.04 Z-2009-01 City of CupertinoCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Agenda Item No.
Application: Z-2009-03, EA-2009-08
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Agenda Date: October 27, 2009
Property Location: East side of Sterling Blvd. at the easterly terminus of Barnhart
Avenue (no address number)
Application Summary:
REZONING of property from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park and Recreation
(PR) for a proposed neighborhood park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve a Negative Declaration for the project; and
2. Approve the Rezoning, Z-2009-03, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning Designation:
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Acreage (Gross) for rezoning:
Existing Land Use:
Parks and Open Space
R1-7.5 (Single Family Residential)
PR (Park & Recreation)
0.6 acre, two parcels (APN's 375-23-046/ 047)
Vacant land & trail head for Saratoga Creek
Trail
Consistency with General Plan:
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
SUMMARY
Yes
Negative Declaration
The proposed rezoning project site consists of two vacant properties and an 18-foot
wide trail connection (between Sterling Blvd. and the east bank of Saratoga Creek)
4-1
City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 OctoUer 27, 2009
Page 2
along the southerly boundary. The properties lie at the intersection of Sterling
Boulevard and Barnhart Avenue in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, which was
subdivided and developed in Santa Clara County in the 1950's and annexed into
Cupertino in 1998. The project property served as a water pumping station for San Jose
Water Company (SJW) until it was subdivided into two residential parcels in 2002 and
later sold to the City of Cupertino. The parcels are surrounded by single-family
residential uses to the south, west and north, and are bounded by Saratoga Creek and
Lawrence Expressway to the east.
Sterling Barnhart Park Development:
According to General Plan Policy 2-74, "the City shall provide three acres of parklands
for each 1,000 residents." In addition, General Plan Policy 2-83 states, "additional
parklands are identified and shall be acquired or dedicated in the Rancho Rinconda
area." The Rancho Rinconada area currently has approximately one-tenth of the
General Plan park acreage standard. Therefore, the City acquired the project parcels in
November 2008 with the intention to develop a small neighborhood park.
4-2
City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 October 27, 2009
Page 3
In April, May & June 2007, the City held a park design workshop with Rancho residents
to gather neighborhood input on the design of the park. Suggested design features
included:
• Half court basketball court
• Play structures
• Park benches
• Lawn areas
• California native plant garden
Preliminary park designs have been developed (see Attachments 1 & 2) with park
features sited in the westerly portion of the properties in order protect the existing
riparian vegetation along Saratoga Creek.
Next month the City Council will make final park design changes and award the low
bid for park construction. The park is projected to be complete by mid-Apri12010.
DISCUSSION:
Rezoning Application
The PR rezoning is consistent with the general plan land use designation, "Parks and
Open Space," and the existing and proposed improvements to the property.
Environmental Review Committee
On October 1, 2009, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the project.
Two areas of environmental concern were identified.
1) The potential for increased storm runoff and associated pollutants into Saratoga
Creek from new impervious surfaces in the park (i.e. sport court and walkways)
and landscaped areas.
2) Noise impacts on adjacent residences from the use of the basketball court. A
noise analysis was prepared and the consultant determined that the average,
projected noise level of 63 dBA was below the City noise standard of 65 dBA (see
Attachment 3). The ERC noted that the average, projected noise level is under the
General Plan noise standard; though there may '~e occasional noise spikes from
outdoor play similar to those in other small parks.
ERC recommended a negative declaration for the project (see Attachment 4), and noted
that consideration should be given to minimizing storm drainage toward Saratoga
Creek. Possible design measures include:
• Pervious pavement in the walkways and basketball court
• Draining impervious areas to landscape features
4-3
City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 October 27, 2009
Page 4
• Limiting the amount of lawn area thereby reducing the level of fertilizers and
pesticides that may enter the creek channel
Project Architect Terry Greene has informed staff that design features and materials
have already been incorporated into the project to minimize storm drainage to the
extent feasible.
Next Steps:
Nov. 11, 2009 City Council reviews and acts on rezoning project.
Nov. 17, 2009 City Council makes final park design changes and awards
the low bid for park construction.
Nov. 19, 2009 Break ground on park site.
Mid-Apri12010 Complete park construction.
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Attachment 1: Draft Park Design 1
Attachment 2: Draft Park Design 2
Attachment 3: Basketball Court Noise Study prepared by Charles Salter
Associates, Inc. Dated September 4, 2009
Attachment 4: Initial Study, ERC Recommendation & meeting minutes 10/ 1 / 09
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
hao
City Planner
Approved by:
yr
rivastava
Director of Community Development
G: ~ Planning ~ PDREPORT~ pcZreports ~ Z_2009_03.doc
4-4
Z-2009-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF TWO PROPERTIES COMPRISING 0.6 ACRE
FROM R1-7.5, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO PR, PARK & RECREATION,
LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF STERLING BLVD. AT THE EASTERLY
TERMINUS OF BARNHART AVE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Easterly side of Sterling Blvd. at the easterly terminus of Barnhart
Ave. (APN's 375-23-046, -047)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of properties, as described on 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 Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
4-5
Resolution No. Z-2009-03 October 27, 2009
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2009-03 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z-2009-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of October 27, 2009 and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, and
Exhibit B: Legal Description.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 27, 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Aarti Shrivastava .
