12. Rezoning Cleo Ave~,~
CUPERTINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
Summary
Agenda Item No.
Application: Z-2008-01
Agenda Date: March 4, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Owner: City of Cupertino
Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85
Application Summary:
City initiated rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-Family Residential
(P(R3)) to Planned Residential (P(Res)) to accommodate four single-family homes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends on a 3-0 vote (Commissioner Giefer abstained)
approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2008-01;
2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2008-01, in accordance with Planning
Commission Resolution 6510.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Residential, Medium/High Density
Zoning Designation: P (R3)
Acreage (Gross): .27 acres
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
In March 2000, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) notified the City
of Cupertino of excess property located on Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85.
Under California State law {Government Code X54220), Caltrans was required to first
offer the subject property to the City for an affordable housing or park use. Cupertino
completed the sale in August 2005 when the property title was transferred to the City
for the purchase price of $615,000.
12-~
Application: Z-2008-O1, EA-2008-01 Cleo Rezoning March 4, 2008
Page 2
DISSCUSSION:
On August 20, 2007, the City released a Request for Proposals for the Cleo Avenue
Affordable Housing Development. Of the thirty-eight agencies on the mailing list, only
one response was received. Habitat for Humanity presented the City with a proposal
on October 17, 2007 and was selected by the City Council to develop the property on
December 18, 2007. The City Council directed staff to initiate the rezoning of the
property.
The 11,938 sq. ft. parcel is currently zoned P(R-3), Planned Development, multi-family,
with a land use designation of "medium to high density 10-20 d.u./acre." The current
zoning district allows a maximum of four rental units. With the rezoning of the parcel
from P(R-3) to P(Res), Habitat for Humanity could build a maximum of four ownership
units. The proposed units range in size from 820-950 square feet. The rezoning would
allow this project to take place in the future and is not a final approval. Approval will
result from future use permit and tentative map public hearings.
Surrounding Uses/Compatibility
The subject property is adjacent to townhomes to the south, and existing single family
parcels to the west and north. The parcels to the west and north are zoned P(R-3), while
the townhomes parcels are zoned P(Res). The rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding single family homes along Cleo Avenue and the townhomes to the south
which are also zoned P(Res).
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Comments .
The Planning Commission heard this application on February 12, 2008. Commissioner
Giefer abstained from the vote, but the three remaining commissioners supported the
rezoning.
Public Comments
Two residents spoke on the application. One resident expressed concern that current
residents and Cupertino employees be given priority in the application process for the
units, while the second speaker expressed concern about access to the site.
Staff Comments
Staff explained that access to the site would not be through adjacent parcels, but
contained on subject parcel. Also, Habitat for Humanity would target Cupertino
residents in the application process.
ENCLOSURES
Draft Zoning Ordinance 08-
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6510
Negative Declaration
12-2
Application: Z-2008-01, EA-2008-O1 Cleo Rezoning March 4, 2008
Page 3
Exhibit A: Zoning Plat Map .
Exhibit B: Aerial Image
Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2008
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated February 12, 2008
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Director, Community Development
G:\PIanning\PDREPORT\CC\2008\Z-2008-01 CC.doc
Approved by:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
12-3
DRgFi
ORDINANCE NO. 08-2024
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
REZONING OF A .27 GROSS ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST END OF
OLEO AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 85 FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY
. (PR3) TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, P(RES)
WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2008-01) for the rezoning
of a property to Planned Residential, P(RES); and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed
uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned Planned Development Multi-Family to P(R3); and
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed
amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to
Planned Residential, P(RES); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map
of the City of Cupertino; and
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
4th day of March, 2008 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
the day of , 2008, by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
G:~Planning~PDREPORT~ORD~Z-2008-01 ord.doc 12 - 4
Z-2008-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION N0.6510
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A .27 ACRE SITE FROM P(R3), PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT 1VIULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO P(RES), PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: Z-2008-O1
Applicant: ~ City of Cupertino
Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have' been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Plannilg Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
12-5
Resolution No. 6510 Z-2008-01 February 12, 2008
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of snaps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2008-O1 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z-2008-O1, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of February 12, 2008 and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, except
as may be amended by tlne Conditions contained in this Resolution. The revised
legal description shall be submitted to the City prior to final map approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Rose, Kaneda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
/s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2008\Z-2008-O1 res.doc
APPROVED:
/ s / Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
12-6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17
1977, May 1,1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a
Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 4, 2008
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: Z-2008-01 (EA-2008-01)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Southeast End of Cleo Ave. Adjacent to Highway 85.
