The URL can be used to link to this page

06-04-12 Searchable packet Table of Contents Agenda3 Proclamations welcoming the PlaneTree Health Information Center to the Cupertino Library No written materials9 Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee No written materials10 May 8 City Council minutes Draft minutes11 May 15 City Council minutes Draft minutes13 Accounts Payable for period ending May 11, 2012 Draft Resolution26 Accounts Payable for period ending May 18, 2012 Draft Resolution34 Improvement Agreement, Sreenivasa Viswanadha and Alivelu Viswanadha, 22017 San Fernando Court, APN: 357-12-005 Staff Report45 A. Draft Resolution46 B. Improvement Agreement48 C. Map59 Improvement Agreement, Chakravarthy Parvathaneni and Rajitha Lanka, 10148 Prado Vista Ave, APN: 342-14-093 Staff Report60 A. Draft Resolution61 B. Improvement Agreement63 C. Map74 Alcoholic Beverage License, Islands Fine Burgers & Drinks, 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff Report75 Application for Alcoholic Beverage License76 Collection of the AB 939 Implementation and Household Hazardous Waste Fee Staff Report80 A. Draft resolution authoring agreement for AB 93983 B. Draft resolution authoring agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection84 C. Agreement for AB 93985 D. Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection98 Second reading amending Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.18.110 deleting the resolution of intent and removal provision regarding the City Attorney position Draft ordinance126 1 Consider a Development Permit, Architectural Site Approval permit and implementing environmental documents for a new development project generally at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue and an expansion at the Lake Biltmore Apartments at 10159 S. Blaney Avenue City Council Staff Report (Revised2)128 A. Resos 6694, 6695, 6696135 B. Resos 6697, 6698, 6699154 C. PC Staff Report172 D. Arch Recommendations184 E. Arborist Report193 F. Transportation242 G. School Impact301 H. Initial Study324 I. Real Estate Recommendations448 J. Neighborhood Meeting451 K. Public Comments Prior to PC452 L. Additional Public Comments & Desk Items from 5/8/12 PC Meeting464 M. Supplemental Drawings472 N. Plan Set478 Conduct public hearing and adopt Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Staff Report507 Annual approval and renewal of the collection of existing storm drain fees at no increase in rates for fiscal year 2012-2013 Staff Report508 A. Draft Resolution, Approving the Renewal and Collection of the Existing Storm Drain Fees510 Objections to proposed removal of brush and order abatement of potential fire hazard. NOTE: County Fire inspected all properties again and they are all in compliance so there is no need for a hearing No written materials516 Alternative Retirement System for Temporary and Part-Time Employees Staff Report517 Draft Resolution519 Agreement for Administrative Services521 League of California Cities Annual Conference September 5-7 in San Diego Staff report530 Conference Information531 Clarify when the use of teleconferencing in connection with its City Council meetings is permitted Staff report534 Draft resolution defining strongly discouraged535 Draft resolution deleting the teleconferencing option536 Resolution 11-074538 2 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING SUCCESSOR TO THEREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Monday, June 4, 2012 6:45 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS ANDPRESENTATIONS 1.Subject:Proclamations welcoming the PlaneTree Health Information Center to the Cupertino Library Recommended Action:Present proclamations Description:Proclamations will be presented to representatives of the PlaneTree Health Information Center, and also to the representatives of organizations that made the collaboration possible, including the Cupertino Library Foundation and the Santa Clara County Library District No written materials Page:No written materials in packet 2.Subject:Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee Recommended Action:Accept presentation No written materials Page:No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. 3 Monday, June 4, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 3.Subject:May 8 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft minutes Page:11 4.Subject:May 15 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft minutes Page:13 5.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending May 11, 2012 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-057 Draft Resolution Page:26 6.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending May 18, 2012 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-058 Draft Resolution Page:34 7.Subject:Improvement Agreement, Sreenivasa Viswanadha and Alivelu Viswanadha, 22017 San Fernando Court, APN: 357-12-005 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-059 Description:Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building permit for a single-family residential development will be obligated to bond and construct city-specified roadside improvements along the street frontage of their building site Staff Report A. Draft Resolution B. Improvement Agreement C. Map Page:45 4 Monday, June 4, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency 8.Subject:Improvement Agreement, Chakravarthy Parvathaneni and Rajitha Lanka, 10148 Prado Vista Ave, APN: 342-14-093 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-060 Description:Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building permit for a single-family residential development will be obligated to bond and construct city-specified roadside improvements along the street frontage of their building site Staff Report A. Draft Resolution B. Improvement Agreement C. Map Page:60 9.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Islands Fine Burgers & Drinks, 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale General (47) Staff Report Application for Alcoholic Beverage License Page:75 10.Subject:Collection of the AB 939 Implementation and Household Hazardous Waste Fee Recommended Action:a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-061, authorizing execution of the Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee for FY 2012-2015; b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-062, authorizing execution of the Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program for FY 2012-2015 Staff Report A. Draft resolution authoring agreement for AB 939 B. Draft resolution authoring agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection C.Agreement for AB 939 D. Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection Page:80 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 11.Subject:Second reading amending Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.18.110 deleting the resolution of intent and removal provisions regarding the City Attorney position Recommended Action:Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 12-2096: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 2.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the City Attorney position" Draft ordinance Page:126 5 Monday, June 4, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency PUBLIC HEARINGS 12.Subject:Consider a Development Permit, Architectural Site Approval permit and implementing environmental documents for a new development project generally at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue and an expansion at the Lake Biltmore Apartments at 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Recommended Action:a.) Approve a Development Permit to allow the demolition of an approximately 21,000 square foot existing commercial building and the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 87 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building; Architectural and Site approval for a new mixed use development consisting of 87 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 57 trees to facilitate the construction of a new apartment complex; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; b.) Approve Development Permit to allow the construction of 12 new residential units at an existing apartment complex; Architectural and Site approval for 12 new residential units within an existing apartment complex; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 5 trees to facilitate the construction of two new apartment buildings; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Description:a.) Application No(s): DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20 (EA-2011-16), TR-2012-18; Applicant: Mike Ducote (Prometheus Real Estate); Location: 20030, 20060 Stevens Creek Blvd, 10041 Blaney Ave (including the vacant lot to the rear); APN: 369-03-003; 004; 006; 007; b.) Application No(s): DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19 (EA-2011-15), TR-2012-13; Applicant: Mike Ducote (Prometheus Real Estate); Location: 10159 S Blaney Ave (Lake Biltmore); APN 369-03-008 City Council Staff Report (Revised2) A. Resos 6694, 6695, 6696 B. Resos 6697, 6698, 6699 C. PC Staff Report D. Arch Recommendations E. Arborist Report F. Transportation G. School Impact H. Initial Study I. Real Estate Recommendations J. Neighborhood Meeting K. Public Comments Prior to PC L. Additional Public Comments & Desk Items from 5/8/12 PC Meeting M. Supplemental Drawings N. Plan Set Page:128 6 Monday, June 4, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency 13.Subject:Conduct public hearing and adopt Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget Recommended Action:Review annual budget and receive public comments before adoption on June19, 2012 Staff Report Page:507 ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS 14.Subject:Annual approval and renewal of the collection of existing storm drain fees at no increase in rates for fiscal year 2012-2013 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-063 Staff Report A. Draft Resolution, Approving the Renewal and Collection of the Existing Storm Drain Fees Page:508 15.Subject:Objections to proposed removal of brush and order abatement of potential fire hazard. NOTE: County Fire inspected all properties again and they are all in compliance so there is no need for a hearing Recommended Action:Table item No written materials Page:516 16.Subject:Alternative Retirement System for Temporary and Part-Time Employees Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-064 Description:Approve an Alternative Retirement System provided by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) in lieu of Social Security for employees not eligible for enrollment in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS) and direct the City Manager to execute the trust agreement and all necessary documents Staff Report Draft Resolution Agreement for Administrative Services Page:517 17.Subject:League of California Cities Annual Conference September 5-7 in San Diego Recommended Action:Designate voting delegate and up to two alternates Staff report Conference Information Page:530 7 Monday, June 4, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to the Redevelopment Agency 18.Subject:Clarify when the use of teleconferencing in connection with its City Council meetings is permitted Recommended Action:Consider adopting one of the attached resolutions; either clarifying the conditions under which teleconferencing may be used; or deleting the teleconferencing option, Resolution 12-065 Staff report Draft resolution defining strongly discouraged Draft resolution deleting the teleconferencing option Resolution 11-074 Page:534 REPORTSBY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT SUCCESSOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours andin Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject:Presentation by the Library Commission NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject:Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 10 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL SpecialMeeting Tuesday, May 8, 2012 ROLL CALL At 3:36p.m. Mayor Mark Santorocalled the meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: MayorMark Santoro,Vice-MayorOrrin Mahoney,and Council membersBarry Chang, andRod Sinks.Absent: Council member Gilbert Wong. COMMISSION INTERVIEWS 1.Interview applicants for vacancies on the Teen Commission. Written Communications for this meeting included a letter to Council from the Teen Commission with a recommended list of characteristics for the upcoming Teen Commission members. The City Council interviewed57applicants from grades eight through twelve. The following 4individuals were appointed to 2-year terms: Meyhaa Buvanesh Chris Doyle Celine Mol Carissa Chan (1 year term) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None ADJOURNMENT At 10:30p.m. the meeting was adjourned. ____________________________ Kirsten Squarcia,Recording Secretary For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. 11 May 25, 2011Cupertino City CouncilPage 2 Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience from our web site. Visit www.cupertino.organd click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 12 DRAFT MINUTES Special Meeting May15, 2012 ROLL CALL At 6:00 p.m. Mayor Santoro called the meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room A. Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney, and Council members Barry Chang (6:03), Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS 1.Subject: Audit Committee interviews Recommended Action: Interview applicants for vacancies on the Audit Committee The City Council interviewed Eno Schmidt for a vacancy on the Audit Committee. Council appointed Eno Schmidt to fill a partial term ending January, 2013. At 6:12 p.m. City Council recessed. ROLL CALL At 6:16 p.m. President Santoro called the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency to order and went into closed session.Present: President Mark Santoro, Vice-President Orrin Mahoney, and Directors Barry Chang, Rod, Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None. 2.Subject: Successor to the Redevelopment Agency; Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: (one case) At 6:45 p.m. the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency reconvened in open session. President Santoro announced that the Agency discussed the issue and took no action. ADJOURNMENT At 6:46 p.m. President Santoro adjourned the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:47p.m. Mayor Mark Santororeconvened the City Council meeting and called the meeting to orderin the Council Chamber, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 13 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 2 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney, and Council members Barry Chang, Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 3.Subject: Proclamation to recognize and acknowledge Public Works Week in Cupertino Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Santoro presented the proclamation to Director of Public Works Timm Borden. Director Bordensaidthat Public Works Week has been celebrated for60 yearsand that there th is a poster each year with this year’s poster celebrating the 75anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge. He noted that about one-third of the City staff are maintenance workers who are out every day taking care of the streets,parks, and facilities for the community.This year, Service Center employees were asked which employeeshould receivetheproclamationand employees voted unanimously for Chylene Osborne. Timm explainedthat Chylene has been the Administrative Clerk for the Service Center for about 10 years, and that she oversees the office operations with exceptional customer service, always has a smile, and puts her heart and soul into her work. Director Bordenpresented the proclamation to Administrative Clerk Chylene Osborne. POSTPONEMENTS -None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jacqueline Changdescribedher experience with almost being hit by a car while walking to school. She requested that Council address the safety of crosswalks. Adrian Kolb, speaking on behalf of the Library Commission,provided an update.She saidthat circulation remains highandover 4,000 library cards have been sold tonon-residents with80% ofresidentshavinglibrary cards.She noted that green at home kits with a tool box of various items to help people improve green projects at home are available,the eco zone in the libraryhas easy access to resources, and library ecotabs provide details and tips about sustainability, like how to use less water. She also saidthat the Library Commission is working in collaboration with the Technology Information Communications Commission,City staff,and De Anza College to hold aneducational speaker series on environmental topics.She announced that thePlain Tree Help Center is up and runningand is holding a grand opening onFriday, June 8 at 7:00 p.m. at the library.She also notedthat the Poet Laureate program had standing room onlyduring one of itsevents and invited the Council to visit the redesigned reading room inthelibraryas well as the grand opening of the Plain Tree Help Center.She thanked Council, theFriends of Library, the Library Foundation, and the City of Cupertinofor their support. 14 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the changes as discussed to item numbers5 and 11. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 4.Subject: April 17 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes 5.Subject: May 1 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes 6.Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending April 27, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-048 7.Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending May 4, 2012 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-049 8.Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Yang BBQ, Inc, 10831 N Wolfe Road Recommended Action: Accept application 9.Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License, Mama Chen's Kitchen, 19052 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Accept application 10.Subject: Authorize the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) enabling the City to receive funds from the 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-050 11.Subject: City of Cupertino Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-051 12.Subject: Cancel the July 17 City Council meeting Recommended Action: Cancel meeting SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 13.Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 6.24 (Garbage and Recycling Collection and Disposal) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to address “Mandatory Recycling” requirements (AB 341) for multi-family and commercial business recycling Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 12-2094: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 6.24 (Garbage and Recycling Collection and Disposal) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to address “Mandatory Recycling” requirements (AB 341) for multi-family and commercial business recycling adding Section 6.24.035 (Mandatory Recycling) and amending Section 6.24.020 (Definitions) and 6.24.300 (Unauthorized Garbage Collection) 15 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 4 City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to enact Ordinance No. 12-2094.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. 14.Subject: Second reading amending Cupertino Municipal Code 2.28:1) removing the residency requirement for the city manager position;2) amending the number of City Council votes required to remove the City Manager from a 4/5 vote to a majority; and 3) deleting the resolution of intent and removal provisions Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No 12-2093: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 2.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the City Manager position" City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to enact Ordinance No. 12-2093.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. 15.Subject: Second reading of "Massage Establishment and Services" Ordinance RecommendedAction: Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 12-2095: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino revising Chapter 9.06 of the Municipal Code, entitled, "Massage Establishments and Services" to conform to changes in state law" CityClerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Wongmoved and Changseconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Wongmoved and Changseconded to enact Ordinance No. 12-2095.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 16.Subject: Appeal for Islands Restaurant Bar and Late Night Hours Recommended Action: Approve or Deny Appeal of U-2012-01 Description: Application No(s): U-2012-01; Applicant: Fancher Development (Byer Properties); Location: 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd APN# 359-08-013, 359-08-006; Use 16 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 5 Permit to allow a restaurant to operate until 12 am Sunday through Friday, until 1 am on Saturday and to allow separate bar facilities. Assistant Planner George Schroederreviewed the staff report. Council member Changsaid that he appealed this item becausehe was surprised to learn that a bar and late hours were included in the project and that he was concerned about the safety of customers in the parking lotduring late hours. The applicantassured Council that a bar was undetermined at the time that they applied for the shell of the building and that they did presenttheoperation of abar to the Planning Commission and was willingto discuss it as part of the appeal process. He said that it was noted during the November 13 Councilmeetingthatthere would beabar included and that they would beapplyingfor a permitto operate a separate bar,even though their bar is not considered a separate bar. Mark Matsumoto, Chamber of Commerce,said that the Chambersupportsthe Planning Commission’s approval of the Islands Restaurant application. Mahoney movedand Wong secondedto deny the appeal. The motion carriedwith Chang abstaining. 17.Subject: Consider a Petition for Reconsideration and conduct the reconsideration hearing for the approved Bollinger Road Project Recommended Action: 1) Consider the petition for reconsideration and Adopt Resolution No. 12-052 approving the Petition seeking Council reconsideration of the Bollinger Road Project; and 2) Conduct the reconsideration hearing for the Bollinger Road Project. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold its original approval, which included: Granting a negative declaration for the project; Approving the project per the Planning Commission resolutions with the added requirement to prepare a comprehensive construction management plan, and direction to staff to design the residence on Lot #4 so that the garage and driveway do not face the existing residences Description: Pursuant to CMC 2.08.096, a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to approve a tentative map that allowed the subdivision of 1.14 acre parcel into five lots ranging in size from 7,040 square feet to 11,096 square feet; and a variance to allow reduced lot widths for four of the five new lots surrounding the proposed cul-de-sac that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements; Applications: TM-2012-01, V-2012-01, EA- 2012-01; Location: Western Terminus of Bollinger Road, APN 359-22-077; Applicant: McClellan Development; Petitioner: Arthur Dong; Property Owner: Lands of Jauch Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the staff report. Wongmoved and Sinksseconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-052 approving the Petition seeking Council reconsideration of the Bollinger Road Projectand directed staff to refund the feeto the petitioner. The motion carriedunanimously. 17 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 6 Arthur Dong, the petitioner, stated thatneighborhood safety, noise, and traffic controlare issues that should be addressed. He saidthat he may lose rental income due to construction noise and asked who will reimburse him for the loss of income. He stated that he believes that four houses instead of five would reduce traffic and noise. Jim Yee, representing the applicant,reminded Council that they had originally proposed six homes and now they are proposing five.He indicated that if the number is reduced down to four, the lotswould be larger than the adjacent neighborhood. He said the only exception they are requesting is a deviation to lot width and that there was no deviation from the guidelines. Xiangqun Xusaidthat he feels the best solution is to build four houses instead of five so there is no minimum lot width issue,no code violation,less traffic,and the neighbors would be happy with solution. He noted that he thinks four houseswould make less money than five for the developer, but feels that neighbors’ desires should be considered. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to uphold Council’s original approval.Chang stated that he would be voting no not because he wasagainst development but because his main concern isfor the public and he disagreed with staff’s recommendation. The motion carried with Chang voting no. Council recessed from 8:03 p.m. to 8:10 p.m. 18.Subject: Main Street Cupertino mixed-use development Recommended Action: Approve Modifications (M-2011-09) to the previously-approved Master Use Permit (U-2008-01), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2008-06) and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2008-08) to allow for a hotel of up to 180 rooms; 138,700 square feet of retail/athletic club space; a 0.8-acre town square; up to 260,000 square feet of office space; 143 senior age-restricted units (no condominiums); a 0.75-acre park; removal of 61 trees and relocation of 17 trees; Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-24) for the retail buildings and hotel where architectural elevations have been provided; Tentative Map (TM-2011-04) for a total of four fee simple lots with 143 senior age-restricted units (no condominiums); Modification of Condition No. 5 to replace the requirement for a 400-person banquet facility with a 6,500 square foot restaurant and meeting space; Extension of permit to expire five years from the date of approval of this modification; Preservation of the existing Ash trees along Vallco Parkway as the street trees; Allowance to apply faux balconies, rather than useable balconies, on the hotel exterior; Removal of the requirement in Condition No. 6 requiring that the applicant provide free VTA passes to the seniors living in the senior housing complex for one year; and the 2012 Addendum to the 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report Description: Application(s): M-2011-09, ASA-2011-24, TM-2011-04 (EA-2011-18); Applicant: Kevin Dare (500 Forbes, LLC); Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (3 vacant lots) on both sides of Finch Avenue and west of N. Tantau Avenue; APN # 316-20- 085, 316-20-078, 316-20-079 Senior Planner Aki Honda Snelling reviewed the staff report. 18 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 7 Wong movedand Mahoney secondedto combine items 18 and 19 and allow the public to speak onboth items at one time. The motion carried unanimously. Chang then said he opposed the combination of items 18 and 19 since the public would only have three minutes to speak on two items. Sinks moved and Mahoney seconded to reverse theprior motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Santoro reordered the agenda and opened the public hearing on item number 19. After more discussion, Council member Sinkssaid his motion intent was to take the items in order. Mayor Santoro then went back to the original agenda order and opened the public hearingon item number 18. Kevin Dare, applicantnoted that theyhave received comments from hundreds of people over the years since the original approval in 2009 and have incorporated many of the comments into the plans tosignificantly improvethem.The Tentative Map approved was for seven lots and 143 condominiums.Changes made to the plan require the need tocreate several commercial condominiums. He requestedthat Council supportthe Planning Commission’s recommendation to provide two parcels for office space. Mr. Dare showed pictures of what the hotel interior might look like and proposed moving retail to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Dare also stated that they need to have a staging area while working and proposed that completion be tied to senior housing rather than the parkso that the park could be the staging area. Ken Rodrigues gavea Powerpoint presentation showing a series of sketches and vignettes based on three years of design. He saidthey feel strongly that the main entrance to the project needs to have a visual focal point that is transparent and that the size is very important. Mr. Rodrigues notedthatat Santana Row, the stores are smallon the insideandlarger on the outside, so during winter no one uses the outside space.He indicated that a combination of two 1,500 feet spacesfront and rearare more appropriate. Mr. Rodriguesalso pointed out that they are seeking LEED certification of some level on the entire projectand that the hotel elevation needed to be refined and open out to the town square to be more consistent with the other buildings. He also requested that Council approve 53,538 square feet of restaurant space and that the park area be used for constructionstaging. Kevin Dare requested again that the park completion be tied to the senior housing so that it could be used as the staging area for the project. Emily Shieh, homeowner from Metropolitan, saidthat with the proposed A(1)-2 plan, the seniorhousing and park aremoved to the back and the Metropolitanis sandwiched between the parkingareas without abuffer. She explainedthat she is concerned about traffic safety issues between the Metropolitan and Main Street and that she does not support the option A(1)-2.She urged Council to be sensitive to the needs of residents living next to the Main Street project. Lisa Warren said she had sent an email to Council and stated that she is concerned about the phasingof the project.She stated that she appreciates the efforts of everyone, but is concerned about the lack of elevation and the review design process. She requested thatmore effective noticing for design reviewbe established. 19 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 8 Steve Scharfsaid that he agrees with Dr. Lum to build the project.He stated that the applicant met with them many timesand removed market rate housing. He noted that people who purchased homes at the Metropolitanknew something was going to be put right next door. Tom Huguninsaid that this land has seen lots of action with a referendumover the years.He stated that he supports the approval of the project and that senior housing wasagood compromise. He also requested information regarding the transient occupancy tax and whether it can be modified for people staying more than 30 days. Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava stated that there is aproject conditionthat islimited to 30 days.City Attorney CarolKorade noted that State law prohibits someone from staying past 30 days. Keith Murphy said that the developer has donea lotof outreach.He stated that there should be more commercialand retaildevelopment in the southern part and not more market rate housing. He said he supportedmoving the projectforward. Jennifer Chang, homeowner of the Metropolitan and HOA Board,said she supportedthe 2009 approval of Main Street. She noted that the original plan had the park in a different location which provideda buffer between the two projects. She also noted that the previous developer had promised a gate but never installed one. She stated she is concerned about the construction staging and requested that the staging area ofphase I beaway from their homes and towards the east corner. Jennifer Griffin said that she would like Council to move forward with the project. She noted that she would like to see thesenior housing included and that it was a good location for it. She expressedconcern about traffic issues and wantedto make sure any building stays on site so streets wouldn’tbe closed. Mark Matsumoto spokeon behalf ofArt Cohen who said he supportedthe project. Leslie Fowler said that she is concerned about the downtown project being business as usual and wanted to see something more radicalwith respect to sustainability. She described the Oberlin projectand suggested that more green and open spaces be incorporated into the project. Elaine Chong, resident of the Metropolitan, expressedconcern about what wouldbe built at the Main Street project. She said she opposes a parking garage or auto entrance being built directly next door to the Metropolitan. She noted that she supports a buffer zone that is as wide as possible between the two projects. She urged Council to consider the resident’s concerns. FideliaButt,homeowner at the Metropolitan,said she feels that the new plan reduces the size of green space from whatwas previously agreed upon. She urged Council to respect the resident’s concerns. 20 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 9 Angeline Limsaid that she sent Council members an email talking about green space and public health.She noted that residents at the Metropolitan were happy with the 2009 approval butare now disappointed about so much change. She said she supports a 20-foot buffer zone that was promised in 2009 and urged Council to consider the concerns of the residents when making their decision. TerryLydon,resident of the Metropolitan,said he supports fellow residents. He suggested a compromise of keeping the auto parkway physically where it us, but to put it underground. Al DiFrancesco saidthat he felt it wasunfortunate that the Metropolitan was built like it was. He said he supports moving forward with Main Street. Christine Evans, Metropolitan HOA, presentedapetition signed by over 80 homeowners regarding theA(1)-2 plan. She urged Council to modify the plan to include a buffer. Martin Won said that Sand Hill did a great job reaching out to residents. He expressed concern that the latest proposal has alimited amount of green and open space and positioning leaves something to be desired. He said he feels that theCitydoes not need a continuous commercial space on Stevens Creek Boulevard.He noted that he supports having the park as a top priorityand feels it should face Stevens Creek rather thanretail. Ruby Elbogen said that she proposed the park and wishes she hadn’t nowbecause of the dispute. She notedthat she feels that Main Street is going to be a good downtown area and would like to see the hotel upgraded and restaurants be at least 30percentof the site. She also noted that the Marketplace is half the size and has mostly restaurants that arevery successful. She said she also supports having some small loft-type housing over the stores, and feels that a 50+ project wouldnot work here. She said she supports starting the projectright away and supportswalk abilitywithin the project. Ophelia Chan,resident of the Metropolitan, expressed concern about the buffer between projects andtheloss ofprivacy if a parking lotis locatednext to the homes.She stated she is also concerned about the staging area due to thenoise and dust that young children wouldbe exposed to. Mayor Santoro closed the public hearing. Council unanimously approved the following: Modification (M-2011-09) to the 2009 Master Use Permit (U-2008-01), Master Site and Architectural Approval (ASA-2008-06) and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2008-08) based upon Option A(1)-2 plan, dated April 30, 2012, to allow for a 180-room hotel, 260,000 square feet of office, up to 138,700 square feet of retail space, 143 age-restricted senior housing units, a 0.80 acre town square, a 0.75 acre park, and a five-level parking garage with two levels below ground; modification to the Master Site and Architectural Approval; and removal of 61 trees and relocation of 17 trees. 1.Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approvethe Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-24) for retail shops 2-5, building pad 3 and the hotel. 21 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 10 2.Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approvethe Tentative Map for five (5) lots and no condominiums. 3.Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the 2012 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report. 4.Sinks moved and Wong seconded to reviseCondition No. 3 to add that Permits for Phase I shall expire three (3) years after the approval of this modification; Permits for Phase II shall expire four (4) years after the approval of this modification. The park shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City within four (4) years from the date of approval of this permit. Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to reviseCondition No. 10 on the vacation of Finch 5. Avenue as follows (see below): “The vacation of Finch Avenue is necessary to support this development.The vacation will be processed according to procedures set by the Streets and Highways Code and the Municipal Code.A bond will be required prior to issuance of permits for street modifications that will allow Finch Avenue to be reverted back to a standard City street in the case that the construction of the project is not completed.The Developer shall install and complete the street modifications within two (2) years of approval of the Final Map, or such longer period as may be specifically authorized in writing by the City Engineer.Public access easements, for both vehicular and pedestrian travel, will be provided across the improved site, to link Stevens Creek Boulevard with Vallco Parkway, as well as provide public access to the park and the “town center” plaza area.Failure to complete the improvements within the specified time will result in the reversion of Finch Avenue to a standard City street and the ownership of the former Finch Avenue right-of-way shall revert back to the City.The reversion of Finch Avenue back to a City street shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney and Director of Public Works.” 6.Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to reviseCondition No. 31.B.3 to say that Hotel type as a Marriott Residence Inn is acceptable; however, the Architectural and Site Approval application for the interior and exterior design of the hotel mustreturn back to the City Council for review and approval. The exterior architectural design of the hotel shall be of the same quality and design standard as the example provided by the applicant of the Marriott Residence Inn in the Gaslamp district of San Diego. 7.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to retainthe proposed retail pads in the Town Square at the sizes proposed (1,500 square feet for the south pad and 2,000 square feet for the north pad) in Site Plan Option A (1)-2 but required redesign of the pad buildings to be of a more open architectural style in keeping with the Architectural Advisor’s recommendations. 8.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to adda parking garage entrance and exit along the south side of the parking garage from the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway entrance nearest to Tantau Avenue. 9.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to amendCondition No. 46 to add the following - provide a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the west side of the project site, 22 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 11 adjacent to the Metropolitan mixed-use development site, and reduce the park size accordingly so that the buffer and park total 0.75-acres. 10.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to provide a retail building north of the retail shop 8 building between the park and Town Square. 11.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to reviseCondition No. 23 on the construction phasing of the development based on staff’s revised conditions (see below): Phase I shall include all buildings, except for the park and the senior housing site. Phase II shall include the parkand senior housing. A performance bond for the construction of the park (not less than $1.125 million) shall be required in Phase I. The applicant shall work with staff on the appropriate timing for acceptance of the performance bond and completion of the park. If the park is not completed to the satisfaction of the City within four (4) years from the date of approval of the permit, the City shall have the option of calling in the bond and constructing the park. A. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the first of the hotel or office buildings, the Town Square, street and sidewalk improvements along Finch Avenue loop and the street and sidewalk improvements along the interior roadway connecting Finch Avenue loop to the office parcel shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City. B. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the second of the hotel or office buildings, certificates of completion for shell, core, exterior facades and related landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for at least 50% of the retail approved for Phase I of the project. C. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for the third of the hotel or office buildings, certificates of completion for shell, core, exterior facades and related landscaping and improvements shall be obtained for all the retail buildings located east of Finch Avenue loop. 12.Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to require the applicantto return to the City Council, no later than six months from the date of the project approval, to update the Council on the progress related to developing the senior housing apartments and discuss alternatives for the northwest corner of the site. 13.Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to removethe requirement for useable balconies on the hotel; faux balconies are acceptable. 14.Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to removethe requirement for free VTA passes for seniors living in the senior housing complex. 15.Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to preservethe existing Ash trees as the street tree along Vallco Parkway. 16.Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to modifyCondition No. 5 of the original 2009 Master Use Permit conditions to allow a 6,500 square foot restaurant with meeting space in the hotel in lieu ofthe former requirement for a 400-person banquet hall in the case that the hotel was built with more than 160 rooms. Councilrecessed from 1:30 a.m. to 1:40a.m. 23 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 12 19.Subject: Vacate Finch Avenue, between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 12-053 Jennifer Griffin said that she understands this vacation is part of a bigger plan and that if the project doesn’t go anywhere, we would get the street back. She said that sometimes the public gets confused when items are combinedand tied to each other and that she feels it is better to keep items separate.MayorSantoroclarified the reason why they thought to initially combine the items andexplainedthat the City doesn’t own this piece of land but only the right for the street. Keith Murphy asked if the City would know what the value of the amenities would beat the time of the vacation and asked aboutthe vacation process. He also questioned the zoning for housing.Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastaqva said the 2009 approval addressed the zoning issue. Director of Public Works Timm Borden saidthat the date for the public hearing for the vacation was actually on March 20 and notices were already posted. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded toadopt Resolution No. 12-053.The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 20.Subject: Amending Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.18.110 deleting the resolution of intent and removal provisions regarding the City Attorney position Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No 12-2096: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 2.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the City Attorney position” City Attorney CarolKoradeleft the dais at 1:50 a.m. due to a conflict of interest with the subject matter. City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Ms. Korade returned to the dais at 1:53 a.m. REPORTSBY COUNCIL AND STAFF Interim City Manager Amy Chan said that the next regular Council meeting would be on Monday, June 4 due to the Primary Election on Tuesday, June 5. She encouraged everyone to vote. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. 24 May 15, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 13 ADJOURNMENT At 1:55a.m. on Wednesday, May 16,the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, May 30 at 1:00 p.m.for a budget study session, Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. ____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staffreports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience atwww.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject Improvement Agreement, Sreenivasa Viswanadha andAlivelu Viswanadha, 22017 San Fernando Court, APN: 357-12-005. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 12-_____. Discussion Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building permit for a single-family residential developmentwill be obligated to bond and construct city-specified roadside improvements along the street frontage of their building site. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director ofPublic Works Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments: A.Draft Resolution B.Improvement Agreement C.Map 45 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ANIMPROVEMENTAGREEMENTBETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER,SREENIVASA VISWANADHA AND ALIVELU VISWANADHA,22017 SAN FERNANDO COURT, APN 357-12-005 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and Developer,Sreenivasa Viswanadha and Alivelu Viswanadha,for the installation of certain municipal improvements at22017 San Fernando Court,and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4thday of June,2012,by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 46 Resolution No. 12- Page 2 EXHIBIT “A” SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPER: SREENIVASA VISWANADHA AND ALIVELU VISWANADHA LOCATION: 22017 SAN FERNANDO COURT, APN 357-12-005 PART A.Faithful Performance Bond:$29,118.00 110-2211 PART B.Labor and Material Bond:$29,118.00 110-2211 PARTC.Checking and Inspection Fee:$2,542.00 110-4538 PART D.Development Maintenance Deposit:$1,000.00 110-2211 PART E.Storm Drainage Fee –Basin 2$331.83 215-4072 PART F.Street Light –One-Year Power Cost:N/A 110-4537 PART G.Map Checking Fee:N/A 110-4539 PART H.Park Fee: Zone IIN/A 280-4082 PART I.Reimbursement FeeN/A 47 ATTACHMENTB 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ATTACHMENTC 10350 10351 21975 10363 10362 10374 10367 10386 22017 10398 10410 10422 22016 10435 10434 10446 10445 10455 10456 10465 10472 . Subject:ImprovementAgreement,SreenivasaViswanadhaandAliveluViswanadha,22017San FernandoCourt,APN:357-12-005. 10475 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12-______. 10486 10485 10495 59 PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject Improvement Agreement, Chakravarthy Parvathaneniand Rajitha Lanka, 10148 Prado Vista Ave, APN: 342-14-093. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 12-_____. Discussion Through the improvement agreement with the City, the applicants for a building permit for a single-family residential development will be obligated to bond and construct city-specified roadside improvements along the street frontage of their building site. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments: A.Draft Resolution B.Improvement Agreement C.Map 60 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ANIMPROVEMENTAGREEMENTBETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER,CHAKRAVARTHY PARVATHANENIANDRAJITHA LANKA,10148 PRADO VISTA AVE, APN 342-14-093 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and Developer,Chakravarthy Parvathaneniand Rajitha Lanka,for the installation of certain municipal improvements at10148Prado Vista Ave,and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4thday of June,2012,by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 61 Resolution No. 12- Page 2 EXHIBIT “A” SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPER: CHAKRAVARTHY PARVATHANENIANDRAJITHA LANKA LOCATION: 10148 PRADO VISTA AVE, APN 342-14-093 PART A.Faithful Performance Bond:$5,865.00 110-2211 PART B.Labor and Material Bond:$5,865.00 110-2211 PART C.Checking and Inspection Fee:$2,542.00 110-4538 PART D.Development Maintenance Deposit:$1,000.00 110-2211 PART E.Storm Drainage Fee –Basin 3$219.20 215-4073 PART F.Street Light –One-Year Power Cost:N/A 110-4537 PART G.Map Checking Fee:N/A 110-4539 PART H.Park Fee: Zone 3 N/A 280-4083 PART I.Reimbursement FeeN/A 62 ATTACHMENTB 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ATTACHMENTC . Subject:ImprovementAgreement,ChakravarthyParvathaneniandRajithaLanka,10148Prado VistaAve,APN:342-14-093. RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12-______. 74 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 4, 2012 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License,Islands Fine Burgers & Drinks,20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard (coming soon to Crossroads Shopping Center) Recommended Action Approveapplicationfor On-Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place. Description Name of Business:Islands Fine Burgers & Drinks Location:20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard Type of Business:Restaurant Type of License:On-Sale Generalfor Bona Fide Public Eating Place (47) Reason forApplication:Annual Fee, Inter-County Transfer Discussion There are no zoning oruse permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposedand staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 47authorizes the sale of general alcoholfor consumption on thepremises where sold.Please note the appeal period for the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Use Permit at its meeting on March 13, 2012 for the Island’s bar with late night hours ended on Wednesday,March 28, 2012. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Beth Ebben, Planning Department Reviewed by:Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachment:Application for Alcoholic Beverage License 75 76 77 78 79 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject Collection of the AB 939 Implementation and Household Hazardous Waste Fee. Recommended Action a.Adopt Resolution No. 12-_____,authorizing execution oftheAgreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Feefor FY 2012-2015. b.Adopt Resolution No. 12-_____,authorizing execution ofthe Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste CollectionProgramfor FY 2012-2015. Description This itemwas presented to Council for consideration at its May 1, 2012 meeting, but was deferred until Councilhad a more comprehensive understandingof all fiscal impacts between the City and the County. Given the current status of the City/County issues, this item is now returningfor consideration. InJuly 1992, the County of Santa Clara began collectinga Countywide AB939 Implementation Fee (Fee). AB 939 establishes statutory authority to provide funding to support integrated waste management programs. The Fee is levied on each ton of waste delivered to the landfills and non- disposal facilities. The Fee is set at $4.10 per ton, which includestwo components: $1.50 to fund AB 939 implementation programs and $2.60 to fund the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste(HHW)Program. Theimplementation portion of the Fee($1.50/ton) iscollected by the County as a pass-through on behalf of the citiesthat encompassSantaClara County. The amount collected (approximately $42,000 annually for the City of Cupertino) is distributed to the cities on a quarterlybasisfor the purpose of funding city-specific programs (e.g. composting and recycling) requiredfor meeting AB939 waste stream diversion goals.In order for the Countywide AB 939 Fee to be collected and distributed, the City of Cupertino (along with fourteen other cities in the County of Santa Clara)and the County must execute the Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee for FY 2012-2015.If one or more cities do not approve this Agreement, the AB 939 Fee ($1.50/ton)will be collected by the City of San Jose rather than the County and the money will not be distributed to the cities. All operating landfills in Santa Clara County are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Jose and the City of San Jose has no obligation to distribute the fundsto thecities. 1 80 HHW Program services are directly mandated under AB939.Participation in the Countywide HHW Program is optional. If the City does not participate, its residents willnot be eligible to participate in the County’s drive-through events nor will they be able to usethe new San Jose HHW collection facility after it is completedin January,2013. The City of Cupertino,as an integral part of its recycling/garbage collection franchise agreement, dated November 1, 2010,required Recology to sub-contract with a door-to-door household hazardous waste collector (Waste Management, Curbside) to provide at-your doorcollection for allCupertino residentsby appointment.By implementing thisservice, the City of Cupertino is leadingSanta Clara County for convenient, safe, legaldoor-to-door collectionof household hazardous waste. However, the programis still in its developing phase. The City of Cupertino’s contracted HHW collection program will have matured beyond the “developing phase” when,1) Cupertino residents areassured that Waste Management, Curbside’s service will be consistentlyavailable within a week or two of the residents’ request for service and, 2) Waste Management, Curbside has servedthe City for one complete year without triggering operational or procedural questions from the regulating agencies, e.g.the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) andthe local Certified Unified Program Agency 1 (CUPA). If the City does not execute the Countywide HHW Agreement, the City will be dependentsolely onitsdoor-to-door collection contractor(Waste Management, Curbside). Participation in the well-establishedCountywideHHW program currently serves as a reliablebackup plan for Cupertino residentsif for any reason the pilot program cannot be continued. Participation in the Countywide Programonly commits the City to paying forthe number of residents that actually use the County’s drive-through program. Prior to the City’sinitiation of itsdoor-to-door collection program, approximately 1,225residents(FY 2009-2010) were participatingannually in the Countywide HHW Program.As of April 7, 2012(FY 2011-2012), only 460 residents had used the Countywide HHW Program and approximately 510 Cupertino residents hadused the City’s door-to-door HHW collection program. If the City choosesnot to participate in the Countywide HHW program the City willreceive a pass-through of the HHW Feethat is collected by the County,with the exception of the portion necessary to support the Abandoned Waste cost.In addition, the following programs (currently coordinated by the County’s HHW Program Manager on behalf of the City) will need to be provided locally by the Cityfor Cupertino residents or dropped completely: Used Oil Payment Program(County applies annually,on behalf of the cities,for a grant to run this program) The sharps drop-off at the Cupertino fire station Local hardware store battery collection Benefits of thePaint Product Stewardship law that passed last year will save the Countywide HHW Program approximately $350,000inFY 2012-2013 Staff recommends that the City discontinue its funding of additionalresidential participation in the County’s HHW program, since the City offers its own door-to-door HHW collection for 1 Certified Unified Program Agencies or CUPAs are local agencies that are certified by theCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to consolidate sixhazardous materials and hazardous waste regulatory programs to improve coordination and consistency in enforcing these regulations inCalifornia. Collectively these regulatory programs are known as the Unified Program. 2 81 residents. This would limit the number of Cupertino residents that wouldbe allowed to participate in the CountywideHHWProgram to approximately 460 vehicles per year. This year (FY 2011-2012) Cupertino residential participation reachedthe end of the City’s basic funding (the amount collected by the County as a component of the AB 939 Fee) by the beginning of April 2012.Startingin FY 2012-2013,the City would ask the County to refer Cupertino residents back to the City’sprogram for HHW collection appointments. City staff would continue to increase advertising of Cupertino’sdoor-to-door collection service to its residents. For complete coverage,the Countywide HHW Agreement would remain intact to serve residents with special circumstances. On June 30, 2012, the current annual Agreements will expire.For convenience, the termsof the new Agreements for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee and the new Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program shall be for three years, from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015. Discussion TheCounty Household Hazardous Wastedrive-through, drop-off collection program always retains the HHW portionof each city’sannual share of the Fee($2.60/ton)until after the close of the fiscal year when the cost for final residential participation can be calculated.The City has continuedtofundtheCounty’sprogram to providemore than one meansofsafe disposalfor Cupertino residents. Having more options available for safe disposal reduces the likelihood that hazardous household chemicalswill be illegally disposed in garbage cans and taken to landfill. Sustainability Impact AB939 and HHW programs are designed to reduce and eventually eliminate the residential hazardous waste that is sent to landfill. Fiscal Impact The AB 939 Fee for fiscal years 2012-2015reflects no increase from the previous fiscal year. Staff recommends that the City discontinue its funding of additional residential participation in the County’s HHW program since the City offers its own door-to-door HHW collection for its residents. Components of the AB 939Fee have been set at the appropriate level to fund each municipality’s waste stream diversion goals (implementation programs)and the Countywide HHW program. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments: A.Draft resolution authoring agreement for AB 939 B.Draft resolution authoring agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection C.Agreement for AB 939 D.Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection 3 82 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THEAGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE AB939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE FOR FY 2012-2015 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council the“Agreement for the Countywide AB939 Implementation Fee”(Agreement), between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, a countywide AB939 Implementation Fee(Fee)was established in 1992 to assist the fifteen cities and the county unincorporated area to fund the costs of preparing, adopting, and implementing an integrated waste management plan in each jurisdiction as specified in the agreement; and WHEREAS, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County has determined the Fee should remain at$4.10per ton for Fiscal Years2013, 2014, and 2015forthe three-year term of the new Agreement,July 1, 2012to June 30, 2015.The Fee will beimposed on each ton of waste landfilled or incinerated within the County or generatedwithin the County and subsequently transportedto non-disposal facilities or collection facilities located outside the County; and WHEREAS, the Agreementprovides for the County to administer the program to collect fees, and distribute the fees to each jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, said Agreementas amendedstates the terms and conditions under which County will collect and distribute the Fee for a three-year term; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the newAgreement have been reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the “Agreement for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee for FY 2012- 2015”and authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said agreements on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4thday ofJune, 2012,by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 83 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMFOR FY 2012-2015 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Councila new“Agreement For Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program,”between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the Agreementwill provide for continued City participation in the County’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program for Fiscal Years2013, 2014, and 2015(July 1, 2012 –June 30,2015); and WHEREAS, the City only pays for the Cupertino residents that actually use the Countywide drive-through and drop-off program; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Agreement have been reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the “The Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programfor FY 2012-2015” and authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4thday of June, 2012, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt,City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 84 ATTACHMENTC 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ATTACHMENTD 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ORDINANCE NO. 12-2096 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.18 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Cupertino Municipal Code 2.18 is hereby amended in part to read as follows. The remaining provisions remain unchanged: 2.18.110 SuspensionRemovalResignation. A. The removal of the City Attorney shall be only on a majority vote of the entire City Council. A resolution of intention to remove the City Attorney shall first be passed at any regular or special meeting of the Council. The resolution shall specify the reason or reasons for the removal and state whether the City Attorney is to be suspended from his duties upon passage of the resolution. It shall also state a date and time for a hearing at a regular or special meeting of the Council to be held at the usual meeting place of the Council. The hearing date shall be no less than two weeks nor more than four weeks from the date of passage of the resolution. Within one week after passage of the resolution, a copy thereof shall either be served personally upon the City Attorney or sent to him or her by registered mail, receipt requested, at his last known address. The hearing shall be open to the public if the City Attorney so requests in writing by notifying the City Clerk at least five days prior to the date set for the hearing. B. At the time set for the hearing, the City Attorney shall have an opportunity to answer the reason or reasons given for his or her removal. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to require the Council or any of its members to substantiate or prove the reason or reasons for the removal as a condition of the removal, it being the intention of the Council that the City Attorney shall hold office only at the discretion of the Council and may be removed at any time by following its procedure set forth in this section. At the hearing, the Council shall take final action on the resolution, either to carry out his or her removal or to retain him or her. If the action is to remove the City Attorney, his or her removal shall be effective until at least two weeks have expired from the date of the hearing. Failure of the City Council to adopt a motion or resolution for removal shall be deemed a rescission of the resolution of intention. C. The City Attorney shall be entitled to receive his or her regular compensation during the period between the passage of the resolution and the effective date of his or her removal. DB. written notice given to the City Council. 126 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th day of May, 2012 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council this 4th day of June, 2012 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mark Santoro, Mayor, City of Cupertino 127 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall 1010300 Torre Avenue • Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 4, 2012 Subject Applicationsfor Biltmore Adjacency apartmentsand commercial building project, located at approximately the southwest corner of Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (excludes the Village Falafel site). Recommended Actions A.The Planning Commission recommendsthat the City Council approve applications(EA- 2011-16, DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18)for a mitigated negative declaration, development permit, architectural site approval, and tree removal permit for the Stevens Creek Siteto allow the demolition of approximately 21,000 square feet of existing commercial space, the construction of an87-unit apartment complex, a new 7,000 square foot commercial building, and the removal of approximately 57 trees (See AttachmentA for Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6694, 6695, 6696). B.The Planning Commission recommendsthat the City Council approve applications (EA- 2011-15, DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13)mitigated negative declaration, development permit, architectural site approval, and tree removal permit for the Biltmore ApartmentsSiteto allow the construction of 12 new residential units at an existing apartment complex, and the removal of approximately 5 trees(See AttachmentBfor Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6697, 6698, & 6699). Description Applications:Stevens Creek Site EA-2011-16,DP-2011-06,ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore Apartments Site EA-2011-15,DP-2011-05,ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Applicant: Mike Ducote(Prometheus Real Estate Group) Location: 20030, 20060 Stevens Creek Blvd, 10041 S Blaney Ave, & Vacant Lot (APNs: 369-03-004, 369-03-003, 369-03-006, 369-03-007) 10159 S Blaney Ave (APN: 369-03-008) 128 Application Summary: Stevens Creek Site: 1. Development Permit (DP-2011-06) to allow the demolition of approximately 21,000 square feet of existing commercial spaceand the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 87 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building. 2. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-20) for a new mixed-use development consisting of 89 apartment units and a 7,000 squarefoot commercial building. 3. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2012-18) to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 57 trees in conjunction with the construction of a new apartment and commercial building. Biltmore Apartment Site: 4.Development Permit (DP-2012-05) to allow the construction of 12 new residential units at an existing apartment complex 5.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-19) for 12 new residential units within an apartment complex. 6.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2012-13) to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 5 trees in conjunction with the construction of new apartment units at an existing apartment complex. Please note, since the project involves developments on several parcels (existing Biltmore Apartments parcel and several parcels along Stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Ave.), multiple applications are required but will be reviewed and approved at the same time because of the common ownership and the proposed shared connections/access. For a complete overview of the project, please see Attachment C, Planning Commission Staff Report. Project Data Summary: Stevens Creek SiteConsistency General Plan Land Use Commercial/Office/Residential Yes Designation General Plan Housing Housing Element Site #4 (excluding Yes Element Chili’s) Conceptual Plan*Heart of the City Specific Plan*Yes, based on the recommendation that the Stevens Creek Site Apartment Complex is reduced from 89 units to 87 units Zoning DesignationP(CG, Res)Yes Development AllocationCommercial Balance: 105,870 + 14,082 net (Heart of the City)=119,952 sq ftYes Residential Unit Balance: 308 –87= 221 Environmental AssessmentMitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2011- N/A 16) 129 Lot Size141,203 sq ft (3.24 acres) N/A Proposed Commercial 7,000 sq ft N/A Building Proposed Demolition 21,000sq ftN/A Allowed/RequiredProposedConsistency Residential Density (Net of 25 DU/Gr. Ac.25 DU/Gr. Ac. the commercial parking and Yes building areas as per the 87Units87Units HOC) Parking 197 (42 Com + 155 197Yes Res) Building Height45’38’6”Yes Biltmore Apartments SiteConsistency General Plan DesignationMedium/High Density (10-20 DU/Gr. Ac.) Yes General Plan Housing Existing Residential Apartment Site Yes Element Conceptual PlanHeart of the City Specific Plan Yes Zoning DesignationP(R-3) 10-20 Yes Development AllocationResidential Unit Balance: 221 –12= 209 Yes (Heart of the City) Environmental AssessmentMitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2011- 15)N/A Lot Size440,827sq ft (10.12 acres)N/A Proposed Demolition 700sq ftN/A Allowed/RequiredProposedConsistency Residential Density (Net of 20 DU/Gr. Ac.20 DU/Gr. Ac. the commercial parking and building areas as per the 220 Units191 UnitsYes HOC)(179 Existing Units 12 New Units) Parking 320320Yes Building Height45’27’6”Yes Discussion Background The project area consists of: 130 The Stevens Creek site, which is located generally at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Ave (excludingthe corner parcel, Village Falafel restaurant),is surrounded by a variety of commercial, office, quasi public and residential uses and is located within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area.The siteincludes four parcels totaling3.24 acres and iscurrently being occupied by 21,000 square feet of commercial buildings. Existing uses on these parcels include a Chili’s restaurant (6,000 sq ft), Shan restaurant (9,000 sq ft), a small commercial strip center (6,000 sq ft), and a vacant parcel. The fourlots on the Stevens Creek site are proposed to be merged to create one parcel totaling 3.24 acres. The Biltmore site consists of approximately 11.01 acres and has179 existing apartment units. Biltmore Apartments have been in operation since 1970s and has gone through one prior update/renovation in 1999. Development Allocation The project will not draw from the Heart of the City’s commercial balance of 105,870 square feet. Instead, a net of 14,082 square feet will be returned to the balance. The commercial development allocation balance in Heart of the City will be 119,952square feet after project approval. Furthermore,308 residential units are available from the Heart of City area.A remaining balance of 209 (308 -99)residential units is stillavailable if the proposed project is approved. Planning CommissionMeeting On May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Stevens Creek Site) and 4-0 (Biltmore Apartments Site) recommendingapproval of the new 99apartment units, 7,000 square foot commercial building, and tree removals on both sites(See Attachment C,Planning Commission Staff Report).Overall, the Commission commented that the project was well designed and appropriate for the area. Several of the Commissioners also acknowledgedthat the design and the format of proposed new commercial buildingbenefitted from having a retail expert during the design process (See Attachment I,Recommendations by Real Estate Partners). One Commissioner was supportive ofmost of the elements in theStevens Creek Site projectbut did not vote in favor of the apartments and commercial building on the Stevens Creek Site,citing concerns that the land area of the proposed commercial building was smaller than that of the Chili's parcel, which was included in the development. Staff Note: As part of the 2007-2014 Housing Element required by the State, the proposed mixed-use project along Stevens Creek Boulevard is located on a site designated for housing (excluding the Chili’s site). In order to ensurethat the development of the Chili’s site does not result in a reduction of retail, the project proposes replacing the Chili’s building with a new retail/commercialbuilding along the Stevens Creek Blvd. with enhanced visibility and access. The proposed commercial portion of the project is comparable to the existing Chili's site both in terms of building size and land area. The existing Chili's building is approximately 6,000square feet and the land area is 47,320 square feet. The proposed commercial building is larger at 7,000 square feetandthe land area is comparable at 40,085squarefeetand includes all the required parking for the retail/commercial project. 131 Additionally, based on concerns cited by the public during the meeting, the Commission addeda conditionthat requires the applicant to work with staff prior to issuance of building permits to explore potential pedestrian safety improvementsat the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The Planning Commission meeting minutes were not available at the time of the preparation of this staff report and will be provided at the City Council hearing. Outreach Efforts and Public Comments A neighborhood meeting was held Wednesday, March 14, 2012 to gather community input. Property owners and neighbors expressed concerns regarding traffic and school impacts, parcel tax, driveway location, and disappointment that the corner property (Village Falafel) was not included as part of the project. Others welcomed the redevelopment of the site, especially the commercial building fronting Stevens Creek Blvd, the modern architecture, and conformance to Heart of the City requirements (See AttachmentsJ& K). Additionalcomments from the public received (including comments raised during the Planning Commission hearing) are summarized below (staff response is in italics): Concerns about the project school impacts and mitigations –UnderStatelaw, the City is not permitted to consider school impacts as a determining factor for project review and approval. However, it is the City's policy to maintain a good relationship with the school districts. Therefore a copy of the Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Schoolhouse Services (a consulting firm retained by the City that frequently services both the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District), has been forwarded to the respective elementary and high school districts for review and consideration (See Attachment G, Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis). The school districts have not expressed any specific concerns about the project. Questions about the accuracy of the school analysis –The School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact analysis was prepared by the consultant hired by the Cupertino UnionSchool District and the Fremont Union High School District. Concerns with the intensity and traffic impacts from the project –Hexagon was retained by the City to analyze the project to ensure that the proposed parking arrangement is adequate and that there are no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or adjacent uses (See Attachment F, Transportation Impact Analysis). The report concludes that the project provides sufficient amount of parking and that there is no significantincrease in project trips generated, that the project would not result in unacceptable levels of service, nor would it create any other adversetraffic impacts. Questions about the residential density calculations –In accordance to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the total land area used to calculate the maximum allowable 132 residential density for the proposed Stevens Creek site excludes the parking and land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the project. As a result, the project is permitted to have a maximum of 87 units. As referenced previously, the staff recommendation and resolution require the project to eliminate two (2) units in order to comply with the Heart of the City Density requirements. The proposed Biltmore Apartment parcel doesnot have any commercial components and permits a maximum of 220 units. The project proposes adding 12 new units to the complex resulting in a total of 191 units, and complies with the maximum alloweddensity of 20 units per acre. The proposed project isconsistent with the Heart of the City density requirements. Questions about the retail viability–To ensure that the proposed commercial building will be leasable and facilitate successful businesses, Prometheus has retained a commercial real estate consultant, to review the project and provide recommendations to optimize the project's marketability and viability given current and upcoming market demands/trends (See Attachment I,Recommendations by Real Estate Partners). The retail consultant’s recommendations are summarized as follows: Provide tenant bay depths of at least 40 feet o Provide outside patio as added amenity o Provide 14’ sidewalk for a comfortable and inviting environment o Widen the glazing on front elevation for tenant space flexibility o Rear entrances for customer convenience o Sign program as integral part of the design, should not be an afterthought o Accessible, adequate and visible commercial parking stalls o The project has incorporated most of the retail consultant's comments. A condition has been added requiring the final building and site plan to address all the above recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits Concerns with the loss of commercial space –The existing parcels are designated as Housing Element sites (excluding Chili’s), the intent of which is to provide future residential units on site. In order to ensure that the development of the Chili’s site does not result in a reduction of retail, the project proposes replacing the Chili’s building (approximately 6,000square feet) with a new 7,000 sq ft commercial building along the Stevens Creek Blvd. with enhanced visibility and access. This is also consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which requires retail along the frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard for mixed-use projects. st Please note that the applicant has scheduled asecond neighborhood meeting on May 31, 2012 prior to the City Council hearing. The final hearing summary will be presented to the City th Council on June 4, 2012. Prepared by:Simon Vuong,AssistantPlanner Reviewedby:Gary Chao, City Planner &Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director 133 Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments: A.Planning Commission Resolution Nos.6694, 6695, 6696 B.Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6697, 6698, 6699 C.Planning Commission Staff Report from May 8, 2012 D.Second Review Comments/Notes, architectural recommendations by Studios Architecture dated February 13, 2012 E.An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), Cupertino, California, dated February 24, 2012 F.Biltmore Apartments –Stevens Creek Bl, Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated March 30, 2012 G.Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, 20030 Stevens Creek Project, by Schoolhouse Services, dated January 2012 H.Initial Study for the 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Biltmore Apartments Project, dated April 2012, by David J. Powers & Associates I.20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Cupertino, California, recommendations by Real Estate Partners, dated April 23, 2012 J.Brief Notes from Neighborhood Meeting, held March 14, 2012 K.List of Public Comments ReceivedPrior to Planning Commission Meeting th L.AdditionalPublic Comments Received& Desk Items from the May 8, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting M.Supplemental Drawings and Renderings N.Plan Set 134 DP-2011-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6694 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 87APARTMENT UNITS (BILTMORE ADJACENY), A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, AND DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 21,082 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 20060 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 10041 S AND A VACANT LOT (APNS: 369-03-004, 369-03-003, 369-03-006, 369-03-007) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2011-06 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-004) 20060 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-003) 10041 S Blaney Avenue (APN: 369-03-006) Vacant Lot (APN: 369-03-007) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receiv Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as requireProcedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at l application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to a)The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrim general welfare, or convenience; b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: The application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2011-06 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions spresolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning no. DP-2011-06 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 135 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15 A18, A19, A20, A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12prepared by Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012- 13, and TR-2012-18 shall be applicable to this approval. 3.DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The City shall deduct 87 residential units in the General Plan allocation from the Heart area. In addition, the City shall add 14,082 square feet of com the Heart of the City Area. 4.DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted for 87 new apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building; and demolition of approximately 21,082 squ The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 5.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertin limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepre may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 6.ODOR ABATEMENT SYSTEMS Odor abatement systems shall be installed for all new eating establishments, including the proposed restaurant. The design of the odor abatement system will be finalized at Equipment associated with the odor abatement systems shall be apible from the public right-of-way. 7.PARCELIZATION/LOT CONSOLIDATION A lot line separating the commercial building from the residenti as part of this application nor is it supported. The Heart of tlicy discourages the subdividion of commercial parcels. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approvals from the City to consolidate the various lots i plan. 8.EASEMENTS a)Cross Access Easements - A cross access easement for the purpose of vehicles and pedestrians from the Stevens Creek site to the properties to the west, east, and existing Biltmore Apartments shall be recorded prior to final building occupancy. The draft language of said easement which shall be reviewed and approved by the city attorne prior to issuance of building permits. b)Pedestrian Access Easements Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with the City to delineate additional pedestrian access easements connecting the pedestrian 136 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 paths from sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard, through the project, to the public sidewalk along Blaney Avenue. All easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of final occup 9.PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT The final design, display, and location of the public art shall be brought before the Fine Arts Commission for review and approval. The minimum expenditure for the artwork, including but not limited to design, fabrication, and installation, is one-quarter of one percent, with an expenditure cap of one hundred thousand dollars. 10.HOUSING MITIGATION For commercial projects, a housing mitigation fee of $5.23/square feet is required must be paid prior to building permit issuance. A preliminary estimate of the required housing mitigation fee is $36,610 ($5.23 x 7,000). For residential projects, a housing mitigation fee of $2.75/squa prior to building permit issuance. A preliminary estimate of th housing mitigation fee is $290,904 ($2.75 x 105,783). Please note that a change in the amount of square footage or change in fee per square foot will alter the final amounts. 11.SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The project shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed by the school districts prior to the issuance of building permits. 12.CONDOMINIUMIZATION Please note that the condominiumization of spaces is not approved as part of this project. Any proposed changes to the map shall require further City review and approval. 13.CIRCULATION AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS The project shall maintain a total amount of 197 parking stalls (42 of which is reserved for the commercial uses). Changes to the number of provided parking stalls and interior driveway circulation will require further City review and approval. The parking analysis assumes that 50% of the commercial space is food related/restaurant uses (85 seats a Community Development has the authority to approve minor refinemthis ratio based on the final tenanting plan provided that there are no significant parking and traffic 14.COMMERCIAL PARKING PLAN A detailed parking plan shall be finalized prior to final building occupancy, and shall include but not be limited to: parking assignments or reserved spaces, allocat parking, hourly restrictions, signage, etc. 15.BICYCLE PARKING CLASS All provided bicycle parking shall be identified as Class 1 bicycle parking and be consistent with the 16.INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS If determined to be warranted by the Director of Public Works De with staff to explore opportunities to provide and/or fund for additional pedestrian safety improvements at the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Blaney Ave. Any proposed improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and Public Works Department. 137 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 17.NOISE LEVELS AND ABATEMENT Community Noise Control Ordinance, an acoustical engineer may be required to submit no attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Comm 18.PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted and reviewed prior to building permit issuance. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (Building, Pg, and Public Works) to review the prepared construction management plan, to ensure that conditions of approval, staging of construction equipment is app are in place, public access routes are identified is defined, and noise and dust control measures are established. 19.CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Frida Sunday, 9 am to 6 pm. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. Maximum noise levels The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors construction restrictions. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and t appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominen site. 20.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence issuance of final demolition permits. 21.DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and morduring windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacen adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, -toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials o least 2 feet of freeboard; c) Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably with material is carried onto adjacent public streets. e) management practices into the building permit plan set. 22.ENVRIONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Per the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program based on the y for the 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and adopted as 138 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2011-15, the following is an outline of mitigation measures (MM) that apply, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution: i.Biological Resources a.MM BIO - 1.1 b.MM BIO - 1.2 c.MM BIO - 1.3 d.MM BIO - 2.1 ii.Cultural Resources a.MM CUL - 1.1 b.MM CUL - 1.2 iii.Geology and Soils a.MM GEO - 1.1 b.MM GEO - 2.1 iv.Hazards and Hazardous Materials a.MM HAZ - 1.1 b.MM HAZ - 1.2 c.MM HAZ - 1.3 v.Hydrology and Water Quality a.MM HYD - 1.1 vi.Noise a.MM NOI - 1.1 b.MM NOI - 1.2 c.MM NOI - 1.3 d.MM NOI - 2.1 e.MM NOI - 2.2 f.MM NOI - 2.3 g.MM NOI - 2.4 h.MM NOI - 2.5 i.MM NOI - 2.6 j.MM NOI - 2.7 k.MM NOI - 2.8 l.MM NOI - 2.9 m.MM NOI - 2.10 n.MM NOI - 2.11 vii.Utilities and Service Systems a.MM UTIL - 1.1 23.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments a proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Anation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Devel 24.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code S fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such ex 139 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM 1.STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 2.CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be ins standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3.STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by t shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of voining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permi is located. 4.GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer i the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contac Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Boa 5.DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engin- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detai on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the one percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directedg private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably 6.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Undergro and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utili detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said pla of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 7.BICYCLE PARKING satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8.IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to chec fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utili prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,387.00 or 5%) 140 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 2,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($818,100.00) h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee chedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified a of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above grou screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground suc visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side buildi setback area. 10.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the StaControl Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 11.NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Contrhe developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Bes control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maint 12.C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire projectThe developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatmen, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site desigtrol and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be design criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water FacilitiesEasement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certific party reviewer. 141 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 13.FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/de from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the C full capture system or device is a single device or series of det traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not le resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 14.EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain notes shall be stated on the plans. 15.WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to th grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16.OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the Ci occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and mainte-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17.BUS STOP LOCATION The developer shall improve bus stops along the Stevens Creek Bo satisfaction of the City Engineer; this may include consistent shelters for the bus stops, but wi include duck outs or relocation of the bus stops. 18.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plaay as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The Cit Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 19.TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by 20.TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior 21.REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Progr refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22.STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with O 23.FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 142 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 24.SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the prior to issuance of building permits. 25.FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fir needed. 26.CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuanc 27.DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appu and shall reach an agreement with California Water Services Comp subject development. 28.SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary Di issuance of building permits. 29.UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the prop and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 30.UPGRADE OF STORM DRAIN LINES IN STEVENS CREEK The developer will be responsible for upgrading storm drain infr Boulevard along the property frontage (and as necessary to make the next upstream and downstream connection) to be consistent with the Cupertino Storm approved by the Director of Public Works. 31.LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Interior Lot Line Adjustments shall be completed within the Biltmore Adjacnecy sites through the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FI DEPARTMENT 1.AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 m height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle acces apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire departmen. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aeri Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstr the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access ro located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the buildi official. CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 2.FIRE ENGINE ACCESS 1. Minimum clear width: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shallt. Modifications to the design or width of a fire access road, or 143 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 required when the fire code official determines that access to become compromised due to emergency operations or nearby natural or manmade hazards (flood prone areas, railwaycrossings, bridge failures, hazardous mate-related incidents, etc.) 2. Access and loading: Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter const fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road (including bridges and culverts) with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (050 kg) or as otherwise determined by the fire code official. 3. Minimum clear height: Vertical clearance over required vehicular access roads and driveways shall be 13'6". 4. Grade: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). 5. Turn Radius (circulating): The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be re determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating ref to travel along a roadway without dead ends. 6. Turning Radius (Cui-de-sacs): The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet. Use of cui-de-sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is provided. 7. Turnarounds: Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways with a length in excess shown in this document are intended to provide a general design concept only. Modifications or variations of these designs may be approved by the Fire Department on a case-by-case basis. All turnaround designs submitted for Fire Department review shall m requirements. These details are applicable when a 36-foot minimum turning radius for dead ends is specified. These details are not applicable where turning r or when a circulating radius is specified. 8. Dead ends: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45720 mm) shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions as determined by the fire code official. 9. Parking: When parking is permitted on streets, in both Residential commercial applications, it shall conform to the following: - parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more- parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28-35 feet- no parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet NOTE: Rolled curbs can be part of the curb I sidewalk and used to increase the roadway width with approval from the fire code official. Additional requirements ma height or greater. See requirements under AERIAL FIRE APPARTUS 10. Access to a hydrant: Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or on-site, shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1 11. Traffic calming: Traffic calming devices and the design thereof shall be app CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 3.TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. Durin roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. CFC Sec. 501 4.PRIVATE ON-SITE FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED (NOTE: Exact square footage of new residential buildings is not provided) Provide private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Depar Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of TBD GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant B,Table B105.1 and Appendix C 144 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 5.FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildin shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sectio is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firew be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided th structures. Exception: Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and struc not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area and that are not located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any con responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in rder to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is require balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. -16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application a appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prio 903.2 as adopted and amended by CUPMC 6.POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection wate supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any cont the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to cots of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the desi-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the sy be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 200 Health and Safety Code 13114.7 7.TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shd by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk co issuance may be withheld until required installations are comple 501 8.CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the C Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. 9.EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees mai walkway width along either side of the building shall be no le Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required Sec. 1029 10.PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and e position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY D 1.SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY Sanitary sewer is currently available for the subject parcel. 145 Resolution No. 6694 DP-2011-06 May 8, 2012 2.IMPROVEMENT PLANS Improvement plans shall be submitted to the District for review and comments. 3.FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District fees and permits will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May, 2012, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the th City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2011\DP-2011-06 res.doc 146 ASA-2011-20 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6695 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT F TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 87 APARTMENT UNITS, 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, COMMON OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, AND STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 20060 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 10041 S BLANEY AVENUE, AND A VACANT LOT (APNS: 369-03-004, 369-03-003, 369-03-006, 369-03-007) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2011-20 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-004) 20060 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-003) 10041 S Blaney Avenue (APN: 369-03-006) Vacant Lot (APN: 369-03-007) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as require the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing i application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to s WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the welfare, or convenience; 2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicab planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, r other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property includin the following specific criteria: a)Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual t bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. b)Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been presand the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent dev color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, 147 Resolution No. 6695 ASA-2011-20 May 8, 2012 planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destructio existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building depart adjoining property owners. c)The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscap and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent devel d)This new development, abutting an existing residential development, has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measur NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolut Page 2 thereof,: The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Applicati-2011-20 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 Publ no. ASA-2011-20 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPME 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.SITE DETIALS, STREETSCAPE, FRONTAGE, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, AND LANDSCAPING The applicant shall work with City staff to finalize site details, including but not limited to: sidewalk and walkway paving material, streetscape and sidewalk design, bpedestrian amenities, and landscaping to ensure consistency along Stevens Creek Blvd and conformance t Heart of the City Specific Plan prior to issuance of building permits. It shall closely resembl attached conceptual plan and prepared to the satisfaction of the Development and Public Works Department. 3.COURTYARD AND COMMON OPEN SPACE DETAILS Courtayrd and common open space details shall be finalized prior to issuance of building permits 4.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submi per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of ComDevelopment prior to issuance of building permits. 148 Resolution No. 6695 ASA-2011-20 May 8, 2012 5.LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findiassessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limi landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspra-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following st irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landsc 6.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape appli installation report, or any time before the landscape installati a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed p removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size- adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall i either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 7.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan and architectural design (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or embshments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issua final building exterior plan and architectural design shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 8.SIGNAGE AND SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program and building permit shall be required prior to the installation of any signage, and may be subject to review by a qualified real estate consultant. Signage shall conform to the regulations stipulat unless otherwise approved with a sign program. 9.SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the Parking Regulations Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. A report from a licensed lighting engineer may be required to confirm all exterior lightiplies with 10.ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the sitall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public -of-way. The 149 Resolution No. 6695 ASA-2011-20 May 8, 2012 location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be revie of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11.SCREENING OF UTILITY STRUCTURES All new utility structures shall be located underground or scree satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Pu 12.TRASH ENCLOSURES Any new trash enclosures must be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Public Works Department. 13.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-05, TR-2012-13, and TR-2012-18 shall be applicable to this approval. 14.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Punment Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other ex notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code S fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May, 2012, at a regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of th the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following rol AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2011\ASA-2011-20 res.doc 150 TR-2012-18 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6696 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF PROTECTED TREES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 87 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 20030 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 20060 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, 10041 S BLANEY AAND A VACANT LOT (APNS: 369-03-004, 369-03-003, 369-03-006, 369-03-007) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2012-18 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-004) 20060 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 369-03-003) 10041 S Blaney Avenue (APN: 369-03-006) Vacant Lot (APN: 369-03-007) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receivtree removal, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedu of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regard to this application: 1.That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by own property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that the are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in tpage 2 thereof,: The application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2012-18, is hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no-2012-18 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, 151 Resolution No. 6696 TR-2011-18 May 8, 2012 A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-06, ASA-2011- 20, and TR-2012-13 shall be applicable to this approval. 3.REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant shall be required to plant tree replacements in and around the property in accordance with the CiThe required replacement trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of the project associated with file no. DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-06, ASA- 2011-20, and TR-2012-13. 4.TREE PROTECTION Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), Cupertino, California, dated February 24, 2012, shall be implemented as deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development for ree protection measures are in place prior to construction/demolition. The tree protection measures shall be p and posted on tree protection fences. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 5.ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS AND REPLACEMENTS In the event additional tree removals are required in conjunctio off-site or on-site, no further tree replacements will be required as the proposed amount of tree However, the Director of Community Development shall have the discretion t tree replacements as deemed necessary. The final tree replacement plan shall be reviewed approved prior to final building approval. 6.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include ation requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pu 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), h protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 660 be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 152 Resolution No. 6696 TR-2011-18 May 8, 2012 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May 2012, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of th the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following rol AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission Z:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2012\TR-2012-18 res.doc 153 DP-2011-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6697 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 APARTMENT UNITS (BILTMORE APARTMENTS) AND DEMOLITION OF THREE EXISTING GARAGE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 10159 S BLANEY AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2011-05 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 10159 S Blaney Ave (APN: 369-03-008) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receiv Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at l application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to a)The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this ResolutioPAGE 2 thereof,: The application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2011-05 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions spresolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2011-05 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 154 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPME 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15 A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12prepared by Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012- 13, and TR-2012-18 shall be applicable to this approval. 3.DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The City shall deduct 12 residential units in the General Plan alocation from the Heart of the City Area. 4.DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted for 12 new apartment unit apartment complex; and demolition of approximately 3 garages touare feet. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project c of Community Development. 5.ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertin not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, prope any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepre may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 6.EASEMENTS a)Cross Access Easements - A cross access easement for the purpose of vehicles and pedestrians from the Stevens Creek site to the existing Biltmore Apartments shall be recorded prior to final building occupancy. The draft language of said easement which shall be reviewed and approved by the city attorne b)Pedestrian Access Easements Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with the City to delineate additional pedestrian access easements connecting the pedestrian paths from sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard, through the p along Blaney Avenue. All easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of final occup. 7.HOUSING MITIGATION For residential projects, a housing mitigation fee of $2.75/squa prior to building permit issuance. A preliminary estimate of th $30,283 ($2.75 x 11,012). Please note that a change in the amount of square footage or change per square foot will alter the final amounts. 8.SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The project shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed issuance of building permits. 155 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 9.CONDOMINIUMIZATION Please note that the condominiumization of spaces is not approved as part of this project. Any proposed changes to the map shall require further City review and approval. 10.CIRCULATION AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS The project shall provide a minimum of 320 parking stalls. Changes to the number of provided parking stalls will require further City review and approval. Final parking plan shall be submitted to City for review and approval prior to issuance of building pemits. 11.BICYCLE PARKING CLASS All provided bicycle parking shall be identified as Class 1 bicycle parking and be consistent with the 12.INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS If determined to be warranted by the Director of Public Works Department, with staff to explore opportunities to provide and/or fund for additional pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Blaney Ave. Any proposed improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of C Public Works Department. 13.NOISE LEVELS AND ABATEMENT Community Noise Control Ordinance, an acoustical engineer may be attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Commnity Development at the 14.PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted and reviewed prior to building permit issuance. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (Building, P review the prepared construction management plan, to ensure that conditions of approval, staging of construction equipment is appropriate, tree are in place, public access routes are identified is defined, an established. 15.CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 am to 8 pm and Saturday and Sunday, 9 am to 6 pm. Construction activities are not allowed o The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulations pertaining to a limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and t appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent loc site. 16.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycle issuance of final demolition permits. 156 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 17.DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and mor prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas adjacen adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be -toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials o least 2 feet of freeboard; c) Pave, apply water at least three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction si d) Sweep streets daily, or more often if necessary (preferably withible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. e) building permit plan set. 18.ENVRIONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Per the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program based on the adopted as Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2011-15, the following is an outline of mitigation measures (MM) that apply, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution: i.Biological Resources a.MM BIO - 1.1 b.MM BIO - 1.2 c.MM BIO - 1.3 d.MM BIO - 2.1 ii.Cultural Resources a.MM CUL - 1.1 b.MM CUL - 1.2 iii.Geology and Soils a.MM GEO - 1.1 b.MM GEO - 2.1 iv.Hazards and Hazardous Materials a.MM HAZ - 1.1 b.MM HAZ - 1.2 c.MM HAZ - 1.3 v.Hydrology and Water Quality a.MM HYD - 1.1 vi.Noise a.MM NOI - 1.1 b.MM NOI - 1.2 c.MM NOI - 1.3 d.MM NOI - 2.1 e.MM NOI - 2.2 f.MM NOI - 2.3 g.MM NOI - 2.4 h.MM NOI - 2.5 i.MM NOI - 2.6 j.MM NOI - 2.7 k.MM NOI - 2.8 157 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 l.MM NOI - 2.9 m.MM NOI - 2.10 n.MM NOI - 2.11 vii.Utilities and Service Systems a.MM UTIL - 1.1 19.