Director of Community Development
APPROVED:
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2008\Z-2009-03 res.doc
4-6
/ t
dq
Oo'
'~ ~00p it t
R1 ?soo. r
soo' ~
~ LOT 278
1 ~ TRACT f183
I~-IA-lf '
,gyp. /
~BT34'S3"W 202; 2~' 15' WLE !
_ TRUE PotNT
--~-'- _~_ 44.76' ~ of SEGINNINCj
O ~/~ ~
n
~e ,~~'/" PARCEL 1 ~ / ~ ~ ; ~- 8 /
M m ,m/ "as•os4s•w nzse' , / / ~ ~ V
o~
~j O ~ ~ hg~ m ~ ~ ~ Q
~" m ~ ~~ ~ ~~ /g O
•/ ~ PARCEL 2
47 ~ / ~ w~ ~ a ~ ,i ~
m ~ 1~ 1RAIL Fleur ~1 a
0 .4i / / DOG /1683?24L ~ / °1 ~ 1
•8 _ 1 ~/
m ~ 521' Rt - - -. L - - ~, N87'39'33'W 123.01' ~ ~
_ - _ ------ _-J
BARNHAR7' •R1~ ~87395r` Ztz;32' •~
AVENUE / Ne '29 ~~ R
~ LOT 278
TRACT ff83 t
+*-M ~ ZON I NC-~ FLAT MAP
~~
~~" f2~ZONE ~Pf rox. o•Soi~l n•c.
~~ ; ~~rorY. R-I • -Fo pFZ
_~
i
/ "~'
~ N'C.S.
I
~Y~~~ 1T
Legal Description For Zoning
Parcels at Sterling and Barnhart
APN: 375-23-046 and 375-23-047
All that certain land situated in the State of California, County of Santa Clara, City of
Cupertino, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the centerline of Doyle Road, distant thereon North 0° 44' S 1"
West 2,224.51 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the centerline of Bollinger
Road; said point of commencement being also that point of intersection of the said
centerline of Doyle Road with the Southerly line of the lands of Tantau; thence from said
point of commencement, leaving said center line of Doyle Road North 87° 39' S3" West
along said Southerly line of the lands of Tantau, 135.00 feet to the true point of beginning
of this description; thence from said true point of beginning continuing along said
Southerly line of the lands of Tantau North 87° 39' S3" West 202.24 feet to a point in the
centerline of Sterling Boulevard; thence along said centerline of Sterling Boulevard
South 18° 50' 00" West 130.38 feet; thence South 87°39' S3" East 212.32 feet; thence
North 14° 30' 00" East 127.88 feet to the true point of beginning.
Containing 26,010 square feet or 0.597 acres, more or less.
4-8
Attachment 1
T
I
MATERIALS & FINISHES SCHEDULE
~ ~ N, rNlus.uo •arrsa Alea To s M rcueW+a Rcocl• a pUY ~~ KAY EQUWMFNi
ALL RAT 910e"raR RLTT.9D laY '° pwr:e9w N\LNi Ra
19a+TACn•aw79leraeepAn
L
~
pr
~
s ie
~m ~
e
m
t 1Sllall RA19aleC Iqe ttIRT tale' If'OlalleL'Ttel NaR t1Y ro 16TH IAYr wa ou1e. aca•eL CQIIALT JA om9w w1N wtr
161FAiltll PoR 1i11 rawunw Culwra.oa eII
reall
R9sl
aas
lu
se
r. m
ir
a
YI
w
r
ATt
aeoc Pee •PaFCJtpq 19eeN ro dE fL4aee ewm+PeaepcuAw To
TlsTeler raN n TwAVa rwo,•p roac lr Rw el'tc9YJTMIL
a RAT eoos+ea w nAnawcwa- w olor~ uxcw ran
:
- o
wlol
N
o
1lnl
N IL1l ROl IAOOYT1aM flv era9an
s Mw irtY Irer\]wlcrn+wls u ro le rAS
a Na saa awr -1
1 Ala mr tee Aa
L TtAnTw
nel w •o Mr# TAA .
eremle]r YM m eon er rnra-w tIe 91walOYd. NaN To a I'e 9exo AIO
1 iDralp Nl•e•K MLR ~e RA110wC. UaNgllt Gte•'
ere 1rw~mq R~iw ro ee~culeee~seoal P~errpL~u~ ro rindo f O eent•a MNB! 9ea31aB11 ~1H1! lM MIA COON Tan
a RAT aoasiea.w aw Ne1. uooLA cwaa Tm. Ia>•a~sMrW[lea]AAp JGr 06aw1 YIN war wealAnD11 RR ltlll
nova P'wO+LE MaiOC 1r• tea e1'eclrirb9a SeFETY AMPAONG a ltwf Iao1\TI.GTl01 NDIE V ro o euTN we •vN)•la alw.a lcurt
cool eT •~^-^-~ rover 99aN ro s P9:.ap ANO ewww rolclrnAr.
\ t'tate/R9e0 ew9N~ pwwTwGlbi Nlm W ro ee TeaeArAVi luTlaeel 9teN
rwvelo tae neN•unlas lloaraaATt1\ Mma Apr cYa9wl 991N
war 1ealAT9a1 row rxel 9arawTbr. tlo]o-roo. L Trwl7n.ea seese ~~~~le'ro a RATe1a•Dteeuele dr •19-IGT
eaar.L wTeLL tea naaTArn•-eY 14 TNa09• row ANi 1erAn.
r claw AeOrL rollwACrgl To rwwta A 1 m e+o oP EbI Mqe r lase wA®r~ IiYIT YIN ~ ~•~° taws role roll Mwaumr uw anana
t 19q IeAO9' CTaieTwGlbN NOl u ro r A Nocr' aws\ 1.x6 m naneAu
4 IYTI i aq(Q YtYfJe' IcnrtwclnN Noe W To s NwARAT run .PC#f
9w1 Pow MML tCiow ess=cola GONIAaf Jpr caeael u9n1 wwe weaeAnwl
Pow rral Nr
aun I/1b11 ro ee NLVANep, eleaeD rLVlr. IarA41 rte rwlsAClu-ef
N1wLTLK WRAR M
M%d
YM
w
twACa YIN NDVAIpt.lwr9e m NOI1 YroRe ly tea McNFAaT9®e0
16'01lM1rf11e ON Mll aO1rJl1e M.b O1L1e• tae tapALWAaI •
wl fva•-•IOa.
A.TANO11p caae MOI TOO[ taleafe0
a.TMCO1eD o;OR we ro r OOe00e:D G
1 Pole 11011
I
G LTp1 YLY AAFI®L
\ 1R.•II I6T1AOf Im\ll.laTlall Nvl an ro O 1Cii llo. Y'hSi en sr
A elletpr
a
A wiT •11e RaelY11N\ N•w1 ro!a eww>a roa[a.raAT.
coNrecT Jot Drawl YIN wor w•oa~nall Pow rea
w
s
e• alPael
G W VA al
t
1 iL1LS ILL OMIY UIOVt1e' TO S IdM eels YpaD lbel OdGw M 0e l
WQMATbIi f100 rL)rLta.
i wTUw_ wrAU Rw ruNM0111-ey we:pTepeD TNl~aie rqe rN111kM1
M tpW AOpr\ MillYtfGR ro rPaaVbe A I m aAb Q e.]LIl coat M LaC'ee
\ 19rlletL MpiaaO' IMIf1.IGIUII None aq ro o
iflJONG
L 1Jam wAL IeLY la3.slwa:lYYI NOIe L ro! ou tO11.er otwacp ra.nl elll 9r11 Kw r/UL t4Nt essaeaa aaifAp M4ec ASeleeQl19111 IIOiAILN
weReLC IL1e rCel •IOeMIIO! tall •pi1r. Aai OaIIRIITAN to sY tA.nsicwr. P•/t1 ro Q
"• vNJ$) NT41 tee 11eN•1eG•ele! NIIOCibI- ReeNl
aw we9e9N in9eN wm anAR, cow Au eTC.o •usACr a arm YIN
KANTWG ola NTIwI.Np ma o/9N tar tea RAOmallen aaNrACr Jot
aaeutl YIN 1•au wealATW role rlall /rawYir•!
rsalwAlN1 al R•IN LLl1eA P1l.n TWOgL Oaew TwerrewNr I@.NOL°'
1 tAllf eN9p PIWAOT Iai'a'L9Wl1.GIYa1 Nate 17 MLR ro d wLa ANa ro
wa aoes9n nwl L N•Kllnsd IrA>wT1.1e1nI NonW ro r ax. mu caw 16iuID
R.rra: IanrnRaoelo. Mt•e 10 s r9wpCClb wJaeKp sY PY; RYnal tlo'~oa. No r to
m eoao w9z wren tee lulla••eenaoeet9 wTwcr9ara ewneeT werLea Taw eltwe 9.G-N1bN
wau eao.L P a e
SffE PLAN LEGEND
srPea oaarrpN
M~ ^ i ~ u.r o erAac ~~~,,;_
---- rwaeem l9a
_.... .... ___ _.. __._ .
~-„~
LANDSCAPE
, ARCHITECTS
aETAI IB9®ax
/ .IiT wee®a 1NGOIPOIIAYHD
p31b1.rm& Sr IOC
Irdaw Rl eAlllT YllAGw PN: ((9]1))139-0133
fi: (9)1)139~OIBI
rCU@NI1JQ I.Om9 PIRIL)L • 1 ~ . r o m
•
C•LA Y29
S
O ROGiTCM®blfAlyl~ MICA JG
M'CilIL WMbMw ~IID=4~P~
CONSTRUCTION NOTES /~~'°"Ar `"' ~
'
1.0 HARDSGPE iaTAl `
~I C Ns iBro~ ly
1.1 toN•Twcr NIEawLL enwe ~ pee Pea tares ~, e,a. +-r-1o
..
A IJ CG.aTRGf CQplI! MT el7lalC IOl COar \.Y( raa tlfAL '
y. ~~
• IJ miT141 N1eG/1 MLR lr. 4Ele RAT YYwC rw nelLL ~
IJ fQwll.Cf CONalle JaNI•q r9R carAL
fQ\1RCI •TIOLIOp C.CQ'!1a>m t.AMe RAT YtJIOC RR aelAL
IA eW ALIewLTe M 0.1a11aEi reeylar ra4ER RAT YCq' 91
aeTLL
IS fLMTY: MLll ltll CGRI YaIICJNi WM.TIPW PpI GIfAL
lA aCialR]:T •teWlK p9r YD pYRee WtI A.RYLl rAa Pet aML
r3ANe Yp GIIY 0 G/9lIW •TANO:ap
7J1 FEl'1GMdCi
11 wTaL 9nca wAl leI¢ tee RTAI
13 oRAO! ANT OYYE®YLR W 0-]N6 WYO 8911: YO rANf
1:9D1 ereVtATGw
7A KAY EIX1M17BJT
LI trRT Alp wTAtl YCTD IaM N rurawa9.1 tae [aTAI ~ ~
O 9a! .Ml m TYI~.IQ M~l9YJ Psl CILW w~® a 'Q t
d
O NT.41 rlAYelCdlee KAY elwLTll p.IDY r 1MCiCJr!
p1.C•a-4 NG q~' p
4 ~ 31
1/ wuu 9c'a'epa0 RAT assn a Mm m l ---.Twcn9i,
NG _
O 9sT.ILLa9uY mrAlp aoQr lee.aTa M.mLAle.are Q ~ ~'~`
O 9~T eNa wrAU n,aTteruo.aluee tr tANeerve eTl.ei1961 (L ~ ~ y
Z~~ ~
LA SffE K)RNFNNGS
O Ra-aI ew wvu a' ROIIG TICL tea taaTAL
I~T~-1
y
~ F- ~ ~j ~ .
(n ~n ~S
u N9a~e
A
' [ L
O
11
NO wrr1.
eenl tea tInAL `
"'
l .rar,.mn...
O laplrl ANO wuu eAea owe 991N a 9eAn
O Rw1aI Alp wrALL tla luck Pea IapAL
O n•.Iell ANO wrAly rewc e9awwa NYL Pee aaeL
O ~ ~ v(/j~
~(u~R)ww.w wvu ,w
1w 11aaucit ~~~\
L^,.~ ~'Y
~
1
.
~
U
u alt R9a•tlm n•Teauwr caeiworeN eaN m t: rare]Jrfl cN
MaTwlcrwl R9Lw er Mllweerae ---
a weocATe TwAL wLJr ANO wrple tcw Z
®1 wTALL OW01041 N0.T erN@a R•e tafK O
~ j
----
SA SRE lfTillfl6
~ _.
11 •row1 CRA9ar[ 9Tela1 Pee UK row
~ss Nor
t ~ ~
l
eD ~ o3.vAln , alt
O NoT lam O o.,rlx 131
e.0 KANTMIG Q ~ =IP.e
u wTAti Tic tee TS.iler•e RAN ANO repel ®"
Z ~ s.s.n
O ile® {.
.
W
N L+1. alrrinOP
O wTAU P14X oN covet 1YO1' Pw R.Arrt9e RJN I.PO^JGLTOS z
~
a1 wTALL 16Y4ID RYTt N9KTIe IalO Pee 0010E
x SITE PLAN
t
P 6eaf
L-3.0
~~ -__
~.` ~ .. -_
; = -
,~F::
4' _.:
~..
GrJn~Ji:ai :~ In
acoJSiic;
~J~iO~\~iSUa'
S}~Si=;,-~ Gds yr
a-~~ Te'=co'-~-iJ~i~aiiocs
.-. _~~~~
San F-an~scc
Ca~i`orn~a 4,<Gc
c JJ3S:c
~.. _ ~`Ja~JJ'Sl -'_
o-.~I;.. r; ~aroez
rJ.-s- _ ~ ..-2JC
,.~.,~ _ x.51:-.
-,~ L ~ _~
JJC~..B ~., ~,_,~.
=.lnae
S,J,~.,, . Szole,
-~ :,_,:
. ~ ~ '~:'.~l':
- Attachment 3
Charles M Salter Associates I n c
4 September 2009
Darius Golkar
City of Cupertino
Public Works Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
E-mail: drew@golkar.us
Subject: Sterling Barnhart Park
Basketball Court Noise Study -Cupertino, California
Acoustical Consulting
CSA Project No.: 09-0298
Dear Mr. Golkar:
We have completed our analysis for the subject project. We understand that the project
proposes a basketball court to be constructed at the Sterling Barnhart Park, and the City is
concerned with basketball activity noise due to the relatively close proximity of existing
residential land-uses. On 31 August 2009, we conducted acoustical measurements to
quantify noise levels associated with basketball related activities (e.g., dribbling, shooting
the ball, etc.). The purpose of our measurements was to determine whether mitigation
would be required to meet project acoustical goals. This letter provides applicable
acoustical criteria, acoustical measurement data, and our findings as they relate to the
criteria.
In summary, our measurement data indicate that basketball activity noise at the proposed
project meets City noise goals and no additional mitigation is required.
Acoustical Criteria
Based on information provided to us by the City, we understand that the noise criterion for
basketball activities at the proposed project is not to exceed an average noise level of
65 dBA at all adjacent property lines.l
~ E-mail correspondence dated 1 September 2009.
4-11
Darius Golkar
4 September 2009
Page 2 of 2
Acoustical Measurements
The 17 June 2009 75% Construction Document Review Set indicates that the setback
between the backboard and the nearest property line is approximately 20-feet. On 31
August 2009, we conducted acoustical measurements to quantify noise levels associated
with basketball related activities (e.g., dribbling, shooting the ball, etc.). Our measurements
were conducted at a 20-feet setback behind the backboard of an existing basketball court
with a similar court surface. Measurements were conducted with calibrated Type-1
microphone and sound level meter.
Our measurement data indicate that the average basketball noise level from typical
basketball activities was approximately 63 dBA. This level would be less than the 65 dBA
criterion for the proposed project and no additional mitigation is required.
~ * ~
This concludes our current comments. Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
Timothy G. Brown
Principal Consultant
TGB\tb
-: a r . e s t,`i S a [tar ~. s s o c . a t a .. Inc ~_ .- ._ ~_-__ `_- =-_-_ __~ ~. ~ ~ _- :- -_ - = ._- ---_ __. - ::_- .-_-
4-12
Attachment 4
~~ c;iry or ~uper<inc
~ 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
ci»r OF (408) 777-3251
CUPER`TINO FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
INITIAL STUDY -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
Staff Use Only
EA File No. EA-2009-08
Case File No.Z-2009-03
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ttachments
Project Title: Sterling/Barnhart Park Rezoning & Construction
Project Location: East side of Sterling Boulevard at the easterly terminus of Barnhart
Avenue
Project Description: Rezone two abutting lots (APN's 375-23-046, -047) from Single-
Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park and Recreation (PR) & build a proposed park
Environmental Setting:
The subject lots. comprising 0.6 acre, extend from the centerline of Sterling Blvd. to the
centerline of Saratoga Creek on the east side. The lots have a level grade with a slight
easterly slope to the creek. Vegetation is ruderal except for the easterly 45 feet which is
riparian in character. The north -south running creek has been semi-channelized with
the creek bank reinforced with concrete-filled sacks. Part of the street frontage has been
improved with a concrete driveway. The southern portion of the property is an 18-foot
wide trail head connecting Sterling Blvd. with the Saratoga/San Tomas Aquino Creek
Trail segment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - _0.597_ Building Coverage - _N~A_% Exist. Building -_s.f. Proposed
Bldg. - s.f. Zone - R1-7.5 G.P. Designation -Parks & Open Space
Assessor's Parcel No. - 375 - 23 - -046, -047
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
^ Monta Vista Design Guidelines
^ N. De Anza Conceptual
^ Heart of the City Specific Plan
None
^ S. De Anza Conceptual
^ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
4-13
FNITIAL 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 Ridgeline Policy
10. Constraint Maps
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
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water Utility
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES
23. County Planning Department
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
27. County Parks and Recreation Department
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 Clara Valley Water District
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS '
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood MapsISCVWD 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. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan SetlApplication Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
scope/characteristics
47. ABAG Projection Series
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Complete all 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 page.
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) • •
4-15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
'~
v ~ vt ~ ~
~ ~ v ~ { ~
ISSUES: .
c :. -.
F
H :~- a, Q.
3 N := a~
= Z a j
[and Supporting Information Sources] o ~ ~! ~
~ ~
° N
E ~
~ .a' _ 1=
;
- Q-V) I J~ ~ =
- I JN
~ '
I
': I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: ~ ~ ---
:.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ~ ^ ^ ^ 4 ~ ~'
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ^ ~ '
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
^ i
^
^ ~ i
D
'character or quality of the site and its
;surroundings? [1,17,19,44] ~
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ^ ~ ~
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
(.Project site was formerly a San Jose Water Co. pumping station with only ruderal
vegetation. Relandscaping of the barren portion of the property will enhance its visual
appearance.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
'determining whether impacts to agricultural
~
~
resources are significant environmental ~
'effects, lead agencies may refer to the j t
"! California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by ~
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project: i
!, a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ~ ^ i ^ ^ D
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide t
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ~ j
'maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ! ~ ~ j
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the ~ !
'California Resources Agency, to non- ~
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
^
^
^ i
~
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ~ ^ ^ O
environment which, due to their location or ~
4
4-16
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
~ F
~
R ...+ ~ p ~C
~'
fl ~ ~ .«+ .«+
a
Q
~
C :~ n1
oa
~~ y :~
~
.
3o
yc :~
.
I Z
~~~ ~
~
a iii ~
m
~ in ~ c I
m
-~ in I
nature, could result in conversion of ~
i.
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] ~ { _,__~
II. Project site was formerly a water pumping station surrounded by single-family
residential uses. Redevelopment of the property to park uses will not diminish agricultural
lands.
~ - ------ -- -1---- --
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the ~
', significance criteria established by the
'~, applicable air quality management or air
', pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
_.~ ___
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of I
^ ! ^ ~ ~
^ i ~
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
-----
b) Violate any air quality standard or ~ ^ i ^ O ~ 0
;contribute substantially to an existing or ( I
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] j
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ D
increase of any criteria pollutant for which ~
the project region is non-attainment under an
' applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions j j
"! which exceed quantitative thresholds for r
'ozone precursors)? [4,37,44]
~_
,
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ ^ ^ ~ 0
;pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
'substantial number of people? [4,37,44] ^ ^
~ ^ i ~
~
III. The park is designed for neighborhood use. At'/Z acre in size, it is not large enough to
attract many destination vehicle trips from outside of the neighborhood, and would not
' contribute significant) _to air pollutants_from vehicle emissions.
i - ~ ---I--------- ; _~_ _
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would ~
the project: !
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
[5,10,27,44]
^ ^ ~ ^ ; ^x
5
4-17
--- - -........_ _ __ _.. _..._.._ _ _
__ _
I
~ W+ ~ i+ ~ y.+ -,
1
_ ~
ISSUES:
S
ti
rti
I
f
d S _ ~ N := ~ ~ Q.
~ 3 `
c ~ ~ ~ :E a z a
~ ~ ~ ~
ources]
on
orma
[an
uppo
ng
n ~
o
!~ a~ -~~ ~ c ~~ ~ l
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ ~ D
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or j
US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44]
_ _--
__ __._ ___
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ^ i ^ i
^ ~ ~ j
federally protected wetlands as defined by j j
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ~
i
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal j !
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, ~ ~ j
'filling, hydrological interruption, or other
i
'means? [20,36,44] k
d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ^ ^ ~
of any native resident or migratory fish or ( I '
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 1
impede the use of native wildlife nursery ~
;sites? [5,10,12,21,26] j
e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ^ ^ I ~
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11,12,41 ] ~
! _
~__..~._.-_i_
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted j ~
'Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ p
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
'conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
I.
I
~
IV. The ultimate project, a neighborhood park, would not remove any trees nor any riparian
vegetation, which is on the property, but outside of the park development area. Plans for a
"native plant" garden would enhance the riparian area.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project: ~
~ ~~T
~
I
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ~ ^ ~
', the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41 ]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ! c
^ !
^ i
^ ~ ~
'the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41 ] ~ j
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ; ^ ~
_ ^ ~
_ _ - ~ ^ k 0
_ _
6
4-18
c =
ISSUES: c4 ~ V
_ ~ ca t~ ~
E- ~ r i i4
o t~ V
F- ;~ ~ V
o ca
and Su ortin Information Sources
[ pp 9 ] *r
oa~E y ~
~a~3= `~ N a
~a~~ Z ~ ~'
~
_
a'vi ~
J~ ~ ~
_
min ~
;paleontological resource or site or unique
;geologic feature? [5,13,41 ] ~
d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~~~
those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ~ j
[1,5]
j
V. There are no known cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources on this former
water pumping substation. j
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the - ,- ---
(
ro'ect:
p J !
~
~ ~
~ f
_ _ ___
~ '
a) Expose people or structures to potential j
substantial adverse effects, including the risk i ~
of loss, injury, or death involving: i ~
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ! ^ ^ ' ~
'delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
'Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the i
State Geologist for the area or based on
,other substantial evidence of a known fault? ~
'Refer to Division of Mines and Geology ~ i
:Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
~
~
_
~
_
I i
rt
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ~
^ ^
^
[2,5,10,44]
_ ~
_~_;
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ ~
liquefaction? (2,5,10,39,44]
'; iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ^ , ^ ^ ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ~ ^ I ^ ^ ~ ~
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] ~ ~
~
~~ --------
~
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ~
^
;unstable, or that would become unstable as ~ ~ i ~;
a result of the project, and potentially result ~
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, i i
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2, 5,10, 39] ~
__
~~ .~__
~
', d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ^ ^ ': ~
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or CC
property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ^
~ ^ '; ~
_supporting the use of septic tanks or __ __ __ _i _ __ __
4-19
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
_ .~_
~ ~
r
a+ _ _ €
~ ~
_
r V ~~ ~ V~ ~ ~ ~ V~
°a
Ei N=3 a' ol ~=Ei
,
aoin j m ~
min
~ ~
c~ ~-
~N
V
O Q
z E
'alternative waste water disposal systems € !
'where sewers are not available for the
M
disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] ~ ~
_ J
VI. The easterly third of the property appears on the City's Geologic Hazards Map and is
susceptible to inundation and ground liquefaction effects. The impacts are considered
insignificant because the site is not being designed with significant improvements nor
permanent human occunancv.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
'': MATERIALS -Would the project:
s f
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ! ^ ^ € ^ ~
the environment through the routine I ! ~ '
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I ~
:materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
---~
', b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ~ ^ ^ j ~
the environment through reasonably ~ 4
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials ~ €
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] E I
-----
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle € ^ ^ I ^ ~ ~
1
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, !
;substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ~
i
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44] I
d) Be located on a site which is included on a ^ ; ^ ^ ~
list of hazardous materials sites compiled '{ €
pursuant to Government Code Section j
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ! I
~
!; significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
---
e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ( j
^ ^ C ~
"use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
--
-
- t ---
' f) For a project within the vicinity of a private i
^
^ €
^ ~ ~
airstrip, would the project result in a safety ` '
'hazard for people residing or working in the ~ G
;project area? [ ]
', g) Impair implementation of or physically ^ ~ ^ ^ ~
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation ~ I ':,
__ i ____
8
4-20
'.
~ ~ V
c ~
~ ~
~ t V L F L
c
i ~ ~ ~
j U
1
'ISSUES:
' CQ,
' _ ~ ~=~o°.
to ~ L
= 3 ~ H~Q.
y = oa'
1
Z !
' and Su ortin Information Sources
I pp 9 l °
a~~ '
'-
! d~ =~3
~~~ E
~
~
,
~ o
ain ~
i
-yin ~ c
-
min -~
_
,plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to.a ^ ~ ^ O ~ ~
significant risk of loss, injury or death I ~
involving wildland fires, including where ~
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with i
_wildlands?[1,2,44] ~ ~
VII. There are no hazardous materials on this vacant lot, nor are any contemplated for use
in develooinq this neighborhood park.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ ^ D
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
' b) Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ^ ! ~
'supplies or interfere substantially with
,groundwater recharge such that there would '
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
'lowering of the local groundwater table level ~
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing ~
nearby wells would drop to a level ~
~
which would not support existing land uses ~ j
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? [20,36,42]
----
e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ j ^ ' ^ C 0
'~ would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or ~
~
;provide substantial additional sources of i ~.