DISCRETIONARY ACTION RE UEST
Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-Family Residential (P/R3) to Planned
Residential (P/Res) to accommodate four single-family homes
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent
with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City
Clerk of the City of Cupertino on
City Clerk
g/erc/negEA200801
12-7
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
'-~-~ Cupertino, CA 95014
Ciro of (408) 777-3251
CUPERTINO FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
. ~~ ~ -
LNITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALliAT10N CHECKtiIST-
.. _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
tall. Use Only
EA File No.EA-2008-01
Gase File No.Z-2008-01
Project Title: Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-Family Residential
(P(R31 to Planned Residential (P(Res) to accommodate four single family homes.
Project Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue, adjacent to Highway 85
Project Description: Cleo Avenue CalTrans Excess Property
Environmental Setting:
Existing single family properties to the west, planned development townhomes to the
south.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - _N/A Building Coverage - N/A F~cist. Building - N)A s.f. Proposed
Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone -R1 G.P. Designation -Residential Med/High 10-20 DU/Gr. Ac.
Assessor's Parcel No. - 362-31-004
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
^ Monta Vista Design Guidelines
^ N. De Anza Conceptual
^ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max.
Employees/Shift - Parking Required Parking Provided
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ~ NO
^ S. De Anza Conceptual
^ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
12-8
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 27. County Parks and Recreation Department
28. Cupertino Sanitary District
1. Land Use Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
2. Public Safe Element
~' 30. Cupertino Union School District
3. Housing Element 31. Pacific Gas and Electric
4. Transportation Element 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
5. Environmental Resources 33. County Sheriff
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 34. CALTRANS
7. Land Use Map 35. County Transportation Agency
8. Noise Element Amendment 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
9. City Ridgeline Policy 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
10. Constraint Maps Prevention Program
36c San Jose Water Company
B. CUPERT(NO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
Center, 1976) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
14.. Geological Report (site specific) 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
15. Parking Ordinance 1277 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
16. Zoning Map 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents Site
18. City Noise Ordinance 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances
18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution Site
Prevention Plan 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater
C. CITY AGENCIES Site Discharge Permit Issued to the City of
19. Community Development Dept. List Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay
20. Public Works Dept. Regional Water Quality Control Board
21. Parks & Recreation Department 43c Hydromodification Plan
22. Cupertino Water Utility
F. OTHER SOURCES
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
23. County Planning Department 45. Field Reconnaissance
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 46. Experience w/project of similar
25. County Departmental of Environmental scope/characteristics
Health 47. ABAG Projection Series
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3 - ~ -
~" g' INSTRUCTIONS } `- - ,
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit..
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
/Project Plan Set of Legislative Document
/Location map with site clearly marked • ~ ~
(when applicable) • •
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
t3 ~ ~ ~ o
ea
L c0 ~ ~~.,
~
L R v
V
ISSUES: ~~~
~ N=3a~? NcQ
~ z~
~
[and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ ~ a~ = ~
~
~ ~ as
a ~n cn
c -~ i~
I. AESTHETICS --Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ ~
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ^ ~
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ^ ^ ^ 0
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1,17,19,44]
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ^ ~
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
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
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
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ^ ^ ~
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
~ 0
r
ISSUES: ~ ~
c ~-= ca
d o ~~~ ~
F- y-- = ~ Q.
~' 'c 3 a' ~ ~ ~ ~
F- 4- a
y 'c ~
° Q.
Z
[and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ E -
~ a~ o N ~ E
~' ~
a cn ~ cn ~ c -
~
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 ^ ^ ^ D
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44
b) Violate any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ O
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ O
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 ^ ^ ^ O
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ^ ~
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]
iV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ~ ^ ^ O
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 ^ ^ ^ O
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 ^ ^ ^ O
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
includin ,but not limited to, marsh, vernal 12 _ >>
~ +~
~
° 0
~ O ca
~
ISSUES:
S
I
f
ti
i
d -_- `
c ,c
°
C1 C
~ ~ `~ r ~ a
N ~C ~~ L
~
= ~ '~- a
N ~=
~ ° c.
