boulevard /1 -280 southbound (SB) Ramps. Moderate congestion occurred on Northbound 1 -280 in the morning while heavy southbound congestion took place in the afternoon. No spill backs were observed from the off -ramps onto the mainline during either peak hour. FEHR & PEERS _ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS s-x PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion K. Y N" April 2010 - 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections with existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated from surrounding development projects that have been approved but are not yet constructed or occupied. Background Conditions serve as the basis for identifying project impacts. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments close to the study area to the existing intersection peak - hour volumes. The list of approved projects, presented in Appendix C, was obtained from City of Cupertino planning staff. Approved developments from the City of Sunnyvale were also included. Trip assignments for the approved developments were obtained from traffic impact reports or estimated with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates and standard engineering practice. If no trip assignment was available, the trips associated with each development were assigned to the roadway network based on the relative locations of complementary land uses and existing and estimated future travel patterns. Figure 6 shows the peak -hour turning movement volumes, the lane geometries, and traffic control devices at the study intersections under Background Conditions. BACKGROUND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS No future roadway or intersection improvements were identified by City of Cupertino staff; existing intersection lane configurations were used for the Background Conditions analysis. BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 5 presents the intersection LOS calculation results under Background Conditions. Appendix B contains the corresponding calculation sheets. Under Background Conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably. f� FEHR & P EERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 � TABLE 5 i BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LO S2 1. Homestead Road / Stelling Road AM 41.9 D PM 48.7 D 2. Homestead Road / Franco Court AM 10.3 B+ PM 11.4 B+ 3. Homestead Road / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 38.8 D+ PM 45.1 D 4. Homestead Road / Wolfe Road AM 27.4 C PM 39.3 D 5. 1 -280 Northbound Ramps / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 24.1 C PM 21.4 C+ 6. 1 -280 Southbound Ramps / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 20.3 C+ PM 20.1 C+ 7. Stevens Creek Boulevard / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 36.3 D+ PM 59.4 E+ Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. 2 LOS = level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX LOS analysis software package. LOS D standard for City of Cupertino intersections. LOS E standard for CNIP- designated intersections is. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations by City of Cupertino & CMP LOS standards. [CMP] = Congestion Management program- designated intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2010. fip FEHR & PEERS - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS r co (D N .0 to v f0 7 N N )1i* 74 (359) 426 (643) 1 195 (217) 192 (362) 579(796) pe -'" 237(108 Homestead Rd o v co 1 C Co O L7 C C C N N t7 V f lL) v � m � � n 29 (29) 932 (1098) —i 7 (19) 19 (66) E— 942(1190) 29 (36) Home stead Rd N m O D) O 6 co v `o ° 637 (726) V r 227 N Co 1 cn (212) ° L > � 483 (609) 44 � 456 (342) Stevens Creek Bivc Homestead Rd 256 (342) 270 (198) co 385 (577) � m 355 (394) Q v � u� to co c7 tD r N N C7. v r N j m 0 SB 280 Ramps — � 521 11111 (491) 3 (9) 460 (278) t L� o v N C v IKILZ N 7 r7 C O O n ca 411 129 (209) 441 (754) 219 (434) �— 84 (155) t— 454 (775) 212 (441) Homestead Rd 'Mtr C n N O t"i Co r L7 L7 r N n N m m co v `o ° 637 (726) V r C 4 � N v � ° 311 (294) F— 893 (1151) ��111 N f7 c n c O c O L2 256 (575) Stevens Creek Bivc 256 (342) 407(1048) ^ 143 (387) —► � m c> ca L C N Lo L� N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection [D 4 c'J N c r U a co v `o ° 637 (726) V r C 4 � X1111 � 956 (528) I NB 280 Ramps ��111 N f7 c n c O c O L2 f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion F EH R & PEERS BACKGROUND PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES, TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS Decemb 2009 FIGURE 6 SJ09 -1111 23-80 4. PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed project expansion on the surrounding roadway system are discussed in this chapter. The project includes reconfiguration of the existing 153,000 s.f. commercial buildings and the addition of buildings on separate pads in the existing parking lot. Project Conditions are defined as existing traffic volumes, plus trips from approved but not yet constructed developments (Background Conditions), plus traffic generated by the proposed project. A comparison of intersection operations under Background and Project Conditions is presented and the impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed. The proposed project was analyzed using a previously identified project alternative that included a gas station. The trip generation for the currently proposed project generates less trips than the one presented in this report and would therefore have a lesser impact than identified in this report. PROJECT TRAFFIC ESTIMATES The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed expansion project is estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of the process for the proposed project are described in the following section. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed expansion was estimated using rates published in Trip Generation, 8` Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008) for Pharmacy (881), Shopping Center (820), Supermarket (850), High- Turnover Restaurant (932), and Gasoline Station (944) land uses. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 3,902 net new daily trips, 156 net new AM peak hour trips (85 inbound /71 outbound), and 388 net new PM peak hour trips (195 inbound /194 outbound). Driveway counts were also conducted on September 23, 2009 to obtain local trip generation rates. Applying the surveyed rates to all uses except the Gasoline /Service Station, yields a trip generation of 146 AM trips (77 inbound/ 69 outbound) and 286 PM trips (129 inbound /157 outbound). These surveys indicate that this shopping center currently generates traffic at a rate that is lower than the ITE rates provided in the 8 Edition of the Trip Generation manual. Per City Staff direction the ITE rates were used as a conservative estimate of project generated traffic. Pass -by reductions of 25 percent and 50 percent we applied to the retail and the gasoline station land uses to account for vehicles that are already traveling on the roadways adjacent to the project site. Table 6 summarizes the estimated site trip generation of each scheme. FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS _ PIN MarketlHomestead Retail Expansion A TABLE 6 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION D ily AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Pharmacy [A] 1 ksf 0 88.18 1,529 2.65 46 26 20 10.32 179 90 89 Shopping Center 129.24 [B] 9 ksf 52.81 6,826 1.15 149 91 58 5.02 649 318 331 Supermarket [C] 58 sf 2 102.25 5,953 3.59 209 127 82 10.49 611 312 299 Subtotal 14,308 404 244 160 1,439 720 719 Pass -by Reduction 25% 3,577 101 61 40 360 180 180 Total 10,731 303 183 120 1,079 540 539 Gasoline Station 12 [D] Station 168.58 2,023 12.17 146 73 73 13.83 166 83 83 Pass -by Reduction 50% -1,012 -73 -37 -36 -83 -42 -41 Total 1,011 73 36 37 83 41 42 Ex sfing Shopprng_, 105 - Cent6FM ..,_ . _ksf 52.81:. - - -1 A 5 -121 -- --_74 47 5.02 527: 58- 2 269 Existing 48 Supermarket [F] ksf 102.25 4,908 3.58 172 105 67 10.50 504 257 247 Subtotal - 10,453 293 179 114 1,031 515 516 Pass-by Reduction 25% 2,613 73 45 28 258 129 129 Total 7,840- 220 134 86 773 386 387 Total Net New Trips [A +B +C +D -E -F] 3,902 156 85 71 389 195 194 Source: Trip Generation, 8` h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Pharmacy (881), Shopping Center (820), Supermarket (850), High - Tumover Restaurant (932), Gasoline Station (944). Fehr 8 Peers, October 2009. Trip Distribution The directions of approach and departure for the proposed project vehicle trips was estimated using the relative locations of complementary land uses, previous studies, existing travel patterns in the area, and input from City staff. Figure 7 presents the estimated directions of approach and departure for the proposed expansion. FEHR Sz PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 Trip Assignment The trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to establish intersection volumes for Project Conditions. Figure 7 presents the net new project trip peak hour assignment at the study intersections. Project trips generated by each scheme were added to the Background Conditions to estimate volumes under Project Conditions, which are shown on Figure 8. FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS g R -7(19) �— 11 (29) 5 (14) ;o _ off!- mestea 13 (29) —► �i o 1 ( f- 27 (75) �+ Iii j5(11) la Homestead -td i Uj 33377 -i 2 N c O I. Fa r s n 17 (39) o 1 omestead d Homestead R 14(39) —+ �: 6(17) -► 10 (28) Q c c m I[O X2(4) Q ° — N g�TO t N N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X % = Project Trip Distribution f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion FE H R&- P E E R S PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ASSIGNMENT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES December 2009 sJ09 -1111 FIGURE 7 23 -84 im C) - 'Q SB 280 Ramps 1 M 0 2 KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X % = Project Trip Distribution f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion FE H R&- P E E R S PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ASSIGNMENT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES December 2009 sJ09 -1111 FIGURE 7 23 -84 im M C m �Q j �o Stevens Creek Blvd 1 0 KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X % = Project Trip Distribution f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion FE H R&- P E E R S PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ASSIGNMENT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES December 2009 sJ09 -1111 FIGURE 7 23 -84 a c0 N O L7 Q f O Q N 74 (359) 439 (672) 195 (217) 199 (381) F 590 (825) 242 (122) Homestead Rd N m rn o 01 o r ✓ °' �� 20 (69) M �-- 969 (1265) w � /C_ 34 (47) t— 462 (793) Homestead Rd 29 (29) 4 500 (648) 1 965(1173) — o iZ 10 (26) v Q N N m rn o 01 o O .— v M N Co 84 (155) w R— 227 (212) t— 462 (793) I r ° - < 1 4 500 (648) Homestead Rd 256 (342) 456 (342) 407(1048) r'q 143 (387) — v a n 447 (771) —� ^ N 219 (434) Homestead Rd n .- N � N tT 284 (237) � m 399 (616) —► m ry ^ N Q O 365 (422) ¢ ! B M ED n v N m O t o r 7 C 111�� SB 280 Ramps I 523 �' 11111 (495) 3 (9) —� 4 60 (278) lo Q M M Q V v v ° o P V ( N O -p 84 (155) w o t— 462 (793) I r ° - < 1 212 (44,) Homestead Rd 256 (342) 407(1048) 129 (209) 143 (387) — v a n 447 (771) —� ^ N 219 (434) M co ° F n .