16. Growing Tree Learning Center 20100 SCB Ste. 160COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • t;UPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
{408) 777-3308 • FAX (408;) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.
Application: M-2009-03
Applicant : Suna Lai
Owner: Cupertino Stevens, LLC
Property Location 20100 Stevens Creek )Blvd #1b0
Meeting Date: June 16, 2009
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Modification taf a Use Permit (49-U-87) to allow fora 4,900 sq.ft. day care
preschool and learning center in an existing office building located along the
south side of Stevens Creek Blvd.
The City Council has the final approving; authority since the original use permit
was approved by the Council.
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 1987, the City Council approved an Use Permit (49-U$7)
allowing the conversion of an office/warehouse building to office/commercial
(Attachment A). The approval consisted of 5,500 sq. ft. of commercial use and
5,800 sq. ft of office use. The applicant, Stina Lai (representing Growing Trees), is
requesting approval to modify the existing use permit to allow a
daycare/preschool facility at the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
modification request (M-2009-03} to allow the daycare preschool and learning
center.
16-1
Application: M-2009-03 June 16, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission: The Planning Commission reviewed this project on May
12, 2009. The Commission supports the project with the following key changes
and/or comments:
~ Revise the site plan to indicate main pedestrian/drop-off entrance from
the southwest corner of the parking lot to create a safer travel route for
parents dropping off kids. The applicant has revised the plans (see
diagram below) to reflect this change.
~ Allow the daycare/preschool operate until 6:30 PM per the applicant's
request
~ The final fencing, landscaping, parking, garbage enclosure and play
equipment details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
Please refer to the May 12, 2009 staff report for the detailed discussion
(Attachment B).
16-2
AppEication: M-2009-03 June 16, 2009
Page 3
Prepared by: Heather Phillips, Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
~--
o Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Director of Community Development
Approved by:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Attachment A: 49-U-87 Resolution
Attachment B: Planning Commission staff report dated May 12, 2009
Attachment C: Planning Commission minutes - ]vlay 12, 2009
Attachment D: Daycare Class and Parking Schedule
Attachment E: Noise Analysis
Attachment F: Plan Sets
16-3
49-U-~?.. _ _ .__
C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O
104]0 5. De Anza Hatlevard
Cupertino, `~l~.f°r~~. 95°i4 Attachment A
RESOLViTON Na. 40°6
OF Tf3E PLANNII~ SSION OF ZHE CI"I'Y OF QTPIIZT.W
g,$CQ[~Q4~lD7NG APPROVAL OF USE PEF~II.T TO CxNVIIZT AN E7QSTING
O~RCIAi~-RF~10U5E F~JiID1IdG TD OFFIC'F/00l~?AL
USES AND TO C~Od1STR[,JGT ASSOCIATID SIRS AND BETIIDIIJG MDDIFICATI0rJ5
SFf TION ~F'iNDII~~
Wf~RFA5, tt:e Plaruiir~g Cam~anission of the City of Cupertino received an
application far a Use PeYmit, as described an Page ~ of this Reso].uticns
az~d
WF~EtFAS, the applicant has met the buz~den of proof regeiired to support
said applicatia~zt; and.
Wt~tF.AS, the Planning oc4mnission finds t3tat the ap~p].ication meets the
foliating xequirements:
a} That the use or uses are in conforn with the General Plan of the
City of Cupertino- and are not detrimental to existing uses or to
uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the pno~po.~ed use is
to be located.
b) That the properky involved is adeQaate in size and shape to
acco~aodate the proposed use.
c~ mat the proposed use will not generate a level of traffic over and
above that of the capacity of the existing street syetera.
d) mat the proposed use is otherwise net detximental to the health,
~. ~Qt=Y, I~~, ~~ and general welfare of perscrcv~ residing or
working in the neighborhood of swch pttypoved uses, nor injurious to
prope~C-ty arxi ii,~rwetnents jn the neighbo~ood.
NC1W- Z~iORE, BE 7:'k' IiESOLVm;
That after careful consideration of }naps, facts, exhibfta, test ar~d
other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use t fs
hezflby s~eoon¢nended for apprvva]., subject to .the oonditicns which are
enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof and
That the subcanclusions upon which the fir~diags and conditions specified
in this Resolution are based are contained ~n the Public Hearing record
concerning Application 49-U-87 as set forth in the ~ of the Plarmirx;
oonanission 22~leeetirrg of Kovember 9, 7.987, and aze inoozporated by reference
as that:gh fully set forth herein.
•: .5 ~'M~{)R .~_•• . .rw~.+u,,+... r..,.~;..: (/'=.w ..-«w ~~.rw~••._ .r ••.t.A,.p. •+.~~ .~. .r.. ..-r•rt~wl.y.;.!~w•T^w ~~..,« .,.... .+,.
.. ~ ~t~
16-4
RESOxIIl'I~ tto. aoo6 {as-u-a~~ u/os/a~
PAGE- 2-
~EGTION II: SECT DATA
Application No{s) ~9-U-87 and .'iQ EA-87+-
Applicant: Dat.Yl _ zeka::
property owner: y Tsarw
Location: South side oi: Steverm-GYeek Boulevard,
t' - 500 !`t. west of Blaney Avertt»
SFGTY~011 I=If ~ITIONS_ACMINI~__B~'I41E Ft7HG~C WORKS D~~~,'
1. S'iREEr WIDFI~IING
Street widening, inq~rovements zuxi dedlcatia~ shall be provided in
accordance with City Standards and specificatiass and as required by
the City ~gineer.
~, ~• 2. X31} AND GLTI'i'ER
,' - Curbs and guttexs, driveways, e:idewal3ss an3 related Sttuctureg shall
be installed in aeoaraatx~e witri grades and atandar+d.s as specified by
the City ~gineer.
3 . ~~ ISt~3ZIJG '*w-err ATION
street lighting shall be iststz~lled and shall be as approved by the
city Er:gineer. Lightis~g lixbeu:es shall bs positioned ea as to
pr~erltde glare and other torns~ o! visual interference tQ adjoining
pre~perries, and shal3. be no higher than the maxim~mt height permitted
by the zone in Mich the site is ].orated.
4. FIRE ~iYC~tAN_'1'
Firs hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
5.
Traffic control signs shall bEs played at lxations specified by the
City.
b.
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall.
ba of a type approved hY the City izs aooozdanoe with atdinaux~ 125.
7.
Gradtsxj shall. be as approved and requited by the City F~gineer in
aooordai'~cs with ~ 125.
