.02 U-2007-02 Metropolitan Planning Grp
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, Agenda Date: January 22, 2008
TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03
Applicant (s): Judie Gilli, Metropolitan Planning Group
Owner: Dollinger-De Anza Associates
Property Location: 1601 S. De Anza Boulevard
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Tentative Map & Tree Removal
applications to:
. Demolish an existing vacant parking lot.
. Develop six, small-lot single-family detached residences with 2-car garages and 4
bedrooms each, and common open space area.
. Subdivide the property into six residential lots and two common area lots for the
driveway and private open space.
. Remove up to 23 trees that were part of an approved landscaping plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the application and continue it
for one month to allow the applicant additional time to resolve certain development
issues and present more complete plans and documentation related to recent site design
revisions. Chief among the concerns is the protection of the westerly landscape strip of
redwoods and oaks where the housing footprints encroach on areas that are
recommended by the City Arborist to not be disturbed.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (Net):
Acreage (Gross):
Project Density:
F.A.R. (sitewide):
Height:
Stories:
Parking:
Required Parking
Proposed Parking
. Dedicated Spaces
. Shared Spaces
Project Consistency with:
Environmental Assessment:
Commercial/Residential
P (Com, Res 5-15)
Planned Development (Commercial and
Residential, 5-15 dwellings per gross acre)
0.991 acre
1.012 acres (44,068 square feet)
5.93 du/ gr. ac. (Max. is 15 du/ gr. ac.)
F.A.R. 60.37%
27 feet (Max. is 30 feet)
2 stories
17-36 parking spaces total (see Discussion)
39
24 (2 garage/2 driveway per unit)
15 (shared with office building)
General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-1
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND:
SITE DESCRIPTION:
This project is located on a surface parking lot developed as part of a 2-story office
building in 1984. The property, shaped like a flag lot has its access off South De Anza
Boulevard via a 223-feet long, 30-foot wide driveway; The property is surrounded by a
variety of land use types: to the west are single-family detached residences on 6,000
square-foot lots; to the north is the outdoor display and storage area and a portion of
the building for Granite Rock, a retailer of rock products for home and yard
improvements, (the site was formerly Minton's Lumber); to the west is the outdoor
playground for Kindercare, a day care center; and south is the parking lot for the
aforementioned office building. The site is separated from the surrounding lands uses
by walls and a fence: an 8-foot tall masonry wall to the west; a 6-foot tall masonry wall
to the north and a 6-foot tall tubular steel fence to the east.
2-2
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 3 of 8
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of a cluster of small-lot, 2-story, single-family detached residences
double-fronting an L-shaped 25-foot driveway aisle that widens to 30 feet before it
accesses southbound De Anza Boulevard. Parking lot improvements will be modified
and property lines adjusted to accommodate:
. a 5,138 square foot private open space area at the front of the
project;
. driveway connection to the commercial parking lot to facilitate
emergency vehicle and garbage truck turnarounds;
. 15 surface parking stalls that front on the access driveway and are
proposed to be shared with the office building.
The proposed houses are identical in size with the following lot by lot data:
House (SF) Garage (SF) Total (SF) Net Lot Area Floor Area
Ratio
Lot 1 2,553 438 2,991 3,677 81.3%
Lot 2 2,553 438 2,991 3,786 79.0%
Lot 3 2,553 438 2,991 4,211 71.0%
Lot 4 2,553 438 2,991 4,860 61.5%
LotS 2,553 438 2,991 4,007 74.6%
Lot 6 2,553 438 2,991 4,047 73.9%
Common Lot 5,138
(Open Space)
Total 17,946 29,726 60.4%
(sitewide)
Note that the common driveway area was excluded from the floor area ratio calculation
as is traditionally done and the common private open space lot was added to calculate
the sitewide FAR.
DISCUSSION:
PARKING:
There are currently 372 parking stalls on the whole office property. The 81,000 square
foot office building needs 285 spaces and the residential subdivision improvements
reduces the office parking supply to 275 spaces. The deficit of ~10 parking stalls can
be made up through res tripping of a portion of the parking lot with unisize stalls. All
non-handicapped stalls are currently full size.
2-3
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 4 of 8
Current Parkin Invento. 372 stalls
Number of Stalls Removed by Project & 97 stalls
other 1m rovements
Net Office Parkin Invento 275 stalls
Parking Code Reqt. For 81,000 sq. ft. off. 285 stalls
Bld .
Net Office Parking Deficit to be filled -10 stalls
throu h lot restri in
SUBDIVISION LOT LINES:
Even though the City recorded a merger of the office-use lots in 1984, property title
documents still show seven individual lots for this cohesive office development (See
sheet A-O of the plan set). The tentative map approval is conditioned with the
requirement for the applicant to research this inconsistency and eliminate these office
lot lines if necessary through a separate lot line adjustment application. In addition, the
private open space lot (Lot #7 on the tentative map) is proposed to be widen to 5,138
square feet through another required lot line adjustment.
SUBDIVISION EASEMENTS:
The proposed project and the existing, abutting uses will share circulation aspects,
parking and potentially storm drainage among the office development, residential
subdivision and day care center. The tentative map approval should be conditioned to
require the recordation of mutual ingress/ egress easements for all three uses; a shared
parking easement for the 15 parking stalls proposed to be shared between the office and
the residential subdivision; and potential storm drainage easements for storm flows that
may crisscross property lines. Recorded covenants are already in place to ensure the
participation of all affected property owners.
Standard ingress/egress and utility easements should be recorded on the common
driveway. A private open space easement should also be recorded on common lot #7 to
preclude a potential future conversion to residential use. Conditions will be
incorporated in the resolutions.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
The South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Zoning Plan requires a separated
sidewalk/landscaped park strip along S. De Anza Boulevard.. The tentative map has
been conditioned to require the straightening of about 10-feet of public sidewalk
abutting the driveway along S. De Anza Blvd.
SITE DESIGN, ARCHITECfURE AND SETBACKS:
The residential development is typical of other small lot single-family developments in
Cupertino, in that it has smaller than average size lots with house sizes proportionally
2-4
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 5 of 8
larger than a conventional neighborhood. Lot widths of 55+ feet mmuc an R-1
development but with reduced-size front yards and back yards. The lack of private
yard area is somewhat compensated for with a common private open space lot that
reduces the overall floor-to-area ratio to 60.4%.
Three residential design styles are proposed with the frontage architectural detailing,
materials and varied roof planes helping to reduce the boxiness of the floor plan.
Additional design work is needed, particularly wall articulation to the sides and rears.
A material and color board will be available at the hearing.
The subdivision is visually detached from the surrounding uses and the street. The
applicant had proposed some stand-alone architectural features along the main
driveway on the office parcel to visually connect the residences with the street and the
abutting buildings, but that work is not reflected in the plan set. Those architectural
details should be presented to the Commission at a future hearing.
TREES
An arborist report was prepared by City Arborist, David Babby, to identify existing
trees in proximity to the development, to recommend replacement trees to mitigate
those that would be removed, and provide protection measures for trees being retained
(Exhibit A).
The City Arborist identified 59 trees of five different species in the immediate vicinity of
the project. Twenty-thr,:e of them are proposed for removal and include:
5 Coast Live Oak trees, measuring 9.5 to 22.5" in diameter
2 Silver Dollar Gums, 17.5 -19" in diameter
7 London Plane Trees, 6.5 - 9" in diameter
9 Coastal Redwood trees, 9 -17.5" in diameter
No. Tree Species Size Status Reasons Tree Value
Diameter
115 Coast Live Oak 9.5" Remove In driveway area $1,350
116 Coast Live Oak 15.5 Remove Too close to driveway to $3,470
save (not depicted)
117 Silver-Dollar Gum 17.5 Remove In driveway area $1,500
153 London Plane Tree 6.5 Remove In house footprint $ 330
154 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In house footprint $ 380
155 London Plane Tree 9.5 Remove In house footprint $ 670
156 Coast Redwood 17.5 Remove In house footprint $3,180
160 Coast Redwood 12.5 Remove In house footprint $1,650
162 Coast Redwood 10.5 Remove In house footprint $1,180
165 Coast Redwood 9 Remove In house footprint $ 890
2-5
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-0S, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 6 of 8 .
No. Tree Species Size Status Reasons Tree Value
Diameter
167 Coast Redwood 10 Remove In house footprint $1,080
168 Coast Redwood 14 Remove In house footprint $2,060
170 Coast Redwood 9.5 Remove In house footprint $ 980
174 Coast Redwood 13.5 Remove Too close to house $1,920
footprint
177 Coast Redwood 13 Remove In house footprint $1,780
178 Coast Live Oak 11 Remove In house footprint $1,120
179 Coast Live Oak 22.5 Remove Too close to house $9,100
footprint
180 Coast Live Oak 15 Remove Too close to house $2,670
footprint
140 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In driveway area $ 380
189 London Plane Tree 8.5 Remove Too close to driveway $ 540
190 Silver-Dollar Gum 19 Remove In driveway area $1,760
No London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near ?
# open space
No London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near ?
# open space
The City Arborist recognized the importance of the westerly strip of trees and
concluded that since they were planted and grown together, the loss of one or more will
expose the other trees to potential uprooting. Trees growing in relatively close
proximity have intertwined root systems and become negatively affected when an
interdependent tree is lost. Both rows of trees must be protected to protect them all.
The City Arborist concludes that there should be no soil disturbance west of the existing
curb for Lots 4, 5 and 6. The plans depict the housing footprints in this area, which will
negatively affect the tree roots and cause the canopy of the trees to be limbed up to
make room for the house walls. The houses need to be reduced in size to create more
setback area. Tree protection covenants should also be recorded for these lots. Given
the density of the tree cover in the rear of these three lots, the physical usability of the
rear yard areas is limited, so reducing the house size and setting them back further will
provide larger rear yards.
If a sound wall is required for the easterly property line next to Kindercare, a pier
foundation will be needed to protect the trees on the Kindercare property.
NOISE:
A noise report was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. dated 4/23/07 (Exhibit
B). The major sources of noise in this area are the operations of Kindercare and Granite
Rock, which would affect primarily the upper stories of the houses on Lots #3 and #4.
According to the consultant, the primary source of noise from Kindercare is the children
2-6
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 7 of 8
at play. Presently the daycare is fully emolled at 132 preschool children and half of the
emollment is released for play time from 9:15 - 1:15 p.m. and from 3:15 - 5:00 p.m.
The primary noise source from Granite Rock is the operation of the forklifts used to
shuttle rock, stone and masonry construction materials from the outdoor storage yard
to customer cars and trucks. Staff assumes the operation is equally as noisy when the
rock is brought into the yard or when it is shuffled in the yard.
The consultant determined that the measured inside and outside noise levels at the
second story of the most impacted residences (Lots #3 and #4) were marginally higher
(ldB) than the City standards of 60 dB CNEL for exterior noise and 45 dB CNEL for
interior noise. No mitigation was proposed for outdoor noise and the consultant
recommended to lower the projected interior noise level by keeping the windows shut
and providing some mechanical ventilation for the second story areas.
The applicant and city staff have proposed additional noise mitigation. The applicant
has widened the side yard abutting Granite Rock from 5' to 11.9' and 16.9' and
minimized the 2nd floor window openings facing Granite Rock. Staff is recommending
that masomy walls facing Kindercare and Granite Rock be added or built up to 8 feet
tall. This is a standard city improvement requirement when residential uses abut
commercial uses. The existing Granite Rock wall is just 6 feet tall and there is no wall
facing Kindercare.
The Environmental Review Committee recommended that a 8-foot wall requirement
facing Kindercare be voided in favor of a 6-foot tall wooden fence. Either option would
be acceptable from a noise standpoint; however, staff believes a longer-term view of the
situation should be considered. Kindercare is a building tenant and if it ever vacates
the site, the rear yard would revert back to a commercial parking lot and would have
attendant noise and light impacts on any residential development without the benefit of
a buffering wall.
Staff is also recommending that if the subdivision is approved, that noise notification
covenants be recorded on each for-sale lot, notifying potential buyers of the nature of
the noise environment.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
The applicants held a neighborhood meeting. Surrounding property owners and the
building tenants, Kindercare Learning Center and Granite Rock, were notified of the
meeting. In general, Jamestown Drive neighbors abutting the project site were
concerned about the preservation of the existing landscaping strip of Coastal Redwood
and Coast Live Oak trees that separates their properties from the parking lot.
2-7
Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Anza Blvd.
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09
January 22, 2008
Page 8 of 8
Granite Rock and its building/ property owner felt the residential subdivision was an
incompatible land use with their business activities and the surrounding commercial
properties and there was no mitigation available to lessen that incompatibility.
Correspondence from some of the neighbors was received and is attached (Exhibit C).
ENCLOSURES:
Modgl Res6ll1a6ftS
Initial Study, ERC Minutes, ERC Recommendation
Exhibit A: City Arborist report by April 9, 2007
Exhibit B: Noise Report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated April 23, 2007
Exhibit C: Neighborhood letters and emails
Plan Set
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner S:;:::::::,
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
2-8
.