- N � N tT KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection v � ° 639 (730) M M N Q Q� 1111 � 956 (528) NB 280 Ramps ��111 W M N CJ Q N Q �- l7 PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES, F EH R PEERS TFhN$PORThT10 t: CONSULTANTS LAN E GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 8 SJ09 -1111 23-85 N [D 311 (294) v �— 893(1151) /� q 1111�� < 1 � 256 (575) Stevens Creek Blvd 256 (342) 407(1048) N 143 (387) — v a n O � N L7 tT N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection v � ° 639 (730) M M N Q Q� 1111 � 956 (528) NB 280 Ramps ��111 W M N CJ Q N Q �- l7 PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES, F EH R PEERS TFhN$PORThT10 t: CONSULTANTS LAN E GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 8 SJ09 -1111 23-85 No future roadway or intersection improvements were identified by City of Cupertino staff; existing intersection lane configurations were used for the Project Conditions analysis. PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection levels of service were calculated with the net traffic added by the proposed project expansion to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the LOS calculations for Background and Project Conditions (with both Scheme 1 and 2) are presented in Table 7. The calculation worksheets are included in Appendix B. TABLE 7 PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Project A in Crit a in Crit Peak Intersection Hour' Delay LOS' Delay LOS' V /C Delay 1. Homestead Road / AM 41.9 D 42.1 D 0.007 0.3 Stelling Road PM 48.7 D 50.7 D 0.025 2.8 2. Homestead Road / AM 10.3 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.010 0.1 Franco Court PM 11.4 B+ 11.7 B+ 0.027 0.4 3. Homestead Road / AM 38.8 D+ 39.3 D 0.006 0.5 De Anza Boulevard [CMP] PM 45.1 D 50.5 D 0.036 9.8 4. Homestead Road / AM 27.4 C 27.5 C 0.002 0.1 Wolfe Road PM 39.3 D 39.5 D 0.000 0.0 5. 1 -280 Northbound AM 24.1 C 24.1 C 0.001 0.0 Ramps / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] PM 21.4 C+ 21.3 C+ 0.005 0.0 6. 1 -280 Southbound AM 20.3 C+ 20.3 C+ 0.001 0.0 Ramps / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] PM 20.1 C+ 20.1 C+ 0.003 0.2 7. Stevens Creek Boulevard / De AM 36.3 D+ 36.3 D+ 0.002 0.0 Anza Boulevard PM 59.4 E+ 59.8 E+ 0.003 0.7 [CMP] Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 8.0 level of service analysis software package. 2 LOS = level of service. LOS D standard for City of Cupertino intersections. LOS E standard for CMP- designated intersections. 3 Change in the critical volume -to- capacity ratio (V /C) between Background and Project Conditions. 4 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations by City of Cupertino & CMP LOS standards. [CMP] = Congestion Management Program - designated intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2010. f? FEHR &, PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to the results under Background Conditions. City of Cupertino A significant project impact to a City of Cupertino signalized intersection occurs if the project results in one of the following: • Operations at a signalized intersection deteriorate from LOS D or better under Background Conditions to LOS E or F under Project Conditions; or • Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at a signalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more and increasing the volume - to- capacity (V /C) ratio by 0.01 or more. ■ Operations at the De Anza Boulevard /Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection to deteriorate to LOS E+ under Background Conditions LOS E or F; or • Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at the De Anza Boulevard /Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more and increasing the volume- to- capacity (V /C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Valley Transportation Authority (CMP Intersections) Significant impacts at CMP intersections located within the County of Santa Clara occur if the addition of project traffic causes one of the following: ■ Operations degrade from an acceptable evel (LOS E or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS F) under Project Conditions. ■ Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by increasing the critical delay by more than 4 seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V /C) ratio by 0.01 or more. ■ The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. The City of Cupertino follows the CMP impact criteriF for CMP intersections. INTERSECTION IMPACTS Both local and CMP intersections continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for Project Conditions. Thus, the project's impact to these signalized intersections is considered less -than- significant. PROJECT FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Project - generated traffic volumes were added to existing 2008 traffic volumes for each freeway mainline segment. These volumes were then used to estimate density for each segment under Project Conditions. The resulting freeway segment operations are presented in Table 8. All traffic associated with the two F E H R PEERS TRANSPORTATION 1014SULTANTS ' > >._R TABLE 8 PROJECT -LEVEL FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Peak Added % Added From To Hour Density LOS Trips Density' LOS Impact Trips' Density LOS Impact Eastbound 1 -280 AM 25 C 1 25 C 0.01 2 25 C 0.03 SR 85 De Anza PM 87 F 3 87 F 0.04 4 87 F 0.05 AM 36 D 1 36 D .01 1 36 D 0.01 De Anza Wolfe PM 70 F 3 70 F 0.04 4 70 F 0.05 Westbound 1 -280 AM 47 E 1 47 E 0.01 2 47 E 0.03 Wolfe De Anza PM 29 D 3 29 D 0.04 4 29 D 0.05 AM 37 D 1 37 D 0.01 1 37 D 0.01 De Anza SR 85 PM 26 C 3 26 D 0.04 4 26 D 0.05 Notes: ' Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (flow) from the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering /exiting the freeway at the interchange. Density based on volume from VTA's 2008 C1VfP Monitoring Data. 2 LOS = level of service. 3 Project trips added during the peak hour. Significant impacts are shown in bold typeface. Source: VTA, April 2009; and Fehr 8 Peers, January 2010. PROJECT FREEWAY IMPACT CRITERIA The impacts of the two project schemes were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Projects Conditions to the results under Existing Conditions. Significant impacts to freeway segments are defined to occur when the addition of project - related traffic causes one of the following: ■ A segment to drop below its acceptable CMP operating standard (LOS E); or, ■ The project traffic added to a segment operating at LOS F is more than one (1) percent of its capacity. PROJECT FREEWAY IMPACTS Based on the significance criteria, the proposed schemes will have less- than - significant impacts on the freeway system. FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion z April 2010 SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION The site plans showing the location of the project: driveways and the internal circulation system are presented on Figure 2. The site has good vehicular access with the existing driveways on Franco Court, Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard. Driveways on De Anza Boulevard retain partial access (right in -right out) only. In addition, the project has two nE >w shared driveways connected to the existing retail building located on the corner of Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard. They serve as secondary connections to the site. These driveways provide adequate capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the project site. Based on the current site plans, vehicles can circulate the aisles in both directions. Parking circulation is expected to function adequately, with two -way 24 -foot and 26 -foot double loaded parking aisles throughout. Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) compliant parking stalls are accessible and located conveniently to the entrance of the buildings. Based on these plans, the circulation elements on the site should provide adequate and safe facilities for the proposed site uses. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The project site proposes new pedestrian walkways that connect the Homestead Road sidewalk directly to the main buildings. Striping is also available to guide pedestrians within the shopping center. Bicycle racks are provided at each building to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Fehr & Peers recommends that these racks be placed near the bui ding entrances to provide adequate visibility. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Criteria The General Plan for the City of Cupertino identifies existing and planned bicycle /pedestrian networks and identifies any improvements and /or related policies necessary to ensure that these facilities are safe and effective for City residents. Using the General Plan as a guide, significant impacts to bicycle/ pedestrian facilities would occur when a project or an element of the project: ■ creates a hazardous condition that currently does not exist for bicyclists /pedestrians, or otherwise interferes with pedestriah accessibility to the site and adjoining areas; or ■ creates substantial increase in demand for bicycle /pedestrian facilities where none currently exist or creates conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities; or ■ conflicts with an existing or planned bicycle /pedestrian facility; or ■ conflicts with policies related to bicycle / pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for their respective facilities in the study area. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts As discussed previously, Class II bike lanes are provided on Homestead Road, Hollenbeck Avenue - Stelling Road, and Sunnyvale Saratoga Road -De Anza Boulevard. Bike lanes on Homestead Road provide access to residential units east and west of the project site. Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard connect the southern end of the City of Cupertino, as well as the City of Sunnyvale north of the project site. The project will not eliminate any existing bike la immediately adjacent to the site. Sidewalks currently exist along Homestead Road, Sunnyvale Saratoga Road -De Anza Boulevard as well as Hollenbeck Avenue - Stelling Avenue. Sidewalks are provided along the east side of Franco Court. The project is proposing the construction of new sidewalks along the site's frontage on Homestead Road between Franco Court and De Anza Boulevard. The local bus stops are all accessible via existing FEHR PEERS i TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS•, The proposed project does not conflict with the existing or preclude construction of proposed future bicycle and pedestrian facilities; therefore, the project would have a less- than - significant impact on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. TRANSIT FACILITIES The proposed project is not proposing any changes to existing transit service to the project site. However, the project will likely increases demand for transit service in the area. Transit Impact Criteria Significant impabts to transit service would occur if the project or any part of the project: • creates a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing adjacent transit capacity, measured by comparing the expected transit capacity with the expected project demand for transit service; or • causes a substantial increase in delay or operating cost to a transit provider; or • conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Cupertino, or VTA for their respective facilities in the study area. Transit Impacts To identify potential impacts to transit service in the project area, average load factors were obtained from VTA. These numbers reflect the average passenger loads of bus routes at specific stops. Fixed -route bus service operates adjacent to the site with stops located at Homestead Road /Hollenbeck Avenue and Homestead Road /De Anza Boulevard. Table 9 summarizes the average load factors for VTA bus routes servicing these stops. f? F TRANSPORTATION E _ APEERS S TABLE 9 AVERAGE PASSENGER LOAD VALUES Average Average Average Average Daily Daily Weekday Route Trips Average Load / Route Direction Location Boarding' Alighting' Ridership / Day Rider /Trip Capacity 53 NB Homestead Rd & 16 13 910 13 33 0.86 SB Hollenbeck Ave 17 14 15 54 NB Homestead Rd & 67 22 1010 28 18 0.47 SB Hollenbeck Ave 6 16 29 55 NB Homestead Rd & 11 4 26 3170 42 37 0.97 SB De Anza Blvd 43 Notes: 1 VTA October 2009 boarding and alighting counts. 