Packet.pdf
Ubcmf!pg!Dpoufout
Bhfoeb3
esbgu!njovuft!gps!5.23.3122
esbgu!njovuft6
Ofx!ebzdbsf!gbdjmjuz!xjui!b!qsf.tdippm!boe!bgufs!tdippm!mfbsojoh
qsphsbn
Tubgg!Sfqpsu22
Buubdinfou!2/!esbgu!sftpmvujpo!V.3122.1529
Buubdinfou!3/!esbgu!sftpmvujpo!BTB.3122.1636
Buubdinfou!4/!esbgu!sftpmvujpo!FYD.3122.1643
Buubdinfou!5/!Cvtjoftt!Qmbo45
Buubdinfou!6/!Usbggjd!Tuvez47
Buubdinfou!7/!Opjtf!Bttfttnfou232
Buubdinfou!8/!Fowjsponfoubm!Jojubm!Tuvez246
Buubdinfou!9/!Tvnnbsz!pg!Njujhbujpo!Nfuipet274
Qmbo!Tfu277
Ofx!gbsnfs(t!nbslfu!bu!uif!Pblt!Tipqqjoh!Dfoufs
Tubgg!Sfqpsu286
Buubdinfou!2/!esbgu!sftpmvujpo!EJS.3121.37293
Buubdinfou!3/!Cvtjoftt!Qmbo296
Buubdinfou!4/!Usbggjd!Gmpx298
Buubdinfou!5/!Eftjho!Sfwjfx!Dpnnjuuff!tubgg!sfqpsu299
Buubdinfou!6/!ESD!njovuft2:1
Buubdinfou!7/!Bwbjmbcmf!qbsljoh!bsfb2:3
Buubdinfou!8/!qbsljoh!Bwbjmbcjmjuz2:4
Buubdinfou!9/!Fnbjmt!pqqptfe!up!nbslfu2:6
Buubdinfou!:/!Fnbjmt!jo!gbwps!pg!nbslfu383
ejsfdups(t!sfqpsu
Ejsfdups(t!Sfqpsu413
ofxtqbqfs!bsujdmft414
2
AGENDA
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: draft minutes for 4-12-2011
Recommended Action: approve minutes
Page:
6
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law
will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
2.Subject: New daycare facility with a pre-school and after school learning program
Recommended Action: Approve the new day care facility
Description: Application: U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05 (EA-2011-04)
Applicant: Karl Shultz, Lili Zhu and Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center)
Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd
Use Permit to allow a child care facility with a pre-school and an after-school learning
program to operate at an existing 8,999 square foot commercial office building. The
application also includes a new outdoor play area in the rear parking lot;
Architectural and Site approval for minor façade, landscaping and parking lot
modifications at an existing commercial office building;
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child
care facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard
3
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Page -2
Page:
22
3.Subject: New farmer's market at the Oaks Shopping Center
Recommended Action: approve a new farmer's market at the Oaks Shopping Center
Description: Application: DIR-2010-26
Applicant: Jerry Lami (Modena Investment, LP & Sunnyvale Holding, LLC)
Location: 21275 Stevens Creek Blvd
Referral of a Director's Minor Modification to allow the operation of a farmer's market at
the Oaks Shopping Center on Sunday mornings and Wednesday afternoons
Page:
286
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.Subject: director's report
Page:
413
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that
Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals
to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department
located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the
agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
4
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45P.M. April 12, 2011 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofApril 12, 2011was called to order at 6:45 p.m.inthe
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca.,by Chairperson Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson:Marty Miller
Commissioner:Don Sun
Commissioner:Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Staff present:Community Development DirectorAarti Shrivastava
Assistant Planner: George Schroeder
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motionby Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve the March 22, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Review of Resolution No. 6626 for Application MCA-2011-02, City of Cupertino, Public
Engagement Policy.
There was a brief discussion about amendments to the language of the resolution.
Page 1-4: Relative to holding focus groups, workshops for projects of areawide and citywide
significance, in some cases it would be a recommended action on the applicant’spart, and
would not be required.
No. 5 inclusion of regulations that are currently not codified –they are part of the previous code
which were inadvertently removed; staff will make sure they are back in the Code.
It should be the applicant’s decision, rather than a city decision.
Vice Chair Miller:relative to request for a change to allow appeals directly from the DRC to
the City Council, he commented that if staff felt it was contentious enough that there may be
an appeal filed, it should not go to theDRC in the first place.Staff indicated they would
implement that.
6
Cupertino Planning Commission2April 12, 2011
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said one of the goals was to work on the public engagement flow chart and in terms of
understanding what the public engagement was, the diagram is more helpful because it talks in
terms of language used before in Cupertino. Said she preferred the new diagram, which has a
good approachto project size and engaging the public. Anything that happens out of theMain
Street projectaffects the entire city; anything that will impede or cause traffic problems on the
east side of Cupertinoinvolves the entire city since it is difficult to get from one end of the city
to the other.
Said she was also concerned and disappointed about the changes to the R1 ordinancewhich
will only result in many lengthy meetings arguing over the R1 ordinance again. She also said
she did not want to see any changes to the status of the DRC as it is an extremely important
group and has been in use since the annexing in 2000.
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Com. Brophy:
Suggested that the wording regarding thefocus groups and workshops, be changed from “as
needed”to “when appropriate”.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second byVice Chair Miller, and unanimously
carried5-0-0, to recommend approval of Resolution No. 6625 as amended.
PUBLIC HEARING
2.ASA-2011-02, TR-2011-07Architectural and Site approval for façade, landscaping,
Jack Verdon/Byer Propertiesparking lot, lighting and sidewalk enhancements including
20730 Stevens Creek Blvd.the demolition of 2,400 sq. ft. from the rear loading area
at the former Mervyns department store site;Tree
Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of
31 trees in conjunction with landscaping,parking lot,
lighting and sidewalk enhancements.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Architectural and Site approval for façade, landscaping, parking
lot, lighting and sidewalk enhancements including demolition of 2,400 sq. ft. from the rear
loading area at the former Mervyns department store site; and Tree Removal Permit to allow
the removal and replacement of 31trees, as outlined in the staff report.
TJ Maxx/Home Goods is proposed to take up approximately 70% of the former Mervyns
space, the remaining 30% will be a future retail space. He reviewed the remaining project
improvements relative to the project. A noise consultant has determined that the project is not
anticipated to generate significant noise impacts and will stay within the city’s noise limits.
He reviewed the building architecture, site improvements and landscaping, tree removal and
replacement, street frontage improvements, and loading area. The City’s Public Works
Departments, Building Division, Fire Department, and Cupertino Sanitary District have all
reviewed the project and have no objections to the project.
On March 28, 2011 theapplicantheld a neighborhood meeting, at which time neighbors
expressed concern about delivery truck noise, pollution, container storage, glare from building-
mounted lighting and past negative experiences with delivery trucks.Staff recommends
conditions be added relative to trash and delivery plan, delivery truck circulation plan,
7
Cupertino Planning Commission3April 12, 2011
appropriate directional/warning signage and prohibition on storing materials/items along the
existing sound wall. Other recommended conditions of approval include a shopping cart
management plan; new lighting must conform to the standards in the General Commercial
Ordinance and a final lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to building permit issuance; and a separate sign program and
signage will be required for the project as a condition of approval.
Staff recommends approval of the application according to the model resolution.
Staff answered questions regarding the project.
