The URL can be used to link to this page

15. Pre-zoning Saratoga/Lawrence/Bollinger City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. I)" Agenda Date: March 6, 2007 Application: Z-2006-04, EA-2006-10 Applicant: City of Cupertino Owner: County of Santa Clara Location: Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the Centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Road Application Summary: . City - Initiated PREZONING of a total of 13.5 acres: 7.7 of those acres to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and 5.8 acres to Pre- T ( Transportation Zoning District). . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends on a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Wong absent) that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative declaration, file number EA-2006-10; 2. Approve the Prezoning application, file number Z-2006-04, in accordance with Resolution No. 6447, Ordinance No. 07-1998. Project Data: General Plan Land Use Designations: Parks & Open Space, Transportation Existing Zoning. Designation: none Proposed Pre-Zoning Designations: Pre-PR, Pre-T Gross Acres: 13.5 acres Project Consistency with - General Plan: - Zoning: Environmental Determination: Yes N/A Negative Declaration /s--I File Nos.: Z-2006-04, EA-2006-10 Page 2 March 6, 2007 BACKGROUND The City is proposing to pre-zone two County-owned lots (7.7 acres) on the east side of Saratoga Creek between Highway 280 and Chelmsford Drive to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and pre-zone the abutting Lawrence Expressway half- street (5.8 acres) between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District). This project is a necessary prelude to future actions the City must take, with the consent and approval of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), to bring the properties under the jurisdictional control of the City. Presently, the properties are in the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area of the City of S~n Jose. Cupertino needs jurisdiction of these lands in order to complete Reach #5 of the Saratoga Creek Trail between Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway. The trail segment is part of the County-prepared San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan adopted by the City in 1999. A portion of the trail, between Barnhart Avenue and Bollinger Road, has already been completed by the City. I 5"'.- J- File Nos.: Z-2006-04, EA-2006-10 Page 3 March 6,2007 DISCUSSION Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission heard this application on February 13, 2007 (Exhibits A-2 and B-2). It recognizes the need for park land in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, which has 1/10 of the City General Plan standard of 3 acres of park land for each 1,000 population. One Commissioner asked if the City would be assuming the maintenance responsibility for this segment of Lawrence Expressway if we annexed it. This Commissioner also asked that the City test the soil for hazardous substances prior to the City's decision to acquire or lease the land for trail and park development. A portion of the property is currently used for the open storage of construction waste. Public Comments Three residents spoke in support for additional park land in Rancho Rinconada. One resident noted that the location is relatively inaccessible, so there needs to be adequate maintenance and sheriff surveillance for the park to remain a community asset, not a nuisance. One resident lived on a narrow private street in Rancho that is not wide enough for street parking. He said there was no sheriff enforcement of street parking restrictions because it was a private street. He was concerned that park/ trail user parking might overflow into this area if convenient parking was not provided elsewhere. Another resident asked how the northern segment of the trail near Highway 280 would be developed. Staff Comments .,Ev-en:a,tter annexation, Lawrence Expressway is still considered a County"~'_h __"_,_ transportation facility whose maintenance and operation is still the responsibility of the County. However, the City would be responsible for extending its fire protection and sheriff service to this area. The Director of Community Development has made an interpretation of the General Plan Land Use Map and finds that Lawrence Expressway has a land use designation of "Transportation." A separate city-initiated general plan amendment is not needed. The prezoning is just one of numerous steps the City must take before leasing/ acquiring and developing the site for a trail and park. · Obtain consent from San Jose City Council for boundary re-alignment. (in progress) · Obtain approval from Santa Clara County LAFCO for boundary re-alignment. · Annex properties to Cupertino. · Seek agreement with County to relocate waste storage yard. · Seek funding sources and conduct studies. · Purchase or lease property from County. · Design and develop trail and park. I s--- 3 File Nos.: Z-2006-04, EA-2006-10 Page 4 March 6, 2007 ENCLOSURES Draft Zoning Ordinance 07-1998 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6447 Negative Declaration Exhibit A-2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 13, 2007 Exhibit B-2: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated February 13, 2007. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submi~jed'by: I . "L C.c 1..-/..-<./ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: Jbi- David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-04 CC.doc (S _l( ORDINANCE NO. 07-1998 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO.2 BY PREZONING APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES TO PRE-PR (PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT) AND PRE-T (TRANSPORTATION ZONING) LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY SIDE OF SARATOGA CREEK TO THE CENTERLINE OF LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY FROM HIGHWAY 280 TO BOLLINGER ROAD APPLICATION Z-2006-04 WHEREAS, an application was filed (Application Z-2006-04) for the prezoning of the territory to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and Pre- T (Transportation Zoning District); and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Prezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property to be prezoned is presently in the City of San Jose; and WHEREAS, maps of the subject property are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and "A-I" 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 properties described in attached Exhibits "B" and "B-1" be and hereby are prezoned to Pre-PR and Pre- T respectively, and that Exhibits "A" and "A-I" attached hereto are made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of March, 2007, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of , 2007, by the following vote: V ote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor /)'''s- SHEET' OF 1 L11\)E TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING 1 282.38 N01'18'10"E 2 177.77 S20'09' 45"E 3 125.69 S04'04' 4.5"W 4 214,50 S29'51 '15"W 5 116.81 S06"13' 45"E -. 6 109.24 S19'26' 45"W 7 228.20 S14'30'00"W 8 191.71 N03'22' 45"W 9 151.30 N19'29' 45"W 10 189.35 N27"45'15"W 11 14-7.02 N03'17'15"W 12 121.65 N50'!:.1' 45"W 13 107.74 N12'27'45"W 14- 61.00 N25'06'15"E 15 '113.84 N66'02'15"E 16 194.78 N39'42'OO"E 17 85,91 N15'14'OO"E 18 138.43 N10'16'15"W 19 103,33 N01'51'30"E 20 119.95 N26'18' 45"E 21 2856 SOUTHERLY 22 193.00:1:: N43'00' 4.0"W E)(HiE::1 T A PLAT FOP PF~EZONING ZONE: PRE-PR CITY OF CUpnnlNO 2007- BEING A PORTION e,I:: THE QUITO RANCHO .1 CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS Jk ~., , r ANNEXATION RANCHO <<W- RINCON ADA 98-09 ,11 ~ '. \0 B, 1" = 200' t ~_J[jJ 0) (2) II I 0/ "G @ __ ...).... _.._.=--"-~~ $ ',(' ,...-@J \. / r:0\ ,r----- "'.. 0 ('i\ , "~,../ PARCEL 1 ~,_~ f. ~' PARC.[~ ~ /.............=~_--.~..~ r;:: / BI<.6065, PG 241 V I " " BK.6Ui5 PG 24' -....~~,_ (~ (7" ~,~....."""'" " 16 f0\ 18 / ,/ ~--= -------"". ->--~.-z---_.. --= --..... :.2---",..-" API\J' 37" 21-001 - ~~-- --...r7;;> I /"'''.----'--.1 -.=----=---.--.....~--~-+=::---r-~-------:~---::.::.---------------~--- ----~..:.. / ______ __.. _ _ _ _ _.__ _____ __ ___ _L.,_ - -@- ~-- - --I::A-W-R-E-N (: E.u [7( PW+.--t--- ----,- - . - --/--- / SAN JOSE CITY L11v1ITS: I 1 L AI~NEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 \ ~ . / , '-WESTERL Y BOUNDARY OF I ~ 1 APN: 375-:~2-001 LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS /~) ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 I "'"' ,,"' " "'0' ,,: CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION RANCHO RINCONADA 98-09 f I EXH\i::"i T A-J- PLAT FOF< PREZONING ZONE: FJF~E -- T CITY OF CUPi~'::nll\jO 2007- BEING A PORTION or THE QUITO RANCHO SHEET I OF 2 [CUPERTII"J CITY L11v1ITS ANNEXA T'011 RANCHO RINCOI\liC>" 98-09 ----- ----~, ~~~ " 1" = '200' '" I- W W :r U1 w w U1 /--~\ (WESTERLY BOUNDARY ., CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY --~ '\ ANNEXATION RANCHO 1 ~,,' , , ~ RINCON ADA 98-09 @ 'I,:' ~~R6~~L5>'PG> '" I'---~t------ /..-/ /~ PARCEL 1 "--, _ "\ all: ,/ -------------->:' l----:;~ 1'-3 7-;-:2F~~1 ---.:::.------.l----~~~~=-::.:.::-------=:..