13 Vallco Restaurant
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. g;.
Agenda Date: March 21, 2006
Application: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park)
Owner: Valleo International Shopping Center, LLC
Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-080
Application Surnmary:
· USE PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct a 5,910
square foot restaurant (Islands Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant
(California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Wolfe Road.
· TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to remove nine trees within the existing surface
parking lot to allow development of the restaurants and configuration of a
portion of the parking lot.
· ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended.
The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the
proposed mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-04.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution
No. 6377.
3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2006-04, in accordance with
Resolution No. 6378.
4. The tree removal permit, file number TR-2006-06, in accordance with Resolution No.
6379.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Commercialj Residential
P(CG)
13-{
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Val\co Restaurants
Page 2
March 21, 2006
Specific Plan:
Acreage (Net):
Existing Sears Store:
Proposed Building S.F.
California Pizza Kitchen:
Islands Restaurant:
Total Building S.F.:
Proposed Building Height
California Pizza Kitchen:
Islands Restaurant:
Heart of the City
12.4 acres
279,310 s.f.
6,020 s.f.
5,910 s.f.
291,240 s.f. (53.9%)
19.5 feet max.
30 feet max.
Total Mall Parking Proposed:
Total Mall Parking Required:
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Heart of the City
Specific Plan: . Yes
Environmental Assessment:
5,702 spaces
5,564 spaces
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of March 14, 2006, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend
approval of the project to construct two new restaurants, California Pizza Kitchen and
Islands Restaurants, at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe
Road at the Val\co Fashion Park shopping center.
DISCUSSION
The Commission recommended amendments and additional conditions of approval to
the project that have been incorporated into the resolutions as shown below:
1. Require a parking and traffic analysis and transportation demand rnanagement
(TOM) plan for the project. (Condition No. 21)
2. Require final review and approval of the landscape and irrigation plans by the
Design Review Committee. (Condition No.6)
3. Install bicycle parking and bicycle racks for the project. (Condition No. 11)
4. Enhance the east elevation of the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant and the
west elevation of the Islands restaurant with additional landscaping, outdoor
seating and/ or artwork. (Condition No. 5c)
5. Require cool roofing systems on the buildings in accordance with green building
measures. (Condition No. 12)
13-;)-
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Vallco Restaurants
Page 3
March 21,2006
6. Align the height of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the
restaurant buildings in Huntington Beach, as shown by photos presented at the
Planning Corrunission meeting, to mitigate the disparity in scale between the
buildings. (Condition No. Sa)
7. Provide muted color schemes for the restaurants. (Condition No. Sb)
8. Require odor abatement systems for the restaurants. (Condition No.4)
9. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the corrunon walkway between the
buildings in lieu stamped concrete. (Condition No. Se and 6)
10. Require that unused building materials be recycled. (Condition No. 13)
11. Provide additional landscaping to mitigate privacy impacts of the project from
the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood. (Condition No.6)
12. Require that the revised architectural and site plans be reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Corrunittee. (Condition No.5)
The Commission also heard from members of the public who spoke during the public
hearing and provided the following comments:
D The City should hold off on approving the restaurants until a comprehensive
study is conducted and the impacts of Valko's build out are reviewed.
D Valko is taking a piecemeal approach to planning and developing.
D Restaurant uses will revitalize Cupertino's economy.
D Existing ash trees along Stevens Creek and Wolfe should be protected and
retained.
D Care should be taken when installing the sidewalk between the existing ash trees
along Stevens Creek to ensure that the existing ash trees are not harmed.
D Restaurants with outdoor seating will create privacy impacts onto the
neighborhood along E. Estates Drive.
D Restaurants will result in traffic and parking impacts in the area.
D Make sure there is adequate parking for the restaurants.
D Palm trees should not be proposed for the project site.
D Landscaping should incorporate native, existing types of trees that fit the look of
Stevens Creek.
D Odor filtration systems should be required of all restaurants.
D Odor filtration systerns are expensive and should only be required as needed.
Subsequent to the preparation of the model resolutions, staff realized that a standard
condition of approval was inadvertently excluded pertaining to xeriscape landscaping
and pest control requirements of the City. Therefore, staff recorrunends that the Council
add the following new condition:
13-3
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Valko Restaurants
Page 4
March 21, 2006
Xeriscave Landscavin!l and Pest Control Measures
The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscaping plan, including water
conservation and pesticide reduction measures, in conformance with Chapter
14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in
Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6377, 6378, 6379
Exhibit A: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated March 14, 2006
Exhibit B: Letter submitted on March 10, 2006 by Al De Ridder
Plan Set
Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
L!æv.-e aluJ~ ¿7rÝ- '-;¡$-¡
David W. Knapp ð '
City Manager
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\ U-2006-02 CC Report.doc
/3-4
U-2006-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6377
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and
3) The proposed development is consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. U-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
/3-S
Resolution 6377
Page 2
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2006-02
Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz
and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK
Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions
contained in this Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020
square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building.
3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered
major by the Director of Community Development.
4. RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts
from the restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems
shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the associated restaurant(s).
Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of building permits.
5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans
incorporating the following modifications for review and approval by the Design
Review Committee (DRC):
a. Align the heights of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the
California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants in Huntington Beach, as
shown by the photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, in
order to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings
b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show
muted color schemes for the restaurants and consistency of colors
between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands.
13--(P
Resolution 6377
Page 3
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
c. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and the
west elevation of the Islands Restaurant with additional landscaping,
outdoor seating and/ or artwork.
d. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide
visual transitions between the buildings.
e. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the common walkway between
the restaurants in lieu of stamped concrete.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall subrnit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) that shall also
incorporate additional landscaping to mitigate the privacy impacts of the project
from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood, additional
landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to
create a "waiting garden" area, and permeable pavers/stones in lieu of stamped
concrete within the common walkway area.
7. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and
N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning
Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual
landscaping plan.
8. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to
be rernoved in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The
number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees
shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition,
the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
>- For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
>- No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
>- No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
>- Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
13-7
Resolution 6377
Page 4
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
Þ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
Þ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
Þ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided
prior to issuance of final occupancy.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to
construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall
be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of
$50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
11. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed
project in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100
of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
12. COOL ROOFING
In accordance with green building measures, the applicant shall install cool
(sustainable, energy efficient) roofing systems on the restaurant buildings.
13. UNUSED BUILDING MATERIALS
In lieu of disposing of unused building materials for the construction of the
project, the applicant shall be required to recycle the unused building materials.
14. SCREENING
All mechanical and otherequiprnent on the building or on the site shall be
screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and
materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the
mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equiprnent
and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building perrnits.
13-g
Resolution 6377
Page 5
V-2006-02
March 14, 2006
15. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK
Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall
be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter
Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and
the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade.
16. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant.
The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and
truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and
enclosed to the satisfaction of Public Works Department. The final plan shall be
subrnitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction
equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property.
18. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions. .
19. SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform
to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed.
20. PUBLIC ART
Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be
valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget,
not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall
develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and
approved by the Fine Arts Commission.
13-9
Resolution 6377
Page 6
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
21. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The applicant shall retain a traffic engineer to conduct a parking and traffic
analysis 6-9 months after opening of both restaurants to deterrnine if the parking
and on-site traffic patterns are sufficient to serve the restaurants. The applicant
shall commit to implementing a transportation demand management (TDM)
plan incorporating solutions such as parking cash-out and eco passes for
restaurant employees, valet parking for customers and traffic circulation. The
TDM plan, including the projected funding, shall be reviewed by the Design
Review Committee (DRC) prior to the issuance of building permits.
22. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and
sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications as required by the City Engineer.
23. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
24. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required.
25. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits rnaybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers andlor
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
26. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall cornply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing~ The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be
subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
13-/0
Resolution 6377
Page 7
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
28. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreernent with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Grading Permit Fee:
$ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $
2,000.00 min.
$ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or
$3,440.00 min.
e. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
b. Checking and Inspection Fee:
**
TBD
N/A
Bonds:
a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100%
Performance Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights
29. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
30. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
31. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board
since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of
development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that
the process has been completed.
13-11
Resolution 6377
Page 8
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
For copies of the Construction General Permit, the Nor and additional permit
information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at:
http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov / stormwtr / construction.html
32. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
Post-Construction Best Management Practices
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
. The permanent storm water quality best rnanagement practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
33. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to maintain all iterns, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City rnust enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
34. TRASH ENCLOSURES
A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a
building permit.
35. TRAFFIC
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required
to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic
Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA.
Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as
requirernents.
13 -,/2--
Resolution 6377
Page 9
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
36. SANITARY DISTRICT
The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the
Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtairunent of
permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for
the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and
Inspection Deposit will be required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong
Chien
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Is/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: \ Planning \ PD REPOR T\ RES \ 2006 \ U-2006-02 res. doc
I ?~'3
ASA-2006-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6378
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT)
AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE
ROAD (V ALLCO).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan,
and zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment
neighboring structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of
the City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
subrnitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning
on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. ASA-2006-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
IS-It.{-
Resolution 6378
Page 2
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04)
Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz
and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK
Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions
contained in this Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020
square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building.
3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered
major by the Director of Community Development.
4. RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts
from the restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systerns
shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the associated restaurant(s).
Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of building permits.
5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans
incorporating the following modifications for review and approval by the Design
Review Committee (DRC):
a. Align the heights of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the
California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants in Huntington Beach, as
shown by the photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, in
order to mitigate the disparity in scale between the two buildings
b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show
muted color schemes for the restaurants and consistency of colors
between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands.
Is--rÇ
Resolution 6378
Page 3
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
c. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and the
west elevation of the Islands Restaurant with additional landscaping,
outdoor seating and/ or artwork.
d. Provide some sirnilar architectural elements on both buildings to provide
visual transitions between the buildings.
e. Provide permeable pavers/ stones within the common walkway between
the restaurants in lieu of stamped concrete.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC) that shall also
incorporate additional landscaping to mitigate the privacy impacts of the project
from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood, additional
landscaping within the common walkway area between the two buildings to
create a "waiting garden" area, and permeable pavers/stones in lieu of stamped
concrete within the common walkway area.
7. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and
N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning
Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual
landscaping plan.
8. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to
be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The
number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees
shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition,
the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, uruess
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
13-16
Resolution 6378
Page 4
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection rneasures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided
prior to issuance of final occupancy.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to
construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall
be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of
$50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
11. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed
project in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100
of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
12. COOL ROOFING
In accordance with green building measures, the applicant shall install cool
(sustainable, energy efficient) roofing systems on the restaurant buildings.
13. UNUSED BUILDING MATERIALS
In lieu of disposing of unused building materials for the construction of the
project, the applicant shall be required to recycle the unused building materials.
14. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be
screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. Screening materials! colors shall match building features and
rnaterials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the
mechanical equiprnent that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment
and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
I~-IÎ
Resolution 6378
Page 5
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
15. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK
Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall
be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter
Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and
the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade.
16. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant.
The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and
truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and
enclosed to the satisfaction of Public Works Department. The final plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
17. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction
equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property.
18. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirernents, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
19. SIGN AGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform
to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed.
20. PUBLIC ART
Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be
valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget,
not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall
develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and
approved by the Fine Arts Commission.
13-/8'
Resolution 6378
Page 6
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
21. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The applicant shall retain a traffic engineer to conduct a parking and traffic
analysis 6-9 months after opening of both restaurants to determine if the parking
and on-site traffic patterns are sufficient to serve the restaurants. The applicant
shall commit to implementing a transportation demand management (TDM)
plan incorporating solutions such as parking cash-out and eco passes for
restaurant employees, valet parking for customers and traffic circulation. The
TDM plan, including the projected funding, shall be reviewed by the Design
Review Committee (DRC) prior to the issuance of building permits.
22. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and
sidewalk construction shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications as required by the City Engineer.
23. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
24. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required.
25. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
26. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing, The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be
subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
J 3-ICj
Resolution 6378
Page 7
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
28. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Grading Permit Fee:
$ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $
2,000.00 min.
$ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or
$3,440.00 min.
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
**
b. Checking and Inspection Fee:
TBD
N/A
Bonds:
a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100%
Performance Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights
29. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
30. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
31. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and rnust prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board
since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of
development, which exceeds one acre. The city rnust obtain documentation that
the process has been completed.
I 3 - .J.-O
Resolution 6378
Page 8
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit
information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at:
http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html
32. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
Post-Construction Best Management Practices
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
33. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to rnaintain all items, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
34. TRASH ENCLOSURES
A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a
building permit.
35. TRAFFIC
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required
to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic
Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA.
Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as
requirements.
13-2-/
Resolution 6378
Page 9
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
"
36. SANITARY DISTRICT
The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirernents of the
Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and! or obtainment of
permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Irnprovement plans for
the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and
Inspection Deposit will be required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong
Chien
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Is/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Is/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Plarming Commission
G: \ Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ 2006\ASA-2006-04 res.doc
J 3 .~ ;J-:J--
TR-2006-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6379
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE NINE (9) TREES FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESTAURANT BUILDINGS AND
RECONFIGURA TION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA AT V ALLCO
F ASHION PARK SHOPPING CENTER
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2006-06 (EA-2006-04)
Mike Rohde, Valko Fashion Park
10123 N Wolfe Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
to remove nine (9) trees as part of the construction of two restaurant buildings and
reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will be providing new landscaping within the reconfigured
parking lot area and around the two new restaurant buildings for the replacernent of
trees proposed to be removed and for the mitigation of the visual impacts of the
proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TR-2006-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of March 14, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein.
/3-d.-3
Resolution 6379
Page 2
TR-2006-06
March 14,2006
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROV At ACTION
Approval is based upon the Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects
dated March 1, 2006, consisting of the sheets labeled Tree Removal Plan and
Landscape Plan.
2. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N.
Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's
architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall
be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the
following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicirúty of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to
issuance of final occupancy.
4. TREE PROTECTION BOND:
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director
of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the
project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a
13-.>-t
Resolution 6379
Page 3
TR-2006-06
March 14, 2006
tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be
provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a staternent of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong
Chien
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I s I Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Is/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Cornrnission
c:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\RES\ 2005\ TR-2006-06 res. doc
I ::; -.J-.t;
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, Agenda Date: March 14,2006
TR-2006-06, and EA-2006-04
Applicant (s): Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park)
Property Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road
Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road,
corner of the Sears parking lot at Valleo Fashion Park shopping
center.
Application Summary:
1. USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a
5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot
restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Wolfe Road.
2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to remove nine trees within the existing surface
parking lot to allow development of the restaurants and reconfiguration of a
portion of the parking lot.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended.
The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the
proposed mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the above
applications to the City Council based on the model resolutions.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Specific Plan:
Acreage (Net):
Existing Sears Store:
Proposed Building S.F.
California Pizza Kitchen:
Islands Restaurant:
Total Building S.F.:
Commercial/ Residential
P(CG)
Heart of the City
12.4 acres
279,310 s.f.
6,020 s.f.
5,910 s.f.
291,240 s.f. (53.9%)
J 3 -;L(,
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006_06, EA-2006-04
Vallco Restaurants
Page 2
Proposed Building Height
California Pizza Kitchen:
Islands Restaurant:
19.5 feet max.
30 feet max.
Total Mall Parking Proposed:
Total Mall Parking Required:
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Heart of the City
Specific Plan: Yes
5,702 spaces
5,564 spaces
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a use permit and architectural and site approval to construct
two restaurants on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road at
Valko Fashion Park. The project site is currently a portion of the Sears parking lot at
the shopping center.
The project also entails a tree removal permit to remove nine existing trees in the
parking lot that will be reconfigured for this development. The trees proposed to be
removed include four pine trees and five carob trees.
The subject site is surrounded by Sears department store and the Valko Fashion Park
shopping center to the north, two-story office buildings to the east across N. Wolfe Rd.,
and retail/ commercial uses to the west and to the south across Stevens Creek Blvd.
DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The proposed project entails construction of two restaurant buildings to be occupied by
California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant and Islands Restaurant. California Pizza Kitchen is
proposed to be 6,020 square feet with a seating capacity of 220 seats. Islands Restaurant
is proposed to be 5,910 square feet with a seating capacity of 223 seats.
Heart of the City Specific Plan
The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
The following table indicates the project's compliance with the applicable development
requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
/ 3-;)- 1
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
ValIeo Restaurants
Page 3
Height
ûiied/Allôwed
Commercial Retail
Develo ment
Max. 45 feet
Restaurants
Yes
Use
CPK: 19.5 feet max.
Islands: 30 feet max
Yes
Setbacks:
Corner parcel
(along both
street frontages)
9 feet (from Stevens Creek
Parkway Landscape Easement)
and 35 feet building-from-curb
setback
20 ft. along Stevens Creek
15 ft. along Wolfe Road.
35 feet building-from-curb
setback.
Yes.
Side
(west side only)
Half the height of the building CPK: Approx. 720 ft.
or 10 feet, whichever is greater Islands: Approx. 590 ft.
Yes.
Rear
1.5 times the height of the
building, with 20 feet min.
CPK: Approx. 490 ft.
Islands: Approx. 520 ft.
Yes
Sidewalk
10 foot parkway strip required
Condition requires
relocatin the sidewalk
Yes
Site Layout
The two restaurants will be situated along Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The
parking will be reconfigured to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be
located within close walking distance to the restaurants.
Both restaurants will provide outdoor patio seating areas facing Stevens Creek Blvd.
The outdoor seating areas will also face a common walkway that will serve both
restaurants and will be accessible from the parking lot area. A fountain is also proposed
in the middle of the common walkway between the outdoor patio seating areas for the
restaurants. California Pizza Kitchen is proposing a total of 44 outdoor patio seats.
Islands Restaurant is proposing a total of 20 outdoor patio seats.
Due to the high profile position of these buildings, staff believes that public art should
be located on the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, similar to the
requirement for the Menlo Equities project to provide public art on the northeast corner
of this intersection. The art work should be incorporated into the project. A condition
of approval includes this requirement.
Architectural Design
The architectural designs of the two restaurant buildings are distinct with each
restaurant highlighting its own corporate architectural style and image. This results in
different architectural designs for the two restaurants that will be next to each other on
a highly visible commercial corner.
California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant is proposing a one-story, 19.5 foot high building
that emphasizes a horizontal profile with rounded building elements. The exterior
materials will consist of EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) wall materials and
stone veneer along the building base. The conceptual color schemes indicate use of both
light and dark tones of yellow and a terra cotta color for the exterior building colors.
13-~
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Valleo Restaurants
Page 4
California Pizza Kitchen will have the more visibly prominent location of being situated
on the corner facing both Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road.
Islands Restaurant is proposing a one-story, 30 foot high building that emphasizes a
vertical profile with hipped roof elements anchoring the ends of the building. The
exterior materials consist of a stucco exterior and clay tile roofing over the hipped roof
elements. The conceptual color schemes indicate wool, tan, and terra cotta colors.
The City's Architectural Advisor, Larry Cannon, has reviewed the plans and makes the
following comments as shown on the enclosed drawings. In summary, his comments
relate to:
1. The large disparity in scale of the buildings
2. Confusing double entries to California Pizza Kitchen along the north elevation
3. Consider rotating the buildings to create a larger common walkway area
between the buildings
Parking
The proposed project is part of the overall master development plan for Valko Fashion
Park and is considered a part of the retail! commercial component of the mall.
Therefore, the proposed restaurants are not required to provide separate parking. The
overall parking plan for the mall proposes a total of 5,702 parking spaces, which is
inclusive of the restaurants and build out of the mall per the master development plan.
The number of parking spaces required for the master development plan is 5,564
spaces. Therefore, the proposed parking will exceed the required number of parking
spaces for the mall.
Although the restaurants are not required to provide parking separately for the project,
the applicant is reconfiguring the adjacent parking lot to maximize the number of close-
by parking spaces, and has reconfigured the parking to provide the approximate
number of parking spaces that would have been required for the restaurants at a ratio
of 1 parking space for each 3 seats, if separate parking were required. While these
parking spaces are being provided for the convenience of the restaurants, these spaces
are not for the exclusive use of the restaurants and are part of the shared overall
parking for the mall.
Tree Removal Plan/Conceptual Landscape Plan
The proposed project intends to remove a total of nine trees, including four pine trees
and five carob trees. These trees are currently within landscape islands in the interior
parking lot area behind the proposed restaurants. The applicant is requesting removal
of these trees to modify the parking lot area.
The conceptual landscape plan illustrates that landscaping will be provided in the
reconfigured parking area, replacing existing trees to be removed, and also surrounding
the restaurant buildings. Although the landscape plan does not indicate type and size
13-~9
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Valleo Restaurants
Page 5
of landscaping to be planted, the plan indicates that the frontage of the site facing
Stevens Creek Blvd. will be enhanced with additional landscaping behind the
landscaped parkway. The conceptual landscape plan also shows landscaping alongside
the common walkway between the two buildings and along the building frontage
facing the parking lot area.
Sidewalk
The existing streetscape along Stevens Creek Blvd. in front of the project site consists of
a curbside sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. that is adjacent to a landscaped
parkway. The landscaped parkway consists of a double row of mature ash trees
planted in rows. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide an
improved streetscape that would locate the sidewalk away from the curbside and install
it between the two rows of mature ash trees. This would provide a consistent transition
between the streetscapes along Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road, and would also
match the improvements along Stevens Creek Blvd. across the street one block to the
east in front of the MeIÙo Equities project site.
Along the Wolfe Road frontage, the streetscape is improved with a sidewalk located
between two landscaped parkways, one of which is adjacent to the street curb. Each of
the landscaped parkways consists of a row of mature ash trees that have been planted
in rows.
Signage
The signage that is shown on the elevations is not a part of this application package.
The signage is conceptual to demonstrate possible locations for the placement of
signage for the restaurants.
A condition of approval has been incorporated into the model resolutions that will
require the applicant to submit signage for review and approval by the City. The
signage shall comply with the sign program for the Valko Fashion Park shopping
center.
Cornmunity Concerns
On March 7, 2006, the City received a letter (See Exhibit C) from Virginia Tamblyn
expressing concerns regarding the potential for parking, traffic and odor impacts as a
result of the restaurants. Ms. Tamblyn also requests that odor filtration equipment be
required of the restaurants to mitigate odor irnpacts. A condition of approval is
proposed to require odor abatement systems.
Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
At the March 8, 2006 ERC meeting, the ERC recommended the following:
1. A preliminary analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed project shall be
required. The traffic analysis shall investigate the possibility of providing a bus
duck-out stop on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. in front of the project site
I 3--- ß Ò
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
VaIlco Restaurants
Page 6
and promoting better pedestrian connectionsfwalkability from the project site to
the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The Planning Commission shall review the number and location of trees for tree
replacements as a result of the proposed tree removals.
3. The applicant shall modify the design of the buildings to blend in with the rest of
the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff is recommending changes to the proposed plans that are incorporated into the
model resolutions, as follows:
1. Require that the applicant submit revised plans to the Community Development
Department of the following modifications for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development and Architectural Advisor prior to
issuance of building permits:
a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale
between the two buildings.
b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show
consistency in colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands.
c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a
restaurantf storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide
visual transitions between the buildings.
2. Require a detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Community Development that shall also include additional landscaping
within the common walkway area between the two buildings to create a
"waiting garden" area.
3. Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek
Blvd. to rninirnize destruction of the tree roots. These irnprovements shall be
carried along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Blvd. to Perimeter Road from N.
Wolfe Road.
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolutions
Exhibit A: Comments from Larry Cannon, Architectural Advisor
Exhibit B: Initial Study and Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee
Exhibit C: Letter from Virginia Tamlyn
Plan Set
13-3 I
Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04
Vallco Restaurants
Page 7
Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~
G: \ Planning \ POREPORT\pcUsereports \ U_2006_2.doc
13~~t..--
U-2006-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,910
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT) AND A 6,020 SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE ROAD (V ALLCO).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title; and
3) The proposed development is consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. U-2006-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 14,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
/3-33
Model Resolution
Page 2
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2006-02
Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz
and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK
Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions
contained in this Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020
square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building.
3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered
major by the Director of Community Development.
4. RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts
from the restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems
shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the associated restaurant(s).
Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of building permits.
5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans to
the Community Development Departrnent of the following modifications for
review and approval by the Director of Community Development and
Architectural Advisor:
a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale
between the two buildings.
b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show
consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands.
c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
13 - 3+
Model Resolution
Page 3
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a
restaurant/ storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide
visual transitions between the buildings.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development that shall
also include additional landscaping within the common walkway area between
the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area.
7. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and
N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning
Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual
landscaping plan.
8. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to
be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The
number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees
shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition,
the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
:>- For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
:>- No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
:>- No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
:>- Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
:>- Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
:>- Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
:>- A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
J,3-35
Model Resolution
Page 4
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided
prior to issuance of final occupancy.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to
construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall
be covered by a tree protection.bond. A tree protection bond in the arnount of
$50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
11. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be
screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and
materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the
mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment
and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
12. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK
Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall
be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter
Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and
the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade.
13. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant.
The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and
truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and
enclosed to the satisfaction of Public Works Department. The final plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction
equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property.
Is-3(,
Model Resolution
Page 5
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
15. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be lega\1y
barred from later cha\1enging such exactions.
16. SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform
to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed.
17. PUBLIC ART
Prior to occupancy, the applicant sha\1 insta\1 public art on the project site on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be
valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4 %) of the total project budget,
not to exceed $100,000. Prior to insta\1ation of the public art, the applicant sha\1
develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and
approved by the Fine Arts Commission.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
18. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavernent work and
sidewalk construction sha\1 be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications as required by the City Engineer.
19. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
20. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required.
13-31
Model Resolution
Page 6
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
21. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
22. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
23. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing, The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be
subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
24. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storrn drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
b. Checking and Inspection Fee:
$ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $
2,000.00 min.
$ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or
$3,440.00 min.
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
**
a. Grading Permit Fee:
TBD
N/A
Bonds:
a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100%
Performance Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
13~3~
Model Resolution
Page 7
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights
25. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must file for a Nor (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board
since this portion of development is part of a larger common plan of
development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that
the process has been completed.
For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit
inlormation consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at:
http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html
28. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REOUIREMENTS
Post-Construction Best .Management Practices
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff frorn the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
13~3 'J
Model Resolution
Page 8
U-2006-02
March 14, 2006
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
rurming with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant rurming with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
29. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
30. TRASH ENCLOSURES
A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a
building permit.
31. TRAFFIC
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required
to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic
Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA.
Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as
requirements.
32. SANITARY DISTRICT
The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the
Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of
permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for
the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and
Inspection Deposit will be required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Plarming Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
1'3 ~L{ó
Model Resolution
Page 9
U-2006-02
March 14,2006
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: \ Planning \ PDREPOR T\ RES \ 2006 \ U-2006-02 res.doc
13~<-I1
ASA-2006-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 5,910 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (ISLANDS RESTAURANT)
AND A 6,020 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN) ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND WOLFE
ROAD (V ALLCO).
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan,
and zoning ordinance;
3. The proposa! will use materials and design elements that compliment
neighboring structures; .
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of
the City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning
on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
3A-z..-
Model Resolution
Page 2
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
No. ASA-2006-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 14, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04)
Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
10123 N. Wolfe Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz
and Ruth Architects dated March 1, 2006, consisting of 7 sheets titled Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, Island Floor Plan, Island Elevations, CPK Floor Plan, CPK
Elevations, and Tree Removal Plan, except as may be amended by the Conditions
contained in this Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to construct two restaurant buildings consisting of a 6,020
square foot building and a 5,910 square foot building.
3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered
major by the Director of Community Development.
4. RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts
from the restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems
shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the associated restaurant(s).
Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of building permits.
5. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans to
the Community Development Department of the following modifications for
review and approval by the Director of Community Development and
Architectural Advisor:
a. Align the heights of the two buildings to mitigate the disparity in scale
between the two buildings.
¡~/+3
Model Resolution
Page 3
ASA-2006-04
March 14,2006
b. Provide a proposal of final color schemes for both restaurants that show
consistency of colors between California Pizza Kitchen and Islands.
c. Provide outdoor seating along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
d. Enhance the east elevation of California Pizza Kitchen to provide a
restaurant/ storefront appearance along the N. Wolfe Road frontage.
e. Provide some similar architectural elements on both buildings to provide
visual transitions between the buildings.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development that shall
also include additional landscaping within the common walkway area between
the two buildings to create a "waiting garden" area.
7. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and
N. Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning
Commission's architectural and site approval review of the conceptual
landscaping plan.
8. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for the trees proposed to
be removed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. The
number and location of trees to be planted on site to fulfill as replacement trees
shall be incorporated into the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building perrnit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition,
the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
3~Lj~
Model Resolution
Page 4
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
> Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
> A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided
prior to issuance of final occupancy.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the
Director of Community Development that are not required to be removed to
construct the project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall
be covered by a tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of
$50,000 shall be provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
11. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be
screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and
materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the
mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment
and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
12. NEW AT-GRADE SIDEWALK
Sidewalks shall be constructed between the trees at grade along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to minimize destruction of the tree roots. These improvements shall
be provided along the full frontage of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Perimeter
Road from N. Wolfe Road. The sidewalk shall be reconstructed on grade, and
the landscaping shall be recontoured to match the sidewalk grade.
13. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant.
The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and
truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and
enclosed to the satisfaction of Public Works Department. The final plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
13As
Model Resolution
Page 5
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
14. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction managernent plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction
equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property.
15. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
16. SIGN AGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform
to the City Sign Code. Applicant may apply for a sign exception as needed.
17. PUBLIC ART
Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Wolfe Road. The public art shall be
valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4 %) of the total project budget,
not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the public art, the applicant shall
develop and submit a public art plan for the project to be reviewed and
approved by the Fine Arts Commission.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
18. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, including but not limited to asphalt pavement work and
sidewalk constructiün shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications as required by the City Engineer.
19. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
20. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, if required.
13-Yh
Model Resolution
Page 6
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
21. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
22. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
23. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be
subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
24. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Grading Permit Fee:
$ 6% of On-Site Improvement Costs or $
2,000.00 min.
$ 6% of Off-Site Improvements Costs or
$3,440.00 min.
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: N/ A
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
**
b. Checking and Inspection Fee:
TBD
N/A
Bonds:
a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100%
Performance Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
ls-t.t1
Model Resolution
Page 7
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights
25. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and rnust prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board
since this portion of development is part of a larger corrunon plan of
development, which exceeds one acre. The city must obtain documentation that
the process has been completed.
For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit
information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at:
http:!www.swrcb.ca.gov / stormwtr / construction.html
28. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REOUIREMENTS
Post-Construction Best Management Practices
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Managernent Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
13- Y- ~
Model Resolution
Page 8
ASA-2006-04
March 14, 2006
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
29. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
30. TRASH ENCLOSURES
A trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a
building permit.
31. TRAFFIC
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) along with a Parking Analysis will be required
to determine the impacts, if any, of this potential development. The Traffic
Department may have additional comments after review of the TIA.
Improvements to traffic signals and pedestrian facilities will be included as
requirements.
32. SANITARY DISTRICT
The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of the
Cupertino Sanitary District, including payment of fees and/ or obtainment of
permits as required by the Cupertino Sanitary District. Improvement plans for
the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and
Inspection Deposit will be required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
13-'-I-c,¡
Model Resolution
Page 9
ASA-2006-04
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\ Planni!1g\ PDREPORT\ RES\ 2006\ ASA-2006-04 res.doc
March 14,2006
APPROVED:
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
\6~5b
TR-2006-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE NINE (9) TREES FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESTAURANT BUILDINGS AND
RECONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA AT VALLCO
FASHION PARK SHOPPING CENTER
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2006-06, (EA-2006-04)
Mike Rohde, Valko Fashion Park·
10123 N Wolfe Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
to remove nine (9) trees as part of the construction of two restaurant buildings and
reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will be providing new landscaping within the reconfigured
parking lot area and around the two new restaurant buildings for the replacement of
trees proposed to be removed and for the mitigation of the visual impacts of the
proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconc\usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TR-2006-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of March 14, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein.
13-51
Model Resolution
Page 2
TR-2006-06
March 14,2006
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVAL ACTION
Approval is based upon the Exhibits submitted by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects
dated March 1, 2006, consisting of the sheets labeled Tree Removal Plan and
Landscape Plan.
2. TREE EVALUATION
The health and effectiveness of the ash trees along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and N.
Wolfe Road streetscapes shall be evaluated as part of the Planning Commission's
architectural and site approval review of the conceptual landscaping plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall
be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the
following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
~ For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
~ No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, uruess
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
~ No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the
dripline of the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be everuy spread inside the tree projection fence to
a four-inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the
protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews before building permit
stage, during construction and before final occupancy of the garage. A report
ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to
issuance of final occupancy.
4. TREE PROTECTION BOND:
All Evergreen Ash trees or any other significant trees as determined by the Director
of Community Development that are not required to be removed to construct the
project or were identified with health or structure problems, shall be covered by a
13~ 5.:t--
Model Resolution
Page 3
TR-2006-06
March 14, 2006
tree protection bond. A tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 shall be
provided prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein rnay include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
13-53
Page 1 of 1
Aki Honda
From:
Sent:
To:
Larry Cannon [cdgplan@pacbell.net]
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11 :50 AM
Aki Honda
Subject: Vallco Restaurants
Aki
The main issue here seems to be the rather different scales of the two structures and their very close
proximityto each other. I don't have any way to suggest modifications to the architecture without
substantially altering the nature of the restaurants. You might try to see if the Islands structure could be
reduced in bulk and height some and to give it more of a horizontal profile. And, then perhaps some
more emphasis on a vertical element at the other restaurant's entry might make them better neighbors to
each other. In any event, I do not see the merits ofrotating the two restuarants off of the street grid. I
also find the two entries at the CPK restaurant a bit confusing - seems to diminish the strength of the
common area between the restaurants.
Larry
/3-Scf
3/1/2006
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
February 14, 2006
Elevation Comments and Suggestions
VALLCO FASHION PARK RESTAURANTS
Cupertino
South Elevation
(Stevens Creek Blvd. Side)
Will there be signage on
this restaurant structure?
i
slands
~.. ".'k~ 'Ii'
:y -
. '..~.. ....r;.¡.~1
..~: ~~,.~
, -
1
!
more square profile
----~:..",.:=--=-----------=+
--- - ''''''r-';':'''~:= , --,.--=-
Long
I
low profile
Door to outdoor dining not shown on elevation
Also, does outdoor dining area have a covering?
,.
------------------
------->
Large disparity in scale for buildings
so physically close together with
little space for landscaping to buffer
and provide a visual transition
(parking lot side)
""C,,
CPK
North Elevation
;:,~~.,
~. -'
~,of, .
~
Double entry a bit
more confusing for this restaurant
r-
'o'
Entry reasonably clear for this
restaurant
V\
u')
\
~' .. ,,^
.. >", ~'J
.:.. -
~¡-t
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
February 14. 2006
Site Plan Comments and Suggestions
VALLCO FASHION PARK RESTAURANTS
Cupertino
illL-L! -
""-""-
""-""-
""-",,-
""-",,-
""-",,-
""-",,-
""-""-
""-~
""-"'-,
~/
b
:i¡
.
---
N
<..
..--
(-
\ \\i\t\i\\®\w\ i
j}JJ-~~1
___ I
"
"
-
~
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
----1_
~
,
Consider a common waiting "garden"
with benches under the trees and
strengthen entries orientation to this element
"'.....",(
,
~
cf
Consider rotating and offsettõng
the two buildings to provide more
space between to mitigate large
scale difference and allow some
buffering landscaping
~
\~
~
-
~~r.·~.. 103~g~~~r;Ä:e~8~
.,.tt.. Cupertino. CA 95014
CITY OF (408) 777-3308
CUPEIQ1NO FAX (408) 777-3333
"". ..... . .... ........ . .' . . . ..........>.9S~~~~i~~;S~~~I?pm~n~R~g~.~~.~~~..>
~j' ¡ ·..g.INITlAb ~TpDY:.ENYI~9":lMì:N"A~.~y~Ç~A]jf,~~QHtS,'5H.~I~~!¡,~¡)¡\j:1tç~
Staff Use Only
EA File No.EA-2006-04
Case File No. U-2006-02; ASA-2006-04
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title: California Pizza Kitchen & Islands Restaurants at Vallco
Project Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road
Project Description: The proiect is a request to construct two restaurant buildinQs at an
existinq shoppinQ center on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe
Road. California Pizza Kitchen Restaurant is proposed to be 6.020 square feet with a
seatinq capacitv of 220 seats. Islands Restaurant is proposed to be 5.910 square feet
with a seatinq capacitv of 223 seats.
Environmental Setting:
The restaurants are proposed to be constructed on the northwest corner of Stevens
Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road on a portion of the Sears parkinq lot at the Vallco
Fashion Park shoppinq center. The site is surrounded by Sears and the shoppinQ center
to the north. two-stOry office buildinqs to the east across N. Wolfe Road. and
retail/commercial uses to the west and to the south across Stevens Creek Blvd.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - 540.580 s.l. Building Coverage - 53.9% Exist. Building - 279.310 s.f.
Proposed Bldg. - 11.930 s.f. Zone - P(CG) G.P. Designation - Commercial/Residential
Assessor's Parcel No. - 316-20-080
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total s.f.
Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
D Monta Vista Design Guidelines D S. De Anza Conceptual
D N. De Anza Conceptual D S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
X Heart 01 the City Specilic Plan D Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - 11.930 s.l. FAR - .53.9%
Employees/Shift - NA Parking Required - 156 spaces Parking Provided - 156 spaces
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES X NO D
3~5'Î
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES
1. Land Use Element
2. Public Safety Element
3. Housing Element
4: Transportation Element
5. Environmental Resources
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development
7. Land Use Map
8. Noise Element Amendment
9. City Rldgeline Policy
10. Constraint Maps
28. Cupertino Sanitary District
29. Fremont Union High School District
30. Cupertino Union School District
31. Pacific Gas and Electric
32. Santa Clara County.Fire Department
33. County Sheriff
34. CALTRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Ciara Valley Water District
36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program
36c San Jose Water Company
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water Utility
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
43. CalEP A Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site
43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater
Discharge Permit Issued to the City of
Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
43c Hydromodification Plan
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History
Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking Ordinance 1277
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents
18. City Noise Ordinance
18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Plan
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES
23. County Planning Department
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Mldpeninsula Regional Open Space District
27. County Parks and Recreation Department
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
scope/characteristics
47. ABAG Projection Series
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Complete êl! Information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete. the checklist
Information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions. you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely. and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each paqe.
F. Upon completing the checklist. sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit.
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
/Project Plan Set of Legislative Document _
/Location map with site clearly marked : .. ." : '
(when applicable) · . .., .,
. . .. .. . I'
13-s-g
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
,----··--·---··---·---···----1-----,
i I
r---'
I "
I ~~ I ,,- 0 ,,- i
to c c: .- " ,
-C1 - C1 0- <Ura....1 - ,
, ISSUES: I .~ 0 ~ J::o.c:'¡::;~ ..c:: U U I U i
- .- I-;;!: co 0 I-¡,¡:m o C1
i [and Supporting Information Sources] 2~ ~ ::¡ï:: ~.~e- I.n'- C. zCl. !
g¡ .~.§ I E !
1 o.~- Q) C) ~ 0
; c..cn ..Joo :!Eu ..Jcn I
" ,
I , ,
- I
I I -l
i I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
;
-. j
¡ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D ŒJ i
I
! scenic vista? [5,9,24.41.44] ;
, ---.J
, I
i b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D ŒJ
i including, but not limited to, trees, rock [
I
\ outcroppings. and historic buildings within a I
! state scenic highway? [5,9,11.24,34.41.44] i
I
,
! c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D ŒJ I
I
I character or quality of the site and its I
I
I surroundings? [1.17,19,44] I
I d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D ŒJ I D i
I glare. which would adversely affect day or !
I ;
I nighttime views in the area? [1,16.44] I I
,
c
I
i Items a. b. and c - No Impact I
i There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the proposed project will have no I
\ adverse effects on scenic vistas Of scenic resources. The proposed project Îs also not anticipated to degrade I'
i the existing visual character of the site, given that the site is currently an existing surface parking lot. I
I
i Item c - Less than Sionificant I
\ The proposed restaurants will create a new source of light in the area; however, this source of light will not i
I adversely or substantially impact the area. The proposed lighting associated with the restaurants is anticipated I
\ to be in keeping with the tvoe of commercial/restaurant II htlno that exists along Stevens Creek Blvd.
III. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
! determining whether impacts to agricultural
i resources are significant environmental
i effects, lead agencies may refer to the
I
I California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
I Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
I the California Dept. of Conservation as an
! optional model to use in assessing impacts
: on agriculture and farmland, Would the
I project:
I
I
: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique I
¡ Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide I
[Importance (Farmland), as shown on the I
. maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland i
, Mapping and Monitoring Program of the I 'I,
i California Resources Agency, to non- I i I I
, agricultural use? [5.7.39] I' i i i I
--,-,---~_._~,..._._-_.,--~-----~--~-".~-~_._---".,---.------------_.._~._---'-----_..:
, b) Conflict with existing zoning for i DID ! D I ŒJ '
, agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ! I I
_con~rac~~ [~;7,23]___.. ..__ _____ .1.___ _ .._...J-'_ . _ ..._
D
D
D
ŒJ
13-~
.~~-~...----_..'~. ----.... ·_-~_·--~-----r-~-----l~ ---~I-- -- ï-~ ~ ---
, .... I -.... co .... '
¡ ~c '- c C._ C c I I
I ëã"'....· ~"' 0 ~ ra"'..... I -'
I ._ 0 01 .... 0 .c :.¡:; '- .c 0 0 í 0
I ~E¡::t"Ø~. ¡¡::±::"'o ....¡¡::"'c.' o'"c.
I 2':E ~,:3:~e- ~'2E'1 zE I
I ~a'-\ .5a' ~ ~ .5a' 1- i :
! c) Involve other changes in the existing ·-1--~1 0 0 ŒJ~
\ environment which, due to their location or 'I :
I nature. could result in conversion of I ,:
! Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5.7.39] ~._~ LJ
i Items a throuah c - No Impact
I The project site. as an improved surface parking lot area for the shopping center. is located within a developed ,
i urbanized area and has no agricultural land or resources; therefore, the proposed project will not impact I
I agricultural land or resources, ~
\ ISSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
i
1111. AIR QUALITY - Where available. the I
I significance criteria established by the I
I applicable air quality management or air I
I
i pollution control district may be relied upon I
I
I to make the following determinations. Would i
I the project: I
I
,
, I i
, I
i a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 ŒJ i
I the applicable air quality plan? [5.37.42.44] I
i
, ,
I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ŒJ i
I contribute substantially to an existing or ! \
I projected air quality violation? [5.37,42.44] I
, í
I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ŒJ í
!
I increase of any criteria pollutant for which í
I the project region is non-attainment under an I
i applicable federal or state ambient air quality
I standard (including releasing emissions I
\ which exceed quantitative thresholds for I
I ozone precursors)? [4.37.44] I
í ----j
I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ŒJ I
I
I pollutant concentrations? [4.37.44] I I
I ,
i e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ŒJ ,
I
! substantial number of people? [4,37.44] í
!
i Items a throuah e - No Imo8ct 1
i The proposed restaurants are not anticipated to conflict with any applicable air qÜality plan. violate any air i
: quality standards, or create objectionable odors within the surrounding area. Standard mitigation measures will I
i be applied to the project as conditions of approval to mitigate potential cooking odors from the restaurants (odor I
! filtration systems) and odors/dust resulting from construction4re1ated activities. '
i
'_.._._______________ _._.._~_,,_.______ . _____________m___.__________·____..··.._________________---------.-----,,--~..------------~
13-{¿,D
·.._-_._--_._._----_..,.,"-~~_.._--_.-
-----T--------~---------'--~----,.
I ..c::: 1 ! ;
i - c: I I ¡
, I »- c: .- 0 c:-
; _ c: 11:1 ;;: c: .- c:
-11:1- _0- 11:1 11:1_ Õ i
ISSUES: I .~ u u ~c;:;~ .coo
I _ ._ co 11:1 11:1 0 I- .- 11:1 o 11:1
[and Supporting Information Sources] I c:'!:: ~~@e- ( ):'!:: c.. zc. l
Q) c: E '" c: E E ,
õ.~- Q)'-'- 0 Q).~- ,
c..1f) ..Jc:::æ;o ...I If) ¡
I .~ ..: I
If) I
- -- ------!
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would I
I ;
, the project: I
, --. T
i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either I
I 0 0 0 ŒJ i
¡ directly or through habitat modifications, on I ,
i any species identified as a candidate. I !
!
I sensitive. or special status species in local or I
¡ regional plans. policies, or regulations, or by I
I the California Department of Fish and Game I ¡
! or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I I
I
1[5.10.27.44] !
I I ,
,
¡b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ŒJ i
I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural I !
! I
i community identified in local or regional ,
¡ plans, policies. regulations or by the \
! California Department of Fish and Game or i
,
I US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5.10.27,44] I !
, ,
! i
I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 I ŒJ !
I federally protected wetlands as defined by I
!
I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act I
i (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal I I
i
! pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal. !
I
I filling, hydrological interruption, or other I
I means? [20.36,44] I
, I ,
I d) Interfere substantially with the movement ,
0 0 0 ŒJ i
I
I of any native resident or migr~tory fish or ;
i
I wildlife species or with established native ,
I resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or ,
i
I impede the use of native wildlife nursery ;
i
i sites? [5,10,12.21,26] I I
,
I e) Conflict with any local policies or ---i
0 0 0 ŒJ I
,
,
! ordinances protecting biological resources, I
I such as a tree preservation policy or i
l ordinance? [11. -12.41]
------+---- ~._- - -~
I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
I Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
I Community Conservation Plan. or other
i approved local. regional, or state habitat
! conservation pian? [5,10,26.27]
-¡
i
!
{
I
I
I
I I
!'lterrisa-ttïrõ-üOhT=-NOïnioact--..·~~--.._-""-----L------",""'--
\ The project site is developed as an improved surtace parking lot for the shopping center. Development of the site for the ~
! restaurants will allow for retainment of all perimeter trees on site consisting of the double row of mature ash trees and pine;
l trees along Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Wolfe Road. However, the project will entail removing some interior parking lot trees
i to provide area for the new restaurants and reconfiguratian af the parking area around the restaurants. The reconfigured !
i parking area will result in the planting of new trees within the parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a
;_.~.~~~5!"~_!L~.!_5!9~~~~".~_ff~_~t__()Qlb~~5!~~~?,.Q!..~I].9anJ~~_~t?9__~Jo¡og_~~~Jeso~r_~~.?_._____._____ ..-------.-.-.----- .---.~--------~------
o
. r .+-
o ! 0 I ŒJ
I I
I I
, ! .
I I -
-_.._-_._..~.._--- -~---------,,--"---------'
l::!riP!
.----~--'------"."'----"'--~------------
··---------¡---~-'--1-----'-""-:
CI I .
----.---..---¡----
f
~ê:
-01....
~.~ ~
C ~ ::
Q) C E
õ.~-
a.CJ)
~ë c.!2 cë '[
tel 0- telteI_
J::u.:::¡:¡r: ..cuu¡
1-·-....0101-·-011
CI):!::':;C>c. CI):!::c.¡
øC;;»;;1r... (/)cE
Q)C> '-0 Q)C>_
...J ¡¡; :E g ...J ¡¡; I
i-¡
010 I
I
!
f
I
I
\-~~-' !
I I
i V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
I project:
i ISSUES:
,
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
o
i a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
i the significance of a historical resource as
i defined in §15064.5? [5,13.41]
I
i
I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
I the significance of an archaeological
! resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13.41]
~ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ·1 0
i paleontological resource or site or unique
I geologic feature? [5.13.41]
,
! d) Disturb any human remains. including
! those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1[1.5]
~
f Items a throuah d - No Impact
I
I The site is not within a sensitive archaeological area of the City and has no historical resources on site.
]
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
....
'-'
001 :
zc.
E
j
ŒJ
ŒJ
!
i
I
-;
i
ŒJ
,
!
,
,
¡
!
i
I
f
i
I
I
\
ŒJ
I I
I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the !
i
i project: . I
,
a) Expose people or structures to potential I
,
substantiai adverse effects, including the risk ,
I
,
of loss, injury, or death involving: I
I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ŒJ I
i delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo i
\ Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the I
¡State Geoiogist for the area or based on I
i other substantial evidence of a known fault? I
I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology \
!
I Special Publication 42. [2.14.44] i
,
,
! ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 ŒJ ,
\
i [2.5.10.44] i
-,-- -
i ,
¡ ili} Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 ŒJ ,
;
I ,
¡liquefaction? [2,5.10.39.44]
~ ·----r---~ ,
i iv) Landslides? [2.5.10.39.44] I 0 I 0 I 0 I ŒJ !
'-~___._._"____"___.~___-____,__-,__-,---+--,_~-__,_--____'"_____----!--_~_--+--~__i
! ! ¡I' .
'i b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the I 0 ¡ 0 I 0 I ŒJ i
i~~S of t~psoll? [?_5:~0.4'ÍL-. ....L...___L__ ... .__J.____.J____J
J3~ b>-
------------------------------------T----,----------------I -------¡-----------:
I I C I '
I ;.,.... c.... 0 C.... ,
I _ C ctI s:::: c .- C
- "'....1 '" 0....\ "''''.... t>
i ISSUES: .~ CJ ~ ..cu..c'-co .c u u ,
.... .- i- .- _ 1ü 0 I- .- '" o '" !
c~ OJ ..... .- f./) ~ Co zC!.
! [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) C E 11>'- ;: en C!.¡ i
f./)C :;:;1- II> C E E
õ.~- ( ) C) .- 0 ( ).~- ,
, c..cn ...Ji:i) :!:u ...JIJ) I
, C I !
I
i --Î
! c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 I 0 0 I ŒJ ¡
! unstable, or th.at would become unstable as ,
I
! a result of the project, and potentially result i
! in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, ;
I subsidence. liquefaction or collapse? -01 ,
¡
i [2,5.10,39] I i
~
! d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 ŒJ ;
,
! in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code L I
: (1997), creating substantial risks to life or
i property? [2,5.10] ¡
!
I e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 ŒJ ¡
i
I supporting the use of septic tanks or i
I alternative waste water disposal systems I
i where sewers are not available for the I
I disposal of waste water? [6.9,36.39] \
i Items a throuqh e No Impact
I The proposed project Is not anticipated to expose people or structures to rupture of a known
i earthquake fault. seismic ground shaking. or landslides_ According to the Geologic and Seismic
! Hazards Map of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site is located in a VF. Valley Floor. zone.
i The VF zone includes all relatively level valley floor terrain with relatively low levels of geologic
I hazard risk. Additionally, the project site is not known to have soils incapable of adequately
! supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
¡
i VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS ,
,
I MATERIALS - Would the project: I
;
,
I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ŒJ
I the environment through the routine
I transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
! materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 ŒJ ,
0 i
i the environment through reasonably I !
I foreseeable upset and accident conditions !
I involving the release of hazardous materials I ;
I into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] I i I
'-~-~-- .___..._,.~~_.,__ ~.__L__. ---~.~-_....----'
13-Cp3
f.··-·--···--~---------~-··-----· ·.·----------,------,-~-------··l---·--.---------r·.
ii' I.
. I I g '" I ' ,
I ~'E ~ s:: ë'- 0 ",- i
n:I ....- '" !
-~- "cnsctS.... ~~- -
: ISSUES: I ~.~ ~ U 0') E ""UU U ,
1-t¡::;:;O I- .- ~ o ~ ,
! [and Supporting Information Sources] c~ ( ) ~ a. zc. ,
I Q) '" Ei en .- .- c.
en"'::!E.... en '" E E ¡
Õ .g¡-¡ Q) 1j 0 Q) .g¡-
...J .- .c
I D..(f) (f)_U ...J(f)
.- '"
, ;;:-
,
,
i I
: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle I 0 0 0 ŒI
i hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, I
: substances, or waste within one-quarter mile I
I of an existing or proposed school? I I
i [2.29.30.40,44] I I
i d) Be located on a site which is included on a ,
0 0 0 ŒI ,
: list of hazardous materials sites compiled \
i
i pursuant to Government Code Section I i
I 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a i
L-- i
i significant hazard to the public or the I
¡ environment? [2,42,40,43] I
-. \
i e} For a project located within an airport land I 0 0 0 ŒI
I use plan or, where such a plan has not been I i
! adopted, within two miles of a public airport i
I or public use airport, would the project result I i
I
! in a safety hazard for people residing or i
i working in the project area? [ ] D~ i
! f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 I
i ŒI I
i airstrip, would the project result in a safety I
i hazard for people residing or working in the I
i project area? [ ] i
i g) Impair implementation of or physically I 0 0 0 ŒI i
i
,
! interfere with an adopted emergency
i response plan or emergency evacuation
! plan? [2.32.33,44]
I h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ŒI I
! significant risk of loss. injury or death !
i
I involving wildland fires, including where _J !
I wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i
!
i
i where residences are intermixed with I I
i wildlands?[1.2,44] l ,
I
----
, Items a throuqh h - No Impact I
. I
¡ The proposed project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot and has been maintained as such for i
: several decades. The proposed restaurants are not anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk \
, of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure I
i of people to hazardous waster or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. i
. !
, The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport) and is not I
: listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. .
-. ....--........-------,.------- -_._._._._._.....__..._._--_..._..._---",....~-_._--_.....----_..-._.__._--_.._-~._---------_....._,-~...,..,-_...__..__.--....-..--j
13--(pf
_._-_.._-----,_._...._------_.._...--~- -.-----. I c 1: -- c .§l- '-: -;-r--~
»...
_c
, I -ra'" ra ra 0'" ra ra'" \ ... ,
,~ u U J:U"C,_ta J:C)c) C)
[ISSUES: ....- 9 1-t;:_1ü (; I-t;: ta 0 ~
i [and Supporting Information Sources] J:~ ""-'§:C)Co ",,_Co zCo !
Q) C E '" c :¡:¡... '" C E E
õ.~- Q)C) '-01 Q)C)_ -
D..(/) ..J .- :2: () .-
(/) c..J (/)
! VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
I -- Would the project: -1-
i
! a) Violate any water quality standards or D D D [8]
I waste discharge requirements? [20.36,37]
,
r--
i b) Substantially deplete groundwater D D D [8]
I supplies or interfere substantially with
i groundwater recharge such that there would ,
,
í be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
I
I lowering of the local groundwater table level
i (e.g,. the production rate of pre-existing
! nearby wells would drop to a level
I which would not support existing land uses
I or planned uses for which permits have been
i granted)? [20.36,42]
, -
I c) Create or contribute runoff water which D D I D [8]
! would exceed the capacity of existing or
i planned stormwater drainage systems or I
i provide substantial additional sources of J
I polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
I
i d) Otherwise substantially degrade water D D D [8]
I quality? [20,36.37]
,
! e) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood D D D [8] ,
\
i hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ;
I
i Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate i
I Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i
I
1[2.38] !
,
! f) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area ,
D D D [8] !
! structures which would impede or redirect . i
,
,
! flood flows? [2.38] ,
I !
, \ ,
! g) Expose people or structures to a D D D [8] i
! significant risk of loss. injury or death i
\ I
i involving flooding, including flooding as a I
i result of the failure of a levee or dam? ! ¡
i [2.36.38J I ,
I I
!h Inundation b seiche. tsunami, or I D D D [8] i
,
) y
! mudflow? [2,36.38]
--.---...---.----"..----.--.."----- -
-..----.-.-"..---.--........--
_____L_
I
I
.__.__..-1...._
I .
____,L__.-J
13-Ct,5'
.-----------.--.--------------..---------------..-----
c: ~---T----~ì---- i
-.... 0 0 I.... ,
... s:::::'- s::::: C i
C'acu1U:¡:;; I cucu..... -
~.~.~~ \1 ¡::.~ ~ 0 ~
( )~~a. cn~a. za.
(/) c::¡¡; .... (/) c: E E
wO> 0 .,0>_
..J.-.c: 0 I w._
(/)~c: ..J(/)
;;:- I
i ISSUES:
¡ [and Supporting Information Sources]
;>,....
_ c:
-"'....
,~ (,) <J
__ ._ n:s
c:t::
W c: E
õ.~-
Do(/)
i Items a thouoh h - No Imoact
! The proposed project is not anticipated to violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements, !
i substantially deplete groundwater supplies. degrade water quality. place housing in a 100-year flood zone. or !
I expose people or structures to risks involving flooding, or tsunamis. :
i !
i The project site is located within a B flood zone per the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community Panel Number i
! 060339-0004-C. dated May 1. 1980. The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that is i
I relatively flat and paved, with the exception of some landscape islands within the parking lot and landscaping i
! alon9 the perimeter of the site. The restaurants will be constructed over portions of the property that are already i
\ paved. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial net increase of impermeable!
! surface on the project site. Standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project requiring construction I
! to provide additional stormwater control measures to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. i
~ l
I \
! IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would ,
I the project: !
~
! a} Physically divide an established 0 D 0 Œl ¡
! community? [7.12,22.41] i
I
I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 Œl
I policy, or regulation of an agency with
i jurisdiction over the project (including, but
! not limited to the general plan, specific plan, I
! local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) !
! adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I
I
i mitigating an environmental effect? I
i [1.7.8.16,17.18.44]
I
; i
i c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 I 0 Œl I
i conservation plan or natural community !
i conservation plan? [1.5,6,9.26] !
i Item a throuoh c - No Impact i
i The proposed development will not physically divide an estabiished community and will not conflict with any 1
i applicable land use plan, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. i
, I
!
i X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
i project:
I a} Result in the loss of availability of a known 0
i mineral. resource that would be of value to 1
I the region and the residents of the state? j
1[5,10]
-----~------ ---_._.._.----_.,,-~_._.._-.------------- ---.-.---
~
i
i
!
o
o
Œl
I .
..___~_.~_J
------
13~ (pC¡,
____...___.~_,,~____...~.___n___~_".._____·
,
!ISSUES:
\ [and Supporting Information Sources]
,
! b) Result in the loss of availability of a
¡locally-important mineral resource recovery
¡ site delineated on a local general plan,
,
¡ specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
\ Items a and b - No Impact
\ No known mineral resources exist on the project site.
;
i
°To
I
>-....
- <:
-......
.~ 0 0
...._ n:I
c::!::
2 <: E
o.~-
Cl.U¡
1-··-···_~---------r---~~-'-----··-'----'
I !
! C . ;
C'" 0 ... \ '
n:I s::: c._ C s:::: j
n:I 0'" n:I co ... I
.c(J.c:;:;~ .cOO
1-¡;::=:n:lO I-¡¡:CO
).-,.tj)c. )._c.
Cl)S::::;:>:;:;~ IJ)CE
a¡tj) '-0 "tj)-
-100 :;¡¡.E1 .::::íoo
ü
o ..
zc.
E
o
ŒJ
; I I i
¡ XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: ,
,
i \
i a) Exposure of persons to. or generation of, 0 0 0 ŒJ
¡ noise levels in excess of standards
! established in the local general plan or noise ;
I
I ordinance, or applicable standards of other i
\ agencies? [8.18.44] I
r !
I b ) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 ŒJ
¡ excessive ground borne vibration or I !
I ground borne noise levels? [8.18.44] i
, ;
I c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 ŒJ 0 !
! ambient noise levels in the project vicinity !
i above levels existing without the project? i
¡ [8,18] !
ŒJ i
I d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 I
;
! increase in ambient noise levels in the I
! project vicinity above levels existing without
I the project? [8,18,44] !
,
,
Ie) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ŒJ
I use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted. within two miles of a public airport
i or public use airport, would the project
I expose people residing or working in the
! project area to excessive noise levels?
, ~
! [8.18.44]
>---------------~--~-_._-- -.. ,
¡ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 \ ŒJ ¡
! airstrip, would the project expose people !
I residing or working in the project area to ,
I excessive noise levels? [8.18] i ,
__ t_ ~__~_ - L~
,---..---...
_._---,,--~-
-----~._--
13~(P1
-------------------------------r-.-
I
I
I
\
~ë I' cë c.2~ë I
- ra - ra ra 0..... ra ra _I
.~oo~. ¡::U.c;~ .cUO
_¡¡:<TJ L;:;t::rao i-¡¡::<TJc.
C._ IJ)'-"O>c. IJ)'-
Q>cE IJ)C..:;::¡..... IJ)cEI
õ tn_ wO')o C)
o..~...JU¡ ~g jU¡-1
...
CJ
o '"
zc.
E
----_._-----
: ISSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
! Items a. b. e and f - No Impact !
¡ The proposed project will not expose people to groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, or noise levels in I
i excess of standards of the general plan and noise ordinance. The project Is not located within an airport land
I use plan area or private airstrip.
,
I
i
I Items c and d - Less Than Sianificant i
i The project site is currently a paved suriace parking lot for the Valleo shopping mall. An increase in permanent I
i ambient noise is anticipated to occur with the proposed restaurant uses as opposed to the current use of the I
! site as a parking lot. Additionally, an increase of temporary ambient noise levels will occur with construction of I
i the project. However, this permanent and temporary ambient noise is considered less than significant. !
i
i XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .- Would
i the project:
,
! a) Induce substantial population growth in an
,
i area, either directly (for example, by
! proposing new homes and businesses) or
i indirectly (for example, through extension of
i roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16.47.44]
o
o
o
!
ŒJ :
\
i b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
! housing, necessitating the construction of
I replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16.44]
o
o
o
!
;
,
I
!
ŒJ í
.
,
i c) Displace substantial numbers of people. 0 0 0 ŒJ'
I necessitating the construction of I
i replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16.44] I
Items a throuah c - No Impact !
The project site is currently a surface parking lot; therefore, the proposed restaurants would not displace I
existing housing and would not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. I
i XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
,
i
! a) Would the project result in substantial
! adverse physical impacts associated with the
! provision of new or physically altered
! governmental facilities. need for new or
I physically altered governmental facilities, the
! construction of which could cause significant \1 I
! environmental impacts. in order to maintain
1__ acceptable service ratios, response times or J I
i other performance objectives for any of the I
i public services: I,
;_~.,__.____~,.,_.__".._.___~.__.____._" ~._~---~- ---~ ----------~---~---·'I-----·----l
I___!-'~:_ protectlo~?.~1_~32,~L1L___~---~J~~--_.--i:J--L- ŒJ___~
Police protection? [33.44] í D! 0 0 I ŒJ ,
- ,I +-___~____<,_._
----------------·~------______r-----l- i
Schools? [29.30,44] I 0 I 0 0 - ŒJ I
.___ ______~_______________________________¡----------L------__ ---------j--------~
r- -- P k ?[' 1-7-1'""1 '06'074"J ! 0 I 0 0 ,'xl
ar S. 0, ''-''¿ ,<-- /- ,.--, I ~
--·~~_=()ther public facilities? [19,20,4_~]___ L=~__I__[]_L_c:J~__I-~~[8]_ J
13-lc ~
\
I
I
I
i
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
i
,
I :
i ¡
[----------------------~----------- ------r-------~r
I 11- ~~õl
I ISSUES: \ ë!E ~
I [and Supporting Information Sources] 2 C E
! o.~-
c..rn
-----1---1
c ë I !
ca ca - \ ...
~~~'\' ~~-
g¡ .~.§ E]
..Jrn ]
I
C
C'" 0
ra 1: C._
10 0'"
.cU.J::·_C13
1-t¡::==1ü 0\
"'·->C1Q.1
/I) C ;> .- '-
Q) tn :== 0
..J ëñ :¡¡; g¡
I Item a (Fire Protection Police Protection. Schools, Parks and Other Public Facilties) - No Impact ;
\ The project site is currently located within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, ¡
i police, and public facilities. Therefore, the proposed restaurant uses located within an existing shopping center i
i are not anticipated to create additional impacts onto the existing public services. i
r----- ¡ I I i
I XIV. RECREATION -- , i
i I
i a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 ø !
I existing neighborhood and regional parks or \
I other recreational facilities such that i
]
! substantial physical deterioration of the I
I facility would occur or be accelerated? I
, I
i [5,17,19.21,26.27,44]
, ,
i b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 I ø
I facilities or require the construction or \ !
í
i expansion of recreational facilities which I !
i might have an adverse physical effect on the I I \
I !
I environment? [5.44] I
I
litem a and b - No Impact i
1 The proposed restaurant uses will not increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area and will not I
\ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area. i
, '
, '
, '
,
! 1 I
! xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- I
i Would the project: I
,
I a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ø i
I
I substantial in relation to the existing traffic ]
I
! load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I
I result in a substantial increase in either the I
! number of vehicle trips, the volume to I
I capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at !
,
! intersections)? [4.20,35,44] I
;
,
! b) Exceed. either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 ø !
!
I a level of service standard established by the I
i county congestion management agency for 1 ,
i !
L designated roads or highways? [4.20,44] __I !
! c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, I 0 \ 0 0 ø ;
, ;
! including either an increase in traffic levels or , , ,
,
! a change in location that results in
! substantial safety risks? [4.?]
] \ \
t------¡-- I
i d) Substantially increase hazards due to a I 0 I' 0 !I'
I design feature (e,g., sharp curves or
! dangerous intersections) or incompatible ¡ II I
! uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? [20,35,44] I, I
c------------------------------.---" - -----------1-------------4--
, e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 I
!E~~9-'33,~'}·44] u_____________. j __ u__~_______
I
I
T------------¡
o i ø !
I
I _
·---,----"-1~-,-,-'-¡
o ! ŒJ
_.._,--_.,.._--_.~
13-1o~
I f) Result in inadeq~ate parking capacity? -'-T ~-~ , I
D D I Œl
,
I [17,44] I I ,
,
,
-¡- I
i g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or I D D D I Œl I
,
I programs supporting alternative :
I ¡
I transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle I
I racks)? [4,34] I
, !
Items a throuah q No Impact i
The proposed restaurant uses are not anticipated to create substantial increased traffic, result in a change in air I
traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access i
and/or parking capacity. or conflict with adopted policies/plans on alternative transportation. I
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - 1
I
Would the project: i
,
a) Exceed wastewater treatment D D D Œl I
requirements of the applicable Regionai ,
,
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22.28,36,44] \
,
I
b) Require or result In the construction of D D D Œl ,
I
new water or wastewater treatment facilities :
or expansion of existing facilities, the :
construction of which could cause significant !
i
environmental effects? [36,22,28.36] 1
!
c) Require or result in the construction of D D D Œl I
new storm water drainage facilities or !
¡
expansion of existing facilities, the ,
construction of which could cause significant I
I
environmental effects? [5.22.28,36,44] I
,
,
,
--~I¡ - ; ë --G ~--~ .i~I~- 5-ë-1---;
-co'" .....0... .....I'O-! -
I ~.g~'" ¡:!:æ~~ i ¡:!:.gg¡ og
~._ "'ut:no. ",.-0. zo.
, .2:!~E ",;;::;:;.. I "'~EII E
I o.~- Q)'¡:'-o Q).~-
,a.c¡¡. ...J t:n2 u ...JC¡¡
I iñ~!--1-
_._--_._.,._'"_._~_..__._-----~-'--------------"
I ISSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
/3-1-0
------------------------r-;;J-
I i~-~",
c::t:
( ) C E
Õ C)_
o..i:ñ
I
---------.-
¡ ISSUES'
i [and Supporting Information Sources]
I e) Result in a determination by the
I wastewater treatment provider which serves
I or may serve the project that it has adeq uate
i capacity to serve the project's projected
I demand in addition to the provider's existing
i commitments? [5.22.28.36.44]
I
I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
i permitted capacity to accommodate the
i project's solid waste disposal needs? I?]
I
i g) Comply with federal, state, and local
i statutes and regulations related to solid
¡waste? I?]
o
o
o
C - C -¡§ 1-~-:----1--------
~ ~.c ~ ~I ~ ~ ü It):
¡¡::-"'o I- '" 0Q.'"
fI)·-';tnQ. (I)!Ec.. z
Cl)c>:;::... ",cEI E 1'_
( )C) '-0 ( )C)_
..J .(J)- ::¡; <) .-
C ..J (J)
-
o
o
ŒJ
i
!
I
,
i
I
i
o
o
ŒJ
o
o
ŒJ
I Items a throuoh 0 - No Imoact
i The project site is served by sanitary sewer service, The applicant. like other users of the system. will be I
i required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition of approval will be !
i incorporated that will require necessary improvements. if any. to be completed prior to building occupancy. The I
i project will be required to compiy with all federai. state and local statutes and regulations pertaining related i
L sanitary sewer and solid waste. I
/3-1/
-_.~_..-._-_._".---
--------_..__.,----.-_.~--
-_._--_.~~._-,.._--_..__.._.... ------~--.
--,--------~-_._-------"- --,-------~. -----l---l
c
»- c- 0 c...... i
_ c cu c c: .- c '
-"'- '" 0- CUCU...... ......:
, ISSUES: .!:S! u u .s::o.s:::'¡::~ .s:: UO I 0 1
-.- ~ .....~......cao ..... tt: co 0 r:s !
i [and Supporting Information Sources] c~ I/) .- .- c> 1/)·-0.1 zo.,
Q C E (J) c 3: :.¡:: e- ~.~.§\ .§:
õ.!2J- Q C> .- 0
a. en .....¡¡j 2:0 ...J(J) \
, C
,...--.---- \
\ a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ŒJ
\ degrade the quality of the environment, i
!
! substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or ,
I
i
i wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife i
¡ population to drop below self-sustaining
¡ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal \
\ community. reduce the number or restrict the I
I range of a rare or endangered plant or
i animal or eliminate important examples of \
! the major periods of California history or I
I prehistory? [] I
j 1
I b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 ŒJ 0
i
i individually limited, but cumulatively I
\ considerable? ("Cumulatively
I considerable" means that the incremental i
I
! effects of a project are considerable when !
I viewed in connection with the effects of past ,
,
i projects, the effects of other current projects, ;
i
i and the effects of probable future projects)? i
I [] !
I - 1
\ c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 ŒJ
i effects which will cause substantial adverse i
I
;
! effects on human beings. either directly or ,
!
I indirectly? [] ¡
-
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staff)
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures. and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents. from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance.
,{ i
Preparer's Signature /1 ¿: .r. ' !if/) '('1./.___
Print Preparer's Name If k I' ,-¡-Ii.: !/)¿'Ct'-.
,-
13 -1.J.-
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project.
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Trans portationrr raffi c
0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
ŒJ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Staff EV~.~~ltor I
¿:/,~ {¡V{¿L.----..L
ERC 9hairperson /
(
Date /
~~r/o~
Date (
) 3 - '73
March 7, 2006
Subject: APPLICATION NO:
DESCRIPTION:
U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04 (EA-2006-04)
Use permit to construct two restaurants on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and
N. Wolfe Road.
Members ofthe Planning Commission
I read with interest the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the application to construct
two restaurants on the corner of Wolfe and Stevens Creek. I have two concerns which
are as follows:
I. The traffic on that corner will be very heavy when the current approved
development is completed. The restaurants will have a negative
traffic impact upon that corner; plus the shopping center loses parking spaces.
2. Odor filtration equipment for restaurants should be requirecÎ as part of the
permit process. The Market Place Shopping Center, across the street, is
installing such equipment in all restaurants. In the event that these
restaurants are approved, they should be required to install odor
filtration equipment.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
/1/' .' ¡;-' &:)
/' J/ ..ÁÆ?.<-""'u,,-, LJ,~·-:w"i'(A:~í)""'
( Ö
Virginia Tamblyn
19721 Bixby Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-253-2278
vtamcupt@sbcglobal.net
J3-7Ý-
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
March 8,2006
As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Envirorunental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
March 8, 2006.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2006-02 (EA-2006-04), ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06
Mike Rohde (Valko Fashion Park)
10123 N Wolfe Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST
Use Permit to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands restaurant) and a 6,020
square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens
Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road
Architectural and Site Approval for construction of a 5,910 square foot restaurant
(Islands restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the
northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road
Tree removal and replanting of nine trees as part of the construction two restaurants
and reconfiguration of an existing parking lot area at Valko Fashion Park Shopping
Center
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Envirorunental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
significant envirorunental impacts, however, a preliminary report analyzing the traffic
irnpacts of the project is required and the number and location of the trees to be
replanted shall be determined by the Planning Commission.
Is/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2006-04
} 3-7$
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 2006
Exhibit B
BY:
Tü: Cupertillo pk'Ù"flÎì1g COlli1ruS;;¡iOll
Mill'úh 10,2006
From: ..~1 De Fjdd~l'
19146 /\nne LJ.Ile
,-,' (- ""'1'
\-,ui;-1t:11.l1l0, ~a. ~:'¡U' ,{
S'". h ,'"I' ,. 'T, T"-'O"'6')" '", c·O'-·' -"E' ,',-" C"
uUJecl. H.µF...lca..l01l1~u. ~-.L fiJ'~I.,¿, i..\..:J.P........:;.. iJÓ"C}'-tI.·-,~~b)ÍJö" ;4-J
I 'WG$ ;iO:Lù.C\\'hat surprised to gei a :notk~it fui' ill10ther heã:ring on yet another
P~-J'~~t J;'rt1..p. '{{'J,ll{"~ ~h"'p;'-~ ('i-J¡t',- 'TI,',- :-. ...}. "pi- -'-I. ç,¡h'-"\lï'~:¡" ---~~ - nt'- -.. :.. :...l -
¿:..1...J ....1,.. __ ...t)_ J.1_ v t.t _..c"... !--'l.; ....u.i~ __,to:. .;;;:.~, ' 111.:'; lð ;-,~,-.!!}-_~!. lri.¡; 1) t);" ~.1)11g ;l.VllU¡";;A.];}Ü :.;:, JUi;,!.d
tew mouths tòr the Vallco Shopping Center. And we st:ill have nut hem'd about the
platuled hotel atld palKUIg garage ill ÜÜUt '_"1' Jæ J. C. '~':lUlt)· ,~:k,ti:;. It .,(~':lI;:.> like ih~
developerR and o\vners are jU::ìt bringing up on€: tT:ql~'¿:~;l _¡.f:~~r ;~cüU.'}c::r ~\S Ü13:Y }:_:K'~';V :be;
wûuld fiot get appr(}val fol' me pf(;ject as a \,/hole if aib.:;d t~}t di J.1 OD.CJ~.
/\llother I;onç~m is that thifj. prl)1=~)~fJ. eìjnÜn\iti3:~ <iUÜ? ~-\ G;;;"';,\( p,'ukif,,§; _··Ti;;~U~.:~~ \-vhid.l
"'T'e ··,t '-\ ......r"IIU· ..h-T! dlli';t!C' ill! e I~,"'l,'d- "':'v ;:·1.:......"'01"' but it ,,11"'" .-,Act- <;- -\ '·';"("·lJ·~··-'-'r-·,,·~\t ,,\¡: .~.! -;: -r .,~~j ..~~..,,.
....... .;.¡. .....t' _ UL> .u.::; ~~'-J ..'.._.:> ."-~-'" .~, . .. u -_.v ,,,-"-.I. .. u u.. 1. ....". i-.......... . ........ ........... J-',......·K.j.lie
staIb ;1c:.:nrding tn the t~ity' plan. (¡\.hüus! l.::~onù ;:!J~: fí. uE ~l;tail ijl .} ~;µ.:.l;:et.; ~.'r 0adl :000
3q. ft. ofœtail "pace = 48 sp"lC'~s,)
I would also like to draw to your atle-nÜoll that during the eOlbtl'UetiOll of ill.;: 137
unit condo develop1l1ent. illere will be a need for ¡:"t C\JIls:truCtÏOll 111;Jt!;;11al area \vhiJ:;h.. "'}T~f}l11d
IIlore than likely be in a parking lot area.. No",-v add to this f~1.ct that the developer \yant3 to
eliminate the parhng area behind Macy's in order 10 build a parking ;¡t11Jdun:, 111,,1'''òy
eliminating many parking spaces for a year or more, Now add 10 that the fad t\13t the Pit
Pa1'king Lot, also called t:h~ RO§è Bú\Nl~ is 'Vvell devüteJ to a con.structioü. rnnteriah lot.
If the ¡:~rrnitB ~re is rued to alk.1"\'v lhe cOD.strnc1.iou of a parking struç!tlre in n:"f)nt of J [---<
Penney there would be .Itl additiunallos. of pa.rking (;:lpabi1iï:y until the structU1'e is
cOlupletcd.
It would be a prudent move for the Pla1JJung Commit<sion to put a hold onlhis
fequest until some of the other projects ðfè GÛin.pleted 01' the find parldng ill'CH::J a.D:;
re5tored to the r~quired 4 spaces :per 1000 sq, ft, of p;:-t.ai1 ~P~\(:E.: t~)r th.E: entifí: shoppinB
center.
If a hold is not put on this proposüi, ¡her/.':, \vüuld ,jj);Y' bë half is IllL1H;' pürkEi.g.
:::paçç~ ::;0 r~.ç;~~d~d during tb,:· holid::-.y ~::~:::¡;;;~~-F
,'~., ·T~'~'
;h\.:~
lnall aoo the city as \vel1 U:i !h~;: !"..lèn::h:tl1U \vou.ld b:;~ Ùt(.' ~':_'c:;z:t.::-:_
Ple~5ie con~ider pntlÍng a l1ülJ L'E th.l:S n:YLh::SÎ t~~r a '¡/~ai ,.Yf iUDrc
ThtlHL l""'.Hl
A1 Dc R-idJer
W<D~~
3~1~
I
.
.
ën
,
¡...
......
in
,
Co
......
-
......
,
Co
N
M
,
in
......
I
I
34'-6'
34'-6"
0--
®
c
.
n
u
@
I
~
ISLAND FLOOR PLAN
~@
P-r:~
ARCHITECTS
03-288.43 Date:03-o1-06
@
o
VALLCO FASHI
CUP E R TIN 0, C A L II
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MJ\NAGEMENT
10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUP ,RTINO, CA 95014
[562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702] 852.8500 .as Vegas, NV
"
,
SCALf
PARK
ON
FORNIA
II
LEE & SAKAHARA
ARCHITECTS AlA
fJlCHr.:CTUREPlJI1\NI'<GINTERIQF1S
It842VO....AAl'iMII"IA>¡f.Sl-1"E3Xt
IRW~E C/l,1J5AII26OO-~92?
PH 9~S.71>~ 1100 F ~!ì;?()' ~'U
www.prarchitects.c:om
[503] 478.9900 Portland, OR
[703] 390.0400 Washington, DC
850.3400
[714)
600 Anton Blvd.. 16th Floor. Costa Mesa. CA 92626
~SCl£ERTAN!K/,_RilEYARCHITECTS
3100.KN øI~Dri>e
CœlaUos<CaibriaW
~141~lsœ
TD
_:.:.:.. ARCHnECTlIRE· MERŒDEOON
Perkowib: + Ruth
ARCHITECT
L
-~!
CPK FLOOR PLAN
n
89' _9"
~
-
......
co
,
Co
r--
j,®
p~~
A.RCHITECTS
03-288.43 Date:03-01-06
"
WWrN.prarchiteCts.com
,
SCALf
[503] 478.9900 Portland, OR
PARK
VALL CO FASHION
cUP E R TIN 0, CALI FOR N I A
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
'0123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, S1ë· 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
[562] 628.8000 Lon9 Beach CA [702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NY
LEE & SAKAHARA .
~~.~T~~~.,..o.~~RKFS -
'68'2 VOW t<Ji,RM"'N Avt' ~ff 3JO I..:
IR'J>NE CAuSA926004\"02r ·
~ ~~ 2(;', ,100 r ~9 <G'. ,,~.
[703] 390.0400 washington, DC
[714] 850.3400
16th Floor, eosta......, CA 92628
Blvd
600 Anton
~SCl£ERTAN!KA_RilEYARCHITECIS
3100.KN øllrOØDri>e
CœIa\lssa,CliØriam
~1~~lsœ
TD
___:::... ARCHrÆCTlIIE· IN'tCRIORDEOON
Perkowitz+ Ruth
ARCHITECTS
0
TREE TO BE REMOVED
TREES TO BE REMOVED
~
"''''' TO '" REMOVE' ~ ~
TREE TO BE REMOVED .
0
- - ---'\ - - '\e- - - --~--~ -
-
LEE & SAKAHARA . VALLCO FAS H I ON PARK
ARCHITECTS AlA
,~<lCH'TECTUREPlM:N[\'GINTER¡Qö;S __ CUP E R TIN 0, C A L I FOR N I A
'(\fI4~Vry..jKAFlM~¡'¡AVf..S.:ßf:;)o
1!1'J:N(Ct.V&t,926O(,.4927 .
"" 9019;>6' '100 f 94~l6' "44 LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, S1ë. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
600 Anton Blvd.. 16th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 [714] 850.3400 [562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NY [703] 390.0400 Washington, DC
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
L__¡
1
I
I
I
I
L _
-
------------"-----,,.,.--
~
~
r:
'" I
t{
1r
1 35'-þ"
I ~i
~I
I
I
B I
~
\CJ
cl
!
ß
eJ~
~
TREE REMOVAL PLAN
SCA' ' L:D..
" '0 BO' '=U
R:~
ARCHITECTS
03-288.43 Date:03-01-06
".
www.prarchitects.c:om
".
OR
[503] 478.9900 Portland,
~ SCl£ERTAN!KI.DENNEHYRlfYARCHITECTS
3100.KN øI~Dri>e
CœlaMosa,CaIfoniaW
~141~lsœ
TD
--.:::...:.. ARCtfTECT\Æ·INTERK)RDESIGN
Perkowitz+ Ruth
ARCHITECT
s
j
.
"'''
........
"'''
.......
V.I~~........,
w.....allt'~taI
54poogo"'~~
af'$1 ED'SJ
~F"'''' wnt.-ab
"'"
._-
·.....~l"...·
7
,
-
caJlfor.niéL..
PIZZA KITCH~.~
/' ~,..!fÌ'~
i
EX·:.....
......-
-..........
~.,.s...,.~
,4"....~..,-
11..".·;--___
r-
ex-z.....
1øtwMIIy~s;,..,. .........-
..,~~
¡o.."
".
,.
..... , ,
,M·l
... ex·Z""'''-'_
..... W.....F~
WEST ELEVATION
"'''
......,
"'''
s.oott.F"'"
"'..
"'''
""'-"
I'-I-...gf.....
..
'"
~ -."
._--,--~
..~
~'rD~tcd
~"'$9ooJtConlfod...
V.IA....,FaIw-ic
,.,
~
ST_I""T_
ST·I~Y_
"'..
....._,"'...
-
,
L
-
1 - ·.!!!::.Qo.o.....
Sf-IS_V_
ST·S_AT";'
CPK ELEV A TIONS
SCALf ~ .. .
, " "
www.prarchitects.com
R:~
ARCHITECTS
03-288.43 Date:03-01-06
'-~IIadI_
tGfcw;"g
[503] 478.9900 Portland, OR
ex·2I11od<.wdI_
w......__
EX-281ad1........
-.......
SOUTH ELEVATION
"''' "''' ex.211od<
......., ""'-" ...... -
E1" ,
w_,
- ,J:
-
CPK
.t IT ..~ '-'&0'" I'
,,'
'0"'"1;--
0.""-
EAST ELEVATION
VALLCO FASHION
CUP E R TIN 0, C A L I FOR N I A
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
[562) 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702] 852.8500 Las Vegas. NV
PARK
[703]390.0400 Washington, DC
o~";'-
Ex-Z......._
.MorcfroonSya_
,.,
LEE & SAKAHARA .
ARCHITECTS AlA
/'IK:H'TEC11.lRfPl.M:N1~!NTERIÇJ<S _
1&\<2 VOU KAl'!MQ,'i AVE. SUI"" 3)0 10.:
1R',r¡NECA'.;St.~492T .
Þ>1~:?'6-1100r9-4!ì26""~
600 Anton Blvd.. 16th Floor, Costa Mesa. CA 92626
,-
-~.,...
,.58111do...II
--
...........
w......
8ovs!oe<IiIs..-$tMI
_......-1
'-EX-Z......"'-'-'
--
ex-211ado.~
-.......
"'''
E)(·21Nadt .- --
.........- "''' ....." "'''
.- SitnoII~,... .-
"'''
.-
"_,- ..~ T....CIoIoIoa -- - \" ;-
r
. .
~ .. -
·.uJ.. .,
CPK
I
- ;J~
I~
p'
r:j
it
"''' EX-ZIlad<ArooItad
ST·t_V........ w......F.-'"!iJ
EX-Z8Iod<"'-""'d ST·J....'T...
--
NORTH ELEVATION
[714] 850.3400
....'T...
s_v_
".
".
Ie SCl£ERTlIW(AœNNEHYRilEYARCIITEClS
3 oo.KAi¡øt~Dri>e
CœlaIllso,CIibTioW
~14J~1sœ
TD
..-:. :.:.:.. ARCHJ1ECTlJ!E. INTERœDESGN
Perkowitz+ Ruth
ARCHITECTS
L
-,
I
!,
~
12'-6"
WEST ELEVATION
ISLAND ELEVATIONS
EAST ELEVATION
~
u
p~~
ARCHITECTS
03-288.43 Date:03-01-06
"
,
www.prarchitects.com
28'-0"
18'-6"
SCALf
[503J 478.9900 Portland, OR
DC
PARK
[703J 390.0400 Washington,
21'-6"
~
VALLCO FASHION
CUP E R TIN 0, C A L I FOR N I A
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
[562] 628.8000 Long Beach CA [702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NV
[714] 850.3400
21'-6"
-
-
i
NORTH ELEVATION
21'-6"
SOUTH ELEVATION
LEE & SAKAHARA .
~~~,~~~£I~,,,A~~,,,,,, __
'~"\'ONK.¡'.FIM~1\¡Allf ,Sc)I"'f~X! II.:
'FMN((';A¡;St\\I:>&OO·492i .
<>r19.o1rilt" I I 'x! r 94S?6- \u:
600 Anton Blvd., 16th Floor, Costa Mesa. CA 92626
:~~. ,{-t'
~"f"w<..Æ. /¡
·t",
/¡r, .
f .,- I '-~ ",
\
,
I
.
ICSCl£ERTAN!KI.CEt.lÆllYRilEYAAOITECTS
3100.KN øI~Dri>e
Cœlallssa,-.W
~"I~lsœ
TD
_ :..:.. ARCHITEC1l.Æ. iM'ERØtDESKìN
Perkowitz+ Ruth
ARCHITECT
L
LANDSCAPE PLAN
~E&
P-r:~
ARCHITECTS
03-288.43 Dete:03-01-06
SLAND RESTAURANT
STAMPED CONCRETE
~
t
__ LANDSCAPE
~
-
~
.
~
CPK RESTAURANT -
.
VALLCO FASHION PARK
CUP E R TIN 0, C A L I FOR N I A
LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
10123 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, STE. 2030, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
~
I
(
JJ
en
-I
m
<
m-
z
en .'
n':>"
:;u
m
m
"
r-"
m
fe,
e:::
T. 9 ,:zr:~~'"
""~ -'
ë;;:~j:;,;E"i- '::fA
'",~ ;'" '?'",,"i.:' i
>jc!'":~>i::';",,,'/~:'-
;; PROJËèl
.',:\:"~i~;'Þ~,~'::>':'!'f '
'~;:
~i
~J
tJ
I
J
\
I
"
SCALf
[503] 478.9900 Portland, OR
.
LEE & SAKAHARA
ARCHITECTS AlA
!.q{:HTECTU'I'Pl.MM'iGil'>11-RIŒ!
16!1o:? "ON ~ARM"~ AVf: ,5'-'I"f ;¡) J
R'IlI' [ CA,,$t,9æ:x;.~WT
p" ~!i;>6' TI()~ f 9.49 2(;' ~ :4~
~SCl£ERTI/i\KA_~LEYARCHITECTS
~oo.KAi¡øt~Dri>e
CœlaIlssa.ClibriaW
~WI~lsœ
TD
---= :.:..:... ARQiITECTœE· 1NTERœDESÞ3N
~
.prarchitects.com
WNW
[703] 390.0400 Washington, DC
{702] 852.8500 Las Vegas, NV
[562J 628.8000 Long Beach CA
[714] 850.3400
16th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
600 Anton Blvd.
S
Perkowitz+ Ruth
ARCHITECT
L