CUPEIQ"INO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title:..-.-l'J ~ , , \ "~QA-J ~ ~ -t-\e&
Project Location: I bO \ 59'"->\~ De:. PmL11 .
Project Description:
-2.007-0-tt!R-2Ob~
T M -ltltfl..lQ.')
~\)\o.J. ," \S \.lH\.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) _ ~~ Ii ~uilding Cov~rage - % Exist. Building - 0 sJ. ,Pr~J:!.o,ed
Bldg. - . sJ. Zone -KC..M Res .s:.lS)G.P. Designation - chW\.~~ol7R~~
Assessor's Parcel No. - ~- In -.i.3E
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - ~l 0 . 'ise, =; b. '2..~ t>u J (, f... AC.
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total sol.
Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
o Monta Vista Design Guidelines
o
S. De Anza Conceptual
o
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
R
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - N. I A sJ.
Employees/Shift - ii/ft-Parking Required' 3(0,1 17
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area -
FAR - Max.
Parking Provided 3 9
YES ~ NO
o
2-9
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. CAL TRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
B.CUPERTINQ SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. .Cupertino Chronicle" (Califomia History
Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking Ordinance 1277.
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documen.ts
18. City Noise Ordinance
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Depl List
20. Public Works Depl
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water Utility
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA. "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site
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 oaQe.
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)
2-10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
~.. 0 C1:
c" C-
-C cali o1G
-ca" caca.. t;
.!!UU .c U .c .- ... .cUU
ISSUES: "l;:a t--..1iio t-l;:ca o ca
c_ II) :: .- C) c. II) - c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] II) C E II) C 3:.-'" II)cE E
cLE>> - II) C) :t:: 0 II) .E>>-
..1- :Eu
D..U) U) C ..JU)
-
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 0
scenic vista? [5.9.24,41.44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 J2I
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9.11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 -IZI
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 J2I :
glare, which would adversely affect day or
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 JZI
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 EI
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 fl
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5.7.39]
2-11
~- 0 C1:
C - C-
-C caC 0-
-ca- .c ca ca caca- 1:)
.!!uu u.c-'" .cuU
ISSUES: -;;:a 1-;;:_'tGo 1-.- ca o ca
c_ lI).- ~ C) c. lI):!:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E lI)c -... lI)cE E
15.2' - CDC) ~o CD.2'-
..J- :EU
D.U) U) C ..JU)
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 ~
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 I2I
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] , '
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 :,~
increase of any criteria pollutant for which "
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4,37,44]
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 J2I
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] .'
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ;121
substantial number of people? [4,37,44] , ' "
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would " "
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 121
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 0 0 0 C2I
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]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 IZI
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
2-12
>>- 0 C-
-C C1: C;:: ftS C .
-ftS- ftS ftS 0 ftS .cBu -
.!! U U .c U .c .- ... U
ISSUES: -li:~ ~li:_1iiO ~ .- ftS o ftS
c_ m .- i C) Q. m:!:: Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E mC -... mCE E
cL~- Q) C) :t= 0 Q)~-
..J- :i!Eu
D.U) U) C ..JU)
-
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 J2J
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 0 9. 0 0
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 0 0 0 III
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project: ~
..
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 J2I
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in ~15064.5? [5,13,41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 III
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ~15064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 IA'
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 III
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 0 0 0 JZI
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
I Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
2-13
~- 0 c-
c- c-
-c ca; o'tii c
-ca- caca- U
.!uU .cu -... .cuu
ISSUES: -I;:ca I-I;:f:'tiio I--ca o ca
c _ g en'-i C)c. en~C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E enC -... en C E E
c).~ - CD C) :t:: 0 CD!!J-
..J- :!!:u
D..U) U) C ..JU)
-
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 JZl
[2,5,10,44]
Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 iJ
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
I iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 r2I
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 r2I
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 .121
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result ! i
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 , III
in 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 0 0 0 .. f2J
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]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 JZI
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 0 0 0 JZI
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
2-14
>-- 0 C-
C- C-
_C nsC 0- C
-ns- ns ns nsns- t)
.!uU .:.g=i~ .cuu
ISSUES: c:!E~ I-;;:ns o ns
en-- C)a. en - a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en C ~._.. encE E
o~- Q)C) ~o Q)~-
D.tn ..JU) :Eg ..Jtn
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 JZI
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 the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 JZ1
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? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 - . JZI
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the ,
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ItJ
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 JZf
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?[1,2,44]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ~
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ~
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]
2-15
~- c _ 0 c-
-c c c; c
-ns- nsns ons nsns- t)
.! u u .cu.c-I.. .cuU
ISSUES: -l;:! I-l;:_lio I-l;:ns ons.
c_ m.-~C)Q. m-Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E mC -I.. m C E E
o~- C) =:0 CD .~-
~.- :lEu -
D.U) U) C ..JU)
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
substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
[14, 20,36]
d) 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, or substantially increase the rate or ,
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site
[20,36,38]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ,12]
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 lZ1
quality? [20,36,37]
,
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 JZI
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 "~
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 j2I
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 jZ1
mudflow? [2,36,38]
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 )ZI
community? [7,12,22,41]
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 JZI
policy, or regulation of an agency with
2-16
I ~- 0 Cc:
C - C-
_C ca; 01G
-ca- caca- O
.!UU .c U .c .- ... .cUU
ISSUES: - r= a .... _1Go ....I;::ca o ca
c_ lI) !E .i C) Q. lI) - Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E lI) C -... en C E E
o~- Q)C) :=0 Q)E)-
-1- :Eu
Q.UJ UJ .E ..JUJ
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]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ~
conservation plan or natural community
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 D 1ZI
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 Il1
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 project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, D J2I D D
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 ~
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 D 0 ~
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
, [8,18]
d) A substantial temporary Clr periodic 0 0 0 I2f
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
I the project? [8,18,44]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 j2f
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
I expose people residing or working in the
2-17
~- 0 Ce
C - C-
-C ClSC 0-
-ClS- .c CIS CIS CIS CIS- 1)
.!! u u U.c-'" .cUU
ISSUES: -li:~ t--_1io t- .- CIS o CIS
c_ fn :!:: .- C) C. fn:!:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CDcE fn C ~._... fncE .5
cL~- CD en :t: 0 CI)~-
a..U) ..J- ~u ..JU)
U) C
-
project area to excessive noise levels?
[8.18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 J2l
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 I2J
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 0 0 0 I2J
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 121,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
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
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or I
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] 0 0 0 13
Police protection? [33,44] 0 0 0 eJ
.
Schools? [29,30,44] 0 0 IZI 0
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 0 0 JZI
Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 0 IZI
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 .0
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
2-18
~- 0 c-
c- c-
_c ca; o'ta c
-ca- caca- 1i
.!!UU .cU.c-~ .cUU
ISSUES: -I; ! ....-_'tao .....- ca o ca
c_ en := .- CJ Q. en:=: Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E en C ~.- ~ en C E E
15.2>> - Cl)CJ ~o e>>.2>>-
-1- :EU
D..f/) f/) C -If/)
-
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 jZI
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC-
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 0'
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, 0 0 0 ~
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, 0 0 0 JZI
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 '1Zf
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 I2f
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 JZf
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 !21
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
I Would the project:
2-19
>>- 0 c'C
c- c-
-c CGC 0-
-CG- ~CG CG CGCG- 0
.!!UU U ~ -- ~ ~UU
ISSUES: -&;:! ....&;:_110 ....-CG o CG
c__ en--- enC. en:!:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en C ~-- ~ en C E E
o~- Q) en :t:: 0 Q)~- -
Q.(I) ..J- :Eu ..J(I)
(I) .E
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ID
requirements of the applicable Regional
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
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 l?
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 0 0 0 JZf
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 0 0 0 .~
permitted capacity to accommodate the . .
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 J2f
statutes and regulations related to solid ;,
waste? [?]
2-20
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 I2I
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory? []
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 .0"
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
[]
c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 ;Z
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? []
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. h
Preparer's Signature ce
Print Preparer's Name Cb t \ ^ :J ~
2-21
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
18l Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology 'Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology' Water 0 Land Use' Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 181 Noise 0 Population' Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportationffraffic
0 Utilities' 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.
a Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
/)IJL/~7
Date I
r~ t ~\o7
Date
2-22
Environmental Assessment Notes (EA-2007-03) for
File Nos. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-9
Dollinger Properties Residential Subdivision
Noise: (See Noise Report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated
4/23/07)
City exterior noise standard is 60dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL for interior noise.
Existing and future noise of the second floors of the most impacted residences
(lots #3 and #4) is 61 dB CNEL outside and 46 dB CNEL from Granite Rock.
Existing and future noise from Kindercare on the most impacted yards does not
exceed City noise standard. .
Consultant recommends as mitigation that second story windows within 25 feet
of Granite Rock be closed at all times and provide mechanical ventilation for
those interior spaces affected.
Staff is further recommending that the homes be redesigned to limit window
openings facing Granite Rock (Lots 3 & 4), that 8-foot tall sound walls be added
to the Granite Rock and Kindercare property sides, and covenants be recorded,
notifying future buyers of the noise environment.
Trees: (See Arborist Report prepared by David Babby, Arbor Resources dated
4/9/07)
The report identified existing trees in proximity to the development,
recommended replacement trees to mitigate those that would be removed, and
provide protection measures for trees being retained.
The City Arborist identified 59 trees of five different species in the immediate
vicinity of the project. Twenty-three of them are proposed for removal and
include:
5 Coast Live Oak trees, measuring 9.5 to 22.5" in diameter
2 Silver Dollar Gums, 17.5 -19" in diameter
7 London Plane Trees, 6.5 - 9" in diameter
9 Coastal Redwood trees, 9 -17.5" in diameter
No. Tree Species Size Status Reasons Tree Value
Diameter
115 Coast Live Oak 9.5" Remove In driveway area $1,350
116 Coast Live Oak 15.5 Remove Too close to driveway to $3,470
save (not depicted)
2-23
No. Tree Species Size Status Reasons Tree Value
Diameter
117 Silver-Dollar Gum 17.5 Remove In driveway area $1,500
153 London Plane Tree 6.5 Remove In house footprint $ 330
154 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In house footprint $ 380
155 London Plane Tree 9.5 Remove In house footprint $ 670
156 Coast Redwood 17.5 Remove In house footprint $3,180
160 Coast Redwood 12.5 Remove In house footprint $1,650
162 Coast Redwood 10.5 Remove In house footprint $1,180
165 Coast Redwood 9 Remove In house footprint $ 890
167 Coast Redwood 10 Remove In house footprint $1,080
168 Coast Redwood 14 Remove In house footprint $2,060
170 Coast Redwood 9.5 Remove In house footprint $ 980
174 Coast Redwood 13.5 Remove Too close to house $1,920
footprint
177 Coast Redwood 13 Remove In house footprint $1,780
178 Coast Live Oak 11 Remove In house footprint $1,120
179 Coast Live Oak 22.5 Remove Too close to house $9,100
footprint
180 Coast Live Oak 15 Remove Too close to house $2,670
footprint
140 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In driveway area $ 380
189 London Plane Tree 8.5 Remove Too close to driveway $ 540
190 Silver-Dollar Gum 19 Remove In driveway area $1,760
No London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near ?
# open space
No London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near ?
# open space
As mitigation, the applicant should prepare a replacement/ mitigation plan for
the tree removal. Many could be planted in the open space area or the front
yards.
School Enrollment:
The project has minimal impact on student enrollment. Student generation rates
were taken from a report prepared for the Monta Vista Bungalow project.
School District Student Generation Rate Student Yield
FUHSD 0.21 students per du 6 x 0.21= 1.26 students
CUSD elementary 0.36 students per du 6 x 0.36= 2.16 students
CUSD middle school 0.18 students per du 6 x 0.18= 1.08 students
2-24
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
December 12, 2007
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
December 12, 2007.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03), TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05
Metropolitan Planning Group
1601 S De Anza Blvd
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new six-unit single family residential
development
Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family residential development
Tree Removal of up to 41 trees
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
has no significant environmental impacts.