--::~=f--~:~@~' tc0 > -:--'---7---t;':;:E~i\ro~'~O~'-T~O-~-~:l:;----------- ----~ -~DJ~::-~:::::::-- ~-- ---- '-Z------- ~-// . i SAN JOSE U; I' LIMITS SAI~ JOSE CITY LIMITS L' ANNEXA TIOII ~.WRELAND ANNEXATION MORELAND NO. 22 LAWRENCE EXPWY. NO.3/, SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS / ~ ANNEXA TION MORELAND ' (<\7 ) NO. 2711, SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS SAI~ JOSE CITY LIMITS " ~ ANNEXATION MORELAND ANNEXATION MORELAND SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS I~O, 29 NO. 20 ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 .' ' ~ -J I, E )(1-W.Fi" A-1- PLAT FOR F~REZONING ZONE: [='RE - T CITY OF CUPEF::'TINO 2007- BEIi\JG J..\ PORTION OF" THE QUITO RANCHO --~~~ '11( 1" = 200' SHEET '- :IF 2 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH r3EARII~G 1 243:1: U\.5TERL Y 2 4.53.28:1: '';.OU THERL '( 3 465.03:1: '30UTHERL Y 4 84243 ::OUTHERL Y 5 911.66 SOU THERL Y 6 667.72 SOUTHERL Y 7 5~,2.42 :30UTHERL Y 8 141.00 ':;OUTHERL Y 9 218,52:1: 1~82'59'21"W 10 31.88 ~nl'20'20"W 11 40.67 N2,5'00'00"w COURSE 12 SEE CUPVE TABLE 13 28t.69 ~.15'1?'26"E COURSE 14 SEE curVE TABLE 15 121.87 NOO"f4'10"W 16 73.50 1~!.16.4511 O"E 17 33,23 I:: 3'00' 40"W 18 2856:1: l+jRTHERL Y 19 152.42 ~WO'44' 45"W COURSE 20 SEE CURVE TABLE 21 181.')51 1!::,.6'51'06"W I I CUPERnl~O CITY LIMITS r ANNEXA nON RANCHO ci I SAN JOSE CITY LIMiTS RINCONADA 98-09 ~ ANNEXATION DOYLE ~w. 4 I n 2'~?-__ @ ~ (f! /r-~Tj1 ~ ~ ~ i ,'0 ~-------____i_:..'i\.~_---- -Lt----- 2Z <(2 (f)<( / N' 8' J) APN: 375-22-001 o ' Z SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS AI~NEXA TION BLACI<FORD NO. 6 U) LAWRENCE I- tf :c Ul 4J w (I) -t -' o OJ EXPWY. SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXA TION MORELAND NO. 27 A SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS AN~IEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 - CURVE TABLE COURSE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA 12 39.35 43.00 52"25'56" 14 307.07 2433.00 07"13'53" 20 19.58 20.00 56'05'33" '--1 , ~ ~....- EXHIBIT B PREZONiNG LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONE: PRE-PR CiTY OF CUPERTINO 2007- All of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows: !SEG~~\jJ!\m~(3: ay the Southeasterly cornet of Lot 293 as shown on that certain f\llap or Tract i 183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11-13, Santa Clara County records said point also lying in the Westerly line of the City limits of Cupertino as annexed by Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly line of the City limits of San Jose as established by Annexation Doyle No.4; Course 1: thence proceeding along the Easterly line of said lot and said \Nesterly City iimits of Cupertino and said Easterly City limits of San Jose N20009'45''W 177.77 feet more or less; thence continuing along said City limits lines and Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, the following courses and distances: Course 2: N04004'45"E, 125.69 feet Course 3: N29051'15"E, 214.50 feet Course 4: N06013'45"W, 116.81 feet Course 5: N19026'45"E, 109.24 feet Course 6: N14030'OO"E, 228.20 feet Course 7: N03022'45"W, 191.71 feet __ _ .Cour$e 8: N19029'45"W, 151,30 feet -.....~.;",Course 9: N27045'15"W, 189.35 feet Course 10: N03017'15"W, 147.02 feet Course 11: N50051'45"W, 121.65 feet Course 12: N12027'45"W, 107.74 feet Course 13: N25006'15"E, 61.00 feet Course 14: N66002'15"E, 113.84 feet Course 15: N39042'OO"E, 194.78 feet Course 16: N15(l.14'OO"E, 85.91 feet Course 17: N10016'15''W, 138.43 feet Course 18: N01051'30"E, 1 03.33 feet Course 19: N26018'45"E, 119.95 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary line of Lawrence Expressway (previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists; ~._l"",,",, ..; ..... ,;_~...:1.-; , Course 20: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and aforementioned annexation Doyle NO.4 and proceeding along said boundary line of Lawrence Expressway Southerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and the Easterly boundary of aforementioned annexation Doyle No.4; Course 21: thence continuing along said annexation boundaries N43000'40"W, 193 feet more or less; { J--~ Course 22: thence proceeding along said annexation boundaries N01 018'1 O"E, 282.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 7.7 acres more or less and being a portion of the Quito Rancho. .J;:muanf 2007 J:\jobs\Cupertino _Annexation\CupertinoAnnexW.doc J )'-10 EXHIBIT B - i PREZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONE: PRE-T CITY OF CUPERTINO 2007- AU of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner or Lot 242 as shm~m on that certain Map 01' Tract 1183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11-13, Santa Clara County records; thence proceeding along the Northerly line of said lot, N89039'45"E 41.35 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also lying in the Westerly line of the City limits of Cupertino as annexed by Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly line of the City limits of San Jose as established by Annexation Doyle No.4; Course 1: thence proceeding along the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 242 East 243.00 feet more or less to the center line of Lawrence Expressway (previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists said point also being on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No.3; Course 2: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Ririconada No. 98-09 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland NO.3 South 453.28 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 20; ",<'>\-'..''''''' Course 3: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland NO.3 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said _ __ . annexation Moreland No. 20 South 465.03 feet more or less to a point on the westerty' boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 29; Course 4: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 20 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No, 29 South 842.43 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 22; Course 5: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 29 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No. 22 South 911.66 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 27 A; Course 6: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 22 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No. 27A South 667.72 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.6; Course 7: thence leaving aforementioned anpexation Moreland No. 27 A and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Blackford NO.6 South 552.42 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.5; {~-II Course 8: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Blackford NO.6 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Blackford No.5 South 141.00 feet more or less to a point on the northerly boundary of Bollinger Road; Course 9: thence leaving said center line of Lawrence Expressway as it now exists and proceeding along the northerly boundary of Bollinger Road and aforementioned annexation Blackford NO.5 N82059'2i "W 218.52 feet more Of less to a point on the easterly boundary of the City of Cupertino as established by the annexation entitled Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 said point also being on the Westerly boundary of said Lawrence Expressway; Course 10: thence leaving said northerly line of Bollinger Road and aforementioned annexation Blackford No.5 and proceeding along aforementioned boundary of the City of Cupertino per annexation Rinconada No. 98-09 and Westerly boundary of said Lawrence Expressway N31020'20"W 31.88 feet, Course 11: thence N35000'OO"W 40.67 feet to a point of non-tangency; Course 12: thence along a non-tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a radial bearing of S22021'22"E, a radius of 43,00 feet, a delta of 52025'56", an arc length of 39.35 feet to a point of tangency; Course 13: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve N15012'26"E, 281.69 feet, to a point of non-tangency; Course 14: thence along a non-tangential curve, Counter clock-wise to the left, with a radial bearing of S83030'17"E, a radius of 2433.00 feet, a delta of 07013'53", an arc length of 307.07 feet to a point of tangency; Course 15: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve NOoo44'1 O"W, 121.87 feet; Course 16: thence continuing along said Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 N16045'1 O"E, 73.50 feet; Course 17: thence N43000'40"W, 33.23 feet more or less; Course 18: thence leaving said Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and continuing along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence Expressway Northerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on aforementioned We~terly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No, 98-09; Course 19: thence proceeding along said Westerly Boundary of Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence Expressway NOoo44'45"W, 152.42 feet to a point of tangency; ( r~ I J- Course 20: thence along a tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta of 56005'33", an arc length of 19.58 feet to a point of tangency; Course 21: thence N56051'06"W, 181,25 feet to a point on the Northerly line or aforementioned Lot 242, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 5.8 acres, more or less, and being a portion of the Quito Rancho. January 2007 J: \jobs\Cupertino _Annexation \CupertinoAnnexLawr. doc ..