2 VTA November 2009 weekday ridership counts. 3 Standard bus route seating capacity — 38. 4 Route 55 does not operate in the northbound direction at the project site. f? F TRANSPORTATION E _ APEERS S PIN Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 - . According to the City of Cupertino General Plan, transit trips represent 1.5 percent of the daily generated trips in the city. The transit demand from the proposed project was calculated to be two (2) AM peak -hour trips and five (5) PM peak -hour trips. According to Table 9, all routes operate below the standard seating capacity. Due to the low project demand, the existng transit facilities will be able to accommodate the increase in transit trips and the impacts are expected to be less - than - significant. PARKING FACILITIES Parking impacts for the proposed redevelopment of the shopping center are evaluated in this section The City of Cupertino Municipal Code requires general commercial /retail uses to provide 1 parking space per 250 s.f.(4 spaces per 1,000 s.f.) of space. This land use category is very general and can include a variety of different types of specific land uses. Ths current site plan provides 793 parking spaces, a supply rate of 3.89 spaces per ksf. To verify that the proposed supply will be adequate to accommodate the projected demand of this project a parking study was conducted that gathered local data from developments with a similar mix of uses. Parking surveys of similar local commercial developments were performed on a weekday and weekend day to obtain additional parking demand information. In consultation with City staff, the following three commercial sites were chosen for parking surveys: 1. Existing Homestead Project Site 2. Mariposa Shopping Center, 2760 Homestead Road, Santa Clara 3. Grant Park Plaza, 1220 Grant Road, Mountain View All three of the above sites provide a mix of commercial uses that include a supermarket, a general merchandise store (CVS, Rite Aid, etc.), and restaurant space that is approximately ten (10) percent or less of the total size of the shopping center. The sites were surveyed between the hours of 11:00 AM and 7:00 PM on a weekday, and between noon and 5:01) PM during a Saturday in February 2010. Table 10 presents the results of the parking surveys. The parking demand rates from the three surveyed :sites range from 1.83 to 3.98 parking spaces per ksf of occupied space. The average demand rate of the three surveyed sites is 3 spaces per ksf, It should be noted that the highest rate was observed at the Grant Park Plaza site which includes a Nob Hill supermarket, as well as a Ranch 99 market. Based on observations of this site, a substantial proportion of the parking demand appeared to be attributable to Ranch 99. The popularity of this type of store as well as the fact that there were two supermarkets is I kely the cause of this relatively high parking demand rate at this site. The project site generates a peak weekday demand of 327 spaces or 2.13 spaces per ksf with the current uses. The ITE 85" percentile demand rate is 3.35 spaces per ksf that is provided in the Parking Generation 3' Edition. A circulation factor is typically applied to the demand rate to account for peak parking times when the demand is high so that spaces are easily accessible and vehicles to do not have to circulate through the site to find an available space. Typical circulation factors for shopping centers range from 5 -15% depending on the level of service that is desired to provide customers. Applying these factors would result in a parking supply range of 3.52 — 3.85 spaces per ksf. This is consistent with the surveyed sites parking demands and would accommodate the demand of most of these sites during the surveyed time periods. The proposed supply rate of 3.89 spaces �er ksf ,s greater than the average rate of the three sites surveyed for this project as well as the 85` percentile ITE rate that is provided. Based on the above surveys and the fact that the existing site is expected to remain similar with the same type of shopping center land uses, the proposed supply of 793 spaces is expected to be able to accommodate the f? FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS The City Code also requires the inclusion of designated bicycle parking for each of the uses on site, For general commercial /retail land use, 5% of the vehicular parking requirement is required. The site plan provides bike racks with no specific quantity. Fehr & Peers recommends that the project provide bike racks that can accommodate approximately 40 bicycles. TABLE 10 PARKING SURVEYS Site #1 Project Site Occ. Spaces % Occupied Site #2 Mariposa Occ. Spaces % Occupied Site #3 Grant Park Plaza Occ. Spaces % Occupied Total # of Parking Spaces 941 644 1,019 T ime of Day (Weekday) 11:00 AM 230 24% 247 38% 350 34% 11:30 AM 218 23% 290 45% 410 40% 12:00 PM 258 27% 334 52% 461 45% 12:30 PM 242 26% 348 - J4% 507 50% 1:00 PM 269 29% 331 51% 499 49% 1:30 PM 264 28% 317 49% _ 528 _ . = 52% ' 2:00 PM �7 ° 317 49% 458 45% 2:30 PM 256 27% 288 45% 460 45% 3:00 PM 265 28% 289 45% 434 43% 3:30 PM 258 27% 288 45% 399 39% 4:00 PM 241 26% 299 46% 433 42% 4:30 PM 229 24% 332 52% 435 43% 5:00 PM 223 24% 305 47% 428 42% 5:30 PM 196 21% 285 44% 404 40% 6:00 PM 180 19% 294 46% 393 39% 6:30 PM 156 17% 289 45% 403 40% 7:00 PM 132 14% 1 257 40% 340 33% T ime of Day (Saturday) 12;00 PM 218 23% 307 48% 611 60% 12:30 PM 227 24% 328 51% 609 60% 1:00 PM 238 25% 317 49% 598 59% 1:30 PM 253 27% 308 48% 606 59% E - FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion April 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FEHR &- PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �3- TABLE 10 PARKING SURVEYS Site #3 Site #1 Site #2 Grant Park Project Site Mariposa Plaza Occ. Occ. Spaces % Occupied Occ. Spaces % Occupied Spaces % Occupied 2:00 PM 271 29% 332 52% 629 62% 2:20 PM W-1 357 55% 631 62% 3:00 PM 259 28% 365 N 641 3:30 PM 249 26% 338 52% 619 61% 4:00 PM 248 26% 309 48% 610 60% 4:30 PM 239 25% 278 43% 605 59% 5:00 PM 199 21% 244 38% 483 47% Center Size (S.f.)3 170,000 136,800 174,800 Occupied Space (s.f.) 153,000 126,700 162,500 Weekday Peak Demand Rate 2.13 2.75 3.25 Weekend Peak Demand Rate 1.83 2.88 3.98 Notes: 1 Required Supply from City of Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance Table 19. 100.040 -A. T otal project area. 3 Center Size rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: Fehr & Peers, February 2010. FEHR &- PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �3- CONDITIONS This chapter presents an analysis of Cumulative Conditions both with and without the proposed expansion. Cumulative No Project Conditions are defined as existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by pending developments (those not yet approved). Trips from the proposed project are added to the Cumulative No Project Conditions to obtain Cumulative plus Project Conditions. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine the cumulative traffic volumes and the results of the level of service analysis for both Cumulative Conditions. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ESTIMATES A list of pending projects was obtained from the City of Cupertino (Appendix C) and the City of Sunnyvale. Trip estimates were then developed using available data and standard engineering practice. These trips were then assigned to the roadway network based on the locations of complementary land uses and anticipated directions of approach and departure. Figure 9 presents the Cumulative No Project turning movement volumes, the lane geometries, and traffic control devices. The trips generated by the proposed expansion were added to the Cumulative No Project Condition volumes and are shown on Figures 10. CUMULATIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS No future roadway or intersection improvements were identified by City of Cupertino staff; existing intersection lane configurations were used for the Cumulative Conditions analysis. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions, and the results are summarized in Table 11. Cumulative No Project Conditions serve as the baseline condition for determining cumulative impacts. All intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service both with and without the project, independent of the expansion scheme. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA Using the same significance criteria as Project Conditions, impacts of the cumulative scenario were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative without Project Conditions to the results under Cumulative with Project Conditions. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION IMPACTS Both local and CMP intersections continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for Cumulative with Project Conditions. Thus, the cumulative project's impact to these signalized intersections is considered less -than- significant. FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PW Market/Homestead Retail Expansion c April 2010 TABLE 11 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Cumulative No Project Cumulative with Project A in Crit A in Crit Peak Intersection Hour' Delay LOS' Delay LOS V /C Delay 1. Homestead Road / AM 41.9 D 42.1 D 0.007 07 Stelling Road PM 48.7 D 50.7 D 0.025 2.8 2. Homestead Road / AM 10.3 E3+ 10.4 B+ 0.010 0.1 Franco Court PM 11.4 E3+ 11.7 B+ 0.027 0.4 3. Homestead Road / AM De Anza Boulevard PM 38.9 C)+ 39.4 D 0.006 0.5 [CMP) 45.8 D 51.2 D- 0.036 10.0 4. Homestead Road / AM 27,5 ID 27.5 C 0.002 0.1 Wolfe Road PM 39.6 I) 39.8 D 0.000 0.0 5. 1 -280 Northbound AM Ramps / De Anza PM 24.1 C 24.1 C 0.001 0.0 Boulevard [CMP] 21.4 G+ 21.3 C+ 0.005 0.0 6. 1 -280 Southbound AM Ramps / De Anza PM 20.3 C:+ 20.3 C+ 0.001 0.0 Boulevard [CMP] 20.1 C:+ 20.1 C+ 0.003 0.2 7. Stevens Creek Boulevard / De AM 37.2 D+ 37.2 D+ 0.002 0.1 Anza Boulevard PM 63.5 1= 64.0 E 0.003 0.8 [CMP] Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with ad;usted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 8.0 level of service analysis software package. 2 LOS = level of service. LOS D standard for City of Cupertino intersections. LOS E standard for CMP- designated intersections. 3 Change in the critical volume -to- capacity ratio (WC) between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions. 4 Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations by City of Cupertino & CMP LOS standards. [CMP] = Congestion Management Program- designated intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2010. --- ---- --- fp FEHR Sz PEERS - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS s. n Co [O N Co to Q to Q N N )1� 74 (359) 427 (643) —: 195 (217) Q In � N h Q O _ O co 411 130 (209) 442 (758) —: 219 (434) 192 (362) f 579(797) 237(108) Homestead Rd o � Q O V N N F� 84 (156) �— 456 (777) 212 (441) Homestead Rd o Co � N M N O iz W 0 7 M 638 (728) cli N X1111 �C � 056 (528) NB 2BO Ramps rn v N L7 c CD V O M� G o [7 O 19 (66) 4�— c� 6 943 (1194) CV G 29 (36) R i W Homestead Rd Stevens Creeii Blvd Homestead Rd 29 (29) -0 —�'I v N 935 (1100) — 0 �I 7 (19) L ro N iz W 0 7 M 638 (728) cli N X1111 �C � 056 (528) NB 2BO Ramps rn v N L7 c CD V O M� G o rn � � tD N co O M 228 (212) o ° Ir 6 4 483 (610) CV G 460 (347) R i W I$,-- 256 (575) Stevens Creeii Blvd Homestead Rd 270 (199) -0 —�'I v N 386 (577) m 357 (396) Q M m O 0 O N Lo ^ co O N O j m In In N 111�� i° SB 280 Ramps j 11 11� 521 (492) ,� 3 "� 1 ( 460 (278) v ri Q co r� N Q Q KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion }-� PEE CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT FER TRANSPORTATIONN CONSULTANTS VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 9 SJ09 -1111 23-96 t._ co O M 312 (295) CV 940 (1206) 4 144* i W I$,-- 256 (575) Stevens Creeii Blvd 263 (365) 430(1130) � v N 148(405) —� m m ° •- N VJ N I!1 01 N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Signalized Intersection PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion }-� PEE CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT FER TRANSPORTATIONN CONSULTANTS VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS December 2009 FIGURE 9 SJ09 -1111 23-96 t0 N D cn v 04 CD V N it 74 (359) 440(672) 195 (217) V N � .V- O - o co O N .