.!.ua..~..~~.-,...,•..~; -. .~ .....~,n,...*y.e.,•s-iw-S.-,.•~..t..~a.~--, ,•i.-~....i1~ L~M7......~i.t.._ .,L-...... •,.r~.-;.w~-•r•~---:-• .- -
16-5
RFSOIITrION NO. 4005 (49-U-87~ 11/09/87
PAGE - 3 -
B. ~
prairu-ge shall be prcnrided to the satisfaction of the City F~gineer.
Surface flaw across public sidewalks may be allowed in t2ie R-1, R-2
and R-3 zotses tu:less storm drain facilities are deemed nes~essa~ty by
the City Fhgirteer. t~evelopnent in all other zoning. districts shall be
sexved by on site storm drainage facilities connected to th,e City
storm drainage syste~-. If City storm drains are not available,
drainage facilities ssltall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
~gi.neer.
9.
Zhe developer shall comply with the require~mants of the Undergrauxl
Utilities Oxdis~ance ' No. 331 arxi ot2ser zelated Ozdinatx~es and
~ ^ regulations of the city of Cupertino, and shall cvozdinats with
affected utility pi~vfdets for installation of undat~gr~ound utility
~e de:veloper shall submit detailed plans st-owi„q utility
undergrrxuxi provisions. said plans shall be subject to prior appravai
of the z-ffected Utility provider axx3 the City Engineer.
10. DE:SIEIDPl~IJT_A~
Zhe project developer shall enter into a develapnent agreement with
the City of Gupertin4 providing for payment of fees, including but not
limited . to checkitx~ ar~d inspection tees, storm drain fees, park
dedication fees and fees for of utilities. Said
agreQaaerit shall be executed prior to issuance of oonstzuctian permits.
11. 'RA FbRN~t.S
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground
'~ orblocated undergroauxl such thatequi~pment rare not vispfraa
public street meas.
12. PEDES"IRIAN EASII~kKI'
Aedestrian eas~nts wax the sidewalk azea shall be recorded against
the subject property prior to issuance of building permits.
- ....;•.~eawa-••~.t:Y'-+'•'~r"r~":'+.tK'~r:rrvh~ax.•..~~.^;..IM1~-r..g~rv.~a.~r•...=;spa....~a.•..w..n~.y.~=sir..,.-.ie-s ~.!~n7~:1"'^.wx;•^r~.::.~...,
16-6
RESC~I~I~ION HO. 4006 (49-~J-87) 11/09/87
PAGE-4-
13 . ~~~
Zhe revca:aflerdatfon of approval f~a used on ~ibits A 1st Rgv3siari, B,
C 1st Revision, and Into. of Application 49-i1-~87, exvept as may be
amended by the C7orYiitiar~s oontairuaci in this Resolutia~n.
14. ~~?rx~rra~rrorr OF AAPPRORJ6U DEVf3DP~il~
In the event that the. appiiG~nt or subsequent plropexty owner shall
desire to ~ make arty minor changes, alterations or an~er>~knent of the
approved deveZopnent plan, a +~rittFn nest oz revised development
plan shall be sukmLitted to the Director of Planning arxi Develapmer-t.
7.1' the Directox makes a fir~dityg ttLat the charxies are minor azxi do not
result in a material affect ~.~pon the appearance or function of the
project, said charges may be certified on the revised plan. If
approval of said chatx3es is withheld, the applicanC may appeal to the . - .
Planning Comanission.
Yt the Director tiixts that ~~ z~equested charyge~s axe material, such
changes sha11 be zeferred to thin Plaiu~3ng Ccaeafssian for approval. xg
the changes are denied by the l?lannir~g caomnission, the applicant may
appeal to the City Cout~ii as prv+i3.ded in City 0rdinar~ce No. 652.
If said changes are apprWed by 1:he Pla:v~ing Caamtission, an appeal may
be made to the City oatiuicil !~y any interested party. PLtrth~er, any
Member of the City CotutiCil may request a hearing before the City
Cow~cil regarding said approiveci changes. Said request shall be made
wfthin teri (io} days fzasa the date of approval of: said rl~anges by the
Planning Coacnissian.
15. ~? OONSZ7tAW_P
Iarid Use intensity shall be ;Eiuiited to an inter~sity that will not
gpsierate more than sixteen (16} on way trips per ac~a during the peak
traffic hour. For purposes of ensurir:g aca~].iance with the Traffic
Intensity Performatxae StarxTard, the following acavunting of trips is
hereby incorporated iota the project approval:
TRIPS GE[~tA~ID BY PROJECT: 16.8
T2IIP5 ~ ZU PR4TEC.T SITES .16.8
SfA2pIt~'i TRIPSS 0
..ay-v rrr.~ ,-r.~•.~. .. .. ~ .:.. ~v,..w•r . •~. .+~. ~ ...rw: ~,,,.......ti .,~~•:">>r~w.:•r.......~. ...r.r,...~~~rr.~w..r..r.~,,..~-.~. -.
16-7
FtESpLUrICKJ ~~p. 4006 (49-U-87~ 1/09/87
PAGE - 5 -~
.,~~_
In the event that a developafent does not utilize the full 16 trim Pte'
acre al2.otted by the trip end perfoznsance s3tarsriatd, the owr~r of
reoo=d shall have the ability to retain, sell or transfer trips with
other groperty owners witha.n the the Traffic Intensity I~sformance
Standard Area. All sales or transfers of trips shall be filed with
the pirector of Plantti.rrg and Develo~+ent and the City Clerk. No sale
or transfer shall be considered firsally oonsustanated until a Use Psr~ait
has been approved for the property to which the trips era to be
applied.
Zhe developer shat'
constraint and the
devela~ent~ at the
appropriate warding
consult the indivi~
report of the tots
Pr'oP~Y•
16. ID USES
record a covenant to describe the trip acre
total n~anber of tripe allocated to the particular
time of developsmesst sapptcot-a4I. 7[tse acvenarrt shall
to suggest that Future purchasers of the property
iual. Use Psnm3.t file to obtain an updated status
~ number of trips allocated to each partiwlaz
Approval 3s granted to utilize the 11,300 square foot building in the
followf,ng manner:
pQAT, 5,500 Sq. Ft:. Ma7daa~oa
OFFICE 5,800 Sq. Ft. Minimum
l7. ~~' L~~3'1'ATIONS !GF'~2AL QU~AL~
Permitted uses may include all uses allowed without the securing of a
Use P~exmit in the city of (~pe~.tiz~o OG (General Casaaercial) zap
district. All other uses requiring Use Permit recview in the OG z~
shall req~tir~e t7se Permit review in the subject Plarmed Development
Zone.