--_i.__~;'::"':,,,,,,,,,,,~,. -. (~--(3 Z- 2006-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6447 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE PRE-ZONING OF 13.5 ACRES TO PRE-PR (PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT) AND PRE-T (TRANSPORTATION ZONING DISTRICT) FOR LANDS EASTERLY OF SARATOGA CREEK TO THE CENTERLINE OF LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY FROM HIGHWAY 280 TO CHELMSFORD DRIVE/BOLLINGER ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2006-04 City of Cupertino Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Rd. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING , - WHEREAS, the-Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application- :, c:: .., .-, - for the prezoning 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 pre zoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the pre zoning is and will be 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 prezoning designation. 3) That the new prezoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed prezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the prezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 6) That the prezoning is a prerequisite of annexation to the city. IS--/I.{ Resolution No. 6447 Page 2 z- 2006-04 February 13, 2007 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2006-04 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-2006-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A and A-I: Zoning Plat Maps, and Exhibits B and B-1: Property Legal Descriptions, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: ::.,,:,"V. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, ViceChairChieli., Miller, Kaneda COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: Wong ATTEST: APPROVED: I s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development I s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G:PlanningjPDREPORT j Resj 2006 j 2-2006-04 I r-I.f CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS r ANNEXATION RANCHO RII~CONADA 98-09 ~'O'B' 1" = 200'@ \7- @ (2) , 8>r~--'\,~ @.,CJ:L., "-' =~.~L."., (.]1@L./t&'\ r------r-- . ~ ~ ~.-- @,/ PARec_ :. ..1,.....J52_@ r;;- ../ "'~ ,~~R6~~\1 PG 241 "~ ,../ 1..1 BK.60r c PG 241 / -'---i!) A\ ~l-'" " f/6I f0\@ /"-----------j ------. . -.-.--7--.------.....--- -1::"....0--- AP N : 375 - 21 - 001 "Z-';;1J -....tj> ,/ -'----fi -- -1-:.----- -~l-~----.1=--=--=: l:~~E~ ~--~~ ~~~.=~----- j~--' ~~--~/L- / - SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS - - \ L Ai~t,IEXA TION DOYLE NO 4 'L I WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF I ~ AP~~: 375-.~.~-001 LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS /~l ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 I i- II D(HI "1- 10... PL.A T FOr::.~)REZONII\IG ZONE: F~E -PR CITY OF CUP::.-;TINO 2007- A PORTION ( THE QUITO RANCHO l3EING SHEE T I)F 1 ~~~ 1 ~ ~ I M I,:~.I~:~~~~--~~,::,-,:~:~~"~..~.~~...~~~~,,.. -.Sl '- ~ .' LlI~E TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING '1 28?38 N01'18'10"E 2 '177.77 S20'09' 45"E 3 125.69 504'04' 4.s"W 4 214.50 529'51 '15"W 5 116.81 506'13'45"E 6 '\09.24 519'26' 45"W 7 228.20 S14'30'00"W 8 191.71 NOT22' 45"W 9 151.30 N19'29' 45"W 10 189.35 N2T4S'15"W '11 141.02 N03'17'15"W 12 121.65 N50':,l'45"W 13 107.74 N12'27'45"W 14 6'1.00 N25'06'15"E 15 '113.84 N66'02'15"E 16 194.78 N39'42'OO"E 17 85.91 N15'14'00"E 18 138.43 Nl0"16'15"W 19 103,33 N01'S1'30"E 20 119.95 N26'18'45"E 2'1 2856 50UTHERL Y 22 193.00:1: N43'00' 4.0"W f :t. , " C; ,I CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION RANCHO RINCON ADA 98-09 I I I I I 1 I 1 I , -----~=-->.~~.-."""'---.......""''''~...........-=--..~-=-=>..,.....:........==-====~..'''===-''' EXHiBiT B PREZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONE: PRE-PR CITy OF CUPERTiNO 2007- All of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows: !8;IEG~IM!!f~~~\~G 2t the Soutrleasierty c:;ornet of Loi 293 35" ~3hC\!\f!.1 er, thai c~ertain Map c1' Tract 1183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11-13, Santa Clara County records said point also lying in the Westerly line of the City limits of Cupertino as annexed by Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly line of the City limits of San Jose as established by Annexation Doyle No.4; Course 1 : thence proceeding along the Easterly line of said lot and said Westerly City limits of Cupertino and said Easterly City limits of San Jose N20009'45''W 177.77 feet more or less; thence continuing along said City limits lines and Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, the following courses and distances: Course 2: N04004'45"E, 125.69 feet Course 3: N29051'15"E, 214.50 feet Course 4: N06013'45"W, 116.81 feet Course 5: N19026'45"E, 1 09.24 feet Course 6: N14030'00"E, 228.20 feet Course 7: N03022'45"W, 191.71 feet Course 8: N19029'45"W, 151.30 feet Course 9: N27045'15"W, 189.35 feet Course 10: N03017'15"W, 147.02 feet Course 11: N50051'45"W, 121.65 feet Course 12: N12027'45"W, 107.74 feet Course 13: N25006'15"E, 61.00 feet Course 14: N66002'15"E, 113.84 feet Course 15: N39042'00"E, 194.78 feet Course 16: N15014'OO"E, 85.91 feet Course 17: N10016'15''W, 138.43 feet Course 18: N01051'30"E, 103.33 feet Course 19: N26018'45"E, 119.95 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary line of Lawrence Expressway (previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists; Course 20: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and aforementioned annexation Doyle NO.4 and proceeding along said boundary line of Lawrence Expressway Southerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No, 98-09 and the Easterly boundary of aforementioned annexation Doyle No.4; Course 21: thence continuing along said annexation boundaries N43000'40"W, 193 feet more or less; (t)-/7 Course 22: thence proceeding along said annexation boundaries N01018'10"E, 282.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 7.7 acres more or less and being a portion of the Quito Rancho. . ianu8rv 2007' J: \jobs\Cupertino _ Annexation\CupertinoAn...'lexW . doc () -{ t EXH: PLAT FOF ZONE: CITY OF CUP EH:::ING A PORTION C c- \ ~ - A-.1- ;:~)REZONING '::'RE -- T TINO 2007- i-HE QUITO RANCHO SHEET :'F 2 CUPERT!: :. (JI'NNEX,c,.. : RINCOb!tC . -~----~ --- fL:: I PARCEL 2 BI<.6065. PC. 24'1 DD~Dl----I-_D-t 6 ! - . SAN JOSE L' ANI~EXATICi, NO. 22 SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION MORELAND I'JO. 27A I ,MNUARY 2007 I ::HY LIMITS RJI,NCHO 98-09 -=---+~ POB; (WESTERLY BOUNDARY //----~'''\, CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS / ./ LA WRENCE EXPRESSWAY _ _ --.--/ . '\ AI~NEXA TION RANCHJ " '>,~_______ //".------- ", RINCONADA 98-09 ~~O ~) ,: ;'! - , (rI';Y i I , '----...... ---...... --~ ~ PARCEL I" ~ I ' . ~-- .-.--L------:+::-~-=:.:.~-----J----~::.~~'::...:~..:.~:-------~:::.::..=r~: ~- / r'.(i) E;~~io~~~~~I~~:-~ 5 ~ 21 t ~-?2---_----- ----~ -~oJO:::.::::~:-- ~-- ---- r1"------ ~-,/,L 1 LIMITS SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS 'I)RELAND ANNEXA TION MORELAND NO.3' I I I \~ '0tJ I" = 200' LAWRENCE EX PWY . SAN JOSE CITY L1Iv1ITS AI~NEXA TION MORELAI~D NO. 29 SAI~ JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION MORELAND NO 20 i I I SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 ~ ~ - E)(H;, /-;-1- PLAT FOF, =F:;(EZOI\lII\!G ZONE:=jl~E- T CITY OF CUP[ TI[\[O 2007- BEING A PORTION THE OUITO RAI\ICHO --~~ . 1r 1" = 200' SHEET :!e 2 Ii ~ ~ ~ ,I I i ~ ~ :1 Ii r :1 ~ I I, !i ,JANUAFU Ii LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH H>RII~G 1 243:1: r~STERLY 2 4.53. ?8:!: '=.'_ THERL',' 3 465.03:1: :..'_'THERLY --- 4 84243 '~',_iTHERL l' 5 911.66 ,':: THERL Y 6 667.72 c: :JTHERL l' 7 552.42 ':..jUTHERL Y 8 I 41. 00 :~ THERL l' 9 2'18,52:!: ;'Cj9'21"W 10 31.88 . . '20'20"W II 40.67 :,,:, c:OO'OO"W COURSE 12 SEE CUi-' TABLE 13 281.69 i' ::"l2'26"E COURSE 14 SEE 0..'" ','c TABLE 15 121.87 h::'+4'10"W 16 73.50 i 3'451"IO"E 17 33.23 , :','OO'40"W 18 ?856:!: '. .'IHHERL l' 19 152.42 t'i :',:'44' 45"W COURSE 20 SEE CLC:"E T_~ 21T 181.251 !'-:51'06"\fl I / CUPERTll-JO CITY LIMITS Lf) f ANNEXATION RAhlCHO ci I SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS RINCOI~ADA 98-09 z ANNEXATION DOYLE I'~O. 4 ~ t ~ ~ ~)1]) ~~ 9/: ~~~7:~~ r @ ~ //--- ~--Tn--- a~ ~ i, '0 1----"------L~'\~---"LLt----- zz <{z In <{ // Ct:' ' ' I 8 lJ APN: 375-22-001 ~ SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXA TION BLACI<FORD NO. 6 J-- W lLi r <n w w <n -1 -1 o OJ LAWRENCE EXPWY. SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXA TION MORELAI~D NO. 27 A o z SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 CURVE TABLE COURSE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA 12 39.35 43.00 52'25'56" 14 307.07 2433.00 07"13'53" 20 19.58 20,00 56'05'33" ~,*",""-="-,~""",,,-__,,,,,,,,,,,",,,.....~~~.,_.....---===,,,,,,,_~...._..==->:.,,-=.....................~.~,,,a,.. ~,_.J 2007 EXHIBIT B - i PREZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONE: PRE-T CITY OF CUPERTINO 2007- All of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows: Beginning at the t\~ortheaster~y cor~EH' Crf ?