!polluted runoff? [20,36,42] ~
~
i
', f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ~ ---
^ j ^ -._-----
------
^ ~ ~
', quality? [20,36,37]
_~
!; g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ j ^ ^ I 0
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ~
j Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ~
^ ^ j I
^ ~
'structures which would impede or redirect
'flood flows? [2,38] ~
_,_ _~
i) Expose people or structures to a significant ^ ~ ^ O D
'risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, E
!
includin floodin as a result of the failure of
9 9 _ --- - -- ---- ..__.__ ~ ~
_ _ - - _ _ ~ _ __ _ _ - --1 _. _- -_ _. ~ _.. i
4-21
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
o~
~a~~i ~~ o~~ t~~~ ~
3 z
o ~E ~ ~ ~°! ~ a,E ~
a iii , -~ in ~ c ~ ~ ~ E
a levee or dam? [2,36,38] ~ j ~
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? [2,36,38]
^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ± o
VIII. The project would remove the existing impervious driveway and pad and replace it
with landscape areas. A proposed optional, sportcourt would add back the impervious
surface area, but stormwater runoff will be handled by existing vegetated areas and the
stormwater drainage system. The site is outside of the 100-year flood zone, except for the
stream channel. which is not contemplated for develooment.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would . ~
'
the project: ~ '
a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^
~
', community? [7,12,22,41 ] ( i
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ ! ^ ~
;policy, or regulation of an agency with ~ ~ j
jurisdiction over the project. (including, but ~ ~
:not limited to the general plan, specific plan, j ! ~
,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or ' ~
'' mitigating an environmental effect?
'; [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] ~ ~
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~
conservation plan or natural community ~ ~ j
'conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26]
IX. The PR rezoning proposal is consistent with the City General Plan designation of
"Parks and Open Space". The planned park development would create a neighborhood
focal point and join the neighborhood together. The rezoning and park development will
also be consistent with the San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan.
_ _______~.____ ~_.I
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project: ~
'; a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ~ ^
'mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
[5,10] I
b) Result in the loss of availability of a ^
locally-important mineral resource recovery i
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] i
^ i ^ i ^D
^ i ^ I ~
X. The project site has no known mineral resource of si nificance.
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
!
__,_
10
4-22
__ -- __. _ ___ _._ _.... ___ - --._. _ _._. _... __.___.. ___ __.._. --
-- .
_~ ~' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~
~ ..+ ~ ~ O c~'6 ~
~ V V ": ~ V ~, L. - _ _ 1 ...... .. __.
~ ~' I
R ~ .~. i w+
Z V V V
ISSUES: ~ ~ ~` ~' ~ ca o
3 H- ca o ca
[and Supporting Information Sources] o
c a, ~~ ~ a, y a, ~ ( ~
a cn E -~ cn ~ c ~v~ I
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ^ ' ^ ~ ^
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ~ ~
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,44]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ^ ~ ^
', excessive groundborne vibration or
', groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] ~ r
_
;____
c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ ~ ^ ( D ^
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
'above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
.~----- -
i --- ---------}
-~__ -~--------~
d) A substantial temporary or periodic ~ ^ ^ i ~ ^
increase in ambient noise levels in the ~ ~
'project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44] ~ ~ ~
e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ~ ^ ~
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project ~ j
expose people residing or working in the
I
;project area to excessive noise levels? ~ I
~
~
[8,18,44] ; '''
____ __.____~___ __ __
__
`f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~
;airstrip, would the project expose people ~ I ~ ~
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XI. An acoustical study was commissioned to evaluate the noise levels of a proposed,
'; optional, half-court basketball court on the north side of the property next to an existing
single-family residence. Noise measurement data from an existing basketball court with a
similar play surface indicated that the average noise level would be 63 dBA, which is below '~
the City noise standard of 65 dBA. No mitigation is required; however, the basketball
playing noise could be considered a nuisance by abutting residents, even if the average
:
noise level is below City standards.
. ~._._..__.._ i E j ~.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would ! ~ '
'
the project:
a Induce substantial o ulation rowth in an ^ ^ L7-V~p t
p p 9 ~
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
:indirectly (for example, through extension of ~ ~ ~
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
_ .,_ _
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing f ^ ~ ^ ^ i 0
11
4-23
~. ~' '.
~ C ~'
cv ~ ~ ~
I C '~' !
~, ;
~ V V I ~
'L~ V L
"' o
~.+ co
L ca ~ ~+
t V V +.~
V
ISSUES: .FJ .~ ~ i
~ = a ~ .~ ~
1
y ~ •3
~ ~
a ~ .~ (~
N :~ a !. O
z Q.
[and Supporting Information Sources] o ~ E ~ a, ~ o w a, E E
II
acn
~~
~
~
~~- ~
~
-
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] r
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ~ ^ ! ^ ~
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] i
XII. No housing will be displaced by this project. Population growth will not be induced as
the neiahborhood is already built out.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
I
~
a) Would the project result in substantial ~
~
:adverse physical impacts associated with the E
;provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or i
i physically altered governmental facilities, the ~
construction of which could cause significant
'environmental impacts, in order to maintain ~ E
'acceptable service ratios, response times or ~ ~
other performance objectives for any of the ~
'public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] i
^ ~ ^ ~
^ ~ ~
Police protection? [33,44] ^ ~ ^ ^ D
Schools? [29,30,44]
_ ~ ^ ' ^ ~
._~_---i----.------- ^ ~
~-- ' _____----
'
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^
^ j ^ ~
Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ^ ~ ^ ~ _^ ~ 0_ '
'! XIII. Project does not induce population growth that might have an impact on public
services. Project adds parkland to a neighborhood that currently has 1/10 of the City
standard of 3 acres er 1,000 population.