- r � �I1L& 130 (209) 448 (775) 219 (434) 199 (381) 590 (826) 242 (122) Homestead Rd o � o � V O L7 V to V N V CI) V N 84 (156) �— 464 (795) 212(4-41) N V 20 (69) ° m M f - 970(1269) LLi PC 34 (47) a c' X1111 Homestead d 29 (29) NB 280 Ramps ��1fi1 0 N CO v r v c� Q L 968(1175) —► °I c 10 (26) m U_ O m V N N V O � ' 640 (732) 7 O c N a c' X1111 � 956 (528) e- 0 0 w NB 280 Ramps ��1fi1 0 N CO v r v c� Q L L'7 i rn O r- o 4 m W � N to 228 (212) e- 0 0 w m 4 500 (649) AN Stevens Creek Blvd 263 (365) 460 (347) 430 (1130) rn 148 (405) —► c� o Homestead Rd 284 (238) -m> ntfifir 400 (616) -► N L7 c; m 367 (424) 0 Q i2 o N ] N � N nn, T_ 4 n m N N r M O � O �m Ic 111�� SS 280 Ramps 523 fifi1fi1� (496) 3 (g) 460 (278) � co co c v c M c v Homestead Rd o V m n L7 co n N M N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ® = Signalized Intersection f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion F E H R & PEERS CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT TRANSPORTATION TOtis0L7hti7S VOLUMES LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS - Decemb 2009 FIGURE IGURE 10 23-97 r- o I� N to iQ 312 (295) f 940(1206) 256 (575) AN Stevens Creek Blvd 263 (365) 430 (1130) iZ 148 (405) —► c� o N [7 N L7 G N KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ® = Signalized Intersection f� PW Market Homestead Retail Expansion F E H R & PEERS CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT PEAK -HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT TRANSPORTATION TOtis0L7hti7S VOLUMES LANE GEOMETRIES, AND SIGNAL CONTROLS - Decemb 2009 FIGURE IGURE 10 23-97 ATTACHMENT I 0 0 a d "c a rn 0 m Y April 20, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava, AICP Director of Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 -3255 RE: PW MARKETS - HOMESTEAD AND DEANZA PROJECT Application: U- 2009 -08, ASA- 2009 -08, TR- 2010 -08, and EA- 2009 -11 Dear Aarti: I am writing on behalf of the applicant, FBJ Homestead Associates, LLC, regarding a couple of issues that arose at the April 13, 2010 planning commission hearing. I would like to clarify the applicant's position on the following items prior to our city council hearing on May 4, 2010: U- 2009 -08 5. DRIVE THRU LANE FOR PAD 2 1 would like to clarify some of the design questions you discussed at the commission hearing. First, there are two existing buildings on -site with drive - thru windows, the Carl's Jr. restaurant and the drive -thru coffee use both located along the Homestead frontage. We are not requesting ANY NEW DRIVE -THRU USES. We are asking for one of the drive - thru's to be relocated to the Rite Aid Building (Pad 1) and the other drive -thru to be relocated from the Carl's Jr. building to the new Pad Building 2. The relocation of these two existing drive -thru lanes will result in less traffic than the previous locations. The circulation and flow of both new locations work nicely with the new site design for the center. I have attached an enlarged sketch (Exhibit A) showing the vehicle access points, parking field, building entry and stacking lane for the proposed drive -thru for Pad Building 2. As you can see from the drawing the drive -thru lane will hold 7 -9 cars comfortably. The parking field (50 cars) for customers that park and walk into the building has no conflict with the drive -thru lane. There are multiple ingress and egress driveways to distribute traffic and further reduce potential conflicts. Our design meets the General Plan Policy 2 -91: New Drive -Up Services. We believe the planning commission made the right decision in supporting the drive -thru lane for PAD Building 2. The owners want me to again, stress this is one of the most in financial considerations to the success of this project, and they respectfully ask the city council to support the planning commission's unanimou.; recommendation to allow this drive - thru lone for PAD Building 2. 6. PHASING PLAN As I discussed at the commission hecring this project will be built in phases because of the very difficult economic: times, Rite -Aid and PW Market will be relocating to new buildings on -site creating construction timing issues. Item 6, page 2 -30, of U- 2009 -08 needs to be clarified to the City Council, Phase IA Build the new Rite Aid, parking lot mprovements, landscape and lighting as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B). We believe condition 6 should read: 6a. Separated sidewalk in front of Rite Aid as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B) b. Street landscape improvements as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B) C. Defer until construction of phase IB d. Parking lot improvements in the area associated with Phase IA construction as shown on thE? attached sketch (Exhibit B) Phase IB Build the new PAD Buildings 2 -4, parking lot improvements, landscape and lighting as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B) 60. Separated sidewalk along Homestead wrapping the corner of Franco Court to fhe first driveway as shown on the attached sketch ; r Lxhibit B). 23-99 b. Street landscape improvements as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B) c. Pedestrian improvements in right -of -way recommended by the Fehr and Peers Inc Traffic Report, dated April 1, 2010 d. Parking lot improvements in the area associated with this phase as shown on the attached sketch (Exhibit B) Phase II Complete the rest of the shopping center (Major 1, Major 2 and Major 3, associated parking and landscaping) 8. REMOVE AND REPLACE THE SIDEWALK ALONG FRANCO COURT WITH A DETACHED SIDEWALK We agree with the planning commission's final recommendation not to remove and replace the existing monolithic walk the entire length of Franco Court. We accept the condition to add a new detached sidewalk from the corner of Homestead and Franco south to the first driveway below PAD Building 4 (Exhibit B). This will be a positive addition to the project. We do not support any additional removal of sidewalk along Franco, because it will cause great damage to the existing trees and landscaping. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM We agree with the planning commission's recommendation that these fees should be waived for this project. Given the difficult economic times, this fee of approximately $200,000, makes it difficult for the project to move forward and be built. We would like to get the City Council's feeling if this is something the council may entertain, if so, we would file the necessary applications and fees to formally bring this back to the city council for review at a later date. 12. GATEWAY FUND We agree with the commission's recommendation to allow this requirement of $25,000 to be a part of the required one - quarter percent (11/47o) art budget. 23-100 This retail center has been owned by the Franco family since the early 1960's. It is their goal to upgrade, remodel and add new construction to this center which will make it a positive addition to the neighborhood and the City of Cupertino for another 50 years. We respectfully ask the City Council to support the planning commission's recommendations along with the above clarifications at their May meeting. Sincerely, tenr�th Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. enneth Rodrigues, FAiA c: J. Machado J. 'Belli M. Stigers S. Seaver 23-101 N W 0 N _ 4- `v (! ! ENTRY , — — - - li- — — — — r ^� l 1 i ( I ° t =1 nnn 2 I I N I - e81)av - I -I (� + .4 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a �► E1 C� I t M � �.a OR — - I W I -: L -- - -- C HOMESTEAD A DF ANIA 130ULEVARr, CUPERTINO, ( - Al WORNIA I c .– EXHIBIT A -- - -_ — APRIL 21). 20111 J 4 r: PI�IASE IB CONDITIONS 6A, 0. C 8 D� rt e „_- PI"IASE IA CONDI I IONS GA. 0. C AND 1) m M Eris AD R O A,,D y , •r, r � r 4,.+ —>- \. , ►s,� -- `� i+s or NEW PAD 3 _ ,t NEW rl li r ! i i i' JL::. r - •Y It 4 L.,, ( lii NEW 2 ?� 5,460 5F ( ( PAD 0.250 SF _ r I0 I II( it I I; PAD 4 7 �,yll: 9.900 SF J J 1. EXISTING I RETAIL I _'y,,: V I _ ADI d I BUILDING tiI* . -- I — r 1 _ = - - - L 3r- ♦ r — I � I L I L I I r_J I O N t ui EXISTING i �/ 5,790 SF EXISTING EXISTING NEW NEW NEW j I = RETAIL 1 a BUILDING }+ MAJOR 5 MAJOR 4 MAJOR I MAJOR 2 MAJOR I 25.400 SF I 20.000 SF 31.240 SF 31.240 SF 48.020 SF I HONES & DE ANZA BOULEVARD EXHIBIT B APRIL 4"0, '?010 CUPER - i - IN0, CAI IFORNIA ATTACHMENT J CUPERTINO COW FOR,4 2-7 Policy2 -6: Neighborhood Protection Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intru- sive effects from more intense develop- ments with adequate buffering set- backs, landscaping, walls, activity, limi rations, site design and other appropri- ate measures. Strategy: Create zoning or specific plans that reduce incompatibilities benveen new development and existing residential neighborhoods daylight planes, mini- mum setback standards, landscape screening, acoustical analysis, location and orientation of service areas away from residential uses and limitations on hours of operation. Circulation tit Community form includes the circula- tion system that connects people internally and externally. Highway 85 defines the edge between the urban areas and the suburban and semi -rural areas. Opportunities will be pursued to reduce road w idth and number of lanes on roads that cross from urban to rural areas. Landscaping will be more informal, with trees and shrubs becoming more domi- nant and closer to the street. The circulation system Nv ill be balanced so that automobile traffic does not overwhelm other forms of transportation. Policy2 -7: Defined and Balanced Circulation System Define the circulation system as a hier- archy of street \�7idths from urban to rural areas. Balance the roadway sys- tem benveen automobile and pedestri- an/bicycle needs. City Gateways Gateways are important in creating a memorable impression of a city, often using formal elements, such as buildings, arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art. Gateways may also be dramatic without constructed devices, and are not always found at the city limits. For example, the street over- crossing at Lawrence Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard is a definite gateway to the east edge of Cupertino, even though it is not located in Cupertino. Policy 2 -8: Distinctive Community Gateways Provide distinctive community gate - ways at major entry points that create a unique community identity for Cupertino. Strategies: Gateway Plan. Develop a gateway plan for the City's entry points. Identify loca- tions and design guidelines for the gate - way features. SEE POLICY 4 -6 IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 23-104 Attachment G 00 T PW VICINITY MAP MARKET /HOMESTEAD MARCH 8, 2010 CONTACTS CLIENT PW Supermarkets, Inc. 2001 Gateway Place #220 West San Jose, Ca 95110 OWNER REPRESENTIVE & LEASING Colliers International 450 W. Santa Clara Street San Jose, Ca 95113 ARCHITECT Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc 445 N. Whisman Road, Suite 200 Mountain View, Ca 94043 CONTRACTOR J K BAKER CONSTRUCTION. 