~~2 as sl~io\!i/n on .i~h9t certa~n r\~ap 'T l'ec',- 1183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11~13, Santa Clara County records; thence proceeding along the Northerly line of said lot, N89039'45"E 41.35 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also lying in the Westerly line of the City limits of Cupertino as annexed by Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly line of the City limits of San Jose as established by Annexation Doyle No.4; Course 1: thence proceeding along the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 242 East 243.00 feet more or less to the center line of Lawrence Expressway (previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists said point also being on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No.3; Course 2: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland NO.3 South 453.28 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 20; Course 3: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland NO.3 and proceeding along the said.center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No. 20 South 465.03 feet more or less to a -point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 29; Course 4: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 20 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No, 29 South 842.43 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 22; Course 5: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 29 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No. 22 South 911.66 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 27 A; Course 6: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 22 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Moreland No. 27A South 667.72 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.6; Course 7: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 27 A and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Blackford NO.6 South 552.42 feet more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.5; ( )-- 2/ Course 8: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Blackford NO.6 and proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said annexation Blackford No.5 South 141.00 feet more or less to a point on the northerly boundary of Bollinger Road; Course 9: thence leaving said center line of Lawrence Expressway as it now exists and proceeding along the northerly boundary of Bollinger Road and aforementioned annexation Blackford !\!c' 5 N82059'21"V\I .2-j 8.52 feet more or fass to a point on the easterly boundary of the City of Cupertino as established by the annexation entrtied Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 said point also being on the Westerly boundary of said Lawrence Expressway; Course 10: thence leaving said northerly line of Bollinger Road and aforementioned annexation Blackford NO.5 and proceeding along aforementioned boundary of the City of Cupertino per annexation Rinconada No. 98-09 and Westerly boundary of said Lawrence Expressway N31020'20"\!V 31.88 feet, Course 11: thence N35000'OO"W 40.67 feet to a point of non-tangency; Course 12: thence along a non-tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a radial bearing of S22021'22"E, a radius of 43.00 feet, a delta of 52025'56", an arc length of 39.35 feet to a point of tangency; Course 13: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve N150i2'26"E, 281.69 feet, to a point of non-tangency; Course 14: thence along a non-tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a radial bearing of S83030'1TE, a radius of 2433.00 feet, a delta of 07013'53", an arc length of 307.07 feet to a point of tangency; .. , '~,' Course 15: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve NOoo44'1 O"W, 121.87 feet; Course 16: thence continuing along said Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 N16045'10"E, 73.50 feet; Course 17: thence N43000'40"W, 33.23 feet more or less; Course 18: thence leaving said Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and continuing along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence Expressway Northerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on aforementioned Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09; Course 19: thence proceeding along said Westerly Boundary of Annexation Rancho Rinconada No, 98-09 and along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence Expressway NOoo44'45"W, 152.42 feet to a point of tangency; I )~- ~1- Course 20: thence along a tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a radius of 20.00 feet, a delta of 56005'33", an arc length of 19.58 feet to a point of tangency; Course 21: thence N56051'06"W, 181.25 feet to a point on the Northerly line of aforementioned Lot 242, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 5.8 acres, more or less, and being a portion of the Quito Rancho. January 2007 J: ~obs\Cupertino _ Annexation\CupertinoA.1lnexLawr. doc ( )-23 CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE 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 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council ofthe City of Cupertino on March 6, 2007 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) City of Cupertino Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence Expressway between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Pre-Zoning of 13.5 acres to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and Pre- T (Transportation Zoning District) FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Co cil anted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General PI a a th e are no significant environmental impacts. Steve iasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk glercjnegEA20061 0 f ~--J-L{ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Exhibit A. 2 Application: Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) Agenda Date: February 13, 2007 Applicant: City of Cupertino Owners: County of Santa Clara Location: Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the Centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Road Application Summary: City-initiated Pre-Zoning of a total of 13.5 acres: 7.7 of those acres to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and 5.8 acres to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-10; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2006-04, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Parks & Open Space Existing Zoning Designation: None Proposed Zoning Designations: Pre- PR, Pre- T Acreage: 13.5 acres Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: 'The City is proposing to pre-zone two County-owned lots (7.7 acres) on the east side of Saratoga Creek between Highway 280 and Chelmsford Drive to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and pre-zone the abutting Lawrence Expressway half- street (5.8 acres) between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District). This project is a necessary prelude to future actions the City must take, with the consent and approval of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), to bring the properties under the jurisdictional control of the City. Presently, the properties are in the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area of the City of San Jose. - ( f - LS Application: Z-2006-04 Page 2 February 13, 2007 Cupertino needs jurisdiction of these lands in order to complete Reach #5 of the Saratoga Creek Trail between Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway. The trail segment is part of the County-prepared San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan adopted by the City in 1999. A portion of the trail, between Barnhart Avenue and Bollinger Road, has already been completed by the City. DISCUSSION: There are two County-owned lots. Land. south of Barnhart A venue was leased to the City for the purpose of trail construction. Land north of Barnhart Avenue is used by the County Roads and Airports Department for the storage of asphalt grindings and other construction-related materials. The City hopes to negotiate with the County to move this storage to another location and reuse the land for a public trail and park. To this end the City adopted a general plan land use designation of "Parks and Open Space" for the two lots during the last major General Plan update. A prezoning of Pre- 2 I J - 2-h Application: Z-2006-04 Page 3 February 13, 2007 PR would be consistent with this land use designation and a necessary step toward its eventual annexation. LAFCO Street Annexation Policies require the middle of the street to be the boundary line between two cities. In this case the boundary between San Jose and Cupertino is Lawrence Expressway, so LAFCO policy dictates annexation to the centerline of LalNrence Expressway Staff is recommending that the Lav.rrence Expresslfl3V half- street be pre-zoned Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District). The general plan update did not include Lawrence Expressway in the Land Use Diagram, so the City will be initiating a general plan amendment for this land area in the near future. Staff feels there is no general plan! zoning inconsistency as the pre-zoning has no legal effect until annexation occurs. Enclosures: Model Resolution for Z-2006-04 ERe Recommendation, Initial Study Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~ ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\pcZreports \ 2006zreports\ Z-2006-04.doc 3 /r-27 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10, 2006 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 May 10, 2006. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) City of Cupertino Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Pre-Zoning of 13.5 acres to PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and Pre- T (Transportation) FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW-COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significa envi ntal impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/ercjREC EA-2006-1O I f- J-t City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ClJPERJINO . C ,/ ~;G..~ "'C' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proiect T,'tle' (.)C'O -7 ~",~...' ,.. '1 -i-,.., J . I . .~-' <......._r .\\ l~ . ,_v. Site Area (ac.) - 7.13 Building Coverage - 0 % Exist. Building -~sJ. Proposed Bldg. - sJ. Zone - Sa,'!'.:rc,~..G.P. Designation - p('""..("k~ ~ Ot...:uv",- SfC\.Cz.., Assessor's Parcel No. - ,:S75'- 2-1 - 001, 375- 2- 2- oo~L ..~-- ..-- .. .. ..-- -... -- .--.-" ) If Residential~Unjts/Gros..sAcie .~ .. . Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Spe la Area s (C ec ) o Monta Vista Design Guidelines Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price c I Plan h k Vcr +- r ~ ......0 tN1' .:)C'vr~+O-30u ~ ..> ~v;r';{) Cr~l tt\c:.s.\-er p, o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - () sJ. FAR ~ D- Max. Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES 0 NO ~ If-~J 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 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 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 E OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site 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 F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series 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 paqe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. "'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document "'Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) {)-30 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: >>- 0 c- _ c c C c; c -ns.... ns ns 0 ns nsns- .... .! (,,) (,,) .c (,,) .c .- ... .c(,,)(,,) (,,) ISSUES: -.- ~ I-ct::t::nso I- .- ns o ns c~ II) .- := en 0- Il) ~ 0- ZO- [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E II) C .-... II) C E E cL~- Q) en :t:: 0 Cll .~- ..J .- :E (,,) - D.t/) t/) C ..Jt/) - i II. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: , : a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 ill ! ,- ,- . , i scenic VIS a. :J, 1 4, ~ 1 : i I i i I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 y{ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrop pings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 .~ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 J& I glare, which would adversely affect day or I nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] 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 0 0 0 Dt 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 0 0 0 $I. agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 JiQ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] I t 7 l 9 L ..11 4Ll.} I f - 3/ I I ~- C- 0 C- ! -C C C.. C -cu- cu CU 0 CU CUCU- - I .~ u u .c: u .- ~ .c:uu u i ISSUES: 1:!Eg ~ .- :s n; 0 ~ .- CU o CU (I) ~ 'i C> c. (I) ~ c. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E (l)C ._~ (I) C E E o.~- Q)C> ~o Q) .~- 0. en -J .- :2: u -Jen en C - I 111I. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the I significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air I pollution control district may be relied upon I to make the following determinations. Would i the project: _n__________~__ - ------- ------- - -~----~ -----~ -~ - --~-- -i a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of I 0 0 i 0 ; }{l I the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] I I I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~ I I contribute substantially to an existing or I I I projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] , . I I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 A I i increase of any criteria pollutant for which I the project region is non-attainment under an I I applicable federal or state ambient air quality I standard (including releasing emissions I which exceed quantitative thresholds for I ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D{ I 0 0 0 I I I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] , I I e)- Create obj~ctionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ~ I substantial number of people? [4,37,44] .. I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would i , I I the project: I I I I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 ~ directly or through habitat modifications, on I any species identified as a candidate, I sensitive, or special status species in local or I regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by 1 the California Department of Fish and Game lor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I [5,10,27,44] . I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 Jl:l I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural I community identified in local or regional i plans, policies, regulations or by the I I California Department of Fish and Game or I US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] 1 j c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ~ I federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ! (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal -::; ~-":'-,~.~:;' -~\~ Ij-J'L- ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] 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] I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted I Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural I Community Conservation Plan, or other I approved local, regional, or state habitat ! conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the I project: I I a) Cause a substantial adverse ch~nge in i the significance of a historical resource as 1 defined inS15064.5? [5.13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] 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 >.- - c: -ns- .~ (,,) (,,) _._ ns c:!::: a> c: E o.~- a. en o o o o o o o o _ _ 0 "c c:;:; ns CIS 0 ns .J::. (,,) .c .- '- f-ij:_1UO II) .- .;: C) c. II) c ;> .- '- a>C) ~o ..J'- :2: () U) c o o o o o o o o c"" c ClSns- ,c(,,)(,,) 1-'- ns II) := c. II) c E a> .~- ..Jen o o o o o o o o .... () o ns zc. E ~ ,,' JQ !&t ~ yr ~ ,3l ~ (r-J3 >-- 0 C'E - C C'E C;; -~- ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~- - .! u u .c u .- I- .cuu u ISSUES: -.- ~ .....;;:;;nso ......- ~ o ~ c~ m.-.a;: tnc. m~C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E m C .- ?- m C E E '0.2'- Q)tn ~o Q) .2'- - ...J .- ~ u a.. en en C ...Jen - State Geologist for the area or based on I other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 A 2 5. 1 0 44 , , ] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] ! I d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined hnTab1et8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code- . I (1=997), creating substantial risks to life or f.P.roperty1' [2,5,10] , I e) Have soils incapable of adequately i supporting the use of septic tanks or I alternative waste water disposal systems I where sewers are not available for the I I disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) 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] b) 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? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ----~- - ~ ---_.- ---------- ~----- .- --------- 0 0 Ja 0 0 0 0 1!!.1.. 0 0 0 J& 0 0 )l[ 0 I 0 0 0 , rg I .. - I a....~.. ,~~;:~i'..;\J.~,. 0 0 0 .. I I I I I I I , I I i I i 0 0 0 ~ o o o JiJ o o o ~ 1s--3if I I i ! /ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] I I, of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ; significant hazard to the public or "he >.- - t: -ns.... .! () () -.- ns t:::: Q) t: E '0 0)_ a.Ci) ,... _ 0 - t: t: .- nsns 01U .t: # , ._ I.. '- ..,.t: -'0 ""'-;;::-ns CIl.-.- O)Q. I/J t: 3:.- I.. Q)O) ::0 ...J .- 2 () (j) t: t:- C C'Gm_ .t:()o I- .- ns I/J ::: c. lI) t: E Q) .~- ...J(j) .... () o ns zc. E o Jli. o o i 1 ! environment? [2,42,40,43] I I I ! e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ftl. I use plan or, where such a plan has not been I adopted, within two miles of a public airport I or public use airport, would the project result I in a safety hazard for people residing or I working in the project area? [ ] I i f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 -)'l I airstrip, would the project result in a safety I hazard for people residing or working in the I project area? [ ] I g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ~ I interfere with an adopted emergency I response pl~n or emergency evacuation I plan? [2,32,33,44] I 4,.... ,',":" I h) Expose people or struCtures to a 0 - ~".'.'--D-m_.... 0 J~. I significant risk of loss, injury or death i involving wildland fires, including where I wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or i where residences are intermixed with j wildlands?