The URL can be used to link to this page

15. 10642 N. Portal AveOFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - planning2cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: Tune 1, 2010 Application: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Richard Gregersen) Location: 10642 North Portal Avenue, APN's 316 -25 -047, -048, -054 APPLICATION SUMMARY Prezoning and Rezoning 0.028 acre from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5 (Single - family Residential), and 0.590 acre from Al -43 (Agricultural- Residential) to R1 -7.5; Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single - family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; and Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following applications to the City Council: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA 2010 -01 (Attachment A); 2. Prezoning and Rezoning, Z- 2010 -01, per Resolution No. 6593 (Attachment B). 3. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM- 2010 -02 per Resolution No. 6591 (Attachment C); 4. The Variance, V- 2010 -01, per Resolution No. 6592 (Attachment D) Staff is requesting a further modification of the tentative parcel map conditions of approval to require a stormwater detention/ retention easement on Parcel l as discussed under the Staff Comments section of this report. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Existing Zoning Designation: Al -43 (Agriculture- Residential - 43,000 square feet minimum) and City of Sunnyvale 15 -1 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) Jiuie 1, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 2 Proposed Zoning Designation: R1 -7.5 and pre- R1 -7.5 (Single - Family Residential -- 7,500 square feet minimum) Total Gross Lot Area: 26,930 square feet (0.618 acre) Proposed Lot Areas: Gross Area Net Area Parcel 1: 13,982 sq. ft. 9,376 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 11,737 sq. ft. 9,348 sq. ft. Exception Area: 1,211 sq. ft. 1,211 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Proposed Density: Project Consistency with General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Review: Vacant Single- family residential 3.24 dwellings /gross acre Yes Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The applicant, Pam Yoshida of MBA Architects, representing landowner Westwood Investments, is seeking the above captioned entitlements to subdivide a vacant lot into two single - family residential lots. The fenced lot is located at the terminus of North Portal Ave. and is accessed via a 20 -foot ingress- egress easement located on the left side of 10642 North Portal Ave. The lot is surrounded on the north and east by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage chaiuzel and Highway 280, to the south by single - family dwellings, and to the west by two -story apartment buildings. In Figure 1, the light blue lines mark the project property boundaries. The red triangle is the lot exception area that is located in the City of Sunnyvale, and the hatched rectangular area depicts the existing access easement to the lot. The lot currently has some accessory structures, fencing and landscaping, where neighbors have extended their yards into the property. Figure 1 15 -2 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) June 1, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 3 DISCUSSION Project Description The project consists of a pre -zoning and re- zoning to R1 -7.5 to facilitate the subdivision of a vacant parcel into two single - family lots. The lots are designed with a new cul -de- sac that is tied into the public street via an existing ingress- egress easement on 10642 North Portal Avenue. The subdivision will be consistent with the proposed zoning if a variance is granted to allow a lot of width of 55 feet where 60 feet is required. See the Planning Commission staff report (AttachmEnt E) for additional details. Planning Commission Meeting On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended with a 3 -0 vote (Commissioners Giefer and Kaneda absent) to approve the project (Attachment F — Planning Commission minutes). The Commission was supportive of the project but suggested that there should be a condition requiring disclosure to future property owners of potential noise concerns with the Exterior noise level of the project given its proximity to the freeway. A disclosure condition (Condition #4, Attachment C) has been added to the resolution. Public Comments Comments expressed at the hearing or in emails to staff are as follows (staff responses are provided in italics): • Future new residential development should plant privacy landscaping. Staff response: Property is proposed to be rezoned JR1- single-family residential zoning. R1 has zoning requirements for privacy landscaping) new two story residences. • The overhead electrical utilities along the southern property line hang low and need to be undergrounded to allow a fire truck to pass into the proposed cul -de -sac. Staff response: Undergrounding of overhead utilities is a standard Public Works Department condition of approval and is required as part of the development approval, including subdivisions. • Future, new residential development should avoid interference with onsite utility easements. Staff response: Existing utility easements are depicted on the parcel map. The potential building footprint is also shown. Lots are large enough to build a house without encroaching into the easement areas. • Parking should not be allowed on the ingress /egress easement. Staff response: The 20 foot wide easement is not wide enough to allow parking. Parking would be prohibited. The affected lot is large enough and developed with sufficient parking spaces. The affected lot has a minimum of a 2 -car garage and five driveway apron spaces outside of the easement area. 3 15 -3 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) June 1, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 4 • Will garbage trucks pick up the garbage at the curb in the new cul -de -sac or will residents have to transport their toters to the N. Portal Avenue cul -de -sac? Staff response: The new cul -de -sac and easement area will be built to public street construction standards that can accommodate emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. Since the access will be privately- owned, the new homeowners will be asked to sign a damage release with Recology to obtain curbside service. If the homeowners decline to sign the release, they may pay an extra distant charge and Recology employees will transport the toters from the new residences to the public street and return them. • There appears to be some ongoing construction work at 10642 North Portal Avenue. Does the property owner have building permits? Staff response: The owner obtained an electrical permit for a previously unpermitted electrical meter. The owner also took out and renewed a plumbing permit for a water tank and water line replacement. Other work, such as debris clean -tip, carpeting and painting does not require city permits. Staff Comments A portion of the proposed Parcel 1 (on the east side of the cul -de -sac) is needed for facilitating the required storm water retention system of the development. A condition has been added requiring the recordation of a storm water detention/ retention easement on Parcel 1. In addition, all of the environmental mitigation measures relating to air quality and noise impacts identified by the Environmental Review Committee have been incorporated as conditions of this project. (See Attachment C, Conditions 4 & 5). Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Approved by: A David W. Knapp City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Initial Study, ERC Recommendation and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment B Resolution No. 6593 for Z 2010 -01 4 15 -4 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) June 1, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 5 Attachment C Resolution No. 6591 for TM- 2010 -02 Attachment D Resolution No. 6592 for V- 2010 -01 Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/13/10 Attachment F Draft Planning Commission minutes from 4/13/10 meeting Attachment G Assessor Parcel Map depicting lots with widths less than 60 feet Attachment H Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, dated December 18, 200 Attachment I Noise Study Addendum; dated March 23, 2010 Attachment J Air Quality - Mike O'Connor, M'OC Physics, dated April 5, 2010 Attachment K Zoning Ordinance Attachment L Plan set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT � CC \ 2010\ TM- 2010 -02 V- 2010 -01 Z- 2010 -01_CC 05 -04 -10 .doc 5 15 -5 Attachment A Mnzx City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 ci7Y of (408) 777 -3251 CUPEt�TINO FAX (408) 777 -3333 Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-201 0-01 Case File No. TM-2010-02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 010 -01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: lAttachments Noise Report, Phase 1 report Project Title: Subdivision & Rezoning: Lands of Westwood Investors Project Location: No address behind 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN316 -25 -047, - 048 054) Project Description: Subdivide 0.618 acre into two residential lots of about 11,737 & 13,982 sq ft with an exception area of 1,211 sq ft in Sunnyvale. Varian to a llow lot width of 55 ft where 60 ft is the minimum Prezone 0.028 ac from Sunnyv to pre -R1- 7.5 and 0.59 ac from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 Environmental Setting: Vacant land surrounded by single- family detached land uses to the ea an south, apartments to the west and US Highway 280 to the north PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) — 0.618 Building Coverage - N/A % Exist. Building - 0 s.f. Proposed Bldg.- NIA s.f. Zone— Al-43 G.P. Designation — Low Density Res. (1 -5 du /qr. Ac.) Assessor's Parcel No. 316 - 25 - 047, -048, -054 If Residential, Units /Gross Acre - 3.24 du /qr. Ac. 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 ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual ❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non - Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max. 15 -6 Employees /Shift - Parking Required 6 /10t Parking Provided 6 /lot INITIAL'STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area — YES 0 NO ❑ 2 15 -7 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 F. FEMA Flood Maps /SCVWD Flood Maps G. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" H. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan I. County Heritage Resources Inventory J. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site K. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site L. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials M. Field Reconnaissance N. Experience w /project of similar scope /characteristics O. 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) 3 15 -8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 15 -9 .c �� ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] C Q. o F- 4- ao� N •- C. '— o o� N '� C- Z CL a, _I r a cn -u U) c _ U) I. AESTHETICS -- Wo uld the proj ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ! ❑ p scenic vista? [5 ,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ i ❑ i ❑ L7 including, but not limited to, trees, rock I outcroppings, and historic buildings within a I j state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] I I I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual i ❑ ❑ ❑ p character or quality of the site and its l surroundings? [1,17,19,44] i d) Create a new source of substantial light or i� ❑ ❑ ❑ p glare, which would adversely affect day or i nighttime views in the area? [1, 16,44] IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In i determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental I ! effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and j 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: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ i p Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland. Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? [5,7,39] I b) Conflict with existing zoning for 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ p agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ! ❑ ! ❑ ❑ p environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 15 -9 15-10 V I C" O cC v ._ -M I V 4= ISSUES: ' m c °' [and Supporting Information Sources] j c N c '3 . °'� N °. ! z Q- � = 0 i � E E , a, .� Farmland, to non - agricultural use? [5,7,39] I � _ ! III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air , pollution control district may be relied upon j to make the following determinations. Would th projec a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ; ❑ ❑ t applicable ai r quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or j ❑ ❑ I El ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or ! projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ i E increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality j I standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ! ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] j d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ( ❑ ❑ , ❑ pollutant con [4,37,44] I I I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a i —❑ ❑ i ❑ 0 substantial num ber of people? [4,37,44] I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: I i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ++ I ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 directly or through habitat modifications, on j any species identified as a candidate, j sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by j ! the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10, b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 15-10 IVe) Site survey by staff shows only two Willow trees (Salix sp.), two incense cedars and several fruit trees (apricot and orange) present on the property. There are no protected trees on the property as identified in the City's protected tree ordinance, CIVIC Section 14.18. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted V O i C U V V ISSUES: yd .v lC c a 4 - V .c ++ O N `.= = Q 3 .c H .v CC N E C p f4 z a [and Supporting Information Sources] I El = � E E approved local, regional, or state habitat o. a. N I -uN c, -j U) plans, policies, regulations or by the j _ California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ I ❑ I ❑ El j federally protected wetlands as defined by the significance of a historical resource as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, ; — b) Cause a substantial adverse change in i filling, hydrological interruption, or other ❑ j the significance of an archaeological means? [20,36, i i resou pursuant t o §15064.5? [5,13,41] d) Interfere substantially with the movement i ❑ i ❑ ❑ of any native resident or migratory fish or i wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or g ry I i I impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10, 12,21,26] i e) Conflict with any local policies or { ❑ ❑ ❑ L7 ordinances protecting biological resources, I i such as a tree preservation policy or o [11, 12,41 IVe) Site survey by staff shows only two Willow trees (Salix sp.), two incense cedars and several fruit trees (apricot and orange) present on the property. There are no protected trees on the property as identified in the City's protected tree ordinance, CIVIC Section 14.18. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ p ❑ p Community Conservation Plan, or other i approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the projec a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ , ❑ I ❑ 1 j i E3 the significance of a historical resource as i def ined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] ( �_ ; — b) Cause a substantial adverse change in i ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the significance of an archaeological i resou pursuant t o §15064.5? [5,13,41] i 7 15 - ?1 15-12 V V o f .� L I V I V '•. 2 C1 ISSUES: Sources] �+ t6 c tt1 E i .� p E- O N= 3 a'0. y ='= a; Z a N `o [and Supporting Information p a, = ; — i c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique i ❑ ❑ ❑ ! 0 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13, ] d) Disturb any human remains, including ! ❑ ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the { project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: - j i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as i ❑ j ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? j Refer to Division of Mines and Geology { i Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] i I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ i O ❑ 1 [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including I ❑ ❑ i ❑ I 0 liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] i ❑ ❑ I ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the I ❑ ❑ ( ❑ 0 lo ss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] ! j c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ I ❑ i 0 unstable, or that would become unstable as i a result of the project, and potentially result I i in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? , [2, 5,10, 39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ i ❑ ❑ j 0 in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or ! i pr operty? [ 2, 5, 10] I I I e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ i ❑ I ❑ 0 15-12 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VI. A review of the City's Geological Hazards Map indicates that the subject property and surrounding area are not subject to inundation, liquefaction or other soil issues that may occur in proximity to a drainage channel. Property will have access to sanitary sewerage and will not rely on septic systems. Property, as are all properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, are affected by seismic activity along the earthquake faults. Property is not in an Alquist- Priolo fault zone nor is the property near a potentially active fault line. Compliance with current building and seismic codes will be adequate to protect lives and property from seismic activity. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS O j MATERIALS -Would the project: ~ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ! ❑ ISSUES: I = = �. = u) = 3 c� a " r-;�. Q. �' = o CL : z and Supporting Information Sources j °% transport, use, or disposal of hazardous '� i a U _J c -y in b) Create a significant hazard to the public or supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VI. A review of the City's Geological Hazards Map indicates that the subject property and surrounding area are not subject to inundation, liquefaction or other soil issues that may occur in proximity to a drainage channel. Property will have access to sanitary sewerage and will not rely on septic systems. Property, as are all properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, are affected by seismic activity along the earthquake faults. Property is not in an Alquist- Priolo fault zone nor is the property near a potentially active fault line. Compliance with current building and seismic codes will be adequate to protect lives and property from seismic activity. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS j MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ! ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the environment through the routine i transport, use, or disposal of hazardous i materials? [32, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ' ❑ ❑ ❑ i x the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials i into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ D hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ❑ I ❑ I rX_1 list of hazardous materials sites compiled i pursuant to Government Code Section i 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a I I significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] I I I e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ i ❑ 121 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport j or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or 9 15-13 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ?[1,2,44] VII. A Phase 1 environmental assessment indicates no prior land uses that would cause a hazardous waste contamination issue, other than the orchard use which was common throughout Cupertino. There are no local agency records indicating use, storage or spills of hazardous materials on the property. A physical inspection of the property also showed no evidence of use, storage or contamination by hazardous materials. i VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: co r a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ i O waste disch arge requirements? [20,36,37] { 0 cc oa,El Q ='o! T ❑ p 0 a�E' E a. u) I -�� _� �U) lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level i j I which would not support existing land uses i I I j granted)? [20,36,42] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1XI ' ❑ I 0 I river, in a manner which would result in I i VII. A Phase 1 environmental assessment indicates no prior land uses that would cause a hazardous waste contamination issue, other than the orchard use which was common throughout Cupertino. There are no local agency records indicating use, storage or spills of hazardous materials on the property. A physical inspection of the property also showed no evidence of use, storage or contamination by hazardous materials. i VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: r a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ i O waste disch arge requirements? [20,36,37] { b) Substantially deplete groundwater I ❑ ❑ T ❑ p 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 i I or planned uses for which permits have been i j granted)? [20,36,42] c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ 1XI pattern of the site or area, including through I the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off - site? 10 15 -14 storm flows onsite. Land has been reserved in the subdivision (eastern side) to accommodate C3 requirements. Improvements will be designed at the improvement plan stage of the final map approval. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: I a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ ! r community? [7,12,22,41] I 11 15 -15 O L � .� ISSUES: I c : c. H : O1 us ? F '��'- `° o cc N CL j Z 0 E E [and Supporting Information Sources] o a, E = o � ai as a- U) I � J tq C ; -J U) I [14, 20,36] ( - -' d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ I ❑ i ❑ Uij pattern of the site or area, including through i the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which i ❑ ❑ I 0 ! ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or , provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] I I f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ 1 ❑ I 0 _ I ❑ quality? [20,36,37] i I I i g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ i ❑ 1 D hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ El structures which would impede or redirect I i flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ I ❑ , IXI risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ I ❑ IXI mudflow? [2,36,38] VIII. The amount of phvsical development of the prooerty triaaers reauirements to retain storm flows onsite. Land has been reserved in the subdivision (eastern side) to accommodate C3 requirements. Improvements will be designed at the improvement plan stage of the final map approval. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: I a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ ! r community? [7,12,22,41] I 11 15 -15 12 15-16 cav °� -°��' rte° ISSUES: Sources] c c, 0I ' _ °� !E a' - ! a, E' 3 0 o F— ° ca 0 E I z E [and Supporting Information c in b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ I ❑ 0 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but I not limited to the general plan, specific plan, j local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) f adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I mitigating an environmental effect? I I [1, 7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ I D conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the I project: I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ; ❑ ❑ ❑ D mineral resource that would be of value to I I the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] i b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ j ❑ I ❑ i D locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other lan use plan? [5,10] j XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: � � I a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, I ❑ 0 i ❑ ❑ noise levels in excess of standards I i established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] I ( I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ 0 I ❑ ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne n oise levels? [8,18,44] i I c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ i ❑ ❑ D j ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? j [8, 18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic j ❑ ❑ I D ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without i j 12 15-16 XI. A noise assessment for the project was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated December 18, 2009. Measurements indicate that ground floor noise level will be 68 dB CNEL and second floor will be 76 dB CNEL. Bo levels exceed the "normally acceptable" General Plan noise exposure level for low density single - family land uses. The more important measure is the ground level measurement as this is the noise level of the yard areas (There is an existing 12 -foot tall sound wall that was erected by CALTRANS). The higher ground floor noise level is in the "conditionally acceptable' range if detailed noise analysis is completed and noise reduction features are incorporated in the design of the dwellings. Interior noise levels in the most impacted rooms (facing the freeway) are estimated to be 53 dB CNEL for the first floor and 61 dB CNEL for the most impacted second floor spaces. The maximum interior noise requirement is 45 dBA. According to the consultant, this level can be achieved if all glass windows and doors facing the freeway remain close. The first floor windows must have a minimum STC rating of 28 and second floor windows (facing the freeway) must have a minimum STC rating of 36. All impacted windows must have high quality, durable frames and air -tight seals to be Effective. Mechanical ventilation for living spaces that have a closed window condition, should also be required. As these mitigations apply to residential development of the properties and not the subdivision. A notification should be placed on the final map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future property owners of the availability of the noise report and building requirements needed to achieve conditionally acceptable City noise standards. 1 15-17 ( O O 45 ISSUES: +, y V --, r t6 O M O M cn L N z 0. 3 [and Supporting Information Sources] �' El 4. o i N - E E — — 0- U) i J U) c _J i th proje [ 8,18,44] _1 _ I e) For a project located within an airport land I ❑ ❑ ❑ ! 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport j or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the ' project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,4 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ i ❑ ! ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people I + I residing or working in the project area to I j excessive noise l [8,18] XI. A noise assessment for the project was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated December 18, 2009. Measurements indicate that ground floor noise level will be 68 dB CNEL and second floor will be 76 dB CNEL. Bo levels exceed the "normally acceptable" General Plan noise exposure level for low density single - family land uses. The more important measure is the ground level measurement as this is the noise level of the yard areas (There is an existing 12 -foot tall sound wall that was erected by CALTRANS). The higher ground floor noise level is in the "conditionally acceptable' range if detailed noise analysis is completed and noise reduction features are incorporated in the design of the dwellings. Interior noise levels in the most impacted rooms (facing the freeway) are estimated to be 53 dB CNEL for the first floor and 61 dB CNEL for the most impacted second floor spaces. The maximum interior noise requirement is 45 dBA. According to the consultant, this level can be achieved if all glass windows and doors facing the freeway remain close. The first floor windows must have a minimum STC rating of 28 and second floor windows (facing the freeway) must have a minimum STC rating of 36. All impacted windows must have high quality, durable frames and air -tight seals to be Effective. Mechanical ventilation for living spaces that have a closed window condition, should also be required. As these mitigations apply to residential development of the properties and not the subdivision. A notification should be placed on the final map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future property owners of the availability of the noise report and building requirements needed to achieve conditionally acceptable City noise standards. 1 15-17 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] -W I t4 O M c3 F - s G. f a� C E y C 3 of C I .CC U V V V N 4' 0. Z Q N E E I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the p roject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ area, either directly (for example, by ! ' proposing new homes and businesses) or i indirectly (for example, through extension of rn I UdUJ UI UU ICI 11111 C1JU U%,Lura.� i b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 housing, necessitating the construction of replacemen housing elsewhe [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ! ❑ ❑ 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] 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 physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain 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] ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? [ 2 9, 30,44] ❑ I ❑ ❑ i E Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other p ublic fac ilities? [19,20,44] ❑ ❑ i ❑ I FX i — XI R ECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ O existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ph ysical deterioration of the 14 15-18 — — � �= 0 15 15-19 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — ` I Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ O requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5, 22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ I ❑ ❑ I D new water or wastewater treatment facilities ! or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant j I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of i ❑ ❑ ❑ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the j construction of which could cause significant , environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate { capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitmen [ 5,2 2, 28,36,44] 1 i f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient i ❑ I ❑ 1 ❑ ED permitted capacity to accommodate the i I project's solid waste d isposal needs? [ ?] i ► I g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ ' 0 statutes and regulations related to solid i waste? [ ?] 