Jack Verdon, Applicant:
Explained the project timeline; estimated completion of the project is 3 to 3-1/2 months,
including the re-roofing. He indicated that the TJ Maxx/Home Goods store would have
signage on the building as well as a sizable street sign, similar to what Mervyns had when they
occupied the space. He said the trees along the curb will have a more mature height and the
current landscape plan is retaining some of the more mature trees; the trees inside the parking
area will be below 12 feet to allow a visual corridor.
Robert Thompson, TJ Maxx/Home Goods:
Said the store is a combination storewith two separate entrances, withthe ability for customers
to float back and forth in the store with a common checkout.He said it is likely the Homestead
store will close.
Cynthia Palacio, Scofield Drive resident:
Discussed concern about truck deliveries, stating that she felt the delivery hours of Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. should not be
considered limited hours. She suggested that large truck deliveries not be permitted on the
weekends as it negatively affected the residents’ ability to enjoy their outdoor activities. She
questioned who would enforce the delivery times. Relative to the lighting, the use of motion
sensorlights creates a strobe effect which is a problem. She recommended that trash collection
not be permitted on the weekends, and construction hours be limited to week days only; and
demolition or construction in the rear of the property not be permitted on the weekends.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Expressed concern about cutting all the trees down in the parking lot; some trees have declined
in the last several yearsbut many are salvageable. She asked that the first tier of ash trees not
be cut down as they were in good condition; she was also concerned about the 80 inch live oak
tree in the Pizza Hut parking lot not being removed. She said she felt it was not a good idea for
developers to go in and cut down parking lots trees as it is a high visibility center.
George Schroeder:
Lighting fixtures will be replaced with down mounted lighting; applicant has provided a foot
metric plan showing that the lighting glare will not project onto adjacent properties; staff will
work with them on the final plan to ensure that is the case.Relative to the construction hours,
he said it was unusual to restrict it to only weekdays.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said that the applicant wants to open the store within a short period of time. The construction
period can be a source of stress for the neighbors, particularly on the weekends; a reasonable
compromise is to limit the construction hours on the weekend. Relativeto truck deliveries, the
same approach is taken on most projects. Delivery hours are limited to early and late in the
day, with some allowance for weekend deliveries, with the least impact on the neighbors.
8
Cupertino Planning Commission4April 12, 2011
Jack Verdon, Applicant:
Said they did not have a detailed work schedule yet, but will provide a specific plan to cover it.
They will consider the residents’ concerns and because of the noise factor will do the
demolition portion during regular business hours; because of their tight schedule and issues
with the Homestead store, he said some of the front project work could be done on the
weekend with less impact on the neighbors.Relative to the concern about trees, they have
worked with the arborist; some oak trees have root rot problems, and some others are suffering
healthwise and have not been properly maintained, resulting in 6 being removed. He said they
were concerned about the health of the heritage tree which is not part of the project.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously
carried 5-0-0 to approve Application ASA-2011-02 and TR-2011-07
OLD BUSINESS:
3.Initial Vision Scenario -Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy Update
Aarti Shrivastava:
Explained that the update is provided for informational purposes only, and no action is needed.
In 2008 theState legislature enacted SB375 requiring the Bay Area Regional Transportation
Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy integrating land use planning and
transportation planning. The purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) is to articulate how
the Bay Area region can grow over the next 25 years in a sustainable manner. In order to
achieve greenhouse gas goals, the SCS and RHNA will focus on growth that can be funded by
transit investments. The MTC puts out a regional transportation plan calledthe RTP and for
the first time they will link that where growth needs to happen. The SCS will also identify
housing distribution as well as job distribution. The RHNA will cover an 8 year planning
period from 2014 to 2022; the initial vision scenario is a starting point, with comments by mid-
May; it builds on partnership they are trying to create because local jurisdictions are going to
have to accommodate the housing, they need to ensure that the plans are consistent with what
local jurisdictions have.They looked at where jurisdictions were putting growth, ABAG has
been doing a lot of work trying to help create PDAs where communities are planning growth
and mixed use projects near transit; they are looking at helping to fund these projects, either
infrastructure or planning and many communities have applied for that funding. They are also
creating planned conservation areas where areas might be conserved for either farmingor open
space, and that combination is expected to put growth where it needs to go and conserve open
space where it needs to be conserved.
She reviewed the informational material. The current regional plans look at a certain amount of
growth over time; the increment they expect using this IVS is about 363,700; they expect that
there will be a total amount of growth up to 2 million population in the Bay Area; Santa Clara,
Alamedaand Contra Costa Counties have the greatest growth as shown on the map, and a fair
amount of growth along transit corridors as well as corridors such as El Camino Real, based on
plans that cities have created through their General Plans. Cupertino is expected to have one of
the lower percentages of the total growth; primarily because it does not have a lot of
transportation in the area; it is lower than was assumed in the 2009 projectionswhen the
Planning Commission saw it last. Communities with transit will have more growth.
The IVS creates more affordable housing, meets the housing target, the jobs housing transit
alignment, because they are tryingto locate growth near transit thereby reducing housing costs
as well as transportation costs for low income households. TheIVS also assumes more growth
than the last time so it does bring more people to live in the region; the benefit being if the
growth occurs as planned, the people will use more alternative options to get around, but they
will still drive; and as a result the greenhouse gas emissions and the vehicle miles traveled go
9
Cupertino Planning Commission5April 12, 2011
up. The IVS is called an unconstrained model, it looks at demographic projections and growth
projections, which triggers the reality check where people see they have other issues coming in
and they will look at alternatives to that scenario, and those will be developed and analyzed as
well. These are some of the steps that will or have occurred; they are looking at a fair amount
of planning director elected official and public involvement; staff has been holding meetings
and going to meetings; they have also been connecting with elected officials either through
their Board or in Santa Clara County through the Cities Association. The detailed scenario is
expected to come out between April and December; the regional RHNA, the methodology of
how to calculate the RHNA will come out in July; and they will also talk about the
transportation investments discussion in October; all in preparation for the final plan.
Some of the questions they are asking communities include: Do these growth distributions
work for a community; if not, how can we do it differently? What resources do countiesand
jurisdictions need to support growth and how might transportation dollars help jurisdictions
who are either taking on growth as well as supportopen space and agriculture?Most were
comments they received early on from communities and they want to make sure they
responded to all of these.
Said there was no specific goal or objective for Cupertino; however, they do expect that once
the RHNA allocations come out, cities are going to have to absorb a certain amount of housing.
It appears that Cupertino will not have more than last time; it is an 8 year plan instead of a 7
year plan. The process has not ended, therefore it is difficult to gage where they will end up.
If the SCS falls short of the goal, they must create an alternative community strategyto achieve
the goal; they are expecting that one of the alternative scenarios is going to help them get there.
Clarified that the city had to identify the sites, but were not accountable for ensuring that the
sites were built on. Affordable housing isdifferent;the city needs to create opportunities with
every market rate unit being built. Typically the affordable housing requirements are much
higher as a percentage compared to the market rate because it is such a high cost area. There
are communities in California where presently the cost ofa house is close to what a housing
unit might identify as a median or moderate affordable housing unit; which is not the casein
many cities in the Bay Area where they requirebeing proactive.
Said there are no requirements for zoning higher than 25 units to the acre, but they identify at
what density you can call an area available for affordable housing, which typically has been
between 20 to 25 units to the acre.