[1 ,2,44] I I I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I.- Would the project: I a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ~ I waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] i I b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 A I 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] fj-S) i - I ! >>- C _ 0 C- _ C C C.. C -ClS- CIS CIS 0 CIS CIS CIS- .!!! (J (J "c(J ._~ "c(J(J (J I ISSUES: -.- ~ 1-l;:=1UO 1-'- CIS o CIS c:t:: (1)'-'3: C)Q. 1I):t:: Q. zQ. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c E II)C ._~ II) C E E c),~ - Q)C) ~o Q) .~- - ...J .- ~ (J ~tn tn C ...Jtn - c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ~ 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 i substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? : [14, 20,36] , I ~--~.-- ----~ --------- _.--" --",.. _.- .--- _.---- -.--- - .------ --- ---"---- I I i d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ;q i pattern of the site or area, including through I the alteration of the course of a stream or I river, or substantially increase the rate or I amount of surface runoff in a manner which I I would result in flooding on- or off-site I ! [20,36,38] I Ie) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 " I would exceed the capacity of existing or I planned stormwater drainage systems or I provide substantial additional sources of I polluted runoff? [20,36,42] I f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 ~ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 ~ . J .. 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 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 . ')9.. structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i I i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 ~ I risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, I including flooding as a result of the failure of I a levee or dam? [2,36,38] I I I I I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 a I mudflow? [2,36,38] I I IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would \ I I the project: ! a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 M. ! community? [7,12,22,41] i b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 ;~ D i 0 i i policy, or regulation of an agency with ! (b- 3 b >.- 0 c:- - c: c: 1: c: .. c: -~.... ~r.s O~ ~r.s"" - .~ C,) C,) .c: C,) .c.- -. .J:oC,) C,) ISSUES: -.- :! !- .- _ 1ii 0 !- .- ~ o ~ c::t: CI) :t: .i 0) Q. CI):t: c. ze. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E CI) c: .--. CI) c: E E c;.~ - Q) 0) :t:: 0 Q) .~- ...J .- :!!: C,) D..C/) CI) c: ...JC/) - jurisdiction over the project (including, but I not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) r I adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I mitigating an environmental effect? r I [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] I ----- -~~, I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] ; [J I [J ! lSl conservation plan or natural community I " - conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 A locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the projecttesult in: ----.. - . _un ~ I a) Expo5-ure of parsons to, Qr generation of, 0 J8t 0 0 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 0 0 0 )Sl excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 00. ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 )q 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 0 0 0 .ftt 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 rr-37 - . ~ .....-" .,,,," ..... - f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ! residing or working in the project area to i excessive noise levels? [8,18] i L-------. -~~------~-.- I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would I the project: I,' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by I proposing new homes and businesses) or I indirectly (for example, through extension of I roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] I b) Displace substantial numbers of existing I housing, necessitating the construction of I replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] I I I c) Displace substantial numbers of people, I necessitating the construction of . rep,lacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44L ----- ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] I project area to excessive noise levels? ! [8,18,44] I XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES '-.~ .~>.<~, . ~,.~ ~ ~ ~a)'Would the project result in substantial 1 adverse physical impacts associated with the i provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the i construction of which could cause significant I environmental impacts, in order to maintain I acceptable service ratios, response times or ! other performance objectives for any of the public services: I Fire protection? [19,32,44] Police protection? [33,44] Schools? [29,30,44] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] I i ! I I i i I Other public facilities? [19,20,44] I XIV. RECREATION -- I a) Would the project increase the use of ! existing neighborhood and regional parks or >-- -c -eG- .! (.) (.) --~ c :t:: ~ Q) C E '0 C)_ o.c;) o o o o o o o o o o o C C C ~ eG eG 0 eG .c (.) .c'- I- 1-lt:::1Uo l/)'- :> C) Q. l/) C ....- I- Q)C) ::0 ..J .- ~ (.) rJ) C o o o o o o o o )it" o Cc eGeG- .c(.)(.) I- .- eG l/) :t:: Q. l/) C E Q) C)_ ..Jc;) o o o o o o o o o o - (.) o eG zQ. E ~I I I ~,-- I JKlI ! i I .R ~. I 1 i ..' t---...----.--- I . ;t, -c" ,-. ..-- ,'j ..<.' ".. I I I I i I I I I 1&\1 ~.I 5?1 ! ~! EJ:1 I o I ! i ~ I I I r.- ]0 :>,- 0 s::- -c 1:1: c:;; c -n:s- n:s I'CS 0 n:s I'CSltI- .... .~ (.) (.) ~ (.) ~ .- ... ~(.)(.) (.) ISSUES: _._ ltI ~ .- _ 1ii 0 ~.- ltI o ltI c~ lh ~ .i en c. lh~C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ev C E lh C .-... lh C E E o.~- even ~o ev .~- ...J .- ~ (.) a..tJ> CI) C ...JtJ> 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 0 0 0 1t facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreationai facilities which , I might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-- I i Would the project: I I I a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 R1 substantial in relation to the existing traffic "- load and capacity of the street system (Le., 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, 0 0 0 p( a level of service stc;mdard established by the county congestion management agency for . designated roags.gr hJ.9DJlfEliS? [4J,gQ,44] . -- ,!"(,,.-,- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 ~ 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 0 0 0 )~ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] ; e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 )l I i [2,19,32,33,44] I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? & I 0 0 0 I [17,44] I ; g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - I Would the project: { J - S1 i >.- 0 1::- l i -I:: I::C 1:::;:; I:: i I tIS tIS 0 tIS tIS tIS- i -tlS- - I .! u u .c::: u .c::: .- '- .c:::UU U I -.- g I- .- _ 1a 0 I- .- tIS o tIS I ISSUES: 1:::: III :: .i 0) Q. Ill:: Q. zQ. I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) I:: E III I:: .- '- IIlI::E E '0.2'- Q)O) ~o Q) .2'- D..fJ) ..J .- :!E U ..JfJ) I fJ) I:: - I a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ~ I requirements of the applicable Regional I Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ~ new water or wastewater treatment facilities ! or expansion of existing facilities, the I I i construction of which could cause significant , I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] I c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 )Q I new storm water drainage facilities or I expansion of existing facilities, the I construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] 1 ! e) Result in a determination by the I 0 0 0 J!'J I wastewater treatment provider which serves lor may serve the project that it has adequate I capacity to serve the project's projected I demand in addition to the provider's existing . commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] - I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ~ I p~~J]1itte.9 capacity to accommodate the . . i'project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] .- I g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ~ I statutes and regulations related to solid I I waste? [?]. . I r;-YfJ 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 eUminate important examples of o o o A ! the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 I b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 /~ I individually limited, but cumulatively I considerable? ("Cumulatively I considerable" means that the incremental I effects of a project are considerable when I viewed in connection with the effects of past ! projects, the effects of other current projects, I and the effects of probable future projects)? 10 ! I c) Does the project have environmental 0 ttJ. 0 0 I effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or -'~ - I indirectly? 0 - I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. . ~ Preparer's Signature ~. - ' Print Preparer's Name C-o' I ()--:j u rS";-L({ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ISoils ftt Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology I Water .