16 15 -20 -�M O`, t tc°� 26 F F- _ O 1 1 I— �, Q i i O M [and Supporting Information Sources] � �' a, a a, 3 N as E E E _ 16 15 -20 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed b City Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ i IK 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 i levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal I j community, reduce the number or restrict the i range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of i the major periods of California history or prehistory? J ' 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 I j projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental i ❑ j El ❑ ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse j effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (] 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 con::ulted 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 tri consequences of such delay or discontinuance. A Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's Name 17 15 -21 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 CK Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 121 Hazards & Hazardous Materials I] Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning • Mineral Resources El Noise ❑ Population / Housing • Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic • Utilities / Service Sy stems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ❑ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I] 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 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. 18 15 -22 Staff Evaluator 0 ERC Chairperson 19 2/17/10 Date 2/18/10 Date 15 -23 Supplement to Initial Study for File No. EA- 2010 -01, Location 10642 N. Portal Avenue (Other file nos. TM- 2010 -02, Z- 2010 -01, V- 2010 -01) III. Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is in the process of adopting new CEQA Guidelines which may happen by June 2010. A portion of those guidelines are likely to include thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminants generated from vehicle exhaust emissions along major transportation corridors. Of particular concern according to the Bay Area Air Quality Monitoring District is the proximity of receptors to the concentrated quantities of diesel fine particulate matter within 1,000 feet of highly traveled vehicle corridors, like Highway 280, which is adjacent to the project. A summary letter discussing these potential air quality impacts and possible mitigations was prepared by Michael O'Connor of M'OC Physics. His recommendations are described below: a. Provide tiered plantings of trees such as, deodar cedar, costal redwood, live oak and/or oleander along the freeway wall side to reduce exposure to toxic air contaminants and particulate matter. b. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply for each dwelling unit. The ventilation system should be designed to prevent at least 80% of ambient PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 micron size diameter) concentrations from entering the indoor areas through the system. The air intake for each dwelling unit should be located away from the freeway. c. Where appropriate, install passive (drop -in) electrostatic filtering systems especially those with low air velocities (i.e.1 mph). Approval to landscape and build the dwelling units are not part of this subdivision approval. Therefore, a covenant shall be recorded on each lot notifying future purchasers of the building and landscaping requirements for air quality mitigation. 15 -24 CITY OF CLFPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 2010 As provided by the Environmental AssessmE!nt 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 February 18, 2010. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATIO] Application No.: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida (Westwood Investments, LLC) Location: 10642 N Portal Avenue DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1 -7.5 and 0.590 acres from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts, provided that the following mitigations are incorporated in the project: 1) Interior Noise Impact Add notification to Final Map and :record covenants on each residential lot, notifying builder that STC -rated glass window assemblies, high quality window frames and mechanical ventilation are required for living spaces with windows that face freeway per the acoustical report. 2) Exterior Noise Impact Evaluate extent of sound wall needed to protect exterior rear yard areas from excessive noise levels generated by freeway traffic. Ascertain if higher soundwall will cause reflected noise impact on adjacent, residential properties. 15 -25 3) Air Quality Impacts Provide high quality air filters on mechanical ventilation to reduce potential toxic air contaminants. Provide landscaping screen along soundwall to control fugitive dust impacts. Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erclREC EA- 2010 -01 15 -26 CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATV E DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 171977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 4, 2010 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida (Westwood Investments, LLC) Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 N. Portal Ave DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; and Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from the City o:' Sunnyvale to pre- R1 -7.5 and 0.590 acres from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. The applicant shall adhere to all of the conditions required by the City Council on May 4, 2010 including but not limited to: 1) Mitigation efforts to address issues of indoor air quality 2) Mitigation efforts to address noise impacts from construction and the freeway 3) Landscaping improvements to allow for visual screen of the freeway soundwall(s) / s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on June 1, 2010 /s /Kim Smith City Clerk g/erc/negEA20I001 15 -27 Mitigation Monitoring Report for File Nos. TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) A. Noise Environment Impact: The property is subject to significant noise above General Plan acceptable noise standards from vehicles on Highway 280 The measured traffic noise levels at the planned building setback are 76 dB CNEL at the first floor elevation and 76 dB CNEL at the second floor elevation. Cupertino's noise standard is 60 dB CNEL for the exterior and 45 dB CNEL for the interior areas. Mitigation: The following mitigation is needed at the time of residential development to bring interior noise levels within General Plan noise standards: a. Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class STC 36 at the second floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway. Install windows rated minimum STC 28 at all first floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway and at all second floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway. All such windows must have high quality, heavy duty frames and air -tight seals to the outside environment. b. Provide appropriate mechanical ventilation as needed for living spaces with closed windows. A covenant shall be recorded on each lot notifying future purchasers of the building requirements for noise mitigation. Implementation: City departments - Community Development, Attorney's Office and Public Works will review covenant and ensure it is recorded on the properties with the final parcel map. Community Development (Planning and Building) will require the STC -rated glass windows and mechanical ventilation at the building permit stage. B. Air Quality Environment Impact: The property is subject to vehicle exhaust emissions from vehicles traveling on Highway 280. Of particular concern according to the Bay Area Air Quality Monitoring District is the proximity of receptors to the concentrated quantities of diesel fine particulat matter within 1,000 feet of highly traveled vehicle corridors, like Highway 280. Mitigation: The following mitigation is needed at the time of residential development to mitigate potential air quality impacts: a. Provide tiered plantings of trees such as, deodar cedar, costal redwood, live oak and/or oleander along the freeway wall side to reduce exposure to toxic air contaminants and particulate matter. 2 15 -28 b. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply for each dwelling unit. The ventilation system should be designed to prevent at least 80% of ambient PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 micron size diameter) concentrations from entering the indoor areas through the system. The air intake for each dwelling unit should be located away from the freeway. c. Where appropriate, install passive (drop -in) electrostatic filtering systems especially those with low air velocities (i.e.1 mph). A covenant shall be recorded on each lot notifying future purchasers of the building and landscaping requirements for air quality mitigation. Implementation: City departments - Community Development, Attorney's Office and Public Works will review covenant and ensure it is recorded on the properties with the final parcel map. Community Development (Planning and Building) will require the filtering landscaping in the yard and the air filters as part of the mechanical ventilation at the building permit stage. 15 -29 Attachment B Z- 2010 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6593 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE PRE - ZONING AND RE- ZONING OF ONE LOT OF 0.618 ACRE, CONSISTING OF A PRE - ZONING OF 0.028 ACRE FROM THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE- R1 -7.5 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 7,500 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE) AND A RE- ZONING OF 0.59 ACRE FROM A1-43 TO R1 -7.5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN's 316- 32 -047, -048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the prezoning and rezoning of property, 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 prezoning & rezoning meet the following requirements: 1) That the prezoning & rezoning are 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. 15 -30 Resolution No. 6593 Z- 2010 -01 April 13, 2010 Page 2 4) That the proposed prezoning & rezoning are 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 prezoning & rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z- 2010 -01 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- 2010 -01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 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 Al and A2: Zoning Plot Maps, and Exhibit B1 & B2: Legal Descriptions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda ATTEST: s Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department G: \Planning \PDREPORT \RES \2010 \Z - 2010 -01 res.doc APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 15 -31 Attachment C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6591 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 11,737 AND 13,982 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH AN EXCEPTION AREA OF 1,211 SQUARE FEET IN THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE LOCATED NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map, 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) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and/or substantial and unavoidable injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Parcel Map, file.no. TM- 2010 -02, 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 No. TM- 2010 -02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are 15 -32 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 20'10 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 2 incorporated by reference as though fully set fortl herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM- 2010 -02 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/ Richard Gregersen) Location: Property northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Ave. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT /RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE /CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared by MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of two sheets labeled GO and C -1 prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated February 2010, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all structures on the property. 4. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) NOISE MITIGATIONS/ RECORDING OF COVENANT The project will provide the following CEQ!A noise mitigations at the time of residential development: a. Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class STC 36 at the second floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway. Install windows rated minimum STC 28 at all first floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway and at all second floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway. All such windows must have high quality, heavy duty frames and air -tight seals to the outside environment. b. Provide appropriate mechanical - ventilation for living spaces with closed windows. Covenant shall be recorded on each lot notifying future purchasers of the 15 -33 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 3 above matters. The covenant is subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the final map. 5. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) AIR QUALITY MITIGATIONS/ RECORDING OF COVENANT The project will provide the following CEQA air quality mitigations at the time of residential development: a. Provide tiered plantings of trees such as, deodar cedar, costal redwood, live oak and/or oleander along the freeway wall side. b. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply for each dwelling unit. The ventilation system should be designed to prevent at least 80% of ambient PM23 (particulate matter, 2.5 micron size diameter) concentrations from entering the indoor areas through the system. The air intake for each dwelling unit should be located away from the freeway. c. Where appropriate, install passive (drop -in) electrostatic filtering systems especially those with low air velocities (i.e.1 mph). Covenant shall be recorded on each lot notifying future purchasers of the above matters. The covenant is subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the final map. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 9. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 15 -34 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 4 11. 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. 12. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 14. 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 dedJ.cation fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Trees $ 5% of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $2,468.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 minim $ 2,000.00 Per Acreage $7,817.00 per ordinance By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG &E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvement C. On -site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -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 '�uilding permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 15. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults anc; similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 15 -35 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 5 16. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 17. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 18. C.3 REQUIREMENTS The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of storm water treatment facilities on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan to satisfy c.3 requirements is approved by the City Engineer. The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. The Storm Water Management Plan will be required to obtain approval from an approved third party reviewer, at the expense of the developer. 19. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE Provide Santa Clara Valley Water District approval before recordation of the final map. The developer shall pay for and obtain Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right -of -way or affecting District facilities. 20. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before recordation of the final map. 21. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 22. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 23. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 15 -36 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 6 24. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 25. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 26. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 27. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property ( including PG &E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and, /or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 28. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off -site improvements. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACC: - PTANCE OF ENGINEERING /SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveyi:lg conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s /Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13 11, day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda 15 -37 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 7 ATTEST: / s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: /s/Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDReport \ Res \2010\ TM- 2010 -02 res.doc 15 -38 Attachment D CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6592 V- 2010 -01 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT WIDTH OF 55 FEET IN AN R1 -7.5 ZONING DISTRICT WHERE 60 FEET IS REQUIRED AT PROPERTY NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE (APN'S 316 -25 -047 AND -048) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: V- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/ Richard Gregersen) Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Variance, as described on Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary 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 applicant has met the burden of proof ' required to support this application, and has met the following findings in order to grant the variance: 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the lot is oversized (compared to the neighborhood) and triangular in shape. The most logical subdivision design is a cul -de -sac style which is consistent with the general plan residential land use density and the observed lot width of other interior cul -de -sac lots in the area. 2) The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The project site is three times the size of adjacent single - family residential lots. Given its irregular shape and the need for vehicular access, a subdivision into two lots with widths comparable to other interior cul -de -sac lots is a reasonable use. 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, • or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The property is proposed to be developed in accordance with the City's General Plan and development standards. Potentially negative effects of living next to a highway are mitigated to the extent feasible. 15 -39 Resolution No. 6592 V- 2010 -01 April 13, 2010 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for variance is hereby recommended for approval by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application V- 2010 -01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT /RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE /CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared by MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of two sheets labeled GO and C -1 prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated February 2010, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in tlus resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that 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 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda ATTEST: / s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission g/ planning/ pdreport /res/ 2010/ V- 2010 -01 15 -40 Attachment E a OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FA( (408) 777 -3333 - planning9cupertino.org PLANNING COMMI'�SION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. I Agenda Date: April 13, 2010 Application: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z -20: 0 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida for Westwood ]investments, LLC /Richard Gregersen Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue, APN 316 -25- 047, -048, -054 APPLICATION SUMMARY Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single - family residential lots of approximately 11, 737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Surunyvale; Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required. Prezoning and Rezoning 0.028 acre from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5, and 0.590 acre from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following applications to the City Council: 1. The Negative Declaration, EA 2010 -01 (Attachment 1) 2. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM- 2010 -02 per the Model Resolution (Attachment 2) 3. Variance, V- 2010 -01 per the Model Resolution (Attachment 3) 4. Prezoning and Rezoning, Z- 2010 -01 (Attachment 4). PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Total Gross Lot Area: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Al -43 (Agriculture - Residential - 43,000 square feet minimum) and City of Sunnyvale R'1 -7.5 and pre-RI-7.5 (Single - Family Residential -- 7,500 square feet minimum) 26,930 square feet (0.618 acre) 15-41 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Page 2 Proposed Lot Areas: Gross Area Net Area Parcel 1: 13,982 sq. ft. 9,376 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 11,737 sq. ft. 9,348 sq. ft. Exception Area: 1,211 sq. ft. 1,211 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Single- family residential Proposed Density: 3.24 dwellings /gross acre Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The applicant, Pam Yoshida of MBA Architects, representing landowner Westwood Investments, is seeking the above captioned entitlements to subdivide a vacant lot into two single- family residential lots. The fenced lot is located at the terminus of North Portal Ave. and is accessed via a 20 -foot ingress- egress easement located on the left side of 10642 North Portal Ave. The lot is surrounded on the north and east by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage channel and Highway 280, to the south by single- family dwellings, and to the west by 2 -story apartment buildings. In Figure 1, the light blue lines mark the project property boundaries. The red triangle is the lot exception area that is located in the City of Sunnyvale, and the hatched rectangular area depicts the existing access easement to the lot. The lot is improved with accessory structures, fencing and landscaping, where neighbors Figure 1 have extended their yards into the property. DISCUSSION Subdivision Design The applicant proposes two pie- shaped lots accessed by an existing easement across 10642 North Portal Avenue and an on -site cul -de -sac bulb (see attached Plan set). For 15 -42 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Page 3 subdivision purposes, the lot exception area in the City of Sunnyvale (northwest corner of property) must be treated as if it werE! a separate parcel. Since Cupertino does not have land use jurisdiction, the exception area cannot be counted toward the lot area or the setbacks of the proposed subdivision. Even though no residential development is proposed at this time, both proposed lots are of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate R1 building setbacks and minimum lot size requirements of the proposed R1 -7.5 zoning district. The conceptual building footprints on Sheet C -1 of the plan set depict six on -site parking stalls for each lot, which is the minimum city requirement when no street parking is provided. The Parcel 1 wedge on the opposite side (easterly side) of the cul -de -sac will be needed to accommodate improvements for storm water retention for . both lots, a requirement of federal and state law. A condition has been added to the model resolution. �YF � t - ✓ 1 � - 1 i � f i Net Lot Size: 10642 North Portal Avenue The existing access easement, granted u1 2009, reduces the net lot size of 10642 North Portal Avenue for development purposes by 2,510 square feet, according to the Rl zoning ordinance. The lot, however, is oversized for the area at 14,275 square feet so its - reduction in net lot size to 11,765 square fE.et only increases the existing floor area ratio to (FAR) to 27.5 %, which is below the City R:l maximum FAR of 45 %. 15 -43 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Paze 4 Lot Width Variance Request To facilitate the subdivision process, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the lot width to 55 feet where 60 feet is required. It should be noted that except for the lack of adequate lot width, the lots are larger than typical lots in the R1 -7.5 zoning district. Smaller lot widths are typical of interior cul -de -sac lots as shown on the survey (Attachment5). All of the highlighted lots on N. Portal Avenue, Drake Court and Auburn Court have lot widths between 50 and 55 feet. Staff supports the project and believes that the following findings for granting the variance for reduced lot width can be made (staff notes in italics): 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; Staff response: The exceptional circumstances are the oversized, triangular shape of the project lot. The most logical subdivision design is a cul -de -sac style which is consistent znith the general plan residential land use density and the observed lot width of other interior cul -de -sac lots. 2) The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; Staff response: The project site is three times the size of adjacent single-family residential lots. Given its irregular shape and the need for vehicular access, a subdivision into tuio lots with widths comparable to other interior cul -de -sac lots is reasonable. 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. Staff response: Property is proposed to be developed in accordance With the City's requirements for single-family homes. The site location is similar to other R1 parcels in the neighborhood. Potentially negative effects of living next to a highzoay will be mitigated to the extent possible. Rezoning & Prezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the majority of the property from "A1 -43" to "R1 -7.5" and the small exception area from "City of Surmyvale" to "Pre- R1 -7.5." The R1 -7.5 zoning designation is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding single - family residential areas. The exception area can be used for landscaping, but not for building until such time the property owner seeks a realignment of Cupertino /Sunnyvale'municipal boundaries and annexation to Cupertino. Trees An arborist report was not warranted for the property. A site inspection of the lot showed only fruit trees, willows and incense cedars (labeled pine on the plan set), which are not considered protected trees by the Protected Tree Ordinance. 15 -44 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Paze 5 Hazardous Materials A Phase 1 environmental analysis was commissioned by the property owner to identify historic and present uses/ conditions of the property and adjacent lands may be indicative of releases of hazardous substances, such as, petroleum. The survey spanned 70 years of human activity and included historic aerial photographs, interviews with the property owner and neighbors, search of government agency databases that regulate hazardous materials, visual inspection of - :he property, etc. The assessment concluded there were negative findings for a hazardous materials release on the property. Noise The north and east portions of the lot are separated from U.S. Highway 280 by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage chanr_el and a 12 -foot tall freeway sound wall. The applicant commissioned the preparation of an acoustical study by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. to assess existing and future noise levels and compare them to City noise standards. Project mitigation is proposed to alleviate noise levels in excess of City standards (Attachment 6). * Worst Case Noise To achieve the mitigated interior noise levels, Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated glass must be installed in all first and second story living areas that have any highway orientation: STC 28 windows on the first floor and STC 36 windows on the second floor. A notification covenant requirement has been added to the tentative map conditions of approval that will be recorded on each lot, informing potential purchasers of the noisy environment and requirement of interior noise mitigation. To achieve mitigated exterior noise levels, the side and rear yards must be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls along the perimeter and a sound wall between the two lots (See Attachment 7). The apartments to thE' west would experience a noise increase of 3 dB from reflections. Staff is not recommending this mitigation. Air Quality The Environmental impacts at the prc Review Committee expressed concerns with potential air quality ect site. The applicant enlisted the consultation of air quality 15-45 Noise Existing Future Mitigated Standard Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level CNEL ) (CNEL * CNEL) (CNEL Interior 45 dB 53 dB 53 dB 45 dB 1St Floor Interior 45 dB 61 dB 61 dB 45 dB 2nd Floor Exterior 60 dB 68 dB 68 dB 60 dB 1St Floor Exterior 60 dB 76 dB 76 dB N/A 2nd Floor * Worst Case Noise To achieve the mitigated interior noise levels, Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated glass must be installed in all first and second story living areas that have any highway orientation: STC 28 windows on the first floor and STC 36 windows on the second floor. A notification covenant requirement has been added to the tentative map conditions of approval that will be recorded on each lot, informing potential purchasers of the noisy environment and requirement of interior noise mitigation. To achieve mitigated exterior noise levels, the side and rear yards must be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls along the perimeter and a sound wall between the two lots (See Attachment 7). The apartments to thE' west would experience a noise increase of 3 dB from reflections. Staff is not recommending this mitigation. Air Quality The Environmental impacts at the prc Review Committee expressed concerns with potential air quality ect site. The applicant enlisted the consultation of air quality 15-45 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 _ Paze 7 Even though there are no Ordinance requirements to require any mitigation measures to address air quality impacts, a condition of approval for the project requires planting of additional trees along its highway boundary and the installation of an air filtration system. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Reviewed by: y Chao City Planner Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Initial Study, ERC Recommendation and Negative Declaration Attachment 2: Model Resolution for TM- 2010 -02 Attachment 3. Model Resolution for V- 2010 -01 Attachment 4: Model Resolution for Z 2010 -01 Attachment 5: Assessor Parcel Map depicting lots with widths less than 60 feet Attachment 6: "Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, 10642 North Portal Avenue, Cupertino" prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. dated December 18, 2009 Attachment 7: Noise Study Addendum: Jeff Pack, Edward L. Pack Associates dated 3/23/10 Attachment 8: Air Quality - Mike O'Connor, M'OC Physics, dated April 5, 2010 Attachment 9: Plan set G: PLANNING /PDREPORT /PC TM REPORTS /2010TMREPORTS /TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z -2010- 01.D0C 15 -46 ATTACHMENT F Cupertino Planning Commission 2 April 13, 2010 ORAL CONMIUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING 1. TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -(EA -2010 -012) Pam Yoshida (Westwood Investors, LLC) 10642 No. Portal Ave. Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approx. 11,737 and 13,982 gross sq. ft. with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. in the city of Sunnyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from City of Sunnyvale to pre- Rl -7.5 and 0.590 acres from Al -43 to R1 -7.5. Postponed from the March 23, 2010 meeting; Tentative City Council date May 18, 2010. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single- family residential lots, with an exception area of 1.211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; and variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district whre 60 feet is required; and prezoning and rezoning 0.028 from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5 and 0.590 acre from A 1 -43 to R 1 -7.5, as outlined in the staff report. • Applicant is requesting a prezoning for the portion of the property that is located in Sunnyvale, so that at a future date if they decide to realign the boundaries between Sunnyvale and Cupertino, and annex it to the City of Cupertuio, they will have the zoning already established and will not have to return for it. The small portion is being prezoned from the City of Sunnyvale to the Pre- Rl -7.5. Cupertino does not have any jurisdiction over the small corner; however, it is not needed to approve the subdivision. The remainder of the zoning is consistent with the neighborhood zoning which is also RI -7.5. • Relative to the lot width justification, they are applying for a variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet; in surveying the adjacent lots in the neighborhood, it was found that all the interior cul de sac lots which are similar to the ones proposed, do have lot widths slightly shorter. Staff feels that the findings as stated in the staff report can be made. • Relative to noise, the property is located near Highway 280 and is a noisy environment; both the exterior noise levels and interior noise levels, if they were to build a standard house, would exceed the city noise standards. The interior noise levels can be mitigated to city standards by using special STC -rated glass assemblies for all windows facing highway 280 or have some orientation to that. Exterior noise levels can be mitigated to City standards; the noise consultant stated that in order to achieve the noise levels, to bring them down 8 decibels to meet the city's noise standards, would have to construct sound walls along the sides and rear property lines; would have to be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls surrounding both lots in order for the sound mitigation to be effective. Staff does not recommend it in this particular case; in addition, the noise consultant indicated that you would be increasing the noise levels of the adjacent apartment building by at least 3 decibels from the reflection off the taller walls if they were built. • The ERC has expressed concerns with potential air quality impacts at the project site. A formal air quality analysis cannot be made at this point because the BAAQMD had not adopted any guidelines. The applicant's consultant suggested looking at individual mitigations for each residence; although there are no houses being proposed with the development at this time, the idea would be to condition the Tentative Map to have covenants on it informing any 15-47 Cupertino Planning Commission April 13, 2010 future purchaser of the property that there is a noise environment„ there is an air quality issue and that there are reports available at the City and there will be requirements placed on the residential developments to mitigate the air quality as well as interior noise. Staff recommends approval of the project, the mitigated negative declaration, approval of tentative map, variance, and pre- zoning and rezoning. Staff answered Commissioners' questions: • Said the air quality consultant felt that landscape mitigation would not be an effective solution for reducing particular counts, because the landscape would not grow tall or thick enough to filter out the air pollutants. Cupertino has a lot of experience growing lots of trees close together and can accomplish that screen; there are many examples of thick growth of landscaping screens. Even though the noise buffering might not be as effective as the air quality consultant would like, being that it is so close to the highway and there is a sound wall, regardless of whether there is air quality issue, it is desirable to have additional landscaping along that property. Staff felt it could accomplish two things at once, even though one is not as effective; there are other benefits that a row of trees might provide as well. Chair Brophy: • Para. 6 talks about the possibility of passive electrostatic filtering systems and raises concerns that there may be an issue of ozone contamination from those. Does staff have any feelings about the tradeoffs as to the benefits and costs of an electrostatic system as well? Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said staff does not have the expertise to comment. Some of the mitigation measures are measures that they are starting to see in some of the developments in the Bay Area; projects next to freeways. With that experience the consultant is merely pointing out a few that are reasonable to accommodate if the Planning Commission has concerns. Chair Brophy: • It is an obvious point, in addition to the two lots, almost anybody who lives along Hwy. 280 has similar noise and air quality issues whatever they may be. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said it is true that subsequent applications get the benefit of additional study whereas past ones did not. Com. Miller: • Asked staff to clarify how they respond to a situation where it is known that it doesn't meet the noise standards and pollution standards of the city in terms of allowing building on that site. Gary Chao: • In terms of air quality standards, there presently aren't any in the books; there are discussions from BAAQMD about adopting standards, but there are none presently being adopted. The City is being proactive in trying to address that with an informal study. • Regarding a noise ordinance, there is desirable outdoor noise limitations, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes along Highway 280 currently adjacent to this project; there are homes in similar situations, so in that case staff feels that the best the applicant can do is address the interior noise and since it is zoned RI lot, it is reasonable to develop R1 homes on the site and the property owner or future property owners would have to deal with the exterior noise limitations. 15-48 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 April 13, 2010 • There is no feasible way of mitigating aside from a 20 foot wall which is undesirable aesthetically as well. Com. Miller: • There are other alternatives; they could say it is not suitable for building houses or say that anyone who does build a house there would be required to have a physical notice stating that it does not meet the standards for either noise or pollution, so that there is a required disclosure for anyone thinking of purchasing a house there. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director: • Said it was a good point; that they were planning to put that in their tentative map requirements and the disclosure is a very necessary one. Chair Brophy: • As far as disclosures go, the only person who as a potential home buyer would look at those lots and not know that there is a noise issue would be a deaf person. He said he did not see the point of a formal disclosure. Com. Miller: • Because you cannot assure that someone won't go there and assume that even though it sounds noisy to them, it must meet the city's requirements or they wouldn't have allowed the building in the first place. Disclosures only ensure that they won't be litigation; they never lead to litigation. Colin Jung: • Said disclosure was important; and cited an example, when working on this project, was contacted by an investor in Canada who wanted to contact Mr. Greggorson because they were interested in purchasing the project if they had succeeded in getting the project entitled. He said he did not think they had visited the property so they wouldn't have the benefit of that field experience. Marvin Bamberg, Owner of MBA Architects, ?applicant: • Said he was satisfied with the conditions of approval recommended, and would respond to concerns raised. • Required Disclosure: No objection to doing that; however, in all fairness it should be a requirement for anyone who owns property along the freeway and sells it. All of those other homeowners who reside in those conditions, have done so for years. Nobody has forced them to purchase the homes; if they sell their house without a disclosure, there is no reason he should have to provide a disclosure either; it should be fair for everyone. • Mr. Greggorson has owned the property sin 1983; the present structures were not of his doing, it is likely none of them have permits. A concern was mentioned about parking on the existing parcel that has the easement; there is a garage on that property that holds 5 cars; which would be in addition to any onsite parking out3ide the structure. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Stuart Chessen, North Portal Ave.: • In favor of application. • Portal Block leader as well; got a survey of neighborhood and didn't see anyone totally against the project. • Concerns: the owner did not have access to this property; he didn't have any clear access in 15 -49 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 April 13, 2010 and out of the property until he bought the property at 10642 which is one of the original houses, and it is almost a dual residence even though it is an R1 zone. The driveway will have five different residences going in and out of there, we want to make sure there is no parking along there, who is going to maintain it; and the power going across there; the power will not allow a fire truck to go across; it is a low level phone line going across and power currently on that back wall; so it would be nice if the utilities were put underground. For second story, we would require that second story has normal privacy to the existing homes, with trees planted, etc., that way they will get more noise reduction and also have their privacy observed on that. On the southern border of the property, the bottom line, there is a PGE easement of 5 feet, and the home is barely another 5 feet from that. If that is a second story, when 1 built my in -law quarters, I had to observe that and keep the roofline low; I would like the city to look at that and make sure they follow code so that means that has to be a low level roof there or they have to move into the property. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Colin Jung responded to the applicant's concerns: • Relative to the easement, the Fire Dept. has reviewed it and the width of the driveway is only wide enough to provide access and will be treated as a fire lane and won't be any parking allowed there. If they construct curbs on it, at least on one side of it to control some of the drainage, the curbs will be red painted in the cape of the fire lane. • Relative to utilities, there is a utility line along the southern property line and a requirement of subdivision of property is undergrounding the utilities, a standard city practice that would be accomplished with the development of the project. If it is RI zoned property, they will be subject to privacy screening, landscape privacy screening required of all two story homes. • With respect to other easements on the property, there are some unusual easements on the property; some of them date back to the agricultural period of this lot; an irrigation easement and if those are not relinquished in any way, they will need to be respected. Fortunately these lots are a large enough size at 11,013 gross square feet, where there is enough flexibility to develop a house on those properties and avoid the easement areas. Chair Brophy: • Pointed out that these are not proposed site plans for the houses; but rather proof to the Planning Dept. that homes could be built on these lots, respecting setbacks and providing adequate parking on the property without having to park on the easement or in the cul de sac. Colin Jung: • Said the possibility of a one story instead of two stories had not been discussed with the applicant, because it is not part of the project as proposed. Gary Chao: • For the benefit of the audience and neighbors, there are second story setbacks, and perhaps the conceptual footprint as shown only shows ground floor or single story, but typically the required second floor setbacks are much greater than what is shown on the ground floor. You can expect that additional offset and setbacks occur on the second level. Vice Chair Lee Is the easement a one -way or two -way street, and have enough width for two cars to pass each other? 15 -50 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 April 13, 2010 Colin Jung: • It is 20 feet wide, which is wide enough for a fire truck to access the property and if it was two vehicles they could both be on the right -of -wary at the same time. It is only two houses and the traffic generated by those as well as the house at 10642 No. Portal Ave. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the applicant's suggestion that anyone who owns a house near the freeway should do a disclosure, she said she would check with the City Attorney as to what mechanism they would have; typically the conditions are required of projects that require discretionary approval. Chair Brophy: • Said it was straightforward; there are a number of issues that the applicant or whoever he sells the property to, will have to deal with when they get a building permit, but from what has been discussed, he said he did not expect any insurmountable problems. It comes down to the issue of whether there should be some type of notice, and he agreed on the two issues of noise and air quality. On air quality, the BAAQNM has not promulgated any rules so how or why could they give any notice on that. Relative to noise, projects have been approved along the freeway that undoubtedly would raise this issue; and given that noise is such a self - evident issue, it would affect the homes that are on No. Portal; it would affect any of the residents of the adjoining apartment complex, as well as hundreds of homes in Cupertino and probably millions of people in California. He said he would prefer not to have a specific notice here; if this issue is to be addressed, it would seem to be more logically addressed through a general ordinance by the City Council that would affect the entire city, rather than using the zoning process to impose this on two particular lots. Com. Miller: • It is zoned RI and it meets the subdivision requirements, so the applicant has a right to a subdivision; however, he again expressed concern about the general poor living conditions for someone who is going to purchase the house. It is true that there are houses all over the city that are next to the freeway, they were built a long time ago and it is not known whether the people were aware of noise and pollution issues when they were built or not; but we are aware of them now. He said he felt the City has an obligation, there might even be some liability on the part of the city if there wasn't disclosures. • Said he supported disclosures and if they can do that in other properties in the city, he felt it was reasonable. It is more than just an issue of fairness, it is an issue of public health. He said he would support the subdivision, but only with the condition that disclosures are included. Vice Chair Lee: • Said she supported the subdivision, lot size and width and wished that there were guidelines adopted; trying to impose it would be difficult. She said it was the first instance she had seen that the decibel was above what the city desired; and it made sense to do something about it, to protect the sound /noise attenuation. • Said she would like more guidance from staff. Aarti Shrivastava: Explained staff's recommendation for the hvo main noise mitigation measures; one is the windows which will be done because the internal noise levels will be mitigated once the windows are installed; exterior noise levels as the consultant noted are a mixed bag. Based on weighing the pros and cons of those measures, it creates a canyon -like atmosphere for people who are living in those homes, and in doing so, the noise bounces off the walls and creates an 15 -51 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 13, 2010 impact to adjacent developments. Staff does not feel that the sound walls will be an effective measure; hence the window mitigation, but not the walls. Relative to pollution issues, perhaps it can be stated that it has to be noted that the properties are in proximity to a freeway and the noise and possible pollution impacts that come with that. They also have to know that if they are building homes, they would be required to put in certain mitigations for both of those. Staff can craft some language to that effect. Com. Miller: • Said a disclosure is to make buyers aware that houses in proximity to freeways are subject to higher levels of air pollution. Also, this particular property does not meet the noise standards outside the structure that are established by the City of Cupertino; if they choose to buy the property under those conditions, that is their choice. Chair Brophy: • Said he disagreed; and pointed out that people who buy the lots are living two miles from the San Andreas fault. Com. Miller: • Said that was a disclosure also; all those things are disclosed; the real estate industry goes overboard in disclosing everything when someone buys a house and they are inundated with paper. A disclosure helps an informed buyer make an informed decision. Chair Brophy: • Said if they feel strongly about this issue, they should send a minute order to the City Council that the City should draft an ordinance that any property sold in Cupertino that is within XX feet of Hwy 280 or Hwy 85 be subject to notices of possible noise issues and uncertain issues regarding air quality. It seems the appropriate way to do it rather than dealing with imposing it on a two -unit subdivision for the first time. Com. Miller: • Said he was not opposed to addressing the broader issue; but there is the present issue before them of the two houses, and he was in favor of addressing it on an individual house basis, or on a general basis. He personally felt that it is an issue that is appropriate for a city to address and he was not proposing a mandate, but was proposing a disclosure. Chair Brophy: • Said he disagreed. Vice Chair Lee: Said she felt that since the BAAQMD had proposed some guidelines in light of that fact and what was learned last year, and she felt it was reasonable to add the disclosure. Com. Miller: • Suggested language for the ordinance relative to air quality to include the general statement that properties close to a freeway are known to have higher levels of air pollutants; and the language with respect to the noise ordinance would be state that the outside decibel level outside the structure itself is higher than the city standard. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Lee, and carried 3 -0 -0, Coms. Giefer and Kaneda absent; to approve Application TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) with the additional disclosures discussed. 15 -52 F F I C E O F C O U N T Y A S S E S S O R 43 s J UN " f- 09. RG.k 2 .,a �,'•/ tl� Iti ��ii+ N Q e y' O '29 212 _ 27 211 26 210 L el :oi O PAGE 1 32 s E 1° -100, a na Mr. few eJ LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSESSOR Codoslyd mop la wassment purposes ody. Compiled under R k I Code, Sec. 327. EH ., Yom 2009 -2010 56 ` � 58 $6 k l ... ��i�•/ J��Q 9 or1t £ o 53 - NATEFI SEM1VICE 4of CALIF. oy 3 CALIF 32 '6 Y M• �y 'i16. z .0.5. R y 4 wt's X0601 AMENDED - -` 174.26 9CL.1 322 ..- 61.06 .b It.cs I .29 pCL 12 I _ ... .r 219 220 ° j•o 57 t 3+e* 1 —r 221 1 1 8,625 S.F. 1 22 t PLAN. 2 223 /• ?/ ~ 224 I 1 1 CS Ir ro 249 -M•45 1 I 37 i 36 PAR GEL MA P W 1 38 1 34 39 1 d' 6M1 40 i SJ 7+ 33 ! ! J; Q 1 1 74 !97// 'N ! 33 ?,6 ! { 1 1 1972 ! / 1 7w !9735 o3j °6 , 6ss /9-s1 / 32 /9.'63 �� 197ar R A / !x 6 1, D s IA sz 9 ! 3 ;9: !9 so s _-y- '66 se /2 g N Y 1 r` 2t ! s <,� • < b a 3 30 3 203 . 04 / 9 QSO X4 /6 6 r i -�� Tl c ;.o7 19 0s 6 197 L _i9o8 20e � ,'o 7e_ _ _ L ._ ! ,l / d2 Ll. cr a / - - IUO w Tly a tt, I9 T �� is 1 r 0 195 t 24 :0 1 '�� 200 I ,12df 1{ i _..- -- _-- cy o — Is♦ 6a I -_ 1� ti. 169 \i I yt f , - . r--._ _} 7 I v rn, y 1 fo 1 192 1 � 209 i 191 190 I osYc' 7a3ei _ Cl a IS 7 6 gl:_ 26 "' 9 193 jS 199 S �r ; / 185 e� i CD / / a""J eJ.aa I 7s I 7 -, I 7s sseJ '� a ..ai 1 seal 19 769 19745 1.9735 / 9691 !9661 ?35 TR. N9 2960- UN. N" 2 AUBURN DRIVE 1 IfOLEWILD GREENS l - n 35 C71 C31 Co '29 212 _ 27 211 26 210 L el :oi O PAGE 1 32 s E 1° -100, a na Mr. few eJ LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSESSOR Codoslyd mop la wassment purposes ody. Compiled under R k I Code, Sec. 327. EH ., Yom 2009 -2010 Attachment H EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408 - 371 -1195 FAX: 408 - 371 -1196 www.packassociates.com December 18, 2009 Project No. 41 -043 Mr. Richard Gregersen Westwood Investors 200 South Santa Cruz Avenue Suite 103 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, 10642 North Portal Avenue, Cupertino Dear Mr. Gregersen: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2 -lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino, as shown on the Tentative Map, Ref. (a). The noise exposures at the site were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino Public Health and Safety Element (Noise), Ref. (b). The analysis of the on- site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to traffic sources on Interstate 280. The results of the study indicate that noise exposure excesses occur and mitigation measures will be required. Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, traffic and project descriptions, analyses and evaluations. Attached hereto are Appendices A, B and C, which include the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the terminology, ventilation requirements, general building shell controls and the on -site noise measurement data and calculation tables. 15 -54 MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS -2- I. Summary of Findings The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino "Noise" Element, which utilizes the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor for residential exterior areas. The Noise Element standards specify a limit of 60 dB CNEL for single- family residential exterior areas, such as rear yards. A limit of 45 dB CNEL is specified for interior living spaces. . The noise exposures shown below are without the application of mitigation measures and represent the noise environment for existing and future site conditions. A. Exterior Noise Exposures • The existing exterior noise exposure in the most impacted rear and side yards of homes closest to -280, 125 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain. at 68 dB CNEL. Thus, the noise exposures are up to 8 dB in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. • The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the first floors, 133 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 68 dB CNEL. • The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the second floor is 76 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 76 dB CNEL. The site is presently shielded by a 12 ft. high soundwall that was erected by CalTrans. The CalTrans criterion for noise abatement is 67 dBA L eg( h ) , i.e., the peak -hour hourly average. The peak hour L eg at the site is presently 67.5 dBA. As the peak hour L eg at this site is just slightly less than 1 decibel below the CNEL, the CalTrans standard can be viewed as 68 dB CNEL. 15 -55 -3- Because of the incompatibility of the CalTrans criterion with local jurisdictional standards, reducing I -280 traffic noise to the City of Cupertino standard of 60 dB CNEL would require a 22 ft. high soundwall along the site property line contiguous with the flood control channel. This measure does not appear to be feasible and there are no other available noise mitigation measures for the exterior areas. Note that the existing residential uses in the area are subjected to the same noise exposures. B. Interior Noise Exposures • The interior noise exposure in the most impacted first floor living spaces closest to I -280 will be 53 dB CNEL under existing and future traffic conditions. The interior noise exposure in the most impacted second floor living spaces closest I -280 will be 61 dB CNEL under existing and future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 16 dB in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. • The interior noise exposure in the first and second floor living spaces that do not have a view to I -280 will be 45 and 53 dB CNEL, respectively, under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards at the first floors, but will be up to 8 dB in excess of the standards at the second floors. As shown above the exterior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. However, the noise mitigation measures for In compliance with the exterior noise standards are not feasible. Noise exposure excesses will occur in interior living spaces and mitigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II below. 15 -56 H. Recommendations A. Interior Noise Controls To achieve interior noise exposures in compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards, the following noise control measures will be required. In addition, general constructicn measures affecting the building shell are also recommended, as described in Appendix B. • Maintain closed at all times all windows and glass doors of all second floor living spaces of the project and all first floor living spaces that have an orientation (direct or side view) toward I -280. Install windows rated minimwn Sound Transmission Class (STC) 36 at the second floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway. Install windows rated minimum STC 28 at all first floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway and at all second floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway. The first floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway do not require noise controls. • Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for living spaces with a closed window condition. When windows are kept closed for noise control, they are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a "fixed" condition. In addition, some form of mechanical ventilation which brings in fresh air from the outside of the home must be provided. Ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code are shown in Appendix B. All other windows of the development and all bathroom windows may use any type of glazing and may be kept open as desired. All windows of impacted living spaces must have high quality, heavy duty frames and must provide an air -tight seal to the outside environment. All forms of ventilation shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell., 15 -57 -5- The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce excess noise exposures for compliance with the interior standards of the City of Cupertino Noise Element. III. Site, Noise Source and Proiect Descriptions The planned project site is located at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The site is presently a vacant parcel that is flat and at -grade with the surrounding properties and I -280. A flood control channel that is 35 ft. wide is interposed between the site and I -280. A 12 ft. high masonry soundwall is situated along the property line between the flood control channel and the freeway. Surrounding land uses include single - family residential adjacent to the south and east, multi - family residential adjacent to the west and single - family residential across I -280 to the north. The primary source of noise at the site is traffic on I -280, which ' carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 158,000 vehicles, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (c). The planned project includes the subdivision of the parcel into two parcels and the construction of two 2 -story single - family homes. Ingress and egress to the site will be by way of a private driveway off of North Portal Avenue. 15 -58 - 6 - IV. Analysis of the Noise Levels A. Existim Noise Levels To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at a location along the property boundary contiguous with the floor control channel. This location represents the most noise impacted property line of the site. Please see the aerial photograph on the following page. The measurements were made on December 8 -9, 2009 for a continuous period of 24 hours. The noise level data were recorded and processed using a Larson -Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, which yields by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, including the L 1, L. and L90, i.e., those levels exceeded 1 %, 10 %, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minim levels and the equivalent - energy levels (L ey ), which are used to calculate the CNEL. The results of the measurements are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. The results of the field survey reveal that the Leo s at the most impacted property line ranged from to 62.9 to 67.5 dBA during the daytime, from 63.7 to 64.9 dBA during the evening and from 53.9 to 65.5 dBA at night. Traffic noise diminishes at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver. Other locations on the site at greater distances from I -280 will have lower noise level. However, because of the presence of the CalTrans soundwall, the noise environment on the site is relatively uniform. Vehicular traffic noise contains a wide spectrum of frequency components (from 100 to 10,000 Hertz), which are associated with engines, tires, drive- trains, exhaust and other sources. The frequency components are centered primarily in the 500 and 1,000 Hz octave bands and were used in dete the noise control measures recommended for this project. 