/ s / Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2007-03
2-25
Community Development Department
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON
December 12, 2007
Committee Members:
Dolly Sandoval
Steve Piasecki
Lisa Giefer
Dave Knapp
Committee Members absent:
Ralph Qualls
Kris Wang
Staff present:
Colin Jung
APPROV AL OF MINUTES:
November 28, 2007
ACTION: Approval of minutes from November 28,2007
MOTION: Dave Knapp
SECOND: Steve Piasecki
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 4-0
NEW ITEMS:
1. Application No.: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08)
Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village)
Location: Homestead Road & Wolfe Road
Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings
totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level parking structure
This item was pulled from the agenda prior to the meeting at the applicant's request. No new
meeting date has been set
2. Application No.: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03), TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05
Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group
Location: 1601 S De Anza Blvd
Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new six-unit single family residential
development
Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family residential development
Tree Removal of up to 41 trees
2-26
o Noise
o The applicant has redesigned the units to comply with the mitigation
measures as discussed at the November 14th meeting
o Fence mitigations; 6' redwood fence versus 8' cement wall
o Trees
o The revised landscape plans shows 22 trees are scheduled for removal. These
trees lie in the proposed driveways and house foot print areas
o The 24 trees replanted as part of a prior (historical) approved landscape plan
will be retained as much as possible
o Additional Discussion
o Minimal student generation impact
o They will be incorporating a number of "Build it Green" techniques in
construction
o Landscaping includes a common open area for the six homes to share
Mitigations include: extend the wall along the north property line, re-study unit
configuration to save or move the oak trees in the back area, install a 6' or taller redwood
fence along the east property line (Kindercare play area) in conjunction with a new noise
study to see what type of fencing will work best in that area, produce a replacement trees
plan for the 22 trees slated for removal
ACTION:
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Steve Piasecki
Dave Knapp
none
4-0
OLD BUSINESS
None
Respectfully submitted,
I slBeth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
G/planning/ercjapprovedminutes121207
2-27
ARBOR RESOURCES
Exhibit A
Professional Arhoricultural Consulting & Tree Care
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW
OF THE PROPOSED EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 1601 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
APPLICANT: Metropolitan Plannina Group
APN: 336.10.134
Submitted to:
Colin lung
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RCA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-400IA
April 9, 2007
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 . Email: arborresources@comcast.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 . Fax: 650.240.0777 . Licensed Contractor #796763
2-28
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March J, 2007
SECTION
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
EXHIBIT
A
B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ........................................ .......... ......... 1
TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .................................. 1
SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3
OVERVIEW OF TREE IMPACTS ...........'...........................3
Proposed Tree Removals .............................................. 3
Trees to be Severely Impacted ........................................4
DISCUSSION OF TREE IMPACTS .................................... 4
Trees along the Western Boundary .................................. 4
Trees along the Eastern Boundary ................................... 5
Trees along the Proposed Ddveway ................................. 6
REPLACEMENT TREES AND VALUES ............................. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS.. ..................................... ....... ..... 7
Design Guidelines ....................................................... 7
Protection Measures Before and During Construction ............ 8
EXHIBITS
TITLE
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE SURVEY
2-29
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to
perform the following in connection with the proposed construction of eight new
residences at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino: [I] identify the species, size and
condition of trees in proximity to the proposed development; [2] recommend replacement
trees to mitigate those that would be removed; and [3] provide protection measures for
trees being retained. I visited the site on 3/28/07 and 4/5/07, and this report presents my
analysis and recommendations.
Trees inventoried for this report are situated either on the subject site or have canopies
overhanging the site from neighboring properties.
Plans reviewed for this report include emailed copies of[l] Sheets 1 (Tree Survey) and Cl
(Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan) by Kier & Wright, dated March 2007, and [2] Sheet
A-2 (Landscape Plan) by Bruno Marcelic Architect A.LA., dated 3/24/07. The trees'
locations and assigned numbers are presented on a copy of Sheet 1 in Exhibit B.
2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION
Fifty-nine trees of five various species were inventoried for this report. Specific data
recorded for each tree can be viewed in Exhibit A (Tree Inventory Table), and the
following table identifies their name, number and percentage:
American Sweetgum
103, 104
2
3%
Coast Live Oak
115,116,118-120,133-135,'
175, 178-180
121-131,150-152,156,158,
160-162,165-170,174,176,
177
12
20%
Coast Redwood
28
47%
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 1 of 11
2-30
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
Eucalyptus
105-107,112,113,140,153-
155, 189
109-11, 117, 187, 188, 190
10
17%
London Plane Tree
7
12%
Total
59
100%
As indicated in the above table, the site is dominated by coast redwood (at 47-percent) and
coast live oak (at 20-percent).
The tree numbers were derived from the Tree Survey (Sheet 1), and they correspond to the
numbers engraved on the racetrack-shaped metal tags affixed (by others) to the trunk of
each tree. Note there are periodic gaps between the numbers are the following identifies
their sequential order: #103-107, 109-113, 115-131, 13-135, 140, 150-156, 158, 160-162,
165-170,174-180 and 187-190.
Ten of the inventoried trees are defined as "specimen trees" per Section 14.18.020(1) ofthe
Ordinance. They are all coast live oaks over 10 inches in trunk diameter (measured at 54
inches above grade) and include #116, 118-120, 133-135 and 178-180.
One tree, #116, is shown on Sheet 1 but is missing on Sheets Cl and A-2. Additionally,
the trunk of tree # 1 04 is not shown on Sheet C 1.
Twenty of inventoried trees have trunks situated on neighboring properties and include
#103-107,109-113,118,150-152,155,161,166,169,175 and 176.
Trees #157 and 159 are both short (ten and six feet tall, respectively) fan palms that are
identified on the project plans. However, I exclude both from this report because of their
small size as palms.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City o/Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 2 0/11
2-31
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION
Each tree has been assigned either a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for
preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health,
structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings and applicable tree
numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category is comprised of 31 trees (or
52-percent), the "moderate" category 14 trees (or 24-percent), and the "low" category also
14 trees (or 24-percent).
Hieh: Applies to trees #105, 115, 116, 121-131, 135, 150, 152, 156, 158, 160-162,
165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179 and 180. They appear vigorous, in stable condition, and
have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site.
Moderate: Applies to trees #103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 112, 118-120, 133, 169, 170,
175 and 178. They appear worthy of retention, but their longevity and contribution is
less than those of high suitability and more frequent care is needed during their
remaining life span.
Low: Applies to trees #109, 111, 113, 117, 134, 140, 151, 153-155 and 187-190.
These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that
are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed.
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TREE IMPACTS
4.1 Proposed Tree Removals
Based on information identified on Sheet C 1, there are 36 trees in direct conflict with
the proposed grading, building and driveway design. As such, they would require
removal and include #115-117, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 140, 152-156, 158, 160-
162,165-170,174-180,189 and 190.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 3 of 11
2-32
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
Of those listed, twenty-three are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#115,
116,122,124,126,128,130,135,152,156,158, 160-162, 165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179
and 180); four a moderate suitability (#169, 170, 175 and 178); and nine a low
suitability (#117, 140, 153-155, 187-189 and 190).
4.2 Trees to be Severely Impacted
Through implementation of the proposed design, 17 trees would be subjected to severe
impacts and no assurance of their survival or stability can be provided. They include
#103-105,119-121,123,125,127,129,131,133,134,150, 151, 187 and 188.
Of those listed above, eight are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#105, 121,
123, 125, 127, 129, 131 and 150); five a moderate suitability (#103, 104, 119, 120 and
133); and four a low suitability (#134, 151, 187 and 188).
5.0 DISCUSSION OF TREE IMPACTS
5.1 Trees Along the Western Boundary
The western boundary is comprised two rows of vigorous, healthy and moderately-sized
redwoods (#121 thru 131). They form a dense grove and serve as an outstanding and
highly effective screening element. As they have grown together since the time they were
planted, the loss of one or more will expose other redwoods otherwise planned for
retention to potential uprooting, a situation that worsens by implementing the proposed
grading and building design.
If the westernmost row of redwoods is to remain (as proposed) without the foreseeable risk
of decline and uprooting, it is essential that the entire grove is protected. In doing so, I
recommend the project design requires no soil disturbance (vertical or horizontal soil cuts,
fill or trenching) west of the existing curb, to include any overcut for the new homes.
Subsequently, the front row of redwoods could also remain.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 4 of 11
2-33
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
Of those listed, twenty-three are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#115,
116,122,124,126,128,130,135,152,156,158, 160-162, 165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179
and 180); four a moderate suitability (# 169, 170, 175 and 178); and nine a low
suitability (#117, 140, 153-155, 187-189 and 190).
4.2 Trees to be Severely Impacted
Through implementation of the proposed design, 17 trees would be subjected to severe
impacts and no assurance of their survival or stability can be provided. They include
#103-105,119-121,123,125,127,129,131,133,134,150, 151, 187 and 188.
Of those listed above, eight are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#105, 121,
123, 125, 127, 129, 131 and 150); five a moderate suitability (#103, 104, 119, 120 and
133); and four a low suitability (#134, 151, 187 and 188).
5.0 DISCUSSION OF TREE IMPACTS
5.1 Trees Along the Western Boundary
The western boundary is comprised two rows of vigorous, healthy' and moderately-sized
redwoods (#121 thru 131). They form a dense grove and serve as an outstanding and
highly effective screening element. As they have grown together since the time they were
planted, the loss of one or more will expose other redwoods otherwise planned for
retention to potential uprooting, a situation that worsens by implementing the proposed
grading and building design.
If the westernmost row of redwoods is to remain (as proposed) without the foreseeable risk
of decline and uprooting, it is essential that the entire grove is protected. In doing so, I
recommend the project design requires no soil disturbance (vertical or horizontal soil cuts,
fill or trenching) west of the existing curb, to include any overcut for the new homes.
Subsequently, the front row of redwoods could also remain.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 4 of 11
2-34
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
There are five oaks (#119, 120 and 133-135) also situated along or near the western
boundary and contribute towards the screening element. The best of these trees is #135,
which has an 18-inch trunk diameter, a canopy of approximately 55 feet across, and an
estimated height of 35 feet. The others are situated partially beneath the overhead high-
voltage lines and have been adversely pruned over the years to achieve the required line
clearance (in most cases, the western half of their canopies has been removed).
Consequently, this action has resulted in highly asymmetrical and unbalanced canopies, a
situation that will continue throughout their remaining life span.
When considering the condition and contribution of the oaks, it may be beneficial to retain
the ones that can be adequately protected. However, it is my opinion that the loss of these
oaks will insignificantly impact the existing screen when compared to the loss of the
redwood grove.
5.2 Trees along the Eastern Boundary
The eastern boundary is comprised of moderately-sized redwoods and oaks that grow
within a wide planter area. All are proposed for removal to achieve the grading design,
and serve as a somewhat useful screen between the subject site and adjacent child care
center ("KinderCare"). In my opinion, the screen could be significantly enhanced and
become much more dense and effective that what currently exists.
Six of the trees proposed for removal are redwoods situated on the neighboring property.
They include #152, 158, 161, 166, 169 and 176, and all appear in viable and vigorous
condition. If these trees are expected to survive, I recommend [I] the proposed retaining
wall and fill are designed to be at least six feet from their trunks, [2] the retaining wall be
comprised of a discontinuous footing in which no soil excavation occurs between the
posts, and [3] no subexcavation (i.e. rip and scarify) occurs beneath the fill within 12 feet
from the trunks.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City o/Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 5 0/11
2-35
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
Apri/9,2007
5.3 Trees along the Proposed Driveway
The proposed driveway requires excavation into the existing planter strips. Consequently,
trees located within the planters will sustain significant root damage and be adversely
impacted. To avoid this occurrence, I recommend the driveway is narrowed so that no
horizontal soil cuts are necessary north or south of the proposed driveway. Additionally,
the future driveway, including curb and gutter, should be established on top of existing soil
grade with no more than a four-inch vertical soil cut where within a minimal distance of
five times their trunk diameters (e.g. a 12-inch diameter requires five feet); please note that
this is not intended to include the area beyond where a utility trench is proposed.
6.0 REPLACEMENT TREES AND VALVES
Per City standard, the appraised value (i.e. assigned monetary value) of trees being
removed is used as the basis for identifying replacement values. The appraised value of
each tree currently proposed for removal is presented within the last column of the table in
Exhibit A and has been calculated using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, flh Edition,
published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Combined, their
appraised value equals $78,960.
The size and amounts of trees to install should be roughly equal to the total, appraised
value of trees removed. Replacement tree values and sizes are as follows: $375 for a 24-
inch box; $1.000 for a 36-inch box size tree; $2.125 for a 48-inch box; $2,650 for a 54-
inch box; $3,500 for a 60-inch box size; and $10,000 for a 72-inch box.
Replacement trees suitable for planting in relatively confined spaces, I suggest the
following are considered: red maple (Acer rubrum), Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis),
Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), and flowering
pear (Pyrus c. 'Aristocrat'). For effective screen trees, I recommend Carolina laurel cherry
(Prunus c. 'Bright 'n Tight'). Please note that I do not recommend that the Idaho locust
tree, as proposed on Sheet A-2, is planted at the site due to it having aggressive and
invasive roots, and being highly prone to branch failure.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page6of11
2-36
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
Apri/9.2007
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this section serve as guidelines for achieving adequate
protection of trees that will be retained. They should be carefully followed and
incorporated into construction plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are
subject to revision upon reviewing any revised plans.
7.1 Design Guidelines
1. The location and assigned number of each inventoried tree should be shown on Sheets
1, Cl and A-2.
2. In the event trees mentioned in Section 5.0 of this report are to be retained and
adequately protected, guidelines presented in that section should be followed.
3. On Sheet A-2, the canopy dimensions should be adjusted to reflect those presented on
the civil sheets and/or the dimensions presented in Exhibit A ofthis report.
4. Any revised plans should be reviewed for tree-related impacts prior to approval.
5. This report and any supplemental letters shall be incorporated into the final set of
project plans, titled Sheets T -1, T -2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions), and referenced
on all site-related plans (i.e. site plans, grading and drainage plan, and landscape plans).
6. The permanent and temporary drainage design for the project should not require water
being discharged beneath the trees' canopies.
7. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following guidelines:
a. Turf and plant material should be avoided beneath the oak canopies; as an
alternative, I suggest a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (decorative or from a
tree company. Plant material and turf installed beneath canopies of all other trees
should be limited and planted at least five from their trunks.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard. Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 7 of 1 1
2-37
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
b. Irrigation beneath the oak canopies can impose adverse impacts and should be
avoided. If applied, it should be low-volume, applied irregularly (such as only
once or twice per week), temporary (such as no more than three years), and not
strike within five feet of its trunks. Irrigation should not strike within five feet
from the trunks of all other trees.
c. Trenching for irrigation or lighting should be avoided beneath the canopies. If
necessary, they should be routed in a radial direction to the trunks.
d. Stones, mulch and fencing should not be placed against the trunks of existing or
new trees. Plastic ground cover should also be avoided beneath canopies.
e. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control.
f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be
established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes).
8. To achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed,
including necessary irrigation, by an experienced and knowledgeable state-licensed
landscape contractor (or a professional tree company). The work shall be performed to
professional industry standards.
7.2 Protection Measures before and during Development
9. Due to the close proximity of activities among trees, a "project arborist"l should be
retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementing and achieving compliance
with all tree protection meaSll;res.
10. Prior to any grading, trenching or site clearing work, a pre-construction meeting shall
be held on-site with the project arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures,
protection fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access,
supplemental watering, mulching, locations for equipment washing, and other tree
protection measures.
1 The "project arborist" refers to an individual that is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA).
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City o/Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 8 0/11
2-38
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
11. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, trenching or site clearing
work, and its precise location must be determined and its placement approved by the
project arborist prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permit. It shall be
comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter
steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet
apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained
throughout construction until final inspection.
12. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the
fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved areas beneath the
canopies of Ordinance-size trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These
activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping
of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
13. Any approved digging or trenching beneath a canopy shall be manually performed. In
the event roots of two inches and greater are encountered during the process, the
project arborist shall be consulted for appropriate action.
14. The section of existing parking lot beneath the trees' canopies should remain intact
throughout construction and only removed immediately (e.g. within 24 hours) prior to
installing the future driveway. By doing so, a suitable route of access can be utilized
while effectively protecting the root zones of retained trees.
15. Removal of the existing parking lot and curb/gutter must be carefully performed to
avoid excavating soil and roots during the process. Any tractor used during the process
must work remain on hardscape at all times and off exposed soil and roots. In the
event significant roots (e.g. two inches and greater in diameter) are found to have
exploited base rock beneath the existing asphalt, the roots should be left intact and the
base material used for the new driveway.
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 9 of 1 1
2-39
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9, 2007
16. Prior to grading or excavating soil beyond a distance of 10 times the trunk diameters, a
one-foot wide trench should be manually dug along the perimeter of a foundation or
patio for the entire distance. The trench should be dug to the required depth, and shall
occur where excavation will occur closest to the trunk. Any roots encountered during
the process should be cleanly severed against the soil cut. Roots with diameters of two
inches and greater should be treated according to the project arborist.
17. Overcut should not exceed a distance of 18 to 24 inches from a foundation or utility
trench.
18. Prior to construction, I recommend a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (Y4- to %-
inch in size) is manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies. These
chips must not be placed against the trees' trunk, should remain throughout
construction, and can be obtained from a tree service company and/or by contacting
www.reuserinc.com.
19. Any approved activity required beneath a tree's canopy (within and beyond the
designated fenced areas) must be performed under direction of the project arborist.
20. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be
abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade.
21. Each recommendation that is presented within Section 5.1 of this report and IS
applicable to the actual development of the site shall be followed.
22. Throughout development, supplemental water should be supplied to the retained trees;
the project arborist shall determine the specific trees, intervals, amounts and
application methods.
23. The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed per the project arborist's scope of
work and under the supervision of an individual certified by. the ISA (and not
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 10 of 11
2-40
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
April 9,2007
performed by construction personnel). Any tree stumps being removed beneath or near
canopies of retained trees should be ground below grade rather than pulled up with an
excavator. All approved tree removals should be marked with paint (such as by an
"X") prior to being removed.
24. All equipment shall be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a
conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation.
25. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they
should be labeled for safe use near trees.
Prepared By:
. fJv>Q
Date: April 9. 2007
David L. Babby, R
1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 11 of 11
2-41
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
T~ENAME
American Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua )
Comments:
American Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
.-.. '
, ....,..,
irl.il .;;"
,-,-,.;..~
',0
/,;:t'
,,' Ib"
.~..~...
":':.~_."p,,
]'-1;;"',
o ..
u~
;S.a::
i'i.o
.. o.
::t::...~
-~::C''''.~
;~ ~~i
'-M
o
'" ~
~:Ib'"
, 50~"
, '<Ll'O'
'E '....J',
;~
E~
.0;,0; ',.
S9
c::Ij ,;. .~.;;;.(:'>'
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos ) 25%
Comments: Leans significantly. Trunk divides into six leaders at about seven feet high.
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos )
Comments: Causing significant hardscape damage.
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos)
Comments: Causing significant hardscape damage. All leaders grow with a close angle of attachment and are at
si ificant risk of failin .
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus aceri olia )
Comments:
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
10f6
April 9, 2007
2-43
TREE
NO.
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia )
Comments:
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos)
Comments: Tree is declining.
Coast Live Oak
ercus agrifolia )
Comments: Asymmetrical canopy.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agri olia ) 75% 50%
Comments: Partially beneath high-voltage lines and has been significantly pruned.
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments: Near high-voltage lines.
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sem ervirens)
Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage lines.
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
20f6
April 9, 2007
2-44
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
, 8.~
'. ~a
, .-. IS.
,'a ~
:,::,..'('
~.
~~
~~
~ .p;.
, 0 ..9,'
g ltl
:2'
, :;t'
.~~'
;-;.,y
'S
..:s' .
bI)
:~
.13
,,~
Jj
'"
~
'" .~''-'
.-
00 "~_
5
.~~,
:~ a::
.<1),0"
"','" "
C;::,'''''''''''
~'-rh
, ltl
"a,ca
a~
'0:;.0:
E,g
cn".~'-;
''-'
_v.
{I.lI,'>
'....~
o
~,
'i:: Ib
o a::
~.t:-,O
:.a,:,-'~"
I'::i ,tIl.
0' ltl,
. uca
, ..c:1b
....,a::
]8,
::t::::.
",~>:~y~;
~ " ',"-<~l" ,;~1:t,:.';-'._o
, t!, ~ ~ .
11;S.1! Sh'
ELJ!, ,~'(;l'
'.... .' 8 S1
..... tf' Q
~,g''':''ti,
.tr' -Qi) " _~,,"~'
~ :!:' '.!:: 8-
~II CLo-
S.,C '~,.~.
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) 100%
Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage lines.
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Live Oak
ercus agrifolia ) 75% 25%
Comments: Half of canopy is beneath high-voltage lines and has been removed.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia ) 50%
Comments: Half of canopy is beneath high-voltage lines and has been removed.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia )
Comments: Heavy limb weight. Branches encroaching into parking lot.
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
30f6
April 9, 2007
2-45
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
. TREE NAME
Z'..
_,~ l:Il ':.;
.....
o
.. ~.
~ It.
!;l)a::
~.o""
,,', ,:'c."......,;
~;_.CI)
lD'
<a.o:l
a'~
'.0;00- -,
s.8
~ZF__:::"
s::;'
~:<.-::";,. ~
't~w'
.."'~.,
lD' ,.
"".;{
.~ '..,'.
'" 'i<! ,.
\sa ,iij ,,',
<g "8:':
:g{
's '.... :
.. ~e
,_ :i. ,_,...~;- :~. " :,.j:: <,.
tn' '.-......
. in .~ ".'~
'~ Q"'O ' ,
0. ......- Sh'
e Jl, , .. ,'13 :;;'
..~,t( : 8Q'
.0, 10. ,....,'0 '
.€~'~1il,
;g:I:' .!:: 8.."
'.,9 11' Cl o.
'.5 b '.5 &::"
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments: Canopy is very sparse and in decline, Main trunk divides into three trunks at 3 feet above grade.
Coast Redwood
(Se uoia sempervirens)
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
40f6
April 9, 2001
2-46
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Coast Redwood
(Se uoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Se uoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) 25%
Comments: Trunk divides into two leaders at 3.5 feet above grade.
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia )
Comments: Grows at an angle away from tree # 176.
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
50f6
April 9, 2007
2-47
TREE
NO.
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
'C',
,-fJI:I
......:-
o
:~
Ib
'.~ ~..
':.,.~.~?,"
""O':',J',
J:i ~.
o (Xl
u1b
-5 ~.'
';rio
.U'O.
:1::::;'
',-..-"
.......'
00 ,~
. ~
b~'
.- ~b'
'50' ".... '
~. .0..
c:::;> .... :~,
~",(/)
. <l.l
'(a (Xl .
a Ib
Q ~.
2.g
>-~;-~-"
"s-z:>-
'::::.".0
:ij'O
e.~'.
o -;,......~
u.~. ..
. ~ "0'
... .~
.~6.
0.'-..;;
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)
Comments:
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia )
Comments: Canopy is suppressed due to its growth beneath tree # 179.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia ) 100%
Comments: North-growing limb within inches of adjacent building.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia )
Comments: Asymmetrical canopy due to tree #179's dominance.
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos )
Comments:
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos )
Comments: Damaging adjacent curb.
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Comments:
Silver-Dollar Gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos)
Comments:
Site: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
60f6
April 9, 2007
2-48
all'v'i\31n09 \fZN'v' 3a H.LnOS lO9l ~:; U g ~
,_'uow., "~_..,...",~ . alfY'^31nOl 't1.NV 3Q tunes L091 ~ c
~."'t~_1 n&......__lI<DIiOlH Y1Nl1O:tllVJ 'ONU}f]dnJ ~
'JNI 'SltOA3^1tnS ., 5'lI33NI~N3 llNJ S31l.113dOlld 113~NIllOa :llO:l ~ ~ ~ .-
.lH91l1M 'lIlI31)! .. ~ " u d
.. """^" .. A3^1l ns 3311.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(ll : 2 . ..1 I !' ~
\,' f \L"i~:~] ~
~:'~' ~\!t ~~) !~hJ!~
')~ i<.~ 11 ti~;111 I id(1 '~
~
...J
5
~i1 - - / i .' J:.I,', ! ,,_ ' ,/ "I i%I
'J/' -" ,,/ .,~, ~~:. ~.~~":-' I:' :;5
Jil i' I "\1 .,_,J. 1[01 .-'J:) ~"~~.- ....- 1'1:.' - J, ,i: z
.~ ,n \~": ~- )i \~.tt=~::~--.:::::r ;-~C7r=-mii--~~ ,~-;-. ~. 'l'il' ~
f ~. I, 1 ~~ I) ,/'"'-, "., ~ ~_ r~'r' ., ' 0009 ,
(' I~~ j,,\iL\ ,~.,~,~i~'C~~L~~), --~u~~---- C" I -q-t'I!il
(A~;J/,(~I)~~~-"-~oIi-":r5B!J~ 1:'! y'J 1 ij':!1
~';-'~'~1 :'~' I-~ ~~~ "'-;ir'" ( (~l: l! I {j'":', ~ I I ~y/ ~ 1\ -1 ~ l L- " III
I ":II- , t-~t~ J'I-. (-T- -- -'-{,-~LLJ_L' C.---..----.-.' j " I' . 8
- -! '"\\'{ ~a- ---.ll-- \, t'f i1 ~"'r(" ~ ,l ~-' ) ._,r~, " /) , ~il~
~.~~) ,;:1\ - : _j!-:""~'I'~f"t'::5(r . :~;'~__J':: /11,~ ..~ /r4-l . ,~J~~ _ AV^,,_
~"""t ~. ~ I \ II'," II'~' "'1' ,(.1 i' , l.,I." ..(.. ."', I" 'll:DDna
.,-__/1' i _"" j I-I',"~ ,q ,...~ /,'Jf {I' o! \ ,:',1
!~ -
~
I '~
f: ,
g 'r
~~. ~
~<~
!i',I.
,
~
I
I
. ,(',\ "
""'..I9.J'~<'
I
I
,
I
.I
~i
I
,"
~I!
~~
'.
;~
1-
I I I n ,{a _
II
, . II , \~'
I ! I
I I II
i I
I U
~ ~ ~
Cl ~ ~ id
z ~ ~
UJ :d ~ ::; ~
l.) i ~ " ~
UJ 8 ~
..J a a u . i L
r
g
I.
~
~
I
f
~
t
.
~
~
l.
t
~
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIA rES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE
SUITE 26
SAN JOSE CA 95125
./l'OIlSflClJ! ( 'o/1\/IIIU/lfS
TEL 408-371.' 195
FAX 408-371.1196
www packaSSoclates com
April n. 2007
Proiect No. 39-019
Exhibit B
\11', Dan: Dollinl2.er
Dt11linger Properties
555 Twin Dolphin Drivc
Suite 650
Red\\'(l(ld City. Ci\ ()..W65
Suhjed:
Ntlise Assessment Study for the Planned X-Lot Subdivision.