2175 Stone Ave. Unit #11 San Jose, Ca 95125 Phone: 408.258.4977 Fax: 408.453.2169 Contact: Joy Belli Mike Stigers Phone: 408.282.3800 Fax: 408.283.2538 Contact: John Machado Phone: 650.965.0700 Fax: 650.960.0707 Contact: Kenneth Rodrigues Phone: 408.882.0199 Fax: 408.882.0190 Contact: Dwayne Baker RETAIL K C N N,IN RD DR IO YES • IA RI NE PS INC AAS % RIH WHI S WAN RD. SUIT, /100 W O 0 N I A I N V l C w 0 A N S 0.• P S. D 10 D SHEETINDEX Al ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN A2 DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN A3 DESIGN IMAGERY A4 PAD 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 PAD 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 PAD 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 PAD 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9 MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A10 MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS All ENLARGED KEY AREAS Al2 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS A13 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS A14 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS A15 PAD BUILDING FLOOR PLANS A16 MAJOR 1 FLOOR PLANS A17 MAJORS 2 & 3 FLOOR PLANS A18 BUILDING SECTIONS A19 TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS A20 PHASING PLAN A21 LANDSCAPED AREA CALCULATION C1,0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C2.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN C3.0 STORMWATER TREATMENT NOTES & DETAILS L1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 TREE SURVEY K C N N,IN RD DR IO YES • IA RI NE PS INC AAS % RIH WHI S WAN RD. SUIT, /100 W O 0 N I A I N V l C w 0 A N S 0.• P S. D 10 D ■ .... • ........ . Nt T . I N Y I C w I A i! a. I E!. 7 X EXISTING 3&4 ' �M STORY HOUSING PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ILL SITE PLA P W MARKET POSTING CQMMERQAL N W SHAFtED E)GSTW4 OV SIDEWALK. TO Mao" EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING EXI RET n TA IL G BUILDING LB LD NG -- FLUM lr I I M COW. PAD Lu NEW StGNA3E PYLON . 7 ------------- EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING SCOPE OF WORK I METING -STORY r HOTEL � 4qj g - % K R PI 2 3 .0 3 2 N &2 2 2 1 0 0 2 ' " -'- -'- 0 1 2 1 8 0 9 0 9 1 5 0 9 N 0 6 1 m 0 60' 120' ir Al (STING 2 ST -' I FEX 7 — f, - n ALL TURNS NEw ciTrsIDEWALIC PER ALL TURNS ALL TURNS SIGNALIZED ��I INTERSECTION IrERSECTION E%5T1R�Y9R91GN '`b+, INTERSECTION i- NEW OUTDOOR PATIO, TO BE REMOVED _i 7- NEWS] GlkAGE PUSI- C ART H O M E S E AD ROAD PYLON s .� � 6TING Y I ERCIAL ; ALL TURNS SIGNAL ED >t fNTERSE TION Y • a . {. �d BUILDING k _ 1 t; ` I ( — SCOPE OF WORK LIMIT i RIG IN & O I yR 8T PARCEL LINE � � ` •' •6 , :.S EXISTING ti( 4 -STORY HQTEL., TABULATION TRASH ENCLOSURE KEY [1 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 1 2❑ TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 2 ❑3 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 3 �4 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 4 I,75 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 5 NOTE: FOR ALL TRASH ENCLSOURE DETAILS SEE SHEET A19 RF MNFTX RpORILU[S • YARIX ERS IM[ IIS SUITC /100 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN PW MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 EXISTING PROPOSED SITE AREA +/- 15.029 AC (654,663 SF) +/- 15.029 AC (654,663 SF) BUILDING AREA 153,000 SF 203,792 SF F.A.R. 23.4% 31.1 % # OF STORIES ONE ONE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30' 30' PARKING 848 STALLS 793 STALLS UNI -STALL 831 STALLS 772 STALLS HANDICAPPED 17 STALLS 21 STALLS PARKING RATIO 5.5 STALLS / 1000 SF 3.89 STALLS / 1000 SF HOURS OF OPERATION 7 AM TO 11 PM 6 AM TO 11 PM 24 HOURS - RITE AID USE RETAIL RETAIL ZONING DESIGNATION P /CG & CG -rg P /CG & CG -rg (MIXED USE PD AND (MIXED USE PD AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY) GENERAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY) GENERAL PLAN Commercial /Residential Commercial /Residential PAVING AREA 420,908 SF ( 64.3 %) 340,602 SF ( 52.1 %) LANDSCAPE AND 80,755 SF ( 12.3 %) 110,269 SF ( 16.8 %) HARDSCAPE AREA TRASH ENCLOSURE KEY [1 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 1 2❑ TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 2 ❑3 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 3 �4 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 4 I,75 TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 5 NOTE: FOR ALL TRASH ENCLSOURE DETAILS SEE SHEET A19 RF MNFTX RpORILU[S • YARIX ERS IM[ IIS SUITC /100 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN PW MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 8 0 9 _ 0 9 1 5 0 9 N 0 R T 6 A2 -- 0 60' 120' 180' kENMCIX ROORICUFS t PNRiN CRS iNC NAS N09iM YIMISYAM RD EUI!E X300 Y 0 U N' A N V: E Y C A C S D R N S 0) 0 0 PW MARKETIHOMESTEAD RETAIL DESI IMAGERY P MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 A3 I I I 4 7 5 1 — — - - 3 , M lkl IN I,I = - -8 � 15 T 24• _ S LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF WEST ELEVATION 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER COLORS & - e 3 s 4 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM MATERIALS - — _I 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM j STOREFRONT SYSTEM C OL OR LEGEND- 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR -- - - - - — -- — - -- - - - -- — 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ip 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL S\v1.40 " BUFF" ' 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR --' x- i 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR I - ^T `° 11. WOOD LINTEL i 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER SIICR\\INMILLIAMS 13. WOOD TRELLIS SM214I � FIELD" T :. 14. CUT STONE VENEER - �- 15. PRECAST TRIM 16. PRECAST CORNICE 17. METAL WALL TRELLIS s 11ER Wl', "" I . DRIVE THRU WINDOW 19. DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY SHER\41N M ILLIANIS LLUOftallO STO.� F CO.aRSED STOP '- KEYMAP -� PAD 5 L:A61-1 • RO OFIN6 - BL'RNTOR.- \NGF _- - BROWN FLASHED -__ L PflG Rr.rLEX B! �- PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO• CALIFORNIA REMXEIX 4bORiLYES i P.NTM N PAD 1 EXTERIOR E L E V A T I O N S aa_ NORTN WNISYAM RD SUITE /200 YNI.IN , Ew C. 6 , n G 5 N) 0 1 P W M A R K E T EAST ELEVATION 17 1G 9 T � I � I a �. . v 1 _ 1 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION A4 - - -_- LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS 1 1< 3 COLORS & MATERIALS COLOR LEGEND: 1Cl COLOR N0.555 - F %RNIF.RS al AIAN. %(' ICI COLOR . \u.` i I 'PACIFIC PINES ICI COLOR N0.641 - GOLDEN C1LAL10E PRATT S LAMBERT N0.2100 \:ANILLa PRATT S LAMBERT \'0.11 -29 RIVER S-kND OLYMPIC SEMI- TRI.NSP:U2ENT COLOR 'TI6 26 18' 1T WEST ELEVATION w 20' 14' 20' KEYMAP PAD 2' I _ zt — I - I NCxxCiN gODgIGUE6 ♦ PagTN CPS iN_ aa5 xOgTN wxlS Yax qD. $DITI /)00 x O O x T a l x v I E w C♦ 6 5 0 9 6 5.] 0 0 f >,Rn AZ E - Smla Bar va' ELDORADO STOVE COARSFl) I 'I F I 1 BRI W, 1 1..V, 1; 26' 18' 12' 5 7' PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PAD 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P MARKET SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2_. 1 0 ._1_U A5'- .51 24' 14' NORTH ELEVATION 1 _ 3 4 EAST ELEVATION LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS �I aCAO LiX R0CRi4 UC5 ! RAPLX CPS ix- 6/3 60 RTx wXISYAX R0 SURE �74C u 0 U x i A i X Y l E w C A 6 5 0 9 6 5 0 7 0 0 1 COLORS & MATERIALS COLOR LEGEND: ICI COLORN*O.;cf - F.ARAfERS ALALkNAC' mor., RACIFic PLATES' El ICI COLOR NO.641 `GOLDEN* CH4LICE" PRAT' I & ] AM 10 k I N0.21110 N'�Nll'l , PRATT & LAMBERT ';0.11 -29 RIFER SAND OLI,IPIC SE \i1 TRVNSF' \RI , i COLOR= BRONZE \AINDMI" FR1_ML - San ' s■ Bar ■ra' ELDORADO STONE COARSED STONE r.�c,r1_ Rclorrvc, -iI'_� -- BURNT ORANGE RM \PI ±tii ii -1) 26' 20' 14' 10' 5 7 4 1 12 3 SOUTH ELEVATION PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PAD 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P MARKET A6 26' 0 14' 26' 18' 12' WEST ELEVATION A;3 NORTH ELEVATION n , 11 751 7 1 12 i I I I KEYM _PADS sa.. b 4i 9 y . �I aCAO LiX R0CRi4 UC5 ! RAPLX CPS ix- 6/3 60 RTx wXISYAX R0 SURE �74C u 0 U x i A i X Y l E w C A 6 5 0 9 6 5 0 7 0 0 1 COLORS & MATERIALS COLOR LEGEND: ICI COLORN*O.;cf - F.ARAfERS ALALkNAC' mor., RACIFic PLATES' El ICI COLOR NO.641 `GOLDEN* CH4LICE" PRAT' I & ] AM 10 k I N0.21110 N'�Nll'l , PRATT & LAMBERT ';0.11 -29 RIFER SAND OLI,IPIC SE \i1 TRVNSF' \RI , i COLOR= BRONZE \AINDMI" FR1_ML - San ' s■ Bar ■ra' ELDORADO STONE COARSED STONE r.�c,r1_ Rclorrvc, -iI'_� -- BURNT ORANGE RM \PI ±tii ii -1) 26' 20' 14' 10' 5 7 4 1 12 3 SOUTH ELEVATION PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PAD 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P MARKET A6 26' 0 14' 26' 18' 12' WEST ELEVATION A;3 NORTH ELEVATION n , 11 751 7 1 12 i I I I 1 A73 LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS KEYMAP A t R ME�� pp Q K -NNEiN ROLL RICUES t PART NCRE INC Aa] NaRiH w Is N AN RR. ]YI 0700 M O U N T A I N V I E W [♦ 6 5 0. 9 6 5. 0 ] R O COLORS & MATERIALS COFOR LFCL \D: ICI COLOR NO.555 - F- kRNIERS _%LNQLN 1C' ICI COLOR N0.628 - BA\SBO ICI COLOR NO.641 - GOLDEN C}L4LICF' PILM 1 LANiBERT NO? l0U l4NILLA E L.A- %l NO. 11 29 Rn ER S.4:\D OLVNIP1C SENn- TR4,\SP.4RE .N'T COLOR :'16 BRONZE R'INDOW FRk %TF. SaiitY �:1f[ 11 Y„ LLDORILO I . COARSED S . `6L R` i ORANU BRc ) \ \ -\ 1=L- 1CliKI) 2E 2C is 1C NORTH ELEVATION 20' 2 A13 ' T,e ` - j 4, 112 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PAD 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A� P MARKET SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION F � _ I a 1.. WEST ELEVATION K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 0 6' 16' 32' I _I 2 5 DESIGN CONCEPT • RE- DEFINE THE ARCHITECTURE THEME / STYLE • INCREASE TENANT IDENTITY • ENRICH SHOPPING EXPERIENCE & ATMOSPHERE • ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY • CREATE COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACES • DESIGN HUMAN SCALE ARCHITECTURE NEW MAJOR 1 NEW MAJOR 2 NEW MAJOR 3 EXISTING MAJOR 4 EXISTING MAJOR 5 EXISTING SHOPS ELL - -- f _x := )�' ��....�•:y��:. -''I`- -,._ !E � -�".� I _1�_ ,' .,} _- -mss.. = �..n_.� -' PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ALONG HOMESTEAD ROAD (1"=40'-O") EXISTING BLDGS � • NEW ENTRY TOWERS • NEW TEXTURED AND COLORED WALKWAY • IN -FILLED COVERED WALKWAY EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION ALONG HOMESTEAD ROAD (1 "= 40' -0 ") 3 NEW MAJOR 1 NEW MAJOR 2 I i ` I � COMMUITY GATHERING SPACE ARCHI TECTURE SECONDARY FOCAL POINT • TREWS WITH VINES • MODERN MEDITERRANEAN / MISSION STYLE • CURVED ARCADE • OUTDOOR DINING PATIO • DIFFERENT FORMS, MATERIALS, & COLORS • PALMS OR BAMBOO BACKDROP • WALL FOUNTAIN • INCREASE SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITY • LOW SEATING WALL, GATHERING SPACE • UMBRELLA, TABLES & CHAIRS TOWER ELEMENTS • NEW TEXTURED AND COLORED WALKWAY • DIFFERENT PEDESTRIAN SCALE ARCADE ELEMENTS LINED TREES Qa ENTRY DRIVEWAY 1 r13 kCUU('u pODi'GU CS • i•i'u[PS iM- aaI kD I U wu, 5... FD. SI ITC f c I w . i w v i c es c• • s D. u I D. c I D - MARKET ��b, r TITIT[i_ 7_7 - - - - _ - -°m - - Qi - - -� ENLARGED PROPOSED MAJORS ELEVATION & PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN (1 "= 20' -0 ") PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P MARKET 0 <` +v' 1 �.� a A11 --------- - - - - -- NEW MAJOR 3 I I I I I I MAIN FOCAL POINT _ • FOUNTAIN • PALMS OR BAMBOO BACKDROP • POTS AND BENCHES, GATHERING SPACE • NEW TEXTURED AND COLORED WALKWAY • LINED TREES @ ENTRY DRIVEWAY IN- BETWEEN STORES POTS AND BENCHES LIGHTING FIXTURES BANNER SIGNS NEW TEXTURED AND COLORED WALKWAY COVERED WALKWAY t 2 5 _ 0 3 - 1 0 0 A8 LEGEND 1. 2. 3. 