18.
The applicant shall subaait a ~iv~e lar:dscsape Plant~J Plan for
inforn~al review by the Asdsitectural and site Appsrorval Cosmnittes prior
to issuance of building permits. Plans shall be consistent with the
Stevens Creek Bvutevaxd Sidewalk ar:d YarYJscaping Standards.
~. ~m~ ~~ a
The applicant shall sign an agreement to participate in a reciprocal
irzdz+ess/egress easement with the adjoinirsg poroperLy a~x to the w8st
when said pznpF:rtY owner is obligated to participate in a sitailar
agreement.
~ applicant shall subanit a draft agx~nt to staff for approvat
isistusrsce of buildi~ ~r+++tts.. agreement shall ba >`~oorded prior -Co
16-8
R~soun-la~t too. aoa~ {a9-v s~} i~/o9/a7
PAS- 6-
20.
No public ac9dress system or ~~aging systaa, powered tnegal~One ar
similar r~oiss~lcing dosr~c:e shall k~e permitted outdoors nt any tie
PASSID AND ADOPTED this 9th day o! rfwe;;ber, ]987 at a Regular Meetitq of
thg Planrlirx~ aooonaission of the City of WpPxt3z~o, State of califosnia, by
the foLlowirxf roll call vote:
AYFS: C~II4TSSIt7NE~s Adams, Claudy~, Sorensen, Szabo,
aril Cbaizma:t Mackenzie
NOFS : CCM'IISSIONID.S S Nona
ABSTAIN; ~IISSIOH~: Nona
AH,SF3Qp: ~ffSSIOIOrRS: None
APPRQ~:
(s/ Robert Cowan
Robert oowan
Director o~ Planning
/s( Donald Mackenzie
Doan Mac]c,~.stzie, Ct~airmalt
(upartino plannfr:g ammissian
RF~49U87(RANpY}
...a :~~;'7-"qr.~-CpuA`V•.r;s» f... ~~~ '.try .+ `r .• -r ~w ..: r7•'4~. ryt.F• J'r.'. .r ~.7'iln;.'i^,"w7"^'1~:.I~.~~~l+a;M?.',MY,AT•J!: ~~tw!'C7M.+T•T.•.s'f.~a~• »...., .
r
. f,
16-9
Attachment B
CITY OF
City of Cupertino
T0300 Torre Avenue
' Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
C O P E RT I N O FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Agenda Item No. o~
Application: M-2009-03
Applicant: Suna Lai
Owner: Cupertino Stevens LLC
Property Location: 20100 Stevens Creek Blvd
Agenda Date: May 12, 2009
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Modification of a Use Permit (49-U-87} to allow fora 4,900 sq.ft. day care preschool and
learning center in an existing office building located along the south side of Stevens Creek
Blvd.
The City Council has the final approving authority since the original use permit was
approved by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council of
the modification (M-2009-03) to allow the day care preschool and learning center.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Lot Area:
Acreage:
Building SF:
Existing Commercial Office:
Proposed
Office
Day-care commercial
Total Building SF:
Existing Parking:
Proposed Parking Stalls
Commercial /Office /Residential
P (Heart of the City Specific Plan}
47,393 sq. ft.
1.08acres
4,631 sq. ft.
6,371sq. ft.
4,990 sq. ft.
11,300 sq. ft.
50 parking stalls
36 parking stalls
Project Consistency with:
General Pian: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt
16-10
2
BACKGROUND:
The project site is zoned Mixed Use Planned Development. On November 9,1987, the City
Council approved the Use Permit for -the conversion of an 11,300 sq. ft.
Commercial/Warehouse building to an Office/Commercial building. The use permit
granted approval to allow for 5,500 sq. ft. of commercial use and 5,800 sq. ft. of office use in
the building. The uses were limited to thosE~ allowed in the CG (General Commercial)
zoning district. The applicant is requesting approval to modify the existing use permit (49-
U-87) to allow for the daycare use. The prof~osed project would allow 6,310 sq. ft. to be
used for office use and 4,990 sq. ft. to be used for commercial. The daycare is a commercial
use and proposed to occupy 4,990 sq. ft. of the commercial portion of the building.
Site Location
The project site is occupied currently by Chic,~go Tile (to remain) and InfoLoan Mortgage
Company (to be taken over by Growing Tree;E and is located on the south side of Stevens
Creek Blvd just west of the Chili's Restaurant. Cross-access easements are established
between the Chili's Restaurant parcel and the subject site allowing for circulation between
the two parcels.
Aerial 1Photo
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting approval to allow for a daycare and preschool providing
bilingual Montessori curriculum. They are proposing to convert 4,990 sq.ft. of office space
to classrooms, while 1,679 sq. ft. is to remain for the school's administrative offices. A
16 - 11
3
portion of the rear parking lot will be fenced off and converted for a children's play area.
The size is dictated by the state licensing requirements per the size of the daycare.
Hours of operation:
The project proposes a maximum of 94 students at any given time. There are a total of 12
employees at the center, with an average of 10 staff present at any one time. The hours of
operation are between 7:30am and 5:30 pm, with class hours broken down between the
different age groups. The preschool classes would have a maximum of 36 students per
class while the younger daycare for toddlers has a maximum of 22 students. The outdoor
play area would be utilized, weather permitted, during the hours of 10:30am and 3:30pm
being rotated between the different classes. Chicago Title is open from gam to 5pm.
Noise:
A noise impact and mitigation study was performed for the proposed daycare to determine
the ambient noise levels both inside and outside of the center. The main concern was the
impact to the neighboring residential apartments to the rear and condos to the west. The
proposed outdoor play structure is approximately 75 feet away from the residential use to
the south buffered by an existing masonry wall and a large parking area (as shown below -
Diagram 1). The condo complex is closer at 50 ft separated from the subject property by an
existing b ft high masonry wall. It was determined that the center would create noise levels
of 40- to 50 dBa. The second floor residential levels would be a few dB higher in both
locations, however, even with higher noise levels for the second floor it is still below the
City Noise Ordinance of b0 dBa measured at the property line adjacent to residential uses.
Conditions of approval have been added to address any impacts.
Diagram 1
~s-~2
L~.
Parma
To allow for the play area and the new garbage enclosure, 14 parking stalls needed to be
removed. What remains for the various uses i;;broken down as follows:
Building Tenants Units Number of Employees Parking #of Stalls
" Sq. Ft. students requirements
Chicago Title 4631 6 1 / 285 sq. ft. 16
Growing Tree Day 4990 94 10 1/6.5 14
Care students
Day-Care Admin 1679 2 1/285 sq. ft. 6
offices
Total Needed 36
Total Provided 36
Access to the site is from Steven Creek Blvdl leading to a front parking lot of 18 spaces,
while a two-way driveway leads to 18 spaces of rear parking. The front parking area is
mainly designated for the Chicago Title and the administration office. The main parking
area for the daycare would be located in the rear. The peak drop-off demands (7-8:30am &
5-5:30pm) for the proposed daycare use does not overlap with the main hours of operation
of the existing office uses {9-5pm). The pro~~osed project does meet the required parking
demand prescribed in the ordinance. The required parking ratio for daycare (1 stall/6.5
students) was added to the ordinance in 2001 and was based on a survey study of parking
provided at daycare facilities in Cupertino artd adjacent cities. The ratio does account for
parent drop-off demands as well as employee parking. Given all these reasons, staff
supports the proposed project.
Trash Enclosure and Landscaping:
The project proposes to enclose a play area to the rear of the building with asix-foot high
chain link fence. New landscaping will be ir~stalled adjacent to the play area. Currently
there is an existing garbage enclosure located within the west upper aisle against the 6-foot
high masonry wall where the proposed pla~r area is planned. The proposed new trash
enclosure (as shown below -Diagram 2) would be located to the rear east corner removing
a parking stall, while still leaving access to Chicago Title and allow for garbage company
pickup.
16 - 13
5
Diagram. 2
Staff Recommendations:
Staff supports the project~provided the following changes and/or conditions are satisfied:
Lobby Area:
The lobby/entry area to the project should be revised so that it is oriented closer to the rear
parking lot so as to discourage parents from parking in the front parking Iot.
Designate drop-off area/parking:
Daycare drop-off area and parking spaces shall be clearly delineated in the rear parking lot
near the main entrance.
Design Review Committee
The final details of the site modification including but not limited to fencing, play structure,
pedestrian paths, entrance. and drop-off area shall be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. .
ENCLOSURES:
Model Resolution
Attachment 1: Noise Report.
Attachment 2: Daycare CIass and Parking Schedule
Attachment 3: 49-U-$7, Resolution 4006 containing the Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4: Site Plans
Prepared by: Heather Phillips Assistant Planner
Approved by: Gary Chao, City Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Co nity Development Director
G:pianning/PDreporfJpcMreports/1009/M-2009-03.doc
16 - 14
M-2009-03
CITY OF CL)PERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION N0.6556
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO:(V OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USE PERMIT (49-U-$7)
TO ALLOW FORA 4,900 SQUARE FCX)T DAYCARE, PRESCHOOL AND
LEARNING CENTER I1V AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED AT 20100 STEVF;NS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2009-03
Applicant: Suna Lai
Location: 20100 Stevens Creek Blvd.
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERNIl'T
VV~IEREAS, the Planning Commission of the t~ity of Cupertino received an application for
the Modification of a Use Permit, as described vi Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have Keen given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the :Fanning 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 requixements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, acid 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.
NOW, TI-B;REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Modification of the Use Permit are hereby
recommended for approval, 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. M-2009-03,
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of may 12, 2009, and are
incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein
16 - 15
Resolution No. 6556 M-2009-03
Page-2-
May 12, 2009
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMIlVISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED E)~iIBITS
The approval is based on Exhibits submitted, titled "Little Tree Bilingual Montessori
New Campus, 20100 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 160, Cupertino, CA 95014" consisting
of 2 pages numbered, "A1.1"; "Site Plan"; and "A2.1" "Floor Plan", except as may be
amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to operate a daycare facility with a maximum .occupancy of 94
children and 10 employees. The use shall operate between 7:30am and 6:30pm from
Monday through Friday. Said use shall be reviewed within the first year of operation
in the event of noise related or traffic complaints.
3. NOISE CONTROL
The noise levels shall not exceed those as listed in Chapter 10.4$ of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, unless approved by special exception by the Noise Control Officer.
The applicant .may have to conduct future tests to verify they are complying with the
ordinance at the request of the Community Development Director: The Planning
Commission may limit the number of children allowed in the outside play yard.
4. PARKING
The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20 parking spaces in accordance with the
approved site plan
5. SIGNAGE & SIGN PROGRAM
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. The applicant shall be
required to submit an application for a sign program and signage prior to installation
of any signage on site. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance.
6. TRASH ENCLOSURE
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Manager. Final trash enclosure details shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
7. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits. Said plan shall explore and maximize parking lot shade trees and semi-
pervious paving materials wherever feasible.
G: ~Plamung~PDKEPORT~RES~2009~M-2009-03 res.doc 16 -16
Resolution No. 6556 M-2000-03 May 12, 2004
Page-3-
8. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
A parking management plan shall be i~repared by the applicant that describes the
parking system used by employees, and visitors and shall be subject to staff approval
prior to final occupancy. At least 4 spaces shall be reserved for drop-off and pick-up
and clearly designated as such.
9. FUTURE REVIEW OF USE PERMIT
Irt the event of any documented substantial future parking or noise problems, the City
reserves the right to review this use Kermit at any time for additional mitigation
measuxes or recall the use permit.
10. DESIGN REVIEW
The final details of the site modification including but not limited to fencing, play
structure, pedestrian paths, garbage enclosure, entrance and drop-off area shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of
building permits.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE FIRE DEPT.
11. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW
The fire flow for this project is 1,500 gpm at 20-psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire
flow is available from area water mains and the fire hydrant{s), which are spaces at the
required spacing..
12. SPRINKLER SYSTEM
Records indicate that this structure is equipped with an existing fire sprinkler system.
If any interior remodeling is proposed as part of this project, the fire sprinkler system
must be modified to properly accommodate these changes. A State of California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed
permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval
prior to beginning their work.
13. SIGNAGE
Exits and exit pathways must be properly marked, illuminated and signed, and the
required minimum number of exits must be provided in all required locations.
14. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing building in
such a position as to be plainly visible aYtd legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Number shall contrast with their background.
G:~Plimnixg~PDREPORT~RES~2009~M 2009-03 res.doc 16 -17
Resolution No. 6556 M-2009-03 May 12, 2009
Page-4-
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMIlVISTERED BY THE BUILDING DEPT.
15. ADA standards:
Provide accessible path of travel to public transportation. Accessible parking appears
incorrect and will need to be corrected and modified when submittal for tenant
improvement plans.
16. Occupancy
Information on building type of construction and occupancy type will be required
upon submittal of tenant improvement plans.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May 2009, 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 Giefer, Vice Chair Brophy, Miller, Kaneda, Lee
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
APPROVED:
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: ~ PIanning ~ PDREPORT` RES ~ 2009 ~ M 2009-03 res.doc 16 -18
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 12, 2009
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, second by Com. Kai
~.. ,~
M-2009-02 to the Jnne 4, 2009 Planning Commissic Attachment Ci
°-~-_..,,, of the May 26, 2009 Planning Coimmiss' ehe
None
- ~ 2. M-2009-03 Modification of a Use Permit (49-U-87) to allow fora 4,900 sq. ft.
Suna Lai (Cupertino daycaze, preschool, and learning center in an existing office
Stevens, LLC) building located <<long the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard
20100 Stevens Creek Tentative City Coz~ncil Date: June 16, 2009
Blvd, Suite 160
Heather Phillips, Assistant Planner, presented ithe staff report:
• Reviewed the application for modification of a Use Permit to allow a 4,900 sq. ft. daycare
preschool and learning center in an existing; office building location on the south side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, as outlined in the staff report.
• She reviewed the background, site location, J~ours of operation, noise impacts, parking, trash
enclosure and landscaping as outlined in the staff report. Applicant wishes to change the
closing tune to 6:30 p.m.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council with
modifications to the hours of operation; Director's approval for the play area/pazking lot,
striping, landscaping, trash enclosure, and the lobby modifications, rather than DRC approval.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
• Clarified that the applicant's preference is not to reconfigure the lobby because it makes their
floor plan inefficient; they are prepazed to speak about alternative ways of encouraging people
to park in the rear and also they have indicated that there are multiple access points from the
south. Staff is not marred to that revised lobby area and are open to other mitigation
measures.
Vice Chair Brophy
• Expressed concern about the possibility of Chili's Restaurant patrons parking in the Chicago
Title lot creating a safety problem with small. children walking out and the cars coming in to
use that lot.
Gary Chao:
• Said they could suggest to the applicant adding enforcement signage, towaway signage and
better delineate that there not be any offsite or restaurant parking in the Chicago Title lot.
Staff answered questions regarding the parking, play area, and chemicals used in the pressure
treated wood in the play area.
Janet Tsai, representing the applicant:
• Presented the history and background of the school; and illustrated the multiple points of entry
onto the site. She reviewed the three solutions to encourage parents to park in the back parking
16 - 19
Cupertino Planning Commission
May 12, 2009
lot: during orientation at the beginning of each semester, parents are explained the procedure
for dropping off the children, parking in the back, coming in and signing in children.
Secondly, they aze proposing to install signs near the front entrances with directional arrows;
and in the parking lot, reserved signs for drop off will be placed in some of the spaces.
She illustrated the proposed floor plan including office space, classrooms, and lobby area; and
discussed recess times when children are out in the playground area. She answered
Commissioners' questions about the center and programs.
There was a discussion about access to the site, parking in the back area, placement of safety
bollards, and constricted driveway.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak; the public
hearing was closed.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he approved the project, although he had concerns about how the eastern edge of the
property is being handled. He suggested that if the gate is not required, the gate either be
removed or if there is a concern about safety, at ]cast not be the main entry gate. He
recommended a 6 inch curb be put in and wrap around the building; if a car does drift, it
cannot drift through the fence.
• He proposed minor modifications along the side. Since the modifications to the building
appear to be minimal, he said he did not have any comments about the interior work proposed.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he did not think there was a problem with the project, and it would be an excellent
improvement over the current space, which has been a problem space for many years,
excluding the Chicago Title use.
• He suggested that rather than trying to make some detailed design issues, he would support
approving the project subject to staff review and approval.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Brophy that they should not try to design the project.
Com. Miller:
Said it was a good project; although he had concerns about auto and pedestrian traffic. There
are minimal reasons for people to be walking down that road since they can access the front
lobby from a rear door and other things aze being done to discourage people from walking
down that road. If it should become a problem, it could come back for review at that time.
Said he was not certain there would be a parking issue; but addressing a potential parking issue
could be done by the two owners asking their employees to park in the back so there was more
parking available for customers in the front area.
Said he supports the project.
Com. Lee:
• Said she supported the project.
• She was concerned about parking, noise, but it looks like if there are any noise problems, there
might be additional measures if people complain, and also in the parking management plan it
says that just as long as there are going to be spaces, and signage to make sure that parents
know where to park.
16-20
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 12, 2009
Chair Giefer:
• The parking information shows that about hal~Fof the spaces will be taken up by either Chicago
Title or by the preschool employees who ma~~ not all be there at the same time. Realistically
there will be overflow with Chili's Restaurant; people will park in the back of the Chili's lot,
walk over through the back, pick up their children. Said her colleagues have not identified that
as an issue and she would not make a point of that.
• Said she felt they needed to protect the play area more than it currently is, and agreed with
Vice Chair Brophy that staff should make the decisions; and give them some general direction
if they feel that a 6 inch wrap around curb or bollards along the drive path is the best way to
protect the area. In the past bollazds were required between the parking area and the fenceline
for the protection of the children.
• Said she supported the project and would give staff direction for fnal review to ensure the
safety and maximum protection of the children. Closing the side gate is an appropriate way to
discourage the pedestrian access through the dlriveway.
• On Page 2-8 of staffs initial report, staff is no longer recommending that this go to the DRC;
they are recommending that staff be the final review of the plans. She suggested removing
No. 10, and give staff the verbal direction to 13e the final reviewers and to ensure the safety of
the children in the play yard.
Gary Chao:
• Also Condition 6, reference to DRC, same thing, that the trash enclosure final design be
reviewed by staff.
• Asked for clarification on the request for cha,ige in hours of operation, asking that the closing
time be changed to 5:30 p.m. to allow more time for the children to be picked up; and
regarding the lobby area, whether they were still inclined to require reconfiguration from their
previous design.
Chair Giefer:
• Asked for comments on the lobby issue, whether or not staff should be responsible for solving
the issue provided that the safety of the childr<:n is the number one concern.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he was comfortable with staff talking with the applicant; and assumed that both staff and
the applicant would be reasonable and were looking for a mutually agreeable solution.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed.
Com. Miller:
• Said the last configuration shown was accept~3ble because it had access to the lobby from the
rear.
Chair Giefer:
• Condition 11 will be deleted. It will be covered by No. 10, final approval by staff.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Brophy, seco~ud by Com. Miller, to recommend approval of
Application M-2009-03 as drafted, with the following changes: Condition No. 2
second line, 5:30 p.m. be changed to 6:30 p.m., Condition No. b, the words
"Design Review Committee" be deleted and replaced by "Director of Community
Development"; Condition No. 10, be retitled "Final Design Review" and the
phrase "Design Review Committe,~" be deleted and replaced by "Director of
16-21
Cupertino Planning Commission
May l2, 2009
Community Development" and that Condition No. 11 be removed and the
succeeding paragraphs be renumbered. {Vote: 5-0-0)
None
Giefer declared a short recess.
3. 2009 Pl'apning Commission Work Program Discussion
Aarti Shrivasta Community Development Director:
• Explained that ' putting together the Council work program, staff revi s last year's work
items, what issu might need to be continued to the next year, and 1 at other initiatives
that the Council an Planning Commission may have begun. The C ncil has authorized staff
to add to the list; Co cil will review it, makes the changes and en it is adopted. The work
program provides a ro map of what projects are coming do the pike for the upcoming
fiscal year and how muc staff time and/or resources will needed. Many of the items are
projects that the Planning mrnission has been working n• in addition if the Commission
has some other recommendat~ ns, vote as a Com
timing, staff resources, what some of the
important to review, and will and that up
Council. It is the Council's work pram that th~
Com. Miller:
• Said he would like to suggest a dii
from abottom-up process instead
suggestions that the Council hasn't
from the Commission before thei
suggestions that require some b gE
ssio o add them in and staff will consider
irc stances under which we think it is
~' that additional level of review to the
expect Commissions to work on.
He said he felt the Council could benefit
n process. ff the Commission has some
that would give them the benefit of hearing
is set in place. In addition, if they have
,they would have the ability to include it in
the budget as opposed stating at the budget is alr dy set and it would have to wait until next
year. It may be too late to d that process this year, b t next year we should recommend that it
really would be of benefi o the Council if they heard om the Commissions in terms of what
the Commissions thou t was important before they be an deliberating on what their work
program and budget ould be.
Chair Giefer:
• Said in essen the feedback that they provide on this could inly include some of that
feedback be use they are already half way through the year, a d the impact of anything
suggested ould actually be more pertinent for next year. With tha in mind there are some
things o other groups' work programs that should be accelerated or th Tanning Commission
should a involved in as well. In that spirit of change and trying to provi input to Council on
thin we are hearing from the community and important programs and kin of a reality check
wi some of the external things they are referencing, I think we should prove a some input to
t em. Some of the things may be added this year but perhaps they are items th would work
on next year.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he felt they should at least offer ideas for them to accept or ignore as they see fit.
16-22
Attachment D
~r g free Learning Center
10601 S De Anza Blvd # 214 Cupertino CA 95014
www.ilovegrowingtree.com 'TEL:(408}446-0243
Programs
Services Hours of Qperation AgE~ Range Students Teachers
Pre-school 7:30 AM - 03:00 PM 4 - ~~ yrs old 36 3
8:30 AM ~ 05:30~M 3 - 4~ yrs old 36 3
Toddler 9:30 AM -12:15 PM 1.5 - 3 yrs old 22 4
16-23
~°~-~~~ -~. `fi`r ee Learning Center
10601 S De Anna Blvd #214 Cupertino CA 95014
www.ilovegrowingtree.com TEL:(408}44.6-0243
Parking Analysis
Max. Number of
Users Area in Sq.
Number of Number of Parking
Stalls
Ft'. employees Requirement
.Users needed
Chicago Title 4631 1/285 sq. ft. 16
Little Tree 4990 94 10 1/6.5 students 14
Growing Tree 1679 2 1/285 sq. ft. 6
Total Parking
Needs 36
Total Parking Stalls 36
Total Parking
Available
36
16-24
Attachment E
Environmental Consulting Services 18488 Prw:pect Road -Suite 1, Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: (408) 257-1045 stanshell99(cD_toast.net FAX: {408) 257-7235
March 3, 2009
Mr. Jerry Chen
Growing Tree Learning Center
10601 S de Anza Blvd., #214
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Noise Impact and Mitigation Study for Gro~r~ing Tree Learning Center Project, 20100 Stevens
Creek Blvd, Cupertino
Dear Mr. Chen,
to response to your request I have evaluated they potential noise impacts that could be produced at
nearby sensitive receptors by the proposed subject redevelopment of a portion of the existing property at
20100 Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino. The report discusses the present environment, the proposed
project and its associated noise-related aspects, the p,~rtential'riew activities and operational noise impacts
on the nearest receptors in the area, and compliance rrrith Cupertino noise guidelines.
To summarize the conclusions of the report, the proposed changes to the project site and building,
and new on-site activities would be expected to meet the City Noise Ordinance limitations and riot produce
any significant noise incidents in the vicinity of the site.
Project Description [1] [2]
The Growing Tree Leaming Center of Cupertino proposes to provide weekday daytime care for
toddler and preschool-age kids on the subject site. The Growing Tree Leaming Center proposes to
redevelop 4990 square feet of the existing building for ~~hild care, plus an additional 1680 square foot area
as an office, construct an outdoor play area, and provide necessary parking faalities around the building.
The property is zoned for commercial and schoohtype uses. Internal modifications would be made to
the building for Growing Tree Leaming Center use, as ~~rell as constructing a playground area of
approximately 7400 square feet at the southern section of the site, which includes an 18'x28' climbing
structure, a garden area, and grass play area. Paved parking for approximately 18 vehicles in front and 20
vehicles adjacent to the building in back would be provlided, which would be shared with the existing title
company.
The facility would accommodate 90 kids and a stall of 9, on a normal workday schedule of hours
{7:30 am to 5:30 pm} Monday through Friday. No evening, major holiday or weekend activities would be
held on site. Inside activities would include normal school educational, creative and play activities in
specially-designed rooms. The outdoor play areas wo-ald be constructed with an age-appropriate climbing
structure, play areas, and garden area. During outdoor play periods there would be at least one staff person
for every 6 infants/toddlers, and one staff person for every 12 preschoolers.
Sensitive Receptor Locations
The project area is a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood on the south side of Stevens
Creek Boulevard west of Blaney Avenue. The nearest sensitive receptor locations for noise generated by
the project include apartment complexes along the we.:t and south property lines. Other uses in the area
are commercial in nature and not considered sensitive, such as restaurants and offices. The other tenants
sharing the building represent additional potential sensitive receptors for noise transmitted within the
building. Vehicle access to the project would be from :>tevens Creek Boulevard, as at present.
Environmental Consulting Services Saratoga
16-25
Growing Tree Learning Center Project Noise Study -Cupertino Page 2 of 4
This study investigates the extent to which the adjacent apartment units or building tenants could be
impacted by noise from Growing Tree Leaming Center activities. The various potential noise impacts are
discussed in the following sections.
Ambient Noise Levels and Noise Sources in the Area
The primary source of ambient noise at the project site is traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard, a major
arterial bounding the project site on the north side- Typical vehicle passby noise levels are in the 50-60 dBA
range at 100 feet. Trucks, buses, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15 dBA
higher on passby. Noise is contributed to a lesser extent by vehicles on Blaney Avenue. Large and small
aircraft and helicopter overflights create infrequent noise incidents of 55 to 65 dBA. Delivery of products by
large diesel trucks to support commercial activities in the area create noise levels of 65-70 dBA at 100 feet
from periods of engine idling while unloading. Other than typical sporadic neighborhood activities such as
garbage pickup, there are no other notable noise sources in the project area.
Field noise measurements were made during the attemoon period of February 25, 2009 with a CEL-
440 Precision Noise Meter and Analyzer, calibrated with a B & K Model 4230 Sound Level Calibrator.
Measurement locations were chosen to represent the site and key receptor locations, as described below:
• Location 1 -southwest comer of the property near the proposed garden location and adjacent to
the apartment complex on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Location 2 - near the southeast corner of the building, in the parking lot area
Noise levels were measured and are reported using percentile noise descriptors, as follows: L90
(the background noise level exceeded 90 % of the time), L50 (the median noise level exceeded 50% of the
time), L1 (the peak level exceeded 1 % of the time), and Leq {the average energy-equivalent noise level).
Measured noise levels are presented in Exhibit 1 below. The DNULdn noise levels were computed as the
long-term average of the Leq using the dairy traffic distribution in the area, with standard weighted penalties
for the nighttime hours, and modeled with an enhanced version of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Board traffic noise model [4].
EXHIBIT 1
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (dBA}
Growing Tree Learning Center project area, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino
Location Lgp L$p L~ L1 I-dn
1. Southwest comer of property 44 46 ~ 48 54 50
2. Southeast comer of building 47 51 53 61 58
Traffic is the dominant noise source near the project site, with nose levels at any location in the area
depending upon volume, speed and distance #o the nearest traffic. However, the Leaming Center outdoor
play area is located behind the building, partially shielding it from much of the direct traffic noise. Location 1
is at the southwest comer near the Location of the garden in the play area. Location 2 is also in the outdoor
area near the southeast comer of the building. At both locations the L90 background noise level is a result
of the moderate-volume traffic on Blaney and 1-280 several blodks north. During morning and evening
periods when temperatures are lower and humidity higher, noise is transmitted more efficiently, and noise
Levels from I-280 are often higher by 5-8 dB.
Relevant Cupertino Noise Ordinance Limits [3]
Section 10.48.040 of the Cupertino Noise Ordinance applies to this project, which limits noise during
daytime hours (7 am to 8 pm) produced by sources adjacent to a residential property to 60 ~d13A, or by
sources adjacent to commercial property to 65 dBA. Note that there are no project-related activities during
night time periods, when City noise limits are more restrictive. In addition, brief daytime noise incidents on
the site would be allowed somewhat higher noise levels by Ordinance section 10.48.050. For example,
Environmental Consulting Services Saratoga
16-26
Growing Tree Learning Center Project Noise Study -- (:upertino Page 3 of 4
noise incidents that last less than 15 minutes during arry two hour period are allowed to be 5 d6 higher than
long-term general limits.
Potential Growing Tree Learning Center Noise Impac#s
Outdoor playground activities behind building
All potentially noisy outdoor activities would occur behind the building in the southern section of the
property. Several types of play areas are included: a urge climbing and play structure with a footprint of
approximately 28 feet by 18 feet, a garden area, and ttre remainder an open grassy play area. The potential
noise impacts from outdoor activities are described in the following paragraphs.
Between 10:30 am and 3:30 pm there would be a maximum of 36 toddlers and preschool kids at a
time playing outside in several scheduled periods. Kids have either one or two outdoor play periods of 30
minutes each day, depending on their age; toddlers have only one period outside. Outdoor kids' acclivities
would include climbing on the play structure, tending ttre garden, and games with balls and other typical
outdoor play activities. All of the noise would be from :>poradic voices of kids and staff'. Activities of this
type can create intermittent brief noise from voices of ~~0 to 80 dBA at a distance of 30-40 feet.
The apartment complex along the south properfi~ line is approximately 75 feet from the main play
area, so maximum playground noise levels would be iri the 40 to 50 dBA range in the adjacen# yards,
partially protected by a 3-foot block wall. The apartment complex along the west property line is
approximately 50 feet from the main play area. Maximum playground noise levels here would also be in the
40 to 50 dBA range in the adjacent yards, closer but protected by a 6-foot masonry wall. Noise levels at the
second floor levels, unprotected by property line wails, are a few d6 higher in both locations. However,
even the second floor noise levels are in the range of ~rmbient traffic noise and below the City noise
ordinance limits. The various projected noise levels arE~ summarized in Exhibit 2.
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT NOISE: LEVELS {dBA )
Growing Tree Learning Center Project -Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino
Location Max Noise
Levels (dBA)
1.Outside -residential yards to west 40-50
2.Outside -apartments to west, second floor 48-58
3. Outside -residential yards to south 40-50
4. Outside -apartments to south, :second
floor 45-55
5. inside -title company sharing building 35-40
There would also be parking spaces in back of tl~e building, 25-100 feet from the residential property
lines, which could produce brief noise incidents of 50-60 dBA during the day as cars come and go. This type
of noise incidents occur at presen# under existing usage of the parking area.
Activities inside the building
Growing Tree Leaming Center activities inside the building can include reading, art, music, and other
Gassroom-type activities. Noise impacts from these inside activities would be negligible, because of noise
attenuation by the high-quality party walls dividing the :;paces within the building. Also, the only rooms
sharing a wall with the adjacent title company is strictly an office, which would generate the same type of
noise as that by previous commercial tenants. Ali noise: transmission through the party walls would be
reduced 40-50 dBA, so there would be no significant n+~ise disturbance from the new activity on existing
tenants. The anticipated noise levels for the indoor locations are shown in Exhibit 2.
Environmental Consulting Services * Saratoga
~s-2~
Growing Tree Learning Center Project Noise Study -Cupertino Page 4 of 4
Conclusions and Summary
Overall ambient noise levels in the project area now depend primarily on traffic noise, and this will
continue to be the dominant noise source in the area in the foreseeable future. The primary noticeable
noise would be intermittent and brief voice incidents from young children playing in the area behind the
building. 1116th the informal type of play activities, the age of the kids and the distances involved, these
activities would be within the City noise ordinance limits, and would not be expected to create any noise
impacts in adjacent residential areas.
[f I may be of further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
S~ Shy
H. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
Board Cert~ed Member (1982)
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
CC: Ms. Chun Lin, Eva Investments, Cupertino
REFERENCES
1. Project site sketches: Growing Tree Learning Center, 20100 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, Eva
Investrnents, March 2009.
2. Operational information sheet and facility activity descriptions for Growing Tree Learning Center,
February 2009.
3. Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.48, Noise levels for residential and commeraal zones;
City of Cupertino; 199
4. Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
1971 (model enhanced and field validated by ECS).
Environmental Consulting Services
Saratoga
16-28
GATE SECTION ~8'-0' O.C. MAX
~ ~~ ,, TYP. POST SPACING
, TYP
I
II
III
Illi
Illi
III
II III
4 I I I
111111
11 II II I
1111111
~ 1LJ1_i
3116'xl'SO 51L PIATE ®TOP,
s sc ®aoTroM, TYP
3h6' x 11R SOTS TL
18GAx34' SOTS PICK
U4'x/'SOTS POST
CONCRETE PAVING
L1sx1 trrsaTSSO'
FlNISHGAADEUNE
~1 a iy~'i a 1
a' I+1 a'
a~u i
L"_ yJ
ELEVATION ~~ ~i i,(~i i t~
,N' I I•I T'-~
";
l- -J
"
KIN. ~~TYP
H'OCONC FOOTING
W7r+xt~LDNGnes
80TH SIDES OF T5, Tti
CS I IVIV
TYP. FENCE DETAIL 112=~~-0' 2
HINGETYP 20 GACOARUGATE051L
rcaE rraTE 2.12'GALVSRHASP
L0' 9 TE R~ WI 8' X 17 X7THX2(BNICK
eLOC1acAP
~ ~
~
Tocscww
aas Ip•~a~NT
8'CMU WALL, SEE 8' CMII wl a5 ®24' O.C
d SECTION
'
i
CJP,
\
~' OOWELSARESAMESREd
I I
I
I PLATE
\
~ a SPACINGASVERTAF.INF
IIII
A ~24'DWxT-0' IIII
~_~
YuL40
I 2 8'x6'CURBPOURFD
MONOLRHICALLYWISLAB
IIII FOOTING III IDES
U l I TOP OFPAYBaG ~ (Q•81CONT
L_J L_ GALVSiLCANEBOLT 3 84DOwEL5~48'OC
LJ~ a•cMUwA>L `-sTHlccoNC.saAe~a~4
131558.1? ~ y~p•~P05~ y d AT170.OEACHWAY.
MCMASiER~AAR 11CPLATEENDCPP ~ 13)•88CONfTOPd
EXIRA•HEAVYOUTY FOR POST, TOP BOTTOM
FIt1ETHWELOPLL y1G ANDBOTa PR p®170.C:
MOUND np TBB~ :r
® C~L.TCHMNPIFRAME SECTION
PLAN ~ CORRUGATED
TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL ~•=~~-0' 3
PIANfING SOIL
/~~ .4
GRAVEL
cEO~FAewc
3X18 PRESSURE TREATED
REDwooo wa RanlusED
EDGES
2X PRESSURE TREATED
REDW000
24' LONG REOW000
STAIGES ~ 4'-0' O.C. MAX
PAWNG d ~. ~~~:~~~
sANo
GE4FABAIC
DO2 PRESSURE TFIEATEO
REOwooo
a8' LONG REDWOOD
STAIGSS ~ 4'-0' O.C. MAX
(E) AC PAVNG
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
rwisoNRr WAIL .~
RESIGENfIAL PAAIGNG
LEGEND
~' ~ PROPERTY LINE
NEW A'-0' MK;N AIETAI FENCE,
SEE DETA0.LA7.1
® EKISTINGACCE591RLE
PARKING STALL
ExISTINGACCESS~LE
® PARKING AISLE
r~
'
'`
.i
•
+1': ti' NEW CONCRETE
WALKWAY
NEW PLANfINGAREA
~ ~ ERISTING TREE TO REMAN
~` /`
A O/ NEW MAPLE TREE
-1 ~ I-III- " -' ~ ~-1
_111- -III=' '
PLANTER ~~_~~-0' 4 SANDBOX ~~=~~-~• 4 SITE PLAN ~°=20~-0' 1
Attachment F
LL
0
N
w ~
,r
L
r
Z
N ~
J rn
v+
~
>~
j
~ J
wU
Z U ~?
U F-
J >
> Nw
m w
Z W d
wU
W
w
~ ~
a
O
w N
J
L
r
L
_r
J
ORAVVNJY CHECI~DJ.T
DATE:4f1109 SCALEASNOTEO
PROJECT NUMBER
SITE PLAN &
SITE DETAILS
DRAWING A1.1
NUMBER
I
I r~-----II------p--------------------~
I
I
I
I '
r~I
`I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E)aST1NG COMMERCIAL OFFlCE I
(CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY) I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
I
I
Q
I
I
- I
I
OFFICE OFFICE I
I
LOBBY I
I
d
sroRac I
~-
--------------
p-----
-----
~
~
I
I
l~ D o
LE (E~
Q ELEC
0 Q (E) MEN'S
GIRLS
OYS LOBBY
3 6 ~
. LOUNGE STAFF WOR16200M 0 6
w ~
(E) WOMENS
GIRL BOY Q Q
CLASSROOMI
CLASSROOM3 CLASSROOM2
FLOOR PLAN ~~B°=~~-0• 2
6L
0
'n
'
V/
N
W ~
L
L
I~
W
Z ~
~ ~
5
G rn
v,
~
>
J
a ~
~ ~ YV
Q
U W
0
~?
Z
J
~ U F-
~w
_
m W wa
W Z w~
W ~
L
f O
O
W c°v
J
I-
~_
J
CONSULTANT
Q S4B~ REVISmPERPLAIINMG
911N9 DESIGN REVIEWSUBMRT
Q 4l1A9 PUWNINGOEPTSUBMRi
NO DATE BY DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
DRAWN:JY CHECKED:
DATE: 11/10/08 SCALE:ASNOTED
PROJECT NUMBER
FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING A2.1
NUMBER