15 -59 A' 30 .' �• , ^' rl i9(fL{ Y iy;P.t M X i I& 1 p { � r ' , e y r „r „! m r I .7 r + )r f x yr p a �;y� d m 11r .” Vin' f 1°f7 t y t � � „t +�C�z, *Y P �.p tF ^ t ' ,yryp�� ^ 1 : r A A 1., 4 i , rtt ja" ,, ^" ° w. r5i'd - .,,r� ��,� SL�Ti,.• u • , f + ,t , ,r, 77 e3 , A.U. ),:,t ;»�, j�l! r. I �vi� � 1n. a` �N� P " ,RaW�c'h�• `' „ ?!"; H '�1w i s.''w' �, ,. i. a :. �� ..�,:n WU44�K;�M'•1p':�rvi:MuiMr,W�rp � �� , "^^H'.'I....,t`^' ti ller BUIfe� Wt i't c) d�� k O fl k,`�'�'},. 1 ^ { V y 4tii�,u `,. .j l "�r a f ;, f "I r f � � • # i t / 1 � J� A � h A 0 �r r •1, 41� .� a � ) y�1w pN^ `� .; i * ... ``� 1 �•r , v ,- ` i Ir” d ' l ti +� ! 1 . , _,�, � �,� � J . i ,� � K ira ' �,,�y I �., � , { •>. t.. 1"� y �` V ` r C;ods IC a, t 2aasc�o , �'' 20Q9 Ilk �f lately Date Jul 2007 Y �_4 _ LL 37',15'57 93" N 122 0109 96•' W relev: '1e911t ti a, ?rf Eye all 563 It i ) -7- B. Future Noise Levels The future noise exposures at the site were determined from future traffic volume projections for Interstate 280. Precise future traffic data are not available from CalTrans. Therefore, an average annual traffic volume growth rate was calculated from historical data. The existing (most recent) 2008 traffic , 7olume for I -280 was reported to be 158,000 vehicles ADT. The 1998 traffic volume was 156,000 ADT, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (d). The average annual growth rate from 1598 to 2008 was calculated to' be 0.13% per year. By applying this same growth rate to the future 20 years, the 2028 traffic volume was calculated to be 162,077 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume yields a 0.1 dB increase in the traffic noise levels, which is insignificant. Therefore, the future traffic noise levels are expected to remain similar to present levels. V. Evaluation of the Noise Exposures A. Exterior Noise Exposure To evaluate the on -site noise exposures against the City of Cupertino standards, the CNEL for the survey location was calculated as a decibel average of the L as they apply to the daily time periods of the CNEL index. The CNEL is a 24 -hour noise descriptor that uses the measured L eq values to calculate a 24 -hour time - weighted average noise exposure with a 5 dB penalty added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty added to noise during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. hours. The formula used to calculate the CNEL is described in Appendix B. The results of the calculations indicate that the exterior noise exposure at the measurement location, 125 ft. from the centerline of I -280, is 68 dB CNEL. Noise barrier calculations reveal that the existing property line soundwall provides 13 dB of traffic noise reduction for first floors and 5 dB of traffic noise reduction for the second floors. Thus, the noise , exposures at the planned building setback were calculated to be 68 dB CNEL at the first floor elevation and 76 dB CNEL at the second floor elevation. The exterior noise exposure in the exterior living areas of the project will be up to 8 dB in excess of the 60 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. 15 -61 B. Interior Noise Exposures To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces, a 15 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under annual - average conditions. The annual - average condition assumes that windows have single - strength (3/32 ") glass and are kept open up to 50% of the time for ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to I -280 will be 53 dB CNEL at first floor elevations and up to 61 dB CNEL at second floor elevations that have an orientation toward I -280. For living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway, the buildings will provide 8 decibels of noise attenuation. The interior noise exposures in project living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway will be up to 45 and 53 dB CNEL at first and second floor elevations, respectively. The noise exposures in project living spaces will be up to 16 dB in excess of the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. Mitigation measures will be required all second floor living spaces and first floor living spaces that have a view toward the freeway. The recommended mitigation measures are in described in Section II of this report. This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2 -lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The study findings for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data, and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise levels were based on estimates made by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. from information provided by CalTrans. Significant deviations in the predicted traffic volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, or other future changes beyond our control may produce long -range noise results different from our estimates. 15 -62 "1 If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C 15 -63 APPENDIX A References (a) Tentative Map (b) City of Cupertino Draft General Plan, Public Health and Safety Element, "Noise Pollution ", Chapter 6, 2001 (c) http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /traffops/ saferesr /trafdata/2008all/r280405i.htm (d) http: / /www.dot.ca. gov /hq /traffops/ saferesr /trafdata/1998all/l998aadt.xis 15 -64 APPENDIX B Noise Standards, Terminolou, Instrumentation Ventilation Requirements and Building Shell Controls 1. Noise Standards A. City of Cupertino "Noise El Standards The City of Cupertino Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, prepared in 2001, references the Land Use Compatibility Chart published by the State of California. The Normally Acceptable noise exposures, in term of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise descriptor, are shown below. Land Use Exterior Residences (single - family) 60 Residences (multi - family) 65 Transient Lodging 65 Schools, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Churches 70 Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 70 Outdoor Sports, Arenas 75 Office Bldgs., Business, Commercial, Professional 70 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 Industrial, Manufacturing 75 The Health and Safety Element (Noise), references the sound transmission Control standards of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, which limits interior noise exposures in multi - family residences to 45 dB CNEL. The Noise Element suggests the application of the Title 24 standard to sin €;le - family residences as well. B -1 15 -65 2. Terminology A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows: Li - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. Lio - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. L5o - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. L ey - The continuous equivalent - energy level is that level of a steady -state noise having the same sound energy as a given time - varying noise. The L ey represents the decibel level of the time- averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. B -2 15 -66 B. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The CNEL is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure over a 24 hour period. The CNEL index divides the 24 hour day into three subperiods, i.e., the daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm), the evening period (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), and the nighttime period (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Also, weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA are applied to the evening and nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during those periods. The CNEL values are calculated from the measured L values in accordance with the following mathematical fDrmula: CNEL = [(L +101091012) & (L +5 +101og & (L +10 +10109109A - 101og where: Ld = L for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) L = L for the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L = L for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24 indicates the 24 hour period & denotes decibel addition C. A- Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA ". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of dete total noise levels and conducting; statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. B -3 15 -67 3. Instrumentation The on -site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent - energy level (L Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer 4. Ventilation Requirements Ventilation requirements to be applied when windows are maintained closed for noise control are specified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 2001 edition, Section 12.03.3 as follows: "In lieu of required exterior openings for natural ventilation, a mechanical ventilating system may be provided. Such system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour in guest rooms, dormitories, habitable rooms, and in public corridors with a minimum of 15 cubic feet per minute (7L /s) of outside air per occupant during such time as the building is occupied." Based on our previous experience, a "summer switch" on the furnace fan is normally considered acceptable as a ventilation system by FHA and other agencies. Air - conditioning is also an acceptable system. B -4 15 -68 5. Building Shell Controls The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the greatest potential for exterior -to- interior noise; attenuation by the recommended mitigation measures. These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required: • Unshielded entry doors havin;) a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must: be 1 -5/8" or 1 -3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid -core wood construction with effective weather seals around the full perimeter. Mail slots should not be used in these doors or in the wall of a living space, as a significant noise leakage can occur through them. • If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non - hardening caulking compound. • Fireplaces should be provided with tight - fitting dampers. 15 -69 APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables 15 -70 CNEL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: WESTWOOD INVESTORS FILE: 41 -043 PROJECT: NORTH PORTAL AVENUE DATE: 12/8- 9/2009 SOURCE: 1 -280 LOCATION 1 Dist. To Source TIME 1 -280 Property Line 125 ft. Leq 10 ^Leg/1 0 7:00 AM 66.0 3969151.5 8:00 AM 65.9 3914154.4 9:00 AM 65.9 3894206.0 10:00 AM 65.9 3885605.6 11:00 AM 65.5 3515774.7 12:00 PM 65.0 3146935.1 1:00 PM 66.0 3991091.1 2:00 PM 66.5 4488897.4 3:00 PM 67.5 5560879.2 4:00 PM 64.4 2781779.2 5:00 PM 62.9 1929541.8 6:00 PM 64.4 2783279.0 SUM= 43861295.1 7:00 PM 64.9 3077304.5 Ld= 65.6 8:00 PM 63.7 2368370.8 9:00 PM 63.7 2339230.1 SUM= 7784905.4 10:00 PM 62.2 1661535.6 Ld= 64.1 11:00 PM 61.3 1336866.3 12:00 AM 57.3 538167.2 1:00 AM 55.6 361135.0 2:00 AM 55.7 372412.5 3:00 AM 53.9 248258.5 4:00 AM 55.6 362908.3 5:00 AM 60.8 1215506.2 6:00 AM 65.5 3538696.5 SUM= 9635486.1 Ld= 60.3 Daytime Level= 76.4 Evening Level= 73.9 Nighttime Level= 79.8 CNEL= 68 24 -Hour Leg= 64.1 15 -71 Coen ,lung _ Attachment 1 From: Jeff Pack Upack @packassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:51 AM To: Colin Jung; dick @pnwest.com; 'Marvin Bamburg'; 'pam yoshida' Subject: Gregersen property soundwall Attachments: 41 -043 22 ft. barrier.jpg Hi Colin, Please find attached an aerial photo showing where soundwalls would need to go to meet 60 dB CNEL in the rear and side yards of the homes. The barrier along the southwest PL would range from 15A at the lower corner to 22 ft. at the upper corner and continue along the canal at 22 ft. high, then it would need to turn to connect air -tight to the side of the house. A 20 ft. high wall would need to go between the houses and a 15 ft. wall would need to be constructed at the south side of the southerly home. The apartments to the west would just notice an increase in sound - about 3 dB- from reflections. The increase to the north across 1 -280 would probably not be noticeable. There wouldn't be any significant effect on residences to the south or east, except at the house with the pool would notice a slight decrease in noise because of the wall. I hope this answers your questions for now. Regards, Jeffrey K. Pack EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 Hamilton Avenue Suite 26 San Jose, CA 95125 Tel: (408) 371 -1195 Cell: (408) 921 -4886 Fax: (408) 371 -1196 15 -72 I .��, I I..,,I. II � I Vl 1 I � �t� • "� �R +�1 �1. , % ' 1� 8 C Ft ti �, ait��`'` "�' i C� . tM•1. N � � % .' � 1 , `"yK , � f� d�d �A �:,, y rx.% *frt — — ° 7. ^tl^+$u:i,t 1 s t i 7 r '�' 4 .,� + 4�V!, lA it +IT^ BMW Vt ♦ 1..1,.. , ;n ,� ��.� •3 ,'� y OWN IMnasiiroman L "ocetlon'� ' 'pr: o. ... 'I ...,:. I•. _ ;.. .. -, j�., , �n , yr ':i (, ii 1y ��. ti V , r. �� "i �t C �j a�H sG��' .� � �' � ..,� ., , � � � � ", ;1�Ii �,,. R."fh't;bl[�� + ' % 1 ;� r ', ` ' L ` ' I •., � � � `v� .,1 , ' k if � ..;, . L' Y' t \ � I 4 �, �� i�. .11I k � ,,:{. 1 111µ'r I tr � r w� 1 � , 5 � I ,• t . ,, i +l *�f)��.,�� @y': 1,41 - hl, ,ft 4 h,l, r +� Nl�jl ^v4'lu � � 1,F ,,i � 1 •� v *�1 \. �,� � I � � 1 4i� � 111 �� A7 � Wi NNY�` �. Rf�( / ,,w{ s ti 1 �,�� 't ct� . �nY1 i iLil'.: t �mu Ni•� l 4 � , ' ,ad's _. � T I I VW ' b_ uK.l }.�.d r. 97 °,1,95793' I `122'pVp9.BB ".�lV raeloVE!;1 IntaBa Ual ,Ju 2pp7 x i e 89 I�L+: 4 4 001,� 1. t rti� „ • N } Y �t T ��Y' � ° ^ ' �� rA 1 ��tb 1 1� • ' 1 N g,1 11)2009GOV le Eye all 68311 Colin Jung From: Pam Yoshida [pam @mba- architects.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:47 AM To: Colin Jung Cc: 'Marvin Bamburg' Subject: FW: Cupertino -North Portal Subdivision From: Mike O'Connor [mai Ito: moc @mocpa.com] Serit: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:28 AM To: pam yoshida Subject: Cupertino -North Portal Subdivision Attachment J Dear Ms. Yoshida: I understand that the entire concern on the part of the City's ERC is about particulate matter from the roadway and toxic air contaminants (presumably also from the roadway) affecting the future residents of the homes - -- and not about any minor impacts that the two residences might bring about. In three decades of doing this kind of work I don't think that I have ever been asked to bid on an air quality analysis of such a small project. Presently the SF Bay area is in non - attainment status with respect to the clean air standards for particulate matter, but the status for carbon monoxide is attainment. Both of these contaminants are given off by vehicles - -- or in the case of particulate matter, also by the action of vehicles being driven on roadways which crushes dirt and turns it into fine particles that become "resuspended ", as we say. Diesel - powered vehicles also give off particulate matter in exhaust that is in a form that is considered to be particularly toxic (carcinogenic). And automobile exhaust contains 1,3- butadiene and benzene which are also carcinogenic. Unfortunately those matters cannot surely be authoritatively dealt with at the present time, not as the BAAQMD would have consultants deal with them, given that the BAAQNM has not completed ongoing revisions to it's CEQA guidelines (as the City's comments state), and given that the City as Lead Agency is not providing standards of its own. The indications are - -- see http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ Divisions /Planning- and- Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx - -- that the revised CEQA guidelines may be finished in June. The latest draft puts forth a potentially involved procedure that starts with a screening analysis step, which would not involve much work if it were to happen that the project site passes the screening test. But then if it flunks the test some detailed modeling procedures are required (at which I am practiced). The BAAQMD is in the position of "fishing" rather than "cutting bait ". The latter course of action would be to concern oneself with the fact that the screening analysis method is not what anyone would call accurate; nor is the detailed modeling method. In general, the best estimates of concentrations of air quality contaminants are accurate within, say, a factor of two. A better approach would be for developers and architects to simply go ahead and provide some mitigation for new homes on sites that are near freeways or major arterials. 