Reported that the city’s numbers were higher forthe last RHNA process; 70% of the growth
had been located along the corridors and PDAs and other growth opportunity areas identified
by cities in cities’ plans; leaving another 30% they need to find areas to locate which is where
the methodology committeewill review and ascertain how it would be disbursed. There may
be different RHNA numbers once the methodology comes out and staff will keep the
Commission posted.
Relative to state or federal funding, the majority of thefunds goes to the MTC for
transportation funding; what they are doing as part of that is teaming up with them and people
are applying for some funding for the PDAs that they create. Funding will go where the
growth areas are, and Cupertino is not one of the focus areas.
Chair Lee openedthe public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said it was a better approach to looking at how much housing Cupertino should take on in the
future. Said she felt Cupertino had reached the mature city status; several years ago it was still
an orchard land, with parts of the city still in the county and some still under agriculture and
orchard. She speculated that Cupertino would reach the point of having shopping districts, high
tech centers, school areas, parks, etc. and not be by any major traffic corridors; therefore things
would slow down. Cupertino has reached major buildout areas, and more housing that comes
in needs to be studied carefully especially if someone outside the city says they must build.
:
Cupertino Planning Commission6April 12, 2011
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS:None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:Chair Lee reported that the Sunflower Learning Center, a
day care center, would be coming to the Planning Commissionto request addition of a playground.
Housing Commission:No meeting.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:Com. Brophy reported on the following:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee:have a transportation plan that is to go to the City
Council; however due to timeline of meeting, it was postponed.Working on crosswalk; they
are continuing to work at the Foothill 280 intersection where there are existing traffic problems
for bicyclists. Currently the City of Los Altos is working with VTA on restriping thearea by
the interchange.
th
Parks andRec:April 23 Big Bunny Fun Run; May 7Cupertino Day at Blackberry Farm,
free BBQ and swimming to open the summer season at Blackberry Farm;Shakespearein the
Park will be running a summerdrama camp atUnion Church. Possible solution to the ongoing
issue of feeding the ducks and geese is to put multi-lingual signs asking that visitorsnotfeed
the ducks.
TIC:Working on a number of projectssuch as revenue protection, looking at things such as
utility user tax and franchise taxes and how they are affected by changes in technology;
looking at cost reductions through technology, such as street light changes using a different
bulb; irrigation; and looking at continuity planning.
PublicSafety Commission:Primary focus is on the bicycle and pedestrian issues; increase in
bike riding at Kennedy, issue of getting more crossing guards.
Teen Commission:Also working on pedestrian issues, with WOW Program, encouraging
elementary and middle school students to participateand will be doing similar program for
high school students, hoping to set up to be self-sustaining in the future.
Library Commission:Only 6 applications for the Poet Laureate competitionwere received;
th
deadline for applications has been changed to July 15. Library Foundation is the beneficiary
h
of the Hole In One Contest at the Rotary Event at Deep Cliff Golf Course onMay 13
; Rotary
Club is also working with Habitat for Humanity for four homes on Cleo Avenue. Also
working with Santa Clara Library system to get E-readers for library; also looking at some of
the complications of the crosswalk for the library crossing at Torre. Discussion about library
hours. Used Book Sale on May 14 and 15 at Library.
City Council:Reconsideration of Bubb Road cell tower was denied; Sixteen students will visit
sister city in Taiwan; the traditionalvisit to Japan was cancelled due to earthquake.
Economic Development Committee Meeting:No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:Written report
submitted.
Adjournment:The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled forApril 26, 2011at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:__/s/Elizabeth Ellis_________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
21
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777--planning@cupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No: 1 Agenda Date: April 26, 2011
Application: U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-04, EA-2011-04
Applicant/Owner: Karl Shultz, Lili Zhu and Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning
Cener)/Nicholas Speno
Property Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Application Summary:
1.USE PERMIT to allow a child care facility with a pre-school and an after-school learning
program to operate at an existing 8,999 square foot commercial office building. The
application also includes a new outdoor play area in the existing rear parking lot.
2.ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL for minor façade, landscaping and parking lot
modifications for an existing commercial office building.
3.EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child
care facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve:
1.Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA-2011-04
2.Use Permit application, U-2011-04
3.Architectural and Site Approval application, ASA-2011-05, and
4.Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, EXC-2011-04,
per the model resolutions (Attachments 1, 2 and 3)
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designation: P (Mixed Use Planned Development)
Specific Plan: Heart of the City
Acreage (Net): 0.568 (25,515 square feet)
Building SF: 8,999 square feet
Building Height: 29 ft 6 in. (two-story)
Floor Area Ratio: 35.3%
Parking required: 27 spaces (including 3 vans)
Parking proposed: 24 spaces (not including 3 vans to be parked in off-
site location owned and operated by applicant)
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: No
Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at 19800 Stevens Creek Boulevard at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue. The site is located on the eastern
edge of the city and surrounded by the City of Santa Clara to the north and the City of San Jose
to the east. The previous uses at the site included 100% medical and professional offices. The
building was designed as an office building and built in San Jose. The property was annexed
into the City in 1983. There are hotel and office uses to the north, a gas station and a 7-11 store
to the east, single family residences and a daycare to the west and other single family residences
to the south.
Hotel
IHOP
Proposed
Child Care
City of Santa Clara
City of Cupertino
21121
2:1412:139 311
City of San Jose
211
414
D312413
BE431
C3
67:7
Homes
314
331
Gas
313
214
231
214
213415
2
3442:
21135
21122
412
315
32:
station
312
215
22:
429
212
416
329
316
229
216
428
Existing
417
21149
21148 328
317
423
21149 422
228
217
323427
322
418
Child Care
327
223
222
318
227
41:218
421
419
42
426
31:
321
319
326
32
22121:
219
226
21164 225
21163
21163
7-11
21169
21168
Homes
496
715716
714
396
616
615
614
296
514515516
2117:
497
21176
21177
Proposed
717
21177
713
712
397
617
C
613
612
297
B
517
513512
Play Areas
498
718
618
398
21191
518298
499
21192
The applicant proposes to occupy the entire 8,999-square foot building, with a pre-school and
after-school uses that will serve up to 142 children. The applicant currently operates an after-
school childcare at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard that has been in business since 2006. The
enrollment capacity at that location is 130 school-age children. The applicant is proposing to
expand his business by operating both the after-school care at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard
and the operations at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
DISCUSSION:
The child care provider, Sunflower Learning Center, provides the following operational
information about their operations (Attachment 4):
Pre-school:
Days of operation:
Hours of operation: 8:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Maximum Capacity: 70 children (2yrs 9 months to 4 yrs 9 months)
23
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 3
No. of classrooms: 3
Childcare Staff: 6 (based on community care licensing requirements -
1 teacher for every 12 students)
After-school:
Days of operation:
Hours of operation: 2:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
rd
Maximum Capacity: 72 children (3grade and up)
No. of classrooms: 8
Childcare Staff: 6 (at a 1:12 teacher-student ratio)
Traffic:
A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants since the project
is anticipated to generate more than 100 peak hour trips above the previous use in the P.M.
peak hour (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.)(see Attachment 5). The traffic study revealed that
the Stevens Creek Blvd/Stern Avenue intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS)
with the proposed project. The study
also noted that the minimum thresholds for installation of a traffic signal would be met with the
proposed project, whereas under existing conditions a traffic signal is not warranted. It should
be noted that the City has no specific criteria with respect to unsignalized intersections and the
Capital Improvement Program does not include funds to signalize this intersection.
Additionally, the full cost of installing a traffic signal would be financially infeasible for the
project applicant to bear.
The low level of service during the PM peak hour is mainly due to excessive vehicle delays by
vehicles attempting to turn left from northbound Stern Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard. This also creates an unsafe situation with vehicles attempting to make a left-turn by
navigating multiple lanes of traffic on eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Therefore, the
traffic consultant is recommending restricting the traffic movement from northbound Stern
Avenue onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard by constructing a median (see illustration
below).
21121
2:1412:139311
211
414
D312413
BCE3431
67:7
314331
313
214
231
214
2213415
3442:
21135
21122
412
315
32:
312
215
22:
429
212
416
329
316
229
216
428
417
21149
21148328
423317
21149422
228
217
323427
322
418
327
223
222
318
227
41:218
421
419
42
426
31:
321
319
326
32
22121:
219
226
2116321164225
21163
21169
21168
496
715716
714
396
616
614615
296
514515516
2117:497
21176
21177
717
21177
713
712
397
617
C
613
612297
B517
513512
498
718
618
398
21191
518298
499
21192
Above: Unsafe movement during P.M. peak hour
Right: Mitigation recommended by Traffic Consultant to
prohibit left turn from Stern Ave on to WB Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
This would continue to allow left turns from westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard to
southbound Stern Avenue as well as left-turns into the hotel driveway from eastbound Stevens
Creek Boulevard. Vehicles attempting to go westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard would
24
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 4
make a right on eastbound Stevens Creek and a U-turn at the next signalized intersection.
These improvements are consistent with other smaller intersections along arterials such as De
Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard and would reduce intersection delays at the
intersection and mitigate a potentially unsafe situation.
As a condition of the project, the project will fund the median improvements as prescribed by
the traffic consultant. The applicant is aware and agreeable to this condition.
Parking:
The traffic consultant also studied the parking requirements for the proposed project. Based on
analysis of the current operations of the Sunshine Learning Center at 19220 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, it appears that the proposed project will require a total of 27 parking spaces (12 for
student pick-up, 12 for teachers and 3 van parking spaces). The business owns three vans that
pick children up from schools and transport them to the facility.
The applicant proposes to provide 24 parking spaces to accommodate the student pick-up and
the teacher parking and proposes to park the 3 vans at its other business location at 19220
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicant also agrees to a condition of approval for this project
that should the other business location shut down, the applicant shall either reduce the business
plan for the pre-school/after-school care to allow for parking of the vans on the site or
demonstrate that there will be no impacts to the parking requirements due to the additional van
parking via a parking survey by an independent consultant. This has been added as a condition
of approval for the development.
Outdoor Play Area
State law requires that daycare centers provide outdoor play areas for children. The applicant
intends to meet the State requirement by providing approximately 2,124 square foot of play area
behind the child care facility close to Stern Avenue (see Attachment 9). The location would
enable the children to use the play area without having to cross the driveway or parking lot.
The play area is set back 57 feet from the residential property line to the west, 71 feet from the
property to the south and 12 feet from the property to the east (see site aerial on page 2 of the
staff report).
The proposed play area will consist of:
One (1) play structure
Rubber tiles around play structure
Six (6) foot metal perimeter fence
Landscaping and curbs near the perimeter fence
A secondary, approximately 450 square feet, play area is being proposed three feet from the
west property line, 157 feet from the south property line, 70 feet from the east and north
property lines. No play structures are proposed in this area.
Additional Site Improvements on the Project Site:
As part of this application, the applicant will be providing additional site improvements
including new trees along the Stevens Creek frontage, landscape planters, enhanced walkways
for ease of drop off and pick up of children, new roof on the trash enclosure and new parking
lot striping. Please refer to the site plan for the detailed list of all of the improvements.
25
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 5
Noise
A noise impact and mitigation study was conducted by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. to evaluate
the potential noise impacts on adjacent properties by the proposed facility (see Attachment 6).
The noise engineer visited Sunflower Learning Center’s existing operations at 19220 Stevens
Creek Boulevard to establish the baseline noise levels. This establishment has 130 children
enrolled. The consultant has also taken into consideration, in his analysis, that there already is
another pre-school located on Bret Avenue.
The primary source of noise from the operation of the facility would be intermittent and brief
from the play areas. With the types of activities typical of child care play areas, the number of
children estimated to be outside at any given time (a maximum of 28 children at one time in the
larger play area and 2 children at one time in the smaller play area) and the distance of these
activities from residential property lines, these activities would be well within the City’s Noise
Ordinance limits, and do not be expected to create any noise impacts in adjacent areas (please
see Attachment 6 for the detailed noise analysis).
Since the General Commercial Zoning Ordinance (19.56.070 (E).d.) requires a minimum 8-foot
high sound wall between commercial and residential properties, the applicant will be increasing
the height of the existing concrete masonry fence from 5 feet 8 inches to 8 feet along the west
and south property lines, which will help provide visual and noise screening to the adjacent
residences. A condition has been added to approve the final design of the wall prior to issuance
of building permits.
Façade
The applicant is making minor façade changes to improve the functionality of the pre-school by
enclosing areas under the open staircase at the rear to make the facility safer and more
controlled. These changes are restricted to the rear of the building.
E XCEPTION TO THE H EART OF THE C ITY:
The applicant is also requesting an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan requirement
that no more than 25% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard comprise of
non-retail uses. This requirement was instituted with the last update to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan in March 2010. The building was originally designed for office use and the layout
of the building does not make this an ideal location for retail uses. Staff therefore recommends
that the exception to the Heart of the City be granted for this particular building.
P UBLIC O UTREACH:
On April 1, 2011, the applicant mailed out notices to property owners within 300 feet of the
project, inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting. On April 9, 2011, the applicant hosted
the neighborhood meeting at the Conference Room at the Quinlan Community Center. The
meeting was attended by the applicants, one staff member, and one (1) neighbor. In addition,
staff received phone calls from two neighbors. Comments and concerns are summarized below.
Staff responses to each of the comments and concerns are also included.
26
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 6
Neighbor Comment/Concerns Staff Responses
Restricting left turn movements out of Stern Avenue
1.Restricting left turns from north
reduces intersection delays and enhances safety.
bound Stern Avenue onto west
bound Stevens Creek
Boulevard is a concern.
The apartment complex in question is located in the City
2.Apartment spill over parking
of San Jose. The street is not designated as a “no parking”
along Stern Avenue
zone.
No operational conflicts are expected and safety is not
3.Traffic and driveway conflicts
compromised. This situation is typical throughout the
with 7-11 across the Stern
city.
Avenue
The new landscaping proposed along Stevens Creek
4.Vehicular visibility concerns
Boulevard is in conformance with the requirements of the
due to new landscaping
Heart of the City Specific Plan. The landscaping proposed
proposed along Stevens Creek
includes trees that will have a higher canopy and will not
Boulevard when turning right
impede the view of cars making turns.
onto Stern Avenue from east
bound Stevens Creek
The City does not own the necessary right-of-way to
5.Concerns with the lack of
construct a sidewalk at that location. If, and when that
sidewalk along Stevens Creek
property is developed, appropriate dedications and
Boulevard to the west of the
public improvements shall be required of the
subject property
developer/owner.
The scope of this project does not include any changes to
6.Existing 6-foot fence along
the property to the west of this property. If, and when
Stevens Creek Boulevard of the
that property is developed, appropriate public
residential neighbor to the west
improvements shall be required of the developer/owner.
The applicant has provided additional pedestrian
7.Maximize pedestrian path
pathways to provide safe access for children during
inside the parking lot
pickup and drop off times.
The intersection improvements will reduce the number of
8.Afternoon sun makes turning
conflicts with the left-turn movement and make it safer.
left on to Stern Avenue from
west bound Stevens Creek
Boulevard a challenge.
9.Concerns about the cumulative The noise analysis did review the cumulative impacts of
noise impacts from proposed the noise generated by the existing pre-school and the
operations and existing pre-proposed operations.
school on Bret Avenue.
10.The operator of the pre-school While, there are restrictions on how close large family
on Bret Avenue raised concerns day care facilities may be located in residential zones to
about economic impacts of the maintain the residential character of the neighborhood,
proximity of another pre-school both the subject property and the other pre-school are
to her business. located in a mixed use planned development zoning
district where commercial, office and residential uses are
allowed. The city does not have any restrictions on the
proximity of pre-schools to each other in this zone.
27
U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05 Sunflower Learning Center April 26, 2011
EXC-2011-05, EA-2011-04 Page 7
E NVIRONMENTAL R EVIEW:
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and the environmental
impacts of the project on April 7, 2011 (see Attachment 7). At that meeting, the Committee
recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project
recognizing that the impacts of the project were less than significant with mitigations. A
summary of the proposed mitigation measures for the impacts are attached (see Attachment 8).
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
________________________ _________________________________
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Model Resolution: Use Permit U-2011-04 (EA-2011-04)
2.Model Resolution: Architectural and Site Approval Permit ASA-2011-05
3.Model Resolution: Exception Permit EXC-2011-05
4.Sunflower Learning Center Operational Information/Business Plan
5.Traffic Impact Analysis dated April 5, 2011 prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants. Inc.
6.Noise Analysis dated March 10, 2011 prepared by Illingsworth & Rodkin, Inc.
7.Initial Study – EA-2011-05
8.Summary of Mitigation Measures for U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-04 and EA-2011-04
9.Plan Set
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\pc U reports\\2011ureports\\U-2011-04.docx
28
ATTACHMENT 1
U-2011-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHILD CARE FACILITY
WITH A PRE-SCHOOL AND AN AFTER-SCHOOL LEARNING PROGRAM
TO OPERATE AT AN EXISTING 8,999 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILING
LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2011-04
Applicant: Karl Shultz/Lili Zhu/Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center)
Property Owner: Nicholas Speno
Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 375 11 073)
SECTION II: FINDINGSFOR USE/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTPERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use
Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a (Mitigated)
Negative Declaration,
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)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;
b)The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning
on PAGE 2 thereof,:
29
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -2-
1.A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-2011-04) is hereby adopted; and
2.The application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2011-04 is hereby approved, 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.(s) EA-2011-04 and U-
2011-04 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2011, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted for a child care facility with the following capacity:
a)Pre-school: 70 children
b)After-school program: 72 children
The actual capacity of children at the facility maybe further restricted based on Fire Department,
Building Department, CA Department of Social Services, CA Department of Education or other
relevant agencies requirements. Appropriate licensing/registration from the Community Care
Licensing Department and/or other relevant County/State agencies shall be obtained prior to
commencement of the operation.
2.APPROVED EXHIBITS
This approval is based on Exhibits titled “Business Plan” prepared by the applicant consisting of
two pages and “Sunflower Learning Center, New Pre-school & After-school Program Facility,
18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA” prepared by Shultz and Associates dated 4-15-
2011 consisting of pages A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, PL, A1.2, A2.0, A2.1, A4.1 and 1 of 1, except as may be
amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
Planning Staff has the ability to approve minor modifications to the business plan as long as the
changes are consistent with any applicable Building and/or Fire Codes (including but not limited
to accessibility, fire safety, and building occupancy and other appropriate agencies.
3.NOISE CONTROL
The outdoor play area schedule shall be limited as indicated in the Business Plan. Noise levels
shall not exceed those as listed in Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
4.EXPIRY DATE
If the use for which this conditional use permit is granted and utilized has ceased or has been
suspended for one year or more, this permit shall be deemed expired and a new use permit
application must be applied for and obtained.
5.TOTAL AVAILABLE PARKING
Parking for vans owned and operated for the benefit of this facility is not approved with this
project. The applicant shall park these vans at the facility at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
In the event, operations at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard cease or relocate and the applicant
would like accommodate parking of these vans at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the applicant
has the following options with the approval of a Director’s Minor Modification:
2:
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -3-
a) Modify the business plan to reduce required parking to allow the vans to be parked on site,
b) Demonstrate to the City that the parking of the vans on site does not affect the parking
requirements for the operations via a parking study by an independent traffic/parking
consultant.
6.RECYCLING OF DEMOLISHED BUILDING MATERIALS
A condition will be added to require recycling of demolished building materials to the maximum
extent possible.
7.UTILITY STRUCTURES
All new utility structures will be required to be located underground or screened from public
view.
8.SIGNS
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City Sign
Code.
9.REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT
The Director may initiate proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit in any case where, in the
judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of a planned
development permit, conditional use permit or variance have not been implemented, or where
the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare, in accord with the requirements of Chapter 19.124.
10.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby
further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If
you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1.STREET WIDENING
Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
2.CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades
and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
3.STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures
shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining
properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the
site is located.
31
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -4-
4.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.
5.DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-
development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water
control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is
not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins,
vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and
improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via
buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to
avoid an increase of one percent flood water surface elevation of the culvert to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
6.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No.
331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate
with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall
submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to
prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
7.BICYCLE PARKING
The developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City’s requirements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8.IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm
drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be
executed prior to issuance of construction permits
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,468.00 or 5%)
b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,217.00 or 5%)
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
32
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -5-
-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.
9.TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not
visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building
setback area.
10.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control
Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and
street improvement plans.
11.NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation
of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.
12.C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or
more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve
a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development
measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water
treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm
water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved
numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement
Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of
ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required.
All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third
party reviewer.
13.EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer.
This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion
control notes shall be stated on the plans.
14.WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for
all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
15.OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to
final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard
33
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -6-
appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk,
pavers, and street lights.
16.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved
by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as
well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping
work throughout the City.
17.TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
18.TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs
Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building
permit.
19.REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to
refuse truck access for the proposed development.
20.STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
21.FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
22.SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
23.FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as
needed.
24.SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE
Provide Santa Clara water district approval before issuance of a building permit. The developer
shall pay for and obtain Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District
easement or fee right of way or affecting District facilities.
25.CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuance of a building permit.
26.SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
issuance of building permits.