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. An submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Devel 20.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pu 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other ex notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 6602 fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exons. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM 1.STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in acco specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 2.CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be ins standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3.STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by t City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of v properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permi is located. 4.GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in acc the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Boa as appropriate. 5.DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engin- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as need swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detai on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improveme) as necessary to avoid an increase of the one percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably 158 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 6.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupe affected utility providers for installation of underground utiliper shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said pla of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 7.BICYCLE PARKING The developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8.IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement w providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checion fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utili prior to issuance of construction permits Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,387.00 or 5%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 2,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($818,100.00) h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified a of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or cha changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above grou screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be setback area. 10.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall improvement plans. 11.NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm 159 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Bes to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maint 12.C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatmen, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site desig treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be design criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certif maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 13.FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash ca from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system. A full capture system or device is a single device or series of de a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not le resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 14.EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by aneer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain notes shall be stated on the plans. 15.WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to thfor all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16.OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agree occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17.BUS STOP LOCATION The developer shall improve bus stops along the Stevens Creek Boage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; this may include consistent shelters for the bus stops, but wi include duck outs or relocation of the bus stops. 18.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registeredfic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control pla as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manu 160 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signag the City. 19.TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by he City. 20.TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed pri 21.REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in re refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22.STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 23.FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to th 24.SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 25.FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa needed. 26.CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before issuance 27.DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appu and shall reach an agreement with California Water Services Company for water service to the subject development. 28.SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the issuance of building permits. 29.UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will b building permits. 30.UPGRADE OF STORM DRAIN LINES IN STEVENS CREEK The developer will be responsible for upgrading storm drain infrastr Boulevard along the property frontage (and as necessary to make downstream connection) to be consistent with the Cupertino StormPlan, or as approved by the Director of Public Works. 161 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 31.LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Interior Lot Line Adjustments shall be completed within the Biltmore Adjacnecy sites through the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1.AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilit height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire departmen utility and power lines shall not be located within the aeri Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 f the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building mo 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access ro this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the buil official. CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 2.FIRE ENGINE ACCESS 1. Minimum clear width: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall Modifications to the design or width of a fire access road, or required when the fire code official determines that access to the site or a portion thereof become compromised due to emergency operations or nearby natur prone areas, railwaycrossings, bridge failures, hazardous mate-related incidents, etc.) 2. Access and loading: Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter const fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road (including bridges and culverts) with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds ( determined by the fire code official. 3. Minimum clear height: Vertical clearance over required vehicular access roads and driveways shall be 13'6". 4. Grade: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). 5. Turn Radius (circulating): The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be rehere the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating ref to travel along a roadway without dead ends. 6. Turning Radius (Cui-de-sacs): The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet. Use of cui-de-sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is prov 7. Turnarounds: Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways with a length in excessils shown in this document are intended to provide a general design concept only. Modifications or variations of these designs may be approved by the Fire Departme-by-case basis. All turnaround designs submitted for Fire Department review shall meet all previously stated requirements. These details are applicable when a 36-foot minimum turning radius for dead ends is specified. These details are not applicable where turning r or when a circulating radius is specified. 8. Dead ends: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45720 mm) shall be provided with width and determined by the fire code official. 9. Parking: When parking is permitted on streets, in both Residential commercial applications, it shall conform to the following: - parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more- parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28-35 feet- no parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet NOTE: Rolled curbs can be part of the curb I sidewalk and used to inc with approval from the fire code official. Additional requirements main 162 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 height or greater. See requirements under AERIAL FIRE APPARTUS 10. Access to a hydrant: Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or on-site, shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet eitherof hydrant), in accordance with California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per California vehicle code 22500.1 11. Traffic calming: Traffic calming devices and the design thereof shall be app CFC Sec. 503 and SCCFD SD&S A-1 3.TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall Department prior to the start of combustible construction. Durin roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access ro case basis. CFC Sec. 501 4.PRIVATE ON-SITE FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED (NOTE: Exact square footage of new residential buildings is not provided) Provide private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of TBD GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant B,Table B105.1 and Appendix C 5.FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildin provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sectio is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separa be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code a penetrations. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided th all new buildings and structures. Exception: Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and struc not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area and that are not located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in modification or upgrade of the existing water service is require balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State -16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2 as adopted and amended by CUPMC 6.POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contactors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to co purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the desi-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of ca water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the syation will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant Health and Safety Code 13114.7 163 Resolution No. 6697 DP-2011-05 May 8, 2012 7.TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) sh Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk co issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, a 501 8.CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. 9.EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required 10.PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and e position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY D 1.SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY Sanitary sewer is currently available for the subject parcel. 2.IMPROVEMENT PLANS Improvement plans shall be submitted to the District for review 3.FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District fees and permits will be required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May, 2012, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the th City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll ca AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2011\DP-2011-05 res.doc 164 ASA-2011-19 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6698 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT F TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 APARTMENT UNITS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, LANDSCAPING, AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES LOCATED AT 10159 S BLANEY AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2011-19 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 10159 S Blaney Ave (APN: 369-03-008) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as require the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at ld to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to s WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to 1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the welfare, or convenience; 2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicab planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a)Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual t bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. b)Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent dev color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, h planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destructio existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety 165 Resolution No. 6698 ASA-2011-19 May 8, 2012 requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. c)The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscap and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. d)This new development, abutting an existing residential development, has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrus setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof,: The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Applicati-2011-19 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 Publ no. ASA-2011-19 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPME 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.SITE DETIALS, STREETSCAPE, FRONTAGE, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, AND LANDSCAPING The applicant shall work with City staff to finalize site detail and walkway paving material, streetscape and sidewalk design, buildipedestrian amenities, and landscaping to ensure consistency along Stevens Creek Blvd and conformance t Heart of the City Specific Plan prior to issuance of building permits. It shall closely resemble the attached conceptual plan and prepared to the satisfaction of the Development and Public Works Department. 3.COURTYARD AND COMMON OPEN SPACE DETAILS Courtayrd and common open space details shall be finalized prior to issuance of building permits. 4.LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submi per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Com issuance of building permits. 5.LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findi consolidated into a landscape installation report. 166 Resolution No. 6698 ASA-2011-19 May 8, 2012 The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and 6.LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the l installation report, or any time before the landscape installati a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the pl water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aeratin-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; p removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally eq- adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shal either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping profess 7.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS Final building exterior treatment plan and architectural design (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material, architectural treatments and/or emb approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan and architectural design shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be Community Development shall require a modification approval. 8.SIGNAGE AND SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program and building permit shall be required prior to the installation of any signage, and may be subject to review by a qualified real estate consultant. Signage shall conform to the regulations stipulat unless otherwise approved with a sign program. 9.SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the Parking Regulations Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit issua lighting engineer may be required to confirm all exterior lighting throughout the site complies with 10.ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the sit visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visibl-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be revie of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 167 Resolution No. 6698 ASA-2011-19 May 8, 2012 11.SCREENING OF UTILITY STRUCTURES All new utility structures shall be located underground or screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Pu 12.TRASH ENCLOSURES Any new trash enclosures must be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Public Works Department. 13.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, DP-2011-05, TR-2012-13, and TR-2012-18 shall be applicable to this approval. 14.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pu 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other ex notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has b fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such ex PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May, 2012, at a regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of th the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following rol AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2011\ASA-2011-19 res.doc 168 TR-2012-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6699 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF PROTECTED TREES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 12 NEW APARTMENT UNITS AT AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 10159 S BLANEY AVE (APN: 369-03-008) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2012-13 Applicant: Mike Ducote Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group Location: 10159 S Blaney Ave (APN: 369-03-008) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino receivtree removal, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regard to this application: 1.That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the prop the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by own property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfactionf the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning opage 2 thereof,: The application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2012-13, is hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified his Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no-2012-13 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2012, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated March 30, 2012, consisting of 29 sheets labeled A0, C1, C2, C3, C4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, 15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20, A21, L1, L2, and L320030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Planning Submittal, 3.30.12Christiani Johnson; BKF Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners; and the Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., and on An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), 169 Resolution No. 6699 TR-2011-13 May 8, 2012 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2.CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-06, ASA-2011- 20, and TR-2012-18 shall be applicable to this approval. 3.REQUIRED TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant shall be required to plant tree replacements in and around the property in accordance with the CiThe required replacement trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of the project associated with file no. DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, DP-2011-06, ASA- 2011-20, and TR-2012-18. 4.TREE PROTECTION Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), Cupertino, California, dated February 24, 2012, shall be implemented as deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development for place prior to construction/demolition. The tree protection measures shall be p and posted on tree protection fences. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 5.ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS AND REPLACEMENTS In the event additional tree removals are required in conjunctio off-site or on-site, no further tree replacements will be required as the propo tree However, the Director of Community Development shall have the discretion t tree replacements as deemed necessary. The final tree replacement plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to final building approval. 6.NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a st a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactiereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedicat other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), h protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 170 Resolution No. 6699 TR-2011-13 May 8, 2012 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8 day of May 2012, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of th the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Miller, Brophy, Brownley, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sun ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava /s/Marty Miller Aarti Shrivastava, Director Marty Miller, Chair Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2012\TR-2012-13 res.doc 171 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777--planning@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 8, 2012 Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18,DP-2011-05,ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Applications: Mike Ducote(Prometheus Real Estate Group) Applicant: 20030, 20060 Stevens Creek Blvd, 10041 S Blaney Ave, & Vacant Lot (APN:369-03- Location: 004, 369-03-003, 369-03-006, 369-03-007) 10159 S Blaney Ave (APN: 369-03-008) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Stevens CreekSite: 1.Development Permit (DP-2011-06) to allow the demolition of approximately 21,000square feetof existing commercial space and the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 89 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building. 2.Architectural and Site Approval(ASA-2011-20)fora new mixed-use development consisting of 89 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building. 3.Tree RemovalPermit (TR-2012-18) to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 57 trees in conjunction with the construction of a new apartment and comm BiltmoreApartmentSite: 4.Development Permit (DP-2012-05) to allow the construction of 12 new residential units at an apartment complex 5.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-19)for 12 new residential units within an apartment complex. 6.Tree RemovalPermit (TR-2012-13) to allow the removal and replacement of approximately 5 trees conjunction with the construction of newapartment units at an existing apartment complex. Please note, sincethe project involves developments on severalparcels (existing Biltmore Apartments parcel and several parcels along Stevens Creek Blvd. and BlaneyAve.), multiple applications are required but will be reviewed and approved at the same timebecause of the common ownership and the proposed shared connections/access. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionrecommend thatthe City Council approve the following: 1.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2011-16,EA-2011-15) 2.Development Permit (DP-2011-06)to allow the demolition of approximately 21,000 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 87apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building; 3.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-20)for a new mixed-use development consisting of 87 apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building; 4.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2012-18) to allow the removal of approximately 57 protected trees; 172 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 5.Development Permit (DP-2011-05)to allow the construction of 12 new apartment units at an existi apartment complex; 6.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2011-19)for 12 new apartment units; 7.Tree RemovalPermit(TR-2012-13)to allowthe removal of approximately 5 protected treesin accordance with the draftresolutions. PROJECT DATA: Stevens CreekSiteBiltmore Apartment Site Commercial/Office/ResidentialMedium/High Density(10-20 General Plan Designation DU/Gr. Ac.) Heart of the City Specific PlanHeart of the City Specific Plan ConceptualPlan P(CG, Res)P(R-3) 10-20 Zoning Designation Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2011-16,EA-2011-15) Environmental Assessment 141,203 sq ft (3.24 acres)440,827sq ft(10.12 acres) Lot Size 7,000 sq ftNA Commercial Building 25 DU/Gr. Ac.20DU/Gr. Ac. Maximum Allowed Residential Density(Net of the 87Units220 Units commercial parking and building areas as per the HOC) 89Units179 Existing Units Proposed Number of Units 12New Units Total: 191 Units 129320 Surface Parking Proposed 42 Commercial87 Residential 68-- Underground Parking Proposed 197320 Total Parking: 42 Commercial155 Residential 21,000sq ft700sq ft Proposed Demolition Commercial Balance: 105,870 + 14,082net=119,952sq ft Development Allocation: (Heart of the City) Residential Unit Balance: 308 99= 209 386 Proposed Building Height 36Class I TotalBicycle Parking Project Consistency with: Yes General Plan: Yes,based on staff recommendation that the Stevens Creek Site Specific Plan: Apartment Complex is reduced from 89 units to 87 units Yes Zoning: BACKGROUND: The project area is located generally at the southwest corner of property. The project is surrounded by a variety of commercial, office, quasi public and residential and is located within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area. Currently the project area includes five parcels for a total of 13.36 acres. Out of the total project area, 3.24 acres(consisting offour parcels)are currently being occupied by 21,000 square feet of commercial buildings. Existing uses on these parcels include a Chilis restaurant (6,000sq ft),Shan restaurant (9,000 sq ft), a small commercial strip center (6,000sq ft), and a vacant parcel. The four lots on the Stevens 173 174 Stevens Creek SiteMixed-use 175 Biltmore Apartment Expansion 176 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Building A is located on the Stevens Creeksite and will be three (3) stories and386ft tall, while Building B is two (2) stories off of Blaney Ave (20tall), and three (3) stories facingthe interiorside (30tall). Buildings C and D are located on the Biltmore Apartments site and will be two (2) storiesand 20fttall. One and two-bedroomapartment units will be located throughout the buildings: Building A will have 37 one-bedroom unitsand35 two-bedroom units, Building B will have 14 one-bedroom units and 3 two- bedroom units, Building C will have 4 one-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units, while Building D will only have 4 two-bedroom units.Each apartment is divided intoliving, dining, and kitchenareas,with separate bedrooms and bathrooms, closet space, and an in-unit washer/dryer. All units will have private outdoor spacein the form of balconies or porches in conformance with the Heart of the City Specific Plan requirements.The units within Buildings A and B will be internally accessible while the units in Buildings C and D have exterior individual acPlease refer to following table for additional apartment details. Building Stevens CreekSiteBiltmore Apartments Unit TypeABCDTotal: One Bedroom37144055 Size Range: 745 sq ft 841 sq ft Two Bedroom3534446 Size Range: 1,004 sq ft 1,290 sq ft 721784 Total:101 Please note: Prior to issuance of building permits, the number of one an-bedroom units will be revised to reflect the two (2) unit reduction in the number of apartments Theproposed 7,000 sq ft commercial building will be located north of Building Awith prime Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage. The applicant proposes to designate50% of the 7,000 square foot commercial building as food related or restaurant uses. Commercial Building Building A Building B Building C Building D Site Plan Residential Density 177 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 In accordance to the Heart of the CitySpecific Plan, thetotal land area used to calculate the maximum allowableresidential density for the proposed Stevens Creek siteexcludes the parking and land areas devoted to the commercial portion of the project. As a result, the project is permitted to have a maximum of 87 units. As referenced previously, thestaff recommendation and resolution require the project to eliminate two (2) units in order to comply with the H The proposed Biltmore Apartment parcel does not have any commercial components and permits a maximum of 220 units. The project proposes adding 12 new units 191 units, and complies with the maximum allowed density of 20 units per Compliancewith General Plan, Zoning and Heart of the City Specific Plan The proposed project complies with the Citys density requirements(with the elimination of 2 units to the Stevens Creek site)and the General Plan Housing Element. In 2010, the City adopted-2014 Housing Element, which is a part of the Citys General Plan. The Cal Community Development requireevery jurisdiction to demonstrate that they have asufficient supply of land to accommodate its fair share of the regions housing needs. The process involved working with community members and stakeholders inrecognizingpotential sites that have appropriate zoning and infrastructural support in order to support housing projects.After extensive community outreach and participation, 13 sites (approximately 27 parcels) were adopted by the City Councilas future potential residential sites. As mentioned previously, the proposed mixed-use project on the Stevens Creek site (87apartment units and 7,000 sq ft commercial) will be replacing 21,000square feet of current commercial sq ft primarily located on the Housing Element site #4. This area consists of t-03-004/006/007), not including the corner parcel at Stevens Creek Blvd and BlaneyAve. The Housing Element designated all of these sites to be converted into housing. Midway through the planning process, the applicant was able to s The Chilis parcel is not included in the list of Housing Elementhe Chilis parcel into the project allows for a better site plan in terms of site acces amenities for both the residential as well as the commercial use development of the Chilis site does not result in a reduction of retail, the project pro Chilis building (approximately 6,000square feet) with a new 7,000 sq ft commercial building along th Stevens Creek Blvd. with enhanced visibility and access. This iso consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which requires retail along the frontage along St-use projects. The project also complies with the Heart of the City requirements for landscaping, common open space, private outdoor space, access, streetscape, setbacks, height, build 178 Housing Element Site Non-Housing Element Site 179 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Widen the glazing on front elevation for tenant space flexibilit Rear entrancesfor customer convenience Sign program as integral part of the design, should not be an af Accessible, adequate and visible commercial parking stalls The project has incorporated most of the retail consultant's comdded requiring the final building and site plan to address all the ab of building permits Conceptual Rendering of CommercialBuilding Architectural Considerations Given that Buildings C & D are located on the Biltmore Apartment site, they closely resemblethe architectural style and detailing of the existing apartment complexcreatinga seamless transition. Building A featuressimplebuilding lines and a more modern designthat complements the commercial oriented Stevens Creek Boulevard. Building B provides a nice architectural transition between the existing Biltmore Apartment complex and Building A by incorporat Generally, the proposedbuilding exteriorsfeature high quality materials such asfiber cement lap siding, cement plaster, and metal/glass elements. The City's Architectural Consultant has reviewed the project and further improve the design of the proposed residential buildings (See Attachment 2, Architectural Recommendations).These recommendations are summarized as followsand have been added to the conditions of approval to the project: Addmore glazing or features to enhance visual transparency Highlightmain entriesto the buildings Definemore architectural details Provide high qualitybuilding materials Redesignthe stoopentries Consider flat roof structuresinstead of pitched Site Improvements The project proposes extensive site improvements to enhance the perience, with paved walkways and sidewalks that interconnect buildings, outdoor furn and viewing areas for public art. 180 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Courtyards and Pedestrian Plazas The proposedlandscape plan features a varied and extensive plant palettethroughout the site and parking lot, includinglandscape buffers, fingers islands, tree diamonds, trees,shrubs, groundcovers, and common open space. The project also proposes to reconstruct the frontages along theStevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue by providing new detached sidewalks,features, tree wellsand other pedestrian oriented amenities, consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.Not only will these new frontage improvements enhance the aesthetic value of the area, they also will help activate the pedestrian activities along the public street and help to facilitate safe and functional outdoor spaces similar to the experience in front of Peets Coffee and Panera Bread. Tree Removal The project proposes to remove approximately 62trees,out of which twoare specimen trees (2Coast Live Oaktrees).Themajority of thetrees proposed for removal are either located within the proposed development and/or are in poor condition and should be removed regardless of the project. The vast majority of the trees have only a moderate or low preservation rating, and the removaland replacement of these trees will not result in any significant impacts to the project(See Attachment3,Arborist Report). A total of 158replacement trees are proposed as part of the project. The minimum size for the 158 replacement trees is 24 box-size. The proposed tree replacementsexceed the requirements prescribed by the Citys Protected Tree Ordinance.In addition, the project has been reviewed by the Citys Consult Arborist, andrecommends that adequate tree protection measures, irrigation and erosion control procedures, and sufficient tree replacements are in place asappropriate mitigation measures. A condition of approval has been added to reflect this requirement. 181 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Traffic, Circulation,and Parking Analysis Hexagonwas retained by the City to analyze the project to ensure that t arrangement is adequate and that there are no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoodor adjacent uses(See Attachment 4, Transportation Impact Analysis).The report concludes that the project provides sufficient amount of parking impacts. As part of the study,aparking survey was performedby Hexagon tocompare the actual parking demand ofsix (6)apartment complexes in and around Cupertino. The results of the survey revealed that aparking ratiorangeof 1.14-1.54 spaces per residential unitexisted across the surveyed apartments(all surveyed apartments wereconfirmed to have an occupancy rate of at least 95%).The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.74 stall per each apartment unit at the Stevens Creeksite (excluding required parking for the commercial space), and 1.67stallsfor each unit at theBiltmore Apartment site. The retail/commercial building was assumed tohave at least half of thespace (3,500 sq ftwith 85 seats and 6 employees)dedicated to arestaurant/food related usesand the remaining 3,500 sq ft is reserved for general retail parked at 1stall for each 250 sq ft,for a total parking requirement of 42 parking spaces. The project proposes 42 stallsfor the retail/commercial building. The project would consolidate the three existing driveways off of Stevens Creek Blv two existing driveways off of Blaney Ave will be consolidated in, thereby improving traffic operations. Sufficient driveway widths are prand cross access easements will be required on the Stevens Creek site to connect the project to Apartments. Student Generation Rates Under State law, the Cityis not permitted to consider school impacts as a determining factor forproject review and approval. However, it is the City's policy to maintain a good relationship with the school districts. Therefore a , prepared by Schoolhouse Services (a consulting firmretained by the City that frequently services both the Cupertino Union School ),has been forwarded tothe respective elementary and high schooldistrictsfor reviewand consideration (See Attachment 5, E Analysis). The school districts have not expressed any specific concerns about the project. Outreach Efforts and Public Comments A neighborhood meeting was on Wednesday, March 14,2012 as part of Prometheus ongoing outreach th efforts.Property owners and neighbors within 500feet of the proposed development were notified. Approximately 20+members of the community attended the meeting. Comments shared at the meeting include concerns regarding traffic and school impacts, parcel tax, driveway location, and disappointment as part of the project(See Attachment 8, Notes from Neighborhood Meeting). Someresidents welcomed the redevelopment of the site, especially the commercial building fronting Stevens Creek Blvd, the modern architecture, and conformance to requirements, while others noted that the project would lose existing retail. In addition, a City Notice of Public Hearing was sent on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, notifying th neighbors within 500 of the proposed development and the Plannihearing. Since the City's public notifications have gone out, staff has received several written and verbal comments from the public. These comments are summarized below(staff response in ): italics 182 DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, TR-2012-18 Biltmore AdjacencyMay 8, 2012 DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13 Questions about the project school impacts and mitigations- Please see Student Generation Rates section of the staff report Questions about the accuracy of the school analysis- Please see Student Generation Rates section of the staff report Concerns with the intensity and traffic impacts from the project- Please see Traffic, Circulation and Parking Analysis section of the staff report Questions about the residential density calculations- Please see Residential Density section of the staff report. The Heart of the City Specific Plan prescribes a allowable residential density for all mixed-use projects. The proposed project is consistent with the Heart of the City density requirements. See Attachment9, for thedetailedlist of public comments received. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has retained David J. Powers and Associatesto conduct the environmental assessment and prepare an Initial Study for the proposed project(See Attachment 6, Initial Study). Conditions and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are included as conditions of approval for the project. The Environmental Review Committee has recommended the PlanningCommission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declarations(EA-2011-16, EA-2011-15). Prepared by: Simon Vuong, Assistant Planner Reviewed by:Approved by: /s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary ChaoAarti Shrivastava City PlannerCommunity Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1:Draft Resolutions Attachment 2:Second Review Comments/Notes, architectural recommendations by Studios Architecturedated3, 2012 Attachment 3:An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project at 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency), Cupertino, California, dated , 2012 Attachment 4:Biltmore Apartments Stevens Creek Bl,Draft Transportation Impact Analysis,by HexagonTransportation Consultants, Inc., dated March 30, 2012 Attachment 5:,20030 Stevens Creek Project, by Schoolhouse Services, dated January 2012 Attachment 6:Initial Study for the 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Biltmore Apartments Project, dated April 2012, by David J. Powers & Associates Attachment 7:20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments, Cupertino, recommendations by Real Estate Partners, dated April 23, 2012 Attachment 8:Brief Notes from Neighborhood Meeting, held March 14, 2012 Attachment 9:List of PublicComments Received Attachment 10: Supplemental Drawings and Renderings Attachment 11:Plan Set G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pc DP reports\2012 DP Reports\DP-2011-06, ASA-2011-20, DP-2011-05, ASA-2011-19, TR-2012-13.doc 183 405 Howard Street, Suite 588 San Francisco, CA 94105 415 398 7575 415 398 3829 fax www.studiosarchitecture.com February 13, 2012 David Sabalvaro STUDIOS Architecture Second Review Comments/Notes Review Documents: C1-C4, A0-A20, L1-L2 General Comments: Project submittal still appears to still be very preliminary, blocky and not very or overall wall sections were submitted and would be helpful in 3-D views and Elevations lack context, landscape, etc. and makes bappear blocky and severe. Corners of buildings need attention, as well as cornices parapet heights, expression, etc. Cement Plaster and Fibercement Lap Siding are not convincing as used same materials and details in a similar project? Warmer materials such as real wood siding, or other alternatives should be discussed Site Plan See Sht. A1 for marked up comments. Parking structure below building is better solution for project, Relocate Trash Enclosure at Northwest Entrance Drive to Building A site corner. Buildings See marked up elevations- Sheets A5,6,9,11,13 & 14. General Comments: Building A: North Entry opposite commercial building needs more attention, detailing and presence, As noted on the elevations, additional glazing and tr to landscaped courtyard beyond) should be investigated. At South Entry Ã Highlight, widen and add glazing for transparency and definitio All Porches and Stoops need to be designed to be more substantial w simple iron railings. Consider side walls in addition to iron r Canopies, Trellis, to define entries should be considered. Materials need to re-considered and/or similar projects that have utilized similar ma be reviewed by City. More Ånoble materialsÆ such as real wood s be explored. Roof Cornice and Overhangs should be illustrated and details of support member and element need to be defined. Lack of detail is not helping review proces 184 Building B: Sloped roofs and bay window expression on south elevation is not Consider flat roof scheme such as Building A rather than ÅhybridÆ model. See mark ups. Buildings C & D: Blank wall planes need more attention. See mark ups. Add mat change for shadow and relief. Submit real materials for review. these buildings. Add finer detail elements to buildings. Commercial Building Ã See Mark Ups. If Cement Plaster is still specified for body of building-specify additional Åstone tileÆ at entries as marked up on sheet A14 to complement tile at angled, feature masr review. Submit material and details of canopy/overhangs. As an alternative, explore Stone Tile at column expressions up t canopy line. See mark ups. No comments at this time on landscape or civil plans. See site 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 Biltmore Apartments – Stevens Creek Bl Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. March 30, 2012 Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850, San Jose, CA Hexagon Phone: 408-971-6100 Job Number: 11GB31 Client Name: David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. Document Name: BiltmoreApartments_DTIA_March16.docx 242 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ...................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 8 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ....................................................... 12 4. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................... 20 5. Cumulative Conditions ............................................................... 27 6. Conclusions ..................................................................... 1 Appendices Appendix A: New Traffic Counts Appendix B: Intersection Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Dela...................................... 6 Table 2 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation ................................................ Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................... Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ....................................... Table 6 Queuing Analysis Î Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue .................................. 22 Table 7 Parking Survey Results .....................................................25 Table 8 Parking Requirements in Neighboring Cities ......................................................... Table 9 On-Site Parking............................................................. 26 Table 10 Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions ............................................. 29 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................. Figure 2 Site Plan ................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations ..................................................9 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................ Figure 5a Project Trip Distribution Pattern and Project Trips ...................................................... Figure5bExistingCommercialUseTrips................................................................16 Figure 5c Net Trip Assignment .............................................................. 17 Figure 6 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .............................................. Figure 7 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................ ii|Page 243 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic and parking study for a proposed mixed-use project in Cupertino, California. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project proposes to replace 21,082 square feet (s.f.) of existing commercial uses on the site (ChiliÓs restaurant Î 5,952 s.f., Shan Restaurant Î 9,359 s.f., and Retail Î 5,771 s.f.) with 101 apartments and 7,000 s.f. of retail space. Access to the project site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential traffic impacts related to the pr development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino. The study determined the traffic impacts of the proposed development on two signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site of traffic. Site access and parking also were evaluated. Since the net new trips generated by the project would be less than 100 trips during the peak hour, a typical Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements is not necessary. Typically, a short-term impact analysis of freeway segment levels of service should be conducted if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed CMP freeway analysis is not necessary. A simple evaluation to substantiate this determination is included in Tab Project Trip Generation After applying all applicable trip reductions and the existing trip credits due to the removal of two restaurants and a retail building, the project would generate 342 net new daily vehicle trips, with 35 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Intersection Levels of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis show that, measured against the City of Cupertino standards, both study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. The results of the intersection level of service analysis also show that the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions both without and with the project. Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the intersection level of s iii|Page 244 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Cumulative Conditions ExistingNo ProjectExisting + Project ConditionsWith Project PeakAvg.Avg.Incr. InIncr. InAvg.Avg.Incr. InIncr. In Study IntersectionHourDelayLOSDelayLOSCrit. DelayCrit. V/CDelayL Blaney Av & Stevens Creek BlAM33.4C34.0C0.70.01333.8C34.4C0.80.0 PM33.9C34.5C0.90.01236.1D37.0D1.40.014 Torre Av & Stevens Creek BlAM19.8B19.7B0.00.00118.5B18.3B0.00.00 PM18.5B18.1B-0.7-0.00617.4B17.0B-0.6-0.006 Parking Residential Parking The project will provide parking at the rate of 1.70 parking spaces per unit for the Biltmore Apartments (324 parking spaces for 191 apartment units) and 1.82 parking spaces per unit for the Stevens Creek Adjacency (162 parking spaces for 89 apartment units). Hexagon surveyed parking utilization at six similar apartment complexes in and around Cupertino, and the highest ratio was found to be 1.54 occupied spaces per apartment unit. The average was 1.35 parking project is proposing at least 10% more parking than what is required based on the highest surveyed peak hour parking demand. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed parking is adequate. Retail Parking The project meets the City code requirement of 1 space per 250 s.f. for the 3,500 s.f. of general retail and 1 parking space for 4 seats and 1 parking space per employee for the 3,500 s.f. of restaurant use. The requirement is 42 parking spaces, and 42 spaces are proposed. iv|Page 245 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic and parking study for a proposed mixed-use project in Cupertino, California. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project proposes to replace 21,082 square feet (s.f.) of existing commercial uses on the site (ChiliÓs restaurant Î 5,952 s.f., Shan Restaurant Î 9,359 s.f., and Retail Î 5,771 s.f.) with 101 apartments and 7,000 s.f. of retail space. Access to the project site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The project site and study area are shown on Figure 1. The conceptual project site plan is shown on Figure 2. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential traffic impacts related to the pr development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino. The study determined the traffic impacts of the proposed development on two signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site of traffic. Site access and parking also were evaluated. Since the net new trips generated by the project would be less than 100 trips during the peak hour, a typical Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements is not necessary. Typically, a short-term impact analysis of freeway segment levels of service should be conducted if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed CMP freeway analysis is not necessary. A simple evaluation to substantiate this determination is included in Table 2 in this chapter. Study Intersections 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Torre Avenue Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 a typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods on an average day that the most congested traffic conditions occur within the study area. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: 1|Page 246 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Scenario 1: Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new 2011 manual Existing Conditions. turning-movement counts. All new count data was approved by the City of Cupertino prior to using the data for the traffic analysis. Scenario 2: Existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes were Existing Plus Project Conditions. estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional t project. Trip credits were applied for the existing occupied use driveway counts. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 3: Cumulative project trips were estimated based Cumulative Without Project Conditions. on approved and pending projects data provided by the City of Cu without project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the approved and pending project trips. Scenario 4: Cumulative with project traffic volumes were Cumulative With Project Conditions. estimated by adding to cumulative without project traffic volume generated by the project. Cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative without project conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. 2|Page 247 248 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Methodology This section describes the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Cupertino, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sourc existing traffic volumes approved and pending project trips intersection lane configurations signal timing and phasing Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. described below. Signalized Intersections All the signalized study intersections are subject to the City of Cupertino level of service standards. The City of Cupertino level of service methodology for signalized intersections is the 2000 Highway Capacity (HCM) method. This method is applied using the TRAFFIX software. The 2000 HCM operations Manual method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX is also the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, the City of Cupertino methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or The correlation between average control delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. Intersection Operations The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-dem intersections. Vehicle queues are estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of ÐnÑ vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: nÎ ( P (x=n) = e n! where: P (x=n) = probability of ÐnÑ vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane Avg. # of vehicles in queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr) th The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95 percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future left- turn storage requirements at signalized intersections. th The 95 percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less th would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length larger than the 95 percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 5|Page 250 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 th 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95 percentile queue th length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95 percentile queue length is also known as the Ðdesign queue length.Ñ Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Freeways According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is required if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of gross project trips added to the freeways in the study area is estimated to be well below the one percent threshold (see Table 2 below), a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of service was not performed. 6|Page 251 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Table 2 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation 1 # of MixedCapacity1% ofPeak Gross Freeway SegmentDirectionFlow Lanes(vphpl)CapacityHourProject Trips I-280West of De Anza BlWB3690069AM1 PM1 I-280West of De Anza BlEB3690069AM0 PM2 I-280East of Stevens Creek BlWB3690069AM1 PM6 I-280East of Stevens Creek BlEB3690069AM5 PM4 SR 85North of Stevens Creek BlNB2440044AM2 PM2 SR 85North of Stevens Creek BlSB2440044AM1 PM3 SR 85South of De Anza BlNB2440044AM0 PM1 SR 85South of De Anza BlSB2440044AM1 PM1 Notes: 1 Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing traffic conditions. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under existing pl method used to estimate project traffic. Chapter 4 describes non-level of service operational issues associated with the proposed project. Chapter 5 presents the intersection operations under cumulative traffic conditions. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the tr 7|Page 252 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the existing levels of service of the key intersections in the study area. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided by I-280 and SR 85. Local access to the project site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. These facilities are described below. is a north-south freeway that extends from US 101 in San Jose to I-80 in San Francisco. It is I-280 generally an east-west oriented eight-lane freeway within the City of Cupertino. I-280 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at N. De Anza Boulevard a provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Stevens Creek Boulevard and S. De SR 85 Anza Boulevard. SR 85 is oriented in a north/south direction with four mixed-flow lanes and two HOV lanes. is a four-lane east/west major arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It extends Stevens Creek Boulevard from Cupertino eastward to I-880, at which point it makes a transition into San Carlos Street to Downtown San Jose. Stevens Creek Boulevard provides right-turn only access to and from the project site. is a two-lane north/south street extending from Homestead Road to Prospect Road. Blaney Avenue Blaney Avenue provides direct access to the project site. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were confirmed by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 3. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new manual turning-movement counts conducted in November of 2011. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 4. New intersection count data are contained in Appendix A. 8|Page 253 254 255 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino level of service standards, the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are include Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service PeakCountAvg. Study IntersectionHourDateDelayLOS Blaney Av & Stevens Creek BlAM11/3/201133.4C PM11/3/201133.9C Torre Av & Stevens Creek BlAM11/3/201119.8B PM11/3/201118.5B Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions were observed in the field to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. In general, traffic volumes on Stevens Creek Boulevard are heaviest in the westbound direction during the AM commute period and in the eastbound direction during the PM commute period. No operational problems were observed at the study intersections during either the AM or PM peak periods of traffic. level of service calculations accurately reflect existing conditions. 