4. CLAY TILE ROOF PAINTED METAL GUTTER EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CLERESTORY WINDOWS PLASTER REVEAL HOLLOW METAL DOOR OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR WOOD LINTEL NEW MAJOR 1 NEW MAJOR 2 1 NEW MAJOR 3 1 EXISTING MAJOR 4 1 EXISTING MAJOR 5 1 EXISTING SHOPS 2 � 1 ------------------- - - - - -- - - ----------------------- - - - - -, ----------------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- ------------------ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 20. BANNERS WOOD TRELLIS 21. PRECAST MEDALLION CUT STONE VENEER 22. NEW COVERED ARCADE A %` - PRECAST TRIM 23. LOW STONE SEAT WALL ' PRECAST CORNICE 24. NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY js PAGEI_ ROC)FIN -I = 31:1 ELDORUJO STOVE BRONZE �i1 ?.11'iC PRATT & LAMBERT PRATT & LAnIBERT IC 'I COLOR 1O.6J1 ICI COLOR 10.629 ICI COLOR NO.555 METAL WALL TRELLIS 25. REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING '- BL RNT ORAVGF CO.ARSED STONE �iz�DOw FRAME SEnu- rR��sl.alzL�T NO.u RIZ ERS \D \0.210U `:�YILL.4 "GOLDEN C114LICE" n.4n RS0" "FARMERS ALnLA1 ac " DRIVE THRU WINDOW 26. NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING fi R( )1 \ \ H. A�I I I -17 ' COLOR = -16 COLORS & MATERIALS DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY 27. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN - - - - ---- NCNNCTN RODR0UC5 t R�RTNERS IMC a15 NDRTN W 15 N•N RD. SUITE #200 N o u N T A I N V I E W I 15 0. I I S. D I D O 2. ENLARGED PROPOSED MAJORS ELEVATION (1/16 "= 1' -0 ") PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVA P MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 A9 I PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ALONG HOMESTEAD ROAD (1 "= 40' -0 ") 1. ENLARGED PROPOSED MAJORS ELEVATION (1/16 "= 1' -0 ") LEGEND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. CLAY TILE ROOF PAINTED METAL GUTTER EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CLERESTORY WINDOWS PLASTER REVEAL HOLLOW METAL DOOR OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR WOOD LINTEL EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER WOOD TRELLIS CUT STONE VENEER PRECAST TRIM PRECAST CORNICE METAL WALL TRELLIS DRIVE THRU WINDOW DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY BANNERS PRECAST MEDALLION NEW COVERED ARCADE LOW STONE SEAT WALL NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING SHOPS EXISTING MAJOR 5 EXISTING MAJOR 4 NEW MAJOR 3 NEW MAJOR 2 I NEW MAJOR 1 I 3 ----------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 MAJORS SOUTH ELEVATION (1"=40'-O") 4: - S3fila liar ra" L. NULL RUUf_I \G ..} EI.DOR.DO STOl\F BRONZE OLITIPI PR.1TT d LAI, IR ER "7 PRATT .4 L.4 \1RLRT ICI COLOR VO.641 ICI COLOR \0.6 ICI COLOR \0.54z BURNT OR4\CL CO IRSED STONE R "I\UO"i FR44IL SF.`�II TR. \SPkRENT NO. 11 -29 RIVER SA.NL VO'I001'_LNJLLA - GOLDEN ALICE' - R.1 \IRO" - F.kRAIERS_iL`LLNA(__ 9R<7N'\ 1-1- .1SH}_:[? COLOR - -I6 COLORS & MATERIALS FXIRTINr, RI 111 r)IN(3C TO PPKAGIN ANfl RFf'.FI \/F NFW PAINT J. CIVL) IVI/1JUr[0 %DUU 1 rl CLCVf11 IUIV k I/ 10 - I - U ) PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL -_ _ - KRF'_3 32 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MAJORS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS w., isw•n RD. suiic �zao .,.. .�w as a P MARKET Al - 1. MAJORS EAST ELEVATION (1/16 "= 1' -0 ") 2. ENLARGED MAJORS SOUTH ELEVATION (1116 "= 1' -0 ") NEW SIGNAGE PYLON NEW DETACHED SIDEWALK PER CITY STANDARDS � I - a � ENLARGED SITE PLAN AT MAIN ENTRY 1 SCALE: 1"=30'-O" - - PUBLIC ART NEW RITE AID PLON SIGN. DESIGN TO MATCH - PROJECT MONUMENT SIGN NEW INTEGRAL COLORED STAMPED CONCRETE PAVING SMOOTH COLORED CONCRETE BAND LANDSCAPED FINGER ISLANDS NEW STONE LANDSCAPE BOLLARD AND LIGHTING LANDSCAPING AT MEDIAN ISLAND PLANTER AREA -- 1 r .. - f III NEW PAD 1 17,340 SF -- NEW INTEGRAL COLORED STAMPED CONCRETE - PAVING WITH SMOOTH INTEGRAL COLORED BANDS p[ 0 E NLARGED SITE PLAN AT RITE A ID SCALE: 1"=30'-O" BENCHES AND LANDSCAPE POTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING CART CORRAL STONE ACCENT WALL FEATURE TABLES AND UMBRELLAS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING i I I I I I i v ti (�) EN LA R GED SITE P AT PLAZA FEATURE SCALE: 1"=10'-O" [C NNC IX pDDFiGUCS • P/.RixRS �X. •.S XORX WXiSxFx P0. ElllE �2[c LOW STONE SEAT WALL - SPECIMEN PLAM TREES -- INTEGRAL COLORED STAMPED CONCRETE PAVING WITH ALTERNATING COLORED CONCRETE BANDS WATER FEATURE PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD CUPERTINO,. CALIFORNIA ENLARGED KEY AREAS P MARKET i�. �r (A) ENLARGED SITE PLAN AT PLAZA FEATURE SCALE: 1 "= 10' -0" R 1s T A � L -- - -- — _� KRP 1 23.032 03.08.10 Al _ _ _ 2 , LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS 14. CUT STONE VENEER 15. PRECAST TRIM 16. PRECAST CORNICE 17. METAL WALL TRELLIS 18. DRIVE THRU WINDOW 19. DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY 20. BANNERS 21. PRECAST MEDALLION 22. NEW COVERED ARCADE 23. LOW STONE SEAT WALL 24. NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY 25. REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING 26. NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING 27. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN KEYMAP e e e NEW NEW NEW MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR 9 2 1 NENx [TN ROOXI6U[S ! RARTXERS Ix0 4 43 N N wN IS YAN R0. s ITE 0200 Y 0 u Y T A I N V I E W C A 0 3 0. 9 O S. 0 T O C 4 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ENLARGED P MARKET ELEVA T /0NS n 16 14 - 15 L 4J K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 0 2. 1 0. 1 Al 2 0 0 6' 16' 24' TT 1. ENLARGED MAJOR 1 ENTRY ELEVATION 2. ENLARGED MAJOR 2 ENTRY ELEVATION 3. ENLARGED MAJOR 3 ENTRY ELEVATION LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS 14. CUT STONE VENEER 15. PRECAST TRIM 16. PRECAST CORNICE 17. METAL WALL TRELLIS 18. DRIVE THRU WINDOW 19, DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY 20. BANNERS 21. PRECAST MEDALLION 22. NEW COVERED ARCADE 23. LOW STONE SEAT WALL 24. NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY 25. REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING 26. NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING 27. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 1 1 Y r AM&- 4. SITE SECTION AT ENTRY DRIVE s KCNMCiN FOL RILUiS ! PA Ri MERS F.. •A5 XOCH Mr Suau RL SUI'E /:..L Y L U M i A H V I E W C A 1 5 0 9 6_ 0) 0 0 SECTION J ,Y r a 1. ENLARGED TYPICAL PAD ELEVATION 2. ENLARGED TYPICAL PAD ENTRY ELEVATION Al 3. ENLARGED TYPICAL PAD ENTRY ELEVATION � f a ,T 5. SITE SECTION AT ENTRY DRIVE PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ENLARGED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS P MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 Al 3'! 0 6' 16' 24' SECTION SECTION LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS 14. CUT STONE VENEER 15. PRECAST TRIM 16. PRECAST CORNICE 17. METAL WALL TRELLIS 18. DRIVE THRU WINDOW 19. DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY 20. BANNERS 21. PRECAST MEDALLION 22. NEW COVERED ARCADE 23. LOW STONE SEAT WALL 24. NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY 25. REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING 26. NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING 27. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN KEYMAP g MWO1 5 1 Q ■ K[NMCTN 40041GU C5 l Y14TNEE5 INC ..S NOKTN WNIS NKx 4p SUITE 1300 u o u x T I N r I E W C . E S D 4. S G) 0 0 I I \ 1 EXISTING MAJOR 5 ARCADE TO REMAIN 1. TYPICAL EXISTING MAJOR TENANT AND SHOPS ENTRY REMODEL PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPER71N0, CALIFORNIA ENLARGED ENTRY ELEVATIONS P MARKET EXISTING SHOPS - EXISTING FACADE AND ARCADE TO REMAIN I I PROPOSED SIGN AREA K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 A14--i 0 2. 1 0. 1 0 0 6' 16' 24' 3 LEGEND 1. CLEAR GLASS ENTRY DOOR 2. EXTERIOR WALL 3. WOOD TRELLIS ABOVE 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 5. LINE OF BUILDING EDGE ABOVE 6. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 7. HOLLOW METAL DOOR KEYMAP PAD 4 FLOOR PLAN PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL I CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA KENN El RO s. E l ��R IIE INO PAD BUILDING FLOOR PLAN S 4 .5 xOETN Wx15N.N R0. SVITE /100 NO U NTAIN VI EN C. R S 0 .• R E•0 1 0 0 P w M A R K E T 70' 9 i i i i -- -- - -- -- -- -- K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 N 0 2 1 0 1 0 N 0 R T N A 15 0 16' 32' 1 T i PAD 1 FLOOR PLAN PAD 3 FLOOR PLAN ,A inclelolklillol 1. CLEAR GLASS ENTRY DOOR 2. EXTERIOR WALL 3. WOOD TRELLIS ABOVE 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 5. LINE OF BUILDING EDGE ABOVE 6. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 7. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 8. TRASH ENCLOSURE 9. TRASH COMPACTOR KEYMAP MAJOR 1 FLOOR PLAN NRP12 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL N3.032 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA D3 , 2 , D REYY E T R ° .R. ` R.RT IY° M A J 0 R 1 F L 0 0 R P L A IN 0 2 1 0 1 O Y 0 R T I I . I E X � �. Y O. T Y RI Y Y � M R 0 S Y T C / I° 0 D 16' 32' 46' YOVYTAIY VIEW °.. 5 8 ... 5 .° 7 ° 0 P W MAR K E T - LEGEND 1. CLEAR GLASS ENTRY DOOR 2. EXTERIOR WALL 3. WOOD TRELLIS ABOVE 4, CLEAR GLASS SET IN STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM 5. LINE OF BUILDING EDGE ABOVE 6. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 7. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 8. TRASH ENCLOSURE 9. TRASH COMPACTOR KEYMAP wo AY E0. SUITE •200 Y O V Y T A I Y V I E W C• • S 0. E Y•. O ] 0 0 PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MAJORS 2 & 3 FLOOR PLANS P MARKET K R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 N 0 2. 1 0. 1 0 N 0 R i H t /ts• =r —o• 0 16' 32' 48' A171 L a MAJOR 3 F PLAN MAJOR 2 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 1. CLAY TILE ROOF 2. PAINTED METAL GUTTER 3. EXTERIOR PLASTER SYSTEM 4. CLEAR GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 5. CLEAR GLASS STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR 6. FROSTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 7. CLERESTORY WINDOWS 8. PLASTER REVEAL 9. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 10. OVERHEAD ROLL -UP DOOR 11. WOOD LINTEL 12. EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER 13. WOOD TRELLIS 14. CUT STONE VENEER 15. PRECAST TRIM 16. PRECAST CORNICE 17. METAL WALL TRELLIS 18. DRIVE THRU WINDOW 19. DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY 20. BANNERS 21. PRECAST MEDALLION 22. NEW COVERED ARCADE 23. LOW STONE SEAT WALL 24. NEW FREE STANDING ENTRY 25. REPAINT EXISTING BUILDING 26. NEW GUARD RAIL TO MATCH EXISTING 27. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 7X] 4 4 5 ... T. • . NAN ND SU ITE f1GO N 5 U N i A I N N I E M C A N 5.. 9 6 5. 0 ). 0 as PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA BUILDING SECTIONS P MARKET 5� BUILDING SECTION AT PAD BUILDING 2 21' �2 BUILDING SECTION AT MAJOR 1 0 2 1 0. 1 0 0 6' 16' 24' I I 1 I LEGEND 1. CMU WALL, CEMENT PLASTER FINISH, PAINTED 2. 6" CONCRETE CURB 3. METAL GATE 4. CONCRETE PAD 5. METAL FACIA, METAL ROOF BEYOND 6. LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 7. HOLLOW METAL DOOR 8. ROLL UP DOOR 9. 3 cu yd METAL BIN 10. 4 cu yd METAL BIN 11. 96 GAL. TOTER RECYLCE BIN 12. GREASE/TALLOW BIN WITH CATCH BASIN AS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 13. 96 GAL. TOTER ORGANIC BIN (SHOWN SHADED) NOTE: 30" ACCESS ALLOWED AT FRONT OF EACH BIN NOTE: EACH BLDG ENTRANCE WILL HAVE RECEPTACLES FOR TRASH, RECYCLE, AND ORGANIC WASTE TRASH ENCLOSURE T YPE 5: PLAN & E LOCATED AT NEW MAJOR 1 (48,000 SF MARKET) (MAJOR HAS COMPACTOR IN LOADING AREA FOR ORGANIC WASTE) R 1 i i TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 3: PLAN & ELEVATIONS LOCATED AT EXISTING MAJOR 5 (25,400 SF RETAIL) LOCATED AT NEW PAD 1 (17,340 SF RETAIL) (AT PAD 1: SOME 96- GALLON TOTER BINS MAY BE FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE) 7 RFNN [TM NDD...... N PISTNF.. INC aa3 NORIM WXiSY.1X R0. SUiTE �loD N 0 Y N T N I N Y I C W C N S S 0. S ! S. D ) 0 0 1v-(r I L' 18' -01 MAJOR 3 MAJOR 2 I Uri Ilk W w >a LOADING } } LOADING DOCKAT II U MAJOR 3 OR 2 TRASH ENC LOSURE TYP 4: PLA & FR ELE VATION LOCATED AT NEW MAJORS 2 & 3 (31,350 SF RETAIL EACH) (EACH MAJOR HAS COMPACTOR IN LOADING AREA FOR TRASH) TRASH ENCLOSURE TYPE 2: PLAN & ELEVATIONS LOCATED AT EXISTING SHOPS (5,790 SF RETAIL) SIM. LOCATED AT EXISTING MAJOR 4 (20,000 SF RETAIL) (AT MAJOR 4: BOTH 3 cuyd BINS FOR RECYCLE, COMPACTOR FOR TRASH) PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERiINO, CALIFORNIA TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS P MARKET 9 14'4' LOCATED AT EXISTING PAD (2,500 SF RESTAURANT & 3,644 SF RETAIL) LOCATED AT NEW PAD 2 (6,500 SF RESTAURANT) LOCATED AT NEW PAD 3 (2,400 SF RESTAURANT & 3,650 SF RETAIL) LOCATED AT NEW PAD 4 (4,000 SF RESTAURANT & 3,200 SF RETAIL) K R P 1 2 3 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 6' 16' 24' A19' _ 1 -- HOMESTEAD ROAD `.� �� - - - -- --- _ J AI • SHOPS _ _ _ - h NOT � A EXISTING MAJOR 5 EXISTING MAJOR 4 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING PAR_ MAJOR 3 MAJOR 2 MAJOR 1 .25,400 SF 20,000 SF 10,000 SF 38,000 SF 44,600 SF • 1�0�1�1 11 IT z Li- Li R MAJ 48, SF PHASE 1 DEMOLISH EXISTING PAD BUILDING @ THE CORNER OF HOMESTEAD & FRANCO AND PARKING LOTS WITHIN SHADED AREA CONSTRUCT FOUR PAD BUILDINGS INSTALL NEW PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING PHASE 2 DEMOLISH EXISTING MAJORS, 1, 2, & 3 AND THE REMAINING PARKING AREAS IN FRONT OF THE MAJORS. CONSTRUCT THREE NEW MAJOR BUILDINGS NEW ENTRY ARCHES AT EXISTING MAJORS & SHOPS REMODEL PARKING FIELD IN FRONT OF MAJORS & SHOPS PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD CUPERIINO, CALIFORNIA REMMETM RORRIRUCS t PtRTXCRS IMC P H A S I N G P L A N t.5 YDRTX �RXISYtM R0. RUIiF /R00 Y OU MTIIM PIER C, E! R.. E t.R , t R P W MA R K E T HOMESTEAD ROAD NOT A PART EXISTING PAD E, 144 SF Wit❖ iNN EXISTING P 2 SHOPS _ _ .- - h NOT 5,790 SF A EXISTING MAJOR 5 EXISTING MAJOR 4 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING PAR_ MAJOR 3 MAJOR 2 MAJOR 1 .25,400 SF 20,000 SF 10,000 SF 38,000 SF 44,600 SF PHASE 1 PARKING ANALYSIS BUILDING AREA 149,934 SF PARKING 512 STALLS PARKING RATIO 3.4/1000 SF RETAIL K R P 1 2 3 0 3 2 N 0 2 1 0 1 0 N 0 R 1 H A20 0 I 60' 160' 240' (Y Q W J O m Q N Z Q LL! C TABULATION SF W4 11,948 SF 116SIF 138SF 3,180 SF I SF 98 F 86 SF SF 10,082 SF 6� : : : * . E 0 '. T7 A . .7 A TNERS IM[ MOUNTAIN VIEW C A 4 5 0. 9 6 5. 0 7 D 0 59 SF i 39SF�1,136SF N SF 5 S I I 8111 SF 8 1,040 SF I 90 SF 134 SF 207 SF I $F 696sl 650 I 115 SF SF SF J7 � 1 U 936 SF 86S 2 1 S 398 SF 398 SF 398 SF 911 SF 233 SF 233 SF .... -------- SF SF SF ...... ..... 1 2 SF SF SF SF 208 SF 749 SF SF SF 448 SF 0 J 115 SF 251 SF 251 SF 251 SF 115 SF 481 SF 1,257 SF 174 SF 87 JSF 6 SIP 174 SF PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION P W MARKET i 2,076 SF SITE AREA +/- 15.029 AC (654,663 S F) INTERIOR LANDSCAPE 66,767 SF AREA PERCENTAGE 10.2% X R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 N N ' q 0 40' 80 120' A21 12102 SIF 1 2 2 S S � 78 S F "Sl 78 SF— 1224 SF 1,081 SF 207 SF S F 1,646 SF 251 SF 1,646 SF 251 SF 2,E SF SIF SF Him SIF 1" S F 251 SF 251 SF 202 SF 121 SF 121 SF 10,082 SF 6� : : : * . E 0 '. T7 A . .7 A TNERS IM[ MOUNTAIN VIEW C A 4 5 0. 9 6 5. 0 7 D 0 59 SF i 39SF�1,136SF N SF 5 S I I 8111 SF 8 1,040 SF I 90 SF 134 SF 207 SF I $F 696sl 650 I 115 SF SF SF J7 � 1 U 936 SF 86S 2 1 S 398 SF 398 SF 398 SF 911 SF 233 SF 233 SF .... -------- SF SF SF ...... ..... 1 2 SF SF SF SF 208 SF 749 SF SF SF 448 SF 0 J 115 SF 251 SF 251 SF 251 SF 115 SF 481 SF 1,257 SF 174 SF 87 JSF 6 SIP 174 SF PW MARKET /HOMESTEAD RETAIL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION P W MARKET i 2,076 SF SITE AREA +/- 15.029 AC (654,663 S F) INTERIOR LANDSCAPE 66,767 SF AREA PERCENTAGE 10.2% X R P 1 2 3. 0 3 2 N N ' q 0 40' 80 120' A21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HONIESTEA-D ROAD NEW PAD 4 —R — ' —R— - _._ - -- BUBBLER R— BUBBLER NEW PAD 3 NEW PAD 2 -------- AD 3 NEW PAD 2 r il II NEW PAD I FF 21 0.3-- BUBBLER 0 43- —in b 7 > C o T Z 3L" _1D 11 — PUMP S7A !gy_A/ WITH 2 PUMPS T =FF =9= � F R- R [-yj jyj NJ I , I I I I EX. MAJOR 5 �_- -- - -- — -- — -- — -- EX. MAJOR 4 Ilk NEW MAJOR 3 NEW MAJOR 2 NEW MAJOR I 0 40 go 120 Scale V 40 ft La PW MARKET/ HOMESTEAD RETAIL CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Al0006 KIER WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2 2-3-10 so - 0 A H CUPERTINO, C A L I F 0 R N I A -s 1-1.1 1 1. I'3CJ GF.AG -g -;Z- _ '01 -'*-, =11 HOMESTEAD ROAD BUBBLER - -- — - -— -- — -- — -- — — x �1. Mf5 UNIT 3 - ,- +yam -- -dv PASS PIPE' \ NEW PAD 3 s ao NEW PAD 2 ✓ ✓✓ l y � l :______ -_. W. - -_- - v -- - NEW PAD 4 E -- - -.� AREA 3 / / y i NEW PAD 1 I -- - -- /' + FF 210.3± 5.1 9 AC �� x AREA - - 1 - X 4 .00 AC BUBBLER - — } -- - - - - -- -. u - PUMP STATIDN A/ ..._ WITH 2 PUMPS x_n+, - nODBiD �FSI w.•vE.3 ixC •.5 vDFin. ww�5�wv 4[ su''E •acs z z NEW MAJOR 2 E PW MARKET/ HOMESTEAD RETAIL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN � Wo L I — ! SDMH i NEW MAJOR 3 AREA '2 6.62 AC NEW MAJOR 1 I No ,lr (— - flYPA55 PIPE C 40 80 Scale 1'= 40 ft 3 MFS UNiT 2 C3.0 KIER & WRIGHT N' C2 0 CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2.23-10 33S05caa BD d. ll.0 p22 140817226665 Sam. Clara. c0f.m 95054 faa 14081 R: S641 CUPERTINO. C A L I F O R N I A USER'S 1030- .. \PRCJECTS \AIDOOB \DWC \PLANNING\ ,.D STRM.dwq MMiC C'. _^''C 2 _. STORMWATER TREATMENT METHODOLOGY The site has been divided into 3 watershed areas. Site stormwater will be treated using two types of stormwater treatment devices: Vegetated Swales, and MFS units (Media Filtration Units) as follows: Area 1 Area I will be treated by 2 vegetated Swales. Vegetated Swale A has the capacity to treat 2.31 Ac. Vegetated Swale It has the capacity to treat 1.69 Ac. The combined capacity of these 2 swales will treat 4.00 Ac. Area 1 is 4.00 Ac. and therefore will be adequately treated by the 2 swales. A pump station with 2 pumps will be constructed on the existing storm drainpipe draining Area 1. One pump will be designed to discharge 0.37 cfs which is the stormwater treatment flowrate generated by 2.31 Ac. This discharge will be directed to and treated by Swale A. The remaining pump will be designed to discharge 0.27 cfs which is the stormwater treatment flowrate generated by 1 .69 Ac. This discharge will be directed to and treated by Swale B. The treated stormwater, along with flowrates exceeding the stormwater treatment flowrate, will be collected in a dedicated storm drainpipe and conveyed to a proposed junction box adjacent to Homestead Road for discharge to the public storm drain. The Swale calculations are as follows: 2119:10 A70008 2;79'10 AIDOO6 10.00' 2.25' CALTRANS PERMEABLE MATERIAL 2.00' 6' PERF. PIPE VEGETATED SWALE A varC�`i6'r� STORMFILTER DESIGN TABLE - StormFilter' • THE e a'.6' STORAIFlLTER TRGTYENr GPAGtt VARIES BY HUMBER OF 1-ER - TRIDGES INSTAL.ED AND RV REGION SPECIFIC 1-1 cONVEVANCE CAPACtt IS RATED AT'.ECFS •'HE SrANGRD COUFIGURATiON IS SHOw11. ACTUAL CO ' duRAT ION OF THE SPEcIF® STRUCTUI1EB) PER CNr. ENGINEER WILL BE SHOwN ON SUBATr rAL DRAwING(s1. ALL PARTS PROVIDED ANC.TaRNAL ASSEMBLY BY c0,NTECH STORMAIATER SOLUTIONS UNLESS OlF_RLNSE NOIED. WiTRIDGE iEIGM 21 1 1C tT S'STEM HYDRAlx1G ORDPIH- RCryp_MIN.) a05 2O' 1.6' TREARENT BY YEDw SJRFACE AREA pNR' 1 2 2gOm1P :ARTRICGE FIOw RATE' aAl n.s +12s 1s :s m s A L Ftow - PIPE VEGET ATED SWALE B Z PW MARKET/ HOMESTEAD RETAIL ..6 ... TH wHIs... AD iu -1269 S T O R M WAT E R TREATMENT M O V NT Al N Ii EIN OA 6S 0.06 S.0 T 06 NOTES & DETAILS ALTERNATE LDCATx7N rrYP _. FRAME AND COVER mp OF 21 GRADE R- r- OF 2) stoaMF - � � We uNOE CWTRIpGE - . q , r SECTION A - A A tow cN r .ET PIPE MFS (MEDIA FILTRATION UNIT) DETAIL o J AIDDDB NNE \ I 1 I I k KIER & WRIGHT - CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2 -23.10 N o R T R 350 Sion W.11 -d. 110019 22 (40 NI 727 6665 C 3 0 Rt SSa Clary cihf v-1 95054 far (406 727 5641 CUPERTINO, C A L I F O R N I A Area 2 Area 2 will be treated by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 2 is 6.62 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment q is Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 6.62 = 1.06 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 2) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 1.06 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate wilt be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. Area 3 Area 3 will be :reared by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 3 is 5.19 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment Q !s. Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 5.19 = 0.83 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 3) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 0.83 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate will be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. USER: ayeloeq- I: \PROJECTS \AIDOOB \DWG \PLANNING \C3.0 STRM DT d.9 MARCH 01, 2010 2:12 PM PLAN (ACDESS FRAME AND COVERS 0-0 FOR C(ARCY) VEGETATED SWALE CALCULATIONS Flow -Based Storm water Treatm ent BNP Swale A (Stornriv, Treatment i = 0.20 rn 0I. I = 0.20 in'hr, and Area = 100,733 0 2.313 Ac, The Stormwater treatment 0 = 0.37 cfs or 166 gpm Channel design: The Slormwater treatment 0 = Bottom slope. s s = 0.0125 11.71t. Manning's n n n = 0.25D0 :.5(. re. ,P ICIM Side slope, Right side 100 hone. to 1 ven. _' 1 ma. Side slope, Let side 3.00 honz. 10 1 van. ; 1 - Depth of tow, d d = 0.17 ft. (treatment depth) Bolcom width. w w= 10.00 ft. Top width @ 0 T,..M,.,,r depth 11.0 ft. Top width Ld design depth 14.5 fL Design depth It 0.75 R Therefore: 3.Do honz. to 1 ten. Area A = 1.83 Bid 11. Wetted penmeter Pw= 11.10 ft. Hydraulic radius r= 016 By Mannino'', Eguadon: Top width Ca 0 n.M,,,.,,I depth 9.4 R 4 = 0.37 c_ 0.37 require. Swale Length: 120 P.. V = 0.20 fps Therefore: Residence time In Swale. 10.0 mlmutes Construct 1 swale(s) 14.5 ft. wide x 120 ft. long Waited penmeter 2;79'10 AIDOO6 10.00' 2.25' CALTRANS PERMEABLE MATERIAL 2.00' 6' PERF. PIPE VEGETATED SWALE A varC�`i6'r� STORMFILTER DESIGN TABLE - StormFilter' • THE e a'.6' STORAIFlLTER TRGTYENr GPAGtt VARIES BY HUMBER OF 1-ER - TRIDGES INSTAL.ED AND RV REGION SPECIFIC 1-1 cONVEVANCE CAPACtt IS RATED AT'.ECFS •'HE SrANGRD COUFIGURATiON IS SHOw11. ACTUAL CO ' duRAT ION OF THE SPEcIF® STRUCTUI1EB) PER CNr. ENGINEER WILL BE SHOwN ON SUBATr rAL DRAwING(s1. ALL PARTS PROVIDED ANC.TaRNAL ASSEMBLY BY c0,NTECH STORMAIATER SOLUTIONS UNLESS OlF_RLNSE NOIED. WiTRIDGE iEIGM 21 1 1C tT S'STEM HYDRAlx1G ORDPIH- RCryp_MIN.) a05 2O' 1.6' TREARENT BY YEDw SJRFACE AREA pNR' 1 2 2gOm1P :ARTRICGE FIOw RATE' aAl n.s +12s 1s :s m s A L Ftow - PIPE VEGET ATED SWALE B Z PW MARKET/ HOMESTEAD RETAIL ..6 ... TH wHIs... AD iu -1269 S T O R M WAT E R TREATMENT M O V NT Al N Ii EIN OA 6S 0.06 S.0 T 06 NOTES & DETAILS ALTERNATE LDCATx7N rrYP _. FRAME AND COVER mp OF 21 GRADE R- r- OF 2) stoaMF - � � We uNOE CWTRIpGE - . q , r SECTION A - A A tow cN r .ET PIPE MFS (MEDIA FILTRATION UNIT) DETAIL o J AIDDDB NNE \ I 1 I I k KIER & WRIGHT - CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2 -23.10 N o R T R 350 Sion W.11 -d. 110019 22 (40 NI 727 6665 C 3 0 Rt SSa Clary cihf v-1 95054 far (406 727 5641 CUPERTINO, C A L I F O R N I A Area 2 Area 2 will be treated by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 2 is 6.62 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment q is Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 6.62 = 1.06 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 2) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 1.06 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate wilt be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. Area 3 Area 3 will be :reared by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 3 is 5.19 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment Q !s. Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 5.19 = 0.83 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 3) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 0.83 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate will be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. USER: ayeloeq- I: \PROJECTS \AIDOOB \DWG \PLANNING \C3.0 STRM DT d.9 MARCH 01, 2010 2:12 PM PLAN (ACDESS FRAME AND COVERS 0-0 FOR C(ARCY) VEGETATED SWALE CALCULATIONS Ffow.Rased Stormwater Treatment RMP SlYd1C@ (SlormMerer Treatment I = 0.20 in1hr) Fns C= 0.80 1 = 0.20 iNhr. and Area = 73.600 sf 1.690 Ac. The Slormwater treatment 0 = 0.27 cfs or 121 Sid- Channel design: Bottom slope, s s = 0.0130 f,.lft. Manning'', n n = 0.2500 C_'SL recommended Side slope, Righl Sitle 3.00 honz. to 1 111, 3:1 11 Side slope, Left side 3.Do honz. to 1 ten. 3:1 mas Depth .1 Now, it d = 0.16 ft. (treatment depth) C.33 ft mar. Bottom witlth. w = 8.50 ft. 70' max Top width Ca 0 n.M,,,.,,I depth 9.4 R Top width @ design depth 13.0 ft. Design depth = 0.75 R Therefore: Area A A - 0.42 sq. ft Waited penmeter P. - 50 N. Hydraulic mdius r= 0.15 By Mannino's Equation: 0 0.27 OB 0.27 - required Swale Length: 115 t V = 0.19 fps Residence time in Swale 1D.O minutes Con struct 1 swale(s) 13.0 ft. wide 115 ft. long 2;79'10 AIDOO6 10.00' 2.25' CALTRANS PERMEABLE MATERIAL 2.00' 6' PERF. PIPE VEGETATED SWALE A varC�`i6'r� STORMFILTER DESIGN TABLE - StormFilter' • THE e a'.6' STORAIFlLTER TRGTYENr GPAGtt VARIES BY HUMBER OF 1-ER - TRIDGES INSTAL.ED AND RV REGION SPECIFIC 1-1 cONVEVANCE CAPACtt IS RATED AT'.ECFS •'HE SrANGRD COUFIGURATiON IS SHOw11. ACTUAL CO ' duRAT ION OF THE SPEcIF® STRUCTUI1EB) PER CNr. ENGINEER WILL BE SHOwN ON SUBATr rAL DRAwING(s1. ALL PARTS PROVIDED ANC.TaRNAL ASSEMBLY BY c0,NTECH STORMAIATER SOLUTIONS UNLESS OlF_RLNSE NOIED. WiTRIDGE iEIGM 21 1 1C tT S'STEM HYDRAlx1G ORDPIH- RCryp_MIN.) a05 2O' 1.6' TREARENT BY YEDw SJRFACE AREA pNR' 1 2 2gOm1P :ARTRICGE FIOw RATE' aAl n.s +12s 1s :s m s A L Ftow - PIPE VEGET ATED SWALE B Z PW MARKET/ HOMESTEAD RETAIL ..6 ... TH wHIs... AD iu -1269 S T O R M WAT E R TREATMENT M O V NT Al N Ii EIN OA 6S 0.06 S.0 T 06 NOTES & DETAILS ALTERNATE LDCATx7N rrYP _. FRAME AND COVER mp OF 21 GRADE R- r- OF 2) stoaMF - � � We uNOE CWTRIpGE - . q , r SECTION A - A A tow cN r .ET PIPE MFS (MEDIA FILTRATION UNIT) DETAIL o J AIDDDB NNE \ I 1 I I k KIER & WRIGHT - CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2 -23.10 N o R T R 350 Sion W.11 -d. 110019 22 (40 NI 727 6665 C 3 0 Rt SSa Clary cihf v-1 95054 far (406 727 5641 CUPERTINO, C A L I F O R N I A Area 2 Area 2 will be treated by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 2 is 6.62 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment q is Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 6.62 = 1.06 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 2) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 1.06 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate wilt be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. Area 3 Area 3 will be :reared by a MFS Unit (Media Filtration Unit). Area 3 is 5.19 Ac. The Stormwater Treatment Q !s. Q(Stormwater Treatment) = .80 x 0.2 x 5.19 = 0.83 cfs The MFS Unit (Unit 3) will be sized to treat a flowrate of 0.83 cfs. Flowrates in excess of the stormwater treatment flowrate will be conveyed by a bypass pipe around the MFS Unit and will be discharged to the public storm drain system. USER: ayeloeq- I: \PROJECTS \AIDOOB \DWG \PLANNING \C3.0 STRM DT d.9 MARCH 01, 2010 2:12 PM PLAN (ACDESS FRAME AND COVERS 0-0 FOR C(ARCY) ORNAMENTAL GROUND COVERS AT PARKING AREA ISLANDS (SUCH AS: LAVENDER LANTANA. 0� I /00000 •EII NE iN FO�RI31 11 1 Re R, NL 11 111 saw �6R1" XniS U.N RC SLi1r � >RC v�E. Ea I _.I o ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS, SCREEN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND GRASSES (SUCH AS. AFRICAN IRIS, NEW ZEALAND FLAX, ROCKROSE, PENSTEMON, DAYLILY, BLUE HIBISCUS, HEAVENLY BAMBOO. CXDE PLUMBAGO. CARPET ROSES. BUTTERFLY BUSH, ENGLISH LAVENDER, TREE MALLOW PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS. BLUE OAT GRASS FEATHER REED GRASS. ETC.) SOW ENTRY ACCENT SHRUB BORDER r (SUCH AS DWARF ESCALLONIA. INDIA HAWTHORNE. ROSEMARY DWARF ABELiA ETC.) PUBLIC ART AREA AND PROJECT SIGNAGE WITH FLOWERING PERENNIALS AND SEASONAL In] na /TvG 1 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TC REMAIN (TYPICAL) RED SUNSET MAPLE FALL COLOR ACCENT TREES i . I LOW SHRUB BORDER BETWEEN ENTRY TREE MEDIAN W1 FLOWERIN( PERENNIAL COLOR PROPOSED DETACHED CITY SIDEWALK I AND LAWN PARKWAY(SEE SECTION BELOW) NEW STREET TREES PER CITY REQUIREMENTS (SUCH (SUCH A.S. NEW STREET TREES „HINESE PISTACHE) TO MATCH EXISTING (I.E. LONDON PLANE I PROPOSED LARGE -SCALE CANOPY TREES) SHADE TREES (SUCH AS: LONDON ORNAMENTAL GROUND COVERS AT PARKING AREA ISLANDS (SUCH AS: LAVENDER LANTANA. 0� I /00000 •EII NE iN FO�RI31 11 1 Re R, NL 11 111 saw �6R1" XniS U.N RC SLi1r � >RC v�E. Ea I _.I o ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS, SCREEN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND GRASSES (SUCH AS. AFRICAN IRIS, NEW ZEALAND FLAX, ROCKROSE, PENSTEMON, DAYLILY, BLUE HIBISCUS, HEAVENLY BAMBOO. CXDE PLUMBAGO. CARPET ROSES. BUTTERFLY BUSH, ENGLISH LAVENDER, TREE MALLOW PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS. BLUE OAT GRASS FEATHER REED GRASS. ETC.) SOW ENTRY ACCENT SHRUB BORDER r (SUCH AS DWARF ESCALLONIA. INDIA HAWTHORNE. ROSEMARY DWARF ABELiA ETC.) PUBLIC ART AREA AND PROJECT SIGNAGE WITH FLOWERING PERENNIALS AND SEASONAL In] na /TvG 1 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TC REMAIN (TYPICAL) RED SUNSET MAPLE FALL COLOR ACCENT TREES i . I LOW SHRUB BORDER BETWEEN ENTRY TREE MEDIAN W1 FLOWERIN( PERENNIAL COLOR PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PALETTE Q'TY, BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE T R E E S- 48 ACER RUBRUM 'REDSUNSET' RED SUNSET MAPLE 24" BOX 17 CELTIS AUSTRALIS EUROPEAN HACKBERRY 15 GALLON 40 LAGERSTROEMIA FAURIEI HYBRID CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GALLON 10 PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE 24" BOX 21 PIS' ACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX 30 PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE TREE 15 GALLON 22 PRUNUS CERASIFERA 'THUNDERCLOUD' PURPLE LEAF PLUM 15 GALLON 43 PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER' CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR 15 GALLON 16 ROBINIA 'PURPLE ROBE' FLOWERING LOCUST 15 GALLON 4 SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM QUEEN PALM SPECIMEN S Y. R U B S, P E R E N N I A 1, S A N D O R N A M E N T A L G R A S S E S ABELIA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' DWARF ABELIA 5 GALLON ALYDGYNE HUEGELII BLUE HIBSCCUS 5 GALLON BUDDLEJA DAVIDII BUTTERFLY BUSH. 5 GALLON CALAMAGROSTZS X ACUTIFOLZA FEATHER REED GRASS ' GALLON CISTUS 'DORIS HIBBERSON' PINK ROCKROSE 5 GALLON DIETES BICOLOR AFRICAN IRIS 5 GALLON ESCALLONIA 'TERRI' DWARF ESCALLONIA 5 GALLON HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS BLUE OAT GRASS 1 GALLON HEMEROCALLIS HYBRIDS DAYLILY 5 GALLON LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA ENGLISH LAVENDER 5 GALLON LT.VATERA THURTNGTACA 'BARNSLEY 'TREE MALLOW 5 GALLON NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GALLON PENNIS'TOM SETACEUM 'RUBRUM' PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS 5 GALLON PENSTEMMON GLOXINIOIDES GARDEN PENSTEMON 5 GALLON PHORMIUM TENAX NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GALLON PLUMBAGO CAPENSIS CAPE PLUMBAGO 5 GALLON RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA INDIA HAWTHORNE 5 GALLON ROSA 'MEIDILAND' CARPET ROSES 5 GALLON ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ROSEMARY 5 GALLON G R 0 U N D C O V E R S A N D F L O N' E K I N G C O L O R __ AGAPANTHUS 'PETER PAN' (DWARF LILY-OF-THE-NILE) FROM 1 GALLON @ 24" O.C. FLOWERING SEASONAL COLON FROM 4" POTS @ B" O.C. (MIN. 4 VARIETIES) LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS (LAVENDER LANTANA) FROM i GALLON A 36" O.C. NEPETA F'AASSENII (CATMINT) FROM 1 GALLON d 24" O.C. SCAEVOLA 'MAUVE CLUSTERS' IFANFLOWER) FROM 1 GALLON a 24" O.C. SOD LAWN ('MEDAILLON' DWARF FESCUE BY "PACIFIC SOD" OR APPROVED EQUAL TRACHELOSPERMUM JASN,IN'IOIDES (STAR JASMINE) FROM 1 GALLON @ 24" O.C. LONDON T EXISTING : ZI I_ " RETAIL r T 1 !^ ) 4. 3- I : s 1 MARKIET'HOMESTEAD RETA/L CUPER i UVO, CALIFORNIA JP , IM!Al' AR' L A D a " P —L A N' PROPOSED STREET TREE (REFER TO PLAN) VEGETATIVE BIOSWALE WITH ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, PERVIOUS SOIL MIX AND PERFORATED PIPE TO STORM DRAIN / LAWN PARKWAY +J h NEW CITY SIDEWALK PARKING AREA 1 \ HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION AT BIOSWALE AND STREETSCAPE 1/4" = r -0" KR' ■ LALDERBAUGH . A S S O C I A T E S ■ Landscape Alchilec)ure!Planning 425 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California 94043 (650) 691 -9711 I.(650) 691 -9713 POST LIGHT (FIXTURE TE 6 PEDESTRIAN WALK MEDIUM -SIZE SHRUB BUFFER(TYP.) PARKiNG AREA 0 s o a_i o 0 2 22 1 0 -- t a ._ 1 0 1 8 0 5 _ 9 i_5 . 0 9 w 1 L 1 'u U. I rA A SECTION A r LONDON T EXISTING : ZI I_ " RETAIL r T 1 !^ ) 4. 3- I : s 1 MARKIET'HOMESTEAD RETA/L CUPER i UVO, CALIFORNIA JP , IM!Al' AR' L A D a " P —L A N' PROPOSED STREET TREE (REFER TO PLAN) VEGETATIVE BIOSWALE WITH ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, PERVIOUS SOIL MIX AND PERFORATED PIPE TO STORM DRAIN / LAWN PARKWAY +J h NEW CITY SIDEWALK PARKING AREA 1 \ HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION AT BIOSWALE AND STREETSCAPE 1/4" = r -0" KR' ■ LALDERBAUGH . A S S O C I A T E S ■ Landscape Alchilec)ure!Planning 425 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California 94043 (650) 691 -9711 I.(650) 691 -9713 POST LIGHT (FIXTURE TE 6 PEDESTRIAN WALK MEDIUM -SIZE SHRUB BUFFER(TYP.) PARKiNG AREA 0 s o a_i o 0 2 22 1 0 -- t a ._ 1 0 1 8 0 5 _ 9 i_5 . 0 9 w 1 L 1 'u U. I 1 MARKIET'HOMESTEAD RETA/L CUPER i UVO, CALIFORNIA JP , IM!Al' AR' L A D a " P —L A N' PROPOSED STREET TREE (REFER TO PLAN) VEGETATIVE BIOSWALE WITH ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, PERVIOUS SOIL MIX AND PERFORATED PIPE TO STORM DRAIN / LAWN PARKWAY +J h NEW CITY SIDEWALK PARKING AREA 1 \ HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION AT BIOSWALE AND STREETSCAPE 1/4" = r -0" KR' ■ LALDERBAUGH . A S S O C I A T E S ■ Landscape Alchilec)ure!Planning 425 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California 94043 (650) 691 -9711 I.(650) 691 -9713 POST LIGHT (FIXTURE TE 6 PEDESTRIAN WALK MEDIUM -SIZE SHRUB BUFFER(TYP.) PARKiNG AREA 0 s o a_i o 0 2 22 1 0 -- t a ._ 1 0 1 8 0 5 _ 9 i_5 . 0 9 w 1 L 1 'u U. I #14 -".Ju 413 F` -'M rS�C S'SYC 7UQ _ °LIQ 3'LIU. 7JC ? - SYC o SYC 9'SYC I 'I eiv PW MARKETIHOMESTEAD RE7 bW Atl�E r0C IAtIS sca, _. c e1L.ture P!a ' Ir.:I CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 42S Clyde Aven.le Mountain View. California 94043 (660) 691 -9711 f.(650) 691 -9713 MASTER SITE P L A IV AND SITS FREE SURVEY P W MARKET 03 2.1 0_0 —� 0 2 1 0. 1 0 1 9 0 4 G 60' 120' 730' I 6"SYC. 6'SYC 2'SYC 3 S - SYC 3'SYC 5 2'SYC. 2e'SY= 24'SrC 77'EUC 24'SYC 12 24'SYC :2'EUC 24'SYC. 1C'SYC, te'EUC e'SYC e'SYC e'SYC e'SYC 5'SYC it"P•.^,PI AR 6•SYC S'POPUR Note: Tree numbering corresponds to project arborist's site tree tags