1601 South IkAnza Bt;ulcvard. Cupertino
llL-ar :\1r. Dollinger:
I'his n:port presents the results or a nOise assessment study for the plannt..'d 8-lot
subdivision at 160 I S(luth DeAnza Boulevard in Cupertino. as shown on the Site Plan.
ReI'. (a). The noise exposures at the site wen: evaluated against the standards or thc City
ofCupe11ino Puolic Ikalth and Safety Element (Noise). Ref. (0). The analysis of the on-
sill.' sound level nH.:asun.:mcnts indicates that the existing noise environment is due
primarily to (lpcrations and adivities at the utljacent GraniteRock Design (\:nter and the
KinlkrCarc Pre-SdlOol Noise li'om DeAnza Boulevard traffic S(lUrCCS is part pI' the
hack ground noise environment hut docs not signilicantly impa(:t the site. The results or
thc study indicate that noise cxposurc excesses will oecur in upstairs li\'ing spaees along
the north ((iranitcRock) property line and mitigation measures will he required.
Sections I and II or this report contain a sUlllmary of our lindings and recommendations.
rc-.pccli\ely. Subscquent sc..Ttions contain the sitc. noise source and pro,iect descriptions.
;lIlalyses and e\aluations. 1\1t~\l:heJ hereto are :'\ppellllices A. B and C. which include the
list of rell:renees. descriptions or thl..' applicahle standards. definitions of the termino!<)gy.
\~:ntilation rc..'quin:mcnts. general huilding shell controls and the on-site IWlse
nH.:asun.:ment data and cakulat ion tables.
..C..CCD h{"('),,<:T1f"AI <;:""f"I"'TV,..,!=' AMFRIr.A
NA TIONAl COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS
2-51
,
I. Sum man of Findines
The Iloisl: assessmcnt results presented ill the tindings werc cvaluated against the
standards pI' the ('ity (If Cupertino "Noisc" lOIemenl. which utili/es the Community Noise
Lquivaknt Levl:\ (CNFL) d\.'scriptor flJr rl:sidcntial exterior areas. The Noise Element
standards spccify an c:\terior limit of (10 dB ('NFL for sing.le-family residcntial extcrior
an:as. such as rcar yards. i\ limit of 45 dB CNEL is spc(.~iticJ for intl:rior living. spaces.
The noise exposures shown help\\, an: without the application of mitigation
measurcs and repn:sent thc noise en\'il'Onlllent for existing and futun.: sitc conditions.
A. Exterior Noise Exposures
. Thc existing exterior noisl.' exposure in the most impacted rear and
side yards of homes closest to the OraniteRoek Design Center is 54
dB ('NFL. [lnder future conditions. the noise exposure is expected
to n:main at 54 dB ('NFL Thus. the noise exposures arc within
the limits of the City of ('upertino Noise Element st~Uldurds,
. The existing extl.."rior noisc exposure at the most impacted second
l1oOt' t~lcades of homes dosest to lht:: (iruniteRock Design Center is
(11 dB ('NFL. llnder future conditions. the noise exposure is
\.'xp\.'cted to remain at () 1 dB CNEL.
. Ihe existing exterior noise l..'xposurt:: 111 the most impacted rear
yards of hOIllt:s dosest to the KinderCare playground is 60 dB
CNFI.. {Inder fulurt: conditions. llll' noist: l.:xposurt: is expech:d to
n:main al 60 dB CNIJ.. Thus. thl.: twis\.' .:xposures art: within tht:
limits (II' the Cily of Cupertilw Noise Element standards.
. The existing t:xterior twist:: exposure at the most impacled planned
building sdback from tht." KinderCart:: pluygrounJ is 5~ dB CNFI..
{1nder future conditions. the noise .:xposurc is expected to remain
at 58 dB CNEL.
2-52
..,
- .l -
H. Interiur Noise Exposures
. The inh:rillr noise exposun: in the 1110st impacted first l10nr li\ing
sjxll.:es dnsest to the (iranitd{ni.:\.; Design Centt.'r will be 39 dB
eN EL under existing and futun: conditions. Thus. the nnisL'
exposures will he within the limits of thl' ('ity of CupL'rtillo Noise
IJement standanJs.
. Ih..' ill!l:rior noise i:xposlIre 111 the most impact<:d second 11001"
li\'ing spaces c1osi:st to the (iraniteRock Design Center will be 46
dB CNEL under existing and future conditions. Thus. the noise
exposures will he up to I dB in excess of the City of Cupertino
Noise Element standards.
. The interior noise exposure in the most imp:.u;tcd lirst and second
nom living spaces doscst to the KindcrCare playground will be 43
dB CNFL under existing and future conditions, 'rhus. the noise
exposures will bL' \\ithin the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise
Fkment standards.
As slHlwn aho\'\.' the exterior nOise exposures will he within the limits of th<:
standards. Nnist.:' exposure I..'x(csses will Ol.:cur in (I..'rtain interior living spaces that han' a
\icw to the GranileRod, 1~lcility. l'v1itigation measures will be required for the I1llise
impacted interior li\'ing sp:'ll:es. The rei.:OmmelHJed measures arc described in SectitHl II
hL'low.
II. l~ecollllllend~ltions
A. Interim' Nuise Controls
10 achit'\t' intt'rillr nllisc exposurt's in (omrliance with 45 dB CNFI, limits (If tht'
l'it\ of Cupertino Noist' Lkment standards. the follll\\'ing noise cl\l1trolmeasurt's will be
required. In addition.. general construt:lion mCilsures affecting thc building shell arc also
rccomll1cmkd.. as dcscribt'd in AprcnJix B,
2-53
- 4 -
. \taintain dosed at all times all windows and glass doors or second
l100r living spaces within 25 n. or the north property line amI with
a dirL'ct or side view of the (iraniteR.ock f~lcility. Thesc windows
and glass doors may have an)' type of glass. i.c.. there is no
1111111fllllm Sound Transmission Class (STCl rating rCljllircmcnt.
Pr(l\'idc slime type lIf mechanical ventilation l~lr thesc spaces.
When \\ indows an: kepI dosed I'llI' noisL' control. they an: 10 hL' opcrahlc, as the
rL'quireml'nl doL'S not imply a "Ihed" condition. In addition. some 1~)fIl1 of mechanical
n.'ntilation which hrings in fresh air from tl1\..' olltsidc of the unit must he provided.
V<..'ntilation requirements spccified in the Uniform Building Code arc shown in Appendix
B. All other windows of tll\..' de\'\.:lopment and all bathroom \vindows may lISC an)' type of
glazing and may be kept opcn as desired. All windows or impacted living spaces must
ha\c high quality. hea\'y duty framcs and must provide an air-tight scal to Ihe (lutside
cnvlronment.
The impkml:ntation or the abo\'(: recommended mcasures will reduce excess
IIpisL' <..~xp(lsUl'es ror compliance with thL' inlL'rior standards of" the City of ('uperlino N(lisc
1',lcnlL'nl.
III, Site. Noise Source nnd Proiect f)escrilltiuns
The planned rrnjccI site is located at 160 I South lkAnza Boulevard, hL'lween
lligh\\ay X:' and Pruspl..'l:t Road in CUJ1l..'rtin(). and is sethack y40 n. t'rollllhe centerline of
S\luth (kAlva Bouk\ard. Presenlly thL' sill.' is a parking lot and is relatively l1at and at-
grLldc with the adjacL'nt (iraniteRllck Desi!;n Center. ThL' sill: is approximately 1 n. abo\<..'
the L'kvLilion of the playground at the adjacent Kinder< 'are facility. Surrounding land
uses include the (iraniteRock Design Ccnter adjacent to the north, thL' KinderCare pre-
school adjacent 10 the cast. a 2-story (lnice building adjacent to the south and singk-
1~lIllily n:sidential adjaL'cnl to IhL' \\est. The KinderCarl' huilding is interppsed between
Soulh LkAn/a Boukvard and the site. I'he oflice building to the soulh contains the
Bill!'dagl'ne L'Olllpan~ and a Santa Clara ('ount) Sheritrs (ll'fice.
2-54
- 5 -
Th~ primary sourl:~S of nois~ at the site are operations and adivities at the
(iranit~Rod. Iksign C~nt~r and playground activity at thL' KimkrCarL' pre-school.
IhL' (iranitd{ock lksign t\:ntcr opL'ratL's fnllll X:OO a.m. to 6:()(J p.m. Monday
Ihrough Friday. l);()() a.m. to 5:()() p.m. Saturday and li'om l):O(J a.m. 10 4:(J(J p.m. Sunday.
as n.:porll.'d by (iranitd{ock. RL'L (c). (iranitcRm.:k is a rl.'tail building rnatL'rial 1~lcilit)
thaI primarily sdls stonL'. rock and masonry construction matL'rials. lhe design center
huilding is locatL'd nL'ar the front portion of IhL' site and at of near thL' propL'rty houndary
contiguous with KinderCarc and thL' propoSL'd projL'ct sitL'. The mLl\l:rials yard is located
at IhL' n:ar pmtillllllf the 1~lcility and ahuts thL' subjL'ct project sitL'. tjas pllwercd ti.lfklihs
shultk matL'rials to ami from thL' materials yarJ III cars anJ trucks at thL' center of the
facility. Forklift operation is the primary noise soun.:e. An X ft. high masonry \vall
separates the (jraniteRllck Lksign Center bcility from the project site.
The KinderCan: facility operates from X:OO a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ntonday through
Friday. The pre-school is pn.:sc.:ntly at full enrollrm:nt or ) 32 children. The enrollment is
grouped by age with 72 pre-schoolers. 40 2-year olds and 20 toddlers. Playground
al.:tivity is from 9:15 to 1:15 a.m. and from 3:15 to 5:00 p.m. Approximately halrofthe
s~hool gOL'S out lilr play for the lirst 45 minutes tu I hour. then the second hall' of the
school gocs out for the second 45 minutes to I hOllr. Thcsamc sl:cl1i.lrio is n.:alized ti)l'
the alkrnooll play pt.'riod. as reported by KinderCare. Rd'. (d). Each age group has their
0\\11 playground along the planned projel:l. Children playing ill the playground is the
primary source of l10ise from KinderCarc.
Ihe planned projecl indudes the construction of R two-story singk-I~\Inily homcs.
Illl,!rcss and el,!rcss tll thc devdopment \\ill be hy way of a drivL'way olT of South DeAnza
Boulevard.
2-55
- 6 -
IV. Analnis of the Noise Lenis
A. Existinl! Noise Lenis
III dL'krminL' lhL' existing noise environment at tht.: site. continuous n:cordings of
the sound k\l.:1s \\t:re madt.: allwo locations. Location I was at the north property line or
11lL' silL' contiguous \\itll Ihe (iranitd{m:k 1~lcility and at a second 110m ekvation with a
dil'L'ct viL'\\ oWl' tht.: property line harrier 10 the materials yard. This location represents
IIlL' mosllloise impacted property !inl: tlf the site impacted by (iranitt'Rock lksign Center
noist'. Location:2 was along the cast property line of the site at the approximatt' midpoint
of the Kimkrl'are playgrounds. This location represents the most noise impacted area of
lhe sitl' dosest to the KinderCare facility. The measurements were made on March 2X-
::!lJ. 2007 for a continuous period or 24 hours. The noise level data were n:cnrded and
processed using Larson-Davis tvtodel 1\ 12 Precision lnh.'grating Sound Level Meters.
\\ hidl yield by dired readout. a series of descriptors or the sound levels versus time.
im:luding tht' 1.1. Llff. \'';ff. and LHI. i.e., thosl.:' lcvels cxceeded I'!/;" 10%,. 50(~.o and 90% of
tht.: time. Also measured wert' the maximum and minimum levels and the equivalent-
L'llergy kn:ls (I.,,,). which arc used to calculate the eN)J,. The results (11' the
measurements are sho\\n in thl.:' data tables in Appendix C.
Ih: results of the field surVl.:y n:\'L'al that the L,.q's at the north property line \",'ith a
\IL'\\ to the (iranileRock Design ('enter materials yard ranged rrom to 51.9 to 64.6 dBi\
during Ihe daytiml.:'. from 5~.5 10 55.1 dBA during thl.:' evening and ('rom 45.X to 59.2 dB^
at night. During (iraniteRock's operational hours of X:OO a.m. to 6:0() p.m., the I.,.q's
ran~ed Ii'om 51.1) to ()4.h dBA. "jth Ihe highest sound kvds occurring during the 4:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. hOllrs.
Iht.: I."q's at the cast property line c1oSl.:'st to the KindcrCare playgrounds ranged
I'rpll1 to 47.1< to (,7,::' d!L\ during the daytime. from 49.7 to ::'3.0 dl1A during the en:ning
and rmm 44.7 to 55.7 dBA at night. During Kil1lkrCarL"s operational hours of 8:00 a.Ill.
10 5:0() p.m.. tilt' L"".s ranged Ii'olll 47.1\ to 67.::' dBA. with the highest sound kvds
,,~~urring during the IO:O{) a.m, to 11 :(){) a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. hours.
