The URL can be used to link to this page

15. 6-month review Peet's Coffee 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. /.:; AGENDA DATE November 5. 2007 SUBJECT: Conduct a six-month review of a temporary approval of the Modification to a previou~ly-approved Use Permit (U-2004-04) allowing an opening time of 5:30 a.m. for Peet's Coffee, and include a review of the Use Permit, Application No. M-2006-07, Laura Thomas (Peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 326-32-051. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Deny renewal of the Modification to the previous Use Permit, requiring Peet's Coffee to revert to opening no earlier than 7:00 a.m.; or 2. Uphold renewal of the Modification to the previous Use Permit, allowing Peet's Coffee to continue opening at 5:30 a.m. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2007, the City Council granted temporary approval of a Modification (M- 2006-07) to a previously-approved Use Permit On a 5-0 vote, allowing Peet's Coffee to open at 5:30 a.m. until a six-month review of the permit could be conducted by the Council. Additionally, the Council recommended that review of the original Use Permit for the Peet's Coffee/Panera Bread Cafe building be conducted at the same time. The Modification application was brought to the City Council for review as an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the modification allowing Peet's Coffee to open at 5:30 a.m. The appeal was filed by Council member Richard Lowenthal. During the meeting, Council member Lowenthal explained the need for a pedestrian connection between the Stevens Creek Office Center, that includes the Peet's Coffee/Panera Bread Cafe, and the adjacent newly developed Whole Foods site to the west, particularly since the Council had anticipated this connection by requiring Whole Foods to construct its side of the pedestrian access on the northeast corner of the site. Additionally, some of the Council members raised the issue of inadequate parking at the Stevens Creek Office Center to accommodate Peet's Coffee/Panera Bread customers. When these businesses first opened, customers were not aware that they could park elsewhere m the office center parking lot, and as a result, began parking off- 15 - 1 Six month review ofM-2006-07 Page 2 November 5, 2007 site at the adjacent Bombay Oven Restaurant and across the street at the Target shopping center. The City not only received complaints from the Bombay Oven Restaurant; but also from customers who said that the parking was inadequate for these businesses. In late February, the office center placed directional signs in the parking lot to alleviate the confusion and notify customers that additional parking was available in the office center parking lot. These signs were installed as a condition of the Planning Commission's. approval of the modification of the use permit. . However, since these signs were placed on site just a few weeks prior to the Council meeting, the Council was not able to determine the usefulness of these signs. As a result, the Council also voted to conduct a review in six months of the original Use Permit that approved the Peet's CoffeejPanera Bread building to discuss this issue and that would allow for the Planning Commission to reopen the use permit at a public hearing and require permit modifications to address parking problems if necessary (See Condition No.8 of Exhibit A). John Volkmann, one of the property owners of the Stevens Creek Office Center, indicated that he did not support the pedestrian connection because the connection would result in the loss of a parking space at the office center and would not be a safe route to Whole Foods since it would require pedestrians to cross the loading dock area of the Whole Foods site to enter to the grocery market. Additionally, Mr. Volkmann indicated that owners of the parcel of the Stevens Creek Office Center who are affected by the pedestrian connection are different than the owners of the Peet's Coffee and Panera Bread site. The City Council requested that this item be: brought back for review in six months to allow the property owner, John Volkmann, to consult with the other co-owners of the Stevens Creek Office Center on whether they would agree to construct the pedestrian connection. The review of this application was delayed from occurring six months from the March 20th meeting because the City was awaiting a response from the property owners of the Stevens Creek Office Center on the pedestrian connection. DISCUSSION: Staff met with John Volkmann in early October who conveyed the property owners' determination that they would not support construction of the pedestrian connection on their property. Mr. Volkmann felt that the difference in walking distance from the mid- point of the Stevens Creek Office Center to the Whole Foods entrance and from the pedestrian connection to the Whole Foods entrance would be minimal. Staff measured these distances and found that one walking distance route from a mid- point along the west side of the Stevens Creek Office Center to the Whole Foods entrance would be approximately 1,040 feet (See Route A on Exhibit B). Another access route from a mid-point at the center of the office center to the Whole Foods entrance 15 - 2 Six month review ofM-2006-07 Page 3 November 5, 2007 would be approximately 990 feet (Route B). However, the walking distance from the same west side starting point in Route A at the Stevens Creek Office Center to the Whole Food entrance using the pedestrian connection would be approximately 460 feet (Route C). Therefore, the difference in walking distance is significant. Staff believes the pedestrian connection is important because it allows more interconnectivity between the two properties that would alleviate the need to double the parking trips for customers/ employees patronizing these two adjacent properties. In response to the concern about pedestrian having to cross in front of the loading dock area, staff would also like to emphasize that there is an additional pedestrian walkway behind the Whole Foods building linking the pedestrian connection on the Whole Foods site to Stevens Creek. Boulevard, thereby providing an alternative pedestrian route (Route D) to the Whole Foods entrance without having to cross the loading dock area. This walking distance route is approximately 915 feet, which is shorter than the existing walking route between the properties. Also, customers routinely cross the area if they park in the northerly most aisle and staff is not aware of any problems. Regarding the parking issues, the Code Enforcement Division has not received any complaints regarding parking at this location since the opening of these businesses. Therefore, it appears that the parking issues have been resolved with the installation of the directional signs. Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the expanded early morning hours of operation are an intensification of use on the property and contribute to the doubling of parking trips between the adjacent properties without the pedestrian connection. The City Council has consistently encouraged pedestrian connections between properties to facilitate walking and bicycle use. For example, the Council required pedestrian connections at the.Public Storage site on Valley Green Drive to connect to the adjacent office complex site, at the Montebello condominium site to connect to the surrounding commercial developments along De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and at the Astoria condominium site to connect Imperial A venue to Bubb Road. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the renewal of the Modification application that would require Peet's Coffee to open no earlier than 7:00 a.m., which is the City's current allowable opening time for commercial businesses throughout the City. However, staff does not recommend modifying the original Use Permit at this time since the parking issue appears to have been resolved with the addition of the directional parking signage. If the City Council feels these issues are separate and chooses to allow' Peet's Coffee to continue its early morning opening time without the pedestrian connection, the Council could ask John Volkmann to sign a letter of intent to provide the connection in the event he wishes to expand the office center in the future. . 15 - 3 Six month review of M-2006-07 Page 4 November 5,2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Enclosures: Exhibit A: U-2004-04 Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Map of Walking Distances Exhibit C: Minutes of the March 20,2007 City Council meeting Exhibit D: City Council report of March 20, 2007 w / attachments Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ ~a~fh David W. Knapp City Manager G:planning/pdreport/appeals/M-2006-D7, 6 month review 15 - 4 Exhibit A City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Web site: www.cupertino.org CITY OF CUPERJINO' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 9,2004 Stevens Creek Office Center Associates 20833 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 102 Cupertino, CA 9514-2154 Re: Consider approving Application No.(s) ASA-2004-05, U-2004-04, EXC-2004-03. EA- 2004-05; Stevens Creek Office Center Associates (Good Earth Restaurant); 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN 326-32-051 : a. Adopt a Negative Declaration b. Approve architectural and site review for a new 7,100 square foot, one- story retail building and site improvements c. Approve a use pelmit to demolish an existing, vacant restaurant and construct a 7,100 square foot, single-story retail building and site improvements d. Approve an exception to the front setback as required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan Dear Office Center Associates: At its June 7. regular meeting, the Cupertino City Council approved the project and added the following requirement: 1) To do a written, joint parking agreement between the Stevens Creek Office Center Association and the property owner of the Bombay Oven next door; 2) That landscaping plans will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee; 3) On-street parking shall not be included as a part of the original plan. 15 - 5 P;jr.tGd on Recycled Paper ASA-2004-05 Page 2 June 9, 2004 The Use Pennit conditions are as follows: SECTION ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "GOOD EARTH REDEVELOPMENT, STEVENS CREEK & SAlCH WAY, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA" dated March 31, 2004 and consisting of six sheets labeled AO through A4 and one unlabeled sheet titled: A.L.T.A. Survey for Stevens Creek Office Center, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. 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 tbe 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 me a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally batTed from later challenging such exactions. 3. REV-.ISED LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED The applicant shall provide a revised site and landscape plan, detailing the required front setback and streets cape improvements needed to meet the intent of the Heart oftbe City Specific'Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit approval. 4. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS REQUIRED The applicant shall provide revised architectural drawings and a fayade design that is consistent with the design review comments of the City Architect as stated ill his letter of April 19, 2004. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building penllit approval. 5. STREET IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall develop street improvement plans that include street parking with no reduction in the number of through lanes. The Director of Community Development shall work with the Director of Public Works to evaluate the safety of such an on-street parking plan along this segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Such parking will not be required if it Calmat be demonstrated to be safe. 15 - 6 ASA-2004-0S Page 3 June 9, 2004 6. EVALUATION OFDRIVE"'AY GATE STRUCTURE At the building pennit stage, the applicant shall provide a stlllctural evaluation of the driveway wooden entry gate to ensure its structural soundness and safety. 7. RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record a deed restriction for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easements between adjacent properties to the south, north and west, to be implemented at such time that the City can require the sanle of adjacent property owners, subject to approval of the City Attorney. The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building occupancy. 8. POTENTIAL PARKING PROBLEMS If project parking becomes a problem, the PlaJming Commission may re-open the use permit at a public hearing and require permit modifications to address parking problems. 9. STORM FLOW PERCOLATION AND DETENTION At the building permit stage, the applicant shall provide site design measures that increase on~site percolation and detention of stOlID flows. Design measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. SECTION N. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET'VIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks aJld related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. 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 fornls 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. 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 14. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 15 - 7 ASA-2004-05 Page 4 June 9,2004 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Please contact Anny Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction oftbe City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 17. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 18. 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. 19. 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, stonn drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost, or $2,268.00 minimum b. Grading Pennit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Stonn Drainage Fee: $ 894.37 e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: N/A g. Park Fees: N/ A h. Street Tree N/A ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Perfonnance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. 15 - 8 ASA-2004-05 Page 5 June 9, 2004 -The fees desclibed 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 cun.ent fee schedule. 20. 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. 21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. . 22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Pre and post-development (BMPs) shall be included within every plan set to the maximum practicality, which could include but not limited to grassy swales, sand filters, detention basins, pavers, permeable pavement and additional landscaping. 23. TRAFFIC The applicant shall submit a traffic control plan to the City to be approved to the satisfaction of the Traffic Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building pemlit 24. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT The developer shall be required to obtain an encroaclmlent pennit for all work that is perfonned in the City's right of way. Please contact Diane Arrants at (408) 777-3245 for infoffilatiol1 regarding this pennit. 25. SHARED DRIVE'" AY The developers of both sites must submit a signed agreement approved by the City, which sets aside a driveway easement along their adjoining properties. 26. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction oftlle Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed plior to obtaining a building pemlit. 15 - 9 ASA-2004-05 Page 6 June 9, 2004 The exception conditioos are as follows: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. L APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "GOOD EARTH REDEVELOPMENT, STEVENS CREEK & SAlCH WAY, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA" dated March 31, 2004 and consisting of six sheets labeled AO through A4 and one unlabeled sheet titled: A.L.T.A. Survey for Stevens Creek Office Center, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in tlus approval. 2. 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 ofthe 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. 3. FRONT SETBACK EXCEPTION A front setback exception for the building of up to five feet is granted. Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact tbe Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the site until required tree protection devices are installed. . . Tlte conditions of project approval set forth hereiTt may include certain fees, dedicatiolt requirements, reserJ'ation 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 dedicati01ts, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period ilt which you may protest these fees, dedications, and otlter exactions, pursuant to Gover1Ultent Code Sectiolt 66020(a), has begun. [fYOll fail to file a protest within tltis 90-day period complying with all 01 the J'equirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Any interested persoll, including the applicarzt, prior to seeking judicial review of the cifJ1 council's decision in this matter, mllst first file a petition for reconsideration with the city . . 15-10 ASA-2004-05 Page 7 June 9, 2004 clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code 92.08.096. Sincerely: ~~cLYlA!~r Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Community Development 15-11 Exhibit B 15 -13 Exhibit c March 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 6 related to the design and east side balcony, and modifies the planning commission decision per the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 16. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to modify the use permit for Peet's Coffee to allow an opening time of 5:30 a.m., Application No. M-2006-07, Laura Thomas (Peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek Blvd., APN 326-32-051. The appellant is Council member Richard Lowenthal. (Continued from March 6). Community Development Director Steve. P.iasecki highlighted the staff report VIa a. PowerPoint Presentation. Council member Richard Lowenthal explained that he had appealed this item because of the issue of inadequate parking on the Peet's Coffee side. He said this is a good opportunity for people to park once and shop twice, to allow pedestrian access between Whole Foods and the Peet's Coffee/office center . parking lot. He also said he was concerned about Peet's Coffee opening of 5:30 a.m. because it was an imposition on the community including more traffic and noise early in the morning, and even more crowding for that parking lot, particularly for the office users. Mayor Wang opened the public hearing. Ellen Sinnott, District Manager for Peet's Coffee, asked Council to address the hours of operation for Peet's Coffee so that their permit is in compliance with the 5:30 a.m. opening time, which is consistent with when their competition opens. John Volckmannm, property manager, said he met with Mr. Lowenthal because he didn't understand the connection between Peet's request to change the hours of operation and creating a pedestrian access. He said that tenants wouldn't use the path because they would have to cross a loading dock area with no sidewalk, and he was concerned about skateboarders, etc. causing liability issues. He added that it would impact the office center tenants to lose one of the parking spaces required in order to create the opening and he wasn't in favor of creating the access. Goeffrey Etnire, attorney for the Stevens Creek Office Center, distributed a letter addressed to Council outlining his comments. He noted that the issue is the question of whether there is a real nexus between Peet's opening at 5:30 a.m. and the pedestrian access. He said that most pedestrians would use the Stevens Creek sidewalk. He urged Council to deny the appeal. Mayor Wang closed the public hearing. LowenthaVKwok moved and seconded to grant a temporary use permit allowing Peet's Coffee to open at 5:30 a.m. and to review the entire use permit in six months. The motion carried unanimously. Council was in recess from 9:32 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. 15-15 Exhnd~ 9 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIUINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE March 20. 2007 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Corrunission's decision ~o modify the use permit for Peet's Coffee to allow an opening time of 5:30 a.m., Application No. M-2006-07, Laura Thomas (Peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 326-32-051. The appellant is Council member Richard Lowenthal. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of M-2007-06 and deny the Planning. Commission's decision; or 2. Uphold the appeal of M-2007-06 and modify the Planning Commission's decision; or 3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Pfanning Commission's decision; or 4. Continue the appeal to the April 3, 2007City Council meeting. BACKGROUND: On January 9, 2007, the Planning Corrunission approved a modification to a use permit to allow Peet's Coffee to. open at 5:30 a.m. Peet's Coffee is located in a building constructed in 2005 that is shared with Panera Bread. The building is located on a parcel on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of Saich Way, that is part of the Stevens Creek Office Center. The Stevens Creek Office Center is also adjacent to the Whole Foods supermarket that is being constructed along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the west. On January 16, 2007, Council member Richard Lowenthal appealed M-2006-07 stating that the pedestrian circulation issue between the Stevens Creek Office Center and Whole Foods needs to be resolved in conjunction with this application. DISCUSSION: When the adjacent Whole Foods project was approved by the City Council in January of 2006, the City Council required Whole Foods to incorporate a pedestrian access along the northeast corner of the si~e to accommodate a future pedestrian connection between the Whole Foods site and the Stevens Creek Office Center. 