CC 04-27-04
CUPEI\TINO
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
5:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
Consider Vallco Fashion Park:
a)
Approve Application No(s) M-2004-01, Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park).
Subject property is located on the East and West sides of Wolfe Road between
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280
b)
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1936 to allow a movie theater
complex to be located on top of the existing mall shops or within the existing
parking lots adjacent to Wolfe Road
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving an
Amendment to I-DA-90, Development Agreement Between the City of
Cupertino and Vallco International Shopping Center, LLC"
CLOSED SESSION
2.
Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6. The purpose of the closed
session is to consult with City management representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood,
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (40R) 777-1111
CITY F
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.~
AGENDA DATE April 27. 2004
SUMMARY: Consider approving Application No(s). M-2004-01 and EA-2004-07
(Valko Fashion Park) and to consider an amendment to the development
agreement for Valko Fashion Park (Application No. 1-DA-90) to allow a movie
theater complex to be located on top of the existing mall shops or within the
existing parking lots adjacent to Wolfe Road. The subject property is located on
the East and West sides of Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Highway 280.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission is considering this application on April 26; their
recommendation will be presented verbally to the City Council at this meeting.
Should they recommend approval, the City Council action is to:
1. Approve an amendment to the development agreement (M-2004-01) in
accordance with Ordinance #1936
The Negative Declaration will be considered on May 3 to allow for the required
public review period.
BACKGROUND:
The ValIeo Fashion Park has a vested right to construct approximately 500,000
square feet of retail space, including a 3,500-seat cinema. The Development
Agreement calls for the cinema at three specific locations. This amendment
would allow for additional locations for the cinema. The Development
Agreement, 1-DA-90, was approved by the City Council in 1990 with a Negative
Declaration and provides the applicant with vested rights until 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Amendments
The enclosed site plan of Valko Fashion Park shows the three approved
locations, outlined in red, for a 3,500- seat cinema.
Print.d on Recycled Paper
{~~
Mike Rohde (Val1co Fashion Park)
M-2ùù4-ùl
The applicant proposes alternate locations, shown in blue, with the most likely
location for the cinema shown in green. The existing wording in the
development agreement, 2.6.1, states:
Westland may elect to build a cinema complex of up to 2,500 seats on the
site adjacent to the Sears store shown on Exhibit "B" (the "Westside Site").
The proposed wording, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, adds the following:
Notwithstanding the above provision, the location of the cinema complex
of the size described above, or as increased pursuant to Section 2.6.2 of
this Agreement, may be moved to any location along the west side of
Wolfe Road within the Development upon approval of the Director of
Community Development under the provisions of Section 1.3.1 of this
Agreement related to "minor amendments or modifications."
This wording allows for additional locations and provides that the amendment is
minor and shall not constitute subsequent discretionary approvals subject to
further CEQA review. However, as explained in the attached Notice of Public
Hearing and Intent to Adopt a Draft Subsequent Negative Declaration, a
Negative Declaration was prepared to provide the opportunity for public input.
2. The second proposed change is for clarification purposes, i.e., the
number of seats is in addition to those stated in the referenced sections. The last
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.6.3 of this Agreement shall read as
follows:
2.6.3 ... approval of additional number of seats for cinema use beyond
the limits described in Sections 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 shall be subject to
separate use permit application.
Negative Declaration
The enclosed Initial Study explains that the project was previously approved and
could be constructed at any time without additional California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review. Since the cinema will retain the maximum number
of seats analyzed in the original Negative Declaration, the approval of alternate
locations is not expected to have significant impacts.
Regarding sanitary sewers, the Initial Study reports that construction of other
projects in the vicinity since the 1990 approval of this project have led to the need
to expand the sanitary sewer line on Wolfe Road. A study will determine the
Page 2
(-d-
Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
M-ZOO4-01
scope of the expansion project. No significant environmental impacts are
expected from the resulting expansion.
Next Steps
If the amendment is approved, the applicant may apply for design review after
that time, since the cinema use and locations are vested through the development
agreement. Subsequent proposed projects are processed through building
permits and design review. Design review is limited to review by the Director of
Community Development to determine whether the plans are consistent with the
design objectives and use permit conditions. The Director approves the building
permit plans as long as the plans conform to the design objectives and use permit
conditions.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Model Resolution
Draft Ordinance #1936
Initial Study
Negative Declaration
Site Plan
Theater Plans
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
~úJ.~4za..