11|Page 256 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes existing plus project traffic conditions, including the method by which project traffic is estimated. Existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Trip credits were applied for the existing occupied uses on the site based on driveway counts. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine impacts on intersections is based on the City of Cupertino level of service standards. City of Cupertino Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Cupertino if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under existing conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 or more seconds the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. and An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. A significant impact by City of Cupertino standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to existing conditions or better. Transportation Network Under Existing Plus Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip genera assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is 12|Page 257 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. Standard trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, Eighth (2008) were used for this study. Edition The ITE rates are based on numerous counts of existing development of the same land use type. For the residential component of the project, the rates for Apartment (ITE land use code 220) were used. These rates are based on trip generation data collected from approximately 90 apartment complexes surveyed throughout the United States and Canada. For the retail component of the project, the rates for Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820) were used. These rates are based on trip generation data collected from approximately 400 shopping centers surveyed throughout the suburban United States and Canada, ranging in size between 1,700 and 2.2 million square feet. The ITE category "Shopping Center" does not precisely describe the type of small retail center that is being proposed. A more representative category within the ITE manual is "Specialty Retail Center" (land use code 814). However, the ITE rate for Specialty Retail Center for the PM peak hour is actually lower than the PM rate for Shopping Center (2.71 trips per 1,000 s.f. versus 3.73 trips per 1,000 s.f.), and there is no Specialty Retail Center rate for the AM peak hour. Thus, for the purpose of the traffic study the average Shopping Center rates, not the fitted curve, were used. Use of the fitted curve for shopping centers less than 100,000 s.f. is more appropriate for centers that are anchored by a grocery store, which has a much higher trip generation rate than other types of retail development. Hexagon conducted driveway counts to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by the 21,082 square feet of retail uses currently on the site. Based on the driveway counts, the existing uses are generating trips at a rate of 1.2 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM peak hour and 3.1 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the PM peak hour. These rates are consistent with the ITE Shopping Center rates (1.0 trips per 1,000 s.f. during the AM peak hour and 3.7 trips per 1,000 square feet during the PM peak hour) that were applied to the retail component of the project. Applicable Trip Reductions Trip generation for retail uses typically is adjusted to account for pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that would already be on the adjacent roadways (and therefore would already be counted in the existing traffic volumes) but would turn into the site while passing by. Standard retail trip generation rates typically include pass-by trips. Thus, the ITE trip rates that were applied to the retail component of the project were adjusted to incorporate a typical 25 percent pass-by trip reduction for the PM peak hour. In addition, a mixed-use development with complementary land use generate and attract trips internally between the two uses. Thus, the number of vehicle trips generated for each use may be reduced, since these trips would not require entering or exiting the site. The VTAÓs (March 2009) indicates a trip reduction of up to 15 percent is Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines allowed for mixed-use developments such as the proposed project. The 15 percent reduction is applied to the smaller of the two trip generators (retail component), and the internal trips that are calculated (1 AM peak hour trip and 4 PM peak hour trips) also are subtracted fro component). Existing Use Trip Credits The existing uses on the project site consist of two stand-alone restaurants and a retail building totaling 21,082 13|Page 258 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 s.f. Trips that are generated by the existing occupied uses on the site were subtracted from the gross project trip generation estimates. Trip credits were applied for the existing uses based on AM and PM peak hour driveway counts. To account for retail pass-by trips, the existing PM peak hour driveway trips were reduced by 25 percent prior to being subtracted from the gross project trips. After applying all applicable trip reductions and trip credits, it is estimated that the project would generate 342 net new daily vehicle trips, with 35 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates WeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Land UseRate/a/TripsRate/a/InOutTotalRate/a/InOutTotalSize Proposed Apartments /b/101units7.397460.531143540.74492675 Retail Space /c/7.0ksf42.943011.004373.73131326 Retail Pass-By Reduction /d/-3-3-6 Internal Capture /e/-90-1-1-2-4-4-8 Subtotal:957144559553287 Existing Commercial Uses /f/21.0ksf-615-15-9-24-38-24-62 Net Project Trips:34-13351725 268 Notes: /a/ Rates expressed in trips per dwelling unit for residential u /b/ ITE trip rates for Apartments (Land Use #220) used for this component of the project. (fitted curve equations applied) /c/ ITE trip rates for Shopping Center (Land Use #820) used for /d/ A typical 25% retail pass-by trip reduction was applied to the retail component of the project during the PM peak hour. /e/ Internal capture (15% of smaller generator x 2) based on Santa Clara VTA TIA March 2009 Guidelines. /f/ Peak hour trips based on driveway counts of existing uses opass-by trip reduction was appied to the existing PM peak hour driveway trips. Daily trips generated by the existing uses were estimated. Source: ITE 8th Edition (2008). Trip Generation, Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment Because the project study area is so small and consists of a mix of residential and commercial land uses, one trip distribution pattern was developed for both the residen The project trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadways. The peak hour trips generated by the proposed project and the existing uses on the site were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distr Schools in the project neighborhood were considered during project trip assignment. Based on information provided by the applicant, the school impact analysis for the project estimated that 101 market-rate units would generate approximately 24 elementary school students, 10 middle school students, and six high school students. The neighborhood schools consist of Eaton Elementary school (school start time is 9:00 AM), Lawson Middle School (school start time is 7:30 AM Monday Î Thursday and 8:30 AM on Friday) and Cupertino High School (start time is 7:30 AM Monday Î Friday). Based on the school start times, most of the school trips would likely occur outside of the peak hours of adjacent street traffic, which usually occurs between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM. School trips to the middle and high school would likely occur before and school trips to the elementary school would likely occur after this peak hour. Nevertheless, some AM peak hour traffic was assigned The project trip distribution pattern and project-generated trips are shown graphically on Figure 5a. Figure 5b shows the trips generated by the existing commercial uses on the site. The net project trip assignment is shown on Figure 5c. 14|Page 259 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes The project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown graphically on Figure 6. Intersection Levels of Service Under Existing Plus Project Conditions The results of the signalized level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino level of service standards, the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ExistingExisting + Project Conditions PeakAvg.Avg.Incr. InIncr. In Study IntersectionHourDelayLOSDelayLOSCrit. DelayCrit. V/C Blaney Av & Stevens Creek BlAM33.4C34.0C0.70.013 PM33.9C34.5C0.90.012 Torre Av & Stevens Creek BlAM19.8B19.7B0.00.001 PM18.5B18.1B-0.7-0.006 15|Page 260 261 262 263 264 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 4. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including: Project site access and on-site circulation Sight distance Parking Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Site Access and On-Site Circulation A site circulation and access review was conducted to determine the adequacy of the proposed site plan in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The site plan prepared by Christiani Johnson Architects (January 18, 2012) was used for this purpose. The site plan is shown on Figure 2 in Chapter 1. The project site fronts approximately 350 feet of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project would preserve the two existing right-turn only driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The site fronts approximately 250 feet of Blaney Avenue. The project proposes to eliminate two existing driveways and construct one full access driveway on Blaney Avenue that would serve both the project site and the existing adjacent Biltmore apartment complex, thereby integrating the two sites. Reducing the number of driveways on Blaney Avenue would improve traffic operations by reducing the number of potential turning-movement conflicts on Blaney Avenue. The driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard would serve both the residential and retail components of the project. These driveways are shown to be 24 feet wide measured at the throat. The driveway on Blaney Avenue would serve primarily the residential portion of the project (although access to the retail component would be possible) and is shown to be 24 feet wide mea driveway widths are consistent with low volume commercial and residential driveway width recommendations contained in the Institute of Transportation EngineersÓ technical report entitled . The project driveways would be adequate to serve the Guidelines for Driveway Design & Location project. According to the site plan, the two-way drive aisle widths on-site would be 24 feet wide. A 24-foot wide drive aisle typically provides sufficient room for a vehicle to back out of 90-degree parking. Traffic Volume Under existing plus project conditions: 20|Page 265 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 The driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard would have 3 inbound trips and 17 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 12 inbound trips and 15 outbound trips duri The driveway on Blaney Avenue would have 11 inbound trips and 29 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 43 inbound trips and 18 outbound trips during the Average Delays Driveway delays would be short, and motorists could exit the project site easily during peak hours. Under project conditions, the driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard would experience an average outbound delay of 9.8 seconds (LOS A) during the AM peak hour, and 13.3 seconds (LOS B) during the PM peak hour, and the driveway on Blaney Avenue would experience a delay of 13.4 seconds (LOS B) during the AM peak hour and a delay of 16.4 seconds (LOS C) during the PM p Vehicle Queuing Adequate storage should be provided at the project driveways to (1) allow exiting vehicles to not block parking stalls and (2) prevent entering vehicles from making sudden stops (due to vehicles backing out or entering stalls) and spilling back into the public street. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. The basis of the analysis is as th follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95 percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assumin estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. Based on the vehicle queuing analysis, it is estimated that both the project driveways should provide a minimum storage of 25 feet (one vehicle) with one outbound lane. Adequate storage is provided at the project driveways based on the site plan. Queuing analysis was also conducted for the north bound approach at the intersection of Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard to determine if the northbound queues on Blaney would extend beyond the project driveway. A summary of the vehicle queuing is shown in Table 6. The proposed project driveway on Blaney Avenue would be constructed approximately 300 feet south of the Steven Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue intersection. The queuing analysis shows that under project conditions, the northbound queues on Blaney Avenue would not extend past the project driveway. Therefore, the project outbound vehicles would not have any difficulty turning left ont 21|Page 266 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Table 6 Queuing Analysis – Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue AMPM MeasurementNBLNBTNBLNBT Existing 1 Cycle/Delay (sec) 110110110110 Volume (vphpl )1141415893 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.)3.54.31.82.8 2 Avg. Queue (ft./ln) 871084471 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)7486 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)175100200150 33 300 300 Storage (ft./ ln.)300300 Adequate (Y/N)YYYY Project 1 Cycle/Delay (sec) 110110110110 Volume (vphpl )1191496096 Avg. Queue (veh/ln.)3.64.61.82.9 2 Avg. Queue (ft./ln) 911144673 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)7486 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)175100200150 33 300 300 Storage (ft./ ln.)300300 Adequate (Y/N)YYYY 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on signal cycle length. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued 3 Distance to project driveway Truck and Emergency Vehicle Access The site plan was reviewed for truck access by the method of truck turning-movement templates. Access was reviewed for the truck types WB-40 and SU-30, which represent small semi-trailer trucks, emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and small to medium delivery vehicles. All loading and unloading, including waste removal, would occur on-site. Vehicles performing the function of waste removal are typically SU-30 type, and these truck types could adequately negotiate the drive aisles. Some larger trucks (WB-40 type) may require the use of the entire driveway and drive aisle widths while maneuvering; however, this is typical for developments such as this and would occur infrequently. Large trucks can turn into a driveway when exiting vehicles are not present. The proposed design is considered to be adequate to handle the anticipated level of tru Sight Distance at the Project Driveways The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. Landscaping at the project driveways should not conflict with a driverÓs ability to locate a gap in traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at all project driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. 22|Page 267 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at an intersection or driveway. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 300 feet (based on a design speed of 40 mph). For a driveway on Blaney Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet (based on a design speed of 35 mph). Th driver must be able to see 300 feet down Stevens Creek Boulevard and 250 feet down Blaney Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Sight distance will be adequate at the project driveways as both Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue have bike lanes and no parking. Parking on the west side of Blaney Avenue is permitted approximately 150 feet south of the proposed driveway. Therefore vehicles exiting the driveway on Blaney Avenue would have adequate sight distance to be able to see pedestrians, and vehicles. Traffic Conditions on Blaney Avenue During School Peak Hours Under existing conditions, significant traffic congestion is observed on Blaney Avenue during school peak hours between Homestead Road to the north and Bollinger Road to the south. Blaney Avenue provides direct access to two elementary schools located in the project vicinity. It is typical for roadways in the vicinty of schools to experience peak congestion for 15-20 minutes before and after school. Collins Elementary School (start time is 8:40 AM Monday-Friday) is located on the east side of Blaney Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road. The project will not add any trips to this schoo as this will not be the assigned home school for the project. Any project outbound trips heading north on Blaney Avenue during school peak hours would likely avoid using Blaney Avenue due to school traffic and take alternative routes like Wolfe Road or De Anza Boulevard to reach their destination. However, the project would likely add a small number of trips to the existing school traffic on Blaney Avenue, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Blaney Avenue, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard is the primary roadway to access Eaton elementary school (start time 9:00 AM, Monday Î Friday) located on Suisun Drive, which would be the home school for the project. Based on the school impact analysis for the project, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 24 elementary school students. Eaton elementary school is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed project. It is noted that there is good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the project and the elementary school. Blaney Avenue has side walks and bicycle lanes along both sides of the roadway between the project and the elementary school have painted crosswalks. The school also encourages students to walk to school by participating in programs such as Ðwalk-to-school dayÑ. Parking The existing adjacent 179-unit Biltmore apartment complex currently provides 358 parking spaces at a rate of 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit. This meets the City Code for off-street residential parking, which requires 2.0 parking spaces per unit. The proposed project existing Biltmore apartments, remove 40 existing parking spaces and add 6 new parking spaces, resulting in a total of 191 apartment units and 324 total parking spaces. apartments would be available at a rate of 1.7 parking spaces per unit. For the Stevens Creek Adjacency, which is a mixed-use development, the project proposes to provide parking at a rate of 1.82 spaces per unit for a total of 89 apartment units and 162 parking spaces for the residential component and a total of 42 parking spaces for retai In order to determine whether the proposed parking rate would be Biltmore apartments and Steven Creek Adjacency components of the project, parking surveys were conducted at six similar apartment complexes in and around Cupertino during the period of peak parking demand. The six apartment complexes that were surveyed include the 504-unit Markham apartments (located at 20800 Homestead Road), the 201-unit Ariosa apartments (located at 19608 Pruneridge Avenue), the 128-unit Siena apartments (located at 7375 Rollingdell Drive), the 342-unit Hamptons 23|Page 268 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 apartments (located at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue), the 311-unit Archstone apartments (located at 5608 Stevens Creek Boulevard), and the existing 179-unit Biltmore apartments (located at 10159 South Blaney Avenue).These six comparable apartment complexes were chosen bas considerations: Located in and around the City of Cupertino Similar adjacent land uses (mix of residential and retail) Proximity to major arterials providing freeway access (e.g., De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road) Proximity to the Heart of the City Specific Plan area Residential Parking Survey Results The parking surveys all took place after Midnight on a weekday in order to capture the peak residential parking demand. The results of the parking surveys are shown in Table 7. The results indicate that weekday parking rates vary from 1.14 to 1.54 spaces per unit, fo The adjacent Biltmore apartments was observed to have the highest surveyed rate of 1.54 spaces per unit (276 occupied spaces over 179 existing units). The 276 occupied parking spaces include 34 cars that were parked along the project frontage along Blaney Avenue and Rodgrigues Avenue. The project proposes to remove 40 parking spaces at the existing Biltmore complex and add 12 units (4 one bedroom and 8 two bedroom units) and 6 new parking spaces, for a total of 191 residential units and 324 parking spaces at a rate of 1.7 parking spaces per unit. This is greater than the peak hour surveyed rate of 1.54 parking spaces per unit. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed parking rate of 1.7 spaces per unit would be sufficient to serve the Biltmore apartments. Considering that parking is allowed along the project frontages along Blaney Avenue and Rodriguez Avenue (for approximately 34 cars based on the field survey), the availability for parking (on-site plus off-site) would be at 1.87 parking spaces per unit (324 plus 34 parking spaces over 191 units). The Biltmore apartments had an occupancy of 96% on the day the parking survey was conducted. All the other apartment complexes that were surveyed were observed to have close to full occupancy. Apartments usually have about 5% vacancy to account for resident The project proposes to provide parking at a rate of 1.82 parking spaces per unit for the Stevens Creek Adjacency (162 parking spaces and 89 units), and 1.70 parking spaces per unit for the Biltmore Apartments (324 parking spaces and 101 units). Both of these rates are higher than the highest peak hour parking survey rate of 1.54 spaces per unit. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed parking rate of 1.82 spaces per unit would be sufficient to serve the residential component of Stevens Creek Adjacency. The peak hour parking ratio also was analyzed based on the number of bedrooms.The existing Biltmore apartments consist of 78 one bedroom, 93 two bedroom and 8 three bedrooms. There are 358 parking spaces, for an average of 1.24 spaces per bedroom. The parking survey showed 276 occupied spaces, for an average of 0.96 occupied spaces per bedroom, which is also the highest surveyed peak parking demand. The project would add 4 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units to the adjacent Biltmore apartments resulting in a total of 308 bedrooms and 324 parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio of 1.05 parking spaces per bedroom. Compared to the highest surveyed peak occupancy of 0.96 spaces per bedroom, the proposed parking would be adequate for the adjacent Biltmore apartments. The residential component of Stevens Creek adjacency would consi bedroom apartment units resulting in a total of 128 bedroom. The spaces resulting in a parking ratio of 1.26 parking spaces per bedroom for the residential component of Stevens Creek Adjacency. Compared to the highest surveyed peak occupancy of 0.96 spaces per bedroom, the proposed parking would be adequate for the Steven C Parking During Construction During construction, the existing Biltmore apartments will be subjected to a loss of 40 parking spaces. The availability of parking during construction will be at a rate of 1.77 parking spaces per unit. Since the 24|Page 269 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 availabilty of parking will still be greater than the observed peak hour parking rate of 1.54 parking spaces per unit, the project is not expected to have significant impacts on parking availability at the existing Biltmore apartments during construction of the project. Table 7 Parking Survey Results Markham Siena Arioso Archstone Biltmore Hamptons ApartmentsApartmentsApartmentsCupertinoApartmentsApartments Count Date10/22/201110/22/201110/27/20112/16/20122/16/20122/16/2 1 bedroom units259368114578130 2 bedroom units2459212015293170 3 bedroom units00014842 4 bedroom units000000 Total Apartment Units504128201311179342 Total Bedrooms749220321491288596 Occupied Parking Spaces575182275385276478 Total Parking Spaces891182400529353588 Percent Occupied64.53%100.00%68.75%72.78%78.19%81.29% Occupied spaces to units ratio1.141.421.371.241.541.40 Parking spaces to units ratio1.771.421.991.701.971.72 Occupied spaces to bedrooms ratio0.770.830.860.780.960.80 City Parking Code The City of Cupertino Parking Code requirement is 2.0 spaces per apartment unit. The parking surveys showed that the number of parking spaces actually should be proportional to the number of bedrooms and not simply to the number of units. Two and three-bedroom units need more parking spaces than studio or one-bedroom units. The City parking code results in too many spaces for smaller units. For comparative purposes, Table 8 shows the minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing in the neighboring cities around Cupertino. For comparison purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 100 unit development consisting of 10 studios, 40 one bedroom units, 40 two bedroom units, and 10 three bedroom units. As shown in the table, the neighboring cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose and Santa Clara County have parking requirements lower than the City of Cupertino. Table 8 Parking Requirements in Neighboring Cities Minimum Required Spaces Per Unit - Multi Family DevelopmentTheor CityStudio1 BR2 BR3 BRGuestTotal SpacesSpaces Per Unit Campbell222.52.50.502752.75 Mountain View1.52220.152242.24 Cupertino22220.002002.00 San Jose (1 car garage)1.61.722.20.001861.86 Palo Alto1.251.5220.101831.83 Sunnyvale1.51.5220.001751.75 Santa Clara County1.51.51.51.50.001501.50 Retail Parking Supply The project is proposing 3,500 s.f. of retail space and 3,500 s.f. of restaurant space as part of Stevens Creek Adjacency commercial component of the project. According to the City of CupertinoÓs parking requirements for general commercial uses, parking should be provided at 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. The City requires that parking for 3,500 s.f. of the restaurant be provided for ÐRestaurant w/o BarÑ uses at the rate of 1 parking space for 4 seats and 1 parking space per employee and 1 parking space for 36 s.f. of dance floor. The project site plan indicates that there will be about 85 seats and 6 employees for a restaurant 25|Page 270 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 parking requirement of 28 parking spaces. For the 3,500 s.f. of retail space, parking should be provid the rate of 1 space per 250 s.f., for a total of 14 parking spaces. The total requirement for the commercial component of the project is 42 parking spaces. The site plan shows 52 spaces in front of the project near the retail building. 42 of these spaces could be attributed to the retail space to meet the requirement. The other spaces could be attributed to the residential units. Shared Parking It should be noted that since the project proposes two complementary land uses, some of the parking could potentially be shared between the general retail and residential uses. Residential parking usage peaks at night when the retail portion of the site would be closed. Conversely, the retail uses would utilize the parking spaces most during the day, which is when residents would utilize the parking spaces least. Because of potential late night hours, the restaurant spaces probably cannot be shared. Based on the ULI (Urban Land Institute) Shared Parking Manual, second edition, the demand for parking during weekday/weekend for a typical shopping center peaks during the day between 9:30 AM and 9:00 PM. The parking demand steadily increases from 35% at 9:00 AM, 65% at 10 AM to 100% during noon and decreases to 50% at 9:00 PM and steadily declines after that (30% at 10:00 PM and 10% at 11:00 PM). Therefore, assuming that the retail spaces could effectively be shared with residential late at an additional 14 spaces could be available. Restaurant parking was not assumed for shared parking because the restaurants could potentially be open late hours at night. A shared parking management plan would need to be implemented to guarantee appropriate use of the spaces by residents. Appropriate signage could be used to enforce restaurant and retail parking during the day. The retail parking could have signage that permits residential parking only between the hours of 9:30 PM and 9:30 AM. Table 9 below summarizes parking ratios based on provided parking spaces for each of the properties, Biltmore and Stevens Creek Adjacency and also parking ratios for both the properties combined for comparison. Table 9 On-Site Parking Stevens Creek Future Biltmore Plus Adjacency Stevens Creek Stevens Future Biltmore (shared parking) Adjacency (shared Existing FutureCreeks Plus Stevens 11 BiltmoreBiltmoreAdjacencyCreek Adjacency parking) 1 bedroom units788250505050 2 bedroom units9310139393939 3 bedroom units880000 Total Apartment Units1791918989280280 Total Bedrooms288308128128436436 Parking Spaces Provided358324162176486500 Parking Ratio (spaces per dwelling unit)2.001.701.821.981.741.79 Parking Ratio (spaces per bedroom)1.241.051.271.381.111.15 Notes: 1 Assumes 7 retail parking spaces are available to be shared betwe Parking Stall Dimensions The project is proposing 90-degree parking spaces throughout the site. According to the site plan, the majority of the parking spaces measure 8 ½ feet wide x 16 feet deep. Based on the City of Cupertino Standard Details, the recommended dimensions for universal parking stalls are 8 ½ feet wide x 18 feet deep where a 24-foot wide two-way drive aisle is provided. The City allows a reduction in stall size if 2 ft of the vehicle overhang is within landscaped areas, which the applicant has proposed. Therefore the current stall sizes shown on the site plan are adequate. 26|Page 271 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 5. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions both without and with the project. It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under cumulative conditions would be the same as described under exist List of Cumulative Projects For the purpose of this traffic impact analysis, peak hour vehicle trips attributable to the approved and pending projects listed below were included under cumulative tra (Fall 2011) contains a detailed description of each project. Th Development Activity Report provided Hexagon with detailed trip generation estimates for mos 1. Wolfe and Vallco Pkwy/Rose Bowl Mixed-Use Project Î Vallco Ma 2. Shashi Hotel Î 10165 N. De Anza Bl at Alves Dr 3. Learning Game Retail Project Î 10212 N. De Anza Bl at Lazaneo 4. Vallco Hotel Î Vallco Mall 5. De Anza College Expansion Î Southwest corner of Stevens Creek Bl and Stelling Rd 6. Main Street Cupertino Î North side of Stevens Creek Bl between Finch Av and Tantau Av 7. 10100 N. Tantau Avenue Retail Project Î Northeast corner of Stevens Creek Bl and Tantau Av 8. The Oaks Shopping Center Î North side of Stevens Creek Bl between SR 85 and Mary Av 9. One Results Way Office Campus Î Northwest corner of Bubb Rd a 10. Homestead Square/PW Market Shopping Center Î 20620, 20580, and 20680 Homestead Rd 11. Cupertino Village Retail Project Î Southwest corner of Wolfe Rd and Homestead Rd 12. Apple Campus 2 Î Area generally bounded by Wolfe Rd, Homestead Rd, Tantau Av, and I-280 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Cumulative conditions were represented by adding to existing tra generated by all approved and pending projects in the study area. The Biltmore Apartment project trips were then added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to derive cumulative with project traffic volumes. The peak hour cumulative traffic volumes with the proje 27|Page 272 273 BiltmoreApartmentsStevensCreekBoulevardMarch30,2012 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The level of service results for the signalized study intersections under cumulative conditions without and with the project are summarized in Table 10. The results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino level of service standards, both signalized intersections would operate at an acceptable L or better under cumulative no project and cumulative with projec The intersection level of service calculations are included in A Table 10 Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Conditions No ProjectWith Project PeakAvg.Avg.Incr. InIncr. In Study IntersectionHourDelayLOSDelayLOSCrit. DelayCrit. V/C Blaney Av & Stevens Creek BlAM33.8C34.4C0.80.013 PM36.1D37.0D1.40.014 Torre Av & Stevens Creek BlAM18.5B18.3B0.00.001 PM17.4B17.0B-0.6-0.006 29|Page 274 6. Conclusions The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino. The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for 2 signalized intersections. Site access and parking also were evaluated. Intersection Levels of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis show that, measured against the City of Cupertino standards, both study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. The results of the intersection level of service analysis also show that the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions both without and with the project. Parking Residential Parking The project will provide parking at the rate of 1.70 parking spaces per unit for the Biltmore Apartments (324 parking spaces for 191 apartment units) and 1.82 parking spaces per unit for the Stevens Creek Adjacency (162 parking spaces for 89 apartment units). Hexagon surveyed parking utilization at six similar apartment complexes in and around Cupertino, and the highest ratio was found to be 1.54 occupied spaces per apartment unit. The average was 1.33 parking project is proposing at least 10% more parking than what is required based on the highest surveyed peak hour parking demand. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed parking is adequate. Retail Parking The project meets the City code requirement of 1 space per 250 s.f. for the 3,500 s.f. of general retail and 1 parking space for 4 seats and 1 parking space per employee for the 3,500 s.f. of restaurant use. The requirement is 42 parking spaces, and 42 spaces are proposed. 275 Biltmore Apartments Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Technical Appendices 276 Appendix A New Traffic Counts 277 Stevens Creek TotalInOut 22101386824 RightThruLeft 76123575 11355735 LeftThruRight 21747051469 TotalInOut Stevens Creek Stevens Creek TotalInOut 321612701946 RightThruLeft 83993194 1281,64276 LeftThruRight 29601,8461114 TotalInOut Stevens Creek Stevens Creek TotalInOut 22381543695 RightThruLeft 681310165 57625108 LeftThruRight 22577901467 TotalInOut Stevens Creek Stevens Creek TotalInOut 304012611779 RightThruLeft 301127104 1011,63059 LeftThruRight 30641,7901274 TotalInOut Stevens Creek Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations 284 COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:00:17 2011 Page 3-2 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:120 81 89*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 113*** 1076 Loss Time (sec):12 01 557 2 Critical V/C:0.591 2 1235*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):32.9 0 35 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):33.4 1 75 LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:114 141*** 178 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.40 0.60 1.00 2.82 0.18 1.00 2.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1750 796 1004 1750 725 1075 1750 5268 331 1750 5275 325 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.6 33.0 33.0 9.5 26.8 26.8 12.0 34.7 34.7 20.9 43.6 43.6 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.46 0.46 0.59 0.34 0.34 0.23 0.59 0.59 Delay/Veh: 49.3 37.5 37.5 64.3 38.8 38.8 59.4 29.3 29.3 39.3 27.4 27.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.3 37.5 37.5 64.3 38.8 38.8 59.4 29.3 29.3 39.3 27.4 27.4 LOS by Move: D D+ D+ E D+ D+ E+ C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 10 10 4 6 6 5 5 5 2 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 285 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:00:17 2011 Page 3-3 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing + Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:118 82 89*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 117*** 1076 Loss Time (sec):12 01 562 2 Critical V/C:0.603 2 1233*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):33.6 0 36 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):33.9 1 76 LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:119 148*** 186 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Added Vol: 5 7 8 0 1 -2 4 5 1 1 -2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 119 148 186 89 82 118 117 562 36 76 1233 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 119 148 186 89 82 118 117 562 36 76 1233 76 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 119 148 186 89 82 118 117 562 36 76 1233 76 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 119 148 186 89 82 118 117 562 36 76 1233 76 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.41 0.59 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1750 798 1002 1750 738 1062 1750 5262 337 1750 5274 325 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.4 33.9 33.9 9.3 26.8 26.8 12.2 34.4 34.4 20.5 42.7 42.7 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.60 0.34 0.34 0.23 0.60 0.60 Delay/Veh: 48.4 37.2 37.2 65.5 38.8 38.8 59.7 29.6 29.6 39.7 28.2 28.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.4 37.2 37.2 65.5 38.8 38.8 59.7 29.6 29.6 39.7 28.2 28.2 LOS by Move: D D+ D+ E D+ D+ E+ C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 11 11 4 6 6 5 5 5 2 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 286 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:01:51 2011 Page 3-2 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Cum No Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:120 81 102*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 113*** 1082 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1054 2 Critical V/C:0.675 2 1416*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):35.0 0 35 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):33.8 1 84 LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:114 141*** 238 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Added Vol: 0 0 60 13 0 0 0 497 0 9 181 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 141 238 102 81 120 113 1054 35 84 1416 82 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 141 238 102 81 120 113 1054 35 84 1416 82 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 141 238 102 81 120 113 1054 35 84 1416 82 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 141 238 102 81 120 113 1054 35 84 1416 82 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 0.40 0.60 1.00 2.90 0.10 1.00 2.83 0.17 Final Sat.: 1750 670 1130 1750 725 1075 1750 5420 180 1750 5293 307 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.2 34.3 34.3 9.5 27.7 27.7 10.5 40.8 40.8 13.4 43.6 43.6 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.67 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.67 0.67 Delay/Veh: 48.3 39.3 39.3 70.3 37.8 37.8 67.7 28.0 28.0 50.0 29.0 29.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.3 39.3 39.3 70.3 37.8 37.8 67.7 28.0 28.0 50.0 29.0 29.0 LOS by Move: D D D E D+ D+ E C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 13 13 5 6 6 5 10 10 3 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 287 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:01:51 2011 Page 3-3 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Cum + Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:118 82 102*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 117*** 1082 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1059 2 Critical V/C:0.686 2 1414*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):35.7 0 36 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):34.3 1 85 LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:119 148*** 246 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 141 178 89 81 120 113 557 35 75 1235 76 Added Vol: 5 7 68 13 1 -2 4 502 1 10 179 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 119 148 246 102 82 118 117 1059 36 85 1414 82 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 119 148 246 102 82 118 117 1059 36 85 1414 82 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 119 148 246 102 82 118 117 1059 36 85 1414 82 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 119 148 246 102 82 118 117 1059 36 85 1414 82 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.38 0.62 1.00 0.41 0.59 1.00 2.90 0.10 1.00 2.83 0.17 Final Sat.: 1750 676 1124 1750 738 1062 1750 5416 184 1750 5293 307 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.9 35.1 35.1 9.3 27.6 27.6 10.7 40.4 40.4 13.1 42.8 42.8 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.44 0.44 0.69 0.53 0.53 0.41 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 47.5 39.2 39.2 71.7 37.9 37.9 68.2 28.4 28.4 50.6 29.8 29.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.5 39.2 39.2 71.7 37.9 37.9 68.2 28.4 28.4 50.6 29.8 29.8 LOS by Move: D D D E D+ D+ E C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 13 13 5 6 6 6 10 10 3 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 288 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:00:17 2011 Page 3-5 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:87*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 57*** 1068 Loss Time (sec):12 01 625 2 Critical V/C:0.394 2 1310*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):16.5 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):19.8 1 165 LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:70*** 0 70 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.54 0.46 1.00 2.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 4774 825 1750 5323 276 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 9.0 44.9 44.9 32.3 68.2 68.2 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.40 Delay/Veh: 54.1 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 49.6 55.9 22.5 22.5 31.9 10.9 10.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.1 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 49.6 55.9 22.5 22.5 31.9 10.9 10.9 LOS by Move: D- A D A A D E+ C+ C+ C B+ B+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 6 6 5 8 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 289 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:00:17 2011 Page 3-6 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing + Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:87*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 57*** 1068 Loss Time (sec):12 01 625 2 Critical V/C:0.395 2 1316*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):16.5 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):19.7 1 161 LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:70*** 0 70 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 161 1316 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 161 1316 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 161 1316 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 161 1316 68 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.54 0.46 1.00 2.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 4774 825 1750 5324 275 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 13.7 9.0 45.4 45.4 31.9 68.3 68.3 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.40 Delay/Veh: 54.1 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 49.7 56.0 22.2 22.2 32.2 10.9 10.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.1 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 49.7 56.0 22.2 22.2 32.2 10.9 10.9 LOS by Move: D- A D A A D E+ C+ C+ C- B+ B+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 6 6 5 8 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 290 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:01:51 2011 Page 3-5 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Cum No Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:87*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 57*** 1068 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1122 2 Critical V/C:0.430 2 1491*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.7 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.5 1 165 LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:70*** 0 70 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 0 0 181 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 165 1491 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 165 1491 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 165 1491 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 165 1491 68 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.73 0.27 1.00 2.86 0.14 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5108 492 1750 5355 244 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 8.2 54.9 54.9 23.6 70.2 70.2 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Delay/Veh: 54.1 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 52.2 58.9 18.2 18.2 41.2 10.3 10.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.1 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 52.2 58.9 18.2 18.2 41.2 10.3 10.3 LOS by Move: D- A D A A D- E+ B- B- D B+ B+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 9 9 6 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 291 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:01:51 2011 Page 3-6 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Cum + Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:87*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 57*** 1068 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1122 2 Critical V/C:0.431 2 1497*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.7 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.3 1 161 LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:70*** 0 70 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 625 108 165 1310 68 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 0 -4 187 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 161 1497 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 161 1497 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 161 1497 68 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 70 0 70 0 0 87 57 1122 108 161 1497 68 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.73 0.27 1.00 2.86 0.14 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5108 492 1750 5356 243 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 8.2 55.3 55.3 23.2 70.3 70.3 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Delay/Veh: 54.1 0.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 52.3 59.0 17.9 17.9 41.5 10.3 10.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.1 0.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 52.3 59.0 17.9 17.9 41.5 10.3 10.3 LOS by Move: D- A D A A D- E+ B B D B+ B+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 9 9 5 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 292 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 10:59:14 2011 Page 3-2 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Existing Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:63 206 131*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 128 1083 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1642*** 2 Critical V/C:0.719 2 993 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):35.7 0 76 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):33.9 1 194*** LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:58 93*** 173 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.35 0.65 1.00 0.77 0.23 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 1750 629 1171 1750 1378 422 1750 5352 248 1750 5167 432 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 10.2 22.6 22.6 11.5 23.9 23.9 17.6 47.0 47.0 17.0 46.3 46.3 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.46 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.46 0.46 Delay/Veh: 52.9 52.1 52.1 69.3 49.1 49.1 47.1 28.0 28.0 59.5 23.5 23.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.9 52.1 52.1 69.3 49.1 49.1 47.1 28.0 28.0 59.5 23.5 23.5 LOS by Move: D- D- D- E D D D C C E+ C C HCM2kAvgQ: 2 10 10 6 10 10 5 17 17 7 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 293 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 10:59:14 2011 Page 3-3 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Existing + Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:59 214 131*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 128 1083 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1640*** 2 Critical V/C:0.729 2 987 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):36.5 0 78 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):34.4 1 205*** LOS:C- Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:59 95*** 177 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Added Vol: 1 2 4 0 8 -4 0 -2 2 11 -6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 95 177 131 214 59 128 1640 78 205 987 83 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 95 177 131 214 59 128 1640 78 205 987 83 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 95 177 131 214 59 128 1640 78 205 987 83 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 95 177 131 214 59 128 1640 78 205 987 83 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.35 0.65 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 1750 629 1171 1750 1411 389 1750 5345 254 1750 5165 434 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 10.1 22.8 22.8 11.3 24.0 24.0 17.7 46.3 46.3 17.7 46.2 46.2 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.45 0.45 Delay/Veh: 53.4 52.6 52.6 70.6 49.4 49.4 47.0 28.7 28.7 59.2 23.5 23.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.4 52.6 52.6 70.6 49.4 49.4 47.0 28.7 28.7 59.2 23.5 23.5 LOS by Move: D- D- D- E D D D C C E+ C C HCM2kAvgQ: 2 10 10 6 10 10 5 17 17 8 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 294 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:02:47 2011 Page 3-2 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Cum No Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:63 206 149*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 128 10103 Loss Time (sec):12 01 2021*** 2 Critical V/C:0.849 2 1524 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):41.3 0 76 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.1 1 238*** LOS:D+ Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:58 93*** 197 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Added Vol: 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 379 0 44 531 20 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 93 197 149 206 63 128 2021 76 238 1524 103 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 58 93 197 149 206 63 128 2021 76 238 1524 103 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 93 197 149 206 63 128 2021 76 238 1524 103 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 93 197 149 206 63 128 2021 76 238 1524 103 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 0.77 0.23 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 577 1223 1750 1378 422 1750 5397 203 1750 5245 354 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 9.5 20.9 20.9 11.0 22.4 22.4 13.3 48.5 48.5 17.6 52.8 52.8 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.73 0.73 0.61 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.61 0.61 Delay/Veh: 54.6 65.4 65.4 86.0 53.4 53.4 58.1 31.4 31.4 71.0 22.0 22.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.6 65.4 65.4 86.0 53.4 53.4 58.1 31.4 31.4 71.0 22.0 22.0 LOS by Move: D- E E F D- D- E+ C C E C+ C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 13 13 8 10 10 5 24 24 8 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 295 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:02:47 2011 Page 3-3 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Cum + Project Intersection #1: Blaney Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:59 214 149*** Lanes:01 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 128 10103 Loss Time (sec):12 01 2019*** 2 Critical V/C:0.860 2 1518 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):42.4 0 78 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.8 1 249*** LOS:D+ Lanes:10 0 1 0 Final Vol:59 95*** 201 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 93 173 131 206 63 128 1642 76 194 993 83 Added Vol: 1 2 28 18 8 -4 0 377 2 55 525 20 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 95 201 149 214 59 128 2019 78 249 1518 103 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 95 201 149 214 59 128 2019 78 249 1518 103 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 95 201 149 214 59 128 2019 78 249 1518 103 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 95 201 149 214 59 128 2019 78 249 1518 103 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 2.88 0.12 1.00 2.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 578 1222 1750 1411 389 1750 5391 208 1750 5244 356 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 9.4 21.0 21.0 10.9 22.5 22.5 13.3 47.9 47.9 18.2 52.8 52.8 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.60 0.60 Delay/Veh: 55.1 66.5 66.5 88.1 53.7 53.7 57.9 32.3 32.3 71.5 22.0 22.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.1 66.5 66.5 88.1 53.7 53.7 57.9 32.3 32.3 71.5 22.0 22.0 LOS by Move: E+ E E F D- D- E+ C- C- E C+ C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 2 13 13 8 11 11 5 24 24 8 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 296 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 10:59:14 2011 Page 3-5 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Existing Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:60*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 101 1030 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1630*** 2 Critical V/C:0.475 2 1127 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):17.6 0 59 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.5 1 104*** LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:87*** 0 149 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5404 196 1750 5455 145 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 19.1 67.7 67.7 13.3 61.9 61.9 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.33 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.37 0.37 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 42.8 12.2 12.2 53.1 13.6 13.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 42.8 12.2 12.2 53.1 13.6 13.6 LOS by Move: E+ A D A A D- D B B D- B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 6 0 0 2 3 11 11 4 7 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 297 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 10:59:14 2011 Page 3-6 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Existing + Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:60*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 101 1030 Loss Time (sec):12 01 1633*** 2 Critical V/C:0.469 2 1128 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):17.0 0 59 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.1 1 94*** LOS:B- Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:87*** 0 149 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 -10 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1633 59 94 1128 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1633 59 94 1128 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1633 59 94 1128 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1633 59 94 1128 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5404 195 1750 5455 145 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 19.1 68.8 68.8 12.2 61.9 61.9 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.33 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.37 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 42.8 11.6 11.6 54.3 13.6 13.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 42.8 11.6 11.6 54.3 13.6 13.6 LOS by Move: E+ A D A A D- D B+ B+ D- B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 6 0 0 2 3 11 11 4 7 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 298 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:02:47 2011 Page 3-5 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Cum No Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:60*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 101 1030 Loss Time (sec):12 01 2009*** 2 Critical V/C:0.551 2 1658 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):17.2 0 59 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):17.4 1 104*** LOS:B Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:87*** 0 149 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 0 0 531 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2009 59 104 1658 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2009 59 104 1658 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2009 59 104 1658 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2009 59 104 1658 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.91 0.09 1.00 2.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5440 160 1750 5500 100 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 14.1 69.8 69.8 11.2 66.9 66.9 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.45 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 50.7 12.4 12.4 60.3 12.6 12.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 50.7 12.4 12.4 60.3 12.6 12.6 LOS by Move: E+ A D A A D- D B B E B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 6 0 0 2 3 13 13 5 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 299 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic COMPARE Tue Nov 29 11:02:47 2011 Page 3-6 Biltmore Apartments 93 Apartments + 7 ksf Retail Cupertino, CA Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Cum + Project Intersection #2: Torre Av and Stevens Creek Bl Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:60*** 0 0 Lanes:10 0 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:11/3/2011 Rights=I Cycle Time (sec):110 101 1030 Loss Time (sec):12 01 2011*** 2 Critical V/C:0.545 2 1659 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):16.6 0 59 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):17.0 1 94*** LOS:B Lanes:20 0 0 1 Final Vol:87*** 0 149 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Nov 2011 << Base Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 1630 59 104 1127 30 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 381 0 -10 532 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2011 59 94 1659 30 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2011 59 94 1659 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2011 59 94 1659 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 87 0 149 0 0 60 101 2011 59 94 1659 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.91 0.09 1.00 2.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 3150 0 1750 0 0 1750 1750 5440 160 1750 5500 99 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 14.1 70.7 70.7 10.3 66.9 66.9 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.45 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 50.7 11.8 11.8 61.7 12.6 12.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 53.8 50.7 11.8 11.8 61.7 12.6 12.6 LOS by Move: E+ A D A A D- D B+ B+ E B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 6 0 0 2 3 13 13 4 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 300 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Lic 301 TABLE OF CONTENTS BRIEF SUMMARY¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼1 ENROLLMENT IMPACTS¼¼¼¼..¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼2 Background Student Generation Rate Analysis Enrollment Impacts Enrollment Capacity of Schools CAPITAL FACILITIES COST AND REVENUE IMPACTS¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼.10 Facilities Costs 20030 Stevens Creek Project Development Impact Fee Revenue Comparison of Capital Facilities Costs and Development Impact Fe ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ OPERATING REVENUE AND COST IMPACTS16 Operating Costs Operating Revenues Comparison of Operating Costs and Revenues SUMMARY¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼..20 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services i January 2012 302 BRIEF SUMMARY The 101 apartments in the 20030 Stevens Creek project might be e th kindergarten through 12 grade students. While local schools are crowded, this number of students in itself is not a significant problem for the Cupertin districts. The problem is the total number of additional studen development and due to increasing enrollment from existing housing. The Cupertino Union School District (elementary and middle schoo High School District will need additional facilities to house th The 20030 Stevens Creek project will pay development fees to be used for Because the apartments constitute the large majority of the proj intended fees on residential development to pay more than about f related schools facilities, for both districts these one-time fees will be less than the share of the costs of the additional school facilities attributable to the Stevens Cre The state provides funds to the Cupertino District to supplementroperty tax revenues and, given additional students, will provide additional funds to main financial resources per student from property taxes and state fu sources, primarily the parcel tax, which are less than ten percent of the budget, will not increase significantly. The Fremont High District depends primarily on the property tax revenues from the project will provide only a little more than tnnual operating costs attributable to the 20030 Stevens Creek project. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services1 January 2012 303 ENROLLMENT IMPACTS Background The City of Cupertino has contracted with Schoolhouse Services t enrollment and fiscal impacts of the proposed 20030 Stevens Creek project on the local school districts. The project site is located on the south side of Ste portion of frontage on South Blaney Street on the east. The dev Group, is seeking approval to construct a small amount of retail space and a 101 unit add the Biltmore Apartments. This would require the removal of two of retail space. More information about the sizes and charactersting uses is included in a later section of the report. The project is located within the Cupertino Union Elementary Sch Cupertino District) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHS within the Eaton Elementary attendance area, but on its border with the Collins attendance area. At the middle school level, also part of CUSD, Middle School attendance area. The project is in the Cupertino rea, the school being located to the east several blocks away from the pr enrollment impacts on these schools and the fiscal impacts on th information about the project as the developer is proposing, with comparison to the situation with the existing development remaining on the site. Student Generation Rate Analysis A projection of new student enrollment resulting from the 20030 necessary for identification of the potential impact of development on the impacted schools. Student generation rates (SGRs), the average number of students key factor for the projection of enrollment into the future. Mu by an appropriate SGR results in a projection of students from the units. Different housing types generate different SGRs. Single family detached units, houses with a surrounding yard, usually generate the most students, typically the amount of students generated by most apartment units and cond owned units in a multi-unit building, often referred to as single family attached). Ho located in a highly rated school district, relatively large grou apartments and condominiums (townhomes), especially if they are in a family-friendly setting and affordable, can generate almost as many students as single family detached u The majority of condominiums and apartments, however, are usuallted toward families. Most of these units are smaller, ranging from studio one and two-bedroom units. They are usually in multi-story buildings and lack private yards. Within the range of apartments and condos, however, student generation can vary significantly, with the sizes and the design and marketing of the units being m ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services2 January 2012 304 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis These student generation comparisons are present in Cupertino. that student generation in essentially every category is greater than it is in almost all other California districts. The high performance of Cupertino school schools make the districts an extremely desirable place for fami result, developments are more likely to design housing to be att combination of the desire of young families to reside where the schools and the targeting of new housing to these young familiesesults in the high SGRs. SGRs of Recent Residential Development In Cupertino Enrollment Projection Consultants (EPC) has been the demographer District (elementary and middle schools) and the Fremont Districyears. As part of its work the firm determines student generation (coun large number of relatively new housing units of various housing rate (SGR) is the number of students counted divided by the number of units. The SGRs are then multiplied by the number of projected new units of each housing enrollment from new housing. The EPC surveys are the logical place to start to estimate the S project. The 2011 survey of attached units covers 590 units, all that no apartment projects have been completed in the last decad included a large number of apartments 10-plus years old, not included in this yearÈs survey, and the 2010 average SGRs were almost identical to this yearÈs, indi size condominiums have not differed in student generation that m two-bedroom units dominate on the sample, though it includes some studios and some larger units. Multi-family buildings with generally larger units and/or designed to families are not included in this sample; they are grouped in a projects for the SGR analysis. The surveys consist of identifying the street addresses in proje units. EPG then searches the districtsÈ student files for stude count of students in each grade residing in each project in then divided by the number of units in the project. The student generation in each project can be anal students and the numbers of units are summed, the student genera different neighborhoods, different building ages, etc. can be studied. Enrollment Projection Consultants found an average SGR for the C eighth grade) of 0.27 students per multi-family residential unit, a little more than one student in every four homes. The average SGR for the Cupertino District po school grades, was 0.08 per unit in multi-family buildings. (This is about four times the 0.02 high school SGR in the remainder of the Fremont District.) Tabld 2 summarize the SGR findings for both CUSD and FUHSD for the residential projects an family units are included for comparison.) ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services3 January 2012 305 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 1 Average SGRs by Housing Type Cupertino Union School District Housing TypeAverage SGR Apartments and Most Condominiums 0.27 Single Family and Some Condominiums 0.64 Source: Enrollment Projection Consultants. Table 2 Average SGRs by Housing Type Fremont Union High School District Housing TypeAverage SGR Apartments and Most Condominiums 0.08 Single Family and Some Condominiums 0.21 Source: Enrollment Projection Consultants. SGRs of Existing Biltmore Apartments SGRs in the existing 179 Biltmore Apartments are also relevant t 101 new units than the broader SGR averages. The number of studrade level and the resulting SGRs are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that th from the lower grades, perhaps reflecting the relatively small s Table 3 Current Biltmore Apartments SGRs DistrictNumber of StudentsSGR Cupertino Union School District Ã Grades K-5 590.33 Cupertino Union School District Ã Grades 6-8 240.13 Fremont Union High School District 130.07 Total 960.53 Source: Enrollment Projection Consultants. The majority of the existing units were built in the 1960Ès. These units were renovated and 24 new one-bedroom units were added in construction completed in 1998. The moderate density, 16 units per acre. The buildings are generally two stories in height. The units consist of 78 one-bedroom units, 93 two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom units, all together averaging 930 square feet per unit. The units around t ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services4 January 2012 306 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis designed with their backs to Rodriguez and South Blaney Streets, facing inward on walkways and landscaped areas with lots of trees. These interiors areas no awareness of the nearby streets. There is a tanbark play areure with slides adjacent to the swimming pool. One of the yard area for 6-12 year olds to throw a football. Wilson Park is located a bloc the units, despite their modest sizes, house 96 K-12 students, noticeably above the average of Cupertino attached units. The Project The project site currently has two restaurants totaling 15,000 p Creek Boulevard and almost 5,800 square feet of retail located brestaurant on the corner of Stevens Creek and South Blaney. (The site of this thi the project, making the site L-shaped with frontage on both Stevens Creek and South Blaney.) All of this retail would be removed. The site also includes a vacant lot on Blaney south of the retail building. The proposed project consists of 7,000 square feet of new retail 101 apartment units. The apartments include 89 units located on located on a current access driveway into the existing apartments Creek Boulevard along the western side of the retail building wo new apartments and to the existing units further to the south.) Seventy-two of the 89 units on the new site are in a three-story U-shaped building located behind the retail. Common open space separates another building to the units on the new site. The open side of the U faces away from Sevens Creek Boulevard towards the existing Biltmore Apartments; a courtyard occupies the space South Blaney with the remaining 17 units, mixed two and three st U-shaped building, separated by common open space. The last 12 units (the addition to the existing Biltmore Apartments site) are in two two-story buildings south across the parking area. The characteristics of the 101 new units can be compared with th Most of the new units would be in a three-story building; apartments on higher floors feel more separated from where children may be playing outdoors, though th minority of the apartments. The density would be 25 units per aalf again as high as the existing units. The conceptual plans for the new units show an the same average size as the existing units. The percentage of -bedroom units is almost identical, though there are no three- bedroom units in the new buildings. The feeling of the space outside the building is likely to be di While only a minority of the existing units back onto streets or into shaded lawns or walkways, the majority of the new units will be in buildings that will parking or commercial on one side and a narrow landscaped walkwa ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services5 January 2012 307 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis buildings on the other. The patios will presumably be attractiv play. The open spaces, pool and climbing structure in the existing the residents of the new buildings, but across the access road a Prometheus Real Estate Group, the developer, has indicated its io design and market the new units to adults, reflecting the higher density of the site, surrounding the buildings, the presence of Stevens Creek Blvd. n childrenÈs amenities in the existing complex. It is expected that the rental rates will be significantly higher than in the older buildings; high rents are partly because the working life of at least one of a parent coup young children are part of the family. It is clear that the SGRs of the than that of the existing units, though still reflecting the use complex, the nearness of Wilson Park and, of course, the attractiveness of the school districts. Student generation in some other Prometheus apartment complexes relevant to what the SGRs would be for apartments at 20030 Steve Park Center and Cupertino City Center are sister complexes containing a total of 219 units located near the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza and five stories high in a high-density configuration. There are adult facilities shared by residents of both complexes, but no play areas or facilities targeted to children. the buildings are similar to those proposed for 20030 Stevens Cr Stevens Creek units would have the pool, fitness center, etc. avthe existing Biltmore complex and thus less conveniently accessible. The SGR shown in Table 4; they are significantly less than those in the Table 4 Prometheus Apartments SGRs Cupertino Park Center and Cupertino City Center DistrictNumber of StudentsSGR Cupertino Union School District Ã Grades K-8 650.30 Fremont Union High School District 60.03 Total 710.33 Source: Enrollment Projection Consultants. In summary, our perspective is that the 20030 Stevens Creek SGRs less than the SGRs in the existing Biltmore Complex, but above t Enrollment Projection Consultants survey of units in multiple family buildings in the last decade and a little above the average SGRs in the Cupertino Park Center complexes. The elementary SGRs, in particular, would be more af characteristics of the new units and their setting, thus being closer to those of the Center complexes. The high school SGR would be closer to the existing ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services6 January 2012 308 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis the nearby location of Cupertino High School. Table 5 below sho for CUSD and FUHSD. Table 5 20030 Stevens Creek Development Projected Student Generation Rates (SGRs) SGRs Elementary (K-5) SGR 0.24 Middle (6-8) SGR 0.10 Total CUSD SGR 0.34 High School (FUHSD) SGR 0.06 Total SGR 0.40 Source: Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment Impacts The determination of appropriate SGRs to be used for the 20030 S to proceed with the calculation of the enrollment generated from assess the impact of that development on the current enrollment at the expected to be Eaton Elementary, Lawson Middle, and Cupertino Hi calculated student enrollment impact resulting from the project. Table 6 Estimated Enrollment Impact* ElementaryMiddleHighTotal Apartments 101101101 SGR 0.240.100.06 Students Subtotal 2410640 Source: Schoolhouse Services. Given the assumptions described above, the 20030 Stevens Creek development is projected to generate approximately 40 students, probably about the fall of 2 have a construction timetable. They will impact the three schoo It is anticipated that 24 students will be assigned to Eaton Elementary School, ten will atten Lawson Middle School, and six will attend Cupertino High School. that these estimates are reasonable for the proposed units; howe the units are unknown and the actual enrollment generated could these numbers, but probably not significantly over time. In any modest; the problem is the limited capacity of the schools invol ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services7 January 2012 309 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Enrollment Capacity of Schools Elementary Schools A discussion of the capacity of the elementary schools needs to pattern of capacity versus enrollment of the district as a wholeCupertino Union is a rapidly growing school district. Enrollment has increased every year in the last de 15,571 in the fall of 2001 to 18,645 this fall, an increase of 2 schools in the District. This increase is overcrowding many of Most of the schools are housing more students than their design capacity, pr classrooms. School classroom support facilities - cafeteria/general purpose spaces, administrative offices, support classrooms for music/art or for ts with targeted needs, playground space and facilities, etc. - are over-crowded or unavailable. The Enrollment Projection Consultants fall 2011 study projects a students district-wide by next fall. Then, assuming that the rapid addition of young families in the district begins to abate, enrollment will probably begin a s downward trend from a level of growth that EPC sees as unlikely forecasts do not consider the effect the Apple Campus 2 project could have on enrollment.) However, and most important, the trends over the last few years the next few years are different in the three areas of the distr of I-280 are experiencing strong growth resulting in very serious cap the central tier lying below I-280 are crowded, though not to the extent of the northern school and are experiencing increases in enrollment for another year or two. The schools in the southern portion of the district have already passed their peak decline projected in the future. The 20030 Stevens Creek project is in the Eaton School attendanc Boulevard that is the northern border of EatonÈs attendance area; stud Complex generally attend Eaton. Both schools lie in what would and both are have over-enrollment pressures. Almost 200 CUSD more students live in the Eaton attendance area than attend the school and about 150 more studen attend that school. However, it is unlikely the district would Collins Elementary, the school to the north. Collins is projected to have its enrollment slightly increase in the next few years while EatonÈs enrollment is proje The relationship between a schoolÈs enrollment and the count of attendance area needs to be explained. The Cupertino District has deve located in schools with available capacity; CLIP, the Chinese La an example. Many students participating in the program are drawndance areas in the northern/northeastern and central tiers of the district, lesseni overcrowded schools. Also, Special Day Class (SDC) programs are schools, again drawing some students from the more crowded schools. Finally, there are ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services8 January 2012 310 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis numerous situations in which students are directed to a school i shifting enrollment south and lessening the pressure on the over-crowded schools. All of these practices have some inherent disadvantage, but it is a much more favorable resolution than either having the northern schools even more crowded or having students distant from where they live. The Cupertino District increased the maximum size in the kinderggh third grade classes in this school year, raising class sizes in these grades-to-exceed maximum of 24 students. This increase provided a sufficient increase in ca their assigned students this year. The problem is that the elementary schools in the northeastern sector Ã Stocklmeir, Eisenhower and Sedgwick Ã are project to have over 200 more students residing in their attendance areas by 2016 than currently reside capacity in these areas is increased, the pressure to accommodate some of these stu middle tier schools such as Eaton will increase. Possible optio are addressed in the section entitled ÅFacility CostsÆ below. Middle Schools The situation of growing enrollment overwhelming capacity in the loca middle schools. Enrollment Projection Consultants is expecting students between now and the fall of 2015. The 20030 Stevens Crnt is in the Lawson Middle School attendance area. Lawson already has an enr partly because it accommodates over 100 students from other atte over 200 students residing in the Lawson attendance areas is projected by 2015. The current facilities at Lawson are overloaded at its current enrollment; t future projected enrollment. High Schools The Fremont Union High School District currently has an enrollmeing its five comprehensive high schools. The enrollment capacity of these fi exceeding capacity by 619 students. Per EPCÈs latest report in enrollment is expected to grow, moderately in the next two years and then at a faster rate. The projected increase over the next two years, 2011 to 2013, is abo the following two years is projected to be about 400 more studen projected over the remainder of the decade as the larger classes already in the elementar middle school grades enter in to the high school. 20030 Stevens Creek is located only a few blocks from Cupertino is calculated by the Fremont District to have an enrollment capacity of 1,767 students. Its fall 2011 enrollment is 1,893 students , 126 above the capacity. The forecast that in the fall of 2013 the attendance area will have attendance area and by 2015 an additional 200 plus students, bringing it 500 students above the current capacity of its facilities. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services9 January 2012 311 CAPITAL FACILITIES COST AND REVENUE IMPACTS A school district adding a significant number of students usually needs to incur one-time upfront costsfor capital facilities to house the students. California law pr usually paid at the time a building permit is issued, as a parti expenditures. This section addresses the cost of accommodating students from 20030 Steven Creek and compares the cost with the development fees the projec Facilities Costs Elementary School Costs The analysis of elementary school capacity above shows that Eatolementary, in whose attendance area the project is located, will be part of a group northern tiers of the district that have significantly more stud than there is capacity available in its present facilities; 2014 is when enrollment from the project is first expected to attend. Twenty-four elementary students, the projected number of students generated by the project, by itself is not a large number of stu students CUSD needed to accommodate, the crowding effect would only req classroom. The problem, however, is the total number of student even more, the increased enrollment from already existing housin The districtÈs preferred option for housing the increased enrollment would be a northern portion of the district. However, there seems to be no primary reasons are the lack of a suitable site and, if one were its astronomical cost. The assumption made here is therefore that the increased enrollm construction of one or more classroom wings at one or more over-crowded schools, along with improvements in the support facilities to allow the campus to function with a significantly larger enrollment than the design of the campus anticipated. It will be a challenge to add additional classrooms on the Stock campuses, using three of the schools needing enlarged capacity as examples. They have current enrollments of 1,172, 742, and 736 students respectively. They enrollments and the sites are only 14.3, 9.8 and 11.8 acres in s Facilities Planning Division of the California Department of Education makes available a ÅGuide to School Site Analysis and DevelopmentÆ which includes recommen for various enrollments. For a very large school the size of St 16.4 acres for an elementary school without a class size reduction program an class size reduction. For a large school of about 750 students, for a school without a class size reduction program and 13.8 acr size reduction. Accommodating students on a much smaller campus involves placing state guide plans for other uses, such as recreation (6-7 acres recommended). The assumption used here is that the classroom wings would have two stories to minimize the ground area ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services10 January 2012 312 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis required and that the enlargement of support facilities would al compromise with recreational space. The State Allocation Board uses a cost of educational facilitiesrants for new school facilities. The current grant amount for elementary based on a total cost of $18,224 (land costs not included). Cal Allocation Board to review school costs annually, with the next review coming at the BoardÈs meeting in January 2012. The specific Class B cost of construct adjust for changes in cost is not available, but an Engineering index has increased 3.2% in the 12 months ending in September. It could be expected that SAB is likely to increase the grant amount about three percent i to about $18,800, which is used here because the existing cost i-of-date. It can be noted that a two-story classroom building would be expected to cost about $300,00 classroom. (An elevator would be required.) Assuming 24 studen cost is $12,500 per student, two-thirds of the State Allocation Board cost. This figure is likely to be an understatement of the costs the Cupertino District would i improvements. The State Allocation Board cost is estimated assu story construction. Adding space to an existing campus is usually more expensive. Additional students on the campus require enlarging of some of t e.g., the cafeteria and multipurpose rooms. A rough rule of thu elementary school costs are for support facilities. In this report the state figure of $18 student is used as the cost of adding capacity to crowded campus Middle School Costs 20030 Stevens Creek is located in the Lawson Middle School atten reason to anticipate that its students will not attend that school. already above capacity and is expected to grow in the next few y The other middle schools in the northern and northeastern part o Cupertino, are also projected to have enrollments substantially current facilities. The Cupertino District has concept plans fo schools. The plans for Lawson include two two-story classroom buildings, one with 16 rooms and the other with eight rooms. The plans for the Cupertino cam-story 22 room classroom building. Because of the other support and recreation the total cost of the improvements for both campuses is $50 million. The site plan for Hyde shows a single-story four unit classroom addition; the staff has recognized the two stories on the same footprint. (It should be noted that the formally reviewed or adopted plans for construction of any of the ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services11 January 2012 313 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis All three schools have a problem with limited campus space due t the level for which they were designed. The ÅGuide to School Sind DevelopmentÆ published by the Department of Education has a standard of 20.9 students and 23.1 acres for a school of 1,200 students. LawsonÈ campus is 13.4 acres in size. Hyde has a current enrollment of 1,005 students and a site size of 14.0 acres; Cupertino has a current enrollment of 1,293 students 20.4 acres. The picture is even more unsatisfactory, if project considered. These size constraints are a factor contributing to the relatively high costs of planned improvements. (It should be noted that the CUSD Board o reviewed or adopted plans for construction of any of these impro It seems appropriate to again use the state cost figures to calculate the cost imp from 20030 Stevens Creek. The state 50% grant amount as of Janu increasing this amount three percent for the expected January 20lation brings the cost to $9,926. The full cost rounded is thus $19,90 High School Costs Fremont District enrollment exceeds capacity district-wide and at the Cupertino campus, where 20030 Stevens Creek students would attend. The district has alrdy approved two projects that will add capacity to Cupertino High School and has plans for two and unfunded, projects. The first project is construction of a building; construction is planned to begin in January of 2013 and be finished for the start of school in 2014. The cost of construction and all related costs project is the refurbishment of the vacated support buildings in planned to begin in July 2014 and be finished prior to the start cost is $3.1 million. One of the other projects is the construc classrooms near the existing science building, replacing four moar classrooms now located there; it is being planned because of the need for additional sc most, the capacity for two classrooms worth of students. The la the initial planning phase, is the construction of a classroom wing. The location identified as possibility for the building would accommodate 10 single story c 20 classrooms that could be accommodated on the site in a two-story building will be needed. At $300,000 per classroom, the cost of the classrooms would be $3.0 room and 20 room buildings respectively. The total cost of the three projects that result in significant room alternative for the classroom wing, is $27.3 million. The state fundin capacity assuming 27 students per classroom. Thirty-one classrooms at 27 students per room is capacity for 837 students. The cost per student for these expens $32,600 per student. (The cost is about $42,800 if the 10-room classroom building is assumed.) The cost based on the assumptions in the state grant program became $24,5 increasing this three percent for the coming January adjustment results in a cost of $25,300. In ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services12 January 2012 314 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis summary, FUHSD anticipates incurring per student costs for the a significantly above that assumed in the state grant program, ref capacity at an already developed (and crowded) campus. Given the advantages of the new cafeteria, library, administration building, however, the state here, as it is for the elementary and middle school improvementsnt cost and the cost of facilities for 20030 Stevens Creek students Table 7 Per Student Cost of Additional Capacity Cupertino and Fremont Union School Districts Grade LevelPer Student CostNumber of Grade Level Cost Students Elementary School $18,800 24$451,200 Middle School $19,900 10$199,000 High School $25,300 6$151,800 Source: Schoolhouse Services. The 20030 Stevens Creek Project The impact fee revenue, the source of school capital improvements funding, will depend on the square footage of the project, and the existing square footage a apartment, the apartment interiors will total 86,025 square feet including the lobby, hallways, etc., is estimated to add another 12,000 sq retail building is 7,000 square feet. It has been the practice the fees on the new construction equal to the fees that would bed on the existing buildings if they were to be constructed, reflecting the fact that they will need for school facilities. Table 8 lists the various types of assumed square footage of each. Table 8 Square Feet of Development Number ofSquare Feet OtherTotal Unitsper UnitSquare FeetSpace*Square Feet 10192593,42512,000105,425 Apartments 7,0007,000 New Retail 112,425 Total New -21,082-21,082 Removed 91,343 Total * For apartments includes lobby, administration, storage, hallways, etc. Source: Schoolhouse Services. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services13 January 2012 315 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Development Impact Fee Revenues Both CUSD and FUHSD are eligible to levy Level 1 development impntial development and the majority of commercial/industrial developmen maximum fee amounts; both districts have documents justifying th amounts, as do most California school districts. The maximum Level 1 residential fee that CUSD and FUHSD together are currently allowed to levy is $2.97 p development. Fees can usually be levied on non-residential development because of the role of employment in causing a need for residences where employees and their children live. The maximum fee for commercial/industrial (non-residential) development is $0.47 per square foot. The preceding section where the costs of additional capacity wer Allocation Board adjusts grant amounts annually in January for changes in the cost of construction. It does the same for development fee amounts, but cost of construction index used by the state board rose 4.3% in for 2011 projects a seven percent increase in January 2012. This w $3.18 and $0.50 per square foot for residential and commercial/i respectively. Since the existing fees are almost two years out-of-date and will soon be adjusted, the increased fee amounts are used here. FUHSD and its elementary feeder districts have an agreement as t shared. Per this agreement, CUSD will be allowed to collect up amount, projected to be $1.91 per square foot of residential developmen collect 40% of the maximum, projected to be $1.27 per square foo The maximum fees on commercial/industrial development are projec $0.30 and $0.20 per square foot for CUSD and FUHSD respectively. The maximum fe adjusted again in January 2014. Table 9 Development Impact Fee Revenue TotalCUSDCUSDFUHSDFUHSDTotal Square FeetFeeFee RevenueFeeFee RevenueRevenue 105,425$1.91$201,400$1.27$133,900$335,300 Apartments 7,000$0.30$2,100$0.20$1,400$3,500 New Retail 112,425$203,500$135,300$338,800 Total New -21,082$0.30-$6,300$0.20-$4,200-$10,500 Removed 91,343 $197,200$131,100$328,300 Total Net 346 Number of Students $5,800$21,900 Revenue per Student Source: Schoolhouse Services. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services14 January 2012 316 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis The information about the square footage of the various componen Table 8 was multiplied by the development impact fee amounts to calculate the would be generated by the 20030 Stevens Creek project, as shown Comparison of Capital Facilities Costs and Development Impact Fee Revenue Table 10 shows the calculation of the difference between the development impact fees lik be generated by the 20030 Stevens Creek projects given the curre Construction Cost Index adjusted facilities costs per student fo table shows a significant capital cost impact for CUSD and a much smal impacts reflect the fact that the residential fees established b for a little less that half of the cost impact. Table 10 Development Impact Fees Versus Facilities Costs* Fee RevenueFacilities CostPer StudentTotal Facilities Per StudentPer StudentCost DifferenceStudentsCost Impact $5,800 $18,800 24($312,000) CUSD - elem ($13,000) $5,800 $19,900 10($141,000) CUSD - middle ($14,100) 34 CUSD - total ($453,000) $21,900 $25,300 6 FUHSD ($3,400)($20,400) * Both fee revenue and facilities costs are one-time, rather than annual, estimates. Source: Schoolhouse Services. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services15 January 2012 317 OPERATING REVENUE AND COST IMPACTS Operating Costs Almost all operating costs tend to increase with enrollment if e maintained. Operating costs are annual costs and are matched wi These costs include personnel costs like salaries and benefits for certificated and clas employees, which generally comprise a large majority of a distri per student estimate is simply a calculation of the operating exhe number of students, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Operating Costs Operating Number of Per Student Budget Students Cost $136,474,00018,645 CUSD $7,320 $100,843,00010,346 FUHSD $9,747 Sources:CUSD and FUHSD 2011-12 budgets and Schoolhouse Services. Operating Revenues The 20030 Stevens Creek project will affect the revenues and cos different ways.CUSD is a Årevenue limitÆ district. Like other revenue limited dist state, its property tax revenues are not sufficient to reach the per student amoun under the State of California school funding program. Therefore funds necessary to fill the gap up to the guaranteed level. Thet the revenues from property taxes plus the revenue limit program increases proporti Another reality for a revenue limit district is that the increas homes is offset by a comparable reduction in the money from the state; thus higher property taxes do not affect the total of property tax and state revenue The Årevenue limitÆ total in CUSDÈs 2011-2012 budget is $87.75 million or $4,706 per student. (The Årevenue limitÆ total five years ago was almost exactly the same; because of the smal enrollment at that time, the amount per student was $5,300.) Th-12 state budget is subject to a mid-year adjustment if revenues are lower than assumed in its budgete of the adjustment will take place. However, CUSDÈs budget assumes magnitude would be necessary. Further reductions are scheduled annual reduction is projected at $4.6 million, but only if the mure to increase taxes is passed; if not, the reduction is projected to be $11.4 million. Governments also supply other funding, generally for categorical to increase as enrollment increases. The operating revenues fro sources total $32.20 million, or $1,727 per student for CUSD for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Thus, the revenue impact ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services16 January 2012 318 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis coming from sources that will increase approximately proportiona students resulting from the 20030 Stevens Creek project is $6,433 per student. Local revenues to CUSD (other than the property taxes) constitut primarily parcel tax revenues, they total $9.34 million or $501 from two measures approved by the voters. However, there will not be a large number of parc in the project so its contribution to parcel tax revenue will be revenues are not likely to increase with additional enrollment oct. FUHSDis one of the relatively few districts in the state that is not DistrictÈs per student property tax is moderately above the amou funding guaranteed by the state. Because there is no state supplement to property tax revenues, state revenue does not increase when additional students are enr development generates additional property taxes, increasing the property tax revenues will be equal to the DistrictÈs share of the property tax rate times the fair market value established by the Santa Clara County Assessor at t completed. Table 12 shows the calculation of the assumed assessed valuations Creek project as proposed. The assessed values for the project or per square foot market values estimated by Schoolhouse with i developers. The assessed value for the existing retail is from ta Clara County AssessorÈs records. Table 12 Assessed Value Number ofAssessed ValueAssessed Unitsper Unit/FootValue Square Feet 101$400,000$40,400,000 New Apartments 7,000$450$3,150,000 New Retail $43,550,000 New AV 21,082 ($1,501,000) Existing Retail $42,049,000 Increased AV Assumes assessed value of parking facilities is included with t Source: Santa Clara County Assessor and Schoolhouse Services. The districtÈs share of the base one percent property in the 13-003 tax code area in which the project is located is 16.71% of the total one percent base tax r the total 20030 Stevens Creek complex is estimated to be $420,000 and the districtÈs share ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services17 January 2012 319 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis $70,200; if six high school students reside in the 101 apartment student. This number reflects only the largely residential 2003 this analysis included the non-residential sites where the residents work and shop, the tax receipts would be significantly larger. Table 13 Property Tax Assessed Valuation $42,049,000 Estimated Assessed Valuation $420,000 Property Tax at 1.0% Tax Rate $70,200 FUHSD Share of Tax Rate (16.71%) $11,700 FUHSD Share of Tax Rate per FUHSD Student Sources: Santa Clara County Tax Collector, Controller, and Schoolhouse Services. The voters of both CUSD and FUHSD have approved bond issues for campus improvements. Debt service on the bond issues is spread among property tax pay value. The current tax rate for CUSD is 0.000290 per dollar of paid by 20030 Stevens Creek property owners for debt service on CUSD bonds is projected to be $12,000. Similarly, the current tax rate for the Fremont Distri assessed value and the revenue paid for debt service on the dist $17,000. It should be understood, however, that these revenues do not increase available to the two districts. The bond issues and associated The assessed value of new development increases the total assesshe debt service among a larger tax base; it does not increase the revenu by almost $30,000 annually the amount other taxpayers in the dis Voters in the Fremont Union High School District, like voters in the Cupertino Union School District, have approved a parcel tax. The tax is $98 per parcel per year, but again the small number of parcels involved will ma project negligible. Other government support to the FUHSD totals $4.7 million, or $455 per st CUSD, local revenues (other than the property and parcel tax rev source of funds and are not likely to increase with additional eThus, the per student revenue impact is calculated to be the $11,700 per student recei $455 per student in other government support. The upper portion calculation of the operational revenue anticipated for additional students as a result of the 20030 Stevens Creek project. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services18 January 2012 320 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 14 Operational Costs Versus Operational Revenues* CUSD FUHSD Projected Enrollment Students 346 Per Student Revenues State Revenue Limit Funding$4,706 Other State and Federal Funding$1,727 $455 FUHSD Share of Property Tax$11,700 Total per Student Revenues$6,433 $12,155 Total Operational Revenues $218,720 $72,931 Per Student Costs Average Cost per Student$7,320 $9,747 Total Operation Costs $248,880 $58,482 Net Fiscal Impact Per Student Impact ($887)$2,408 Total Impact ($30,160)$14,449 * All costs and revenues shown are annual costs and revenues. Source s: Revenues and costs from the CUSD and FUHSD 2011-2012 budgets, Schoolhouse Services. Comparison of Operating Costs and Revenues Table 14 also shows the operational costs anticipated for both d Stevens Creek project, which allows for a comparison with the revenues project. There is a net fiscal deficit of $887 per student for students from the 20030 Stevens Creek project. This reflects thon that state and federal revenues will increase along with the increased enrollme tax will not. On the cost side, the current operational cost as average cost per pupil for all expenditures. The total deficit is estimated at $30,160. At the estimated assessed valuation of the project, there is a n student for FUHSD. After providing services to an additional si 20030 Stevens Creek project, the surplus is projected to be over $14,000. Given of the revenues and costs and the margin of error in the project the two districts are not significant. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services19 January 2012 321 SUMMARY The projected enrollment and fiscal impacts resulting from the development of 101 rental housing units and 7,000 square feet of new retail (the 20030 Ste analyzed. These impacts were analyzed using current financial i current enrollment information for the affected schools, specifically Middle, and Cupertino High. All of the dollar amounts in the report should be considered app amounts. This is particularly true of some of the fiscal numbers. Below is a summary of the significant findings contained in this The demand for housing in the CUSD and in the Cupertino High att high, to a large extent because of the quality of the schools. e 20030 Stevens Creek apartments are likely to have a total SGR between 0.35 and 0.45 SGRs used for the analysis here are 0.34 for CUSD, and 0.06 for 0.40. Based on the SGRs, an enrollment impact of 40 total students is estimated as a result of the 20030 Stevens Creek project: 24 students at Eaton Elementary Lawson Middle attendance area, and six students in the Cupertino The number of students from the 20030 Stevens Creek project is small; they are not a problem in themselves. The problem is additional students from even more, an increasing number of students from existing homes. The principal problem at the elementary level is the distribution of students in the District, with schools increasingly overloaded with students in District and gradually emerging capacity in the southern portion Lawson Middle School and Cupertino High are already loaded beyond capacity and badly need additional capacity to accommodate future enrollment. provide this capacity have been planned, but additional funding financing is designated for improvements at Cupertino High, but some more will probably be needed. No funding has been designated for improvem Elementary or Lawson Middle. Cupertino DistrictÈs one-time development fee revenue from the 20030 Stevens Creek project is anticipated to equal only about one-third of the share of facilities costs attributable to the project. Using costs based on the state gra CUSD is about $13,000 to $14,000 per student. FUHSD has a proje $3,400 per student. The total CUSD deficit is $453,000 while FUHSD has a projected total deficit of $20,400. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services20 January 2012 322 20030 Stevens CreekEnrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis The share of CUSD annual operational costs attributable to the S anticipated to exceed operational revenue from the project by a student. In contrast, FUHSD operational revenues from the project are exceed the attributed share of operational costs by about $2,400 costs are projected to result a deficit of about $30,000 for CUSs of about $14,000 for FUHSD. Given the margin of error involved, significant amounts. ________________________________________________________________ Schoolhouse Services21 January 2012 323 Screencheck Draft Initial Study for the 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Biltmore Apartments Project Prepared by the City of Cupertino April 2012 324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Text SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................... SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................... 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ................................................. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT ........................................... 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT .............................. 2.5 ASSESSORÓS PARCEL NUMBERS ..................................... 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ................. 4 SECTION 3.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................ 3.1 OVERVIEW ...................................................... 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................... SECTION 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ........................................................ 4.1 AESTHETICS .................................................... 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................ 4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................... 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................... 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................ 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.............................................. 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...................................... 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................... 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................... 4.10 LAND USE ...................................................... 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................. 4.12 NOISE ......................................................... 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................ 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................... 4.15 RECREATION .................................................... 4.16 TRANSPORTATION ................................................ 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................. 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................... 116 SECTION 5.0REFERENCES ..................................................... SECTION 6.0LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS .................................... Photos Photo 1&2 ................................................................... 17 Photo 3&4 ................................................................... 18 Photo 5&6 ................................................................... 19 City of Cupertino 1 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 325 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figures Figure 2.2-1Regional Map ................................................... Figure 2.2-2Vicinity Map ................................................... Figure 2.2-3Aerial Photograph .............................................. Figure 3.2-1Proposed Site Plan ............................................. Figure 3.2-2Proposed Commercial Elevations ................................. Figure 3.2-3Proposed Elevations Î Building A ............................... Figure 3.2-4Proposed Elevations Î Building B ............................... Figure 3.2-5Proposed Elevations Î Buildings C & D........................... Figure 4.10-1Special Centers ................................................ Figure 4.12-1Noise Measurement Locations .................................... Figure 4.15-1Existing Roadway Network and Study Intersections................ Tables Table 3.2-1 Development Summary ................................ Table 4.3-1 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Meas Table 4.3-2 Summary of Construction RelatedCriteria Pollutant Emissions ............................. 30 Table 4.4-1 Summary of Tree Species and Size ................... Table 4.4-2 Tree Replacement Ratios .................................................8 Table 4.12-1 Land Uses and Acceptable Noise Levels ............. Table 4.12-2 Examples of Acceptable Brief Daytime Incidents .... Table 4.12-3 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ...... Table 4.15-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition Vehicular Delay ................................................ Table 4.15-2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........... Table 4.15-3 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation ............... Table 4.15-4 Project Trip Generation Estimates ................. Table 4.15-5 Project Intersection Levels of Service ............ Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Modeling Appendix B Tree Surveys Appendix C Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Hazardous Materials Reports Appendix E Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix F School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Appendix G Transportation Impact Analysis City of Cupertino 2 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 326 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines Regulations 15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of Cupertino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the impacts of implementing the proposed 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and B 4.3-acre project site south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and appro Stevens Creek Boulevard/ South Blaney Avenue intersection. The project proposes the construction of 7,000 square feet of co Boulevard frontage. The project would also construct 101 apartm existing commercial buildings on the site would be demolished to redevelopment of the site. An existing parking area on the Bilt be redeveloped. Tiering of Environmental Review CEQA Section 21093 (b) states that environmental impact reports as determined by the lead agency. ÐTieringÑ refers to using the in a broader Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (such as one prep statement) in subsequent EIRs or Initial Studies/negative declarations on narrower projects; and concentrating the later environmental review on the issues specific to the later project [CEQA Guidelines 15152 (a)]. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus on review and to avoid or eliminate duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports [CEQA Guideline 21093 (a)]. In accordance with CEQA Sections 21093(a) and 21093(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), this Initial Study tiers off the City of Cupertino General Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse #2002122061) certified by the City Council on November 15, 2005. use and population and housing this Initial Study tiers off the development in the 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan Final EIR project specific environmental impacts that were not addressed i those that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the im Stevens Creek Boulevard and Biltmore Apartments Project. City of Cupertino 3 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 327 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Biltmore Apartments 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 4.3-acre project site is located approximately 130 feet west South Blaney Avenue intersection in Cupertino. The project site Boulevard to the north, a single-story commercial building and S existing Biltmore Apartments to the south, and a parking lot and commercial/preschool building to the west. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are sh aerial photograph showing surrounding land uses is shown on Figu 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT City of Cupertino Community Development Department Simon S. Vuong, Assistant Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-1356 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT Michael Ducote Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 150 San Mateo, CA 94403 (650) 931-3400 2.5 ASSESSORÓS PARCEL NUMBERS 369-03-003, 369-03-004, 369-03-006, 369-03-007, and 369-03-008 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT The project site is located in the CityÓs Heart of the City Specific Plan Area and contains the following General Plan land use designations and zoning district General Plan Designation:Commercial/Office/Residential Medium/High Density (10-20 dwelling units per acre) Zoning District:P- Planned Mixed Use Development P(R3) – Planned Development Multiple Family Residential City of Cupertino 4 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 328 TOMAS BLANEY AVE 5 NORTHBLANEYAVENUESOUTHBLANEYAVENUE RANDYLANE SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 OVERVIEW The approximately 4.3-acre project site fronts on both Stevens C Avenue in the City of Cupertino. The site is composed of two pr Boulevard and a 0.45-acre portion of the larger Biltmore Apartme 2.2-1). The project site is currently developed with approximately 21,082 square feet of commercial uses in three buildings and includes a portion of a 179-unit multiple-fa (Biltmore Apartments). Under the proposed redevelopment project, the three existing commercial buildings on the site would be demolished and replaced with a mi uses. An existing parking area on the Biltmore Apartments prope additional residential uses. The project site is located in the CityÓs Heart of the City Specific Plan Area (refer to Figure 4.10-1 on page 74).The 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard property is also located in th Stevens Creek Boulevard Neighborhood Commercial, Office, and Residential Corridor. The 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard property is designated as Commercial/Office/Residential in the CityÓs General Plan Land Use Map and zoned P- Planned Mixed Use Development. The Biltmore Apartments property is designated as Medium/High Density (10-20 dwelling units per acre) in the CityÓs General Plan Land Use Map and zoned P(R3) – Planned Development Multiple Family Residential. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The project proposes the construction of 7,000 square feet of co Boulevard frontage. The project would also construct 101 apartments in four buildings. Proposed Buildings A and B would be located on the 20030 Stevens Creek Bo C and D would be located on the Biltmore Apartments property (re proposed net increase in development is summarized in Table 3.2- Table 3.2-1 Development Summary Proposed Use Square Feet Dwelling Units Building Stories Height (feet) Commercial Proposed 7,000 -- 1 34 Existing 21,082 -- 1 -- Net-14,802 -- -- -- Residential - Building A -- 72 3.5* 39 - Building B -- 17 2 to 3** 35 - Building C -- 8 2 25 - Building D -- 4 2 25 -- 101 -- -- Net Notes: *A partially below grade parking garage is proposed for **Two stories along the Blaney Avenue street frontage, increasing to three stories in the interior of the site. City of Cupertino 8 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 332 Section 3 – Project Description 3.2.1 Building Heights and Setbacks Commercial Development The proposed 7,000 square foot commercial building would be one- (refer to Figure 3.2-2). The commercial building would be set back 35 feet from the face of the cur off of Stevens Creek Boulevard and approximately 63 feet from th development (Building A). Residential Development The project proposes four, two- to three-story residential buildings (Buildings A-D). The proposed units on the Biltmore Apartments site (Buildings C and D) and th Avenue on the 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard property (Building B height. The nine dwelling units in the portion of Building B fa three stories and up to 35 feet in height. Building elevations 3 to 3.2-5. The proposed new apartment buildings will be set back approximat Boulevard and 20 feet from South Blaney Avenue. 3.2.2 Site Access and Parking The project would provide vehicular access to the site via two d Boulevard. A third driveway would be provided on South Blaney Avenue to replace the current driveway to the Biltmore Apartments site and provide access to t The project will maintain an existing easement allowing access f west of the site at 20100 Stevens Creek Boulevard and a future a 20010 Stevens Creek Boulevard to the east. The project includes sidewalks through the two sites to provide properties and the existing sidewalks on both street frontages. The project proposes 42 parking spaces to serve the commercial u residential development will provide 197 parking spaces for a co the new residential uses and existing residential uses within the Biltmore Apartments development. The project includes a subgrade parking garage in Building A tha new residential parking spaces. 3.2.3 Landscaping The project will plant new trees on both project street frontages, in the parking areas, and along sidewalks throughout the project site. The proposed landscaping square feet and maximum of 7,122 square feet of biofiltration ar City of Cupertino 9 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 333 Section 3 – Project Description 3.2.4 Demolition and Grading The project would require the demolition of approximately 21,082 square feet of commercial space, including two restaurant buildings and a strip commercial retail redevelopment on the Biltmore property will result in the loss o removal of three garages and surface parking. Landscaping will (refer to Section 4.4 Biological Resources). The proposed subgrade parking garage would require excavation on feet below existing grade. Overall, the project would require a cut and fill. 3.2.5 Construction Schedule The project is anticipated to require 15 to 18 months to demolis on the site, remove pavement and landscaping, construct the prop landscaping. Given the size of the project site no phasing of t City of Cupertino 10 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 334 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project site, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelin environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this document. Mitigation or avoidance significant impacts. 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Setting Project Site 4.1.1.1 Views of the project site are provided in Photos 1-6. Two, one- buildings front on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The buildings are b landscaping, signage, and driveways off the busy Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor (Photos 1 and 2). A single-story strip commercial building in a plain architectural style with storefronts in a row is oriented perpendicular to the South Blaney Avenue frontage of th business is located just below the roofline and the building is clad with stucco and architectural stone. Landscaping is limited to the east side of the building along th the south, views of the vacant lot between the strip commercial building and Biltmore Apartments are obscured by vegetation (Photo 4). The two-story, wood-clad the site are shown in Photo 5. The adjacent parking area within the project site is shown in Photo 6. The irregularly shaped project site is bounded in part by two st north and South Blaney Avenue to the east (refer to Figure 2.2-3 of the site are limited to local views from the adjacent roadway Surrounding Visual Character 4.1.1.2 The project site is surrounded by existing urban development and generally one to two stories in height, front Stevens Creek Boulevard. One and two-story wood and stucco clad single family residential buildings and two-story multiple family residential buildings bordered by street trees and landscaping are located along South project site. Stevens Creek Boulevard in this area is heavily traveled by personal vehicles, trucks, and buses. Landscape trees and shrubs soften hardscape areas and building facades along Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Blaney Road. City of Cupertino 16 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 340 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Photo 1 Î View of restaurant building on the project site (20030 Stevens C from Stevens Creek Boulevard looking south. Photo 2 Î View of restaurant building on the project site (20060 Stevens C from Stevens Creek Boulevard looking east. City of Cupertino 17 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 341 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Photo 3 Î View of strip commercial building on the project site from South looking southwest. Photo 4 Î View of South Blaney Avenue frontage from strip commercial build to Biltmore Apartments, looking southwest. City of Cupertino 18 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 342 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Photo 5 Î View of Biltmore Apartments on South Blaney Avenue looking south Photo 6 Î View of Biltmore Apartment parking from driveway on South Blaney looking west. City of Cupertino 19 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 343 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Scenic Views 4.1.1.3 The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop to the City of Cupertino. The project site is flat and does not provide prominent viewpoints of scenic resources. Views of the foothills from the project site are partially obstructed by buildings along the commercial corridor of Stevens Creek Boulevard and tre streets and landscaped residential areas to the south and west. 4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts AESTHETICS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2 scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing 1 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial light 1 or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetic values are, by their nature, very subjective. Opinion of visual character will differ among individuals. One of the b constitutes a visually acceptable standard for new buildings are the CityÓs design standards and implementation of those standards through the CityÓs design proc addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factors that are part of the communityÓs assessment of the aesthetic values of a projectÓs de Impact to Scenic Views or Scenic Resources 4.1.2.1 The project site is located within a developed area on the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The site does not provide scenic open space and is not located along a st of this urban site, therefore, would not have a direct adverse e resources. As discussed previously, scenic views from the project vicinity site are limited to the immediate area. The foothills west and by existing development and landscape trees. Implementation of City of Cupertino 20 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 344 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts substantially block scenic views and is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (Less Than Significant Impact) Change in Visual Character 4.1.2.2 The visual character of buildings is a function of design featur flat versus pitched or sloping roofs) and fenestration (window design), as well as building height. Building heights within a structure can also be varied (or modul soften a buildingÓs interface with the street. For example, bui with shorter elevations in the front and varying roof shapes and of a building and create an appearance that fits into an area wi styles. The design of building or project entrances, including use of awnings, and other features can reduce the mass and perception of overall building scale at stre The scale and mass of buildings on the project site would increa proposed project would replace three existing one-story commerci parking areas with a one-story (up to 34 feet in height) commerc Boulevard and four, two- to three story residential buildings. these structures are shown on Figures 3.2-2 to 3.2-5. New tree street frontages and in parking areas throughout the site. Final building and landscaping design and site layout for the pr following discussion describes the proposed standards of the pro setbacks, and other features. Future Streetscape on Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Blaney A As shown on Figure 3.2-1, the commercial building would be set b Stevens Creek Boulevard and approximately 63 feet from the close (Building A). The building heights of the residential buildings would be stepped back from the roadway frontages, with the tallest part of Building B facing th buildings will be set back approximately 140 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard and 20 feet from South Blaney Avenue. It is anticipated that building heights and facades would vary to reduce the apparent mass of the buildings. The final design of the proposed project would be evaluated for consistency with the CityÓs standards as a part of Design Review (Architectural and Site Approval) process required for approval of the specific project design, if the proposed project is approved. T the proposed buildings with the surrounding land uses and the st height limits, setbacks, architectural, and landscaping design g compatibility of the building materials and architecture with th Although the proposed development on the project site would be v existing on the site, if consistent with the CityÓs design revie review process, it would not result in a degradation of the visu City of Cupertino 21 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 345 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts the site area, including the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor wi Heart of the City Specific Plan Area.(Less Than Significant Impact) Light and Glare Impacts 4.1.2.3 The proposed project would not include substantial reflective glass surfaces that could result in glare impacts. The project would have security lighting around buildings and surface parking areas similar to existing and approved lighting on other properties along Stev areas along South Blaney Avenue. At the time of final design re reviewed by the Director of Community Development to assure that and will not spill over onto adjacent properties. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant visual or a(Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 22 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 346 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 Setting Agricultural Resources 4.2.1.1 According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010 map, Urban and Built-Up Land.Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for courses, landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Currently, the project site is not used for agricultural purposes and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. The site is located within an urban area of Cupe agricultural purposes adjacent to the project site. Forestry Resources 4.2.1.2 The project site does not contain any forest land and no forest of the project site. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than NoBeneficial Information SignificantWith Significant Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 3 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? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for 3 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as 1,2 defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? City of Cupertino 23 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 347 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than NoBeneficial Information SignificantWith Significant Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 4) Result in a loss of forest land or 1 conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the 1 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Agricultural Resource Impacts 4.2.2.1 As discussed above, the project site is not designated as farmla For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any resources.(No Impact) Forestry Resource Impacts 4.2.2.2 None of the properties adjacent to the project site or in the vi therefore, the proposed project would not impact forest resource(No Impact) 4.2.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to (No Impact) City of Cupertino 24 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 348 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3 AIR QUALITY The following discussion is based in part on a Construction Emis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in April 2012. A copy of this report is included as Appendix A Initial Study. 4.3.1 Setting Climate and Topography 4.3.1.1 The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Valley withi Basin. The project areaÓs proximity to both the Pacific Ocean a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the sou greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailin northwest-southwest axis. Pollutants in the air can cause health problems, especially for heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may experience symptoms Pollutants can also cause damage to vegetation, animals, and pro Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants 4.3.1.2 Major criteria pollutants, listed in ÐcriteriaÑ documents by the (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include oz nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matt health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung dis Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet s standards for ground level ozone and state standards for PM and PM. The area is considered 102.5 attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants. Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter 4.3.1.3 Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of subst Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be lo low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. Fine Particulate Matter (PM) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such 2.5 carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposur can cause a wide range 2.5 of health effects. City of Cupertino 25 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 349 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Common stationary source types of TACs and PM include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and 2.5 diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirement common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads. Sensitive Receptors 4.3.1.4 BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, reti hospitals and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include the preschool use to the west and residential uses east and south of the proje Regulatory Setting 4.3.1.5 The City of Cupertino is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and it state (California Clean Air Act of 1988 and its subsequent amend Regional air quality management districts such as the BAAQMD mus specifying how state standards would be met. The BAAQMDÓs most Plan (CAP) is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP). This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile s updated comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and p account future growth projections to 2035. Some of these measur governments for implementation. The 2010 CAP also includes meas greenhouse gas emissions. 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion AIR QUALITY Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct 1,4 implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Violate any air quality standard or 1,5 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? City of Cupertino 26 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 350 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts AIR QUALITY Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable 1,5 net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to 1 substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 substantial number of people? 1 BAAQMD Project-Level Significance Thresholds 4.3.2.1 The BAAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NO), and/or PM; or 82 pounds or more a day of PM. x2.510 The BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting of a new source (e.g., proposed on-site generator) and to the siting of a new receptor (e.g., new residences). Local community risks and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM because emission of these pollutants can have significant healt 2.5 emissions of TACs or PM exceed any of the thresholds of significance listed below, the 2.5 would result in a significant impact: Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; or 1 In December 2010, the California Building Industry Association (BIA) filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 thresholds ad CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG10548693). On March 5, 2012, t Decision requiring BAAQMD to set aside their 2010 adoption of their thresholds until and unless CEQA review is completed. The Superior Court did not make any findings regardi thresholds. The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment is made by the lead agency, in this case the City of Cupertino, based upon substantial evide of Cupertino considers the thresholds identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (May 2011) to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Ba thresholds has been presented in the following documents: a) Bay CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D. May 2011; b) California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. July 2009; and c) California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2005. City of Cupertino 27 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 351 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic PM would be a cumulatively considerable contribution. 2.5 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require that projects be when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffi annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources Clean Air Plan Consistency 4.3.2.2 Determining consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whe contained in the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of co quality and protect public health. These control measures are o Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Applicable control measures and the projectÓs consistency with them are summarized proposed project is generally consistent with the control measur Table 4.3-1 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control Measures Description Project Consistency Transportation Control Measures Implement Safe Facilitate safe routes to As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation, Routes to Schools schools and transit by the project site is served by existing and Safe Routes to providing funds and working sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit. The Transitwith transportation agencies, project provides pedestrian pathways that local governments, schools, connect to existing sidewalks on adjacent and communities to roadways and bicycle storage facilities. For implement safe access for these reasons, the project is consistent with pedestrians and cyclists. this control measure. Improve Bicycle Expand bicycle facilities Bicycle facilities in the site vicinity include Access and serving transit hubs, bike lanes on both sides of Stevens Creek Facilities employment sites, Boulevard and South Blaney Avenue. Bike educational and cultural lockers will be provided in the Building A facilities, residential areas, garage. The project, therefore, is consistent shopping districts, and other with this control measure. activity centers. Improve Pedestrian Improve pedestrian access to The project provides pedestrian pathways Access and transit, employment, and throughout the site and connecting to Facilities major activity centers. sidewalks on adjacent roadways. Street trees would be planted by the project on the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience. The project is consistent with this control measure. City of Cupertino 28 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 352 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.3-1 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control Measures Description Project Consistency Support Local Land Promote land use patterns, The project proposes a mix of commercial Use Strategies policies, and infrastructure and residential uses and is served by existing investments that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The mixed-use, transit-oriented site is located proximate to existing job development that reduce centers in the Silicon Valley. Based on the motor vehicle dependence projectÓs mix of land uses and existing and facilitate walking, transportation options available to future bicycling, and transit use. residents, the project is consistent with this control measure. Energy and Climate Measures The project will comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Increase efficiency and conservation to decrease California Energy Code and reduce fossil fuel use in the Bay residential energy consumption by 15 percent Area.over 2005 Title 24 standards. The proposed project will be GreenPoint Rated. Tree-Planting Promote planting of low-The project would plant new trees on the site VOC-emitting shade trees to which will reduce the urban heat island reduce urban heat island effect. The proposed project, therefore, is effects, save energy, and generally consistent with this control absorb CO and other air measure. 2 pollutants. Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts 4.3.2.3 Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quali earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissio based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction t used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short tim Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months crea generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmos would increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM downwind. 10 City of Cupertino 29 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 353 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Although the project size does not Table 4.3-2 exceed BAAQMDÓs screening Summary of Construction Related thresholds for construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions emissions, the grading for the Average Criteria Air project exceeds 10,000 cubic yards Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) of cut and fill and, therefore, ROG NO PM PM requires modeling of project x102.5 Proposed construction emissions. The 3.3 5.2 1.75 0.6 Project projectÓs construction-period emissions of criteria air pollutants BAAQMD 54 54 82 54 are shown in Table 4.3-2. Threshold Notes: Based on a construction period of 15 to 18 months (refer Appendix B). For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Consistent the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project includes the implementation of the following updated exhaust control measures to reduce construction-related air poll The project shall implement the following dust and diesel exhaus BAAQMD as a condition of approval: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil p access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry pow All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be comp Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading un used. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and perso agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and within 48 hours. The Air DistrictÒs phone number shall also be v with applicable regulations. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the Califor measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tune manufacturerÒs specifications. All equipment shall be checked by evaluator. Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of ex The construction emissions from the project are below the BAAQMD in this evaluation and the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures will be included as conditions of approval on Planning entitlements and placed on project plan documents prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. The proposed project, therefo construction-related air quality impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 30 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 354 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Local Community Risks and Hazards During Construction Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic g known TAC. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concen BAAQMD requires completion of a health risk assessment for project construction activities with the potential to impact adjacent sensitive receptors. The thresholds of significance for construction period TAC emissions are the same as those for the siting of sensitive receptors discussed in Section 4.3.2.1 above. The health risk assessment analyzed the dispersi residential development south and east of the site and the presc results of the assessment indicate an increased residential chil million, a residential adult incremental cancer risk of 0.4 case preschool child cancer risk of 1.9 cases per million. The incre receptors affected by the project, therefore, is below BAAQMDÓs threshold of 10 in one million excess cancer cases per million. The maximum annual PM concentration would be 0.06 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter, which is below the BAAQMD threshold meter. For non-carcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one. Construction of the proposed project would not exceed any of BAAQMDÓs thresholds for increased health risks and, therefore, the impact of the project on adjacent sensitive receptors is less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) Operational-Related Impacts 4.3.2.4 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain a screening threshold of a 451 dwelling unit low-rise apartment building, 99,000 square foot strip mall, and 33,000 square foot high turnover restaurant for operation-related impacts for criteria pollutants and their precursors (e.g., NO, ROG, x particulate matter). The screening criteria provide lead agenci whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts. The project proposes 101 dwelling units and 7,000 square feet of commercial space which are well below the screening threshold and, therefore, the project would not result in a significant air qua air pollutants and their precursors. (Less Than Significant Impact) Local Community Risks and Hazards Impacts 4.3.2.5 As described above in Section 4.3.2.1, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require that projects be evaluated for community risk when they are located w traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or mo sources of TACs. There are three permitted stationary sources of TACs within 1,00 senior housing development, a gas station, and a software plant that operates diesel engines. The Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool showed TACs from the p below BAAQMD thresholds. BAAQMD was contacted to determine whet and software plant emit TACs that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The use of BAAQMDÓs Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) multiplier worksheet determin represent a significant source of TACs. BAAQMD indicated that the software plant closed in September 2010, however, even if the plant were open use of the Engines worksheet determined that the software plant would not r TACs. City of Cupertino 31 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 355 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Stevens Creek Boulevard has an ADT of 25,600 and is the only hig 1,000 feet of the project site. Residents of the project site w Stevens Creek Boulevard. At this distance, TACs emitted from ve not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds and future residents of the project site would not, therefore, be significantly impacted from TACs emitted from vehi The project does not exceed the cumulative or single-source BAAQMD thresholds. Residents of the project site will not be exposed to substantial risks associated with pollutant concentrations of TACs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in exceedances of the crit place sensitive receptors in an area subject to significant risks from TACs and includes measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 32 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 356 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part on a tree survey compl Arborwell in November 2011 and peer review completed by Arbor Resources in February 2012. Copies of the tree survey and peer review are included in Appendix B of this Initial Study 4.4.1 Setting Existing Conditions 4.4.1.1 The 4.3-acre project site is located within a developed area of Cupertino. The project site is currently developed with approximately 21,082 square feet of commercial us Biltmore Apartments. In addition to the existing buildings, the project site includes parking areas to serve existing uses, landscaping, and a 0.6-acre vacant lot. Si landscape trees, and shrubs. Habitats in developed urban areas are extremely low in species diversity. Species that use this habitat are urban adapted birds, such as Rock Dove, Mourning Dov Based upon the developed habitats found on the site, no special- expected to be present on the site. A tree survey was Table 4.4-1 completed for the Summary of Tree Species and Size project site in Diameter in inches Species Total November 2011. MS Up to 12 13-18 19-36 Over 36 The survey found Australian willow 1 3 0 1 0 5 21 tree species California black oak 0 1 0 0 0 1 present and a total California black walnut 0 0 0 1 0 1 of 86 trees on or Canary Island pine 0 1 0 5 0 6 directly adjacent Chinese pistache 0 1 0 0 0 1 to the project site. coast live oak 1 2 1 0 0 4 cork oak 0 3 1 4 0 8 A summary of the Elegant Brisbane box 0 2 0 0 0 2 tree survey is fern pine 6 1 2 0 0 9 included in Table flowering pear 0 13 0 0 0 13 4.4-1. incense cedar 1 6 0 0 0 7 Italian cypress 0 11 0 0 0 11 Japanese Maple 0 3 0 0 0 3 myoporum 1 0 0 0 0 1 olive 1 0 0 0 0 1 Purple Robe locust 0 5 0 0 0 5 purple-leaf plum 0 2 0 0 0 2 Queen palm 0 1 0 0 0 1 red gum 0 0 0 1 0 1 Silver-dollar gum 0 0 0 1 0 1 white alder 0 1 2 0 0 3 White Alder 1 1 2 0 0 4 City of Cupertino 33 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 357 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Regulatory Setting 4.4.1.2 Special-Status Species Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal Ðendangered speciesÑ legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) w conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activiti project will result in the take of a species listed as threatene species, as defined by the state of California, is Ðto hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or killÑ said species (California F ÐTakeÑ is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Migratory Birds State and federal laws also protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migrato birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs Birds of Prey Birds of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in Californ and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is Ð any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of p nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by th pursuant thereto.Ñ Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered Ðta Trees The City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, envir of its tree population. The City finds that the preservation of and public property, and the protection of all trees during cons interests of the City and of the citizens and public (Municipal The CityÓs Municipal Code calls for protection of ÐspecimenÑ and permit prior to their removal. Specimen Trees include the follo single-trunk diameter of 10-inches (31-inches in circumference) City of Cupertino 34 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 358 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 20-inches (63-inches in circumference) measured at 4.5 feet from live oak, valley oak, black oak, blue oak, and interior live oak deodar cedar, blue atlas cedar, bay laurel or California bay, an Chapter 14.18.035). Heritage Trees are any tree or grove of tre including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique qualit found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a community. The removal of specimen trees, heritage trees, street trees, and retained as part of an approved development application, buildin code enforcement action shall not be removed without first obtai (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.035). Of the trees surveyed for t protected trees, and five trees are considered volunteers. Two of the coast live oaks are specimen trees (refer to Appendix B). 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificant Less Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, 1 either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on 1 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on 1 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? City of Cupertino 35 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 359 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 4) Interfere substantially with the 1 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5) Conflict with any local policies or 1,7 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with the provisions of an 1 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impacts to Special-Status Species 4.4.2.1 Special-Status Plant Species The project site is a developed urban property containing landsc the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to (No Impact) Special-Status Animal Species and Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Given the existing development on the site and lack of suitable species, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to any special-status animal species with the possible exception of tree nesting raptors. The trees on the si nesting raptors and other birds. Tree nesting raptors, along wi under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and disturbance to nests whi death would be in violation of state and federal law. Impact BIO Î 1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct i nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of constructio (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 36 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 360 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures:As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting bir Tree Nesting Birds MM BIO-1.1: Removal of trees on the project site could be scheduled between and December (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for birds a additional surveys would be required. MM BIO-1.2: If removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place between August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nestin other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys s conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of constr activities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and Augus pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than thirty prior to the initiation of these activities. The surveying orni inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the constructio If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the cons be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall, in co the State of California, Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), desig construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the ne of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be deter ornithologist. MM BIO-1.3: A report summarizing the results of the pre-construction survey designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the sta grading or tree removal. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) Trees 4.4.2.2 The tree survey completed for the project (refer to Appendix A) tree health and the site design. Most species on the site are s symptoms of stress. Trees in building or parking lot footprints in poor condition also are recommended for removal, even if they development. It is anticipated that a total of 62 trees would be removed to construct the proposed project. Approximately 34 trees would remain on the site follow Impact BIO Î 2: Development of the project would result in the removal of a subs number of trees from the site, including one specimen tree as id the CityÓs Municipal Code. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 37 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 361 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures:As conditions of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce impacts to trees to a MM BIO Î 2.1: The project shall implement the measures outlined in the arboris report prepared by Arbor Resources in February 2012, including, but not limited to, the following: Trees to be removed shall be replaced at the following ratios pe Municipal Code Section 14.18.185: Table 4.4-2 Tree Replacement Ratios Trunk Size of Removed Tree (measured at 4.5 feet above Replacement Trees grade) Up to 12 inches One 24-inch box tree Over 12 inches and up to 18 Two 24-inch box trees inches Over 18 inches and up to 36 Two 24-inch box trees or one inches36-inch box tree Over 36 inches One 36-inch box tree All trees proposed for retention on the site shall have a design Protection Zone (hereinafter ÐTPZÑ) based on the City ArboristÓs recommendation and/or five to seven times the trunk diameter in directions. The TPZ is where all grading, overexcavation, soil scraping, trenching and compaction shall be avoided except where otherwise approved. In areas where these setback are not feasib not addressed in the Arbor Resources report, the City Arborist shall be consulted to determine an alternative TPZ. Swales, bioswales and biofiltration areas should be established TPZs. All utilities and services (e.g. storm drain, electrical, water, fiber optic, gas, etc.) should be routed beyond TPZs. In the ev is not feasible, the location dn proximity to a treeÓs trunk wou which of the following installation methods can offer sufficient mitigation: mechanically excavating, hand-digging, a pneumatic a device (such as an Air-Spade), or directional boring. For direc boring, the ground above any tunnel must remain undisturbed, and access pits and any infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters an established beyond TPZs. The proposed landscape design shall conform to the following additional guidelines: Turf should be avoided beneath oak trees. City of Cupertino 38 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 362 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Plant material installed beneath oak canopies must be drought- tolerant, limited in amount, and planted at least five or more f from their trunks. Plant material installed beneath the canopies of all other trees also be at least 36 inches or more feet from their trunks. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oaks and shall be avoided. Irrigation for any new plant material beneath an oakÓs canopy shall be low-volume, applied irregularly (such as only on or twice per week) and temporary (such as no more than three years). Irrigation shall not be sprayed within five feet from an oak tre trunk, or within 12 inches from the trunks of all other trees (existing and proposed). Irrigation and lighting (including wiring and controllers) insta within a TPZ shall be in a radial direction to a treeÓs trunk. is not possible, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade) to avoid unnecessary root damage. Any Netafim tubing used should be placed on grade, and header lines installed as discussed above. Valve boxes shall be established beyond TPZs. New fencing shall be placed no closer than two feet from a treeÓ trunk. Ground cover beneath canopies shall be comprised of a three- to four-inch layer of coarse wood chips or other high-quality mulch (gorilla hair, bark, or rock, stone, gravel, black plastic or ot synthetic ground cover shall be avoided). Much shall not be placed again the treesÓ trunks. Tilling, ripping, compaction and fine grading within the TPZs sh be avoided. Tilling beneath canopies shall be avoided, including for weed control. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies shall be established on top of existing soil grade (suc by using vertical stakes). The erosion control design shall consider that any straw wattle rolls require a maximum vertical soil cut of two inches for thei embedment, and shall be established on the uphill side from a tr (but not against it), and as close to the canopy edges as possib Soil covering the root collars of trees numbered 73 and 74 (refe Appendix B) shall be cleared, and carefully performed to avoid damaging the trunks during the process. Although not essential, pneumatic air device (e.g. an Air-Spade) shall be employed to gr minimize root and trunk damage. Also, a more extensive clearing examination shall be performed for tree number 74 due to its lea City of Cupertino 39 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 363 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Prior to grading or excavation, an onsite preconstruction meetin be completed between the project superintendent and arborist to review placement of tree fencing and other measures contained in report. The pruning of trees shall be performed prior to the arrival of equipment and grading operations, and in accordance with ANSI A300-2001 standards, by a California state-licensed tree service company (D-49 classification) that has an ISA certified arborist supervisory role, carries General Liability and WorkerÓs Compens insurance, and abides by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). scope shall be limited to pedestrian, equipment and vehicular clearance; reduction of heavy limb weight; and removing deadwood one-inch and greater in diameter. The relocation of any trees shall be performed by a company desc above. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demoliti grading for the purpose of restricting access into a TPZ; its pr location can be reviewed during the preconstruction meeting previously mentioned. The fencing should consist of five- to si high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, one and seven-eighth diameter galvanized steel posts that are driven into the ground inches deep, and spaced apart by no more than approximately ten It should remain intact and maintained throughout construction, only removed upon completion of construction. The staging area(s) and routes of access must be established bey the TPZs. Fertilization, if properly applied, may benefit a treeÓs health, appearance. Prior to doing so, however, soil samples shall firs obtained to identify the pH levels and nutrient levels so a prop fertilization program can be established. Any fertilization sha performed under the direction and supervision of a certified arb and in accordance with ANSI A300 (Part 2) Î 2004 Fertilization standards. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted beyond TPZs, to include, but not be limited to, the following: demolition, grading, subexcavation, stripping of tops trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling or dumping materials, equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Great care must be taken during demolition of the existing hards to avoid excavating into roots and existing grade. Also, concrete/asphalt grinding must not extend into existing base mat where within a TPZ, and equipment used during the process must n operate or travel on a newly exposed soil surface. The routes of any irrigation or utility line within or ten feet shall be reviewed with the project arborist before digging occur City of Cupertino 40 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 364 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Spoils created during digging shall not be piled or spread on un ground within a TPZ. If essential, spoils can be temporarily pi plywood or a tarp. Tree trunks shall not be used as winch supports for moving or li heavy loads. Any approved digging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually performed without heavy equipment or tractors operating on unpav ground beneath canopies. Approved trenching or excavation shall not damage, scrape or gou roots two inches and greater in diameter. In the event these ro encountered, the project arborist shall be notified, and they sh either covered with soil or wrapped in moistened burlap within a hours or exposure. If burlap is used, it shall remain continual until the trench or area is backfilled. During trenching, roots encountered that have diameters less tha inches and require removal can be cleanly severed at right angle direction of root growth. In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g or handsaw) shall be used, and the cut shall occur against the t of the trench. Supplemental water must be supplied to impacted trees during the months of the year (e.g. May thru October); the methodology, frequency and amounts can be provided by the project arborist. Various methodologies include flooding the inside of a 12-inch t berm established around the canopyÓs perimeter (or as close to t perimeter as possible), using soaker hoses, or through deep-root injection. This shall occur every two weeks, and consist of approximately, per tree, five to ten gallons per inch of trunk d Removal of any vegetation or plants within a TPZ must be manuall performed versus being excavated. Additionally, any stumps remo within a TPZ shall be ground versus excavated. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position thei equipment to avoid the treesÓ trunks and branches. Where a conf exists, the project arborist shall be advised to provide a feasi solution. Dust accumulating on trunks and canopies during dry weather peri shall be periodically washed away (e.g. every few months). The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemica oil, and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on that allows drainage beneath or near TPZs. Herbicides shall not used with a TPZ; where used on site, they shall be labeled for s near trees. Tree protection fencing can be removed once construction is comp and authorized during a final inspection. Regular pruning shall be performed (cycles differ between specie maintain the treesÓ natural form, canopy balance, clearance, and City of Cupertino 41 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 365 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts structural integrity. All work shall be performed in accordance standards mentioned in this report. Fertilization could be considered as a potential benefit to a tr health, vigor and appearance. If employed, the work shall be performed as described in Appendix B of this Initial Study. A three- to four-inch maximum layer of wood chip mulch shall be maintained (and replenished when necessary beneath each treeÓs canopy. It shall remain at least six inches from all tree trunk Supplemental water shall continue being supplied to any redwoods during the dry months of the year (per prior recommendations). Any additional activity required within a TPZ shall be performed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. If deemed accept the arborist, all work shall be manually performed using hand to wheelbarrows, tunneling, or using a pneumatic air device. Replacement tree plantings will off-set the removal of specimen construction. Oversight of construction activities by a certifi specific tree protection measures will avoid substantial impacts to the mature trees that will be retained on the site.(Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 4.4.3 Conclusion Impact BIO Î 1: The construction of the proposed project, with the implementatio mitigation and avoidance measures MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.3, would not result in significant impacts to nesting birds. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact BIO Î 2: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation MM BIO-2.1, would reduce impacts to protected trees to a less th significant level.(Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 42 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 366 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part upon information in th review of historic uses in the Phase I Environmental Site Assess (Appendix D). 4.5.1 Setting Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and act archaeological resources. These resources may be located above significance in the history, prehistory, architecture, architect California, or local or tribal communities. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the geologic record. They range from the well known and well public dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils. Prehistoric Context and Resources 4.5.1.1 The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley. Native A extended over 5,000 to 8,000 years and possibly longer. Before Native Americans resided in the area that is now Cupertino and l for over 3,000 years. The South Bay AreaÓs favorable environmen including alluvial plains, foothills, many water courses and bay margins provided an abundance of wild food and other resources. The Native American people who originally inhabited the Santa Cl known as the ÐCoastanoanÑ or Ohlone, who broadly occupied the ce northern tip of the San Francisco Peninsula to Big Sur in the so Range. The Coastanoan/Ohlone people practiced a hunting, fishin on the collection of seasonal plant and animal resources. This Coastanoan/Ohlone people disappeared by about 1810 due to disrup declining birth rate and the impact of the California mission sy San José/Santa Clara area in 1777. In the Cupertino area, areas likely to be archaeologically sensi and in oak groves. The project site is located about one-half mile west of Calabazas Creek on the valley floor. Extant or known former oak groves are not present project site. Historic Resources 4.5.1.2 Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, the project purposes until urban uses were developed starting in the 1950Ós single-story and consist of a strip retail building and stand alone restaurants (see Photos 1-3). Two of City of Cupertino 43 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 367 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts the buildings on the site are either over 50 years old or within exterior features of the buildings have been modified over the y The Cupertino General Plan identifies Historic Sites, Commemorat Landmarks currently present in the City (Figure 2-G of the Cuper buildings on the project site at 20030 and 20060 Stevens Creek B are not identified as historic structures and are not on a Historic Site, Commemorative Site or designated as a Community Landmarks in the General Plan. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be re to convey the reasons for their significance. Given that neither the buildings nor the project site is identified in the CityÓs General Plan as a cultural resource, the architectural style of the retail buildings does not embody distinctive characteristics or method modifications made to the existing retail buildings, these structures appear to exhibit no historic significance. Paleontological Resources 4.5.1.3 As noted above, paleontological resources are the fossilized rem environments found in geologic strata. Geologic units of Holoce sensitive for paleontological resources because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These sediments have low potential significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. The projec 23 late Pleistocene alluvial fan material deposits, which have low , 4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2,8 the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2,8 the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 2 C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. Accessed March 13, 2012. Available at: <http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/eir/ESJ2040_GP/Appendix%20J%20-%20Cultural%20Resources.pdf > 3 U.S. Geological Survey. ÐPreliminary quaternary geologic maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, California: A digital databaseÑ. Accessed March 13, 2012. Available at: < http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-231/sccomap.pdf >. City of Cupertino 44 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 368 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1 paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 1 cemeteries? The proposed project includes the demolition of several existing construction of commercial and residential uses. Removal of bui of the proposed project would require grading and excavation for garage. Prehistoric, Historic, and Paleontological Resources 4.5.2.1 Development throughout the Santa Clara Valley adjacent to establ numerous buried archaeological sites. The project is not locate groves and it is unlikely that prehistoric materials associated Regnart Creek would be encountered during site grading and/or ex There are no historic structures located on the site and demolition of the existing buildings would not result in an impact to a historical resource or a site recognize Historic Site, Commemorative Site or Community Landmark. While unlikely, buried prehistoric or historic deposits which co or the history of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it pl be encountered. Impact CUL Î 1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant buried cultural resources, if encountered. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level: MM CUL Î 1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archae deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted withiof the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist (or pal applicable) shall examine the find and make appropriate recommen regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitig City of Cupertino 45 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 369 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. MM CUL Î 1.2: In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are f project-related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures requir to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097 Public Resources Code of the State of California: In the event of the discovery of human remains during constructi there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. T Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determin as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no sat agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pu this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human rem items associated with Native American burials on the property in location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials s submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to issu of building permits. This report shall contain a description of mitigation program that was implemented and its results, includi description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4.5.3 Conclusion Impact CUL Î 1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2, would not result in significant impac cultural resources.(Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 46 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 370 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based on a Preliminary Geotechnical Cornerstone Earth Group in November 2011. A copy of this report is included as Appendi this Initial Study. 4.6.1 Setting Regional Geology 4.6.1.1 The City of Cupertino is located within the Santa Clara Valley, between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and west, and Most of Cupertino is on level ground that rises gently to the we including the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault, exists within the Santa and Calaveras Fault systems exist within the Diablo Range. On-Site Geologic Conditions 4.6.1.2 Soils and Groundwater The site is located at an elevation of approximately 210 feet and is primarily paved with asphalt. Subsurface soils consist of layers of loose to medium dense clayey sand and very stiff to hard sand lean clay, silty sand, hard lean clay, very stiff lean clay, and surface clayey sands on site have relatively low plasticity and low expansion potential. Groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration, which extended to a depth of 25 feet. Based on review of historic depths to groundwater maps, the high groundwater levels beneath the site are expected to be greater than 50 feet below e of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, unde factors. Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally movements along well-defined active fault zones of the San Andre trend in the northwesterly direction. The site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earth County Fault Hazard Zone. In addition, no known surface express cross the site and fault rupture hazard is not a significant geo Nearby active or potentially active faults include the Monte Vis approximately 3.2 miles southwest of the site, the San Andreas f southwest of the site, and the Hayward fault (southeast extensio City of Cupertino 47 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 371 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts northeast of the site. Because of the proximity of the project site to these faults, ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction due to an earthquake could cause Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loosely water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of density, and groundwater level. The project site is not located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone or a Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Based on an analys groundwater of greater than 50 feet, the liquefaction potential Seismically-Induced Differential Settlements If near-surface soils vary in composition both vertically and la cause non-uniform settlement of soil layers. This results in movement of the near-surface soils. Since soils encountered at the site below the loose sands were p and medium dense to dense sands, the potential for significant d affecting the site is low. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or ÐfreeÑ face such as an open excavation. There are no open faces on or within 200 feet of th City of Cupertino 48 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 372 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than PotentiallySignificant Less Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake 9 fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) b) Strong seismic ground shaking? 9 c) Seismic-related ground failure, 9 including liquefaction? d) Landslides? 9 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 9 loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil 9 that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as 9 defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately 9 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? City of Cupertino 49 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 373 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Soils and Groundwater 4.6.2.1 The project site contains undocumented fill and localized shallow loose sands. The undocumented fills are anticipated to be one to two feet in depth on the site, including beneath the existing building pads. Because undocumented fill can be highly variable, fill ma undocumented fill and loose surficial soils may be removed from and replaced as engineered fill. Groundwater beneath the site is encountered at depths of greater constraints to the proposed project. The proposed project would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide- related hazards due to the flat topography of the site. Impact GEO Î 1: The buildings and pavement constructed as a part of the project subject to soil hazards related to the undocumented fill and sha soils on-site.(Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following me associated with soil conditions: MM GEO Î 1.1: Buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with a design-level geotechnical investigation to be completed for the qualified professional and submitted to the Building Department. design-level geotechnical investigation shall identify the speci features that will be required for the project including measure clearing and site preparation, removal, replacement, and/or comp existing fill, abandoned utilities, subgrade preparation, materi trench backfill, temporary trench excavations, surface drainage, design, and pavements. Implementation of this measure would substantially reduce adverse effects on proposed improvements associated with soil conditions on the site. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Seismicity and Seismic Hazards As previously discussed, the project site is located in a seismi strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of t active faults are known to cross the project site, ground shakin and other proposed structures. The liquefaction, lateral spread differential settlement potential on the site are low. City of Cupertino 50 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 374 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Impact GEO Î 2: The proposed project would be subject to significant seismic gro shaking.(Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following me seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level: MM GEO Î 2.1: The project shall be designed and constructed in conformance wit California Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. 4.6.3 Conclusion Impact GEO Î 1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above stand mitigation measure, would not result in significant soil impacts undocumented fill and soils on-site. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact GEO Î 2: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above stand mitigation measure, would not result in significant seismicity o hazard impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 51 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 375 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the Ðgreenhouse effectÑ is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in th increase in the temperature of the earthÓs atmosphere. The prin warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide 24 (NO), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are 2 attributable in large part to human activities associated with t manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultura 4.7.1 Existing On-Site GHG Emissions Two restaurants and retail uses currently Table 4.7-1 operate on the project site. The site also Estimated Existing GHG Emissions (2011) includes a parking area used by residents of Project-Baseline COe 2 Source the Biltmore Apartments. Existing GHG (metric tons/year) emissions from the restaurant and retail uses Transportation 700.93 were estimated using the Bay Area Air Quality Electricity 228.40 Management DistrictÓs GHG Model (BGM) Natural Gas 173.71 and the URBEMIS model (Appendix A). The Area Sources 0.69 greatest source of existing emissions are from Water & mobile sources (vehicle trips to and from the 1.71 Wastewater site) followed by indirect and direct emissions Solid Waste 17.81 from electricity and natural gas use for 1,123.26 Total building heating, cooling, lighting and other Note: Area Sources include relatively small quantities uses. The estimated existing emissions are of emissions, such as from lawn maintenance summarized in Table 4.7-1. equipment. 4.7.2 Regulatory Background State of California 4.7.2.1 AB 32, CEQA, and Other Laws and Regulations The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as ÐAssembly Bill ( CaliforniaÓs 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into l emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Prio of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identifie State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction Executive Order S-3-05, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions 2050. Additional state law and regulations related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions includes SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (see discussion below), the StateÓs Renewables Portfolio Standard for Energy Standard (S passenger car standards (Pavley Regulations). The California Natural Resources Agency, as required under state Section 21083.05) has amended the state CEQA Guidelines to addre City of Cupertino 52 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 376 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts greenhouse gas emissions. In these changes to the CEQA Guidelin City of Cupertino, retain discretion to determine the significan emissions based upon individual circumstances. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases and under Guidelines, a Lead Agency may describe, calculate or estimate gr from a project and use a model and/or qualitative analysis or performance based standards to assess impacts. Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, requires regional transportation plans to include a Sustai that links transportation and land use planning together into a process. The SCS is a mechanism for more effectively linking a system together to make travel more efficient and communities mo greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles along with othe The target for the Bay Area is a 7 percent per capita reduction automobiles and light trucks by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita for comparison of emission reductions is 2005. The 2013 Regiona 4 Bay AreaÓs first plan that is subject to SB 375. A draft Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario that is part of the regional planning effort under SB 375 was released o BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan 4.7.2.2 BAAQMD identifies thresholds of significance for operational GHG development projects in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These significance thresholds, assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies for GHG emissions. Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if a project would result in n greenhouse gas emissions of 1,100 metric tons (MT) (also called 5 metric tons per service population of carbon dioxide equivalents (COe) per year or more, it would 2 make a cumulatively considerable contribution to greenhouse gas cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. In ju 6 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy has been reviewed under CEQA and adopted by decision- makers, compliance with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy wo contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts to a BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also outline a methodology for estimating greenhouse gases. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a multi-pollutant plan that addresses GHG emissions along with other air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air the CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission c Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures, Land Use 4 One Bay Area. ÐOne Bay Area Fact SheetÑ. Accessed March 5, 2012. Available at: <http://www.onebayarea.org/pdf/SB375_OneBayArea-Fact_Sheet2.pdf > 5 Service population is defined as the sum of the number of resid development. 6 The required components of a ÐqualifiedÑ Greenhouse Gas Reducti CEQA Guidelines (Section 15183.5 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies) as amended in June 2010. City of Cupertino 53 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 377 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Consistency of a project with current control measures is one measure of its consistency with includes performance objectives, consistent with the stateÓs climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels 1990 levels by 2035. City of Cupertino 4.7.2.3 The 2000 Cupertino General Plan includes an Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section, with policies that call for energy efficiency, alternative transporta policies and the CityÓs Green Building and Green Business Progra reduce energy and water use and associated direct and indirect GHG emissions. The City also has adopted a construction and debris (C&D) recycling program ordinance that requires applicants seeking building or demolition permits for projects greater than 3,000 square feet to recycle at least 60 percent of project discards. Recycling c reducing the need to manufacture or mine new products or materia 4.7.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWith SignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, 1,5 either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, 1,5 policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds 4.7.3.1 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated May 2011) include quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions. Using a methodology that models how new land use Francisco Bay Area can meet statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, identifies a significance threshold of a net increase of 1,100 m per year. In addition to this bright line threshold, the Guidel be used for urban high density, transit oriented development pro vehicle trips but may still result in overall emissions greater efficiency threshold is 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population (e.g., residents and employees) per year. The BAAQMD guidelines do not significance for short-term construction related GHG emissions. City of Cupertino 54 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 378 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts BIA vs. BAAQMD The City of Cupertino, and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, recently have used the thresholds t In December 2010,he California and methodology for assessing GHG emissions put forth by the Building Industry Association (BIA) filed BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. The City Court challenging toxic air contaminants has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and PMthresholds developed by 2.5 and regards the quantitative thresholds to be based on the best BAAQMD for its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (California Building Industry information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the Management District, Alameda County following documents: Superior Court Case No. RG10548693). One of the identified concerns is that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). widespread use of the thresholds would CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (Appendix D).May 2011. inhibit infill and smart growth in the urbanized Bay Area. On March 5, 2012, the Superior Court found that adoption California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change of thresholds by the BAAQMD in its Scoping Plan.(Statewide GHG Emission Targets) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is a CEQA project and BAAQMD is not to Therefore, a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carb disseminate officially sanctioned air dioxide equivalents per year is used as a part of the quantitati quality thresholds of significance until assessment of GHG emissions impacts in this Initial Study. BAAQMD fully complies with CEQA. No further findings or rulings were made on the thresholds of the updated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from the 4.7.3.1 BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines. The Project City understands the effect of the lawsuit to be that BAAQMD may have to Methodology prepare an environmental review document before adopting the same or revised thresholds. However, the ruling A GHG emissions inventory for the proposed project was in the case does not equate to a finding prepared using the BAAQMDÓs GHG Model (BGM). This that the quantitative metrics in the model includes a variety of operational categories associated wi BAAQMD thresholds are incorrect or the project: transportation (mobile sources), energy use unreliable for meeting AB 32’s climate (electricity and natural gas), water and wastewater, area source protection goals. Per the State CEQA (i.e., landscape equipment) and solid waste. Estimated emissio Guidelines [Section 15064(b)], the from existing uses on the site (refer to Table 4.7-1) that would determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the removed were subtracted from the total project emissions to yiel environment is subject to the discretion net new GHG emissions. of each individual lead agency, based upon substantial evidence. The Operational Emissions threshold used by the City of Cupertino for the assessment of impacts is noted at Table 4.7-2 shows the estimated increase in GHG emissions right.elo by BAAQMD for its CEQA Air resulting from the project, compared to the GHG thresholds. As QlitGidli(ClifiBildi shown in this table, the proposed project would generate net new GHG emissions of 506.54 COe, which does not exceed the 2 ÐbrightlineÑ threshold of 1,100 MT COe. 2 The project consists of redevelopment and infill with a mixed use development near transit and the alternate efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT COe/SP/year was compared to estimated project emissions. 2 Based on the net new GHG emissions of 506.54 COe and a service population of approximately 2 255, the project would generate approximately 2.0 MT COe/SP/Year of net new project emissions, 2 which is below the service population efficiency metric. City of Cupertino 55 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 379 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of ProjectÓs Net Increase in GHG Emissions 1 Emissions Category (MT COe/Year) 2 Transportation 524.63 Electricity -59.33 Natural Gas -36.46 2 Area Sources52.1 Water & Wastewater 10.39 Solid Waste 69.21 Total Emissions 506.54 (LTS) ÐBright-LineÑ Threshold 1,100 4 Service Population (SP) 290 residents & -35 employees Increase 255 SP(net) 1 Emissions (MT COe/SP/Year) 2 Project Emissions Increase/SP 2.0 (LTS) 3 Efficiency Threshold 4.6 1 Refer to Appendix B for emissions calculations. A potential res the project site would not substantially increase GHG emissions. 2 Area sources generally include fuel combustion from space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment, and fireplaces/stoves, evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and consumer products and unpermitte from stationary sources. 3 Per BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Section 2.2, the GHG efficiency threshold for projects other than stationary sources is 4.6MT COe/SP/year. 2 4 Assuming approximately one employee per 400 square feet of comme (Source: City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Building s employee ratios derived from applicable studies and existing emp information for the City of Santa Clara and surrounding region). LTS =Less Than Significant GHG Emissions Calculating emissions based on service population is dependent on the number of residents and number of employees at the development, which was conservatively 7 U.S. Census estimates of 2.87 residents per household in Cuperti and one employee per 400 square feet of commercial uses. The estimated number of resid approximately 290 residents while the number of employees at the by approximately 35. The existing service population for the si the net service population for the proposed project would be 255 The project would not generate new greenhouse gas emissions abov tons per year. Therefore, the project would result in a less th change.(Less Than Significant Impact) 7 U.S. Census Bureau. ÐAmerican Fact FinderÑ. Profile of General for the City of Cupertino. Accessed March 15, 2012. Available <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> City of Cupertino 56 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 380 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7.3.2 Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction As discussed in Section 4.7.2 Regulatory Background, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. GHG emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. There are no other regional plans that apply to projects completed environmental review and been adopted. Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features The proposed project would be built according to the Residential California Green Building Code, and a score of at least 70 point checklist established by Build-It-Green. The project proposes the following features to increase the energy efficiency of the project and reduce GHG emissions: Use of drought-tolerant landscape species and high efficiency ir Exceedance of Title 24 by 15 percent Diversion of 50 percent of all construction/demolition waste and flyash Installation of Energy Star appliances Use of efficient lighting and plumbing fixtures Use of low VOC paints and coatings Comparison of Project Features to State of California Climate Change Scoping Plan Measures The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a compreh to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the envir diversify CaliforniaÓs energy sources, save energy, create new j Scoping Plan includes 39 Recommended Actions for reducing GHG emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, i local level are also important. Recommended Actions that pertai 4.7-3. Table 4.7-3 Climate Change Scoping Plan Î Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature Transportation Pavley I and II Î Light Duty Vehicle GHG T-1State Action -Not applicable Standards T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard State Action -Not applicable Land use and transportation measures Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas included in the project that help reduce T-3 Targets vehicle travel include proximity to transit, jobs, and services T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures State Action -Not applicable T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports State Action -Not applicable T-6 Goods Movement Efficiency State Action -Not applicable City of Cupertino 57 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 381 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-3 Climate Change Scoping Plan Î Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature T-7 Heavy-Duty GHG Emission Reduction Measure State Action -Not T-8 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization State Action -Not applicable T-9 High Speed Rail Not applicable Energy Efficiency/Electricity and Natural Gas CalGreen Building Codes will apply. Energy Efficiency, including more stringent building E-1More stringent energy efficiency standards standards are not proposed Increase Combined Heat and Power (Co-generation) Not a energy supply project; not E-2 Use by 30,000 GWh applicable State Action -Not applicable, although E-3 Renewables Portfolio Standard over time GHG emissions associated with electricity use will decline. E-4 Million Solar Roofs/Solar Initiative Solar roof not proposed Energy Efficiency Î Utility, Building and Appliance CR-1Project will utilize EnergyStar appliances. Standards CR-2 Solar Water Heating Not proposed. Green Buildings Project would meet City Green Building GB-1 Green Buildings performance standards. Water Of the six GHG reduction measures below, three target reducing energy requirements associated with providing reliable water supplies and two measures are aimed at reducing the amount of non-renewable electricity associated with conveying and treating water. The final measure focuses on these actions. Project will use efficient landscape W-1 Water Use Efficiency system, including weather-based irrigation controls, and low flow plumbing fixtures W-2 Water Recycling State or City Action Î Not applicable. W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency Not applicable W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff On-site reuse is not proposed. State or City Action for Water System Î W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production Not applicable. W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water) Not applicable Industry I-1 through Energy Efficiency and Emission Reduction for Industry measures not applicable; I-5 Large Industrial Sources residential project. Recycling and Waste Management RW-1 Landfill Methane Control and Capture Not applicable RW-2 Future residents and businesses would High Recycling/Zero Waste (including Commercial RW-3 participate in City recycling and waste Recycling) reduction programs, as applicable. Forests and Agriculture F-1 Sustainable Forest Target No impact to forest resources. City of Cupertino 58 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 382 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-3 Climate Change Scoping Plan Î Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies State Action -Not applicable High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning, various GWP H-1 through gases in industrial and consumer products and State Actions -Not applicable H-7 equipment Under the Scoping Plan, local governments are expected to reduce GHG emissions by five million metric tons (statewide) through transportation and land use chan will play a key role in implementing many of the strategies cont energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generati listed in Table 4.7-3 and outlined in Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features, above, the project includes energy efficiency, land use and transportation, consistent with several recommended actions in the Scoping Plan implementation of recommended actions in the Scoping Plan intend the year 2020. Consistency with Local Plans, Policies, or Regulations Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan includes performance objectives climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to red emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 level range of Transportation Control Measures, Land Use & Local Impac Climate Measures that make up the CAPÓs control strategy for emi The mixed-use redevelopment project features high-density reside site within close proximity to transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, and other amenities. This would be consistent with Transportation Control Measure (TCM) D-3 Î Local Land Use Strategies. As noted above, the project will meet the City of CupertinoÓs Green would be consistent with Energy Control Measure (ECM)-1 Î Energy Proposed bicycle lockers in the Building A garage would be consi Access and Facilities Improvements. A Land Use and Local Impact Control Measure, (LUM)-4 in the CAP, Guidelines and Enhanced CEQA review. The projected GHG emission estimated and found to be below the efficiency threshold of significance for GHG emissions in BAAQMDÓs updated CEQA Guidelines. The project would be consistent with the Climate Change Scoping Plan (as discussed above) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and would not exceed appropriate thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would not conf plans, policies, or regulations pertaining to greenhouse gas emi City of Cupertino 59 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 383 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Sustainable Communities Strategy (Under Development) Regionally, a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land use planning together into a more comprehensive, integrated process is under Metropolitan Transportation Commission, BAAQMD, and the Associat Governments. Under SB 375 (Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases), the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) will be developed as part Transportation Plan for the Bay Area scheduled for completion in features high-density residential units in a compact, urban layo transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, and other amenities. W Bay Area SCS remain to be developed in an open public process, i due to its density and location in a Mixed Use Priority Development Area, the proposed project will further the goals of the SCS and help achieve the greenhouse gas The location, density, and measures included in the project to r would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertin (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.4 Conclusion The project would not generate net new greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold of 1,100 MT COe per year or conflict with plans, policies or regulations for r 2 project would result in a less than significant impact to global(Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 60 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 384 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following discussion is based on a Phase I Environmental Sit Environmental Site Assessment Update, and a Phase II Shallow Soi prepared by PII Environmental in July 2011, November 2011, and December 2011, respectively. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report was also prepared for the Biltmore Apartments site in December 2005. The purpose of the environmental site assessment of hazardous materials contamination at the site and to assess their potential to impact the project. Copies of these reports are included in Appendix D of this Initi 4.8.1 Setting Background Information 4.8.1.1 Hazardous materials are commonly used by large institutions and commercial and industrial businesses. Hazardous materials include a broad range of common fuel, pesticides, detergents, paint, and solvents. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the atmospher Site Conditions 4.8.1.2 The 3.6-acre project site is primarily developed with single-sto residential garages, a paved parking lot, and landscaping. A va South Blaney Avenue. Nearby sensitive receptors include the Bil portion of which will be redeveloped as part of the project, a p building to the west, and attached and detached residential uses On-Site Observations Site reconnaissance surveys were completed for the project site evidence of hazardous and/or petroleum substances, debris, surficial staining or discoloration, above ground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), distressed vegetation, or other conditions which may be indicative of potential sources of soil One above-grade electrical transformer was observed on the site Stevens Creek Boulevard). The transformer is mounted on a concr leaks was observed that would otherwise indicate a potential rel (PCBs). Minor asphalt staining from automobiles was observed in not indicative of substantial impact to the environment. Discar equipment, and fire extinguishers from the Shan Restaurant remod lot on site. No leaks or staining was observed in the vicinity aboveground grease bin are also located on the Shan Restaurant p Boulevard) and showed no staining or evidence of leaks. City of Cupertino 61 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 385 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts No hazardous substances, ASTs, USTs, odors indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts, pits/ponds/lagoons, PCB-suspect hydraulic systems, stained soil, distressed vegetation, or leach fields/septic tanks/cesspools were observed Suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) were obser and Shan Restaurant and found to be in good condition. ACBM may Apartments drywall/joint compound, flooring, and acoustic ceilings. Buildings on the site were constructed prior to 1978 and may have painted surfaces containi Historic Site Conditions Based on historical records and aerial photographs, the project 1956 when the Shan Restaurant building was constructed. The res Creek Boulevard (ChiliÓs) was constructed in 1974 and prior to t The commercial center on South Blaney Avenue was in agricultural construction of the building circa 1965. The undeveloped proper vacant land since at least 1939. The Biltmore Apartments parking lot was in agricultural use until 1972 when the apartment complex was constructed. Potential On-Site Sources of Contamination 4.8.1.3 Agricultural Use Impacts Due to the past agricultural use of project site, soil samples w pesticides and metals in the near-surface soil. Concentrations of lead, arsenic, DDT, DDE, and DDD were detected in the on-site soils. Although detected, the anal of organochlorine pesticides above the Department of Toxic Subst Health Hazard Screening Levels (CHHSLs) or the San Francisco Bay Control Board (RWQCB) direct exposure screening scenarios for re concentrations of lead and arsenic are consistent with backgroun the U.S. Geological Survey (refer to Appendix D). Based on the pesticides and metals in soils on the site are below levels cons hazards to the environment. Regulatory Database Search Regulatory database searches were completed for the project site purpose of identifying all sites within the project area where there are known or suspected sources of contamination, as well as sites that handle or store hazardous m historical, and brownfield databases were searched. The databas Appendix D of this Initial Study. The project site was not listed on any of the databases searched. City of Cupertino 62 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 386 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potential Off-Site Sources of Contamination 4.8.1.4 Review of the database search, identified the one potential envi site was a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) previously located at the Shell Service Station at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Blaney Station was granted closure status by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Based case, the depth to groundwater on the site, and the relatively l station, this release is not anticipated to have migrated to or have any effect on the project site. Other Hazards 4.8.1.5 The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or within the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) jurisdiction safety zone. The project site is also not located within 8 an area subject to wildfires. 4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the 1,8, public or the environment through the 10-12 routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the 1,8, public or the environment through 10-12 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 1,8, hazardous or acutely hazardous 10-12 materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 8 Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Pro Wildfire Maps and Information. July 21, 2011. Available at: http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/viewer.htm. Accessed December 5, 2011. City of Cupertino 63 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 387 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 4) Be located on a site which is 1,8, included on a list of hazardous 10-12 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? 5) For a project located within an 1 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? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a 1 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of, or 1,2 physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to a 1,13 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? Potential for Hazardous Materials Contamination Impacts 4.8.2.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions The proposed project includes commercial space and residential u conditions discussion above, there are no substantial on-site or such as on-site soil or groundwater contamination that would substantially affect the proposed future uses on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts to the public or the env(Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 64 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 388 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Suspect asbestos-containing building materials were identified a and may be present in the Biltmore Apartment garages proposed fo site constructed prior to 1978 may have painted surfaces contain Impact HAZ-1: Demolition of existing structures on the project site could expo workers and nearby sensitive receptors to harmful levels of asbestos and lead. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval and in conformance with local, state, and federal regulations, the project shall impleme measures to reduce possible impacts associated with building dem level: MM HAZ Î 1.1: In conformance with federal and State regulations, a formal surv ACBMs and lead-based paint shall be completed prior to the demol buildings on the site. MM HAZ Î 1.2: All potentially friable ACBMs shall be removed in accordance wit Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/ standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regula Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Mat containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Ba Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. MM HAZ Î 1.3: During demolition activities, all building materials containing paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Const Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, includ training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. 4.8.3 Conclusion Impact HAZ-1: The potential for demolition of existing structures on the proje expose construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to ha of asbestos and lead would be mitigated through the implementati mitigation measures MM HAZ-1.1 through MM HAZ-1.3. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 65 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 389 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Setting Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9.1.1 Surface Water The project site is located within an area described as the West Valley Watersheds by the Santa Clara 9 Valley Water District. The West Valley Watershed consists of an 85-square-mile area o small-creek watersheds including the Calabazas Creek watershed. Surface runoff from the project site is conveyed to Calabazas Creek and ultimately the San Franc Most of the project site is developed and consists of impervious surfaces (paved parking lots and buildings) and landscaped pervious surfaces. Approximately one-third of the 0.6 acre vacant lot (APN 369-03- 007) within the site is unpaved and pervious. Runo conveyed to storm drain lines located in Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The storm drain lines range from 21-inches to 42-inches in size. Groundwater The project site is located in the SantaClara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. Groundwater Basin is filled by valley floor alluvium and the Santa Clara Formation. Groundwater 10 underlying the site area is generally encountered approximately below ground surface. Flooding 4.9.1.2 According to the Federal Emergency Management AgencyÓs (FEMA) Fl site is located within Zone X, which is defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of 1 percent chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or 11 mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 percent chance flood. Other Inundation Hazards 4.9.1.3 Dam Failure The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiles the dam maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam The Santa Clara Valley Water District also maintains dam inundat 9 Santa Clara Valley Water District. ÐWest ValleyÑ. Accessed Ma <http://www.valleywater.org/services/WestValley.aspx>. 10 PII Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report 3 Parcel Biltmore Adjacency Project, Cupertino, California, July 25, 2011. 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. City of Cupertino 66 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 390 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The dam hazard maps for the Santa Clara Valley show that the pro 12 dam failure inundation hazard zone. Sea Level Rise The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 205-209 feet above mean sea level, and is not within a shoreline area vulnerable to projected sea level ri 13 55 inches. Earthquake-Induced Waves and Mudflow Hazards The site is not located near a large body of water, near the ocean, or in a landslide hazard zone and, therefore, is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or m Water Quality 4.9.1.4 The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface w pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants fr Ðnon-pointÑ source pollutants, are washed from streets, construc exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roads a discharged into Calabazas Creek. The runoff often contains cont plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to ad which they drain. Under existing conditions, the project site contains commercial vacant lot, and landscaping. Runoff from the site may contain s from landscaped areas, and metals, trash, oils and grease from p Regulatory Setting 4.9.1.5 Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program ( cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and th by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance avai adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce fut The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood 12 Sources: Santa Clara Valley Water District. ÐAnderson Dam Inundation MapsÑ. Accessed March 20, 2012. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/InundationsMap.aspx>; ÐLexington Reservoir and Lenihan DamÑ . Accessed March 20, 2012. <http://www.valleywater.org/Services/LexingtonReservoirAndLenihanDam.aspx>. 13 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2011. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. Approved on October 6, 2011. Accessed March 21, 2012. <http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf>. City of Cupertino 67 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 391 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance a flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP. Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) The federal Clean Water Act and CaliforniaÓs Porter-Cologne Wate primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPAÓs regulations include the Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls source the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Statewide Construction General Permit The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDES for the State of California. For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepar construction. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirements The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize st requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the for stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area munici Cupertino. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, rede and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater tr construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require a to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment co facilities. The MRP also identifies subwatershed and catchment areas subject management controls. The project site is located an area that is greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious and the hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP would not 14 be applicable. City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code governs construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (zone A, AO or A1-30 flood or flood-related erosion hazards. Under this regulation, the Director of Public Works reviews 14 Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino. Accessed March 20, 2012. <http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> City of Cupertino 68 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 392 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts all development permits to determine that the permit requirement and that building sites are reasonably safe from flooding. Chapter 9.18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code outlines the CityÓs minimum requirements designed pollutants into the City of Cupertino's storm drain system and t of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provision and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CA0029718. 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or 1,2 waste discharge requirements? 2) Substantially deplete groundwater 1 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)? 3) Substantially alter the existing 1 drainage 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 or siltation on-or off-site? 4) Substantially alter the existing 1 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? City of Cupertino 69 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 393 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 5) Create or contribute runoff water 1,2 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade 1 water quality? 7) Place housing within a 100-year 11 flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard 11 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a 1,2 significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, 1,2 tsunami, or mudflow? Hydrology and Drainage 4.9.2.1 Redevelopment of the site would result in a slight increase in s The project includes installation of biofiltration areas in park to treat stormwater runoff from the site prior to discharge to t Storm Drain Capacity Impacts The project proposes to construct an on-site storm drainage syst that connects to the existing 42-inch storm drain lines in Steve storm drainage system in the southern portion of the site would in Blaney Avenue. As noted above, the project proposes to incorporate biofiltration basins to improve water quality although the rate of runoff from the site storm drainage system is currently inadequate to convey runoff f Impact HYD-1: Runoff from the project site would exceed the capacity of the Ci storm drainage system. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 70 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 394 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project shall implement the following mitigation measure to reduce stormwater significant level: Impact HYD Î 1.1: The developer will be responsible for upgrading storm drain infr within Stevens Creek Boulevard along the property frontage (and necessary to make the next upstream and downstream connection) t consistent with the Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan, or as app Director of Public Works. Flooding 4.9.2.2 As discussed previously, the project site is not within the 100- project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year fl flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. (No Impact) Other Inundation Hazards 4.9.2.3 The project is not located in an area subject to inundation haza level rise or earthquake induced waves or mudflows. (No Impact) Groundwater Supply Impacts 4.9.2.4 The project would use water supplied by California Water Service project are addressed in Section 4.17Utilities and Service Systems. The project site does not include an in-stream groundwater recha mostly developed site would not substantially interfere with gro aquifer used for drinking water supply. Excavation for buildin would extend to a depth of approximately 13.5 feet, well above g project, therefore, would not result in substantial direct or in in the area.(Less Than Significant Impact) Water Quality 4.9.2.5 Construction Related Impacts Construction of the proposed project, as well as grading and exc temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the proposed buildings and paving of streets, pathways, and parking lots would also result in a di thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion. occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contai discharged into the storm drainage system. City of Cupertino 71 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 395 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Post-Construction Impacts Redevelopment of the site would introduce new impervious surfaces, including new roofs and pavement. The amount of pollution carried by runoff from new bu could increase. The project also would increase traffic and hum generating more pollutants and increasing dust, litter, and other contaminants that could be washed into the storm drain system. The project would therefore, gener which could be carried downstream in storm water runoff from pav Stormwater from urban uses (including building rooftops) contains metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other contaminants such as oil, grease, lead, and animal waste. may contain increased oil and grease from parked vehicles, as we fertilizers and pesticides) from the landscaped areas. Redevelopment of the project site would increase the amount of urban runoff from the site that could convey pollutants to Calabazas Creek and San Francisco Bay. As conformance with the City of CupertinoÓs Municipal Code Chapter the following standard measures to reduce water quality impacts Construction Measures Condition HYD Î 1.1: The project shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Act Storm Water Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Co Board. Prior to construction grading the applicant shall file a Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare a Sto Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall be made ava at the construction site. The Storm Water Management Plan shall runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the p project will be controlled and/or managed. The Plan shall be su the Director of Public Works for review and approval. Post-Construction Measures Condition HYD Î 1.2: The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Num CAS0299718, which provides enhanced performance standards for th management of storm water for new development. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of shall include provision for post-construction structural control design in compliance with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and s include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the in biofiltration areas to treat and reduce the amount of runoff fro City of Cupertino 72 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 396 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall determined based on design and site-specific considerations and determined prior to issuance of building and grading permits. Condition HYD Î 1.3: To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, B are primarily infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions: Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemente protect groundwater; Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradati groundwater; Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained; Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to th seasonal high groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In are highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table, BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, factors); Unless storm water is first treated by non-infiltration means, infiltration devices shall not be recommended for areas of indus light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traff or greater average daily traffic trips on main roadway or 15,000 more average daily traffic trips on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, t etc); nurseries; and other land uses and activities considered b City as high threats to water quality; and Condition HYD Î 1.4: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance with requirements contained in the most recent versions of the follow documents: City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix; SCVURPPP ÐGuidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;Ñ NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region; California BMP Handbooks; Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) ÐStart at the SourceÑ Design Guidance Manual; BASMAA ÐUsing Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water Quality Î A Companion Document to Star at the Source;Ñ and City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard. City of Cupertino 73 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 397 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Condition HYD Î 1.5: To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities long-term maintenance programs. Condition HYD Î 1.6: The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, sha the City and the SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to min pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant selection will be r landscape plans. The proposed project, with the implementation of the above condi significant water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.3 Conclusion Impact HYD Î 1: The projectÓs impact to the storm drainage system from increase would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation meas HYD Î 1.1. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 74 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 398 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Setting General Plan and Zoning Designations 4.10.1.1 General Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan The project site is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan area as shown in the City of Cupertino General Plan (refer to Figure 4.10-1). The Heart of the City Specific Plan area is an identified special commercial center in the City. The CityÓs General Plan for commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses for the different special areas of the City, including the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. The City encourages commercial/residential mixed-use in a commercial areas if the residential units provide an incentive f development is financially beneficial to Cupertino. The remaining development allocations in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area are approximately 105,870 square feet of commercial uses, 11,450 square feet of of Land Use Designation The project site currently has General Plan land use designation Commercial/Office/Residential on the 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. property and Medium/High Density (10-20 dwelling units per acre) on the Biltmore Apartments property. The Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation applies to mixed-use areas that are predominantly commercial and residential uses may be allowed to offset job growth and to bett housing ratio. Also, supporting residential uses are allowed wh primarily non-residential character of the area. The Medium/High Density (10-20 dwelling units per acre) land use designation allows for multiple-family residential developments in a planned environment. These developments are planned for the edges of si communities where utility services and street networks are adequate to serve increased densities. Three of the parcels on the project site (20030 Stevens Creek Bo Avenue, and 10071 Blaney Avenue) were included in the Housing El sites. Zoning Ordinance The 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard property is zoned Mixed-Use Planned Development.The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor is zoned Mixed-Use Planned Development from Stelling Road in the west to the eastern City limits. The Biltmore Apartments pr P(R3) – Planned Development Multiple Family Residential. The entire project site is subject to the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan which include building heights, density, setbacks, and design elements. City of Cupertino 75 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 399 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Existing and Surrounding Uses 4.10.1.2 The 4.3-acre project site is mostly developed with three commerc landscaping and parking lots. The site also contains an approxi the Biltmore Apartments. Landscaping on the site includes turf, The surrounding land uses include office and commercial uses nor residential uses south and east of the site (refer to Figure 2.2 4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts LAND USE Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Physically divide an established 1,2 community? 2) Conflict with any applicable land use 2 plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1 conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 4.10.2.1 General Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan As discussed above, the project site is within the Heart of the available development allocations for commercial, office, and re development of 7,000 square feet of commercial space (a decrease of approximately 14,000 square feet from existing conditions) and 101 new residential units. T commercial and residential uses proposed on the site City of Cupertino 77 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 401 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Land Use Designation The proposed commercial and residential uses are consistent with designations which allows for a mix of uses including commercial residential uses. Zoning Ordinance The 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard property is subject to the zon Heart of the City Specific Plan for the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea. The proposed building is consistent with the front setback requirement of 35 feet and the height requirement of a maximum of 45 feet. The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires a row of trees on both sides of the sidewalk; however, it does allow for one row of trees, as proposed, when a retail building is built at the minimum setback of 35 feet. The Biltmore Apartments property is subject to the P(R3) zoning Buildings C and D on this property would not exceed the maximum the front and side setbacks of 20 feet and 10 feet, respectively Based on the above discussion, the project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance, including the design standards and would not conflict with General Plan. (Less Than Significant Impact) Land Use Compatibility 4.10.2.2 Land use conflicts can arise from two basic causes: 1) condition impacts on the persons or development introduced onto the site b circumstances are aspects of land use compatibility; or 2) a new impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity o Potential incompatibility may arise from placing a particular de inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the projectÓs des distinguishes between potential impacts from the proposed project upon people and the physical environment, and potential impacts from the projectÓs surroundin Impacts From the Project The surrounding land uses include office, commercial, and reside located in an area with mix of commercial and residential uses. Buildings directly adjacent to the project site are surrounded by surface parking lots. The project proposes land uses that are similar to the existing, surrounding land uses and facilitates pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access between the site and surrounding land uses (refer to Figure 3.2-1); therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 78 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 402 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Impacts to the Project Roadways The project site is located directly south of Stevens Creek Boul Avenue. The compatibility of the existing roadways and the prop of impacts from air emissions and noise from vehicular traffic. Air quality, noise, and transportation impacts are discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.12, and 4.16, respectively, in this Initial Study. (Less Than Significant Impact) Other Land Use Plans 4.10.2.3 The project site is not located in an area with an adopted habit community conservation plan. (No Impact) 4.10.3 Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with adopted plans and policies for the project site and would not physically divide any established community. Therefore, impleme result in significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 79 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 403 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Setting The project site is not located in an area containing known mine 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a 1,2 known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of a 1,2 locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is not located within an identified mineral res of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 4.11.3 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of known mineral resources.