Z
~
orma
on
ources]
n
Support
ng
[an c ~ a~
~
u
~ ~ a~
'
a v~ t/~
-
c cn
-~
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ^ ^ ~
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors., or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? [5,10,12,21,26]
e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ^ ^ ~
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11,12,41]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ^ ^ ^ p
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 ^ ^ ^ ~
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,4.1]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ^ ~
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41 ]
d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ^ ^ ~
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ D ^
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zonin Map issued b the
~ ~
V C O
ca
~~ O c'"L4
V
_ '++
t~ v
V
~
ISSUES:
ti
S
I
f c 4- `°
c
~ .
N `.= = ~ a
a
~ = N = a
~ z ~.
~
orma
on
ources]
n
[and Supporting ,
c ,
~
~
~
~ ~ a~
a cn cn
-
c -~ ~n
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ~
[2, 5,10,44]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ D
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ^ ^ ^ ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ C7
foss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ^ D
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 ^ ^ ^ ~
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 ^ ^ ^ D
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
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 ^ ^ ^ D
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
r v~ c c
H `
'
~ .~
H"~ .
~
ISSUES: ~ ~=
~ -
~ ~
v,~•3a~?
=
~ yea
~ C
zQ
E
[and Supporting information Sources] c ~ ~
a~
~ ~ a~
aN JN
c -~t~
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ^ ^ ^ ~
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a ^ . ^ ^ ~
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant~to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
e) For a project located within an airport land . ^ ^ ^ ~
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ ~
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically ^ ^ ^ ~
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to a ^ ^ ^ ~
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?[1,2,44]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
--Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ ^ ~
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
12-14
° 0
°
~
ISSUES:
formatio
d S
Ei
I
S '_- `°
c .4
.~' c E E- ~
-,, ~ ~ Q.
N 'c 3~ o E- ~
- Q
N 'c E ° a
z E
an
u or
n
n
n
ources
[ pp 9 ] °~- m~ °
~
~ ash- -
a tq cn
-
c -~ v~
b) Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ^ ^D
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]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ ^ ~
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 ^ ^ ^ ~
quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ ^ ~ ^
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38]
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ^ ^ ~
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant ^ ^ ^ p
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 ^ ^ ^ x^
mudflow? [2,36,38]
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^ ~
community? [7,12,22,41]
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ ^ O ~
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
ado ted for the purpose of avoidin or
~~~ c c
~
t~ °~
c~
.c~~
~
ISSUES:
ti
S
i
I
f dc~
~ ~'c~~°'
=
d ycc'
E Z~
~
orma
on
ources)
ng
n
[and Support c a~ a,
~
i
~
' ~ a~
n. vi v~
-
c ~ v~
mitigating an environmental effect?
[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ^ ^ ^ ~
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 ^ ^ ^ ~ ~
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 .^ ^ ^ ~
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, ^ ~ ^ ^
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,4.4]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ~ ^ ^
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ ^ ^ 0
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ ^ ^ D
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44]
e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ ~
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
[8,18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ X
~ V V O_
'~ V
c 'ip-+ ~
~ V V
V
ISSUES: a=i c .
N c 3 ~°' y c~ Z °'
[and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~
~
~ ~ c~ ~ ~
a ~ to
-
c -~ N
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XIl. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would
the .project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an ^ ^ ^ ~
area, either directly (for example, by .
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ^ ^ . ^ ~
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] •
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ D
necessitating the construction of
• •
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
Xlll. 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
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ^ ^ ~
Police protection? [33,44] ^ ^ ^ ~
Schools? [29,30,44] ^ ^ ^ ~
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ ~
Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ^ ^ ^ 0
XiV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ ~
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facili would occur or be accelerated?
12 -17
S V
O
~ C
R
~~ C~
~ V
V
ISSUES:
ti
S
i
I
f ~~`~
~ H=3~c. N~a
~ zQ
~
orma
on
ources]
ng
n
[and Support c ~ ~ c, ~
J
~ ~ ~
O..t/~ N
C JV)
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ O
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ^ ^ ~ ^
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ ^ ^ O
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, ^ ^ ~O ~
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?]
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ^ ^ ^ ~
design feature. (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ O
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ O
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ^ ^ [~
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ O
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
eccv
am
0
c c
c~
mecca °~
~
~
`°~
~
ISSUES: ~ y
-. ca
arc F- ~
-. ~
a Q.
yc~~L F- ;~ Q
Nc o a.
Z
[and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ ~ ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~
acn ern ~ c ern
b) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ ~
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ D
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
e) Result in a determination by the ^ ^ ^ ~
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate.
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand ire addition to the provider's existing
commitments? [5,22,28,36,44]
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ ~
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ " ^ ^ 0
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
- XVIL. MANDATORY FINDINGS"OFSIGNIFICANCE -
- _ (To be completed by City Staff
a) Does the project have the potential to ^ ^ ^ ~
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining' levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ^ D
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 ast rojects, the effects of
72-19
C
t4 ~
=
ISSUES: ~ tC ~
:F+ .~ tSS
c := ~ t0
H
~`= =' ~
a `
? L ~ V
Q
N V
Z Q
[and Supporting Information Sources]
c ~ E H
~ ~ 3 ~
:=
~ .
~
~ ~ E .
E
a to ~ cn ~ c -~ c~
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects ?
c) Does the project have environmental effects ^ ^ ^ D
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted. appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study_ may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance.
Preparer's Signature
Print Preparer's Name
12-20
ENVIRONMENTAL~EVALUATiON (To be Completed by City Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as -indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality
^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils
^ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials ^ Hydrology /Water
Quality ^ Land Use /Planning
^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population /Housing
^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic
^ Utilities /Service
Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have 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.
Staff Evaluator
ERC Chairperson
Date
Date 12 - 21
ZONING EXHIBIT A
i
I
~,y I San Jose
~~
~s
o~
~Ay
•o
..
-~~~~.
~~.
N
A
Rezone: 0.27 Ac
From: P(R-3)
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Z-2008-O1 Agenda Date: February 12, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Owner: City of Cupertino
Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85
Application Summary:
Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-Family Residential (P(R3)) to Planned
Residential (P(Res)) to accommodate four single-family homes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Plaruling Commission recommend approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2008-01;
2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2008-01, in accordance with the model
resolution.
Project Data:
General"Plan Designation: Residential, Medium/High Density
Zoning Designation: P (R3)
Acreage (Gross): .27 acres
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
In March 2000, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) notified the City
of Cupertino of excess property located on Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85.
Under California State law (Government Code X54220), Caltrans was required to first
offer the subject property to the City for an affordable housing or park use. Cupertino
completed the sale in August 2005 when the property title was transferred to the City
for the purchase price of $615,000.
DISSCUSSION:
On August 20, 2007, the City released a Request for Proposals for the Cleo Avenue
Affordable Housing Development. Of the thirty-eight agencies on the mailing list, only
one response was received. Habitat for Humanity presented the City with a proposal
on October 17, 2007 and was selected by the City Council to develop the property on
December 18, 2007. The City Council directed staff to initiate the rezoning of the
property.
12-24
Applications: Z-2008-01 Cleo Rezoning February 12, 2008
The 11,938 sq. ft. parcel is currently zoned P(R-3), Planned Development; multi-family,
with a land use designation of "medium to high density 10-20 d.u./acre." The current
zoning district allows a maximum of four rental units. With the rezoning of the parcel
from P(R-3) to P(Res), Habitat for Humanity could build a maximum of four ownership
units. The proposed units range in size from 820-950 square feet. The rezoning ~vould
allow this project to take place in the future and is not a final approval. Approval will
result from future use permit and tentative map public hearings.
Surrounding Uses/Compatibility .
The subject property is adjacent to townhomes to the south, and existing single family .
parcels to the west and north. The parcels to the west and north are zoned P(R-3), while
the tov~mhomes parcels are zoned P(Res). The rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding single family homes along Cleo Avenue and the townhomes to the south ,
wluch are also zoned P(Res).
Enclosures•
Model Resolution for Z-2008-O1
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Exhibit A, Zoning Plat Map
Aerial Image
Submitted by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm
12-25
2
Z-2008-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A .27 ACRE SITE FROM P(R3), PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO P(RES), PLANNED
' DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: Z-2008-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Southeast end of Cleo Avenue adjacent to Highway 85
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Cite of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been .given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning i.s in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoniig designation.
3) That the new zoiung encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
~z-is
Model Resolution Z-2008-O1 February 12, 2008
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2008-O1 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the .Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z-2008-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of February 12, 2008 and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CO1~~IMUMTY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, except
as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. The revised
legal description shall be submitted to the City prior to final map approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
APPROVED:
Marty Miller, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2008\Z-2008-01 res.doc
12-27
Cupertino Planning Commission
February 12, 2008
2. X2008-01 (EA-2008-01) Rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-
City of Cupertino Family Residential (P/R3) to Planned Residential .
Southeast End of Cleo Ave. (P/Residential) to accommodate 4single-family
Adjacent to Highway 85 homes. Tentative City Council date: March 4, 2008
Vera Gil, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for rezoning of a .27 acre parcel from Planned Multi-Family
Residential (P(R3) to Planned Residential P(Residential) to accommodate 4single-family
homes, as outlined in the staff report. The City of Cupertino purchased the parcel from
Caltrans in 2005 and Habitat for Humanity submitted the sole proposal to develop the
property in 2007.
• Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and rezoning application.
• Staff noted that notification of the project was sent out to neighboring residents; the site is
an awkward site, but any access to the units will be from the city-owned property, not from
any adjacent properties.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Discussed the importance of current residents of Cupertino and people who work in the city,
as well as those on the waiting list for affordable housing, having the opportunity to apply for
the Habitat for Humanity housing.
Cecelia Atea, owner of property neat to proposed project:
• Said she was not opposed to the rezoning of the parcel for the project; but wanted assurance
that the access to the units would be as stated, and that adjacent properties would not be
affected.
• She applauded the effort to build the affordable housing.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Vera Gil:
• Explained that Habitat for Humanity would do outreach to the people on the waiting list for
housing through West Valley Community Services. They have an outreach program and
target the very low income families; the program is a `sweat equity' program and they have a
list of requirements they follow. She said that they usually target the community that they are
building in for applicants.
• She noted that Habitat for Humanity builds ownership homes, not rental units. She said that
the RFP was for rental or ownership homes and Habitat for Humanity was the only proposal
received for the project.
Com. Rose:
• Said it was a good project and she was pleased that the neighborhood was supportive.
• Said she supports the project.
Com. Kaneda:
• The city needs more affordable housing; pleased that the community supported the project.
• Supports the project.
'12 - 2s
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 12, 2008
Chair A'Iiller:
• Supports the project.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose,. second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
X2008-05. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Giefer absent)
OLD BUSINESS• None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
• Com. Giefer~reported that they discussed the Cupertino Village project; they are working on
several outstanding issues which will come back to the ERC at a later date.
No Meeting. .
No Meeting.
• Steve Piasecki reported he committee. met last week at the Hewlett Packard facility and
toured the Smart Home. ritten report under Misc Item 2) HP demonstrated their home
electronics, including big screen TVs interconnected with computer systems, for
programming lights, heaters, usic, etc., selected for the comfort of the home owner. A tour
of the Smart Home will be sche uled for the Commissioners.
• Reported on the Economic Develop ent Committee meeting (noted above).
• Noted articles on Cupertino Square in ercury News and editorial regarding BART.
• Reported that the Planning Commissi appointment hasn't occurred yet; Council has not
reached agreement yet, and next round f interviews including the new Councilmember is
scheduled for March 18.
• New Commissioner will be signed up for Pl
• City Council agreed with Planning Comnu
DeAnza Boulevard and denied the application:
• Announced that City Planner, Ciddy Wordell is
the Gity of Cupertino.
ADJOURNMENT:
Respectfully Submitted:
s Institute.
n regarding the 6 home development off
firing effective April 1 S`, after 18 years with
The meeting was adjourned to a next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for February 26, 008 at 6:45 p.m.
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
12-2s