I:lllTL'sponding 10 the play period times.
2-56
- 7 -
Noise from fiJrklitt operations and l:hildren playing dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6
dB for each douhling of the distal1l.:e from the source. Thus, other locations on the site at
greatl.'r distances hom the (iranih:Rock Design ('cnh:r or the Kinder('are playgrounds
will have lowcr noise lewls.
v. E,.nlmltion of the Noise Exposures
A. Exterior Noise Exposure
To cvaluate the on-sitc noise exposures against the City of Cupertino standards,
the ('NFL's for the stlrn:y IOl:ations were calculated as a decihcl average of the Lclj's as
till')' apply to the daily time periods of the CNEL index. The (,NEL is a 24-hour noise
dcslTiptor that uses the measunxl Lcq values to calculate a 24-hour time-weighted average
noise exposun:: with a 5 dB penalty added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m. and a 10 dB penalty added to noise during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. hours. The
formula used to calculate the CNFL is described in Appendix B.
Thl' results of the l.:alculations indicate that the exterior IllJlse exposure at
mcasun:ment Llll.:ation I. the north property line with a view to the GranitcRock Design
l't:nter materials yard. is 61 dB CNFL. Noise harrier cakulations reveal that the existing
pruperty line soundwall pnnides 7 dB or materials yard noise n:dlll.:tion. Thus, thc noise
exposure in the most impal..'led sidc and rcar yards or Lots 4 and 5 is 54 dB ('NFl.. The
exterior noise exposurc is within thc 60 dB ('NFl. limit or thl: City of Cupertino Noise
Element standards.
rhl: eXl\:rior noist.: l'XPOSurc at ml:asun:ment Location 2. the' t.:ast propl:rty line
dirl'ctly aJ,ial.:CI11 to tht.: KindcrCare playgrounds. is 60 dB ('NFL. Thus, thl.' noise
exppstlre in the l1111st imIXll.:tl.'d rear yards of Lots 1-4 is within the (lO dB ('NFL limit of
tlK' l 'ity or <. "upertil1ll Noise Flcmt:nt standards.
\litigation mcasurcs for thc extl.'rior arl.'<lS of the pro,iect will not hl.' required.
2-57
- x -
B. Interior Noise Exposures
1'0 L'\'alua!e tilL' intl'rior nOISL' L'xposurL's 111 projL'd living spaces. a 15 dB
redllctinn was applied to the L'xterior noise l'xpnsurl' to rL'present thl' attl'nuatinn provided
h) the huilding shL'l1 under 1l11/1lI/d-II\'t'rllgC conditions. The allll/wl-IIl't'ragc conditi/ln
;lssUtneS that windows han: single-strength (.V~2") glass and arl' h:pt open up to SOon ilt'
till' time It\!' \entilation.
Thl' intcrior noise exposurl's In thL' l1111st impacted living spaces closest to the
(iraniteRock Lksign l\'nter materials yard \vill he .W dB CNEL at Iirst 1100r ckvations
(bl'hind the soundwall), hut up to 46 dB CNIJ. at sL'conJ floor elevations. Thus. the
noisl' exposures will bL' up In I dB in excess nt' the City of ClIpL'rtinn Noise Ekment
standards. \1itigatinn l11L'asurL'S will he n:quired for certain second flom living spaces.
ThL' rccol11l1ll'nded mitigation l11easures arc in dcscrihed in Section 1\ of this n:p(lrt.
I'his report presl:nts the results of a noise assessment study ror the planned X-lot
subdivision at 160 I South De/\nza Boukyard in Cupertino. The study findings and
n:cllml1lendatinns fl.lr present conditions arc based on field measurements and other data
and an: corn:ct to the hest ot' our knowledge. ((O\Vl'ver. signilieant dmngcs in thl'
(iraniteRock Design (\:nter or KinJerCan: operations. changes in noisl.: regulations. or
other dUl11gcs heyonJ our control may produi:1.: long-range noise results different t'rom our
cst i mates.
II' ~ou have any questiolls or would like an claboration on this report. pkase call me.
Sinccn.:ly.
I DWARD L. PACK /\SS()C.. I;'\JC.
__/ /~~..-. /,(d/
+'-;;r;~o__.-
/' ~/-'
.klh\..'\ K. Pack
I'n:sid\..'llt
.\ltm:hmcnls: .\ppendiccs A. B. and C
2-58
APPENDIX B
Noise Stamhtrds. Tcrminoloev. Instrumentation
Ventih,tion H.e(IUiremcnts and Huildine Shell ('ontrols
I. Noise St~,"dards
A. Cit" of CUllertinn "Noise Element" Shtndards
Th(" ('ity of Cupertino Ikalth and Saldy Element or the General Plan. prepared in
200 I. n.:kn,,'ncl..'s the Land llse Compatibility ('hart published oy the Statl' or California.
The Normally Acceptabk noise ("xposurcs, in term (If the Community Noise hluivaknt
h.'vel (CNELlnoise descript.or. an: shown o\..'lo\\'.
Land Use
Residences (singk-family)
R('sidenccs (mlllti-bmilyl
lransil'nt Lodging
Schools. Ilospitals. Nursing I hlllWs. Chun:hl.:s
I'hl.:aters, Auditoriums, l\.!usic Ilalls
( )lItdoor Sports. Arenas
()t'lice Bldgs.. BlIsim:ss. COllllllen:iaL Prokssional
Pbygrounds. N..:ighoorhoml Parks
I ndllstrial. f'!anu fm:llIri ng
Exterior
60
65
(l)
70
70
75
70
70
75
I IlL' I kalth and Safcty I'.krm.'nt (Noisc). n:li.:rencl's the sOllnJ transmission Control
standards pI' tilL' Statl.: or Calitllrnia Codl.: or Regulations. Titk 24. whil.:h limits interior
11Ilisl.: ,,:xpllsun:s in Illulti-tlllllily residl.:rwes tll 45 dB ('NFL. Th..: Noise Lkm..:nt suggl.:sts
II1\.' applicatillll or thl.: Titk 24 standard tll singk-family r\;'sidences as wdl.
B-1
2-60
2. Terminolol!)'
A. Statistical Noise Lenis
Due tll the l1uctuating l:harader of urban tranic noise. statistical procedures arc
nceded to proyide an adeLluate descriptioll of the enyironmenl. A series of statistical
descriptors han~ been th:wloped which represent the noise levels exceeded a given
Ill'rcentage of the time, These descriptors arc obtained by direct readout of the
('nmmunity N{lisL' Analyzer. Some of the statistil.:al levels used to destrihe community
noise an: dclim:d as follows:
LI
A noise level exceeded for I ~[l of the time.
Llo
A noise level exceeded for I O(~(I of the time. tOllsidcred
to be an "intrusive" level.
1.';0
The noise level exteedcd 5011/0 of the time representing
an "average" sound Ien'l.
L')II
The noise level exceeded 90 0/;) of the time. designated
as a "bal:k.ground" noise level.
I"."
The continuous equivalent-energy kn:1 is that level of a
steady-st:lte noise having the Si.lme sound energy as i.l gi\'\:n
time-varying noise, The L~I\ represents the del:ihd It:vel of
the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure
slluarcd and is used 10 {:alculale the [)NI. and CNLL
B-2
2-61
B. Communih' Noise Equi"alent Lc"el (CNEL)
rill.: C1'\\-.I. is a Illl.:asun: of the cumulati\\~ noise exposurc over a 24 hour period.
11h: ('NFl. index di,idL's the 24 hour day into thrL'e suhperiods. i.e.. the (bytilllL' (7:00 am
to 7:0() pm). the L'\'cning period (7:0ll pm to 10:00 pm). and the nighttimt'l1L'riod (10:00
pill 10 7:00 am). Also. \\L'ighting fm:tors \If :' and 10 dBA an: applied to thL' L'wning and
nighltillll' periods. n:spe<.:tivl'ly. to a<.:<.:ount filr thL' greall:r sensitivity of people to noise
during those periods. The ('NEt values arL' calculated from the Im:asured Leq values in
accordance \,ith the following mathematical formula:
eN!:L' 1(1-,,+ 10 loglll12) 8:.. (L.,+5+IO logl03) 8:.. (Lflf'10+l0 logl(ml- 10 loglo14
where:
I." ccc L"'I for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
I.,. c, L"q fi.lr the evening (7:00 p.m. to W:OO p.m.)
1.11 I.nl for the nighttime ( I O:()O p.m. to 7:0041.111.)
24 indicates the 24 hour period
8:.. denotes dccihd addition
C. A-Weiuhted Sound Level
The lkcihi.'l measun: or thl' sound 1 l'\'\: I utilizing the "A" weighted network of a
sound k\l'I 11h:kr is referred 10 as "dBA". The "A" \veighting is the accepteJ standard
\H.'ighling sysh:111 lIsed whell noise is IlH:asured and recorded Itlr the purpose of
dell'l'll1ining lotal IwisL' k"ds and conducting statistical analyses of the cn\'iwnment so
thaI the output cOITdates wdl with the response of the human ear.
B-~
2-62
3. Instrumcntntion
'IlK' on-site field measurement data wen: acquired by the use of one or more of the
pn.:clsion acoustical instruments shown helow. The acoustical instrumentation provides a
din:cl n:adollt of the L eXl'cedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy kve\
(L,.ql. Input 10 the meh:rs was proviJcd by a microphllnc extended to a height or 5 rl.
~d~[\\'c the ground. The meh:r conforms to ANSI S 1.-+ f(lI' Type 1 instruments. Till' "N'
\\eighting ndwnrk and Ihe "Fast" n:sponse setting (l!" the mder \wn: used in con((mmlllce
with the applicahle ISO and IFe standards. All instrumentation was aCl,ustically
t:alihraled before anJ after lidJ tests to assure accuracy.
Brucl & Kjacr 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Lewl Meter
Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
I.arson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
4. Vcntihltion Requircments
Vent i lation requirements to he applied when windows arc maintained closed f()r
Iwise rontrol are sped lied in the lInitlmn BuilJing Code (UBC), 1997 edition. Section
12.(J~.3 as fllllnws:
"In lieu or requin:d exterior openings fl.)r natural \Tnlilation. a
nK'chanical wnti bting system may hl' pn1vided. Sllt:h system shall
he cap~lhh: of providing two air changes pcr hour in gUl'st rooms,
dormitories. habitable woms. and in publir rorridors with a
minimum of 15 cuhir led pl.:'r minutl.:' Ol./s) or oUlside :ur per
ol:cupant during such time as the huilding is ncrupicd."'
Basl'd on our pn:vious expericl1l:l'. a "Slll11l11l.:'r switch" on thl.:' furm\l'c 1~1Il is
normally ronsidered ~l\:ci:ptahk as a ventilation system h) FHA and other agenrics. Air-
conditioning is also an aC(:l..'ptahle system.
B-4
2-63
5. Buildin2 Shell Controls
Th~ following additional pr~cautionary measures arc requin:d to assure the
gn:atest potential for cxterillr-to-inh:rior noise att~nuatilln hy the n.'cllmmendcd mitigation
m~asur~s. rhl:se measur~s apply at those units when: closed windows an: required:
. 1 inshiclded entry doors huying a direct or side orientation toward
the primary Iwise source must he I-5tH" or 1-314" thick. insulated
metal or solid-core \\(lod construction with dli.:ctin: weather seals
around the full pcrimet\.'r. !\1ail slots should not hl~ used in thes\.'
doors or in the wall of a living space. as a signilicant noisL" kakage
~an occur through thL"l11.
. I r any penetrations in the building shell arc required fllr vents.
piping. conduit. etc.. sound leakage around these penetrations can
he controlled by scaling all cracks and clearance spaces with a nOI1-
hard<:ning caulking compound.
. Fireplacl~s should bl.' provided with tight-litting dampers.
B-5
2-64
rJ)
z
o
i=
c:(
....I
:::J
()
...J
c:(
()
...J
W
Z
()
UJ
er:
~
u
er:
UJ
o
Z
~
er:
UJ
....
Z
UJ
l/) U
UJ
;:: ~
ffi Z c;;
0.. Q UJ
o l/) 0
er: > ~
0.. _ U
er: 0 /- 0
UJ coOer:
<.:> :J~UJ
Z l/)ot::
:::::;'2:'I-"(Z
...JoOco<{
o d,...J Ner:
O("'),x,?><':>
I- W
I- ~. U
Z ""Wer:
WUJOI-:J
:::::;:::!er:<{O
Uu..o..Ol/)
"0
C
::>
o
0,
>-
ro
a:
'0
...J ~
o..~
III :ij
~U
<29
(],)
-0;:::
.s 0
~t")
~
~ ~
Ol/)
- 0
~I-
U-
o !'.1
...l0
A""' <.ON
lOa ("')~
N<.O A""'
N 0
to 0
~ 0
("') .