34
Resolution No.U-2011-04April 26, 2011
Page -7-
27.UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, PacBell,
and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
28.MEDIAN EXTENTION ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AT STERN AVENUE
The Developer is required to install a median extension along Stevens Creek Blvd at the Stern
Avenue intersection to prohibit left turns from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. The
layout and installation shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
1.SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
The project site is discharging sanitary sewer to the City of Sunnyvale system, therefore, prior to
City of Cupertino’s building permit issuance, a licensed Civil Engineer or Mechanical Engineer
shall provide a written statement to the City of Sunnyvale, providing an estimated average water
consumption (in gpd) for the proposed use and stating that the he/she has evaluated the existing
sanitary sewer lateral and main pipe on Stern Avenue and determined that there is no adverse
impact to the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system (or; there is a small incremental impact to
the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system but would not trigger any system upgrades; or
there is incremental impact to the existing Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system and improvements
for upgrades are subject to City of Sunnyvale review and approval).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2011, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair
Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\RES\\2011\\U-2011-04.doc
35
ATTACHMENT 2
ASA-2011-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT FOR MINOR FAÇADE,
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL OFFICE
BUILDING LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2011-05
Applicant: Karl Schultz/Lili Zhu/Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center)
Property Owner: Nicholas Speno
Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 375 11 073)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an
Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a MitigatedNegative
Declaration,
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the
application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or 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 Chapter 19.134, Architectural and Site Review, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, conditional use
permits, exceptions, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject
property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
a)Only minor changes have been proposed to the existing building that do not affect the overall
architectural quality of the building.
b)Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials,
and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is
36
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 2 -
situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting
harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and
unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of
pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of
existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety
requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to
adjoining property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
1.A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-11-04) is hereby adopted; and
2.The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2011-05 is hereby
approved, 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.(s) EA-2011-04 and ASA-2011-05
as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2011, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1.APPROVED EXHIBITS
This approval is based on Exhibits titled “Business Plan” prepared by the applicant consisting of two
pages and “Sunflower Learning Center, New Pre-school & After-school Program Facility, 18900
Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA” prepared by Shultz and Associates dated 4-15-2011
consisting of pages A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, PL, A1.2, A2.0, A2.1, A4.1 and 1 of 1, except as may be amended
by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
Planning Staff has the ability to approve minor modifications to the business plan as long as the
changes are consistent with any applicable Building and/or Fire Codes (including but not limited to
accessibility, fire safety, and building occupancy and other appropriate agencies.
2.PARKING ADJACENT TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE
The applicant shall provide no parking signs between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on
Wednesday. The design and location of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits.
3.ENHANCED PATHWAY
The applicant shall provide enhanced pathways, the final design and location of which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits, from the
parking areas on the site for safe pick up and drop-off of children.
4.DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE
The applicant shall design and install a new driveway entrance, the design of which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of
building permits.
37
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 3 -
5.SOUND WALL
A masonry wall, the final design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to issuance of building permits, shall be provided on the project’s common
boundary with residentially zoned or used property up to the front setback line. The wall shall be at
least eight feet in height as measured from the highest adjoining grade.
6.RECYCLING OF DEMOLISHED BUILDING MATERIALS
A condition will be added to require recycling of demolished building materials to the maximum
extent possible.
7.UTILITY STRUCTURES
All new utility structures will be required to be located underground or screened from public view.
8.FENCE
The final design of the perimeter fencing around the play areas shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
9.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.
10.LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15).
A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the
landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be
consolidated into a landscape installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the
landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design
plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that
causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and
irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and
complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
11.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established
and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the
landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the
landscape installation report is submitted.
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall
either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest
control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
38
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 4 -
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1.STREET WIDENING
Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
2.CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and
standards as specified by the City Engineer.
3.STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures
shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining
properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site
is located.
4.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.
5.DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-
development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water
control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not
limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated
swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve
water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried
pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an
increase of one percent flood water surface elevation of the culvert to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
6.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331
and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with
affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval
of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
7.BICYCLE PARKING
The developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City’s requirements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8.IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain
fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed
prior to issuance of construction permits
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,468.00 or 5%)
39
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 5 -
b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,217.00 or 5%)
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City
Council. 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.
9.TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not
visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building
setback area.
10.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board,
for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street
improvement plans.
11.NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer
must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.
12.C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or
more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a
minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures,
for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan,
that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water
treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing
criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm
Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and
maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required.
All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third
party reviewer.
3:
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 6 -
13.EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This
plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control
notes shall be stated on the plans.
14.WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all
grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
15.OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final
occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard
appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk,
pavers, and street lights.
16.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by
the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well
as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout
the City.
17.TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
18.TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs
Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit.
19.REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to
refuse truck access for the proposed development.
20.STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
21.FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
22.SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permits.
23.FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as
needed.
24.SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE
Provide Santa Clara water district approval before issuance of a building permit. The developer shall
pay for and obtain Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District easement
or fee right of way or affecting District facilities.
41
Resolution No. ASA-2011-05 April 26, 2011
Page - 7 -
25.CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuance of a building permit.
26.SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
issuance of building permits.
27.UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, PacBell,
and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
28.MEDIAN EXTENTION ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AT STERN AVENUE
The Developer is required to install a median extension along Stevens Creek Blvd at the Stern
Avenue intersection to prohibit left turns from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. The
layout and installation shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2011, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair
Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\RES\\2011\\ASA-2011-05 res.doc
42
ATTACHMENT 3
EXC-2011-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
NON-COMMERCIAL USES (A CHILD CARE FACILITY) TO EXCEED 25% OF THE TOTAL
BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
LOCATED AT 18900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2011-05
Applicant: Karl Schultz/Lili Zhu/Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center)
Property Owner: Nicholas Speno
Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 375 11 073)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Height Exception as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration,
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public
Hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan Exception for this application:
1.The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City’s General Plan and
with the goals of this specific plan and meets the criteria that unique surrounding land
uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards.
2.The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety.
3.The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian
vehicular traffic.
4.The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are
available to serve the development.
5.The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification
of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary
to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
43
Resolution No. Application number Hearing Date
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study,maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other
evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2thereof,:
1.A Mitigated Negative Declaration (file no. EA-2011-04) is hereby adopted; and
2.The application for an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific plan, Application no. EXC-
2011-05 is hereby approved, 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.(s) EA-2011-04
and EXC-2011-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2011,
and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1.EXPIRY DATE
This exception effective for as long as the Use Permit for the Sunflower Learning Center
(File No. U-2011-04) is valid.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2011, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\RES\\2011\\EXC-2011-05 Res.doc
44
45
46
47
48
49
4:
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
5:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
6:
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
7:
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
8:
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
9:
:1
:2
:3
:4
:5
:6
:7
:8
:9
::
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
21:
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
22:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
23:
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
24:
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
25:
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
26:
271
272
273
274
275
276
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777--planning@cupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: April 26, 2011
Application: Referral of a Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-26
Applicant: Raymond Jerome Lami
Application Summary: Referral of a Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-26,
modifying 20-U-86, to allow the operation of a farmers’ market
at the existing Oaks Shopping Center, 21275 Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Director’s Minor Modification, DIR-2010-26, based on the model resolution
(Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Jerry Lami, is proposing to operate an outdoor farmers’ market at the
Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Highway 85 (Attachment 2). In
2000, Cupertino’s original farmers market (managed by a different operator) at Vallco
Shopping Center was approved by the Director of Community Development on a
temporary trial basis. The market proved to be so successful and popular over the next
two years that the organizer and shopping center owner obtaineda permanent
approval in 2002. Currently, the Vallcofarmers market operates everyFridayfrom 9
a.m. to 1 p.m. at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road.
The proposed new market at the Oaks Shopping Center will operate in the shopping
center parking lot along the Highway 85 sound wall (see Attachment 3for the location
map). It should be noted that thearea proposed for the farmers’ market was also part
of the area approved for redevelopment into a hotel and mixed usecommercial
buildingin 2008, and expiring in 2012. The market would be discontinued once the
redevelopment project is underway. The proposed project requires an amendment to
the Master Use Permit (20-U-86) for the Oaks Shopping Center. Due to the
neighborhood controversy, the Director has referred the project to the the Planning
Commission for a final decision.
286
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 2
Design Review Committee Hearing
On March 17, 2011, the project was presented before the Design Review Committee
(DRC) for public testimony (Attachments 4 & 5). At the meeting the Director of
Community Development noted that the DRC meeting was only to hear public
testimony and that project would be brought before the Planning Commission for
review and final action.
DISCUSSION
Farmers’ Market Operation
The applicant isproposing to start with a Sunday market with opening hours from 9
a.m. to 1 p.m. Typical setup and clean up times are approximately 1.5 hours before and
after the opening hoursfor a total timeframe of 7:30 a.m to 2:30 p.m. The proposed
market area is the most westerly parking lot aisle, encompassing 105 parking stalls,
which the applicant estimates can accommodate a maximum of 60 vendorswho will be
offering products such as: fruits/vegetables(Department of Agriculture-certified),
baked goods, processed foods, dairy items, hot foods, flowers, plants,arts and crafts,
jewelry and photography.
The applicant plans to expand the market to a second day on Wednesdays, starting in
April 2012, if there is demand for a mid-week, evening market. The Wednesday
market hours will be 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with a total timeframe of 1:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m., allowing for an hour and a half for setup and another hour and a half for clean up
before and after the market hours.
Key Issues
Staff has identified the following key issues and placed conditions in the resolution to
address them.
Portable Toilet Facilities - The applicant has proposed providing portable toilet
facilities and a hand-washing station for customers located near the shopping
center's existing trash enclosure at the northern property boundary. The facilities
will be removed after each market event. A condition has been added to prohibit
any portable toilet facilities and washing stations along Mary Avenue or other
highly visible areas as determined by the Director of Community Development.
Loading/Unloading - To mitigate potential noise from loading and unloading the
portable facilities and visual effects, staff recommends that the facilities be moved to
the opposite end of the market closer to Stevens Creek Boulevard. This portion of
the shopping center is partially below the Stevens Creek Boulevard grade and
screened by perimeter landscaping and will have minimal visibility to passing
motorists.
Outdoor Live Entertainment - In order to be consistent with the recent City Council
287
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 3
approval of interior live entertainment activities at the Oaks Shopping Center, staff
is recommending a prohibition of outdoor live entertainment activities at the
proposed market.
Cleanup -The applicant will be responsible for cleaning up the parking lot after each
market event.
Review of Operations- Staff is recommending an automatic one year review of the
permit.
Parking
Presently the Oaks Shopping Center parking supply exceeds the City’s shared parking
requirements by about 65 parking stalls. In reality, actual parking utilization at the
shopping center is far less than what is required by the City’s parking code.
The proposed market site is in an underutilized parking lot area at the Oaks Shopping
Center. Vendor parking will be primarily in the market area and secondarily on Mary
Avenue. Customers can park in the shopping center parking lot or on the street
parking along Mary Avenue, which has no specific vehicle parking restrictions, other
than no parking between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
Staff surveyed parking availability at the Oaks Shopping Center for selectedparking
areas close to the proposed market as indicated on the map on an hourly basis
thth
(Attachment 6) on Sunday morning, March 27, and Wednesday afternoon, April 13,
with the following observationsand conclusions (Attachment 7):
Sundays
On Sunday morning the studied parking areas had little utilization and no one parked
in the angular parking spaces on Mary Avenue near the shopping center. Staff counted
only the angular parking on Mary Avenueupto the Glenbrook Apartment driveway
abutting 10240 Parkwood Drive.
During the surveyed hours, there was an average of 265 empty parking stalls in the
surveyed shopping center parking areas (not including spaces that were occupied by
existing tenants). The shopping center could accommodate the entire market area (105
parking stalls), the vendor vehicles (60 parking stalls) and the estimated parking
demand from the additional retail customers (45 parking stalls) and there would still be
55 empty parking stalls in the selected shopping center parking areas and 145 nearby
Mary Avenue angular parking stalls.
Wednesdays
On Wednesday afternoon, there was an average of 211 empty parkingstalls in the
surveyed shopping center parking areas. On-street parking on Mary Avenue next to
288
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 4
the shopping center was heavily used by De Anza College students and an average of
70 stalls were available of 145 counted.The shopping center could accommodate the
entire market area (105 parking stalls), the vendor vehicles (60 parking stalls) and the
estimated parking demand from the additional retail customers (45 parking stalls) and
there would be one empty parking stall in the selected shopping center parking areas
and 70 nearby Mary Avenue angular parking stalls.
Traffic
The market will be held during off-peak hours for the shopping center. For the
purposes of transportation planning/traffic management, the City considers the level of
congestion at signalized intersections during the AM and PM peak traffic periods.
These peak periods occur on the weekdays during “rush hour”. Sunday morning traffic
flows are not a concern because of the absence of employment and De Anza College
commuter traffic on Sundays.
Wednesday afternoon traffic flows/congestion is also within acceptable City-adopted
traffic congestion standards. A traffic analysis was conducted for a redevelopment
project at the Oaks Shopping Center, consisting of a 122-room hotel and a 51,000 square
foot, mixed use, commercial building. The approved, but unbuilt project would
generate more traffic than the proposed farmers’ market (~11,300 square foot vendor
area) and the larger project was determined to comply with City traffic congestion
standards.
Other Agency Comments
The following is a summary of comments received from Public Works Department, Fire
Department and the Sheriff’s office:
City Public Works Department has no concerns about the project other than that
vehicular circulation be maintained around the shopping center, which is being
accomplished(Attachment 3)
Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed and supports the project
contingent on compliance with fire prevention regulations
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has no concerns, other than the operator should
provide portable toilet facilities and a hand-washing station as proposed
Public Outreach & Comments
City Noticing
Public hearing noticing for the Design Review Committee hearing was a 300-foot radius
of property owners around the shopping center perimeter. Further, staff contacted the
onsite Glenbrook Apartment manager and provided hearing notices for the renters at
the manager’s office. Staff also requested that the shopping center owner inform the
center merchants. Also public hearing notices were delivered by staff to each center
merchant.
289
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 5
Private Noticing
The Glenbrook Apartments owner also sent a private mailing prior to the Design
Review Committee hearing to numerous residents in the Mary Avenue neighborhood.
The applicant distributed a notice for a neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2011 at City
Hall; noticing included Cupertino Commons, Glenbrook Apartments, Casa De Anza
and the single-family residential neighborhood north of the Oaks Shopping Center to
the Mary Avenue Bridge entrance. Three neighbors attended the neighborhood
meeting, along withtheapplicant and aCitystaff person. Discussions at the meeting
revolved around the farmers’ market operations and parking/traffic implications
around the area.
Public Comments
Public comments against the project (Attachment 8) are summarized as followed. It
should be noted that some of the residents’ comments related to a mistaken perception
that the project was a festival or flea market and portable bathroom facilities were going
to be located along Mary Avenue. Staff has addressed a number of the concerns with
additional conditions of approval for the project related to loading/unloading, location
of portable toilets and noise issues.
Increased noise and disruption
Commercialization of neighborhood
Decreased privacy, quality of life and property values
Increased traffic (pedestrian & vehicle), parking congestion, littering, crime
Overflow parking into the Glenbrook Apartments
Smells from food trucks and porta-potties
Not needed because City has Vallco Farmers’ Market and Whole Foods store
Already too many activities in the area: monthly De Anza Flea Market, Memorial
Park festivals, Shakespeare in the Park, De Anza Flint Center events, Senior Center
activities, proposed dog park.