David W. Knapp I '"'-
City Manager
6ii4~ æ~ / C4r
G:planning/ pdreport/ ccM-2004-01
Page 3
{-J
M-2004-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
VALLCO FASHION PARK (01-DA-90) TO ALLOW A MOVIE THEATER COMPLEX TO BE
LOCATED ON TOP OF THE EXISTING MALL SHOPS OR WITHING THE EXISTING
PARKING LOTS ADJACENT TO WOLFE ROAD.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s).: M-2004-01 (EA-20O4-07)
Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for
the amendment to the development agreement, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following
requirements:
1) That the amendment is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the amendment encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the
majority of other parcels in this same district.
3) That the proposed amendement is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general weIfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject
parcels.
4) That the amendement promotes the orderly development of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for amendment is hereby recommended for approval;
and
t-L(
Resolution No.
PaQe 2
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. M-2004-0l
(EA-2004-07)' as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning COInITÙssion Meeting of April 26,
2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
M-2004-01
April 26, 2004
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1
APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G: I Planning \ PDREPORTI RES IM-2004-01res.doc
(-5
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
1-DA-90, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO AND V ALLCO INTERNATIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER, LLC
RECITALS
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Cupertino on July 15,1991, enacted Ordinance
No. 1540 approving application 1-DA-90 authorizing the execution ofa Development
Agreement (as provided to Section 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code) between
the City of Cupertino (hereinafter referred to as the City), Westland Properties, Inc. and Westland
Shopping Center, L.P. regarding the Development known as Vallco Fashion Park Center in the
City of Cupertino; and
Whereas, Val1co Intemational Shopping Center, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the
Applicant) is the successor-in-interest to said above described Development and Development
Agreement; and
Whereas, the Applicant to the Development Agreement wishes to amend the
Agreement, as provided in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement attached hereto
and made part hereof by reference; and
Whereas, the Applicant has formal1y filed its application seeking the Amendment with
the Director of Planning and Community Development (hereinafter referred to as the Director)
as required by City Municipal Code Chapter 19.116; and
Whereas, the Director has reviewed the Application as required by City Municipal Code
Section 19.116.090; and
Whereas, after notice and public hearing, the City of Cupertino Planning Commission has
reviewed and has recommended approval of said Application at its meeting of , 2004,
as required by Section 19.116.130 of the City's Municipal Code; and
Whereas, the City Council, after notice and public hearing, has considered the Planning
Commission's recommendations at its meetings of ,2004 and
. ,2004;
{-b
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
1.
The City Council finds that all notices required by law have been given.
2. The City Council finds that the application for an Amendment to the
Development Agreement is:
a) Consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan, and any applicable specified plan;
b) Compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Development is located.
c) In confonnity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare, and
good land use practice;
d) Not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare;
e) Not adverse to orderly development of property, nor to the preservation of
property values;
f) Conducive to promoting and encouraging the proposed reconstruction of the
Development by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty of the
entitlements secured under the Development Agreement.
3. The City Council finds that the Amendment was subject to an initial study as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act, and that it has no significant impact
on the environment.
4. After careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other
evidence, the request for amendment to the Development Agreement as described in the
attachment is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute the attached Amendment on
behalf of the City of Cupertino.
5. The sub-conclusions upon which the above findings and approvals are based are
contained in the public hearing record concerning the application as set forth in the minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting of ,2004, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
6. The City Clerk is directed to record with the County Recorder of Santa Clara
County a certified copy ofthis Ordinance and attachment and to cause this Ordinance to be
published as required by law.
G:\PlanningWallco\Ordinance-Vallco Dev Agree.doc
2
(-1
INTRODUCED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
day of , 2004 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino the of 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Kim Smith, City Clerk
Sandra James, Mayor
G:\Planning\Vallco\Ordinance-Vallco Dev Agree.doc
3
1-8
Attachment
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND V ALLCO INTERNATIONAL SHOPPING
CENTER, LLC (Successors-in-Interest)
RECITALS
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Cupertino on July 15, 1991 enacted
Ordinance No. 1540 approving application l-DA-90, authorizing the execution of a
Development Agreement (as provided to Section 65864 et seq. ofthe Califomia
Government Code) between the City of Cupertino (hereinafter referred to as the City),
Westland Properties, Inc. and Westland Shopping Center, L.P. regarding the Development
known as Val1co Fashion Park Center in the City of Cupertino; and
Whereas, Val1co International Shopping Center, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the
Applicant) is the successor-in-interest to said above described Development and
Development Agreement; and
Whereas, the parties to the Development Agreement wish to amend the Agreement, as
provided in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement attached hereto and made
part hereof by reference; and
Whereas, the Applicant has formally filed its application seeking said amendment
with the Director of Planning and Community Development (hereinafter referred to as the
Director) as required by City Municipal Code Chapter 19.116; and
Whereas, at its regular meeting of
City of Cupertino enacted Ordinance No.
Amendment.
,2004, the City Council of the
authorizing the execution of the
Now Therefore, it is hereby agreed by the parties as follows:
1. Section 2.6.1 of this Agreement shall read as follows:
2.6.1 Westland may elect to build a cinema complex of up to 2500 seats on
the site adjacent to the Sears store shown on Exhibit "B" (the "west side site").
Notwithstanding the above provision, the location of the cinema complex ofthe size
described above, or as increased pursuant to Section 2.6.2 of this Agreement, may be moved
to any location along the west side of Wolfe Road within the Development upon approval of
the Director of Community Development under the provisions of Section 1.3.1 of this
Agreement related to "minor amendments or modifications."
r ~ 4
2. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.6.3 of this Agreement
shall read as follows:
2.6.3 ... approval of additional number of seats for cinema use beyond the
limits described in Sections 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 shall be subject to separate use permit
application.
3.
All other terms of the Development Agreement remain in full force and effect.
4. This Amendment, together with Ordinance No. - shall be recorded with
the County Recorder of Santa Clara County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Cupertino and Valko Intemational Shopping
Center, LLC have executed this FIRST Amendment as of the date hereinafter above written.
CITY OF CUPERTINO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
V ALLCO INTERNATIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER, LLC
BY:
BY:
Sandra James, Mayor
Its
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Charles T. Kilian, City Attorney
G:\PlanningWal1co\lst Amend to Dev Agree Vallco.doc
2
f-(D
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Deparbnent
CUPEIQ1NO
April 9, 2004
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND INTENT TO ADOPT A DRAFT SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN that a Draft Subsequent Negative Declaration and
Initial Study have been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of the
following project
APPLICATION: Vallco Fashion Park - M-2004-01 (EA-2004-07)
APPLICANT (s): Mike Rodhe (Valko Fashion Park)
PROPERTY LOCATION: Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Interstate 280. APN#s: 316-20-037, -038, -043, -052, -055, -059, -062, -063, -064, -065, "
066, -067, -080, -081, -082
PROJECT SUMMARY: ,
The Vallco Fashion Park has a vested right to construct approximately 500,000 sq. ft.
of retail space, including a 3,500-seat cinema. The Development Agreement calls for,
the cinema at three specific locations. This amendment would allow for additional
locations for the cinema. The Development Agreement, file number 1-DA-90 was
approved by the City Council in 1990 with a Negative Declaration and provides the
applicant with vested rights until 2006.
The project as proposed will require the following approvals:
1. Modification to the Development Agreement to allow for alternate cinema
locations
2. Approval of an ordinance amending the Development Agreement.
PROJECT PLANNER: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY:
A draft environmental assessment document has been prepared for the proposed
project described above. The application requires the preparation of an
environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Based on Section 15164 of CEQA, the City believes that an addendum to the 1990
Negative Declaration is appropriate, since the project will not create any additional
I-I \
environmental impacts beyond what has been previously analyzed. However, the
City is preparing a Subsequent Negative Declaration to provide the opportunity for
public input
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD:
Project plans and a copy of the Initial Study ¡ Subsequent Negative Declaration are
attached and are also available for your review in the Community Development
Department at City Hall during normal business hours.
If you wish to comment on the Initial Study ¡Subsequent Negative Declaration,
please submit your written comments by April 26, 2004 to:
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014.
Comments will be accepted if submitted no later than April 30, 2004.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND PUBLIC
HEARING:
After public review of the environmental document, the Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing for review of this planning application and provide comments
and recommendations to the City Council.
. The Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for April 26, 2004 at 6:45 .
PM in the City Council Chambers at City HalL
. The City Council public hearing and first reading of the ordinance is tentatively
scheduled for April 27, 2004 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at City
Hall.
. The adoption of the Negative Declaration and second reading for the proposed
ordinance is tentatively scheduled for May 3, 2004 at 6:45 PM in the City Council
Chambers at City Hall.
If any person challenges this item in court, that person may be limited to raising only
those issues the person or some else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the public hearings.
Please call Peter Gilli at (408) 777-3313 or e-mail at peterg@cupertino.org if you have
any questions.
(-/?--
I-
CUPEI\TINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
l$!élffl.l$ØOn!y ..'
EA File No. EA-2004-07
Case File No. M-2004-01
~ttachments Past Initial
Studv. Plan
Conceots
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title: Vallco Fashion Parle
Amendment to Development Aareement
Project Location: Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Interstate 280
Project Description: Amendment to previous approvals to allow for an alternate
locations for a previously approved cinema buildina.
Environmental Setting:
Vallco Fashion Park is a reaional shoppina center located on Wolfe Road in Cupertil'1o.
The shoppina center is situated alone both the east and west sides of Wolfe Road
between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Interstate 280 runs adiacent to
the site on the north. and provides freeway access to the site via the interchanae with
Wolfe Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard borders the site to the south. Sinale-familY
residential subdivisions are adiacent to the west side of the site. and multi-storv office
buildinas are situated to the east. ' . .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - -2L Building Coverage -......2L% Exist. Building -1.1 mils.f.
Proposed Bldg. - 1.65 mil s.f. Zone - P(Reaional ShoDDina) G.P. Designation -
Commercial/Residential
Assessor's Parcel No. - 316-20-037. -038. -043. -052. -055 -059 -062. -063. -064. -065 -066
-067. -080. -081. -082
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
N/A
Unit Type #1
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
0 Monta Vista Design Guidelines
0 N. De Anza Conceptual
0 Heart of the City Specific Plan
0
0
0
S. De Anza Conceptual
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - 1.65 mil sJ. FAR - 51 % Max.
Employment Potential - 3 620 Parking Required 6 670 Parking Provided 6 670
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES 0 NO 0
(-{j
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 Rldgellne Policy
10. Constraint Maps
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. "Cupertlno Chronicle" (California
History Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking Ordinance 1277
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents
18. City Noise Ordinance
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
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
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 Sheriff
34. CAl TRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
leak Site
43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
scope/characteristics
47. ABAG Projection Series
Background
In 1989 and 1990, Westfield, Inc., applied for a General Plan Amendment (2-GPA-
89), Rezoning (7-2-90), Use Permit (9-U-90) and Development Agreement (1-DAc
90) to allow for a 500,000 sq. ft. expansion to the Vallco Fashion Park, which
included a cinema that can be located at one of three sites in the shopping center.
Brady and Associates, Inc analyzed the environmental impacts of the past approvals
in an Initial Study in March 1990 (attached for reference). On July 1, 1991, the City
Council approved the development applications and a Negative Declaration based
on the Initial Study. The Council action included a Development Agreement that
vested all associated approvals until 2006. The 1991 expansion project can be built
without any further CEQA review.
The current project is a modification to prior approvals and the original Negative
Declaration to allow alternative locations for the cinema building along Wolfe Road.
The approved and proposed cinema locations are shown in an attached map. Due
to the vested development rights that the applicant has, this initial study will focus
only on the impacts of approving alternate locations for the cinema.
Categories with No Impacts
The project area is in an urbanized area on underdeveloped land. No undeveloped
land will be affected by the full expansion project. Therefore the expansion project
f-('-{
and this subsequent amendment will have no impact on agricultural, biological,
cultural, mineral or recreational resources,
Aesthetics
There is no scenic vista in the vicinity of the proposed project.
A single-family residential neighborhood is located along the west side of the Vallco
Fashion Park. A mature line of redwood trees (average height is 60') stands along
the westerly property line abutting these residents. Due to these trees, locating the
theater building along Wolfe Road in any location is not expected to have significant
visual impacts on these neighbors.
The height of the cinema at the proposed location is not greater than the height of
the development approved immediately across Wolfe Road in the "Rose Bowl,"
therefore no significant visual impacts are expected from other vantage points.
The project proposes new skylights that may result in visual impacts on neighboring
homes, however, the City will require that such skylights be adequately screened in
any case, so the potential impact would be less than significant.
Air Quality
The Brady and Associates 1990 report studied the air quality impacts that would
result from the complete expansion of the Vallco Fashion Park to 1.6 million sq. ft.
from the current 1.1 million sq. ft. of area. The conclusions were that the original
project did not require mitigation measures beyond taking steps to facilitate access
to, from and through the site to reduce idling emissions, which would be required by
the City in any case.
Geology and Soils
Regardless of the final location, the cinema will be built according to applicable
building codes to ensure the safety of occupants during seismic events. The Brady
and Associates 1990 report did not identify any geological or soil issues that
warranted study.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternate locations for the cinema will not introduce hazardous materials or interfere
with emergency plans.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternate locations for the cinema will have no negative impact on hydrology or
water quality. The primary option will be to place the cinema on top of the existing
building, which would allow for more of the property to be used for storm water
retention purposes.
The Vallco property is in Flood Zone B, which is not a 1 OO-year flood hazard area.
land Use and Planning
The final location for the cinema will be required to conform to the City's applicable
height, setback and intensity regulations.
(-I:;
Noise
As part of the review of the original permit in 1990, INAS Engineering studied noise
impacts from the mall expansion project and concluded that they would not be
significant (less than 5 dBA) and that they would not impact adjacent residential
areas to the west of the site due to the 10' sound wall along the westerly property
line.
The final location for the cinema will be required to conform to the City's Noise
Ordinance, which will sufficiently mitigate noise impacts on neighboring properties or
persons.
Population and Housing
Alternate locations for the cinema will not result in population growth, nor will it
displace existing housing or people.
Public Services
Alternate locations for the cinema will have no impact on local schools, parks or
public facilities. The County Fire Department and County Sheriffs Department have
expressed no concerns with the concept of these locations with the
acknowledgement that each department will review the final plans for conformity with
their respective regulations and policies.
Traffic and Circulation
The traffic and circulation impacts for the original project were analyzed based on a
Barton-Aschman study in 1990. The traffic study analyzed the buildout scenario of
the shopping center with the possibility of the cinema in one of three locations. Two
of the locations are on the east side of Wolfe Road. One location is on the west side
of Wolfe Road. The City Council found that the resulting traffic impacts were not
significant. This project would allow for the cinema to be located in any location
adjacent to Wolfe Road. The most likely location is on top of the existing building, as
shown in the attached plans. This location is less than 400 feet from a previously
approved location.
Utilities and Service Systems
This project was previously approved and could be constructed at any time without
additional CEQA review. This review is solely for alternate sites of a previously
approved cinema, and since the cinema will retain the maximum number of seats
analyzed in the original Negative Declaration, the approval of alternate locations is
not expected to have significant impacts.
However, since the 1990 approval of this project, the construction of other projects in
the vicinity have led to the need to expand the sanitary sewer line on Wolfe Road.
Multiple developments are contributing to the study and installation of this line, and it
is expected that the Vall co expansion project would participate as well. The
resulting construction of the larger sanitary line is not expected to have any
significant environmental impacts since the sanitary line is aligned under Wolfe Road
and the entire area is urbanized.
1- fro
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (checklist):
»- c æ~-
- c ¡~ g:8
:!~13 ~.g:5~~ .cut) 13
ISSUES: t:!E~ I-""os 0 os
:n= '!ii ,g> e- :¡¡ ï: ~ zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E .5
Õ .2'- j.5æ' :E 8 Q) .2' -
C,.I/) VJ .E ...JI/)
I. AESTHETICS .. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D 0"
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D 0"
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D 0" D
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D 0" D
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. 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:
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique D D D 0"
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
I California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for D D D 0" I
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act I
contract?
I c) Involve other changes in the existing D D D 0" l
I environment which, due to their location or I
I nature, could result in conversion of I
I Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
1111. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the I
I significance criteria established by the
r -fl
!
i ISSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
[' applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
II to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
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?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Seclion 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
>'"
- c
-10"
!uu
1:!E~
GI C E
Õ .21-
o..VJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
Iä ~ 5:8
'¡:U.c;~
I- .- - .. 0
:: ~ ¡¡ ,g> e-
j.!æ' :i 8
en .!:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cë
11110"
.cuu
I-¡¡:OS
UI'- CL
UI C E
GI .21-
...JVJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..
U
0 os
ZCL
.§
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(~( ~
)0,'" c: c:ë I
-I: :ä ë g~
-111'" 111111'" tI
.! u u ~t'!J::;:;1!! .c::uu
ISSUES: ~!E~ .- -.. 0 I-¡¡:C'II 0 C'II
=~1i,g>e- en'- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] ~ I: E en C E .§
Õ .21- j.2' :¡¡ 8 ~ .21-
Q.U) en .E ..JU)
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 0
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 0
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 0
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CUl rURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 0
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 0
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 0
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains. including 0 0 0 0
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk I
i of loss. injury, or death involving: I
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 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
(-(G)
I
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
Special Publication 42.
Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-reiated ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials.
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
I of an existing or proposed school?
I d) Be located on a site which is included on a
¡ list of hazardous materials sites compiled
i pursuant to Government Code Section
i 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
»-
-c
-III-
,!!! U u
t:!E~
scE
0.21-
!:LI/)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
Ii ~ c.2
.c ~ .S! œ
1-",,:1;;:'
::! ï: 'i ,g> E-
j.!2' i 8
en .5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c1:
111111-
.cUU
1-<;:'"
t/ .- c.
t/ c E
Q) .21-
...JI/)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
U
0 '"
zc.
.5
rø
ø
rø
ø
ø
rø
ø
ø
ø
I
rø I
1
rø
(-),-0
f
\ ISSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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 result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
II groundwater recharge 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 pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
, which would not support existing land uses
I or planned uses for which permits have been
I granted)?
i c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
I pattern of the site or area, including through
i the alteration of the course of a stream or
I river. in a manner which would result in
I substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
»..
-c
-tI\.¡.o
.! u u
ë!E S
CI) C E
Õ .2'-
II..U)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
i E r;; ,g
~5~gi
1-0::-"0
:gi:j.~e-
j.~ ~ 8
en .5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r;;ë
tlltI\.¡.o
..cuu
I-~"
1/)'- a.
I/) C E
CI) .2'-
...JU)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t\
0 ..
za.
.E
0"
0"
0"
0"
0"
0"
0"
I~JI
:>'" I: I:~
-I: æ~ 8:8
-ftl.. ftlftI.. tí
.!! u u .c~.!:~\! .r:.UU
ISSUES: ë!5~ 1-'--"0 I-¡;::'" 0"
:: '2 .¡ ,g> e- g '<: ~ zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources) 4> C ë .5
Õ .2'- j.2' :¡¡ 8 4> .2' -
11..1/) VI .5 ...JI/)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 0
pattern of the site or area. including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 "'1
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 "'1
quality?
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 0
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 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 0.
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 "'1
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 "'1
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 0
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 "'1
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 "'1
I conservation plan or natural community
I conservation plan?
(-~).,-
».. I: 1:1: I
-e ij 1: 1:.51 I
-(II'" ::~.<:gë 111(11'" ... I
.! I.) u ::I.)U U
ISSUES: 'ë= ~ 1-'--"0 1-1;:1\1 01\1
=~'¡,g>E- 11)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] ,SeE II) e E .ê
o.!1I- ~~ :¡¡¡ 8 .. .!11-
D..tI) .E ..JtI)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 &'1
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 &'1
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 &'1
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 &'1
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 &'1 0
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 &'1 0
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 &'1
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 &'1 I
I airstrip, would the project expose people I
I residing or working in the project area to I
I excessive noise levels?
I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would I
i the project:
I a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 &'1
I area, either directly (for example, by
i proposing new homes and businesses) or
{-.l3
I ».. c c"
-c ~1E c.E IV C
-IV"" ~ 0" .c5t1 ....
.!!! u u ~,gÉ~~ u
I ISSUES: .. r¡: '" ~r¡: '" 0 '"
áh: ~ :!'§, it ~ ~ 11)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] II> C E .5
õ.!2'- <I>.!2'-
D.,U -.lii):;¡.5 ...Iu
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 0"
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 0"
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
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
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? 0 0 0 0"
Police protection? 0 0 0 0"
Schools? 0 0 0 0"
Parks? 0 0 0 0"
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 0"
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 0"
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 0"
facilities or require the construction or I
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? i
I XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC --
I Would the project:
I a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0" 0
(-2'-(
)0,'" c c'ë I
-c j'ë 8:8 ....1
-ca"" l'llca....
.! u u .I:~.I:;:e ='uU 0 ~ )
ISSUES: ë!EŠ I- .- - .. 0 I-;;::IU
::: :g .¡: ,go e- ..'- Co zCo
[and Supporting Information Sources] J! cE .. C E .Ë
0.21- j.2':i8 CD .21-
D..C/ en .5 ....IC/
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (Le.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 0
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 0
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 0
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 0
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 0
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 0
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 0
new water or wastewater treatment facilities I
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant I
environmental effects? I
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 0
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
,
I e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 0
/-2)
>'" r:: r::ë
- c ¡~ g.g
-ns" nsns.. tI
.! u u ~.~:5:; ~ .cuu
ISSUES: ë!E~ I-¡¡:M 0 '"
::!~j,g>e- 1/)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] ell C E I/) C E .5
Õ .2'- ~~:iS CI) .2'-
D..U) .: -IU)
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 1>'1
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 1>'1
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
r-2lo
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish 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?
The City has no information that would indicate that the alternate locations for the
cinema would result in any new significant impacts that were not previously
anal ed in the Brad and Associates stud of 1990.
b) Does the project have impacts that are
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)?
There is not sufficient sanitary sewer capacity along Wolfe Road to handle the
buildout of the shopping mall expansion in conjunction with recently approved
projects. The line capacity must be increased in the near future. There are no .
si nificant environmental im acts ex ected from this san ita sewer line up rade.
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings. either directly or
indirectly?
I The City has no information that would indicate that the project will have substantial
adverse effects on humans, directl or indirectl .
0
0
0
0"
0
0
0"
0
0
0
0
0"
I hereby certify that the information provided in 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 disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study rnay cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures. and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance. 0,' ) Ii;- A 11 (
Preparer's Signature [Z.l,~ ~
Print Pre parer's Name
Peter Gilli. Senior Planner
[-). 7
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by Citý Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ¡Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology ¡Water D Land Use ¡Planning
Materials Quality
D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population ¡Housing
D Public Services D Recreation D TransportationfTraffic
D Utilities ¡Service D Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
g[ The proposed proiect COULD NOT have a siqnificant effect on the environment. and
a subsequent NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D 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 .
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D 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 E;NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D 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
proposed project, nothing further is required.
D7
i ~4ïlc94
~te (
(-2f
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17
1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a
Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on April 27, 2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
EA-2004-07
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
M-2004-01
Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Amendment to the development agreement for Valko Fashion Park (Application No. 1-
DA-90) to allow a movie theater complex to be located on top of the existing mall shops
or within the existing parking lots adjacent to Wolfe Road.
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent
with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City
Oerk of the City of Cupertino on
City Clerk
g/erclnegEA200407
r~29
Data -----
AHCH. & Si:~:: I \~'ONTRO:
!
,
,
:: ~"
, '
;:1:,""
;' I'
" "
" ;1
. :', ,.
:1\ :¡
" "
" ,
;1 ..
" ,
Red areas denote approved
locations for a 3,500 seat
cinema.
,
¡/
Signed
G=JA
Signed
Date
',"
m
Westfield Design
and Construction
----
SITE PLAN
VAllCO FASHION PARK
""";' ,..... W£STRELD INÇ.
---
0 """ ""
-,
.- ""'VODEÐ
~- -"'....
.ø- _or.... u-....
"'~ .... _œo
r-.--
"\
'""""""'"
"\
\
\
J
j
.I
AREAS FOR "FUTURE DEVELOPMENT"
/
!
~
AREAS FOR FUTUR'E PARI<lNG STRUCTURES
i I
I I
1_1-
1
,.....,..
A
,7
; t'
:3,
"-
VALLCO
FASHION
PARK
PERSPECTIVE
COPERW..O. CALIFORNIA
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 North Wolfe Road, Suite 2030, Cupertino, CA 95014
Perkowitz + Ruth
..rU'T<rT<
'" r~mm'" O'O~'> <"',, ~O "o...~~~ 0.,"' r^ ""0
"'" coo oono '~^~'~"hr.
""",0"'""00'--"..
""","""."",..
'm' ~--~~....
E8
~
>0O'
Perkowitz + Ruth
. - - .. , T " r T
SEe. "A"
-[]J
."
-- ~, ---lUlL
: .'
~,
>
§
"
~
~
=.~
n.,~"
~,I."
=""~,
.':":,';,
~Irn~'m"
m."~
~Irn~'"
"ro'~
,lE!I
.~~.
..~.
~
-
'~~m,,'œ'~"""'"'~
""'~nm
=.M,""~
'"o.ow
"'.-
"":::~~~~:'
"""'~
..".n.
~
VALLCO
PARK
FIRST LEVEL (MALL)
FASHION
COPERTONO, CAUFORN,.
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 North Wolfe Road. Suite 2030, Cupertino, CA 95014
",_.,_.~-"--"'".._,,,,,,~,,__.'h,.h,-"
'",,"I '"
","0" """,.1,",,',.
"<""""",,,1"00 '"".hr.
"n"", ""," """'"" 'N
IOn"'on;;,',n"'"hi",,'," or
",..w"Mebl','", cem
1<n" '" """,, '""""..rl OR
EB
0 100
-.....,¡
50'
200'
Perkowitz + Ruth
ARCHITECTS
..~-~.
SECOND LEVEL
~e
0
D
_VALL CO
FASHION
CUPERT'NO. CALIFORN'A
..- ¡¡
\ u'
'7
~
i
THIRD LEVEL
PARK
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 North Wolfe Road, Suile 2030 Cupertino, CA 95014
15 C""""ol' ""'. "it, 100. ",wpo,; ""h. CA ",<ü [949J 7218904
[S62J 6IB.BOO» long 8"," CA
[7021852.8500 ¡" V'9". NV
["'I)gOO..i'O W,,"i'gtoo, DC
~
Ii
JCPenney
Roof
i5D3J 4789900 Poct'ood, OR
E
www.p""hit¿ct,.com
OE".15 D"'01.O6.04
EB
~
. ~ ~ .N
Perkowitz + Ruth
ARCHITECT'
EXT'G
SEARS
STORE
>
8
~
~
ß
EXT'G
MACY'S
STORE
VALLCO
PARK
THEATER PLAN AT THIRD LEVEL
FASHION
CUPERTONO, CAUFORNOA
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 North Wolfe Road, Suite 2030 Cupertino, CA 95014
¡5C"po"tePl",.S"",20D,N~wooc\',"'.CA92660 [545J"!,","'",
[S62J 628,8000 '009 Se"h CA
(702] 8528500 ,," V"", NV
[703] 390,0400 Wò;h"gta,. DC
[5G3J 4789900 Port ,,',d. OR
.wM.p"cchite<l',cm
0'""'" """,04.OS."
~'~IT
., .~~",.n
I
~b
M
a,!\,~",,~='
..,~- '"
SECTION 'A'
~".,.~~~
PARTIAL SECTION 'B'
E9
VALL CO
FASHION
PARK
CUPER"NO. CAUFORNIA
0
-......
so'
'-
2{)( '
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 North Wolfe Road, Suite 2030 Cupertino, CA 95014
Perkowitz+Ruth
ARCHITECTS
IS C,,"o",," ?1m. So"to 200, Newport ""h. CA 92660 1949) 721.8904
¡562) 528.BDOO Lo09 Bed, CA
1702) 852,B50D L.. V",;. >IV
17031 390.0,'OO ""h09too. DC
1503) "'99.:": 'o"'"d. OR
www,p",chito"'.mm
03.183.15 ""'M",,'.'"
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
Ct Lf(:l1(d-(
f¿(l'~lt
Vallco Fashion Park
. Modify development agreement
. (1-DA-90)
- Allow a movie theater complex to be
located on top of the existing mall shops or
within the existing parking lots adjacent to
Wolfe Road
( ,--
--
U' . 0 c SITE PlAN
-- . .-~--:' VALLCO FASHION PARK
^ ~ - -...... ....
--
, -'--
:::- == _u.
,
,
¡¡I
,"
;,,:
Project Descri ption
. 3,500 seat cinema, 80,000 sq. ft.
Th i rd level - between Sea rs and Macys
- Oriented toward Wolfe Road
- 75-80 ft. approximate height
'"
.'
Text Amendments
. 2.6.1 Westland may elect to build a cinema complex of up to 2,500
seats on the site adjacent to the Sears store shown on Exhibit "B" (the
"Westside Site"). Notwithstanding the above provision the location of
the cinema complex of the size described above, or as increased
pursuant to Section 2.6.2 of this Agreement, may be moved to any
location along the west side of Wolfe Road within the Development
upon approval of the Director of the Community Development under the
provisions of 1.3.1 of this Agreement related to "minor amendments or
modifications. "
- Minor amendments shall not constitute subsequent discretionary
approvals subject to further CEQA review. However, a negative
declaration was prepared to provide the opportunity for publ ic input.
. 2.6.3 ...approval of additional number of space for cinema use beyond
the limits described in Sections 2.61, 2.6.2 and 2.63 shall be subject to
separate use permit application.
- This clarifies that up to 3,500 seats are allowed without a separate
use permit application.
Negative Declaration
based on location
. Project can be built without additional
CEQA review
. Initial study focuses on alternate
locations for ci nema
. No significant impacts
Recom mendation
. Approval of Modification to a Development
Agreement M-2004-01
. (Hold approval of the Negative Declaration
until May 3, second reading)
oJ
III
>
III
oJ
a
0:
~
oJ
III
>
IIJ
oJ
a
z
0
U
III
UI
~E~
~!;;
~...~
r
~i
,.I
"
"
e
k,';7"
~)it".¡ .
/ "i
"
.-..-.1
t.?~~
[-<"'0
Xp.¡f-
p.¡v:¡v:¡
"
~
z
0
ß
<II
oJ
<
~
~
u Lf/~7!Ot(
It~~1
To: Cupertino Planning Commission
I am the owner of the property at 10291 Norwich Avenue. I object to the construction of
movie theaters at Valko Fashion Park for the following reasons:
I. There's no benefit to the neighborhood as there are already plenty of movie
theaters nearby, such as Century 21 and AMC Saratoga.
2. Building the theaters on top of or in place of existing structures or the parking
garages will further obstruct the view from my house, which currently already
faces a 20 feet high sound wall. Building theaters in place of or on top of the west
side garages will exceed the height of the sound wall.
3. Additional traffic and noise and air pollution generated by the theaters and movie
goers will negatively impact my property value and decrease the peaceful living at
my property.
4. If the movie theaters are approved to be built, I will be forced to sell my property.
I demand compensation for any loss in value of the property as well as the trouble
and expenses of replacing this property with another one, including the increase in
assessed property tax which occurs when exchanging properties.
UL
4/b7/Yoof
rö)~(C~~w~rm
mlBllJ!
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
FXHIBIT
EXHIBITS
END
HERE