15-74 Here are some of the mitigation measures in the BA.AQMD's draft CEQA guidelines of 12/09: 4. Projects that propose sensitive receptors adjacent to sources of diesel PM (e.g., freeways, major roadways, rail lines, and rail yards) shall consider tiered plantings of trees such as redwood, deodar cedar, live oalc and oleander to reduce TAC and PM exposure. This recommendation is based on a laboratory study that measured the removal rates of PM passing through leaves and needles of vegetation. Particles were generated in a wind tunnel and a static chamber and passed through vegetative layers at low wind velocities. Redwood, deodar cedar, live oak, and oleander were tested. The results indicate that all forms of vegetation were able to remove 65 -85 percent of very fine particles at wind velocities below 1.5 meters per second (approximately 3 miles per hour [mph]) with redwood and deodar cedar being the most effective. Even greater removal rates were predicted for ultra -fine PM (i.e.,, aerodynamic resistance diameter of 0.1 micrometer or less). 5. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply either on an individual unit -by- unit basis, with individual air intake and exhaust ducts ventilating each unit separately, or through a centralized building ventilation system. The ventilation system should be certified to achieve a certain effectiveness, for example, to remove at least 80% of ambient PM-9.5 concentrations from indoor areas. The air intake for these units should be located away from areas producing the air pollution (i.e., away from major roadways and highways). 6. Where appropriate, install passive (drop -in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). Of these, the only one that seems that it might work: is the filtration component of 5, or perhaps 6. I don't agree that the landscaping could help that much, not at this site - -- you would not be able to make it dense or high enough to intercept much of the air reaching the homes on those particular lots (there could be some value in that approach in some other circumstances). In theory, electrostatic filtering systems can be very effective against particulate matter, but some may produce ozone contamination (the manufacturer should be required to provide clear specifications on that point so that you avoid those that produce ozone). Nothing in this email is to suggest that the City of Cupertino, the Lead Agency - and Responsible Agency with respect to this project, is obliged to follow the guidelines of the BAAQMD which is a Commenting Agency with respect to this project. -Mike O'Connor MO'C Physics Applied www.mocpa.com 15 -75 2 ATTACHMENT K ORDINANCE NO. 10-2059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL PREZONING & REZONING A PARCEL OF 0.618 GROSS ACRE LOCATED NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A PREZONING OF 0.028 ACRE FROM CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE- R1 -7.5 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AND A REZONING OF 0.59 ACRE FROM Al -43 TO R1 -7.5 WHEREAS, an application was received'by the City (Application no. Z- 2010 -01) for the prezoning and rezoning of a prbperty to Pre- R1 -7.5 and R1 -7.5 (Single Family Residential); and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the prezoning and rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned City of Sunnyvale and A1-43; and WHEREAS, maps of the subject property are attached hereto as Exhibits Al & A2, as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibits Al, B1, A2 & B2 are hereby prezoned or rezoned to: Pre- R1 -7.5 (Single Family Residential) and R1 -7.5; and that Exhibits Al & A2 attached hereto are made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of May, 2010 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of , 2010, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 15 -76 ATTEST: City Clerk G:�P(anning�PDReport�ORD\Z- 2010 -01 ord.doc APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 15 -77 ex*0vB ► : H`_f:... REZONE FROM AI -43 TO RI -13 ZONING FLAT 1 ASSESSOR'S SCALE: V=30' \ PARCEL NUMBER: ' \ REZONE: N 89 °42'10" -E (o-1.50' FROM ■ 1 I .� �I I ■� I I O' IRRIGATION EASEMENT — I � 7 7 .n �W I I • .� PROPOSED 0) C ;E I I ' 1 PARCEL l wl I �• ` BOUNDARY 4� WI i S 7302'9 8`. ■� I I F 2.� id-I I ■;n I i I. I I _ I I � I I 6 I 6\ m I I cP r _ _ _ 5' PGeE EASEM €NT w w rrw� w r wrr� w w rw�r r r rwr� w w wrr� r rte" N 89 0 2110" E 291.(04' 1 TO 31(o -32 -048 0.59 AG Al -43 RI -1.5 PROPOSED INGRESS, EGRESS AND PUE 41 0 Nso `f fm / / PORTION OF THE PARCEL TO BE REZONED FROM Al -43 TO R1 -7.5 All that real property located in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 page 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly comer of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino North 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds East a length of 67.50 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as'parcel 2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 267.78 feet along said Southwesterly line and non - tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta 4 Degrees 34 Minutes 18 Seconds and radial bearing South 28 Degrees 08 Minutes 32 Seconds West to the Northeasterly corner of Parcel B as shown on the Parcel Map recorded in Book 248 of Maps, at Page 45, Santa Clara County Records; thence along said Northerly line South 89 Degrees 21 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 297.64 feet to the Westerly parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along said Westerly line North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 138.60 to the point of beginning. Containing 0.590 acres more or less. 15 -79 `Ex� SIT R? A�s �lv PREZONEFROM CITY / O A F SUNNYVALE TO PRE-RI-1.5 SCALE: I" =10' ZO FLAT I ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 31(o -32 -041 PRE -ZONE: 0.03 AC -FR6M— ---Ai— 43- f I , I I '� I � r I I 10' IRRIGATION �0 q o I EASEMENT 8 5' PG4E ■ i EASEMENT • `.' r■ I I I I �' • . I I ■ I I �. w r Lr� r■ Lww� r r� w a w� r w w� r r �w� w w www� r r� w w �� w r �o w r �w� w w� w w N 59 °42'10" E �o o� 0 PORTION OF THE PARCEL TO BE PREZONED FROM SUNNYVA:LE TO PRE- RI -7.5 All that real property located in the City of Sunnyvale, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 PELge 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly comer of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the Westerly boundary of said parcel North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 35.57 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as parcel 2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 76.31 feet along said Southwesterly line and non - tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta I Degree 18 Minutes 10 Seconds and radial bearing South 26 Degrees 50 Minutes 22 Seconds West; thence leaving said Southwesterly line along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino South 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 67.50 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.028 acres more or less. 15 -81 b 356. b �. h8�� bh 48 € ° `RFo S �b g ��t'•b0�ia�Oh �a ° � A < �" ' a � ,R � 7r�� e��f� � � 8 � � � 5 "a co 1 �� " n 3�lsti g = X �� e a..w mmmww mmmm RR vvvvvo� o1Y o� � � j 8 R�j ► ►'�SiB $ �s�� alb 7p61 €�e MFIpp 111f m �R " � 7 g N � $4 °A" � "ACRg��+p F q AII " • ma C^ g 8$ g Rl�R FF g ° m ,3g1A '" O A @ 0 �1iZ E a z P"'O J AH y S g 6 m o o - ° g Cn ee EE e < «< c �< cc " - " u p g p g nn pp ao.u.yAu uu yql1��yy u M ° ° g g A AA � 77 � ABA �� pp s P l a 1x1 7 311 ono, p ;oo � AZT = 2� �� j Mr b id `bh h � T k�Ra. a �+ �2 0 * "s <gb O z e �_ A @EAF u 3 AS�I�IbSAiIffA 4 >a a " 3 1 � '� F� s � i�� y�. .oa"yaa. 4A °�r g salsa y 9 ' Fj � � ; ��il�I�iW1Ri6M ggg � AAAAAAAA �8A mm x$ gg A =egg :� " _ UM ° 1A'A " � �� aTa ? � g 'bb'3 �A o .n �A$ 631 i >se H �F� oz� wF j R w A o" °�AAIR n� p "FF p g,8em �$� Ab��F § °g i E °5 �'6; A w Q bs "v "� m b�pA m ��; � g ob F a a �" �{ 0 8 ' =J b m ill I A I r q � QY " � � R E P 71 II s� m Z g m P a� ¢ a� YsIX r a cn m =f X a m (, m I 1 j ; w C o z - mb m � v � n c w' O L. ,c - W D N , e m J � Z rm� IWt D �_ w^ m D� �p� m <�� N �1 y N m 2 ; z O m P n W � U 4 < -ay O JU m 1 b - rr 1 r rr`r rr`rr`r J1J m 36 'JAQCC D 1 U) ■■■� rrC ■ = w N Z 1 ; ; 71 ° O N� Eft w ; 1 _ : m z z C 0 m W co P c 8 u z O z .as. - �... ewe !;.(roN -- v�re•AwroN ©� _�- nu•eme.�_ r 6 � r #� L S ,1� , — N m y I I CI y dJ I _ T I r I f :1 — < fll = n en � rIT +nYAVro� �- - j - 111 Y I wso 9 w,yh N J Mow( S r r i r .y . U) Li A l c A t^ ^ w, TN PORTAL. &AWIV $ A R C H I T E C T S S..1 Jos.. CA NORTH PORTAL AVENUE F m y A PIP Ph.(r0E) 797 -07!! T•.(roe) 797 — (Wr 951 26 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA '0 0 1 a Owner and Subdivider: Westwood Investors Richard Gregersen 200 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel. 395 -5599 Engineer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel. 867 -0244 Fax 867 -6261 Notes: Site area 0.94 acres Total number of existing parcels - 1 Total number of proposed parcels - 2 and exception (not a building site) Building area (existing) - 5227 S.F. Existing use - residential Proposed use - residential Existing zoning - A1-43 Proposed zoning - R1. -7500 General plan designation - residential Assessor's Parcel No. 316 - 32-047 and 316-32 -048 Map References: PM 430-41 ROS 316-32 ROS 189 -13 Tract 2860 138 -23 PM 310-19 PM 248-45 I I I I I I I I I a- J � � I I z I � Q I (p L LJ I � = I Z F� C X �I (n M LJJ I I I I I I I I I I 186. 76 \ \ 18 7 \ _ \\ \ ,'I \\ \ lif I I Y d7 LIMIT LINE BETWEEN LX. /\,C / / �ll`NYVALE AND CUPERTNO \ 5' \ \ \ 186. p ��` \\ \\ ` 28 EL 1 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUTS \ VICINITY MAP PROVIDE CURB OPENING \ FFOR DRAINAGE INTO F2OCK LINED DISSIPATER ` SWALE.(3' WIDE, 60' LONG) \+ 83 \84 52 \ \ \ \ KD 38\ I LA 'I I x` LPN 316 -32 -54 j 1 GREGERSEN I I PROPOSED WATER SERVICES I I PROPOSED GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE B CABLE TV CONNECT ALL NEW SERVICES TO THE EXISTING U71LJ71ES IN NORTH PORTAL AVENUE 184. 17 O U W U G° j uI ry I LLJ N Cf) 1 (a ry LIJ Z < Q Q Z O L L- J Q U `•i I ND. BY DATE REVISION BY DATE I DATE February 2010 1 JOB NO. SCALE HER. 1'= 2D' WESTFALL ENGINEERS I NC TENTATIVE MAP ° D9 - 014 VERT. SHEET C DESIGNED: JC BY, KAREL CYMBAL RCE 34534 CHECKED. KC DATE, 14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867 - 0244 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA [ LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED BULDING • ❑ MONUMENT CURB INLET • O AREA DRAIN • POLE SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE SCALE: l'-20' OO STORM DRAIN MANHOLE Q CC FIRE HYDRANT ® WATER VALVE • STREET LIGHT O CLEANOUT • BOUNDARY LOT LINE — CENTERLINE - - - — — — LIMIT OF EASEMENT - -- - -- ... - -. CURB ====== CURB AND GLITTER — — — — — — EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONTOUR — FENCE —' -- -__—__— FLOW LINE — ._ —__- -a —ss— SANITARY SEVER —a —a- -m —>m— STORM DRAIN —o —a- - ELECTRICAL —� -6— GAS — . —� —•- -v —v— WATER — v —v —v- - CITY LIMIT LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE— — Owner and Subdivider: Westwood Investors Richard Gregersen 200 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel. 395 -5599 Engineer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel. 867 -0244 Fax 867 -6261 Notes: Site area 0.94 acres Total number of existing parcels - 1 Total number of proposed parcels - 2 and exception (not a building site) Building area (existing) - 5227 S.F. Existing use - residential Proposed use - residential Existing zoning - A1-43 Proposed zoning - R1. -7500 General plan designation - residential Assessor's Parcel No. 316 - 32-047 and 316-32 -048 Map References: PM 430-41 ROS 316-32 ROS 189 -13 Tract 2860 138 -23 PM 310-19 PM 248-45 I I I I I I I I I a- J � � I I z I � Q I (p L LJ I � = I Z F� C X �I (n M LJJ I I I I I I I I I I 186. 76 \ \ 18 7 \ _ \\ \ ,'I \\ \ lif I I Y d7 LIMIT LINE BETWEEN LX. /\,C / / �ll`NYVALE AND CUPERTNO \ 5' \ \ \ 186. p ��` \\ \\ ` 28 EL 1 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUTS \ VICINITY MAP PROVIDE CURB OPENING \ FFOR DRAINAGE INTO F2OCK LINED DISSIPATER ` SWALE.(3' WIDE, 60' LONG) \+ 83 \84 52 \ \ \ \ KD 38\ I LA 'I I x` LPN 316 -32 -54 j 1 GREGERSEN I I PROPOSED WATER SERVICES I I PROPOSED GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE B CABLE TV CONNECT ALL NEW SERVICES TO THE EXISTING U71LJ71ES IN NORTH PORTAL AVENUE 184. 17 O U W U G° j uI ry I LLJ N Cf) 1 (a ry LIJ Z < Q Q Z O L L- J Q U `•i I ND. BY DATE REVISION BY DATE I DATE February 2010 1 JOB NO. SCALE HER. 1'= 2D' WESTFALL ENGINEERS I NC TENTATIVE MAP ° D9 - 014 VERT. SHEET C DESIGNED: JC BY, KAREL CYMBAL RCE 34534 CHECKED. KC DATE, 14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867 - 0244 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA [ EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE 6!112010 CVPERTINO • Prezone and Rezone 0.028 acre from City of Sunnyvale to pre- Rl -7.5 (single -family res.), Rezone 0.59 acre from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 • Tentative parcel map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single -family residential lots of about 11,737 square feet & 13,982 sq. ft, with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. (in Sunnyvale) • Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet where 60 feet is required in an Rl zoning district KX IW 1� GVPERTINO Applicant: Pam Yoshida, MBA Architects Property Owner: Westwood Investors /Richard Gregersen Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue i �xy f 3 . 4 i a 1 6/1/2010 r Y { E i s / r / 6h i GUPERTI 40 On April 13 - PC recommended approval (3 -0) vote: - There are certain building/ landscaping mitigations that are needed to protect the health and safety of potential new residents of the property. - Since no residential development is proposed at this time, the Commission requests disclosures be recorded on property, noting building and landscaping mitigations to alleviate interior noise and air quality impacts. GUPERTINO: The City Council should approve: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA- 2010 -01 2. The Prezoning and Rezoning, Z- 2010 -01 3. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM- 2010 -02 ➢ Add condition requiring a stormwater retention/ detention easement on Parcel 1 in favor of Parcel 2 4. The Variance, V- 2010 -01 2