The URL can be used to link to this page

108-Attachment 7. Environmental Inital Study.pdfAttachment 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE April 7, 2011 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on April 7, 2011. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05 (EA-2011-04) Applicant: Karl Shultz, Lili Zhu and Louis Tseng (Sunflower Learning Center) Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Blvd DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to allow a child care facility with a pre-school and an after -school learning program to operate at an existing 8,862 square foot commercial office building. The application also includes a new outdoor play area in the rear parking lot; Architectural and Site approval for minor facade, landscaping and parking lot modifications at an existing commercial office building; Exception to the heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard 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 is determined to be insignificant. , 14�e a- 4—'_ Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/ercIREC EA-2011-04 1-125 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 mmi (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 C U P E RT I N O Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-2011-04 Case File No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Attachments A, B, C Project Title: Sunflower Learning Center (U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05, EXC-2011-05) Project Location: 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA (APN #375-11-073 Project Description: Use Permit (U-2011-04) to allow a child care facility with a pre- school and an after -school learninq program to operate at an existing 8,862 s.f. commercial office building The application also includes a new outdoor play are in the existing rear parking lot. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-05) for minor facade, landscaping and parking lot modifications for an existing commercial office building. Exception (EXC-2011-05) to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care facilitv) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Environmental Setting: The Droiect is located inside an existing office building. The previous uses at the site included doctor's offices and therapist offices. The site is located on the eastern edge of the city and surrounded by the City of Santa Clara to the north and the City of San Jose to the east. It is located at the south-west intersection of Stern Ave and Stevens Creek Boulevard The subject property has a hotel and office uses to the north, a gas station to the east single family residential uses and a daycare to the west and other single family residential uses to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 0.568 ac Building Coverage - 17% Exist. Building — 8,8 22 s.f. Proposed Bldg. — 8,862 s.f. Zone — P G.P. Designation — Commercial/Office/Residential Assessor's Parcel No. - 375 — 11 - 073 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price -1- 1-126 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual CQ Heart of the City Special Plan ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES Q NO ❑ 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 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 36. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 37. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 38. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County' 39, County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 40. County Heritage Resources Inventory 41, Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 42. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site 43. Santa Clara County Environmental Health OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 25. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 26. County Parks and Recreation Department 27. Cupertino Sanitary District 28. Fremont Union High School District 29. Cupertino Union School District 30. Pacific Gas and Electric 31. Santa Clara County Fire Department 32. County Sheriff 33. CALTRANS 34. County Transportation Agency 35. Santa Clara Valley Water District -2- 1-127 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) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: O O cC :,� eo R ui L O t �. O v j ISSUES: and Supporting Information Sources [ pp 9 �, U �I F., u s m c a �' E 3 2m c.� N = z o2E mac, =Oi ain�cn 6.9 I I — 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: i a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a I ❑ ❑ ❑ Q scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] __ __..._.._....... ..........._.._... . _..... :.... .............. _........................ .... b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including, but not limited to, trees, rock I outcroppings, and historic buildings within a I state scenic highway? [5,9,11,?4,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44]- d) Create a new source of substantial light or I ❑ r ❑ ❑ glare, which would adversely affect day or i nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] j I -_ -3- 1-128 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 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] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] c c c i i f.7 fQ� ,4d L V *� d �+- LA�E� WEl in o _J in a° j c I _ � A ........ ..... I � i I ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Items A-C: The project site is not located in an area identified as prime farmland, nor is the site being used for or zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on the City's or Region's agricultural resources. -4- 1-129 i 4J c 3 ° = 1 CL ISSUES: a° J [and Supporting Information Sources] N _._.......... ... _ .._ .. . .........._. _............ ............... _ .... i III. AIR QUALITY —Where available, the i i significance criteria established by the applicable j air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following j i determinations. Would the project: i � i Ii i aj Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ! ❑ ❑ ❑ I 0 the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ Q ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ Q increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality I standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] i d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ! ❑ ❑ Q pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] ❑ ❑ El Q e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ! O IEl directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? _. __...... -_ _. ............... __... ..._ .................... ...._... _. .._...............q .. _ .... _............ .... g) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or ❑ j ❑ ❑ Q regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Item B: Air Quality Impacts Temporary air quality impacts may result from demolition of the existing structure(s), excavation of soil, and other construction activities on the subject site. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below will reduce the temporary construction impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: -5- 1-130 • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacent to windy periods, active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non -toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; • Sweep daily (or more often if necessary) to prevent visible dust from leaving the site (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff -related impacts to water quality; and • Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • The applicant shall incorporate the City's construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. Item F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions All facilities directly or indirectly generate greenhouse gas emissions; however this project is not anticipated to generate significant emissions that could adversely impact the environment. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] I c c 3 ( c +., L Mi s ° � C M ; L s to I p ro CL E V)Mo 1= I 1= C N ❑ ❑ ❑ L� ❑ ❑ M ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] _...._ ........ _.......... ........... ............. ......... d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,271 o 1 f0 fC C O C f4 U tip 0 ( fC ( O @ Z a, N 0 C J =40 a° I I ❑ ❑El ❑ Q I 11 r El ❑ ❑I ❑ Q Item A, B and D: Biological Resources No rare, threatened, endangered or special status species of flora or fauna are known to inhabit the site. Item C: Wetlands No federally protected wetlands are present on the site. v" Item E: Tree Preservation Policy No protected trees are being proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing to plant additional trees along the frontage in order to meet the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Item F: Habitat Conservation Plan etc The subject site is not part of any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. -7- 1-132 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,411 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,411 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] I � c o C Mi C I.-M O � E N 5 +, a a J 0 Ln 4Q V C in c c I I 19 v U 1 Lj - L O. Z C. LA w E E to J N ( _ ❑ .. ❑ .......... .. ' G.. _................ ❑ I (� I El o i _.. _.:. a . ❑ ❑ I ❑ i 0 ... ❑ I 0 _.L. .- H istoric/Archeologica I According to the City's Archaeological Sensitivity Map, the project site has a low potential for the discovery of archaeological resources and is not considered archaeologically sensitive. In addition, this site is not listed on the City's Historic Resources inventory, The project is not anticipated to impact archaeological or historic resources. However, in the event any resources are found during construction, their disturbance would be a significant impact. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 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? Refer to 4Jc c C c +� v! a+ t u tt c i ro m 4J C I:' N c iintw L+ a. IA G a N I I -8- 1-133 i I 4J j O 4a M o'J3° r s . z ' CL ° N J= i N I ISSUES: aba [and Supporting Information Sources] ............... ._... _. _ . ........ _ ..... ....... .... ......... . VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project .........._ ........ _......... _... _.... .... ............ ....... _ ............ _........ _ ....... Division of Mines and Geology Special ............ .. _ ...... ! Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [2,5,10,44]El El El El ( iQ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including El liquefaction? [ 2 5 10 39 44 q ] I _. _ _ I iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ❑ __T. �_____—.�._�_...__ ___ _ _ .... El b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El El i Q topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is i Q unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in El 0 El I Q Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting El the use of septic tanks or alternative waste I water disposal systems where sewers are not I j available for the disposal of waste water? i [6,9,36,39] I 1 Items A-E: ` The project site is located on the Valley floor and as such, there are no seismic or geological hazards that ` need to be mitigated. The project is serviced by a sanitary sewer hookup and therefore, need not rely on septic systems for water disposal. -9- 1-134 ------ _._..... . _ — ------ --� '� c 1 t u c� is i o � �I �41 L. N C a in o ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] .......... .... ...... ._.........................._ ... _... ...... ....._................ .... ....... "' . ! _ . _ ...._. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] b) Have soils incapable of adequately 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] c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32. .........._... .... _.............. ............... e) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] f) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Szction 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i 0 7 0 ❑- 4 U o M Z CL E -10- 1-135 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: h) 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? [ ) i) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] j) 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 wild lands? [1,2,44] 3° 41 M o s o r M i; u+ u W 0 CL ( a , ° CL Z E H = E E -owl in a= '' 7 o j ar on -' in l a° _ V) — I � I I ❑ i ❑ ........... .... ❑ ❑ 0 X Item B: Soils The applicant will be required to submit a soils report to the satisfaction of the Building Division. If the site is found to have expansive soils, the appropriate actions will be taken by the soils engineer and Building Division to ensure that substantial risks to life and property are minimized. Item C, D, E, F: Hazardous Materials The project is not currently included on the State DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) or other federal, state or local databases. There is no historical information that indicates the location or use of hazardous materials at the subject site. The report concludes that subsurface investigation of the property is not warranted. Item J: Wildland Fires The site is not located in the state's Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. -11- 1-136 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] c c ° 'µme-- n ~ M c a! CL OJCL M ��'- Z W C ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ _.. _.. ❑ ... ...... __.........; Q c) Substantially alter the existing drainage El ❑ El Q pattern of the site or area, including through 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? [14, 20,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through 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] ❑ ❑ ❑ �j Q e) Create or contribute runoff water which i I would exceed the capacity of existing or planned j stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El El [20,36,37] I I -El ❑ i Q g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other I i 1 flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] El h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area -. -12- 1-137 c i j + ca o o ++ i= 1 i u C 1 j s o °.�' E LA 41 E E ISSUES: a°. a, J c c I _J [and Supporting Information Sources] i Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] 11 El El i Q i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,381El i i El El Q j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I [2,36,38] Item A, B, F, E: Water Quality and Runoff — During and Post -Construction City, State, and Federal Regulations The discharge of stormwater from the City's municipal storm sewer system is regulated primarily under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements these regulations at the regional level. Under the CWA, the RWQCB has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications. Under Section 401 of the CWA, permits are issued in combination with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), under Section 404 of the CWA. When the Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Water Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of the ACOE (e.g., isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities that lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. New construction in Cupertino is subject to the conditions of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which was reissued by the RWQCB in February 2001. Additional water quality control measures were approved in October 2001 (revised in 2005), when the RWQCB adopted an amendment to the NPDES permit for Santa Clara County. This amendment, which is commonly referred to as "C3" requires all new and redevelopment projects that result in the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces totaling 10,000 sq. ft. or more to 1) include stormwater treatment measures; 2) ensure that the treatment measures be designed to treat an optimal volume or flow of stormwater runoff from the project site; and 3) ensure that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated and maintained. A new NPDES construction permit was adopted by the RWQCB on September 2, 2009, and a new Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit was adopted on October 14, 2009. -13- 1-138 The City has developed several policies that implement Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit, requiring new development and redevelopment projects to include specific construction and post -construction measures for improving the water quality of urban runoff. The City's Post -Construction Urban Runoff Policy established general guidelines and minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs) for specified land uses, and includes the requirement of regular maintenance to ensure their effectiveness. Implementation of these Policies will reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant levels. New Construction The development of a play area on an existing parking lot will result in some decrease in the water impermeable surface and surface runoff. If the site involves the redevelopment of over 10,000 s.f. of project area, project drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The project site is served by onsite storm drainage facilities connected to the City's storm drainage system. The site drainage and storm drain construction will result in a less than significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, consistent with NPDES Permit and City Policy requirements, will reduce potential construction impacts to surface water quality to less than significant levels: MITIGATION MEASURES: Prior to Construction • Project drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, if required by the Public Works Department, the applicant must provide details of specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), including, but not limited to, bioswales, disconnected downspouts that drain to landscape areas, direct roof runoff into rain barrels or cisterns for onsite irrigation reuse, pervious paving materials and native/drought-tolerant landscaping to reduce impervious surface areas, project areas should be dry -swept routinely and onsite litter should be picked -up and disposed of properly, onsite inlets and catch basins that area stenciled "No Dumping — Flows to Bay," etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of stormwater of new development and redevelopment. The project shall comply with applicable provisions of City Policies which establishes guidelines and minimum BMPs for all projects and provides for numerically -sized (or hydraulically -sized) TCMs for projects that create apd/or replace 10,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface or are considered a "Land Use of Concern" and 2) Post -Construction Hydromodification Policy which requires the incorporation of measures to control hydromodification impacts resulting from new development and redevelopment projects where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation or other adverse impacts to local rivers and creeks. Construction Measures, if required Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, the project shall comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Permit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, as follows: -14- 1-139 The applicant shall develop, implement and maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities; The applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities. Examples of BMPs are contained in the publication Blueprint for a Clean Bay. For additional information about the Erosion Control Plan, the NPDES Permit requirements or the documents mentioned above, please call the Department of Public Works. Item G, H, I, J: Flooding Based on the FEMA flood insurance maps for the City of Cupertino, the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain and would therefore have no impact on 100-year flows. The project would not expose people to flood hazards associated with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject to seiche or tsunami. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] Item A: Land Use � c +J j is r=o v 30 coo _ u u •i+ {.7 (4i 0 (CQ o uto .� a _ Z a 1= O J i in a in W I 1 _ I I I � I � Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new freeways and highways, major arterials streets, and railroad lines. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community, and the project is consistent with the site's General Plan Land Use designation. Item B: Conflict with land use plan, policies, specific plans or zoning ordinances The proposed project complies with development standards and policies required by the City's General Plan and the General Commercial (CG) Ordinance in order to avoid possible impacts to surrounding land uses. The proposed project also includes the request for an exception from the Heart of the City Specific Plan regulations to exceed 25% of the frontage of the building frontage to have non-commercial (child care) uses. The subject site is located at the eastern fringes of the city and surrounded by other non- -15- 1-140 commercial uses such as hotel and office. The potential for this space to be redeveloped as a commercial site is limited. Therefore, it is not anticipated that granting an exception to allow the child care facility will have any significant impact on the surrounding land uses. >- +1 c c o q Ora v u ++ V r6,. C L FL„ V r6 O M E 41 E E L c N to ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ! `" X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Item A, B: Mineral Resources The project site is not known to be located in an area with mineral resources, and will therefore not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] XI. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] 41 C r6 f0 vi L M U U v C F- Lf 6l C f0 L O U O Z M Q *; �E N ��=a1 �E� E ' i a in to c �► -❑. i i _._..... __..... ..... .--_._._.� El ...__�_ ❑ El I , -16- 1-141 ISSU ES: [and Supporting Information Sources] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] c .3 0 °4-1 M M t'i C M t'i .1 u s +' O M" f 6 M i O v «. O u M ao a a E E. 4J c a� E' E. p0. in -' r- C in N — I L.... ❑ _ _ ..: Item A: Exposure to Noise Levels in excess of Standards Noise at the proposed facility. - The project has been reviewed by an independent Acoustical Engineering firm, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The results of their noise measurement survey indicate that the playground area proposed at the project site would be exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA under current conditions. Based on a review of the future traffic noise contours in the General Plan and a consideration that, under most conditions, a 25 increase in traffic volumes is needed to produce a 1 dBA increase in traffic, future noise traffic noise are expected to remain within 1 dBA of current levels. Therefore, the outdoor use are of the proposed facility would be considered to be "normally acceptable" in for school usage under both current and future conditions. The proposed projects hours of operation (8:30am to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday) fall within daytime hours as definedby in the City's Municipal Code. The Municipal code noise limits respective daytime noise levels produced by residential and nonresidential uses to 60 and 65 dBA Leq during these hours. The General Plan limits daily average noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL at residential land uses. The above standards are used in this assessment as a measure of acceptability for community noise in Cupertino. Noise at the adjacent properties: Use of the project site by the Sunflower Learning Center would primarily involve indoor activities, which do not have the potential for produce any significant noise impact on the surrounding residential uses. The most significant noise effect related to the use of the site by the Sunflower Learning Center would be due to children playing in the main outdoor playground areas proposed in a portion of the existing parking area immediately south of the existing office building and children playing in the small outdoor activity area adjacent to the building at the western edge of the site. The main playground will have a -17- 1-142 play structure installed, which will include an elevated play areas and slide(s), while the small outdoor activity would have no elevated play areas. The daily schedules for the pre-school and after -school programs proposed for the new site would include outdoor activities in the playground areas between 11:00 to 11:30am, 4:00 to 4:10pm, and 5:00 to 5:30pm. Two playgrounds are proposed one on the eastern side of the property and a much smaller one on the western side of the property. Both areas will be enclosed with a 6-foot high solid wood fence. Currently, 5'8" high masonry block walls are installed at both the western and southern property lines of the site. The project includes increasing the height of this wall from 5'8" to eight feet (8'-0") high with solid masonry materials. Based on noise levels measured during outdoor recess periods at the current facility, considering the rate at which sound attenuates with increased distance, and the sound attenuation provided by 8-foot high masonry block property line walls, calculations indicate that average (Leq) sound levels due to children's voices and play at the smaller outdoor activity area at the residential side of the western project property line would range from 43 to 45 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to between 46 to 48 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. These calculations also show that maximum (Lmax) sound levels at the residential side of the western project property line due to children playing at the smaller outdoor activity area would range from 56 to 57 dBA when children are in the center of the activity area to between 59 to 60 dBA when children are at the western edge of the activity area. Using the same assumptions, calculations indicate that average (Leq) sound levels due to ground level play at the main playground would range from 37 to 39 dBA at the residential side of the western property line and from 36 to 38 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. The maximum (Lmax) sound levels due to ground level play at the main playground would also range from 50 to 51 dBA at the residential side of the western property line and from 49 to 50 dBA at the residential side of the southern property line. Based on the preceding discussion, all sound levels produced by outdoor activities at the proposed project will comply with the residential (60 dBA Leq, 80 dBA Lmax) municipal code standards at the adjacent residential uses. Noise from operation of the proposed project: In addition to noise from outdoor play, the project activities would also produce noise during the pick and drop off of students in the parking lot. Noise produced by parking lot use from the proposed use of the site is not expected to differ substantially from that the current parking lot usage and therefore is not judged to result in a potentially significant change in the noise environment at the surrounding residences. The existing noise environment at the adjacent residential uses exceeds the "normally acceptable" limit of 60 dBA CNEL. The current noise environment also includes noise due to outdoor play in from the existing daycare adjacent to the site. Based on measurements and analysis completed for this study, noise from the use of the proposed project is not expected to increase noise levels at adjacent residences by 3 dBA CNEL or greater or significantly alter the type, or quality, of noise in the site vicinity. Item D: Temporary Noise Levels during Construction The Cupertino General Plan states that the City's acceptable exterior noise level is 55 DNL long term, and 65 DNL short-term. The General Plan recognizes that the noise levels may not be achievable near major roadways. Though improvements to the existing facility will largely involve changes to the building interior, site improvements and work on the exterior fagade of the building will involve periods of noise. The -18- 1-143 construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential land uses. MITIGATION MEASURES: • Construction will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on - site or off -site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site -specific construction noise mitigation plan and a finding by the Community Development Director that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses. • Weekend construction hours, including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Permitted work activities shall be conducted exclusively within the interior of enclosed building structures provided that such activities are inaudible to existing adjacent residential uses. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. The Community Development Director may rescind provisions to allow extended hours of construction activities on weekends upon written notice to the developer. • The contractor shall use "new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poor maintained engines or other components. • No individual device may produce a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5 meters) or generate noise level on any nearby property that exceeds eighty dBA. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from noise sensitive receptors, such as residential uses. • The developer will implement a Construction Management Plan approved by the Community Development Director to minimize impacts on the surrounding sensitive land uses to the fullest extent possible. The Construction Management Plan would include the following measures to minimize impacts of construction upon adjacent land uses: a) Early and frequent notification and communication with the neighborhood of the construction activities. b) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. c) Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator would be conspicuously posted at the construction site. d) Delineate the limits of development onsite. e) Discuss construction -staging methods. The construction of the parking area on the north side of Mercedes Road should be considered for use as a primary staging area. f) The plan shall demonstrate that emergency access along Mercedes Road shall not be impeded at any time. g) A garbage/debris container shall be placed on the site to store debris and the project site shall be cleared of debris at the end of every day during project construction. The container shall be emptied regularly such that no garbage is visible over the rim of the container. Only one portable toilet shall be permitted on the construction site. The portable toilet shall be allowed -19- 1-144 El only during the period of project construction and shall be removed immediately after completion of construction. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: _ _ _ ° r U ! U o E,, `M to = CL I_ Z a I_ in J W . +� = L O ; U VI C! J I a in i a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ El El I area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, El ❑ El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] __ .... ............ _. Item A, B, C: Population and Housing The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth because no residential development is being proposed. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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 j environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: .. _... ' � c o M cvCL a) = E': O — O a in to c in J 41 U O CO Z CL E -20- 1-145 A C M U c ISSUES: 4; a° in [and Supporting Information Sources] . _ _ ..-- ... _. XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES El Fire protection? (19,32,44] ❑ Police protection? [33,44] Schools? [29,30,44] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] _ i 3. f° m o U U _ M o O M uAa . NE a EJ Z a N ...... _....__..--._._..... _.... El i _... _... ....... .--------- El . __. ; _...._. ❑ ;.._ i _ --- Q ❑ ._...._ ❑ _.,._.. ❑ ❑ I i Q Item A: Public Services The project site is located in an urbanized area of Cupertino, and is served by existing Fire, Sheriff, School, Park and other Public Facilities. No additional Fire or Police personnel or equipment are necessary to serve the proposed project. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] Item A, B: Recreation � s ; m M s r° a s U c o v tin a. `= a. Z o. r 1= ;� it L vs N 1 E ,Q) O —-J Eto O O 1 I ❑ ❑ Q I The proposed project would increase does not increase the number of residents. -21 - 1-146 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ......... _..._.._. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: . . a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4, 20, 35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] ..._. ...... .._ ............ ........ _.. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,441 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] �, t +� r t � U u � CL M a N q- z J a in J V, to in — ....... _... ❑ Q I � i ❑ I ❑. _ I ❑ j I ❑ � i ..... ❑ ❑ El Q ❑ i ❑ I i ❑ Q ......................_........ El❑ j .... ... ....... Q . ... El I I Item A, B: Traffic The City contracted with Hexagon Transportation Consultants to determine the traffic impacts of the project. The proposed project is to allow a child care facility to serve 142 children (70 pre-school and 72 after -school). The project is expected to generate 238 net new trips (127 entering the site and 124 leaving the site). -22- 1-147 The results of the unsignalized intersection analysis show that the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions. The poor level of service during the PM peak hour is due mostly to the excessive vehicle delays that would occur for the northbound left -turn movement from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. During the PM peak commute periods, the opposing eastbound and westbound traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard would make it difficult for northbound vehicles to turn left onto westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. Based on field observations, the left turn from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard is difficult during the PM peak hour. To address the poor level of service for left turns from Stern Avenue, the City could consider restricting the northbound left -turns at Stevens Creek Boulevard or adding a traffic signal at this intersection. By restricting the northbound and southbound left -turn and through movements from Stern Avenue onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern Avenue is expected to operate at LOS C with 18.4 seconds of delay under project conditions and LOS E with 41.6 seconds of delay under cumulative conditions. This is the delay associated with the westbound left -turns that would have to wait for gaps in the eastbound traffic flow on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Traffic Consultant recommends implementing this alternative, as this alternative will result in acceptable levels of service without the necessity for signalization at this intersection. Item E: Emergency Access The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the application and did not find that the project will result in inadequate emergency access. Item F: Parking Capacity Adequacy of parking for the proposed project was analyzed based upon observations at the existing Sunflower Learning Center located at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard. At the current location, students are usually dropped off at the after -school tutoring center by vans and picked up by their parents. During pick-up time, parents were observed to park at the learning center and walk into the school to pick up the child or a staff member was observed to walk the children to the car, while the parents waited inside their cars. Based on 15-minute interval observations, the largest number of cars parked was observed to be 11 vehicles for an enrollment of 130 students. With the project expected to increase the enrollment to 142 students, the maximum number of parked cars is expected to be 12 vehicles. In addition, all the staff members are expected to park on site. For an enrollment of 142 students the number of staff is expected to be 12, based on a teacher to student ratio of 1:12. Also 3 vans belonging to the center were observed to be parked at the existing learning center. The maximum number of cars expected to be parked on site is 27 (12 vehicles from parents, 12 vehicles from staff and 3 vans) on a regular weekday. Based on the site plan, the parking area for the proposed school has a total of 24 parking spaces. The applicant confirms that the current location for the Sunflower Learning Center at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard will still be operational even with the new location at 18900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. He also confirms that the three vans will be parked at the other business location. In case the other business location ceases operation, the applicant shall reduce operation at the subject site to allow the parking of the three vans. The applicant may also apply for a parking exception at that time. If the other business location relocates and adequate parking is available at the new location, no changes to business operations are needed at the subject site. PARKING CONDITION: The applicant shall park all company owned vans off site. In case, the applicant desires to park these at the subject site, he/she shall either reduce the business operation at the subject site or apply for a parking exception to demonstrate that there is adequate parking available with the additional van parking on site. - 23 - 1-148 MITIGATION MEASURES: Install a median in the right of way on Stevens Creek Boulevard to prevent left turns out of Stern Avenue as discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc and depicted on Page 27 thereof (Attachment B). c f° u d C o dA ISSUES: o- [and Supporting Information Sources] _... _ ..... XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: _____......_._.__....____.._.._._..... ........... ___..__.._......__...._.._...._..__.._....._..... a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements El of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] 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 commitments? [5, 22, 28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] C g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1 El and regulations related to solid waste? [?] r u c +' ~ ! E Z E I J !n ❑ Q I ❑ ❑ [El IN n 7 ❑ ❑ Q Item B: Wastewater Facilities The City of Sunnyvale Public Works Department has confirmed that they can provide service for this use. They are currently in the process of reviewing the project and any conditions they may have will be incorporated into the final approval for the project. Improvement plans shall be reviewed by the City of Sunnyvale Public Works Department prior to construction. -24- 1-149 Item C: Stormwater Drainage Facilities The applicant shall provide stormwater drainage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The construction of new stormwater drainage facilities will result in a less than significant environmental impact. XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) - _-_----- ...... .. . .. . . ................ . ......... ... ...... . -__ -- -- 4J 41 a .2 41! M M 41 M C a = 0 W P 0. i CL C E tan) 4' L_ 4. -1 _J 0 .�q 0 E E CU ISSUES: to a (and Supporting Information Sources] ....... ........... ..... - .................... ............ ..... ..... .. ..... ..... ...... . * . .......... .............. .. .. . .. .. .... ........... . .... . ❑ El El a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] El b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ..... .... ..... ..... El c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? See attachment C for a summary of mitigation measures. -25- 1-150 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils 11 Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities / Service Systems ❑ 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. Q 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 hat are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Staff Evaluator Date -26- 1-151 ERC Chairperson Date Attachments: Attachment A: Environmental Noise Assessment by Illingsworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated March 10, 2011 Attachment B: Traffic Impact Analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated April XX, 2011 Attachment C: Summary of Mitigation Measures -27- 1-152