XIV. RECREATION -- I I
a) Would the project increase the use of
'existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
i might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
^ ~ ^ ~ ^ 0
^ ~ ^ ~ ^ I ~
12
4-24
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
i
_
~
~
C 'I ~
~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
LL
r ~ ~ ~ O LL~ ~ ~ '
r ~ ~ ~ ~
Q ~ 1
oa
E! y~3~° a~E ZE
'
a in m
~ in ~ c
~v~
-- _:
XIV. The creation of a small neighborhood park on a vacant lot that does not remove trees
or affect the abutting riaarian vegetation will not have a adverse environmental impact.
ON/TRAFFIC
--
XV. TRANSPORTATI
Would the project:
~_
'
!
_ _ _.__________
~
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ D
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44] j ~ ~
~~
', b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ r ^ ~ ^ ~
a level of service standard established by the
'county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ^ ^ ^ ( ~
;including either an increase in traffic levels or ~
a change in location that results in
;substantial safety risks? [4,?] j ~
_,
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ^ ~ ^ ^ O
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ~ ~
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
~
- ----
------ '
-
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ ^ ~ x
^ ~ ^ j ~ j
[2,19,32,33,44] i ~
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ~ ; ^ ~
j [17,44] j
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
^ I
^ j i x
^ ~ ^
'programs supporting alternative ~
~
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle ~
,,
~
racks)? [4,34] "
r i
~ ~
XV. The proposed park is too small to be attractive to residents living outside of the
neighborhood and is not expected to generate traffic from outside of the nearby area. Park
usage will generate some additional parking demand that can be absorbed by the abutting
street, Sterlin Blvd., which allows parkin on both sides.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project: 1,
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (5,22,28,36,44]
^ ^ i ^ ~
13
4-25
' A ~' C +-+ °
~
t4
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° L
V +~ ~ '
C a
~ ~ V V
~
'' ISSUES: ,
c :~ a ~ '~ ~ ° °a
~ C i NBC 3
~i-
~ '~ a + ° a
tA~~ f Z
[and Supporting Information Sources] •
o ~ ~~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E
a~ ! -u~ ~ c~ ~~
b) Require or result in the construction of j ^ ^ r ^ '~ ~
new water or wastewater treatment facilities ! ~
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] ~
~
i
_ - i ~
c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ '
new storm water drainage facilities or ~ ,
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] j
i i
-----
_
--._ ~ ~_
~
e) Result in a determination by the f! r
^ ~ ^ ~
^ j ~
wastewater treatment provider which serves ! I
or may serve the project that it has adequate ~ ~
'capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] `
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ( ^ ^ ! 0
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
? ~ ,
`
- -------------______r_ ________
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ ^ ^ ~
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? [~]
i
XVI. The planned park will have no restrooms and one, optional drinking fountain. No
expansion of wastewater facilities or storm water drainage facilities is contemplated. , j
14
4-26
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS QF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staffl"
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory? []
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
[]
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? []
0
a
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.
Preparer's Signature
Print Preparer's Name Colin unq
G:\Planning\MISCELL\Template\Initial Study Checklist.doc
15
4-27
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.
^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality
^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils
^ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials ^ Hydrology /Water
Quality ^ Land Use /Planning
^ Mineral Resources ~ Noise ^ Population /Housing
O Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic
^ Utilities /Service
Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ 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.
^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ 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.
^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have "peen 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.
9/26/09
Date
10/01 /09
Date
4-28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
October 1, 2009
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
October 1, 2009.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Sterling Blvd @ Barnhart Ave (APN 375-23-046, -047)
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Re-Zone two properties from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park & Recreation
(PR) and construct a neighborhood park.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
significant environmental impacts. The Committee also finds that decisionmakers
should minimize project storm drainage toward Saratoga Creek. Possible park design
measures include:
• Pervious pavement in the walkways and basketball court,
• Draining impervious areas to landscape features, and
• Limiting the amount of lawn area, because of the associated use of fertilizers and
pesticides, which could enter the creek channel.
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
g/erc/REC EA-2009-08
4-29
Community Development Department
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE HELD ON October 1, 2009
Committee Members: Gary Chao
Glenn Goepfert
Lisa Giefer
Rick Kitsen
Kris Wang
Committee Members absent: David Knapp
Ralph Qualls
Aarti Shrivastava
Staff present: Colin Jung
Staff absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 7, 2009
Dave Knapp, Aar. ti approval of the May 7, 2009 minutes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 2, 2009
Aarti approval of the July 2, 20()9 minutes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 17, 2009
ACTION: Approval of minutes from September 17, 2009
MOTION: Glenn Goepfert
SECOND: Lisa Giefer
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 3-0
(Committee member Chao approved the m.in.u.tes aria email)
NEW ITEMS:
1. Application No
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2009-036 (EA-2009-08)
City of Cupertino
Sterling Blvd @ Barnhart Ave
Re-Zone property from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) fo Park & Recreation
(PR), for a proposed neighborhood park.
^ Geologic
o The east side of the park could be subject to flooding from the creek, but
there is no proposed development there
o Impervious materials will be used to help reduce run off into the creek
^ Noise
o There are no significant noise impacts
o There is no proposed lighting for the park
4-30