~ land Use I Planning I Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources )i( Noise 0 Population I Housing ;p( Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ransportationlT raffle 0 Utilities I Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -. ~ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. .._...- -'-'-- . - ~ ,~--. . 0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. SlID/Vb Date I -1 0;; h Date ( I f-l{d.- Environmental Analysis & Discussion for File No. Z-2006-04, Cupertino-Ol Annexation Geology and Soils Portions of the property may be subject to seismically-induced inundation and soil liquefaction as are all lands abutting a creek. Since the land is proposed for a trail and park, there will be no resident population, no habitable structures, or expensive improvements. Given the potential geologic hazard and proposed land use activity, the level of risk is considered acceptable and the enviromnental impact less than significam. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The site is currently used by the Roads and Airport Division Df Santa Clara County as a storage yard for construction materials and asphalt grindings. The presence of onsite hazardous materials is unknown at this time. Should such materials exist on the site or in the soil, redevelopment of the property for recreational and park purposes will expose park visitors to such potential hazards. Soils testing to assess the levels of any hazardous materials in the County storage yard shall be conducted prior to any final decision to improve the land for park and recreational purposes. Land Use and Planning The County-owned lands are presently within the Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence of the City of San Jose. San Jose City Council Policy 6-15: "City Boundary Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas" declares that boundary agreement lines between cities should be maintained, and that the City of San Jose is satisfied" with existing boundary agreements aIid will only consider modifications that include equal exchanges of like territory, population or tax base. The subject properties are owned by the County and have no improvements or population. According to San Jose Planning staff, these property transfers would have no detrimental effect on provision of municipal services in San Jose and would be neutral from a fiscal standpoint, and therefore would be consistent with the intent of San Jose Council Policy. Cupertino staff is pursuing a San Jose Council resolution that will confirm this position. Such a resolution is a prerequisite of LAFCO approval of the boundary realignment. Any potential land use policy conflict would be mitigated by the required San Jose City Council resolution. Noise Redevelopment of the lands for park and recreational uses will expose park users to vehicular noise from Lawrence Expressway. Generated noise levels may exceed General Plan noise standards of 67 Ldn for playgrounds, neighborhood parks, which is considered a normally unacceptable level of noise. Park design shall include a noise analysis to identify noise levels and recommend mitigation measures to bring any significant noise to an acceptable level. 1 I r -L{] Public Facilities The material storage yard is a necessary facility for the County Roads and Airports Division that is used to store and recycle asphalt grindings and other construction related materials. Redevelopment of the site for park and recreation use may potentially cause the lost of this needed County maintenance and construction operation and cause a significant impact. Possible mitigations include a joint use of the property, or finding and developing an alternative site for these County activities, which will reduce the impact to less than a significant level. 2 ()--Lit( Cupertino Planning Commission Exhibit 8 - 2. ',.1.\...~ CI.a~. Chien. . Said he agreed there was a problem, which has come about as a result of the success of;ne property and the applicant said that they would work toward it. /' He said the issue was a matter of the city enforcing its conditions that it imposes on plicants, and until that is changed, he saw no reason not to enforce the agreement th there be a reciprocal parking easement between the parcels. Said the solution suggested by staff is creative and they should try it. . . Chair Giefer: · Said she agreed that the marked one hour spaces be equal, co act and standard size spaces and she supported staffs recommendation in terms of hav g it be all spaces available for some period of time as well. Steve Piasecki: · Summarized that the Commission encouraged e applicant to immediately implement a trial period and begin working on a broader reci cal parking easement covering the remainder of the office complex, and work with staff 0 that. · He acknowledged a concern raised lier that if an easement was recorded over the entire office complex, it might preclud e ability for the office complex to modify itself in the future, and said that language ld be added into the reciprocal parking that states the owners reserve the right to modify e office complex; and in the event that they do, they will identify other locations for the r iprocal parking. They have the ability and will not be constrained because there is an e ement. Motion: Moti by Vice Chair Chien, second by Com. Kaneda, to support staff's re Iimiendation to require the property owner to fully comply with the City ouncn requirement to record joint parking easements throughout the Stevens Creek office center and also urge the applicant to begin a trial period to allow parking on all parcels of the property. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent). 2. Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara. Located easterly of Saratoga Creek to the Centerline of Lawrence Expressway from Hwy 280 to Chelmsford Dr/Bollinger Road City-initiated pre-zoning of a total of 13.5 acres: 7.7 acres to Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and 5.8 acres to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District) Tentative City Council date: March 6, 2007. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application to pre-zone 13.5 acres to Pre-PR and Pre-T, properties owned by Santa Clara County, as outlined in the staff report. · Referred to the zoning map and illustrated the areas in question. The land includes properties owned by Santa Clara County, two county owned lots on the west side of Lawrence Expressway and a half street of Lawrence Expressway between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road. The General Plan land use for these properties is public parks open space, and also applies to this parcel which forms a connection with Barnhart Avenue. · There are two county owned lots which likely were residual land left over from the construction of Lawrence Expressway; both lots are currently within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. The city several years ago adopted a county prepared trail plan for the San Ir--Y.( Cupertino Planning Commission February 13,20079 Tomas Aqunio/Saratoga Creek Trail and since that time, the city has been attempting to implement the trail segment; one lot and a portion of the other lot was leased to the city by Santa Clara County for trail purposes. The remainder parcel to the north is still used by the County roads and airports division as a storage yard. The City Council has proposed reusing this remaining property for trail and park uses, primarily to serve the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. . Other actions that need to be taken, but not by the Planning Commission at this point; this is not a done deal; there are a lot of things that need to go on and it is not going to happen quickly; we are still working with the San Jose City Council to obtain their consent for the boundary alignment. We still need to go to LAFCO for the approval of the boundary change; we still need to annex the properties and work with the County to relocate their existing operations and plan for eventual park and trail development at that site, . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the negative declaration for the project and approve the prezoning ofPre-PR and Pre-T per the model resolution. Vice Chair Chien: . Asked what the argument was for the city being able to zone land not under its jurisdiction. Colin Jung: . Said they had the ability to zone or prezone land that they feel bears upon their planning area. He said they have indicated that this area is one of those areas that they should be looking at. They also need to prezone it in order to annex the property; and LAFCO and the City of San Jose is going to want to understand what is the city's intention with the property before they make a decision to change the boundary between the adjacent cities. Steve Piasecki: 'c. -Dlarified if you don't prezone and you process a realignment of boundaries as is the case here, , the property could come into the city without any zoning designation. Part of the prezoIling action is to make sure that in the event we are successful in changing the boundaries, that it is clear of the city's intent and what the rules are applicable to the development or redevelopment of the property. Colin Jung: . Said the property was not in the Urban Service Area; it is in San Jose's USA. The future action would be changing the boundaries so it becomes part of ours. Steve Piasecki: . Said it was not in the sphere of influence. Those are the actions that LAFCO will take when and if they approve the realignment of boundaries, they will adjust the urban service area and sphere of influence; take it out of San Jose and put it in ours. Com. Miller: . Normally LAFCO says if it is in the USA or in your sphere of influence, you can do anything you want with prezoning; but if it is not, they might have an issue. Steve Piasecki: . This is an anomaly to that, normal to that rule; those are cases when you are simply doing an annexation. In this case, it is a realignment of boundaries with another jurisdiction. They have to get out, in terms of zoning we have to get in. I )-y ~ Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 20010 Colin Jung: . Clarified that a prezoning is realiy a place marker; it has no legal effect until the city can annex the property; and it won't be able to do so until we can get permission from LAFCO. . The property is owned by San Jose Water Company; they obtained a parcel split some time ago, and as part of that parcel split, they required to put in a trail connection between that and the creekside lands. It is still owned by the Water Company; however, it was designated it on our General Plan as a parks spot, and the idea is that we create a mini park, more elaborate trail head to the creekside lands. The water district knows of the city's interest in acquiring the parcel; I am assuming at some point we will get the money to buy it. . Said the city would not pick up the cost of maintaining a portion of Lawrence Expressway; all the expressways are county facilities, and they are responsible for the traffic lights and for the maintenance of those County honed roads. However, the city assumes responsibility from a police and fire standpoint. Chair Giefer: . Relative to the composition of the construction waste, she asked if the city would have a toxic cleanup issue on their hands once it is removed. Colin Jung: . Said he recommended that before they acquire the land, either through lease or ownership, that they do those types of assessments to make sure there is nothing different other than construction wise. Chair Giefer: . That would be something that would happen prior to the boundary alignment if we move forward on that. Colin Jung: . Said it is still county owned property at some point, we would need to conduct studies to make sure the area is clean before we assume ownership or use of the property. It is still is a county owned responsibility regardless if it is in San Jose's or Cupertino's jurisdiction. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Leon Liebster, Ashborne Court: . Asked if it was a full size park, and would the trail continue all the way to Highway 280. Colin Jung: . The intention is to eventually have a trail connection that goes not only through Cupertino but also through the abutting City of Santa Clara lands as well. The concept of how to implement that has not been completely well formed at this point. The County looked at it when they developed their County Master Plan, but at this point we are not sure how that is going to happen; there are many jurisdiction issues. Leon Liebster: . The original master plan for Ridge 5 stopped at Barnhart and residents were assured it would be a trail from Barnhart to Bollinger. He said he could not park in front of his own home, but other cars constantly park in front of his house. The Sheriff cannot issue a citation, they f f - L/1 Cupertino Planning Commission February 13, 2001'1 cannot tow it because those streets are private. Cars are parked there all the time going out all hours of the evening even though the sign says it is only opened dawn to dusk. . He expressed concern about where the people would park and how would the parking situation be mitigated. He said the Sheriffs Department has no jurisdiction on private streets in Barrington Ridge. . The San Jose Water Company has their pump house right at Barnhart. The land was split and they were going to sell half of it off where the entrance presently is. They decided not to sell that; will there be a parking lot there? Steve Piasecki: . Said staff would pass on the questions to the Parks and Recreation Director so when the park design is developed they will take into consideration where people will park. He said they would prefer that people park on public streets. . Said there is a process where their Homeowners Association can make their streets enforceable under the municipal code in terms of parking. Public Works and the City Attorney's office can be consulted to see what the process would be. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she was pleased to see the materialization of the park along Lawrence Expressway; as the east end of Cupertino is deficient in park land and it would be an excellent area for recreation for the residents. . With this acquisition by Cupertino there are a number of issues including security. There is a long strip of land abutting Lawrence Expressway, and she hoped that there would be funds set aside for patrolling of this land, security and graffiti. When Rancho Rinconada was annexed into Cupertino there was funding for a new Officer for Cupertino. . She expressed concern that the piles of debris on the linear park will be cleaned up. . Relative to the Highway 280 and Lawrence intersection, if the property is brought in, she'said she hoped that Cupertino would have positive influence in resolving issues there as there is a great deal of backup on that intersection. Lisa Warren, resident: . Said the trail is not adequately maintained; trees died, trees fell, some were cut and benches were sinking. Said she feared it would be forgotten because it cannot be seen. . Agreed with Jennifer Griffin that security was a valid concern. How do you patrol a park when the expressway is on one side and houses on the creek on the other and there is only one entrance? . There is also the issue of the homeless people that are currently kitty corner to that area. I am not against the park I just think it has to be really well thought out and there has to be a commitment to maintain it and patrol it. . Said she feared that getting the acreage would be an excuse not to put parks elsewhere, as development continues to be pushed for housing and we are supposed to be given more parks when there is more housing. If it is not a safe, useable park it does not do anybody any good. Com. Kaneda: . Security is an important issue; the park exists with many connections to it. If Cupertino takes it over, chances are there will be an improvement, it will not get worse. . Having the city take this land over is good all around; the city gets more park land. When residential projects are done, typically they are looking into adding additional park land. . He said he felt it was appropriate to move forward on it. (5'--l( t Cupertino Planning Commission February 13,2001'. Vice Chair Chien: · He said having a park on the eastern side of the city has been a goal of the City Council. The General Plan has two policies; one that there should be a neighborhood park within half a mile of every neighborhood; and another policy is that for every thousand residents, there should be at least three acres of park land. · He said he supported taking the steps to make it happen. He asked who was in charge of maintaining the park as it exists today? Steve Piasecki: · Said the Public Works Department maintains the park, and staff will communicate the concerns raised and follow up to ensure that they are addressed. Vice Chair Chien: · Said he was pleased that they were taking steps to see the project move forward as it has been on the agenda of the Parks and Rec Commission since he began serving in 2003. Com. Miller: · Said it was just an application to prezone and further hearings will be held if and when it is prezoned, on what uses and how those uses will take place. · Said he did not have any concerns about moving forward with the prezoning application. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Z-2006-04and EA-2006-10 per the model resolution. (Vote 4-0-0; Com. Wong absent) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The Environ tal Review Committee: · Meeting has be canceled and will not meet until February 28th. Housine Commission: . No meeting since Com. Ka Mavors Monthlv Meetine: . Meeting is scheduled for Wed. Februa Economic Development Committee: . No meeting held. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVE Ciddy Wordell provided an update on the sustainability policies of t on the City's work program for 2006-07. · Met with potential consultant who is capable of caITying out many aspects the program. Working on Phase 1 aspect w~ich would be to do an analysis of what our existing licies and requirements are and where we are in fulfilling those. Then to identify where the gap to make some recommendations on how to fill those gaps. · The policies are rather broad; including resource recovery, resource preservation, 1)-L/1