("')
II II II II
::E"O ::E'O
:J...J :J...l
l/) l/)
~w~~ro~o~~~m_Nm~o~---~MON
S~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~$~~
cr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~m~~~g~~
3~~~~gml.Ol.O~~~m'2:'sm~l.Oco(",)N(",)I.O~~
o .,- U)~
a"","'OONcoeo.lt1(,,,)~l.OO("')~~~lON~NN-~
3~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~::E~ ~~~
::E~~~~o..~~::E::E::E~~~::Eo..o..~::E::E~::E~::E
UJ~~~oooo..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..ooo~~~~~~
~0000000000000080oooooooo
~oooo~~oooooooo~_~oooooo
~~~m~___NM~~~~~m~~--N~~~~
.-
"'0
.'"
("')
("')
N
01
II II
::E"O
:::J...J
l/)
(")01.000>
;::;o$f.Dl:O
II
.!!..!!.w
~~~ 9.-
(],) (],) ...l Ql
...J...J(],) ...J
~ g'.~ II :;
~C: ~ irl ~
a;-~2>z..t
OUJZUN
...J
0..
.ox;
u
o
er:
~
E ~
g ~
r- ("') NO oeo
I"-cO O. eo N
1.0'" -'" '" '"
~ 1.0 eo
'" N L.O
lt1 '" N
l"- t-
eo ...
II II II II II II
::E"O ::E'O ::E"O
:::J...J :J...l :::J...J
l/) l/) l/)
ro"'.I"-N01(",)"'Nlt1~N~1.0010.01001~(",)NCO
lt1m__I.ON~~cri~(",)I.O(")ro~.l.ONCOCOOO1.("')
.Nl.Oeo~NCOOCOM.0101CON.r--lt1--N.1.O
0010COCOI"-'<tCOCOOONr-lt1-CO"",-I"-<.OOCO(,,,)eo~
~b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~
crr_M~_NNN~~~WN~N-- - -Mm
~ N-
<
o
rr"'m_01.~CONl.Ol.O(")("')-Olt1I.ONN(")roO-(",)N
(],)co.r-~("')(")(",)~I.O.N("')lt1.N-mo<.O,,,0olt1m
...J"''''lt1'''lt1''''''lt1'''l.Ol.Olt1lt1'''lt1'''.lt1...lt1'''lt1
(],)
u
Z g
Ol/)
- 0
~I-
u-
o !'.1
...JO
:2:2:2~~~:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2~~~:2:2:2::E:2:2
~<{~OOoo..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..o..OOO~~~~~~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~OOOO_NOOOOOOOOOO_NOOOOOO
~~~m____N~~~W~OO~___-N~~~W
...- CD M l,n
m~~:D~
II
.!!..!!.W
~ ~ ~ g,..
(],) Ql ...J (],)
...J...J (],) ...J
~g'!;II:;
~c:~irl~
~ ~ _Ql Z .q
OWZUN
2-66
RECEIVED ,J!HI {) 2 2008
Mr. Colin Jung
Senior Planner, City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, California 95014
Exhibit C
Colin
December 24, 2007
Thank you for spending time with us to explain the status of the new housing
development behind our residences,
Our three residences have been in the area for many years. We still remember the early
1980's; at the planning committee meeting, the then real estate developer promised to the
neighborhood to plant a row of evergreen trees along the border between us and the
parking lot of the office buildings. After the office building and parking lots were
completed, the row of evergreen trees grew to a respectable green zone for the
environment. Now nearly 20 years later, a new development is being proposed to convert
the parking lot to housing development. This row of evergreen trees maybe in dangers of
removal.
We like to point out the following valuable advantage of these evergreen trees for the
environment and for the neighborhood.
1. Sound barrier from the traffic noise of De Anza Ave and Highway 85 for all
homes in the neighborhood.
2. These tall evergreens are a rare green zone very important for the environment.
3. A good separation between the high-density new housings and our existing
homes.
4. These trees could also act as good headlight barrier for automobiles coming into
the new housing development. .
5. Removing the trees will reduce the quality of life and devalue the property value
of entire neighborhood homes.
6. Keeping the trees will enhance the attractiveness of new houses.
We wish to express our strong position to request the city planning committee to preserve
the row of evergreen trees for the proposed and for any future development.
SinCereliJi' /
n..'I;J ~~~r' '/~ .' ~k Gev=
'-1~Hel:~ V' / ~~mh&PhUOngDao
1534 James Town Drive 1522 James Town Drive 1510 James Town Drive
Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino, Ca 95014
Homeowner & Residence Homeowner & Residence Homeowner & Residence
Since 1979 Since 1969 Since 1987.
2007-12-24 Cupertino Colin Jung.doc 1
2.....67
Colin Jung
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Judie 500 Gilli Uudie@mplanninggroup.com]
Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:26 PM
Colin Jung
Fwd: 1601 S. De Anza Project
Please add this to the public record.
--- Helen Chen <helenchen95014@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Helen Chen <helenchen95014@yahoo.com>
> Subject: 1601 S. De Anza Project
> To: Judie@mplanninggroup.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dear Judie,
My name is Helen Chen, the owner of property reside
at 1486 Jamestown Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014.
I got your letter regarding the neighborhood meeting
for the six single-family homes project located at
1601 S. De Anza Blvd, I may not be able to attend
the meeting, but I just want to express my opinion
that -- I strongly support this project! If that
area has to build something, some single family
house will be the best option, we welcome more
residential home come into this neighborhood.
For years, this area has residential and commercial
zone conflict problems, now it's time for the City
to consider to have more strict regulation for noise
control from commercial zone, The City need to know
better how noise reflect residential home owner's
quality life. For instance, GraniteRock, it's a very
very noisy commercial place right adjunct to
residential homes, I don't understand how the City
approve this retail place come into the
neighborhood, wasn't there any other commercial
place which is less noisy available? I wish the City
Officer can live into out neighborhood for a week,
and they will know what I mean by "Noisy".
Surely this project will raise the noise problem
again, but I do think some single family homes is
the best interest for the neighborhood.
Sincerely Yours,
Helen Chen
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo!
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mail has the best spam
1
2-68
!
I
J
~I
~,
'~,J
~
I~
;LJ
I
I
j,
)
'--:"'_:>/
DUCKETT
-~y!
,
'~~
f", ~\
1 , \
I \ \
, \
! ~ I
1 ,
1____ !
1---1 c i
n~ !
\ ,
,
I
I
I
I
I I
I
t
,
,
I
1
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
~,
I I I
I I I
! L I
-II
i 1\
I 1
--------1j :
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ,
1 I
-II
I 1
I I
/ I
-~// /
/
/"
~
-6
om
~>
'<z
~N
>>
~
~8
~t'"""
~ m 1
i~
V> V>
or or
. ~ !!.
'!.
)> Z 0 Z
? c
" -t < ~
_ rn
~-o m
, ~
0 ji~ r-
r-
"-J
l~
I
I
1
I
.1
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I
~
I
r-
1
r-- ." ~
i ~~,,~;
~\t~O~
~~t~~~
I ,?:;o;l~:""r-
~~ ~~
z~
~~~
~~o
~m~ ___
- ~ - - - - - - - - --=.-
-t-o~
o _LT-O~
iM-
'P@
f7-
H-
~
f7-
~
o~
H-
z I, i, l' I';"" 1 i r. --c m s:: ~
.2. c
? I /1 ... ... ~ > b:l
nUl z ~ 0 0 '<) ~ >
't '" I" 'J") o' ~~ m CD CD U1()()() ~
~ I~ !j j I~ , ~ (;:;-n(;J~ ~~~~w () ~
"- ~ == c::
~ , ,.-, - f ;v ~ ~ "'-J a ......, 0 (j
-6' " 10 I. I; ~ :I: -.0)( -..0::1 ' O"'C "0 8; :; -
~ ~~~ 0 0.. 0.. CD S~, ~~ >-i m Z
g in :~ fi ';:T s: m
' ,~ I. I i~ .0", ~ U1 t""' 0
'~ '~ ~ .~ n < m 0 w ~ n
(f) 0 0 >-i -
l? if l' i;; ~=_-I , I > a lD (j
I
-'''' .. !'... ~i
l'I :~ !~ ,~ I~ !
I~
o
I~
[I
---I
~;:o
+>)>
~n,
---10
NZ---l
to~
N~
N
+>
LJ
I I
I \
I I
I I
I ,
, I
I I
I ,
I I'II~, r
: :!r:IYL_ II ~I
I I11',I ,~
I,I I 111,' , I
I ~I,I
i ! !!!il-j h ! ~-ll r [Ji ~j"~"i
I,I ' III: i Ii II r - - - t C, -
I 1111, 'I I
I 1 I l~jUL,_.j.-=--=~,
11;/ I! I ;
"i ,I
'I' I' I
,1:1 III I
',1II ill I
II I'
11:1 Ii I I
11II II I I
I I' I[
,,'I " I
,,'I ,I I
I' I
II1I ,I I I
"1 'I I
I III I' I I
I 1,'1 II L
I I ,
I,I 'I
'1,' Ii
I I I II - 7-:;<.J
II I II / s.s
i 'I 1--13o.-9"---'-rn~_-
I III -lJ I r-.-_J "-
I " I II i --I r------L~.
III I I III I I"'"
I II1' I
I I' I "i ;:;-11
I I 1,11' II
I I' I I' I'
I I I III III
I I, I III II I
I I II I II I
I I, '11I Ii
I I 1111 II
I II 'II I Ii
I I III' II
~ ! I, I ~ I Ii
1 I III I' I
--'- I, I I I ,I I
I I I I I I d,
I I I, III' Ii
i I I II II
r--r++r"
. I' I III Ii
I I ~ I Ii
I I "I Ii I
I 1111 iii
I I III J II I
I II 111/ II
rt'~iji!i
II III: I'
~ I' '11', III
~I ;;; I I,,1 0 III
;;i J" 1'1111 II)
I . I- I 1111 j [J
.. _ oOO'c' ~,87~~ ~ ,i-
- 60,00' I --
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
~
II/II
i
I
I:;
.~
z
n
'O'l
VI c:. -i
~Q~o
ozo-i
<: C) 1+ ~
V:;"'Cl>VI
-;:lJn-
OO;:o-i
z(3c::m
VI
m
o
,8
I-
i
, I
I :
~
~i
1
i
!~
:0,
:q
<;'
,,' I, - ~~:f~~--
V)~
I
r----
I
I
r--
~
r----
I
I--
I
I------
I
t-----,
~
I---
---'F'----
I
r--
I
I--
I
i-
!-
r---
,
,
L-__
I ~
~."n; "'1;l
Z )> ~-- ~ -l
I---i:~~iqp
I ll"~g~z~
~~~~~5
~"""O.t.""i
~~
~2
.Cl
~'"
.~
"I~
Cl
~;;" ~
~e!: ~
~f;~ ~
:;:~- ~
--_nfJt, ,.
)' ~
'.~~~
- \--~
~
I
~
~
Z
. -t....-o.
n-':'_~_~~'-~"'~"
o I--
~Q
o 1--1; ~
f--:? ;;te
f-- ~ ~~
I--~ ~
f--~ ~
o I-- ~
I
r
or
I-
I
o~
I
,--
I
,--
I
rrl
X
V1
::::!
z
GJ
~
:.;:
I 1
'?
G
OJ
C
,
o
Z
GJ
I
-k,
c
I I
I I
-~
!" ~
I~ /
I~
. I'h..
I
LOT 4
mAC! NO. 124
(4 M 24-25)
/:
V>
8
~
o
~
"
,-"
i3 :b,'
I-.J
~
c:;~c;:;~s ~
z;!izziS ~
~~~~~
" "N 'it
'" '"'
0;
O-IV,...,,,,,,, 0
~~~~~ Vi
~
Z
'V h1
449. 2
--,-" t= ._~n
~
~
t@I
~
~:;:
~If-<
I z~., 1:
f----;;.~rq5
U;~Z-i
kilJ?;P~ N
I ;:1+- ~ '-J
f-- ~
~~
~
~
I
;:;;
(
J~
I P i3
ho~ ~'"
H~~q~
~~~5~
I :Ei::M:'5
~~ ~~
t-- ;g
f--~
I
~w_-1.lli!!L.
I--
L
I
,
I
r-
I EAST... (:;0.00.)....
;:
8i~'
/if\U ----
~~Q S
- z )
Om '
z~j
---"--'
o
o
o
q
~~~ ". ~4...L
([
l~
iL
l
r~~
\ '--- -'L i
Dr:
,.
~
~
z
- II
- -<
:'" ~ J:
g !lO
o
q
~---I
Z
UlO
+-'
10-1
Ul"
(Do
II [
o~
cC
~
~
"
"
~
~
-<
~
o ~
oR
o
~
-,
, I
I
r
oil
~ I
o 8 I
Q I
o ~ I
o ~ I
o ::: I
< ~~=r'--~
011
o q I
o L:_~~----
O:i[--
/--[
Fl
o
;....)
(".1
1'--
::;
+'
"j
"'.,
\.._)
1O
:XJ
0'
cr,
.p..
('-
I~)
UJ
co
I
II
I II
II
! 'I
i ,j
III I!
I' I I
'----4t------~~. l~g(~~~~f;~~:;
r : Ii!