15-17 M-2006-07 Appeal Page 2 March 20, 2007 Whole Foods is currently under construction and has nearly completed its portion of the pedestrian connection with a concrete pathway that runs along the north side of the Whole Foods building and steps down to a pad that is adjacent to the west side of the Stevens Creek Office Center. Whole Foods will also be'installing a handicap lift to aCcolTullOdate the grade differential between the pathway along the north side of the building and the pad adjacent to the Stevens Creek Office Center property. Council member Lowenthal is requesting that the Stevens Creek Office Center complete the pedestrian connection between these two sites by installing' the improvements needed on the Stevens Creek Office Center for the pedestrian pathway in conjunction with the Peet's Coffee application. Staff has 'reviewed trre possibility of incorporating these improvements that woUld , require a pedestrian 'opening between the two properties, installation of a concrete, pedestrian ramp and walkway connecting from the pad landing on the Whole Foods site to the west side of the Stevens Creek Office Center, and possibly handrails and a switch back of the ramp. This would result in the loss of at least one, but possibly two, parking spaces. If a slope of 1:20 can be achieved, then it appears a straight pedestrian: ' tainp'cartbe constructe'd on the Stevens Creek Office Center side from the Whole Foods pad landing. If a 1:12 slope is required, then ~drails and a switchback. of the ramp '. will be required, resulting in the loss of one additional space. On March 14,2007, staff received comments from the property owner, JohriVolckmann stating that he does not agree to the installation of the pedestrian connection and yvill be attending tonight's meeting to speak about his concerns. . EnclosUres: Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by Richard Lowenthal Exhibit B: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6440 approving Peet's Coffee 5:30 a.m. opening Exhibit C: Minutes of the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit D: Planning Commission staff report of January 9, 2007 w / attachments Exhibit E: Aerial photo Exhibit F: Whole Foods Plans Prepared by: AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner . I ......-'--.-. Approved by: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager 15 - 18 Grace Schmidt . rom: David Knapp Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 200710:43 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision -----Original Message----- From: Richard Lowenthal Sent: Tuesday, Ja.nuary 16, 2007 11:21 PM To: Steve ~iasecki Cc: David Knapp Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. Dear Steve, Exhibit A I wish to appeal the decision to extend Pete's Coffee hours to 5:30 AM. Before changing any Use conditions for Pete's I believe we need to see the pedestrian circulation issue between Pete's and Whole Foods resoJved. Thanks very f"!1uch, Richa.rd 1/1 "7/'1""'7 15 - 19 M-2006-07 Exhibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6440 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (0-2004-04) TO ALLOW A COFFEE SHOP (pEET'S COFFEE & TEA) TO BEGIN HOURS OF OPERATION AT5:30 A.M. IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDlNG SECTIONI: Fll{DINGS . . 'WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit Modification, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the application meets the following requirements: a) That the use is in confoIIl,lance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed Use is to be located. . b) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use: c) That the proposed use will" not generate a level of traffic over and above that of the capacity of th existing street system. d) That the proposed use is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace:, morals and general' welfare of personS' residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed uses, nor injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for use permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application M-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2006-07 , Applicant: Laura Tomas (Pe~t's Coffee & Tea) Location: 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard 15 - 20 Resolution No. 6440 Page-2- M-2006-07 January 9, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All prior use permit conditions for U-2004-04 shall remain in effect, unless in conflict with the conditions of approval for M-2006-07. 2. HOURS OF OPERATION Hours of operation shall be 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily (Monday through Sunday). 3. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE . Within 30 days. of this approval, the applicant shall install directional signage in the parking lot behind the Peet's CoffeejPanera Bread building and in the Peet's Coffee shop informing customers that additional parking is available in the adjacent offiee complex to . the rear and to the west. 4. 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 Govl?rnment Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written I?-oti~e 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 Co~e 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 9th day of' Janucll}" 2007 'at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ,ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVE IslSteve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development , IsIMartyMiller Marty Miller; Chairperson Cupeltino Planning Commission glplanning/pdrepOlllres/2006/M - 2006-07 15 - 21 PI 4 January 9, 2007 Exhibit C Com. Wong: · Said he suppo d the application and was hopeful that the applicant would work with staff on . delivery schedul Com. Chien: · Said it was a decisi n about being consistent with what the Planning Cpmmission decided recently when allowin Starbucks to open at 5:30 a.m. It relates to competitive fairness, and given the added conditi n to bring back the application should there be any problems with the neighborhood, he said he upported the 5:30 a.m. opening time. Com.Saadati: · Said that considering there sn't been any neighborhood complaints and the Planning Commission approved a simil application recently for a 5:30 a.m. opening time, he supported the application. . If a problem occurs and the ap lication returns in six months, more information can be provided to the Planning Commissi n at that time. e building facing the condo complex,. was a solid er buffer for noise from Peet's coffee. Chair Miller: · Said he supported the application. · Noted that the side of the Peet's Co masQnite wall which would serve as a Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by om. Chien, to approve App~cation M-2006\'" 06 for Peet's Coffee to open at 5:30 m.~ 7 days per week, with the condition that in the event the city receives a compl . t from the neighborhood~ the use permit be brought back to the Planning Co . sion to consider additional mitigation measures that may include reduction of hours. (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. M-2006-07 Peet's Coffee & Tea (Laura Tomas) 20807 Stevens Creek Blvd. Modification of a Use Permit (V-2005-11) to allow an opening time of5:30 a.m. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. AId Honda Snelling presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for modification of an existing use permit for the Peet's Coffee Stevens Creek location to open at 5:30 a.m. Staff supports the 5:30 a.m. opening time because of its location, surrounded by commercial uses. The opening time permitted is 7 a.m. and the applicant is requesting to open at 5 :30 a.m. to be consistent with other coffee shop opening hours. Staff supports the 5:30 a.m. opening, and recommends that the property owner be asked to put up additional directional parking signs as noted in the staff report. · Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit with the 5:30' a.m. opening time with the additional condition read by staff. 