Harm existing Oaks businesses by crowding parking lot.
Property owner at Glenbrooks would have to discount rents for apartments along
Mary Avenue.
The shopping center owner noted that they were not charging the applicant to host
the farmers’ market on the property and if the porta-potties are a concern, they
could be moved to a different location.
Supporters of the farmers’ market had the following remarks (Attachment 9):
Like the convenience of walking to a market to buy produce. Won’t waste gasoline
driving
Needed addition to our neighborhood
28:
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 6
Need more foot traffic in the shopping center.
Like to have fresh, local produce
Would benefit the community and give local farmers much needed support
Weekend market more convenient for me than the weekday Vallco market
Good location for a farmers’ market, within walking distance
Provides the neighborhood with a weekly social event
Brings shoppers to the Oaks Shopping Center on an otherwise slow shopping day
It is something healthy for Cupertino
Most market-goers tend to be courteous, law-abiding people who simply enjoy real,
local, fresh food
Benefits outweigh the impact
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application, DIR-2010-26 for the following reasons:
The proposed farmers’ market provides an opportunity for the community and
neighborhood to gather together in a Heart of the City commercial location that has
convenient street and freeway access.
The proposed market gives residents the convenience of buying farm fresh produce
in their own community on a non-work day.
Shopping center parking availability is adequate to accommodate the market area,
vendors and estimated customer parking demand. The availability of surplus
parking on Mary Avenue will ensure that vehicle parking and other encroachments
do not overflow into adjacent residential areas.
Potential concerns with the sight and smell of portable bathroom facilities can be
mitigated by moving them to a different location at the shopping center and
requiring their removal at the end of each market event.
Potential concerns with trash and littering will be addressed by having the vendors
and market operator responsible for clean up after each market event.
Potential noise concerns have been addressed with conditions of approval moving
loading/unloading nearer to Stevens Creek Boulevard and by prohibiting outdoor
live entertainment.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
______________________________ ___________________________
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
291
Referral of DIR-2010-26 Oaks Farmers Market April 26, 2011
Page 7
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Model Resolution
Attachment 2: Project Description
Attachment 3: Market Location Map with Vehicle Circulation
Attachment 4: Design Review Committee Staff Report dated March 17, 2011
Attachment 5: Design Review Committee March 17, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Attachment 6: Parking Availability Area Location Map
Attachment 7: Parking Availability Survey Data Tables
Attachment 8: Correspondence Opposing the Project
Attachment 9: Correspondence Supporting the Project
G:planning/PDREPORTS/pc DIR reports/DIR-2010-26
292
DIR-2010-26
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A REFFERAL OF A DIRECTOR’S MINOR MODIFICATION
TO ALLOW A FARMERS’ MARKET AT AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER
AT 21275 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a referral of a Director’s
Minor Modification, 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 Design Review Committee 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, the application for Director’s Minor Modification is hereby approved; 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. DIR-2010-26 as set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2011, are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR-2010-26
Applicant: Raymond Jerome Lami
Location: 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
293
Resolution No. DIR-2010-26 April 26, 2011
Page 2
=======================================================================================
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1.APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on submitted exhibits labeled: Attachment 2 & 3, except as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2.COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS OF OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES AND
DEPARTMENTS
The applicant shall be responsible for securing and complying with all of the necessary
permits and approvals from other government agencies and departments.
3.FINAL FACILITIES PLAN
The applicant shall submit a final facilities plan to the Director of Community Development
for approval prior to operation.The plan shall include the delineation of areas for vendor
parking, customer parking, portable toilet and washing facilities and any temporary and
directional signage for vehicles. Changes to the facilities plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
4.OPERATIONS
a)The market shall be operated within the area delineated on the site plan exhibit.
b)The market is capped at a maximum of 60 farmers/vendors.
c)The market is approved to operate on Sundays between 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., allowing
for one and a half hours for set up before the market opens and one and a half hours for
break down and clean up after the market closes at 1:00 p.m.
d)Starting April 2012, the market is approved to operate a second day on Wednesdays
between 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., allowing for one and a half hours for set up before the
market opens and one and a half hours for break down and clean up after the market
closes at 7:00 p.m.
e)Outdoor live entertainment activities are prohibitedat the market.
f)Portable toilet facilities and a hand-washing station shall be provided at each eventand
sitedaway from Mary Avenueat the southern end of the market area.
g)The portabletoiletfacilitiesand hand-washing stationshall be removed at the conclusion
of each market event.
h)The market site shall be swept cleaned and all trash removed at the end of each market
event.
5.TEMPORARY SIGNAGE
The applicant may apply for a temporary sign permit and will be allowed a maximum of
two temporary signs per event.
6.MODIFICATION OF MARKET OPERATIONS
294
Resolution No. DIR-2010-26 April 26, 2011
Page 3
=======================================================================================
The Director of Community Development is empowered to make adjustments to the
operation of the farmers market to address any documented problem or nuisance situation
that may occur.
7. PERMIT REVIEW
A permit review shall be conducted by staff after one year. If complaints have been received
regarding market operations that have not been addressed immediately by the applicant,
then the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the permit at which time,
the approval may be modified or revoked.
8. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The applicant shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from
documented incidents in the farmers’market atthe existing City’s contracted hourly rate
with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
9. 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 26th day of April 2011, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:CUPNT\\PLANNING\\PDREPORT\\RES\\2010\\DIR-2010-26.doc
295
Buubdinfou3
296
297
298
299
29:
2:1
2:2
2:3
2:4
2:5
2:6
2:7
2:8
2:9
2::
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
31:
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
32:
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
33:
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
34:
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
35:
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
36:
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
37:
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
38:
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
39:
3:1
3:2
3:3
3:4
3:5
3:6
3:7
3:8
3:9
3::
411
412
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777--planning@cupertino.org
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The City Council cancelled its April 19, 2011 meeting.
Miscellaneous Items:
1.Cupertino Recognizes Community Volunteers - Individuals and groups who have made
outstanding contributions to the city of Cupertino will be honored Wednesday, June 1st.
This year, nine individuals and one organization will receive the CREST Award –
Cupertino Recognizes Extra Steps Taken. The awards ceremony and reception will be
held in Community Hall, on June 1st, at 7 p.m. This year’s winners are Bob Adams, Nancy
Coss-Fitzwater, Cupertino Senior TV Production Group “The Better Part”, Fran Ellis,
Janet Hedley and Anna Weber, Gladys Maiden, Pat Pecko, Vicky Tsai and Hung Wei.
2.Shakespeare Festival - The Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Commission, Fine
Arts Commission along with the Library staff and Parks and Recreation staff are working
with the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival to present an interactive discussion on the
upcoming Shakespeare in the Park play “Cymbeline”. This discussion would feature
actors from the play as well as commentators on the plot and messages of the play. The
community discussion would be held at Community Hall. The dates are being worked on
now.
Upcoming Dates:
April 23 Big Bunny Fun Run, 9 a.m., Civic Center
April 28 Block Leader Recognition, Community Hall, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
April 30Opening Ceremony Toyokawa Sister City Cherry Blossom Festival, 12 noon,
Memorial ParkAmphitheater stage
May 14/15Friends of the Library Book Sale, Community Hall, Sat. 9-4 pm/Sun. 12-3 pm
June 1CREST Awards Ceremony, Community Hall, 7 to 9 p.m.
Enclosures:
News Articles
G:\\Planning\\AartiS\\Director's Report\\pd4-26-11.doc
413
414
415