-i ~ I (6f~~O VSSS) ~~;7.;'{'_:~
~ : I - t A\fMl-1911!tlllSnd In ." !~:.;r:
..-w~~-+"~l:JLnLnu--u--uj,~
li'c !' ; - _ ',-I (45000'L ".0# -)- t ' fJ ,
~:~ I I <
QU1.._.._._~_-----1E."r~,..~- '.____
! \ tt lHHSl- '--"f'-- _ ~~ .u' ~..<!,.L
I I
': : ~~\
@:l ; ~U]
~l~ ~ )
~~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUCKETT
WAY
1
- --;i.~~-1>
~~~ i
~::t:~
~ .
8
20.00' _L~!L~r.'
r-=: 6000'
ti
m
>-
Z
N
>-
I:J'
o
C:'
r
m
<
>-
~
I
I
I
g
..
.';
w
~
~
c
~
~~I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ . ~ ~ r
~ ~ ! ~ ~ rn
. ~ C'l
~ ~ ~ rn
Z
0
><
z
o
-i
-i
o
V'
n
~
I
J~
!! II
I i
I II
Fn
~U
~~~
.~a
~~~
~~~
~~~
2~~
~~~
~ "
r.nO~
6~g
!S~
Z~>
:i!.".~
~~~
::~~
''''0'"<1
~~
~~
~6
~1~~~~ri~~~~;~~~~@~~~~~~~~i~~~~Q~8Q~~~~q~~ ~
9 CO
;>:J
rn
<
)>
-I
(5
Z
VI
~~
F~
0"
~~
~
~
~
--".~
,'\>.
~i~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~ 8nz
~~~~~C~~S~6~~~~g~~~
~;~~~~s~~i ~~i~~~~ ~
z5~z~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~Za~O ~ ~
~ '<
~ ~
"
;jl
r
:1
,
--------I
" .
~ ~
~ ~
~ $
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ,~
~ .
~ 0
~ ~
rn
z
o
-t
m
VI
'"t:l
~t:l
nO
m::I:
t"""'...,
;l>l'
~ 0
~...,
m(ll
ne
Otl';l
~9
m<
t:lt;i
z~
O;itl';l
Om
Oz
~CJ
~>
~(Il
VJc
V'ltl';l
3:tJ
>=2
""I:i......
tZlC/l
""I:i......
>0
oZ
mO
VJ"T1
~
~
.,~~.,.....,..~~,
~
t'Ij
Z
~
>
~
~
-<
t'Ij
~
>
~
Q ~l~ ~ ,r 0 ,", REVISION " ..- REVISION "
~ ~ ~ TENT A TIVE MAP ,
~, ~ i : KIER & WRIGHT _..._n.._.___ _..______ ..... .._._--_.,-------,-- ---- i--
- !~ ;
a FOR: DOLLINGER PROPERTIES CIVIL ENGINEERS &. SURVEYORS, INC_ ----,--------------_..._._-~ f-- , ---~~---_._-,--- _...
~- ,. I~ n HSOS,onBOlll.....'d,Butldlng22 (408)7276665 ----------- ----- ---------- _u 1------------------------,--- --
9 I: . m ~ CUPERTINO 1601 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SantllClllra,c.lifomi&9S0S4 (40I) 727 5641 ----..----.-------.---- 1- 1------ ---- ----- --- - ---- - -------~---
'./.. " CALIFORNIA
~o g j\ ;: ~
15~ ~ 0 0 ~
i~ ~ ~ ~ ~--
.:! i:l z ~ c:
~ ~ ~ . ~
U~~;~
~i ~ ~ ~ ~
.g i:
?l::! ::
~~ ~
~~
~>
>
Z
~
.
~
~
~~~~
=~~~
S~~~
~~~~
~~~~
2~
~.
~~
.
~
~
~
~~~~~ ~~~~
~gj~~ ~~~i
~O~~S ~O~~
~~~~-- ~-~~~
~~J ~- ~
~~~~ I~~
~ ~~
~
"'
in 1 ;..:r":'I;1;1;7I;:'1 ,..-;
[o.lolb C 0.10 0 II'
'~:;;I:;' :;: ::'1;:':'1 l:f
Igl i. 1 IJ;::
I~II,~ 'I ~
Il "~ -t "~
rl,""I!" !"IJ~ !"'"N~.la~
I I~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ .
'I:;:::::;: t'J~ t'J;;
, I' 1+1~1r. r. r.~~I~
,,+r-r+ ,,:j~
I 1 1 I~I'"I" '" '"IA ~~
'I ;11 I..... \;J..... W....., '-'~ l:!l
~ ' i~ ~':: ~ ~ ::1" 18
1Jlr;.,;.,i;.,;.,;.,;.,r.;ls
Is I I I I IL ~ ~
,= '" t-tl!+ -I- 2
!~ I . ~ I I . ! G'
I'~!,::;I ''''1",1"" !'-'"NIJ~I;;l 0:,
.. r-o i~ ~I~ ~ ~ '$1" c
I~,':;;: ;;:1;;: ;:,;:~ ~
", 1"1""'''''1''1'''
i 'i ! I i I-
'-hr+-1, :l,
I'~I~ wlwl'" ~ wll~1 I
.~II',$ =i~I~'~I~:~ ~it:
~ ~ t::!:I:'~'~IG:I~i~
,0,", I" ,",~ Ie I" . .,~
;...., ~I:->I~I""'I:-'" ""'1:-'">1
l-.it :,_.LLLtU
)> '<
o
.:.
o
\.0
00
1
.:.
"
o
-\~
.
o
'"
o
'+>:"
-r
& ,:, ,;,;
"
~."l
L-;-l ,,~ ..
~...
J,"
c:J,
S
,
c~
~
I
I
+SOO'
J=~~l_=~,'1 ..
1 /'
v'j\~:r
1\'"
'3 ...
~ ~
~ ~
~ )
__l )
lit)
i
, ,
----- . =~=----J.=;~~
I ')l"
i
-.-. -- .- --- -- --- .- - --i
-+
.-:::... -- - - -i
- -- ---- '- --
...., .~ -- ---- -
FLOOD ZONE ,'UM
'FlOOo ZONl!"'.' "
~-~~
~',-;
.-~:~ .
~ --~ - .---- - --- - 7""~ ~ ~- - '~,---,--- - ......,--- - ~- -: --,..--
I tv~Op~~~ ROD
i IN CONe MON
I
1
I~~
I )>Q
, -<8
SITE PLAN
S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD
No,
REVISION
BY
DOLLINGER HOMES
, KIER & WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS. INC.
l3S0ScllllIo1l1e'<'llrV, lIulldlnQ 22 (<10117216665
wnl&CI&rl,c..UforniI9S0S4 fu(401) 72756<11
CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA
1601 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
FOR: DOLLINGER PROPERTIES
en
m
()
o
z
c
"
r
o
o
JJ
ii-----~ r
I __jn_..., -- n _n ----
~ I
o I
l
f~ I
i
~CD
J:d!j
c; ~ e5
"l0
~;:::
2:2'-6"
f
~
~CD
'm
'ilo
x;o
~o
~o
~;:::
I
I
I
I
L____
I
I
I
I
I
--1
I
Ui I
0: :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
r
r
m
>
-i
I
~
o
CD "0
mm
rz
O-i
:::Eo
~
~CD
'm
'ilo
x;o
~O
~O
c;S:
~
~
I
'"
q
;:
CD
>
-i
I
~~;:::
'ilO>
X;oUl
~O-i
....Om
Ci;:::;o
'"
6 I
-'--~
I
~ I
~ I I
I '
L___J_________
I i I
L~-,r
o
r
o
Ul
m
-i
I
I
I
WI-ni---
--~~----~~~~-j
'"
~
I
36'-0"
,
1
I
I
"
-
JJ
en
-i
"
r
o
o
JJ
,i
,"
"
i
~
'"
&;r
'<
x_
~z
"lG)
~
~
o
0;0
Xl; !;
~z
~G)
0;
------l
"
o
:lJ
(")
J:
Cl"
J,.-
,-I
xO
~I
""m
,-z
"l
-F
I I
'I,! I"cl
~ 17}\1
! I
t-ll----
., --n-~--n-
! CD"
I J:
I
,
I
I
-=]~:r-
l~----
m
z
-i
;0
-<
"0,
o
;c_~
/-i
\c-,
Ii
1_____"
o
cSz
'0
:0
~"
Ci
~
'"
q
:1
'"
0 Gl ~ en " ." ~S; ~~
~ Pl ~
~ 0 r- 9" ~~
r- Z 0 xG) ,r
" ro !ii c " x-<
r- 0 ",>
(; " 8 7l~ ~;o
~ z 8 :0 --JO
CO) ::c 0lG) ",0 I
> > ::c r- )> m ';:::
::c ::c <:
~ ~ !ii z :0 I
Gl
Z > m
Gl ::c ~
> m
::c >.- J
~
i ---...-.----"-.--
'" ~ ii -!--2::~-.J.-
~
'" '" C/) C/) C/)
" " " " "
)>~ g ~' b? D
~ .- .; THE DOLLINGER HOMES ~
-, '"~ ~,
; 0 .
Ij I\) '1; " i'
') " 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD
:.... -,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ~
(
JJ
G5
:I:
-l
( '\..
.' -=;.:=ur \
(-, , ~
',' I
r-..--...-......-....-...._........I..................
iml--"--';'"
t . '.'_.,;,"'-:',--:._""",;!
! ~ ',,;.., ;".'.-"," '-' _.'--.-.- :
,l
C__--"
m
x
-I
m
:c
-
o
:c
m
r
m
<
)>
-I
-
o
z
en
JJ
m
>
JJ
~-..'-......-.'.".-..'.._--
Ii",
..>,..,""...,-,-..
--.:.;~,-'
iU
.f._V
""C
:c
)>
-
:c
-
m
---1
r
m
:!1
8'" "':r (\'1l ~ "'(\'1l I'1l & >> ~
~6 S>> ()>> tiP: ->> '"
~~ g~ '1l
~ffi ffi~ ~~@ ~ ."
r_~ ~~ ",0 ~ 1>>('; ~8 0
< z2 ~ ~ ~ >
m 11l~ ~'"
~ () () r
"'0 0 8 _ _,,, 0 \
I m
~ \./ "// /oJ' ~
r _-.;:
~) ~:~, m
JJ
"'Tl 0
JJ ,-;, JJ
0 i'
Z ,- 3:
-l ~
m
JJ
);
r
~
I~
24'-0" MAX. HEIGHT
i
I
--+
i 4 :i (f %
" THE DOLLINGER HOMES
)>... ;; . i
" en ~
,- ~ " u "
:..... q 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ~
:c
C5
:r
-I
----- ------..--..-rr
I)
I;
ir
it
I,
!~
i(
m
X
-t
m
JJ
-
o
JJ
m
r
m
<
)>
-t
-
o
z
en
()
o
-t
-t
)>
(i)
m
r
m
:!l
0'"
110
(lz
~m
rll
~
!,i
'"
'"
~
."
C;
>
r
m
~
m
:c
o
:c
~
i>
--I
m
:c
:;
r
W
"':I
~ >>
~~
!,i~
rHS
"'a
8~
U
6
(l
a
CJ'I('\"lJ ~ 1]
6,>~ ~ ~
~U ~~
~~ g
~
~
~
\
)
(-~
t
i
r-
~~
:j'=;
~,
n
~g
~Q
(j\
m
Q
(l
(l
iJi
,7 i
",\
)
'-os;: -
I,
I
i
i
...-'1
+---
.21'-0' MAx. HEI6HT
--t-
)>~ ~ ~) If Ii' HOMES
~ .- ;; THE DOLLINGER ~
f;', '0 m "
1; ~ ~ " ~
'" Ii
I\) q 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA III
JJ
i5
:r:
-f
\".~
... --""'-'1"'"
i~
:k
...--t
j
m
><
~
m
JJ
-
0
:D
m
r
m
<
)>
-i
-
0
z
en
() I'
:D 8 ",
)> IJ ::!--i
~ ~ ~
" (' E ~ 5
~ g: '" ~ 0
> r
en ~
s: 8
~
)> "
z
r-
m
:!1
0'" "'I 8~ g ... X" "'C'.. ~H :<!
..(j (j' ,,:.> ~~ 5~~
Clffi zl' ~~ ~~ ~~~ "tI
m" () On!
~.. ril~ ~() >I ~\J (J,\J I ~~ (5
.. ~~ ~~
ril rn~ ~ '< 6 >
" Cl ~~ Cl z r-
" "<J \J \J N
Cl m
Gl z
~ ~
.
r '-~
m
JJ
",' 5
....._) JJ
...,,:..,\\ 3:
~
m
JJ
;;
~
<I'
r:>
Tw' )~;
-.-=:.' '.t;- =--,'::".:-~::: -=--:::..::-;-;:'==-==-"" --~;-=~~=-=u-J /
_.._:5=.... '"
+----.
21'-0" MAX_ HEI5HT
--,r..
)>~ 0' '" g OJ
" ~ ,. " THE DOLLINGER HOMES i
I 0 ,~ ~
~ ,f:l. Q\ .
" &;
W Q 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ~