Loading...
20 Vallco Restaurants City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No¿.o Agenda Date: April 4, 2006 Application: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) Owner: Valleo International Shopping Center, LLC Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-080 Application Summary: · USE PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. · TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to remove nine trees within the existing surface parking lot to allow development of the restaurants and configuration of a portion of the parking lot. · ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the proposed mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION: The Pjanning Commission recommends approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-04. 2. The use permit application, file number U-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6377. 3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2006-04, in accordance with Resolution No. 6378. 4. The tree removal permit, file number TR-2006-06, in accordance with Resolution No. 6379. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Commercial/ Residential P (CG) .;La - ( Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Valleo Restaurants Page 2 April 4, 2006 Specific Plan: Acreage (Net): Existing Sears Store: Proposed Building S.F. California Pizza Kitchen: Islands Restaurant: Total Building S.F.: Heart of the City 12.4 acres 279,310 s.f. 6,020 s.f. 5,910 s.f. 291,240 s.f. (53.9%) Proposed Building Height California Pizza Kitchen: 19.5 feet max. Islands Restaurant: 30 feet max. Total Mall Parking Proposed: Total Mall Parking Required: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Heart of the City Specific Plan: Yes Environmental Assessment: 5,702 spaces 5,564 spaces Negative Declaration BACKGROUND On March 21, 2006, the City Council continued this item to April 4th due to time constraints resulting from the late night discussions on the Valleo condominium item. Since the meeting, the City has received an email from Ching Shyu (See Exhibit q, a resident who lives on E. Estates Drive, stating her concerns about neighborhood privacy impacts and requesting that the outdoor seating for the restaurants be moved to the north side of the restaurants so that they will not be visible from the streets. At its meeting of March 14, 2006, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project to construct two new restaurants, California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants, at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road at the Valleo Fashion Park shopping center. DISCUSSION The Commission recommended amendments and additional conditions of approval to the project that have been incorporated into the resolutions as shown below: 1. Require a parking and traffic analysis and transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the project. (Condition No. 21) »-2- Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Valko Restaurants Page 3 April 4, 2006 2. Require final review and approval of the landscape and irrigation plans by the Design Review Committee. (Condition No.6) 3. Install bicycle parking and bicycle racks for the project. (Condition No. 11) 4. Enhance the east elevation of the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant and the west elevation of the Islands restaurant with additional landscaping, outdoor seating and/ or artwork. (Condition No. 5c) 5. Require cool roofing systems on the buildings in accordance with green building measures. (Condition No. 12) 6. Align the height of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the restaurant buildings in Huntington Beach, as shown by photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, to mitigate the disparity in scale between the buildings. (Condition No. 5a) 7. Provide muted color schemes for the restaurants. (Condition No. 5b) 8. Require odor abatement systems for the restaurants. (Condition No.4) . 9. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the common walkway between the buildings in lieu stamped concrete. (Condition No. 5e and 6) 10. Require that unused building materials be recycled. (Condition No. 13) 11. Provide additional landscaping to mitigate privacy impacts of the project from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood. (Condition No.6) 12. Require that the revised architectural and site plans be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. (Condition No.5) The Commission also heard from members of the public who spoke during the public hearing and provided the following comments: D The City should hold off on approving the restaurants until a comprehensive study is conducted and the impacts of Valko's build out are reviewed. D Valleo is taking a piecemeal approach to planning and developing. D Restaurant uses will revitalize Cupertino's economy. D Existing ash trees along Stevens Creek and Wolfe should be protected and retained. D Care should be taken when installing the sidewalk between the existing ash trees along Stevens Creek to ensure that the existing ash trees are not harmed. D Restaurants with outdoor seating will create privacy impacts onto the neighborhood along E. Estates Drive. D Restaurants will result in traffic and parking impacts in the area. D Make sure there is adequate parking for the restaurants. D Palm trees should not be proposed for the project site. D Landscaping should incorporate native, existing types of trees that fit the look of Stevens Creek. D Odor filtration systems should be required of all restaurants. D Odor filtration systems are expensive and should only be required as needed. :J--D-3 Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Valko Restaurants Page 4 April 4, 2006 Subsequent to the preparation of the model resolutions, staff realized that a standard condition of approval was inadvertently excluded pertaining to xeriscape landscaping and pest control requirements of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council add the following new condition: Xeriscave Landscaving and Pest Control Measures The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscaping plan, including water consen¡ation and pesticide reduction measures, in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6377, 6378, 6379 Exhibit A: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated March 14,2006 Exhibit B: Letter submitted on March 10, 2006 by Al De Ridder Exhibit C: Email from Ching Shyu Plan Set Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~;:;i4--6 ~c/~/~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development fb¿ David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-02 April 4 CC Report.doc ;LO - Lf U-2006-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6377 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO). SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and . WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for 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. T,J-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ';¿o-c; Resolution 6377 Page 2 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2006-02 Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) 10123 N. Wolfe Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020 square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building. 3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community Development. 4. 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. 5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating the following modifications for review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC): a. Align the heights of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants in Huntington Beach, as shown by the photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, in order to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show muted color schemes for the restaurants and consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands. ~ß-(p Resolution 6377 Page 3 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 c. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and the west elevation of the Islands Restaurant with additional landscaping, outdoor seating and/ or artwork. d. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide visual transitions between the buildings. e. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the common walkway between the restaurants in lieu of stamped concrete. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) that shall also incorporate additional landscaping to mitigate the privacy impacts of the project from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood, additional landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area, and permeable pavers/ stones in lieu of stamped concrete within the common walkway area. 7. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 9. 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. 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. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 muleh shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-inch depth. c:20 " '1 Resolution 6377 Page 4 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 ~ 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 before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 10. TREE PROTECTION BOND All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 11. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed project in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 12. COOL ROOFING In accordance with green building measures, the applicant shall install cool (sustainable, energy efficient) roofing systems on the restaurant buildings. 13. UNUSED BUILDING MATERIALS In lieu of disposing of unused building materials for the construction of the project, the applicant shall be required to recycle the unused building materials. 14. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. ;¿o~ r Resolution 6377 Page 5 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 15. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade. 16. 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 Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 18. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 19. SIGN AGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed. 20. PUBLIC ART Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission. c20 - 9 Resolution 6377 Page 6 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 21. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT The applicant shall retain a traffic engineer to conduct a parking and traffic analysis 6-9 months after opening of both restaurants to determine if the parking and on-site traffic patterns are sufficient to serve the restaurants. The applicant shall commit to implementing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan incorporating solutions such as parking cash-out and eco passes for restaurant employees, valet parking for customers and traffic circulation. The TDM plan, including the projected funding, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) prior to the issuance of building permits. 22. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the City Engineer. 23. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 24. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required. 25. 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. 26. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 27. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing, 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. ';¿ô-{O Resolution 6377 Page 7 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 28. 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. Grading Permit Fee: $ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,000.00 min. $ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or $3,440.00 min. c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: N / A e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g.Park Fees: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: ** TBD N/A Bonds: a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -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. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 29. 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. 30. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 31. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. c20 -I ( Resolution 6377 Page 8 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/construction.html 32. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 33. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 34. TRASH ENCLOSURES A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 35. TRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA. Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as requirements. dß -/J.- Resolution 6377 Page 9 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 36. SANITARY DISTRICT The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and Inspection Deposit will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s I Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Is/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ U-2006-02 res.doc ':LO~{3 ASA-2006-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6378 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO)~ SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring structures; 4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the City Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval 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. ASA-2006-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of . March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. d.f)- l if Resolution 6378 Page 2 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04) Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park) 10123 N. Wolfe Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020 square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building. 3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community Development. 4. 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. 5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating the following modifications for review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC): a. Align the heights of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants in Huntington Beach, as shown by the photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, in order to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show muted color schemes for the restaurants and consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands. ';¿'ô ~ IS Resolution 6378 Page 3 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 c. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and the west elevation of the Islands Restaurant with additional landscaping, outdoor seating and/ or artwork: d. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide visual transitions between the buildings. e. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the common walkway between the restaurants in lieu of stamped concrete. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) that shall also incorporate additional landscaping to mitigate the privacy impacts of the project from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood, additional landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area, and permeable pavers/stones in lieu of stamped concrete within the common walkway area. 7. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 9. 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. 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 dripIine of the tree prior to any project site work. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 muleh shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-inch depth. d-£J - { tp Resolution 6378 Page 4 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 ~ 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 before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 10. TREE PROTECTION BOND All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 11. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed project in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 12. COOL ROOFING In accordance with green building measures, the applicant shall install cool (sustainable, energy efficient) roofing systems on the restaurant buildings. 13. UNUSED BUILDING MATERIALS In lieu of disposing of unused building materials for the construction of the project, the applicant shall be required to recycle the unused building materials. 14. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. .2..0 -/7 Resolution 6378 Page 5 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 15. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade. 16. 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 Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 18. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 19. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed. 20. PUBLIC ART Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4 %) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission. .;w~ff Resolution 6378 Page 6 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 21. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT The applicant shall retain a traffic engineer to conduct a parking and traffic analysis 6-9 months after opening of both restaurants to determine if the parking and on-site traffic patterns are sufficient to serve the restaurants. The applicant shall commit to implementing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan incorporating solutions such as parking cash-out and eco passes for restaurant employees, valet parking for customers and traffic circulation. The TDM plan, including the projected funding, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) prior to the issuance of building permits. 22. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the City Engineer. 23. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 24. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required. 25. 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. 26. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 27. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing~ 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. c2ð -I q Resolution 6378 Page 7 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 28. 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. Grading Permit Fee: $ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,000.00 min. $ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or $3,440.00 min. c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: ** TBD N/A Bonds: a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -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. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 29. 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. 30. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 31. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. ,;L 0 - ;J-D Resolution 6378 Page 8 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html 32. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access át the site for BMP inspection. 33. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 34. TRASH ENCLOSURES A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 35. TRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA. Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as requirements. .;La - ..J.--I Resolution 6378 Page 9 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 - 36. SANITARY DISTRICT The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and Inspection Deposit will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll callv~~ . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Is/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\Plannillg\PDREPORT\RES\ 2006\ASA-2006-04 res.doc ,;;w-~2- TR-2006-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6379 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE NINE (9) TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESTAURANT BUILDINGS AND RECONFIGURA TION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA AT V ALLCO FASHION PARK SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2006-06 (EA-2006-04) Mike Rohde, Valleo Fashion Park 10123 N Wolfe Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove nine (9) trees as part of the construction of two restaurant buildings and reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant will be providing new landscaping within the reconfigured parking lot area and around the two new restaurant buildings for the replacement of trees proposed to be removed and for the mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for approval; 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 TR-2006-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein. ,2.0 -.:L $ Resolution 6379 Page 2 TR-2006-06 March 14, 2006 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based upon the Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects dated March 1. 2006, consisting of the sheets labeled Tree Removal Plan and Landscape Plan. 2. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 3. 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. 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. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 muleh 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 before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 4. TREE PROTECTION BOND: All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a ..20 -~c.¡ Resolution 6379 Page 3 TR-2006-06 March 14, 2006 tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 5. 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 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development I s/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PD REPORTI RES \ 2005 \ TR-2006-06 res.doc d.O - .5...r:;- EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, Agenda Date: March 14,2006 TR-2006-06, and EA-2006-04 Applicant (s): Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) Property Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road, corner of the Sears parking lot at Vallco Fashion Park shopping center. Application Summary: 1. USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to remove nine trees within the existing surface parking lot to allow development of the restaurants and reconfiguration of a portion of the parking lot. . 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the proposed mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the above applications to the City Council based on the model resolutions. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Acreage (Net): Existing Sears Store: Proposed Building S.F. California Pizza Kitchen: Islands Restaurant: Total Building S.F.: Commercial/ Residential P(CG) Heart of the City 12.4 acres 279,310 s.f. 6,020 s.f. 5,910 s.f. 291,240 s.f. (53.9%) ~-~ Applications: U-2006-02. ASA-2006-04. TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 VaIlco Restaurants Page 2 Proposed Building Height California Pizza Kitchen: Islands Restaurant: 19.5 feet max. 30 feet max. Total Mall Parking Proposed: Total Mall Parking Required: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Heart of the City Specific Plan: Yes 5,702 spaces 5,564 spaces Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit and architectural and site approval to construct two restaurants on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road at Valleo Fashion Park. The project site is currently a portion of the Sears parking lot at the shopping center. The project also entails a tree removal permit to remove nine existing trees in the parking lot that will be reconfigured for this development. The trees proposed to be removed include four pine trees and five carob trees. The subject site is surrounded by Sears department store and the Valko Fashion Park shopping center to the north, two-story office buildings to the east across N. Wolfe Rd., and retail/ commercial uses to the west and to the south across Stevens Creek Blvd. DISCUSSION: Project Description The proposed project entails construction of two restaurant buildings to be occupied by California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and Islands Restaurant. California Pizza Kitchen is proposed to be 6,020 square feet with a seating capacity of 220 seats. Islands Restaurant is proposed to be 5,910 square feet with a seating capacity of 223 seats. Heart of the City Specific Plan The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The following table indicates the project's compliance with the applicable development requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. 20~)... 7 Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04. TR-2006-06. EA-2006-04 Vallco Restaurants Page 3 'i;,,';:":;~ Use Commercial Retail Restaurants Yes DeveloDment Height Max. 45 feet CPK: 19.5 feet max. Yes Islands: 30 feet max Setbacks: Corner parcel 9 feet (from Stevens Creek 20 ft. along Stevens Creek Yes. (along both Parkway Landscape Easement) 15 ft. along Wolfe Road. street frontages) and 35 feet building-fram-curb 35 feet building-from-curb setback setback. Side Half the height of the building CPK: Approx. 720 ft. Yes. (west side only) or 10 feet, whichever is greater Islands: Approx. 590 ft. Rear 1.5 times the height of the CPK: Approx. 490 ft. Yes building, with 20 feet min. Islands: Approx. 520 ft. Sidewalk 10 foot parkway strip required Condition requires Yes relocatinQ" the sidewalk Site Layout The two restaurants will be situated along Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The parking will be reconfigured to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be located within close walking distance to the restaurants. Both restaurants will provide outdoor patio seating areas facing Stevens Creek Blvd. The outdoor seating areas will also face a common walkway that will serve both restaurants and will be accessible from the parking lot area. A fountain is also proposed in the middle of the common walkway between the outdoor patio seating areas for the restaurants. California Pizza Kitchen is proposing a total of 44 outdoor patio seats. Islands Restaurant is proposing a total of 20 outdoor patio seats. Due to the high profile position of these buildings, staff believes that public art should be located on the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, similar to the requirement for the Menlo Equities project to provide public art on the northeast corner of this intersection. The art work should be incorporated into the project. A condition of approval includes this requirement. Architectural Design The architectural designs of the two restaurant buildings are distinct with each restaurant highlighting its own corporate architectural style and image. This results in different architectural designs for the two restaurants that will be next to each other on a highly visible commercial corner. California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant is proposing a one-story, 19.5 foot high building that emphasizes a horizontal profile with rounded building elements. The exterior materials will consist of EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) wall materials and stone veneer along the building base. The conceptual color schemes indicate use of both light and dark tones of yellow and a terra cotta color for the exterior building colors. .;2...0 - 2-.f Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04. TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 VaIleo Restaurants Page 4 California Pizza Kitchen will have the more visibly prominent location of being situated on the corner facing both Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road. Islands' Restaurant is. proposing a one-story, 30 foot high building that emphasizes a vertical profile with hipped roof elements anchoring the ends of the building. The exterior materials consist of a stucco exterior and clay tile roofing over the hipped roof elements. The conceptual color schemes indicate wool, tan, and terra cotta colors. The City's Architectural Advisor, Larry Cannon, has reviewed the plans and makes the following comments as shown on the enclosed drawings. In summary, his comments relate to: 1. The large disparity in scale of the buildings 2. Confusing double entries to California Pizza Kitchen along the north elevation 3. Consider rotating the buildings to create a larger common walkway area between the buildings Parking The proposed project is part of the overall master development plan for Valko Fashion Park and is considered a part of the retail/ commercial component of the mall. Therefore, the proposed restaurants are not required to provide separate parking. The overall parking plan for the mall proposes a total of 5,702 parking spaces, which is inclusive of the restaurants and build out of the mall per the master development plan. The number of parking spaces required for the master development plan is 5,564 spaces. Therefore, the proposed parking will exceed the required number of parking spaces for the mall. Although the restaurants are not required to provide parking separately for the project, the applicant is reconfiguring the adjacent parking lot to maximize the number of close- by parking spaces, and has reconfigured the parking to provide the approximate number of parking spaces that would have been required for the restaurants at a ratio of 1 parking space for each 3 seats, if separate parking were required. While these parking spaces are being provided for the convenience of the restaurants, these spaces are not for the exclusive use of the restaurants and are part of the shared overall parking for the mall. Tree Removal PlarýConceptual Landscape Plan The proposed project intends to remove a total of nine trees, including four pine trees and five carob trees. These trees are currently within landscape islands in the interior parking lot area behind the proposed restaurants. The applicant is requesting removal of these trees to modify the parking lot area. The conceptual landscape plan illustrates that landscaping will be provided in the reconfigured parking area, replacing existing trees to be removed, and also surrounding the restaurant buildings. Although the landscape plan does not indicate type and size c:u:> - ~ c.r Applications: U-2006-02. ASA-2006-04. TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Valleo Restaurants Page 5 of landscaping to be planted, the plan indicates that the frontage of the site facing Stevens Creek Blvd. will be enhanced with additional landscaping behind the landscaped parkway. The conceptual landscape plan also shows landscaping alongside the common walkway between the two buildings and along the building frontage facing the parking lot area. Sidewalk The existing streetscape along Stevens Creek Blvd. in front of the project site consists of a curbside sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. that is adjacent to a landscaped parkway. The landscaped parkway consists of a double row of mature ash trees planted in rows. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide an improved streetscape that would locate the sidewalk away from the curbside and install it between the two rows of mature ash trees. This would provide a consistent transition between the streetscapes along Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road, and would also match the improvements along Stevens Creek Blvd. across the street one block to the east in front of the Menlo Equities project site. Along the Wolfe Road frontage, the streetscape is improved with a sidewalk located between two landscaped parkways, one of which is adjacent to the street curb. Each of the landscaped parkways consists of a row of mature ash trees that have been planted in rows. Signage The signage that is shown on the elevations is not a part of this application package. The signage is conceptual to demonstrate possible locations for the placement of signage for the restaurants. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the model resolutions that will require the applicant to submit signage for review and approval by the City. The signage shall comply with the sign program for the Valleo Fashion Park shopping center. Community Concerns On March 7, 2006, the City received a letter (See Exhibit C) from Virginia Tamblyn expressing concerns regarding the potential for parking, traffic and odor impacts as a result of the restaurants. Ms. Tamblyn also requests that odor filtration equipment be required of the restaurants to mitigate odor impacts. A condition of approval is proposed to require odor abatement systems. Environmental Review Committee (ERe) At the March 8, 2006 ERC meeting, the ERC recommended the following: 1. A preliminary analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed project shall be required. The traffic analysis shall investigate the possibility of providing a bus duck-out stop on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. in front of the project site ;LO-30 Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04. TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 VaIleo Restaurants Page 6 and promoting better pedestrian connections/walkability from the project site to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The Planning Commission shall review the number and location of trees for tree replacements as a result of the proposed tree removals. 3. The applicant shall modify the design of the buildings to blend in wi£h the rest of the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending changes to the proposed plans that are incorporated into the model resolutions, as follows: 1. Require that the applicant submit revised plans to the Community Development Department of the following modifications for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and Architectural Advisor prior to issuance of building permits: a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings. b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show consistency in colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands. c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a restaurant/ storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide visual transitions between the buildings. 2. Require a detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development that shall also include additional landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area. 3. Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek Blvd. to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall be carried along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Blvd. to Perimeter Road from N. Wolfe Road. ENCLOSURES Model Resolutions Exhibit A: Comments from Larry Cannon, Architectural Advisor Exhibit B: Initial Study and Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee Exhibit C: Letter fro~ Virginia Tamlyn Plan Set 20 -3 ( Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Vallco Restaurants Page 7 Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcUsereports \ U_2006_2.doc .2..0 - 3.2.-- U-2006-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO). SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have be,"n given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconcIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ;L.O <5 3 Model Resolution Page 2 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2006-02 Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) 10123 N. Wolfe Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Arèhitects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020 square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building. 3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community Development. 4. 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. 5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Development Department of the following modifications for review and approval by the Director of Commùnity Development and Architectural Advisor: a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings. b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands. c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. ;20 '-3~ Model Resolution Page 3 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a restaurant/ storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide visual transitions between the buildings. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development that shall also include additional landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area. 7. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 9. 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. 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. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 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. ,20 - &ç Model Resolution Page 4 U-2006-02 March 14,2006 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 before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 10. TREE PROTECTION BOND All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree protection.bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 11. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 12. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade. 13. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge ahd 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 Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. ..2o-3b Model Resolution Page 5 U-2006-02 March 14,2006 15. 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. 16. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed. 17. PUBLIC ART Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 18. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the City Engineer. 19. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 20. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required. .,LD -31 Model Resolution Page 6 U-2006-02 March 14,2006 21. 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. 22. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. 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. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing~ 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. 24. 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. Grading Permit Fee: $ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,000.00 min. $ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or $3,440.00 min. e. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: ** b. Checking and Inspection Fee: TBD N/A Bonds: a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -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 ...1..0 -3 ~ Model Resolution Page 7 U-2006-02 March 14,2006 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. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 25. 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. 26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html 28. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. ;2.0 -3 q Model Resolution Page 8 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 29. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 30. TRASH ENCLOSURES A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 31. TRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA. Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as requirements. 32. SANITARY DISTRICT The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and Inspection Deposit will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, 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: ';¿D-cf õ Model Resolution Page 9 U-2006-02 March 14, 2006 ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2006\ U-2006-02 res.doc APPROVED: Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission ,;Lô - '-II ASA-2006-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO). SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordan.ce with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposa! will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring structures; 4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the City Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval 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 ..2.0 - y. 2-- Model Resolution Page 2 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 No. ASA-2006-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 14,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04) Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park) 10123 N. Wolfe Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020 square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building. 3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community Development. 4. 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. 5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Development Department of the following modifications for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and Architectural Advisor: a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings. ..20- tf3 Model Resolution Page 3 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands. c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a restaurant/ storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage. e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide visual transitions between the buildings. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development that shall also include additional landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area. .7. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural. and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 9. 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. 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. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 muleh 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. ;¿û-~ Model Resolution Page 4 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 ~ 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 before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 10. TREE PROTECTION BOND All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 11. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 12. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade. 13. 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 Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. »- 4-5 Model Resolution Page 5 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 15. 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. 16. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed. 17. PUBLIC ART Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 18. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the City Engineer. 19. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 20. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required. ~O~% Model Resolution Page 6 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 21. 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. 22. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. 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: Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. 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. 24. 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. Grading Permit Fee: $ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,000.00 min. $ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or $3,440.00 min. c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: ** TBD N/A Bonds: a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -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 ~-+l Model Resolution Page 7 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 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. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 25. 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. 26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html 28. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS Post-Construction Best Management Practices a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. .2D ~f~ Model Resolution Page 8 ASA-2006-04 March 14, 2006 c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 29. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 30. TRASH ENCLOSURES A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 31. TRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA. Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as requirements. 32. SANITARY DISTRICT The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and Inspection Deposit will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, 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: ~o ~ t/1 Model Resolution Page 9 ASA-2006-04 March 14,2006 ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \Planning\ PDREPORT\RES\ 2006\ ASk2006-04 res. doc io - Sê> TR-2006-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE NINE (9) TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESTAURANT BUILDINGS AND RECONFIGURA TION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA AT V ALLCO FASHION PARK SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2006-06 (EA-2006-04) Mike Rohde, Vallco Fashion Park . 10123 N Wolfe Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove nine (9) trees as part of the construction of two restaurant buildings and reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant will be providing new landscaping within the reconfigured parking lot area and around the two new restaurant buildings for the replacement of trees proposed to be removed and for the mitigation of the visual impacts of the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for approval; 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 TR-2006-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein. ..2..0-5/ Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2006-06 March 14, 2006 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based upon the Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects' dated March 1, 2006, consisting of the sheets labeled Tree Removal Plan and Landscape Plan. 2. TREE EVALUATION The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan. 3. 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. 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. ~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. ~ No trenching 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 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 h'ees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 4. TREE PROTECTION BOND: All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a ...2..0 - 52-- Model Resolution Page 3 TR-2006-06 March 14, 2006 tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits. 5. 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 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission c20-S3 Page I of 1 Aki Honda From: Sent: To: Larry Cannon [cdgplan@pacbell.net] Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11 :50 AM Aki Honda Subject: Vallco Restaurants Aki The main issue here seems to be the rather different scales of the two structures and their very close proximityto each other. 1 don't have any way to suggest modifications to the architecture without substantially altering the nature of the restaurants. You might try to see if the Islands structure could be reduced in bulk and height some and to give it more of a horizontal profile. And, then perhaps some more emphasis on a vertical element at the other restaurant's entry might make them better neighbors to each other. In any event, I do not see the merits of rotating the two restuarants off of the street grid. I also fmd the two entries at the CPK restaurant a bit confusing - seems to diminish the strength of the common area between the restaurants. Larry . 3/1/2006 ;HJ - 5~ CANNON DESIGN GROUP February 14, 2006 Elevation Comments and Suggestions VALlCO FASHION PARK RESTAURANTS Cupertino (Stevens Creek Blvd. Side) Will there be signage on this restauranl structure? South Elevation .' -'v .,.."~"'''' .~ :,<X( ! more square profile ~~*'" ----~-~::==~-=""- - "--:"~-~- -- . ,., b.; --- I.. .... -:;, ~¡r... Long flow profile Door to outdoor dining not shown on elevation Also, does outdoor dining area have a covering? ... -------------------...----- Large disparity in scale for buildings so physically close together with lillle space for landscaping to buffer and provide a visual transition on (parking lot side) -.- "f .;~\~ ~.~1>' ~. , \.~ ~ ~ffi" ~' ; Double entry a bit more confusing for this restaurant r- ~ Entry reasonably clear for this restaurarnl \)) ~ \ « CANNON DESIGN GROUP February 14, 2006 Site Plan Comments and Suggestions VAllCO FASHION PARK RESTAURANTS Cupertino '-.....'-..... ~ '-..... '-..... Consider a common waiting "garden" '-..... '-..... with benches under the trees and '-..... '-..... ~ strengthen entries orientation to this element '-.....'-..... ~ '-.....'-..... ~ "> ~ J'-- '- "< r I ~ '" ~., ®rrfJJ '>... ~~ { '. Consider rolating and offsetting ¡;¡;r./ . ~:! '\t·-L.... -, the.two buildings to provide more space between to mitigate large . '. , scale difference and allow some .....:, ¡I ((i buffering landscaping .....~ .----...-..-----.. ~ :;¡ ~~~2 ';' ~ I ~ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777·3333 Community Development Department c'" , .--- '-','C'" ":,,' ~"",:,:_,,-, -', ':H";;:"'-""T'f"'':'ê'7s:r~-;;'-_':,;':;:':~~;:'':'':''~:::'_,,-e-___ -",,~-,," - '-"<,'.-,-' . : INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRÓNMENTAI:: EVÀÎ;;t¡AiióíilcéHEGKLíSr'~ '..:,~~,%' \.' ,_ c ~ _l ' .,:,'~!-~j_,,~_~ '" ~ ~_ ,: _ _ " ~_ Staff Use Only EA File NO.EA-2006-04 Case File No. U-2006-02: ASA-2006-04 CITY Of CUPEIQ1NO ;~';~ú~:!r~~~:~~~:·: .;-;,/ )~!é' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: California Pizza Kitchen & Islands Restaurants at Vallco Project Location: 1012a N. Wolfe Road Project Description: The proiect is a request to construct two restaurant buildinqs at an existinq shoppinq center on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe . Road. California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant is proposed to be 6.020 square feet with a seatinq capacity of 220 seats. Islands Restaurant is proposed to be 5,910 square feet with a seatinq capacitv of 223 seats. Environmental Setting: The restaurants are proposed to be constructed on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road on a portion of the Sears parkinq lot at the Vallco Fashion Park shoppinq center. The site is surrounded bv Sears and the shoppinq center to the north. two-stOry office buildinqs to the east across N. Wolfe Road. and retail/commercial uses to the west and to the south across Stevens Creek Blvd. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 540.580 sJ. Building Coverage - 53.9% Exist. Building - 279.310 sJ. Proposed Bldg. - 11.930 s.f. Zone - PICG) G.P. Designation - Commercial/Residential Assessor's Parcel No. - 316-20-080 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) o Monla Vista Design Guidelines o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual x Heart of the City Specific Plan o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - 11.930 s.f. FAR - Employees/Shift - NA Parking Required - 156 spaces Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - .53.9% Parking Provided· 156 spaces YES X NO o ;2.0-57 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- Hiliside Development 7. land Use Map 8. Noise Eiement Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union Schooi District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Ciara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CAL TRANS 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 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino 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 18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Deveiopment Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility 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. CalEP A Hazardous Waste and Substances Site 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit Issued to the City of Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 43c Hydromodification Plan D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Pianning 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 F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series ··":'::':,_'>-:':'::T~'[_C ,:;:':'" INSTRUCTIONS' ,'. ." ','" A. Complete 9l! 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 impacl 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 paqe. 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) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ~--------~----- -I ;] ~r í-------, , , i c I I i C - 0 C¡: i fa C C .- ....- .. 0- tí I ,::u"c+:E .c: CJ CJ I ISSUES: tt:;!:«Jo I- .- .. o .. 1 [and Supporting Information Sources] C._ ~ I/I'-:¡: C> c.. I/) ~ c.. zc.. , 2 §, E I/)C ;ï'- 1/1 C E E Q) C> .- 0 Q) .~- , I 0._- ..J'- :2: CJ , I c.. CI) CI) C ..JCI) I I I ! I. AESTHETICS .. Would the project: , I i a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D ŒJ ¡ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] I -~1 . --. ·-·r ŒJ ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual I D D D ŒJ . characler or quality of the site and its I ¡surroundings? [1,17,19,44] , i d) Create a new source of substantial light or D I D ŒJ D i glare, which would adversely affect day or 1 nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] , I I I Items a. b. and c - No Imoact I I There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the proposed project will have no I adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project is also not anticipated to degrade I i the existing visual character of the site, given that the site is currently an existing sulface parking lot. I litem c - Less than Sianlficant II i The proposed restaurants will create a new source of light in the area; however, this source of light will not ! adversely or substantially impact the area. The proposed lighting associated with the restaurants is anticipated i to be in keeping with the type of commercial/restaurant Ii htino that exists alonn Stevens Creek Blvd. i , i ! II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In I i determining whether impacts to agricultural . I resources are significant environmental I I effects, lead agencies may refer to the I ! California Agricultural Land Evaluation and I ! Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by I ! the California Dept. of Conservation as an ! optional model to use in assessing impacts , i on agriculture and farmland. Would the : i project: i i D I i a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique , Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide i Importance (Farmland), as shown on the , maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland i Mapping and Monitoring Program of the i California Resources Agency, to non- i agricultural use? [5,7,39J D D ŒJ , I I I I I I I!, . I L ' --~----·T ----~+--------- --...- i I b) Conflict with existing zoning for ! D DID I ŒJ i i agricultural use, or a Williamson Act I I Ii' ! contract? [5,7,23] i i . _...._.____._._.._...__._..__.._._.____....._..1._.. . L __._.___. __1.. ... __.;......... .__._ ~-59 i---~---'--'---'---------------~-----r .-----;;----.-r. , I ",,- c - c 0 c ~ i i - c: ,.,. c .- ... I ' I -ro:- ''''(tI 0"'" fa",_ I', ISSUES'. I .!!!,,~ E".<:::¡:; ~ ..c::,," ,_._C"G r-'-+-orao r-'-ctS I [and Supporting Information Sources] I .r~ E' ~ ~ .¡¡: g e- ~ ~ ~ i I o.~- .5'~ ~ 0 ....JQ)~~-I' I D...U) U) g w I - o 1 I - " o co za. E i c) Involve other changes in the existing I environment which, due to their location or I nature, could result in conversion of i Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] i o o IZJ , ! Items a throuah c - No Imoact I The project site, as an improved surface parking lot area for the shopping center, is located within a developed ! urbanized area and has no agricultural land or resources; therefore, the proposed project will not impact í agricultural land or resources , i , I i III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the I i significance criteria established by the i i applicable air quality management or air , I pollution control district may be relied upon I to make the following determinations. Would I the project: ! , ! i a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 IZJ I ¡ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] I I ! I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 IZJ i contribute substantially to an existing or i I projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] I , I ! I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 IZJ I I increase of any criteria pollutant for which I i the project region is non-attainment under an i I ! applicable federal or state ambient air quality i I standard (including releasing emissions I , i which exceed quantitative thresholds for I I ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] I i I i d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 IZJ I I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] , I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 IZJ i I substantial number of people? [4,37,44] I ! I Items a throuQh e - No Impact i I The proposed restaurants 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 I I be applied to the project as conditions of approval to mitigate potential cooking odors from the restaurants (odor I I filtration systems) and odors/dust resulting from construction-related activities. i i i '----_._._-_._---_._--_._-_._._--_._----~--------_._._------.---' ~O~00 ,----.-~------------·----·-T--·--·-----.--~-I----------' j I .s "I I ' ! >...... " .~ 0 ,,~ I , - " CO I: .- j -CO..... .....0..... CO co..... ..... i ISSUES: .~ C.) CJ ~c:;~ .J:: 0 0 0 I i [and Supporting Information Sources] ..... .- ~ co co 0 I- .- co o co i c:'!:: ~~~e- rn~ c.. zc.. I Q) " E f/) " E E i I Õ .2'- Q) .- .- 0 Q).!2'~ Il.I)) ..1"20 I ..II)) ! i .!2' .: ! j I)) , I , ; I i IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .- Would I . i the proJect: i i I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either I I I 0 0 , 0 IRI i ! directly or through habitat modifications, on I I ! any species identified as a candidate, i i ¡ sensitive, or special status species in local or I I regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by ì i the California Department of Fish and Game I . or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I i I [5,10,27,44] I I ! i I I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 IRI I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural i ! community identified in local or regional I i plans, policies, regulations or by the ! I California Department of Fish and Game or I i US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] I i i c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 ŒJ I 0 ! I federally protected wetlands as defined by I ! I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act i ! I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I I ; pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, ! I filling, hydrological interruption, or other i ! ! means? [20,36,44] i i I I I d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 IRI I i of any native resident or migratory fish or i I i i wildlife species or with established native I i ¡ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or I i I impede the use of native wildlife nursery i I I sites? [5,10,12,21,26] ! ! , Ie) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 IRI i I ordinances protecting biologica.1 resources, , , I , i such as a tree preservation policy or , ¡ordinance? [11,12,41] I I , ! ! ! ~-_.~-- ~_._----' ~I I 0 I I i I . approved local, regional, or state habitat i ' , conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] i I i . ____.____.._________--'___._______.L..._____ ¡ Items a throuah f - No Imoact I The project site is developed as an improved surface parking lot for the shopping center. Development of the site for the: i restaurants will allow for retainment of all perimeter trees on site consisting of the double row of mature ash trees and pine ! ! trees along Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road. However, the project will entail removing some interior parking lot trees ¡ i to provide area for the new restaurants and reconfiguration of tile parking area around the restaurants. TIle reconfigured ! : parking area will result in the planting of new trees within the parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a i l_.su~~~~~~aL~~~!?~_. ~_~~_t_e~~!~_~t.~ned__~_~nd~..9~~~~bio!oqi.c:§ll~~~e~_rce~_.___....__.__._,.__.___,._.~__ ___ ____~___~....____.~ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other o -r 0 -I 00 I I i __.__.____----'-----____.____-----1~_,,___~ ;z..Q-t;:,1 r..--------..--.-·-.-.~--·------·-·--·----1--~---í------~r---·I~~-, ~ë ~I æ 1: c.~ 5 ë ¡ , I 'mr::¡- ....ftJ 0- 'uro_ +01 , I 'VUU -u-·....-"'.... .cUu· U i ISSUES: I :;::.- '" I- ¡¡: E '" 0 1-,- '" I 0 '" I I:~ f/)'-"C¡Q. ._1:1. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q I: E f/) I: '" :;::.... ~ .:_1: E lEi,. ! õtn- Q)tn ·-0 "..VI , ¡Ill. ¡¡¡ ....I ¡¡¡ :ä: g ....I en I , I ! I I I ~ I 1 -----'I I E8J : , i i ŒJ I I o I ŒJ I I I : Items a throuah d - No ImDact ~ i The site is not within a sensitive archaeological area of the City and has no historical resources on site. ! ! V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the , ¡project: i a) Cause a substantial adverse change in i the significance of a historical resource as ! defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] I b) Cause a subst~ntial adverse change in I the significance of an archaeological I resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique I paieontological resource or site or unique i geologic feature? [5,13,41] , I d) Disturb any human remains, including I those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1[1,5] o o o o o o o o o o o I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the I ! project: I , , ! a) Expose people or structures to potential ; , ; I substantial adverse effects, including the risk i I of loss, injury, or death involving: ; i I I I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ŒJ i i delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo I Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the I I I State Geolog ist for the area or based on I other substantial evidence of a known fault? , , I i Refer to Division of Mines and Geology I ; ! Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] í I i , , i ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 ŒJ ; i i [2,5,10,44] I , i iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including I 0 I 0 0 ŒJ i ¡liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] I I ! , I ! iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] I 0 I 0 -r+ 0 I ŒJ ,---~-'-'-~' ------í 'l--~--'- I . I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ¡ 0 I 0 L 0 I ŒJ I I loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] I! J I 0___.._.__..._____ ___ _..._..___._.....~__._._.~~'_,.".___ ____.__......__________________..J_______ .... _.______ _______..___. __~___._..______1 .ÄJ -~.;¡.... -~--~._--"~._-- ....·_-~-·--..I--·---¡..__.._..~---------¡_·_·_---- I ¡;: I ~~ 1:1: c.g r::1: I iijl\1õ ~ca .2~ ~faõ t': ._(,) I I-(J.J:_~ (,) .." I ......- n:l1 .- ..... t'iJ 0 1-.- fa 0 ca ......... ","", .... .- .... 0. 0. 1_·_- (/)'-,.C'Jo. (/).- z ,æ"E (/),,"':;:;.... (/)"E E ·1 OC>- a.>C> '-0 ..C>_ - c.. i:ñ ...J i:ñ :E g ..:J i:ñ I _ I I ISSUES: ¡ [and Supporting Information Sources] , , , ! ~- 1 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ! unstable, or th.at would become unstable as I a result of the project, and potentially result D D D ŒJ i in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, I I ! subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? , I I ¡ I [2.5,10,39] I I I d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined -~- I D D D ŒJ I in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code i (1997), creating substantial risks to life or , I property? [2,5,10] I e) Have soils incapable of adequately D D D ŒJ I supporting the use of septic tanks or I I alternative waste water disposal systems I i i where sewers are not available for the 1 disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] I I . I ¡ Items a throuah e .. No ImDact i i The proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to rupture of a known I i earthquake fauil, seismic ground shaking, or landsiides. According to the Geologic and Seismic ì i Hazards Map of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site is located in a VF, Valley Floor, zone. I ! The VF zone includes all relatively level valley floor terrain with relatively low levels of geologic i I hazard risk. Additionally, the projecl site is not known to have soils incapable of adequately I i supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. I I VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS I MATERIALS - Would the project: I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or i the environment through the routine I transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I materials? [32,40,42,43,44] I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ! the environment through reasonably I foreseeable upset and accident conditions ! involving the release of hazardous materials ! into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] , -- D D D ŒJ D D D ŒJ ;W~c'3 ......------ --------. '---'-T'--'~----' !: !: i ¡ ».... c 1: .~ 0 I c'E I I - !: rei .......- i -"'.... J:cura...... '" '" ....1 .... ¡ISSUES: .~ 0 0 o C) E .r:. u u u I +-1'._ co J-~:¡:;o f- .- '" 0'" i [and Supporting Information Sources] .§§,~ en .- .- Q. t/) ~ Q. zc. enC2!o.o '" C E E Q) CJ 0 Q).!:!,- i ~¡¡¡ I -1'- .r:. i Cf ....u -ICf , .- !: i ;¡:- ; i c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 ŒJ : hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, . substances, or waste within one-quarter mile I of an existing or proposed school? Il , i [2,29,30,40,44] , ----- ! d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 ; 0 0 ŒJ I i list of hazardous materials sites compiled I I . I i pursuant to Government Code Section I I 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a I significant hazard to the public or the I ¡environment? [2,42,40,43] I e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ŒJ i use plan or, where such a plan has not been ! adopted, within two miles of a public airport I i or public use airport, would the project result I i in a safety hazard for people residing or I , i working in the project area? [ ] I I i I i f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ŒJ I airstrip, would the project result in a safety I hazard for people residing or working in the i project area? [ ] , I I i g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ŒJ I I interfere with an adopted emergency I i response plan or emergency evacuation I plan? [2,32,33,44] I I i 0 0 0 ŒJ I i h) Expose people or structures to a i significant risk of loss, injury or death I I i involving wildland fires, including where I I wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i I i where residences are intermixed with i I wildlands?[1,2,44] I t I i Items a throuoh h No Imoact I I ' i The proposed project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot and has been maintained as such for I i several decades. The proposed restaurants are not anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk i i of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure i ¡ of people to hazardous waster or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. i , i i The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airiield/San Jose Airport) and is not I ! listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. ! ~._----,-"'--_._------~---- --------.. .--.-- ._---_._---------_._~--- , ------_._-----,--_._~----~-_.._._---~----_.. ..2..0 - (¿ t.f ~~--'--~-----------r¡--- -~-J---' <: , i ~..... I: +" 0 r:::'" i i - C fG!: C:._ ¡: I , (ij m..... .J:: ra 0 rtS m fa'" .....' I ._UU U:¡::¡1.. .I::.UU 0' I ISSUES: 1: t;: '" I- t¡: É '" 0 I- t¡;;: '" 0 III i f 0 j)- a> C'J .- 0 cu C'J_ ....., a. ëi5 ...J ëi5 :2: <.) ...J ëi5 ' <: i - , ; VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ; -- Would the project: I , i a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 I 0 ŒJ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] f-- i b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 I 0 ŒJ , I i supplies or interfere substantially with ; i I groundwater recharge such that there would I be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a , I lowering of the local groundwater table level I (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing . I nearby wells would drop to a level I which would not support existing land uses I , I or planned uses for which permits have been I granted)? [20,36,42] ! I c) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ŒJ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] I ! i d) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 ŒJ I I quality? [20,36,37] , ! e) Place housing within a 100-year flood 0 0 0 ŒJ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? , [2,38] I f) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ŒJ I i structures which would impede or redirect I I flood flows? [2,38] , , I i g) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ŒJ significant risk of loss, injury or death , involving flooding, including flooding as a I I result of the failure of a levee or dam? I [2,36,38] J -~ h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or I 0 I 0 I mudflow? [2,36.38] i i l____.~.__"~~,_.__ _.,_________.,__.._________.______L.______~_._._.__.._,,_,_.__ I I I _L_ o T ŒJ I ..i .20 - (p 5' ,~~·__·_-·_---·-------'----~-·---~~----_··~---E----ï----------..--...--~ i lie I: I ,----' I , ;:.,- c: ë.Q 0 ",- - '" fi:I -.- ra æ- , I -"'- ..c::mmêâ - í IS$UES: .~ (.) (.) .!: (.) (.) (.) , t-0C')Z- , -.- 9 I- .- '" 0 '" I [and Supporting Information Sources] !:~ t¡::;o IJ)~ c.. c. 1/)'-'- a. Z i Q) '" E ",1::2>- '" ¡;:: E E I õ.~- Q).~..c: 0 Q).~- ; ; Il.II) ....100_(.) ...III) I , , .- '" , ! ;;:- I i Items a thouoh h - No Imoact I The proposed project is not anticipatedto violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements, I substantially deplete groundwater supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a 100-year flood zone, or ¡ expose people or structures to risks involving flooding, or tsunamis. j ! The project site is located within a B flood zone per the Flood insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number ! 060339-0004-C, dated May 1, 1980. The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that is ! relatively flat and paved, with the exception of some landscape isiands within the parking lot and landscapin9 ¡ along the perimeter of the site. The restaurants will be constructed over portions of the property that are already i paved. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial net increase of impermeable ! surface on the project site. Standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project requiring construction i to provide additional stormwater control measures to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. I IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING· Would i the project: La) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ŒJ I community? [7,12,22,41] ! b) COnflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 ŒJ ! policy, or regulation of an agency with ! jurisdiction over the project (including, but i not limited to the general plan, specific plan, i iocal coastal program, or zoning ordinance) I adopted for the purpose of avoiding or i mitigating an environmental effect? 1[1,7,8,16,17,18,44] I 0 0 ŒJ I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 i consèrvation plan or natural community ! conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] I ! Item a throuoh c - No Imoact ! The proposed development will not physically divide an established community and will not conflict with any ! applicable iand use plan, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. , I X. MINERAL RESOURCES .- Would the i project: I ì ! a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ŒJ I minerai resource that would be of value to i ' I the region and the residents of the state? ~ I [5,10] I L.___~____.____.___~_________~..____._ _____~_ _____n_ ~.__~_ , ..2.0 - ~!p ~------"-""-'----'---------- ----.-~~- ..--- , r--~ i i i c: i »- c: - 0 c:- _ c: ro c c .- c: i -"'- '" 0- "'",- - ! ISSUES: .~ u U J:uJ:"~ ..c: 0 0 0 -.- ~ I-¡¡::=:t'ao I- .- '" 0 '" i [and Supporting Information Sources] C~ CI)'- 5: 0>0.. I/) ~ a. Z 0.. Q) c: E I/) I: ¡:; 10. CI) c: E E , õ.~- Q) C> .- 0 Q) .~- i ..J'- :¡¡: 0 ! Q..!/ !/ c: ..J!/ , r I b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ŒJ i locally-important mineral resource recovery I site delineated on a local general plan, I specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] I Items a and b - No Impact No known mineral resources exist on the project site. XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: i a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, I noise levels in excess of standards I established in the local general plan or noise ¡ ordinance, or applicable standards of other I agencies? [8,18,44] i b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ! excessive ground borne vibration or I groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] I c) A substantial permanent increase in ¡ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I above levels existing without the project? 1[8,18] r- I d) A substantial temporary or periodic ; increase in ambient noise levels in the II project vicinity above levels existing without I the project? [8,18,44] i e) For a project located within an airport land i use plan or, where such a plan has not been ! adopted, within two miles of a public airport I or public use airport, would the project ¡ expose people residing or working in the i project area to excessive noise levels? ¡ [8,18,44] o o ŒJ o o o o ŒJ o o ŒJ o o ŒJ I D D o o i I i ! D ŒJ I i ! f) For a project within the vicinity of a private I 0 0 0 ŒJ i i airstrip, would the project expose people I I residing or working in the project area to ¡ I i~2<~=si-"e noise levels? [8,18]_____~______L______________..l____J d-o~&1 -~~._------,._--~----~~ ¡ ISSUES: i [and Supporting Information Sources] , ; :-,- _ c -"'- .~ u u -.- !:!! ~~Ë o .5!'- D.. (I) I " ,,- 0 <II" " .- <II 0- ..cu.c:'¡:;~ I-¡;;~mo <f '-:> OJ a. tl)I:;;;o:.¡:;,- CI> OJ .- 0 ...Jü5 ::!Eu <: ---I~-~-- I c- " '" C'O- J::. U u f-.- C'O U):-!: c.. <f " E CI>.5!'- -1(1) õ o '" za. E - ! Items a. b. e and f No Impact I The proposed project will not expose people to groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, or noise levels in ! excess of standards of the general plan and noise ordinance. The project is not located within an airport land ; use plan area or private airstrip. I Items c and d .. Less Than Sianificant \ The project site is currently a paved surtace parking lot for the Valko shopping mall. An increase in permanent i ambient noise is anticipated to occur with the proposed restaurant uses as opposed to the current use of the ¡ site as a parking lot. Additionally, an increase of temporary ambient noise levels will occur with construction of i the project. However, this permanent and temporary ambient noise is considered less than significant. I , ! XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would i the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] i c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D [R I necessitating the construction of I replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] I Items a throuah c - No Impact ¡ The project site is currently a surface parking lot; therefore, the proposed restaurants would not displace ¡ existing housing and would not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. I I , -----T .. ·-·-·--l------r--' ..-.----;;;;~;~~~~;~~::] j----~---t_-~--t-~---ii-l Schools? [29,30,44] i DID D I [R i ~----~.-..----- .________,_____._.___~__________'._l..____ ___--1-. ..._,.-._--~ - ---_.,--- '1' .-".,.-, : Parks? [5,17,'19,21,26,27,44] I D ! - . D ., D - I'-~ ! ! ' 1---1 . n n _()~h~~_~_~~li~!acil~tie~?J1~c:.~_O'::L. .J D L m_~ t__ .[]L _ ~....J ! XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES I I a) Would the project result in substantial I adverse physical impacts associated with the ! provision of new or physically altered I governmental facilities, need for new or I physically altered governmental facilities, the I construction of which could cause significant i environmental impacts, in order to maintain I acceptable service ratios, response times or I other performance objectives for any of the i public services: ,._--_._--~----~----_.__.._- . , i , , í i í [R ! í I ¡ i I I D D D D D [R D I , , I I i i i , , ! I I i I i i dLo-~g .----- ------ -..---------------------.--------r-- I _>.~ t: ..... § I -(ã- fOæ g:;:¡ i ISSUES: :E! .S!:;¡ ¡:::.g E ~ ~ I' ...§ ~ E (/){/) ï: ". ....!2" P- ! [and Supporting Information Sources] 0 .2' _ w C') :> .- Õ ! Il. en ...J èi) :2 <.) : .E I i Item a (Fire Protection. Police Protection. Schools. Parks and Other Public Facilties) - No Impact i The project site is currently located within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, ¡ police, and public facilities. Therefore, the proposed restaurant uses located within an eXisting shopping center ! are not anticipated to create additional impacts onto the existing public services. -~-------- c'" c "'",... .1::<.)<,) I- .- '" tn~ 0.. (/) C E w.2'- ...Jen ... <.) o '" zc.. E I XIV. RECREATION -- I- I a) Would the project increase the use of I 0 I existing neighborhood and regional parks or I i. other recreational facilities such that I i substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] o l_~ o [ill! i b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 [ill facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ! might have an adverse physical effect on the I í environment? [5,44] i Item a and b - No Impact The proposed restaurant uses will not increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area and will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area. ì XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-- J , Would the project: ! ! a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ŒJ ! substantial in relation to the existing traffic I load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I , i result in a substantial increase in either the I i i number of vehicle trips, the volume to I I i capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I I I ! intersections)? [4,20,35,44] I , , I ¡ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1 , 0 0 0 ŒJ I i a level of service standard established by the I I county congestion management agency for , ì designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] ~ I -- , -~ c) Result in a change In air traffic patterns, r 0 -;;---- 0 [ill including either an increase in traffic levels or . a change in location that results in ! i I I I t---j I.-I ! d) Substantially increase hazards due to a I' 0 I[ 0 I· 0 I' ŒJ I design feature (e.g., sharp curves or i ~;~;;o~.~ ~~;;;~~i;~~~0~n&~~~:~~;~_J__J______~ ______11'_________1 : e) Result in inadequate emergency access?: D! 0 i 0 , [ill i! I ! , ! [2,19,32,33,44] I I ¡[I __~_._._______,,______. ..__ ._____._..._.~_~~~_..._.__...______. . _ L __._._.___-L_...______________L________________L________, I substantial safety risks? [4,?] ..lb-~9 ~-~-----~---'~--- ~---'----"----~-'_.._"~- ~~--- , :5!: i .- 0 I ;~5+:: ~-"'C:""I' .J:1::.¡:jE J::uU 1-"''''0 1-'-"'1 II) 0 r:n.... ,^ :'!:: Q. 1I)t¡:::¡:¡~ fñcE jï=~ 8 jtW- ~D -l D ü o '" zc. E i ISSUES: I ! [and Supporting Information Sources] i i , i >,- - c: -"'.... .~ 0 0 _ .- co s::~ OJ c: E õ.~- D.. en . ! f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? i [17,44] o ŒJ I I g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ŒJ I programs supporting alternative I transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle i racks)? [4,34] Items a throuoh 0 - No Impact . The proposed restaurant uses are not anticipated to create substantial increased traffic, result in a change in air \ i traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access I' I and/or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies/plans on alternative transportation. I I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - I , , I .I Would the project: I I i a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ŒJ ! requirements of the applicable Regional I Water Quality Control Beard? [5,22,28,36,44] ! b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ŒJ I new water or wastewater treatment facilities ! or expansion of existing facilities, the i construction of which could cause significant I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] I c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ŒJ ! new storm water drainage facilities or ! expansion of existing facilities, the ¡ construction of which could cause significant i environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] I ;;W-7D - -~------_._~._---_._-------_._~---~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] >,- - <: -",- .~ 0 to) -.- !!! c ~ ~ ( ) <: E õ.~- D..rn <=----1--' æ 'E c: .2 r:: ë i <'G 0..... ra ra:"'" ... ¡::o..c;:~ I-J:.~~ ~ ¡,¡::~ftlo 'Þ 0 i ""-"C'>Q. ",.-Q. zQ., 1IIt:>;1- (/)~E E I":. ( ) C'> .- 0 ".0'1_- ...J'- :ä: <) ~ rn <:...J rn i j i e) Result in a determination by the 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 . commitmenls? [5,22,28,36.44] ! f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ! permitted capacity to accommodate the i project's solid waste disposal needs? [7] I g) Comply with federal, state, and iocal i statutes and regulations related to solid ! waste? [?] 'I Items a throuoh 0 - No Impact i The project site is served by sanitary sewer service. The applicant, like other users of the system, will be i required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition of approval will be i incorporated that will require necessary improvements, if any, to be completed prior to building occupancy. The ! project will be required to comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations pertaining reiated I sanitary sewer and solid waste. ! o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ Jo - '7 I --_·-;-·~_··'-----~---'_···_----·--·I XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE I (To be completed by City Staff) ,..---- - -~----~---- . ._-~-_..__._------------_..._~-_.. ~-~-- .-~---_._--- ¡ i ISSUES: i [and Supporting Information Sources] i \ a) Does the project have the potential to i degrade the quality of the environment, I i substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or i wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife : population to drop below self-sustaining ¡levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal I community, reduce the number or restrict the i range of a rare or endangered plant or ! animal or eliminate important examples of I the major periods of California history or I prehistory? 0 ¡ i b) Does the project have impacts that are I individually lirnited, but cumulatively i considerable? ("Cumulatively I considerable" means that the incremental I effects of a project are considerable when i viewed in connection with the effects of past i projects, the effects of other current projects, i and the effects of probable future projects)? j[] ~ i c) Does the project have environmental I effects which will cause substantial adverse I effects on hurnan beings, either directly or I indirectly? 0 --------_.~_...._._.- - ;.,- - !: -fO- .!2 0 0 -.- ~ c ~ ~ ( ) !: E õ.2'J- D..(f ._-_....~..~- -'--~J-------: !: ! s::~ c:.!2 cë i cum 0- ftlcu..... ..... i ..c:o.J::."-ra .cOOl 0' 1-:.¡::.....rtÎè3 -._ftJ om I g¡';:'~.!2'Q.. CI)~ ~ :z Q..E I Q)tr.I""'o (/)C) ~I -Iii) ~ ~ 3¡¡¡- I o o o ŒJ o o ŒJ o o o 0 ŒJ ! ¡ I , I I , , ~ PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT 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 cornplete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may 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. ..- ; / ' Pre parer's Si'gnature ..1.. //~ ~"., ~,~ 1/;' "1 ; ~. I . (...." _ ,- ;.)( t_ ,c:', I·": '-1'---.. _ Ah 'f-/Ö l'']c;Ú,,-- Print Preparer's Narne ~o.. 72. 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 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 0 Land Use / Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ra nsportation/T raffic 0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance .DETERM!NATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) finds that: ŒJ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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. 0 The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at ieast 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. 0 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 E!R 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. Staff Eva.luator / y/I "1 . ,?,~ {¡V~ ERC Ç.hairperson / / I ! I Date /" ~;d7' '" r: Date ' I 1 ;20 ~'7.3 March 7, 2006 Subject: APPLICATION NO: DESCRIPTION; U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04) Use permit to construct two restaurants on the northwest comer of Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road. Members ofthe Planning Commission I read with interest the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the application to construct two restaurants on the comer of Wolfe and Stevens Creek. I have two concerns which are as follows: I. The traffic on that corner will be very heavy when the current approved development is completed. The restaurants will have a negative traffic impact upon that comer; plus the shopping center loses parking spaces. 2. Odor filtration equipment for restaurants should be required as part of the permit process. The Market Place Shopping Center, across the street, is installing such equipment in all restaurants. In the event that these restaurants are approved, they should be required to install odor filtration equipment. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. ì/' , '. r:" . ð/, ) /) ,"-,.A-7v,,,<'-"<J t/[),;"ý2Xrr, . v v Virginia Tamblyn 19721 Bixby Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408-253-2278 vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net ;L 0-1'-/ ..,,-,;,....- CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE March 8, 2006 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 8, 2006. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2006-02 (EA-2006-04), ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06 Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) 10123 N Wolfe Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road Architectural and Site Approval for construction of a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road Tree removal and replanting of nine trees as part of the construction two restaurants and reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area at Valko Fashion Park Shopping Center FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts, however, a preliminary report analyzing the traffic impacts of the project is required and the number and location of the trees to be replanted shall be determined by the Planning Commission. Is/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc;REC EA-2006-04 .2.0 - 7Ç RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2006 Exhibit B BY: To: CüpeI't-:y.ù P1cü·ü:il.ng Co:tún.:J.8~iüü. l""litl'cÍl 10_2006 1'fOr1).: Þi.l Di':; Hidd6f I~1146 /\:n.u.e L::ille C:û.tJ~tÛ.flO, Cd.. 95014 Subje(t: l\pplicadon:t..Jo. Tl~20G6..02: A..S.l\.....2006...04(Eþ-'-~'20CH}..{}4) I ¥vas ~ülliç\vhät 5l.liþrbed to get a n;:}tlc.ê £01' ililothijr hé&ring ¡~'1l yet ¡J.o.nothef projeçt t1x the Valk'o Shüppi.¡g C~llte:r. This is ab:}ut Ül¿ 8th buildin~, ;:i,ppiiç~~,t.j(.;·n is n l::,T .., few months for the vallcü ShOp:-01:ug Center. Þ..:nd \ve swl ha\'e nut he.ll-d about tl;~ plamled hotel and pa1kiug gal'ag;~ ill fh)lÜ iJ-f' ;]1;':; J. /" de-velopers o.n.d O\N11(;1"$ are jUt;!. bringing ~].p n'ne -- ;_~'.:llL:ê'; :3i.CF:. __ --'""-'-~"'.' ....t~-J.; tÙcr (;t>.)tb.er ;'lZ di~·'·- KilG':;··/ would not gel a:pprovdl fur'Ite ¡Jrüjrxt as d <"'\-1}ole if ;l;,¿h:d fÖr ~Ül J1 ,)D.C.0. f\llc~tb;:;;ï ç(il1C,ern is fhat thif.:< P[ü0:J!'i~:¡1 ~En}.in~~t~~ ,:p-j.it~ ~1 fl.:;",;"..,,- p,:u1·~in..§ :o¡);:n,~;.~;,. are at a preìniUtii durÏ11g the- holid3Y ;-;;eaSt)'¡1; but ~t a£sc< ,'!odd.:; ,t 1'êqU¡'[¡;::Tl18-:Ül o.r 48 F('i.!;:i·~'J~g ;)taHs according to ~he t-~ity plan. (.i\.h.t,lC,s¡ 12,,000 ::~'-l. it uf :.;iail ;"Ú .~ ;;'kH"I.:-¡;:~.; :i-.~r ·~;:}z;h I GeO iJq. ft.. of ['fit-ail fJµac~ = 48 spaces.) I v¡ould also lL1ce to drl:l"1N to ymli' attention. thft"t during the (:'Ol.lS11'uetlOIl (If 1Í1(-', 137 unit condo '~~VelOpJ.11~nt there váU t.ç t1 need f:.T a Ct3D.;7].tr!3ct1.ün 1n~t~rial area \.~vhiÇ:h -v.'"ould more ~..n 1í1..:el-y be .in a parking lot area.. 1:~-lü"v add tu thiB :f~K::t ~h:-ft the de1/elùpe:r V¿3X.iŒ to elinJ.L~te the parking lli"F2;a behind !v1a.cy'··s ill order to build a p~iIkill.g ~~i1TIGiLF~", aief<:'-¡':;ij"- elit.nin.;~ting :many parking sp-ac0s 'for a year or l')},ore. 'No\v ~ldd to th:J.t ihe f;¡t.~t. th}1'1 th:~ Pit pa.tki.llg Lot, _ii ko t.alled ID-è :Rü~{:; Bo\;vl:. l~ ~w¡¡.;l1 devoted to do C.OilàlrUct.1Üiì nllit~ri,al;j lot. Ifthi;' þ~LUJ.its &[? i£BU~d 10 aTIo'\.v the ço.üsi:ruçti¡)11 of;"t parkin.g st.rUChJri;; lrl frc"nt 'of J C Pe.tttroy there \vYiûld 00 <.0'1 additioüal1oNs of parkin.g (;àpability 11ütil tl1e structure is tOillD.lered. 1t' "..rl)111d bø a .)~'dQnt movo:>. ,C'^f thù Pì""!'Pll·Y,.o- ("^"''''"1~'Pìc'('''(}1-' ~{) Ppt -'1 1-..........1(1 ;';1'1 this ~ '''I "___ .". r 1""·.... .... _ 1. ...,. OJ. "~........ _~.a ~~~ ""~ '_".J~_~""'..,t.¡.'.''''''' ,I.". _ ...:, .,. .U.·w'L.-J l0qüest until ;iÜ:ill.e of the other projects ð..f-e r.::ompleted or the D.nd p;~rking ill'(;:~l:; arc f$stored to the reqTI-ir~d 4 :3paççS ¡::~r 'lOOn sq, fL of ;'£;~;::Ül Hp,~C£' t~':}f H}~~ ~nJir[; ':ihopping t-Cllter, If ct hold .is not put eH) ûlÎs pl'Op-OS£Ù~_ ¡hel'(~ '-A\}U_~.Ü , c)"';.Y h~\ H" "._-._'._-"".-.". _~;:¡ IL:.i.:iLl\· spaccs ;"]::; :-<';:;çd¿-d (b. nrrg ~J.l~::' ~.lc:·1ida:.r S~;;:;'S"T; n1aÍ1 ~d 1ùe eitv g@ I~v~:n ,18 ~he 11l:':1'ch::~nt;] ')j:) uk.! :.:;:~ :.h/~ ~ PleŒse con¿;ider putt1.ng a 1101,:} (,iÜ Üli::; .n..'UL '~'.:; .~ "!- , ,.,\.:.,,'-,--,-,-. ~¡" ~.- ¡~~1f '..E' HlC'F.'::. Thm~L: 1'"'jÜ /<..1 :Ce I-?jJd,zJ: QJ(D-><-~~ ..2-0 - ~ fo EXHIBIT C Dear Council member, > >I think you have received my email because I got an email from our Mayor. >I guess I don't have a good camera and I thank you in advance for taking the >tirne to go there and look in person. I appreciate your taking our concern >seriously. However, before you make any decision, I have several points to >make: > >1. This is not a neighborhood park. In a park, we have 20 parking spaces, >100-200 people ( from the neighborhood ) and no people at night. with new >Vallco, AMC theater alone has 3500 seats. The parking garage alone has >over 5000 parking spaces. I guess there will be at least 10,000 strangers >attracted there, and it's open at late night. > >2. No law says that strangers (even criminals) can't stand, stretch, wait and >watch nearby neighborhoo! d when they are allowed to linger. > >3. As a highly civilized city, we do not trample on even one >resident's privacy. >No house should be offered to stangers to watch as they wish. > >4. No kid should be an easy prey to criminals. > >Our request is simple. In addition to landscaping, we hope the site plan >can be modified as follows: >1. Move outside seats to the north side facing Sears and the mall >2. For the area in between restaurants, make it a simple >walking passage. No benches there to invite people, to gather there. > >I believe you will make a careful decision. I still have to attend 4/4 public >hearing and present orally, because I promised. > > >Sincerely yours, >Ching Shyu > > > ..)1)-'71 oo~ 'O~ -w 1?".r- w'~ W W W w- -w 1:w a - - - - - - - , ~ - ,,- " <:> ,,- " -,,- -" " ,,- I SITE SUMMARY: TOTAL SITE AREA: ± 2.13 ACRES = 92,765 SF. NET AREA: 80,555 SF. 185 ACRES GROSS AREA: 92,765 SF. STAllS 13/1JOO STALLS PARKING PROVIDED I1/2SOSFOR1I3SEATSJ 78 STALlS I1/2SOSFOR1I3SEATSJ 78 STALlS 156 STAllS 12,000 SF 14.90% - 5.71/1 1 STORY 156 156 PARKING REQUIRED CALCULATION: BLOG AREA 6,000 SF 6,000 SF, 233 SEATS 12,000 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA: TOTAL Bl.DGIlAND RAm NUMBER OF STORIES: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: PARKING RAm TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: CPK RESTAURANT: ISlAND RESTAURANT: TOTAL BLDG AREA: '1WŒo\P1n'1LLIIPA:MED ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 301-2' o o o o 35'-0' ¡- I I ~ I I I p I I 9 I o I I f I J\ I M 81 J\ , w w w " s: -1 u_1 " w o o g?, ..:. o . "* ~ roE& R.-" ~.~ Af.:CH:T£CTS 03-288.43 Date:03..Q1·06 " www.prarchitects.com w SCALE [503] 478.9900 Portland, OR PARK [703] 390.0400 Washington, DC VALLCO CUP LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 [562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702} 852.8500 Las Vegas, NV ON FORNIA I FASH E R TIN 0, C A L 850.3400 [714] 11 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 6th Floor LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS AlA ",_~::~EC' "i F,N.~.·-.c:, '." ......: "~ I ·.'~Ii"'·' ~ ',' ',' '-":\i.."';-- , 600 Anton Blvd I:jSCHEERTANAKADENNEHYRILEYARCHITECTS 31~"""looo"'" Costa Mesa,Caliloo1ia 92626 r141444-196I) STD _.-.: : :..:... .aRCHITECTURE· INTERIOR DESIGN Perkowitz+ Ruth ARCHITECT L I . B D . å> , ¡:.... ~ ~ , CD C\I Cry , io ~ io , CD ~ I I , 34'-6" 34'-6' 0--- o D n o ¡ o o ISLAND FLOOR PLAN , ~ b@ P-r:~ .t.~.(¡";:TfCTS 03-288.43 Date:Oa-Q1-06 " www.prarchitects.com , SCA1.E [503] 478.9900 Portland, OR ~~S;r~~2t~~"" . VA L L C 0 FAS H I 0 N PA R K ~:.:~,: >;~ ':';"~:~~~A\;:,::' n :,y, ~.I CUP E R TIN Q, C A L I FOR N I A <.,. """/1. ',,, LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 600 Anton Blvd., 16th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 [714J 850.3400 [562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NV [703] 390.0400 Washington, DC ~SCHEERTANAKADENNEHY~lEYARCHITECTS 319().KAirpcrlLoopDriYe Costa~esa,Califomia92626 n141#1-19$J BTD _~-.: :..:..:.. ARCHITECTURE - INTER!QR DESK3N Perkowitz+ Ruth ARCHITECT L I 30',0 ,{; i~ t n ",""., ~ 28'-0 .'"){i· \.,::....\\' :.>. ~\¡;_,;.,~c-- ·,?ri::i, - ''", 21'-6' 30'-0' '~~.~.,/,'i/-" , ,\1'" e.<..·-·<\,·-,·.:..··/.. fr-, :.:- .".~ ~',' ., ,:._.,:.;.<,._,j){iii..- <,,<co, <-'IJ"" ,__"__;_'\"'IJ""'^- . ""'N'J-' ,(.,,~~';;.J'~> .';P fÄ">~'~"i:~l': ,J'~l' -"", , /'Ó- .0:].. >1 .'-....,..J..,.,"\.,., ">'--"~""·'/)':?""'é\0·:':' I I .: 28'-0" 2 - ,....,., ;...'1."....' ;,.,? .,~,/..:i"'~cr ':, :{¡,',;r ,"~'''' "'>:-,_.'" ,.:..;¢.",.,.¥':'.-, ;"':V,~.;J~':r ..,.i..:,:.,.('f",·,;·>'>.¥:-h"P, ~~'~" ,....:M<!' .ff"· ' '(;,,,,", -0' ,I:;' )-1"":" ");k,·/j.;~",,>::,,li \i"P)" ,~'<f""...'" .:." y' .".~ ' .,. ,,' ..y' I,,·,,!jl ',...f.,J ,¡"j/j:;;p'f:" ,~.= -- ,...f,;,o..._::.>.··.i,·,·' ·\-4.-::>~ ';¡ ...4,,:~.;';"''". to 18',6' "::i ,j- / 18'-6 NORTH ELEVATION 30'-0' 1';; '.".,~< . ..'< .~'"' <, 28'=0" , ..~... ~ ! j . , , ! , SOUTH ELEVATION ~ 12'-6' ..... ISLAND ELEVATIONS ~"\,,;.~~fXi0.'r::§iill0,~~Ä,,;,;00."""_Ú'Fú~=_· '=c"ii=<",¿} 'W"",,"A',.~~-4':X:. .··....·..·:::·.:·:G""'""·,«'dD.U"""''''''",, 0"__ry_, o B'¡¿' 3;: SCAlE ~~J :28\0'! . , ,.!t1j · · , t j,:{ . , . ? . :i~ , ! I : t I ! ¡ I I · , WEST ELEVATION 30'-001 . ¡;¡¡r 21'~6" ¡¡;¡_h'''k~''-'.¡¿;A~_ ~ I...;à¡: EAST ELEVATION Da\e;03,;o1-'05 , , E 03~288A3 www,prarchiteds;COrn OR [503J 478.9900 Portland PARK I703] 390.0400 Washingtqn.DC ',' 6üüAritbnBJvd.,1£thFloqr;CostaMesä,CA9.26.261714j 850.3400 A N I o FORN I ASH N 0, C A L I F CUPERT o c L L VA . lEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS AlA .;:::::·.:,i.1.ti:·Xi'f:+ ::\',\';:. :';~;i'i SCHEERTANAKAPENNEHYRILEYABCHITECTS 319Ð:~~rpori.lo.o.f.Drive t%æMew, Ca)ifùrnia92826 LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 1 0123 NORTH WOLFEROAO, STE;2030,CUPERTINQ,CA95014 INTERIÖRDESIGN 1\44;)980 ARCHiTECTURE 17141 . 1702J 852.8500LasVegas,NV [562J 628:BOODLoDgBéachCA s Perkowitz + Ruth ARCH ITE<C T CPK FLOOR PLAN ~œ p~~ /., p ( ~i I T f (: T 5 03-288.43 Date:03-Q1-06 -~ ! 89'-9' ~ti-! &2tJ ~ \ - I \ Ñ - ..... co , (0 I'- I , 8' 16' SO\lE PARK .com .prarchitects www [503] 478.9900 Portland, OR [703} 390.0400 Washington, DC I F LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 628.8000 long Beach CA (702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NV ON ORNIA VALLCO FASH cUP E R TIN 0, C A L 11 LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS AlA .'.~--,;. 'l,"l· ',"I,".:'. I HI "...,··,.::·"...·11'-'··,.\'..' ,'," ". ',j '-'. '~, .' [562] .3400 850 [714] Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ,. 6th Floor, 600 Anton Blvd. ~SCHEERTANAAADENNEHYRlLEYARCHITECTS 3191). (Aì¡x>rtLOOO""' CosIaUesa,Califomia92ß26 r14)44I-19611 STD _--= : :...:.. ARCHITECTURE· INTERiOR DESGN Perkowitz+ Ruth ARCHITECT , , I '",~'''Ä'')'''" ','_ ..._.....__.'...MNX".\ Iw',,,,, '''..1' fTÔ.1 "',;¡;~,,,2i_ -'.c,' ".<Ä''' M",':- st~~.&\.t.:& T~i", :$T.:l.$t...·.v.".Ú j>,!>i:;j<ii:i:::IM1~¡ C";~;::"¡i'ê'1 f:ti'S1 ~)R~0;d; V-1fcl,rkAi'm"::¡¡ '---~---: "", ''''''''.:.> . - ,.....-...'.',-,,,:-,..- ¡;X_iR~ ~;Z,,,,r:c~~,."'fi JJit.~0T1Yl¡!;,.:i"",;~;i S}'S',r"9<I:",,;c«_''''' ÐNi,2 ,",11«0;"', nf~;' "fî1'''''''I, 5¢~ "", california ÞJZZA···.KtTCHe:N '\i:i#i: -.:/.",,,,,+', -. ..,,0/""-' . j , '.) , 1 , <eY'''''''·,''' w.-.....,--'if.", . ¡,,'~,,41Iy!¡y"';h«\~4 5r~:~r_~~'t':~;0?~''* .. -.. ---- HfS::] 5<'o""Ii,f;M;O" tJ:fS'~ . , .-. :c .. j,.m',,",hkC< , 'I. "X-1$IÚ1,;Ái<o<J;~ l','i(d""f""",,'r'Iji Hx,;<S.G<~:0O<fi:..d to1"IOh:Eulo~"'" tx'.t_~i~'~·.i\,,¿.t6 $t0:f";'¡",lS:yÙ~>r. '$>""'''''_ , f~t_~jod(J)"jcl t,,¡..\4¡~",>, E;';:}.lil.~*ÄWi,,~Ò E,~...d"",1:$y~'''''' .ËX:;!:1iIo~~.:A~"";td t:~=f, Æl'<kWc·f ar$. W1!>~""¿¡' V:.I.:i\w.,·,¡';;'hb:i·it Þ ';}0@iiW S'FJj'¡"J\t sr·,!s'"", ¡r~""â i:X~Z¡;bck A""'¿¡"''¡'::vp¡0 l"r""""IY'¡¡¡"~;ih;l'.d.·$i'1">g< h&'Ÿ'¥Çqt.j..:c.",^" 'j\\ '''' ~: ~'Y ~ .... ~{l¿~ .~,<: ,; . T-"i/ ~ . , , '7: :~ÄO ti:"2!\k>';¡;:...~~¡,';4 WI""w¡i:""","Y ?",,¡"i:~.$'Ú'6¡$;~d ^"""",,..!;.c,,",P.".! TJJ'i¡;I{,~cl1>loi' W;",*"·:&,.i' . SOUTH ELEV ATrON nl·S? ",:,'I<."",o!' t!.n"4 :;':?::':~l'c±-iJ"~ ;!;¡j,-~",~, " ~ . . :]: 'i I :1 s;;; '.J :1 ¡ I ¡ I , '-"':~;: , ·un';:·1 ",¡;¡¡;,."I., Em;", w/kJiw,àh .. +J.~:3i~f!::',>~"._,. '. ,~'"''''''ih'' ';'. ."--""'~ ,~'¡;';~~:. WEST ELEV AnON V^.1."w.,'''iF,,-bi:'' ;.... ,: ":é.:2j 5T,1 'S;""':\1~,,".d $T;~·:¡¡'¿"'.··A.Tri,". CPK ELEV A TrONS ;.....::..:....:....:~-*'!"., ....::..,.. .......--'..... SQ>J.E !$*0T~' ··~~·'~~K02fþ"'" . ."c<!'""..._.' '" .,' .. ·.iN.,=.. ",.... "''';'''.'''''''''':-' .,. '.'''''' Ð ~ it ~ FASH CUP E R TIN 0, C A L EAST ELEV AnON PARK £)(.~ ¡¡lo<~ 81'S A'MÌ··..,~·~ 'Þ'F1~~ ·$-~;ikj.:Y,,"·>), h'=i*,'l¡;",,-.-'~.,,;¿ flf;:,! ·';'/~~·',G¡o 5'9"""'·¡¡~·'~'<W0". ;':;""'''-><1<>,, , ·h___'·~'<.2 HI,'....,.______.' " . ON FORNIA ""i1:·¡;Ii:i<.d.:$io., \\'~:.;¡¡~~ ~0hið$ri:*h6iÚ; .M!·.",,::!\6;ijo.,/I.·,1 VALLCO EIF,$1 ·"ilk''''';!' /:-/ E)\:1¥.1?*''''ii>rl'~ÒJ !}.',,,,,,,wJ""'i'0:i ,,1 .$i,;,.;,,·j;:Td..: ¡".,"~dl~'..l!'0',,:"'.icl s"'ßo$<B:f Þij)t>"9<¿'~1"",jM: ar:,;'z "d¡;"''''~i,. ;;:f"t "'/"-""".0" tx:iBIi{t j,M,wj,to~""'.I .ùHd '-'¡'i¡¡,,~ié y-- . <:: ,~'~'-- ,- .~/ ? ."":. 1<T~,£~~':"- .,' ',~ I LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 1Q123NORTHVVOLFEROAD,STE,2030,CUPËRTINO,CA95014 . uþj¡.:'; Ði,¡..'f;;~~kA,,«;¡¡-"¡ '~r~""f~",,1::"r""~' LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS AlA /"~:';;\i:,.:<j:;i;'in-;+;"¿ "<ii' ·;·;,.J'}-.',:,\·N;'-" '+>:,"'\',':' . ·ST;-¡:;St"i:<::·,..~i:.,. NORTH ELEV AnON SCHEER1ANAKIIDENNEHYRlLEYARCHlïECTS 3~9û~AirpOTtLù()þP0te ,Cpsta¥esa,~lñùmiE92626 (11<1'11-1000 ARCHiTECTURË INTERIOR DESIGN ~,-,~ I j ___...J t: Oale:OS.:.o1C06 :03;288.43 1N\Nw.prarcJ;iteds:com OR 47K9900POiilárid 1503J l7P3] <390:0400WaShînglon,þC NV [702J852,8500 Vasyegás [562) 628.8QOQLohg BéacÞCI\ 1714J 850.3400 CostaMesa,C!<.92626 161hf!óör, 600 Ariton Blvd, 5 Perkowitz + Ruth ARÇ:HI>iTE>CT I I I I I I I I Lu¡ I I I I I L ____ - - DI TREE TO BE REMOVED TREES TO BE REMOVED \ "<Ð: ~ (' ~ I \--.. <g TREE TO BE REMOVED ~ o '\ \ != -~~-~~~~~~~~~--~~-~===~-~~-- ----------------------------- TREE REMOVAL PLAN TREES TO BE REMOVED . f 1) e:JÛ> . ~ ,E& p~~ ¿.¡¡CHIHen 03-288.43 Date:03-01-06 . www.prarchitects.com "c; SCN [503] 478.9900 Portland, OR ~~~~0r~~r~~<~ II VA L L C 0 FAS H I 0 N PA R K CUP E R TIN 0, C A L I FOR N I A ;,.....: ,", '_f '.:,;,:\, "._ . ,., ,,:, :', . LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT 10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 600 Anton Blvd., 16th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 {714] 850.3400 [562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [7021852.8500 Las Vegas. NV [703] 390.0400 Washington, DC ~SCHEERTANAKADENNEI!YRLEYARCHITECTS 31~Aì¡x>rtloopD" CosIaMesa,Caifomia92626 r14j#l-l00Q ITD .~.-.-: :.:..:.. AACHITECTURE· INTERIOR DESIGN Perkowitz + Ruth ARCHITECTS L