15 - 22 Planning Commission M .tes 5 January 9, 2007 Ellen Sinnet, Peet's Coffee and Tea: . Said the objective of the application is to become compliant with the legal operating hours. She said they were willing to comply with the property owner along with their construction department to address the signage issue so that parking is clearly stated. Com. Wong: . Relative to the parking ratio that Panera Breads and Peet's has been successful with, he asked staff to indicate on the aerial where they were directing the auxiliary parking. AId Honda Snelling: . lllustrated on the aerial that there was parking along side each building in the complex. Com. Wong: . Said he was concerned that the customers not be inconvenienced. He said he did not want to tie the hours to Peer's Coffee, and suggested having the landlord address the issue on a separate application and a hearing. He reiterated that he did not want to hold up Peet's Coffee on their hours. . Questioned if it could be conditioned that if it could not be resolved at the staff level, it be brought back to the Planning Commission. He said he was not concerned. about the hours. Ms. Wordell: .~. She said that staff would research the issue since she did not recall if when the buildjng was approved there was any knowledge of that' or any expectation that would be the case. It will .'. .have ~o b~discussed with the property owner, ~so that peopl~ do n9t ]:lave to go to the.far . comers of the development to park. - .' . Suggested ~eay41g the condition stating tJ.lere . is a dll;-ectiQna~sign and hopefully it will b~ adequately resolved where the parking is ~thout corning back ,to; ,the Planning Commission. It can be brought back to the Planning Commission if n.ece~sary. Chair Miller: . Said he recalled the meeting where the owner was present and he said that he owned the whole section and would do whatever it took to make the parking work; and ifPeet's was having a problem, he would make sure there were other areas of parking open. . He said Com. Wong's point was well taken, and if there are reserved signs on that other space, they need to be removed as part of the condition of approval. Com. Saadati: . Said that he was familiar with the area and has walked along the parking lot at 5 :45 a.m. when there were very few cars parked ana. not many people in the building. However, he said in the afternoon there are not many empty parking spots in the area. . He suggested putting signage for Peer's Coffee parking, otherwise the office people park there all day and there won't be any parking available. He said it was an item they needed to have the owner's recommendation on; hopefully, in the future the signage and additional parking will help resolve the issue. . He said that there is no direction, and it is confusing. . Supports the 5:30 a.m. opening time. Com. Chien:P. Said he was not opposed to the 5:30 a.m. opening time, however, he expressed concem with the condition regarding the directional signage. He said the project was approved before his 15 - 23 Planning Commission M tes 6 January 9, 2007 tenure on the Planning Commission, but he recalled hearing that the mayor- had an agreement with the property owner to install directional signage. . He said the conditions as they appear this evening, indicate that the responsibility falls on the applicant Peefs Coffee. He said he would rather have that go back to the property owner and have them keep their word on that. Vice Chair Giefer: . Not opposed to 5:30 a.m. opening time. · Recalled the meeting that approval for the building they now occupy, and said those spaces on this corridor were part of the parking calculation for the building. She pointed out that four Commissioners that were part of the calculation were still on the Planning Commission. She said that people could park where they wanted, since they would not get towed. . She said that she wanted it fixed, and supported the directional sign because it would encourage people to be more bold about parking where they want; but they should talk to the property owner about removing the reserved parking signs. and putting in the directional signs,. because ifPeet's Coffee puts up directional signs for Peefs, they are not going to put them up for Panera Breads. Ms. Wordell: . Said the parking compliance would be a matter of enforcing the use permit for the original building, that if they have altered it, then that is an issue as far as being in compliance with . their use permit. . . . . She said the directional sign is appropriate to tie to this. application since they have the '. leverage for the sign. . ., .. Vice Chair Giefer: . . · Said she felt it serves Peet's Coffee; and would help them in their business situation to put the directional signs in for their business. . ..' . Said she agreed that the property owner should be brought back to the Planning Commission '.' because they are in violation of their use permit because they do have reserved parking signs. ..; , Ms. Wordell: . Suggested that they move fOlWard in that manner; through Code Enforcement talk to the property owner about compliance, stating they need to comply within a certain period of time and if they don't, they are subject to revocation. . Sta~ ~ll report back to the Planning Commission. Com. Wong: · Expressed concern that it was a lengthy process of going through Code Enforcement. He said he was inclined continue the application 'and have the landlord come before the Planning Commission to straighten it out, since going through Code Enforcement adds more time. He said he would like to have the problem fIxed in a timely manner. Ciddy Wordell: . · Said to the city attorney that she assumed there was nexus between the parking issue and this application. 15 - 24 Planning Commission Jv... .tes 7 January 9, 2007 Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said she felt the Planning Department could work faster and the item did not have to be continued because of that. She said she felt a letter from the Planning Department on revocation of a use pennit would get instant action. Com. Wong: . Relative to the sign, he asked if Peer's Coffee was responsible for the sign or the property owner, since the model resolution is vague. Ellen Sinnet: . Said she understood that their construction department would be in touch with the landlord and partner to make sure the signage was implemented. She said she was not opposed to incurring the cost of the sign to get it fmalized, especially if they are not reserved parking places, so that their customers have the autonomy to park wherever they want in that facility. . She said she did not know if because they were not the property owner, if they had the authority to remove the reserved signs. She said the construction department would address the issue with the property owner. Ms. Wordell: . Said it was two separate issues; they will work with the property owner to get the directional sign which will. not state anything about reserved spaces or. not, and they would work separately with the property owner on enforcing their use permit relative to parking spaces. . She said if the property owner did not comply, it would possibly take two months to schedule a public hearing regarding the reserved spaces. Com. Wong: . Stated his concern to the city attorney, that if they go through the Planning Department. or. Code Enforcement; it is to get their attention; and four commissioners recall that the propertY- ; owner-said that he would comply and resolve the issue. He said there was'an underground-' parking garage where office employees can park and the goal is to have successful retail and 'a good interface. Presently it is miserable finding parking at Peet's Coffee and Panera Breads.. Eileen Murray: . Said that the city looks at the use permit and sees what the' agreement was on parking and goes to the property owner explaining the agreement, and stating they are in violation and will be subject to some action. . She said the city would not go out and remove the signs, and she did not think it would take two months. She said it was not likely the property owner would come to the Planning Commission, as the property owner would see the terms of the use permit and would likely correct the issue. Chair Miller: . Questioned if they were within their rights as a Planning Commission to tie the two issues together. Eileen Murray: . Said she felt they were not related; early hours for 20 customers is not related to the parking shortage. The answer is that it is not legitimate and it appears to be a stretch. 15 - 25 Planning Commission N... 'Jes 8 January 9, 2007 . Said if the directional signs are necessary for additional parking and they are agreeable to doing that, that is fme. She said she did not think they should tie this application to that; this application is about extended early morning hours when there is no parking problem. Chair Miller opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati: . Said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time ahd said that the parkirig issue could be addressed through staff, and as per the attorney's statement, they are not related. . Said the parking on the narrow strip should be made available; it is the property owner's responsibility. . Com. Chien: . Said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Relative to the directional signage, he said he understand his colleagues' desire to have the parking issue resolved expeditiously; however, as the applicant stated, they are going to go to the property owner anyway, and through that process it doesn't guarantee that it is going to move any faster because the property owner will likely stall as well. Furthermore, the city attorney said there was no legal nexus and it is a far stretch for directional signage. He said . while he would like to tie the two together, he did not think they should do that; the responsibility falls on the property owner as they promised for quite a while now. . Supports the application without the condition for the directi,onal signage. Com. Wong: . Supports the application for the 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Supports staffs.recommendation regarding directional signage; and said he hoped that Peet's Coffee would work with the property owner to resolve his concern about parking. He asked that a sentence be added that if they cannot resolve it: at staff, level, staff bring it back to the Plannin~ Commission. Vice Chair Giefer: . . Supports staff's recommendation of opening at 5:30 a.m. with the directional signage. . She said it appeared that Peet's Coffee does not object to putting in the signs, and she felt it serves their customers. She said she would also like to see some results on staff's side; she said she was flexible with the push and pull regarding the property owner to solve the overall parking issue that exists.' Chair Miller: . Supports the application. Said he hoped that staff moves quickly to address the parking issue; it is more than taking reserved labels off the parking locations. As Com. Saadati suggested, perhaps it is putting Peet's or Panera Breads labels on those locations so that more parking is reserved for the businesses. Ciddy Wordell: . That is going beyond what can be asked given that it was left open as part of the use permit. Chair Miller: . He referred again to the owner stating at a meeting that he would make good on the parking whatever it. took. He said this location is underparked; the space between the parking on one side and the parking on the other side is substandard; and in general it is a problem; he 15 - 26 Planning Commission M ~es 9 January 9, 2007 promised us when we iiipproved the application that he would return to support our other solutions if we had a problem. He said he was almost reluctant to approve the application because if this is the leverage to do that, they should use that leverage despite the city attorney recommending against it. . Ciddy Wordell: · Said she did not recall the exact condition of the use permit, but the Planning Commission might need to invoke that condition if they determined that the parking problem has to be readdressed and in fact bring them back for that. Chair Miller: . Suggested that they research exactly what was approved and what the conditions were, to ensure that the Planning Commission is on firm ground. . He said he specifically recalled the property owner making that commitment. Ciddy Wordell: . Suggested they follow through with the research, report back to the Planning Commission, and if the Commission is ill a position to bring it back as a hearing item, staff can be directed to do so. Chair Miller: · Summarized that they handle the parking by going to the original hearing for the original use permit and moving forward in that manner. . . Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application . M-2006-07, without the conditioJl that there be directional signage installed. :....: Com. Wong: .; . Asked the Planning ~ommission for their opinion about the directional signage. Vice Chair Giefer: · Said she felt they needed the directional signage as a bandaid until the bigger issues are solved. Chair Miller: . Said he agreed. Com. Saadati: . Commented that the directional signage does not have to be permanent, it can be removable and Peef s Coffee can have it up in the back, sinlilar to a real estate sign, and it would provide direction for people on a temporary basis. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said the solution should be that the landlord put in additional signage that says there is parking at Peet's Coffee and Panera Breads. · She said three commissioners felt strongly that there needs to be something done immediately to address the parking. Com. Saadati: · Said that staff will follow up, and if the landlord doesn't comply, the permit would be revoked. 15 - 27 Planning Commission 11.. .tes 10 January 9, 2007 Com. Chien: . . Said they were discussing leverage and were always interested in how to get the' applicants to comply. He pointed out that in the present case, the leverage is that the current property owner is in violation of their agreement. He said they need to enforce that and make that happen; which is the reason he does not support putting the responsibility on the tenant, but on the property owner who made the original promise. No friendly amendment was proposed. (Vote: 2-3-0; Motion failed; Chair Miller, Com. Wong and Vice Chair Giefer voted No.). Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application M-2006-07 with the directional signs. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. .Chien voted No. He . said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time; however didn't see the legal nexus between the signage and the opening time.) Eileen Murray: . Asked if the directional signs were going to direct Panera Breads and Peet's Coffee customers into spaces that are now marked reserved. It is not known what arrangements the landlord has made with other tenants, whether or not they are paying for reserved parking; and. where are the directional signs to recommend where the people park until the Planning Department reviews the use permit. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the.intent is that it is open parking; and it would state that additional parking is available. The wording is in the condition; it is just available parking to the west. Eileen Murray: . Said she did not want to burden this applicant with that kind of competition or problem with other tenants on that property owner's property, where the property owner is actually responsible for abiding by the use permit. She said to put the tenants in competition or conflict might be a mistake. Chair Miller: · Said at this point there are some spaces designated reserved and they are not being' changed; they state there is further parking in this direction. There are some spaces that say reserved and some that don't say reserved. He said he was uncertain if there was any difference from the current situation. Eileen Murray: . Asked where the directional signs were directing people to park; what is the pmposal? Chair Miller: . Apparently it is just a general directional sign, they are not specific. Com. Wong: · Asked staff if the landlord could return under Old Business within 30 days or was a motion needed. 15 - 28 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Exhibit 0 Application: M-2006-07 Agenda Date: January 9, 2007 Applicant: Laura Tomas (Peet's Coffee & Tea) Owner: Stevens Creek Office Center Associates Location: 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 326-32-051 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Modification of a use permit (U-2004-04) to allow an opening time of 5:30 AM. RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the Modification to the Use Permit (U..2004-04) with recommended changes in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Site Area: Parking: Peet's Coffee Tenant SF: Total Building SF: Commercial/ Office/Residential P Heart of the City 29,185 square feet (.67 acres) . 35 on-site, severci1 hundred shared with adjacent parking spaces 1,834 square feet 7,100 square feet Hours of Operation Currently Allowed Hours: Proposed Hours for Peet's Coffee: 7:00 a;m. to II p.m., seven days a week 5:30 a.m: to 11 p.m., seven days a week Environmental Assessment: Categorica.ny Exempt BACKGROUND: The applicant, Laura TOlnas of Peet's Coffee and Tea, is requesting approval to modify an . existing use permit (U~2004-04) to allow Peet's Coffee & Tea shop located at 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard to begin its hours of operation at 5:30 a.m. Feet's Coffee & Tea is located in a building constructed in 2005 that is shared with Panera Bread and is located along the north side of Stevens Cre~k Boulevard, west of Saich Way. It is surrounded by a business office complex to the north and west, a restaurant to th~ east and commercial uses to the f?outh across StevenS Creek" Boulevard. There are no residential uses surrounding this site. The applicant was requested by. the Plarming Department to submit applications to extend hours for both of the Peet's Coffee & Tea shop locations in Cupertino after staff 15 .. 29 M-2006-06 Page 2 January 9, 2007 became aware in October during the hearings for a Starbucks coffee shop that both of the Peet's Coffee & Tea shop locations were operating earlier than the allowable 7 a.m: DISCUSSION: Peet's Coffee & Tea shop is requesting approval to operate between the hoUrs of 5:30 a.m. and 11 p.m. daily. Allowed hours are 7 a.m. to 1,1 p.m., so only the earlier opening time requires approval. The request is consistent with the proposed morning opening time of the other Peet's Coffee & Tea location on Homestead Road and with other coffee shop locations throughout the City that have been granted early opening times. Starbucks was granted 5:00 a.m. opening times for its locationS on the corner of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards and on the comer of Homestead and Wolfe Roads, which are in similar commercial locations like this Peet's Coffee & Tea shop. Peet's has already been opening at this time and wishes' to continue with these hours. Cupertino's Code Enforcement Division is not aware of any complaints related to its early morning hours at either of its Cupertino locations. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the proposed application, but recommends that a condition of approval be . added to address the confusion over allowable parkiIlg areas for both th~ Peet's Coffe'e and Panera Bread tenants. When this building was approved, the approval allowed for' shared parking between the adjacent office complex to the north ~d west and the Peet' ~ Coffee/Panera Bread building. Since the ,opening of these businesses in 2005, staff has received complaints from customers about the parking situation for this building. ' Additionally, some City Council members also expressed. their concerns about the ' parking confusion. Apparently, customers were not aware that they could park in the adjacent office complex behind the building and, instead, were parking on' adjacent properties. As a result, staff contacted the property owner a number of times requesting that directional signs be placed in the parking lot behind the building to notify customers where they could park. However, this has not yet been accomplished. Therefore, staff recommends adding the following condition of approval to require directional signs: "Within 30 days of this approval, the applicant shall install directional signage in the pal'king lot behind the Peet's CoffeejPanem Bread 'building and in the Peet's Coffee shop informing customel'S that additional parJdng is available in the adjacent office com.plex to the rear and to the .west." Enclosures: Model Resolution Plan Set 15 - 30 M-2006-06 Page 3 January 9, 2007 Submitted by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner c.:::::::::: I Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G: CupertinoNT /PlanningIPDREPOR T /pcU sereports/2006ureports/M-2006.,.07 .doc 15 - 31 M-2006-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM.:MISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (U-2004-04) TO ALLOW A COFFEE SHOP (pEET'S COFFEE & TEA) TO BEGIN HOURS OF OPERATION AT 5:30 A.M. IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING SECTION I: FINDINGS . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City.of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit Modification, as described in Section 1I ofthis Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findS that the application meets the following requirements: . . " a) That the use is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which. the proposed use is to be located. b) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. c) That the proposed use will not generate a level of traffic over and above that of the capacity. of thl existing street system. " d) That the proposed use i~ otherWise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working" in the neighborhood of such proposed uses, nor injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony" and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for use permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specifie~ in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application M-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. " SECTION 1I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2006-07 Applicant: . Laura Tomas (peet's Coffee & Tea) Location: 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard 15 - 32 Model Resolution Page-2- M-2006-07 January 9, 2007 SECTION ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. l. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All prior use permit conditions for U-2004-04 shall remain in effect, unless in conflict with the . conditions of approval for M-2006-07. . . 2. HOURS OF OPERATION Hours of operation shall be 5 :30 a.m. to II p.m. daily (Monday through Sunday). 3. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE Within 30 days of this approval, the applicant shall install directional signage in the parking lot behind the Peet's Coffee/Panera Bread building and in the Pe~t' s Coffee shop informing customers that additional parking is available in the adjacent office complex to the rear and to the west. 4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees~ dedication requirements, reservation reql1;irements; and other exactions. Pursuant to GovenIDlentCode 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 9th day of January 2007 at a regular meeting of the PI?IIDing Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAlN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVE Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 15 - 33 ~--"I ~ ~ i! .~ ~ ~ o ~ i 1 ~ II :! .I' . !R Id~'i i f-i H~. ql I 1 B e' !ll lhr .,=-" :J n 1-11 .I' i '. j I H ..fl'- I ! 11,& ="U u DB!!' 7.j 11 :!1"Jf i I'ii It j!!!! IL taliJ ~ ~ 'U "'J-II ~ .... 11 .. a e III ihlll I I ..e H ~J tot., Cl zz i~ p Ii un ~ G ..:~ z.l: 'e- ... <!} ~f h 11~~1 J" J.,!u 1~~5S-l ~j.lhEI .iSJ:",o .:!l'iSf_.:! rUS"1 hl,{-BI JJ~dh Jh..n~ IJ I j . ll. " ..-: I'! JII i~~~ ill II tlJ~f~.. Ifl} IJj~ll~ i~~~~ li]1 J)J)J~~ iiiii EE~~ I~Q;~~. !!-IJ luu!~1 I] l$~~ _tIJ~~;- f is!1:d Il r"i j!ifj~! JI~llj~j Ii ~J!~!t }lhni I" "5;if ~JiS;;! l jtnn! fHnU z ! U II. .s niuuU! E - ~ t iJ5 , :;!~:1l!::!l1l(iill 'Ii! I JI g I I .' l!! B =11 il! II f~ i ~ I i hh d !~ U lib ~ g ~ 81 i i i 2 g~!~ ~a ~ ~ ~ . II~~ ~~ ~g; ~I II ~. !I~~I il II ~i ill; I liU ;1 ;1 i ~~ i g 51~ ~i ~I ~; ~ift~ h ~il! Ii Ii u .I~; !I it Iii; Ii ;i Ii I~I! z I i bii il il! .H It IIIW d(ls II ~I!I ~ II . il~! III Ii IIII1 ii illi! III jilllll~ III fliil! ill il II 111111 I!III Iii !il !ll !illl ! ! ! t.?_ ""'"." ~&P .~ Cl t;- 5 ! JJ H.........._ I i J ! Dao~ Sc:MIDUU . !~_'.v 100, "'" ...... ....... DT I J:'!J'1l . ... ..... . .~:r; 0\ IllU oIlW oWl . .... ... . ,....4'.1.1. . ..... 'n"", "" """- ~~ . ,.,-.r'" c "'" ....."""" . . . Yofr.r.r C .... .....om..... , . .. 11 . t~.r." c .... ....,'"' , " I i i i- & A'IIIDOOll.1UllOCAll't ""IUIlfDOOllHAllDWMllNfbmuJlmUMHIlIITINTaI Tot'nCI HNlDW'MI OM:IU" H'IClFlID ~ JCRIOUU. ! .,~cuarrJlr. fICIllAOUlIafACUIUJa u. Al. e .JlaArMffIlT N4OJllK:.IIIIM11rNJ.W8M nMI.9lDSMD:nIl,~1Uf1\11CltU. ".ntllUClM AAlTO KOI'IIIMllfttd,lJt'WJt'Wt1W:WT'UltO'AUf,1fIOM.1lI<<JWUDGI I 0A17fIOAT. Ut't.DCll:f<<ltiAlD'WAIlUlATn\lllI:DOHtMlM.G'IIGT~TMlMAe41.'01' DOOa tw 0\ PlI\WIU fIQt ot4 OllADIACINTTOTMI cool nAT1I'tCl'l'RlllIJOOll,MUIT..... UHlDCIlIDPlJlllHGIUllMllSHOtMIo TKlIICHIHoW.II..mnu~USl11WlCIICIfCM "ICltON"~'o\CIl'CMJUMD. t I.UHl.ATeMII<<IPCIftCI.Oll.ontIItClPOP.ClM:tT1UDCIIDJratIMDlICoWPONMI , :.:;,:=::=:~. AIIBUVATIOHS ...... M. IlLUNtHUM 01" ,~'''''''''' I ~ TlMl'DlOmAft w.Me NOU.OWCUJl (11 ...-....... NIl. MirA&. , .- IC IOUDCOIII . IT_DI rna. .:W' IaUOCOlll'9'aOO ...- fLOOA. PLUlICn' Nora CD MtD1eM'M:CIIIIILI1L\1M (!) ACJ:IIIm.ICCJWrraAJllA, (!) =:=~~.::.~:.:; 11\ ctH'ttIILIttlOPDftMWII.....,"""'G.ltTOAUCtf. A-. v CIHrIllIJHla.~CMIIPDIUl\. ~ 0- IK1IMOI. TOww.m,DIT,trM.,) ~ "-:~-~ "- ') o ~,:~.::=~rn.v".mAHM1IAlU (!) ::::=~"':.,::::~mcrIIllAtfDux:A'MOIf Q) IN1HIIlNOST,wRlWlCMMflOlLDlIAWMDJ <!> "'1lD'lml1___rQfl~..aNKJWaCMDM."'" @ UI'.IMJ.I"",,"a.w.osurrcmJ. @) AHCMOItGMIMl1VI'MMRom.JBDmLtm @) McMOltnllHAnaHl\LJn4IDl.CW.a:lSftllUll'PUDlTAlLJIA? @) ftICIS'JIDwcnlCl&.lWIW @ NUaD"-\LL @) ~:o~~~~~..:..w;.~ JUWAClfutUJU,UlYATCllUIJ, IICtnJU.!.u @) IJCM'nfCmtfQOU @) PMMMr~M40DlMIHIIOMImclHl'ION'AClOfO'n'.1DMD. @) rlNf'lllamDft'WMGUMD @) fIlm.IUDaPlAl'TAlUPUIlHtIHIDAlfDacmlU.IDftrura. @ Al'rtfIMDUSTlDamTALnnfoJI4nrMlJ\lClll..IDltJlllOW:l'C. @ INIA1f11llJCMDft,JlIP.Dn'Nt.Jlf'" @ rAJnW.NT,YWTU'." @ TMIIMCUI,Mf'.ItIIUItl. ..... ~JlfALLYIIlln'ntA1'AU.~wru.ffOTCI:lNI'RaMUTfIl mM:l"\llW.IHftCKITTOPTHaIlCll'T1t'CJlAI. WArO.ElClnINClCOMJrnoMw.rl. ar.qutQDIVLU. ( ,,'.rvJ.P. o FlOO.. Pt.M I fl........ WALL !.IG.oH. "1'1MM4TDlMllllCW'AlLIY1AMDl.ClaD. 1:DI1'8'fCW'AU.MTC:KolIHDUl'IUlAU.C1?ID,AI~"'"'" - J4I rcmAAl1D"Ml~"".GAM~M.num..lrC.r:.""wn:rr.ttL~ IIm4 "till lVAf'tI M:n1CI "'IIATT. DfIUIATlllIf\l. RIJTllCCfol WMUo w,w, TO"MCVI1'14IC11l1'lG~taJtllUC1VlllAlO'fl."TMOfI_ UlCAnaH.WMLtan.a1'OllMAIaVLIDDITM...r.v. " tfDf4.MT1DYAlL.."G4MtTN.IfUbf.,,,D.c:...,WCft'.lO.Clfflcmt "'1CYP.1D.~GN._.tl4lWDnlIWATlJl.CUlIrr.WCMDnMn"MXttoI 1'IlOVIltI1'fSUIAT1tnf. urnCOI4 wnu. WAlL 1U r AlOft lttIeIlIJttG WllMCtfGTQ mucrotUIlMI'II.'liCIIttnt JMIOC MDn. MI'. on... VA? ........ "MlNtI1I'iW.''''' CIfI t Itrlle-. MlrAlntlDJAt uquntID" wr C1'I'.IO.QM Iffr,WloVla U4 WMfTI MIlAWIft CH m......,AItfT It1lI'l'I TOMATtM. 9AU.ta"AIO"IITHlCIlUNIJwtllAClNG1t)Inuc:tVIlIAICJ\iI. SlCUUlGI'lWIIIMlIMO'fI.UIl.DUAft.IM'I-"'" - f""'.Pu.NGm......Nar.. t CJ:lNtN11IlA1TOAl'JIcmoIPDllbI'nlUl:lft11WH.CMlACI.AHOClIWI IAMIlffClMC;l. nUWAWlHa.otIt4l:lTHlAAJASlWJ.HJf.lOCInf, IQUIINtD~'t.e- ftAIT1UDlMaCTllAHDI'Uft"Itt, ttc.t. 000. T.... . -- /~\ ~l ~II It. . :. \." ". '.. '. .......... ............. cq cg ~ cq cq Il!O 101D7Scm.1 C.. 8IwL CapadM. CA"'J4 1'uakSr.t . IS ,.. &tJdaIIl15D<4 80UJ 1111'" &,DdnJ'llO." = e! e ! ::l I - ~ u W 8 - . J: I .' U l.. ~ <J; e W J E J I E i U s 0; . . Ii: ~ Exhibit E ~ ~ .- . "-: ~-.~.._. . ... -'::...,!~_:_-~_. ~ " ~... . u' U ~____ r-r - : ~'::.~ _.'':- j.. -~ -' "'.~ . ~ ':'; . "0 .. _1._:....::..:....., . . .. . ~ ; ! -= : . ~ -, - . ,.: ~ ;: , ,- -, ~ . . '. ..-':0., - ::.c:~. ." -:.:....,-;-. ......... :.~~;.;. ~- :5 .'- - " :-:-1 > : ~ ~'_, t. . .;,- .., ... ,. ....: .-:. ~\-::- :-::-....... --1 ~ - ! ....... .~i~ ~;-...~;~~;~~.~.~.~~~-~:-: :.~. :'::. J! ", ~..:........ji-- :> ;, :=. -.~ . ~. '~'." : ... ....;.:.7~i:~~"',~.-~.'- ".: 15 - 36 I ~- @:; ~ l5 ~~~'~g-:~-; VAI.V1-vV>-'- _.:::. '~M l,.t".".'\I'"'' ,,;>1 :;" 10 ,S rlmmlllg Cmllmlssl"lI ~1~:.~. - - c/o' Cflll 'dL~ 11- ~~:.._- TABULATIONS Mr1!! AfII!A. ... ~& (J",,,. 9) HI!II' 1'I8ET.An. ........ 1...0 .ACl'llI!& f.5""~ ., HEW A.OOR AN.... 1.5, ACAE5 (6.~1-4 91 f'.AAK/HG. '1. ITAlLS TOf.4l. STAHDAAD ,...~ 7'IJ 5TA1.L5 CQ"PACT PAI8C:JN!!. (,""t.ll e6 6TALU ACCI!!!"1Il.1l ~ArCINGo 1 6TAU.6 ....Afoot AGel!5&. P"AfIKMa.l I "ALLa !l.516TAU..&""...,..,. .. , .1 1!)(1&TI4G CI$C>I \ 1_ (fJDAYCAIII!: LITTU! VlLUGe ~ '/ i 0 ..: 0 0: Cl ne Z -' -' W I- Ul :J: I- a: 0 z ~ ,i.__ 'If ~Tm I!MU)'" f _':i It CIr'WoI*""'Crwll!:I'......... ll!DNllLK10_I.OAL"",.,M ....."'"""o~~'-., ....,....t:#I~....~r.u..Am'lI ~~:~n:,= ._ .nIIIIl'III r"'Oel'l.DlD..........Pen~ ~~t"'DIICIWTIa ~ ....~~v,.. i *'.~.I~It""""-'C...fII:If , STEVENS CREEI< BOULEVARD PRalMINARY SITE PlAN ..... (J'I (,ol CO ~16TN:t """"'... ) (-', WHOLE FOODS MARKET CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY m~. m KoAn:hllecls.lnc. . @ :'~=~':4=1 ';~W.".' r::::i: b:J KEY IIAP EB i .~= .--~. ("\... "'" I . pUrtMiIlUllHlTJA. IEP'fEtI!!lMn,X'e 1'\.....ttG1WU!t1lffAl. oc:n:;IBlRU.~ FeWaI5"" crrr ~e",,~ 1'1.-"""'" ... ,. .". EB i PREUMlNAR1 SITE PLAN -. a- a SHaL -. BLDGPLAN ... ..., '-llfl" rff 4P' III III III III ~ '" I .....r. I i I I .._1. .. T".." I i II =.~_' ::ll i : 1& . (RJTURE SECURlTl GRILLE 3. LAYOUT REMOVED. GRILLE TO BE SUBMITTED TO CITI AT LATER DATE UNDER SEPARATE 6UBMITTALJ 1.3 las'-IfI" ................--.-.-.-.-.-..-...-...-" 124'-2" W~~ ~OO"$ 6UILDING ONE: FROFoeED ONE- 4 TUJo-eTORY 6UILDING (OCCUFANCY GROUP M WITH MINOR ACCEeeORY ueE 6) FIReT FLOOR II 62,4.32 e.F. (INTERIOR PLue MARKer HALL CANOPY) +264.5a' see CIVIL PW:::.S. 2'-6". 41f1'~4. IS'-'" p~ffZ.tAN o"'~5t-r' D N LANDING +262.5&' +264':'&' seE CIVIL DW:::.S. trt~~ Gri rJ1e;(L. ~ , N 3 AlA Q , Co \!\ '" o Q Q G [] @ [1 ~ ~ ~ or ITf ~ [ji ~ ~ ITI1 ~ ~ ~