(No Impact) City of Cupertino 80 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 404 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12 NOISE The following discussion is based on an Environmental Noise Asse Illingworth & Rodkin in February 2012. A copy of this report is included in Appendi 4.12.1 Setting Background Information 4.12.1.1 Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies invo level during exposure. Noise is measured on a ÐdecibelÑ scale w Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, so weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is or dBA. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most conglomeration of noise from distant sources that create a relat which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the tim noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L, L, L, and L, are commonly used. They are the A- 01105090 weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during one, 10, 50, an A single number descriptor called the L is also widely used. The L is the average A-weighted eqeq noise level during a stated period of time. An A-weighted maxim. max In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is imp response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. Most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nightti (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL divides of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Communi (CNEL) is another 24-hour average that includes both an evening Applicable Noise Standards and Policies 4.12.1.2 2010 California Building Code Multi-family housing in the State of California is subject to th in the 2010 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Secti maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. Where exterior noi or future) exceed 60 dBA CNEL, a report must be submitted with t noise control measures that have been incorporated into the desi limit. City of Cupertino 81 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 405 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts City of Cupertino General Plan – Health and Safety Element The Health and Safety Element establishes goals and policies des noise sensitive land uses. Applicable goals and policies of the below. Goal N: Residential areas protected as much as possible from intrusive Policy 6-58: Commercial Delivery Areas. Be sure new commercial or industri developments plan their delivery areas so they are away from exi Policy 6-59: Delivery Hours. Actively enforce Section 10.48 of the Municip commercial and industrial delivery hours adjoining residential u Policy 6-60: Noise Control Techniques. Require analysis and implementation to control the effects of noise from industrial equipment and pr homes. Policy 6-61: Hours of Construction Work. Restrict non-emergency building c work near homes during evening, early morning, and weekends by e regulations in the Municipal Code. Policy 6-62: Construction and Maintenance Activities. Regulate constructio maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowa weekdays, weekends and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use only construction equipment incorporating the technology. Goal O: Buildings designed to diminish noise Policy 6-64: Building Code Sections on Exterior Noise Intrusion. Require t Department to enforce all sections of the California Building Co transmission control. The General Plan also establishes noise and land use compatibili Goal L and Policy 6- 50) to evaluate the suitability of the proposed land use with respect to the existing or future noise environment (refer to Table 4.12-1). Office buildings and commercial centers are considered Ðnormally up to 70 dBA CNEL. In a noise environment between 67 and 77 dBA uses are considered Ðconditionally acceptable.Ñ Above 75 dBA CNEL, noise levels are considered Ðnormally unacceptableÑ for office and commercial land uses. Multi-family residential uses are considered Ðnormally acceptabl dBA CNEL and Ðconditionally acceptableÑ in environments from 60 environment between 70 and 75 dBA CNEL, multi-family residential land uses are considered Ðnormally unacceptable.Ñ Above 75 dBA CNEL, this land use is considered Ðclearly unacceptable.Ñ City of Cupertino 82 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 406 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.12-1 Land Uses and Acceptable Noise Levels Community Noise Exposure Land Use (DNL or CNEL, dB) 55 60 65 70 75 80 Office Buildings, Commercial and Professional Centers Residential Î Multi-family (including private outdoor use areas) Notes: Shading indicates Normally Acceptable noise levels indicates Conditionally Acceptable noise levels indicates Normally Unacceptable noise levels indicates Clearly Unacceptable noise levels Municipal Code The City of Cupertino Noise Ordinance establishes regulations an Applicable regulations and standards are outlined below: Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels (Section 10.48.40). Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the sa produce a noise level exceeding 60 dBA during the daytime or 50 at residential property lines or 65 dBA during the daytime and 5 at non-residential property lines. Brief Daytime Incidents (Section 10.48.050). During the daytime period only, brief noise incidents exceeding the above noise standards are allowed provid duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed 20 in a two-hour period (see Table 4.12-2). Table 4.12-2 Examples of Acceptable Brief Daytime Incidents Noise Increment Above Noise Duration in Normal Standard Two-Hour Period 5 dBA 15 Minutes 10 dBA 10 Minutes 15 dBA 5 Minutes 19 dBA 1 Minutes City of Cupertino 83 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 407 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Grading, Construction, and Demolition (Section 10.48.053). Grading, construction, and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the daytime noi equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. It is a violation t street construction, demolition, or underground utility work wit area on Saturday, Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttim in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. Construction, other than s prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttim 10.48.040. Motor Vehicle Idling (Section 10.48.055). Motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters, and trailers or other equipment tow not be allowed to remain in one location with the engine or auxi than three minutes in any hour, in an area other than on a publi regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 are met while the engi running, or b) the vehicle is in use for provision of police, fi services. Nighttime Deliveries and Pickups(Section 10.48.062). It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to make or allow vehicular deliveries or pickups to or fr establishments (defined as any store, factory, manufacturing, or sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or storage of goods, the use of private roads, alleys or other ways located on either building housing the commercial establishment where such private lies between the building and any adjacent parcel of land zoned between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM weekdays (Monday through Frid AM on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and holidays except as may Section 10.48.029. Existing Noise Conditions 4.12.1.3 Noise monitoring was completed at the site between October 27, 2 to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise monitoring measurements (LT-1 and LT-2) and four short-term measurements (S Figure 4.12-1. The existing noise environment at the site and i traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Blaney Avenue. Ope adjacent commercial land uses are audible at times, but are not average noise levels at the project site. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was located at the setback of e residential units adjacent to South Blaney Avenue. The sound le 50 feet from the centerline of South Blaney Avenue and about 12 levels measured at this site were primarily the result of traffi average noise levels on Friday October 28, 2011 ranged from 60 t during the day, and eq from 46 to 58 dBA L at night. The CNEL at this location was 64 dBA. eq City of Cupertino 84 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 408 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Site LT-2 was approximately 100 feet from the center of Stevens to quantify the daily trend in noise levels attributable to traf noise levels on Friday October 28, 2011 typically ranged from 64 during the day, and eq from 53 to 62 dBA L at night. The CNEL at this location was 68 dBA. eq Short-term noise measurements ST-1 through ST-4 were made at var project site representative of proposed noise-sensitive residential land uses. The short-term noise measurements at these locations range from 53 to 59 dBA L and are summarized in Table 4.12-3. eq Table 4.12-3 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location L L L L L L max(1)(10)(50)(90)eq ST-1: approximately 200 ft. from center of Stevens 72 65 59 55 50 56 Creek Blvd. at rear of ChiliÓs and adjacent to preschool ST-2: approximately 330 ft. from center of Stevens Creek Blvd. at rear of ChiliÓs and adjacent to preschool 66 61 55 52 48 53 playground ST-3: approximately 200 ft. from center of Stevens 61 59 56 52 48 53 Creek Blvd. at rear of Shan Restaurant ST-4: approximately 230 ft. from center of Stevens 66 63 61 58 56 59 Creek Blvd. at rear of Village Falafel Restaurant The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan. City of Cupertino 85 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 409 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts NOISE Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation 1,15 of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to, or generation 1,15 of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase in 1,15 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4) A substantial temporary or periodic 1,15 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an 1 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? 6)For a project within the vicinity of a 1 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be consider generated noise level increases of three (3) dBA CNEL or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise le level increases of five (5) dBA CNEL or greater would be conside Overview Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted City of Cupertino 87 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 411 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Based on the applicable nois a significant noise impact would result if exterior noise levels would exceed 65 dBA CNEL or if interior day-night average noise CNEL. Noise-producing components of the project that would expose sensitive receivers to levels exceeding Municipal Code noise level standards could also result in a significant noise impact. A substantial permanent noise increase would occur if the noise level increase resulting from the project is three dBA CNEL or greater at noise-sensitive receptors, with a future noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. A substantial temporary noise level increase would occur where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA L and the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA eq L at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period of eq permanent cumulative noise increase would occur if the project c increase of one dBA CNEL where cumulative noise levels are anticipated to increase by three dBA CNEL or more at noise-sensitive receptors. Noise Impacts to the Project 4.12.2.1 Exterior Noise Impacts The project could expose people to noise levels in excess of the the California Building Code and the CityÓs General Plan and Mun Traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Blaney Avenue wo sources of noise affecting the noise environment at the project feet from the center of Stevens Creek Boulevard is calculated to cumulative traffic conditions. Similarly, existing noise levels calculated to increase by about one dBA CNEL and will reach 65 d from the center of the roadway. The future exterior noise envir exceed the Ðnormally acceptableÑ noise level of 60 dBA CNEL, but Ðconditionally acceptableÑ category (up to 70 dBA CNEL) for mult Two common outdoor use areas are proposed as part of the project area would be located in a shielded area south of Building A, ap centerline of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and approximately 300 fee Avenue. Exterior noise levels within this courtyard area are ca which meets the normally acceptable General Plan criteria for th second common outdoor use area would be located in a partially s and B, approximately 300 feet from the centerline of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and approximately 150 feet from the center of South Blaney Avenue. Exterior noise 59 dBA CNEL or less which complies with the future noise environ Exterior noise levels at both common outdoor use areas would not policies for exterior noise (60 dBA CNEL). City of Cupertino 88 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 412 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Future Interior Noise Environment Residential units in Building A would be located approximately 2 Creek Boulevard, and would be exposed to future exterior noise l CNEL at the north building facade. Units in Buildings B and C w feet from the center of South Blaney Avenue. Future exterior no from 65 to 67 dBA CNEL at the east building facades. The California Building Code and City of Cupertino require that residential units be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. In bui the windows partially open, interior noise levels are generally levels. With the windows maintained closed, standard residentia about 20 to 25 decibels of noise reduction. For example, a unit dBA CNEL would be 52 dBA CNEL inside with the windows partially CNEL with the windows closed. Interior noise levels would continue to exceed the maximum allowable interior sound level of 45 dBA CNEL inside these resid necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces is possible with proper wall construction techniques, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the mechanical ventilation system to allow the occupant the option o windows. Impact NOI Î 1: Exterior noise levels are above 60 dBA CNEL at the proposed resi uses which exceeds the CityÓs normally acceptable noise level st residential development. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the following mitigation measures to reduce interior noise impacts: MM NOI Î 1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as by the Director of Community Development, for units throughout t that windows could be kept closed at the occupantÓs discretion t noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI Î 1.2: Provide sound-rated windows and doors to maintain interior noise acceptable level. Preliminary calculations made based on the da in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows with a sound transmission class rating of STC 26 to 28 would be control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standar MM NOI Î 1.3: A design-level noise assessment of the final site plan shall be the project by a qualified acoustical consultant. Results of th noise assessment, including the description of the necessary noi treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the buildi approved prior to issuance of a building permit. City of Cupertino 89 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 413 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Noise Impacts From the Project 4.12.2.2 Project-Generated Traffic Noise Based on a review of project traffic volumes at the two study intersections affected by project traffic (refer to Section 4.16 Transportation), the increase in traffic resulting from the project would not measurably increase noise in the project area. A noise impact occurs when a noise-sensitive land use is subject to a noise level increase of three dBA CNEL as a resu the slight increase in traffic resulting from the project, noise impacted by the proposed development. Construction-Related Noise Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of t Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, activities when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum no construction would typically range from about 90 to 95 dBA at a source. Typical hourly average construction generated noise lev measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site du earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Hourly average noi construction of residential units would range from about 65 dBA 50 feet depending on the amount of activity at the site. Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six (6) dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise le The Municipal Code allows construction and demolition activities that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and a good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two 1.No individual device produces a noise level more than eighty-sev twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or 2.The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dB The project would require the demolition of approximately 21,000 square feet of commercial space, including two restaurants and a strip commercial retail building 16,050 cubic yards of cut and fill would be required for the pro construction activities are anticipated to include the installat of residential foundations, building shell construction, interio City of Cupertino 90 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 414 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project is anticipated to require 15 to 18 months to demolis and construct the proposed buildings. Given the size of the pro development is currently proposed. All exterior construction would be completed within 12 months, and once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be gene generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate n receptors. Given the proximity of residential units on the Biltmore Apartment site, construction noise levels could exceed one or both of the exemption criteria noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or 2) nois not exceed 80 dBA (Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). Impact NOI Î 2: Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary c related noise impacts. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the following mitigation measures t impacts: MM NOI Î 2.1: Pursuant to the Municipal Code (Section 10.48.053), noise-genera activities shall be restricted at the construction site to dayti Construction within 750 feet of residences shall be prohibited o Sundays, holidays. MM NOI Î 2.2: All construction equipment shall conform to the following standa individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a d 25 feet; or 2) the noise level on any nearby property does not e dBA (Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). MM NOI Î 2.3: Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intak exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for equipment. MM NOI Î 2.4: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site (prefe than 200 feet from these residences). MM NOI Î 2.5: Stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or power generators shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI Î 2.6: Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed to screen stationa generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land MM NOI Î 2.7: ÐQuietÑ air compressors and other stationary noise sources shall by contractors where technology exists. City of Cupertino 91 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 415 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts MM NOI Î 2.8: Noise from construction workersÓ radios shall be controlled to a is not audible at existing residences bordering the project site MM NOI Î 2.9: The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-gener construction activities. MM NOI Î 2.10: Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. MM NOI Î 2.11: A Ðdisturbance coordinatorÑ who would be responsible for respond local complaints about construction noise shall be designated by applicant. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspi posted at the construction site and included in notices sent to regarding the construction schedule. Limiting construction hours would avoid potential impacts to sleep disturbance during nighttime hours. In addition, during daytime hours some construction nois traffic noise. Limits on vehicle idling and using equipment wit would reduce or avoid substantially elevated construction noise levels. Providing for a construction noise coordinator responsible for responding to noise complaints necessary, would further reduce possible construction noise impa Providing advance information to residents creates opportunities whereby interference due to construction noise can be minimized (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction-Related Vibration Construction activities would include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. To determine the potential for construction-related vibration to cause structural damage to a building and significantly impact an adjacent land use, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.2 in/sec, PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec, PPV for ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. The proposed project would not require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration; however, project construction activities such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Construction vibration would not be substantial for most of this time except during vibration generating activities. City of Cupertino 92 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 416 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet.Vibration levels would vary depending on the distance of the receptor to the construction activity, soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used; however, these vibration levels would be well below the vibration significance threshold at the nearest sensitive land uses. In areas where vibration would not be expected to cause structural damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. Due to the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (demolition and use of jackhammers and other high power tools), this impact is less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.12.3 Conclusion Impact NOI Î 1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above mitig measures, would not result in significant interior noise impacts proposed residential uses. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact NOI Î 2: Construction of the proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, would not result in significant short-term related noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 93 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 417 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Setting Based on information from the Department of Finance, the City of 15 estimated to be approximately 58,750 in 2011. The average number of persons per household in 16 Cupertino in 2010 was 2.87. Approximately 31,060 jobs were provided within the City of Cuper 2005, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Project increase to 33,340 jobs by the year 2020. To meet the current and projected housing and mixed use needs in development allocation of 570 total housing units, an increase o Heart of the City planning district from the year 2010 baseline of 262 units. As remaining development allocations in the Heart of the City are for approximately 105,870 square feet of commercial uses and 308 residential units. 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in 1 an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of 1 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 15 Source: 1) State of California, Department of Finance. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts. September 2011. Avai <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/2001-10/view.php.> 2) State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population E Annual Percent Change Ï January 1, 2010 and 2011. May 2011. Ava <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php.> 16 U.S. Census Bureau. ÐAmerican Fact FinderÑ. Profile of General for the City of Cupertino. Accessed March 15, 2012. Available <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> City of Cupertino 94 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 418 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1 3)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 4.13.2.1Growth Inducement Impacts The project site is located within the incorporated limits of th of the project site would not result in an expansion of urban se beyond the CityÓs existing Sphere of Influence. As discussed above, the General Plan sets forth development allo hotel, and residential uses for different areas of the City incl Heart of the City. As of March 2012, the remaining development allocations in the Heart of the City are for approximately 308 residential units. The 101 dwelling units included in the proje housing allocation in this area. The project proposes to construct 101 new housing units. Conser estimates of 2.87 residents per household in Cupertino, the proj increase of approximately 290 residents. Based upon an estimate feet of commercial uses, the number of employees on the site wou The development and population growth associated with redevelopm in the CityÓs General Plan and therefore, the project would not housing within the City. (Less Than Significant Impact) Housing Displacement Impacts 4.13.2.2 The project would not displace people or housing. (No Impact) 4.13.3 Conclusion The project would not result in substantial growth inducement or (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 95 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 419 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Setting Fire Service 4.14.1.1 Fire safety and protection is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which also serves unincorporated Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbel Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga. The Santa Clara County Fire Department serves a total area of ap population of over 226,000 persons. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has 17 fire stations, an administrative headquarters, a maintenance facility, five other vehicles. The Department employs 283 personnel to provide fire and fire marshal services, hazardous materials regulation and response, rescue and extrication, public education and fire investigation services. The DepartmentÓs supp 17 volunteer firefighters. There are three fire stations located in the City of Cupertino: located at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard, 2) Monta Vista Fire St Stevens Creek Boulevard, and 3) Seven Springs Fire Station No. 2 is located at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway. The Cupertino Fire Station is located approximately 50 would be the first to respond to any emergencies. Police Service 4.14.1.2 Public safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sh County SheriffÓs Office serves the communities of Cupertino, Los unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara County. The SheriffÓs O approximately 197,700 persons and has 586 sworn personnel. The 18 allocated to the City of Cupertino. The Santa Clara County SheriffÓs West Valley Division, which is Boulevard, provides law enforcement services to the residents of Schools 4.14.1.3 The project site is located within the Cupertino Union Elementar Union High School District. Students in the project area attend Eaton Elementary School, Lawson Middle School, and Cupertino High School. 17 City of Cupertino. ÐFire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County FireÑ. Accessed March 21, 2012. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> 18 City of Cupertino. ÐSheriff's Office West Valley DivisionÑ. A <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364>. City of Cupertino 96 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 420 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Parks 4.14.1.4 Residents of Cupertino are served by regional and community park space, community and neighborhood parks, playing fields and trails. Examples of regional facilities include Rancho San Antonio and Stevens Creek County Parks and Fremont Older Open Space 19 Preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Open Space District. The City of CupertinoÓs neighborhood parks system serves the act of its residents. The City of CupertinoÓs parkland is comprised special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside 20 Park). The CityÓs General Plan Park Acreage Policy (Policy 2-74) stat provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. In addition, Policy 2- 75 states that the each household should be within a 0.5-mile wa community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Wilson Park is located approximately 0.3 miles walking distance the site. Portal Park is located approximately 0.5-miles walking distance northeast of the project site. Cali Plaza Park is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the s 19 City of Cupertino. General Plan 2000-2020. Figure 2-H. 20 Sources: City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020 and City of Cupertino. ÐCity ParksÑ. Accessed March 21, 20012. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=591> City of Cupertino 97 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 421 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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? 1 Police Protection? 1 Schools? 1,16 Parks? 1 Other Public Facilities? 1 Fire and Police Services 4.14.2.1 The project site is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino that is served by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Santa Clara County SheriffÓs Offi Proposed buildings would be constructed in conformance with the Codes to reduce fire risk. The City requires automatic sprinkle commercial areas and smoke alarms in new residential development Development of the proposed project would intensify the use of t existing conditions, which would likely incrementally increase t services including medical calls. Additional service demands ge however, would not require construction of additional fire or police facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) Schools 4.14.2.2 The following discussion is based upon a school impact analysis in January 2012 (Appendix F). The project would allow development of 101 market-rate apartment th approximately 40 new kindergarten through 12 grade students. City of Cupertino 98 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 422 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project site is located within the Cupertino Union School Di School District. Based on the school impact analysis completed students from the project would likely attend Eaton Elementary S which are in the Cupertino Union School District, and Cupertino Fremont Union High School District. The project site, while in area, is located on the border with the Collins Elementary atten level, also part of CUSD, it is located in the Lawson Middle Sch that 101 market-rate units would generate approximately 24 eleme 21 school students, and six high school students. The demand for housing in the Cupertino Union School District an attendance area is very high. The number of students generated f project is relatively small; and would not result in substantial individual effects on school capacity. The principal challenge at the elementary level is the distribut School District. At the middle school and high school levels, Lawson Middle School and Cupertino High are already loaded beyond capacity and need additional capa enrollment. Improvements to provide additional capacity have bee is needed. Some bond financing is designated for improvements at Cupertino High, but additional funding will likely be needed. No funding has been designated f Elementary or Lawson Middle School (refer to Appendix F for more In accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, the developer shall pay a school impact fee to the Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union High School District to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed project. As analyzed and described in the school impact analysis (refer to and property tax the project would pay to the school districts w facility improvements and operating cost for the project-generat program is considered under state law as an acceptable method of adequacy of school facilities, with the individual school districts responsible for implementing school facilities improvements. The revised project would generate new elementary, middle school, and high school students. As described above, the school impact fees and property tax paid by facility improvements and operating cost for the project-generat would not result in a significant impact to school facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) Parks 4.14.2.3 The residential portion of the project proposes 15,500 square fe and 5,340 square feet (0.12 acre) of private open space for the additional 101 apartment units. No new public parkland is proposed as a part of the project. 21 Schoolhouse Services notes in the school impact analysis that the estimates are reasonable for the proposed units; however, some of the characteristics of the units are unknown an up or down from these numbers, but probably not significantly ov City of Cupertino 99 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 423 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Future residents of the site would use existing recreational fac common open space and private open space proposed as a part of t 290 new residents would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The proposed project shall be required to comply with the CityÓs dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees to reduce impacts to p Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following st impacts: Condition PF-1.1: The project shall comply with the Municipal Code requirements fo dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). With implementation of the CityÓs parkland dedication requiremen incremental increase in use from residential development allowed General Plan will cause significant physical deterioration of existing park facilities or require construction of new facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the above avoid significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 100 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 424 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Setting The City of Cupertino is served by approximately 162 acres of pa parks, community parks, and school playing fields. The Departme facilities including Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Senior Center, and Blackberry Farm. The Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for park p comprehensive leisure program for the City. The CityÓs Policy 2 provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,0 the each household should be within a 0.5-mile walk of a neighbo neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. As discussed in Section 4.14 Public Services, Wilson Park is located approximately 0.3 miles walking distance of the Blaney Avenue frontage of the site. Por 0.5 miles walking distance northeast of the project site. 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion RECREATION Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Increase the use of existing 1 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational 1 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The residential portion of the project proposes 15,500 square fe and 5,340 square feet (0.12 acre) of private open space for the additional 101 apartment units. No new public parkland or recreational facilities are proposed as a Future residents of the site would use existing recreational fac common open space and private open space proposed as a part of t City of Cupertino 101 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 425 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts one park (Wilson Park) within a 0.5-mile walk for future residen residents would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. . The proposed open space on the site would partially offset the need for additional neighborhood parks to serve the project and would also reduce and avoid physi gathering places in neighborhood parks. The proposed open space the CityÓs parkland dedication/payment of in-lieu fees (refer towould offset substantial recreational impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.15.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant recreation (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 102 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 426 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16 TRANSPORTATION The following discussion is based on a Transportation Impact Ana Transportation Consultants, Inc. in March 2012. A copy of this this Initial Study. 4.16.1 Setting Existing Conditions 4.16.1.1 Roadway Network The project site and surrounding roadway network is described be Regional Access Interstate 280 (I-280) is a north/south freeway that extends from US 101 in San José t Francisco. It is generally an east/west oriented eight-lane freeway within the City of Cupertino. I-280 provides access to the project site via full interchanges Road. State Route 85 (SR 85) is oriented in a north/south direction with four mixed-flow lan occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. SR 85 provides access to the pro Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard. Local Access Stevens Creek Boulevard is a four-lane east/west major arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It extends from Cupertino eastward to I-880, at which point it make to Downtown San Jose. Stevens Creek Boulevard provides right-tur project site. Blaney Avenue is a two-lane north/south street extending from Homestead Road South Blaney Avenue provides direct access to the project site. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Stevens Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. All of the signalized intersections in the area are equipped with pedestrian signals. City of Cupertino 103 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 427 N EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.1 428 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bicycle facilities in the site vicinity include bike lanes on bo 22 South Blaney Avenue. Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. The local bus route serving the project site is described below. Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between the Alum Roc José and De Anza College via Stevens Creek Boulevard. The hours to 1:00 AM with 10- to 50- minute headways on weekdays. On week to 60-minute headways between 6:30 AM and 1:00 AM. Intersection Levels of Service Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated usi Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ran conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditio analysis methods are described below. All the signalized study intersections are subject to the City o The City of Cupertino level of service methodology for signalize 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. This method is applied using the TRAFFIX software. Th HCM operations method evaluates signalized intersection operatio delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX intersection level of service methodology, the City of Cupertino default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Cuperti signalized intersections is LOS D or better. The correlation bet of service is shown in Table 4.15-1, on the following page. 22 Bike paths (Class 1 facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class 2 facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and si ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typicall only with signs. City of Cupertino 105 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 429 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.15-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Vehicular Delay Average Control Level of Description Delay Per Vehicle Service (Seconds) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progress A 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or B10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression a C20.1 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorabl Dprogression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehic35.1 to 55.0 stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, l Ecycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are 55.1 to 80.0 frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F> 80.0 over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source:Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Study Intersections Existing LOS Existing traffic volumes were obtained from manual turning-movem November 2011. The results of the signalized intersection level conditions are shown in Table 4.15-2, below. The results show t Cupertino level of service standards, the study intersections cu service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Table 4.15-2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour Average Delay LOS Blaney Avenue/ AM 33.4 C Stevens Creek Boulevard PM 33.9 C Torre Avenue/ AM 19.8 B Stevens Creek Boulevard PM 18.5 B Freeway Level of Service Evaluation According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment leve project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to capacity of that segment, the project is adjacent to a freeway s based on engineering judgment, lead agency staff determines that included in the analysis. The number of gross project trips add City of Cupertino 106 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 430 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts estimated to be well below the one percent threshold (see Table adjacent to a freeway ramp, therefore, a detailed analysis of fr not performed. Table 4.15-3 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation Number of OneGross CapacityPeak Freeway Segment Direction Mixed Flow Percent of Project 1 (vphpl)Hour LanesCapacityTrips AM 1 West of DeAnza WB 3 6,900 69 Blvd. PM 1 AM 0 West of DeAnza EB 3 6,900 69 Blvd. PM 2 I-280 AM 1 East of Stevens WB 3 6,900 69 Creek Blvd. PM 6 AM 5 East of Stevens EB 3 6,900 69 Creek Blvd. PM 4 AM 2 North of Stevens NB 2 4,400 44 Creek Blvd. PM 2 AM 1 North of Stevens SB 2 4,400 44 Creek Blvd. PM 3 SR 85 AM 0 South of DeAnza NB 2 4,400 44 Blvd. PM 1 AM 1 South of DeAnza SB 2 4,400 44 Blvd. PM 1 Notes: Capacity is based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,17 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 of roads, or congestion at intersections)? City of Cupertino 107 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 431 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 2) Exceed, either individually or 1,17 cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic 1 patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 5) Result in inadequate emergency 1 access? 6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1 programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Criteria (Thresholds of Significance) 4.16.2.1 The project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Cupertino if for either peak hour: The level of service at the intersection degrades from an accept existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the cri intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the demand- increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project t delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average delay In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in th significant impact by City of Cupertino standards is said to be are implemented that would restore intersection level of service noted in Section 4.16.1.1, possible impacts to freeway segments proposed project would not meet requirements to include a freewa City of Cupertino 108 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 432 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts VTAÓs Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Based upon project trip generation, impacts to freeway segments would not be substantial. Project Conditions 4.16.2.2 Project conditions are defined as existing conditions plus traff The amount of traffic produced by a new development and the loca appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip genera assignment. In determining project trip generation, the amount is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the proje made of the directions to and from which the project trips would assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quanti common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are can be applied to predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular de multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of Applicable Trip Reductions Trip generation for commercial uses typically is adjusted to acc are trips that would already be on the adjacent roadways (and therefore would already be counted in the existing traffic volumes) but would turn into the site while generation rates typically include pass-by trips. Thus, the ITE commercial component of the project were adjusted to incorporate reduction for the PM peak hour. Mixed-use development with complementary land uses such as residential and commercial also will generate and attract trips internally between the two uses. The each use, therefore, was reduced since these trips would be made VTAÓs Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (March 2009) ind 15 percent is allowed for mixed-use developments such as the pro reduction is applied to the smaller of the two trip generators ( internal trips that are calculated (one AM peak hour trip and fo subtracted from the larger generator (residential component). Existing Use Trip Credits The existing uses on the project site consist of two stand-alone totaling approximately 21,082 square feet. Trips that are gener the site were subtracted from the gross project trip generation estimates. Trip credits were applied for the existing uses based on AM and PM peak hour driveway coun City of Cupertino 109 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 433 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts trips, the existing PM peak hour driveway trips were reduced by from the gross project trips. After applying all applicable trip reductions and trip credits, it is estimated that the project would generate 342 net new daily vehicle trips, with 35 net new trips and 25 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4.15-4. Table 4.15-4 Project Trip Generation Estimates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use 111 Rate TotalRate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Project 2 Apartment Î 101 Units 7.39 746 0.53 11 43 54 0.74 49 26 75 3 Commercial Î 7.0 k.s.f. 42.94 301 1.00 4 3 7 3.73 13 13 26 Trip Reductions 4 Retail Pass-by -3 -3 -6 5 Internal Capture -90 -1 -1 -2 -4 -4 -8 Existing Commercial -615 -15 -9 -24 -38 -24 -62 6 UsesÎ 20,000s.f. Net New Project Trips 342 -1 36 35 17 8 25 Notes: 1 Rates expressed in trips per dwelling unit for residential uses and trips per 1,000 square feet for commercial uses. 2 ITE trip rates for Apartments (Land Use #220) used for this component of the project. (fitted curve equations applied) 3 ITE trip rates for Shopping Center (Land Use #820) used for this component of the project. (average rates used) 4 A typical 25 percent retail pass-by trip reduction was applied to the commercial component of the project during the PM peak hour. 5 Internal capture (15 percent of smaller generator x 2) based on Santa Clara VTA TIA March 2009 Guidelines. 6 Peak hour trips based on driveway counts of existing uses on the site (retail building and two restaurants). A 25 percent pass- by trip reduction was applied to the existing PM peak hour driveway trips. Daily trips generated by the existing uses were estimated. th Source: ITE Trip Generation, 8 Edition (2008). Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing tr roadways. Because the project study area is limited due to the of a mix of residential and commercial land uses, one trip distr the residential and commercial components of the project. The p proposed project and the existing uses on the site were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. Project Intersection Levels of Service Project intersection levels of service were determined by adding project to the existing roadway volumes on the current transport City of Cupertino 110 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 434 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts signalized level of service analysis under project conditions ar following page. The results show that, measured against the Cit standards, the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under project conditions. (Less Than Significant Impact) Table 4.15-5 Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Project Peak in Crit. in Crit. Intersection Avg.Avg. Hour LOS LOS DelayDelay DelayV/C Blaney Avenue/Stevens AM 33.4 C 34.0 C 0.7 0.013 Creek Boulevard PM 33.9 C 34.5 C 0.9 0.012 Torre Avenue/Stevens AM 19.8 B 19.7 B 0.0 0.001 Creek Boulevard PM 18.5 B 18.1 B -0.7 -0.006 Other Transportation Issues 4.16.2.3 The project does not include any design features that would substantially increase traffic hazards in the area. The project will be required to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. The project includes bicycle storage and provides access through the site to existing sidewalks and, therefore, would not conflict with any policies, plans, or progr transportation programs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not cause a significant decrease in t vicinity nor would it create design hazards or conflict with alternative transportation programs and, therefore, would not result in any significant transportation im(Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 111 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 435 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Setting Water 4.17.1.1 Water service to the project site is supplied by the California which also maintains the water system. Cal Water Los Altos Subu the incorporated city of Los Altos and some sections within the cities of Cupertino (including the project site), Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The LAS District water supply is a combination of surface water that is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Wate year period from 2006 to 2010, 32 percent of the supply was from groundwater and 68 percent was 23 from purchased water. Annual groundwater production depends on the availability of p water from SCVWD. The groundwater supply is currently 23,781 ac active well capacities). Surface water supplies from SCVWD come imports from both the Federal Central Valley Project and the Cal In 2005, Cal Water delivered 13,707 acre-feet of water per year decreased to 12,302 AFY in 2010. Water demand in 2040 is estima The project site is served by existing 14-inch water lines in St Blaney Avenue. The 21,082 square foot commercial buildings on t 24 gallons of water per day. Storm Drainage 4.17.1.2 The CityÓs storm drain system is made up of underground pipeline from streets to prevent flooding. Runoff (stormwater and runoff urban sources) enters the system at the grated catch basins foun intersections. Water from these pipes is discharged, untreated, site is served by 42-inch storm drain line in Stevens Creek Boul in South Blaney Avenue. Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System 4.17.1.3 The Cupertino Sanitary District provides sewer service to the pr District collects and transports wastewater to the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) located in north San José. The District purchases water treatment capacity from the plant and has purchased 8.6 million gallons per day of capacity. Appr 23 California Water Service Company. 2010 Urban Water Management June 2011. Page 45. 24 Oberg, John. City of San Jos. ÐRe: water lines.Ñ E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004. City of Cupertino 112 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 436 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 25 wastewater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitary Dist The City is well below their allotted capacity at the WPCP. The project site is served by a 12-inch sewer line in Stevens Creek Boulevard and a 10-inch sewer line i 26 development on the site is estimated to discharge approximately Solid Waste 4.17.1.4 Commercial and residential garbage and recycling services in the Los Altos Garbage Company. Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Many types of recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART Station) for recycling. As of December 27,28 6.3 million cubic yards of capacity remaining. The City has a contract with Newby Island Landfill until the yea tonnage delivered equals 2.05 million tons. Since the CityÓs co has delivered a total of approximately 1.4 million tons of waste 29 approximately 31,500 tons of solid waste a year. The project site is estimated to generate 455,371 30 pounds of solid waste annually. 4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Impacts UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment 1 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction of 1 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 25 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. 26 Oberg, John. City of San Jos. ÐRe: water lines.Ñ E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004. 27 King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. 28 Note that an application is on file (file no. PDC07-071) at the City of San José for a height expansion at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, which would add approximately 15 million cubic yards to the capacity of the landfill. 29 The estimate annual tonnage of solid waste generated by the City is based on an average of the last three years. Source: King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General M 30 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rate January 4, 2012. Accessed March 22, 2012. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/default.htm Based on a solid waste generation rate of 0.0108 tons per square foot of food store or restaurant space. City of Cupertino 113 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 437 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than Beneficial Information SignificantWithSignificantNo Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated Would the project: 3) Require or result in the construction of 1 new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies available 1 to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the 1 wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projectÓs projected demand in addition to the providerÓs existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1 permitted capacity to accommodate the projectÓs solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and local 1 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Water Service and Supply 4.17.2.1 Based on the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by Cal Wat demand in the service area is expected to decrease due to increa to incorporate efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation contro Although the project may increase water use on the site, it would not substantially increase water demand to the extent that new entitlements and sources of water (Less Than Significant Impact) Storm Drainage 4.17.2.2 As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would slightly increase the rate of stormwater runoff from the site. Given the storm drain system to convey stormwater flows from a 10-year sto exceed the capacity of the existing drainage facilities. Impact UTIL Î 1: Runoff from the project site would exceed the capacity of the C storm drainage system. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 114 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 438 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project shall implement the following mitigation measure to reduce stormwater significant level: Impact UTIL Î 1.1: The developer will be responsible for upgrading storm drain infr within Stevens Creek Boulevard along the property frontage (and necessary to make the next upstream and downstream connection) t consistent with the Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan, or as app Director of Public Works. Construction of storm conveyance facilities for the project would occur within existing City roadways and would not result in any additional environmental af Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System 4.17.2.3 As described previously, the City is well below its allotment fo The Cupertino Sanitary District, therefore, has adequate wastewa proposed project. 31 The project is estimated to generate sewage of 17,642 gallons pe Given the existing restaurant uses on the site this quantity of sewage represents a slight increase over existing conditions. The existing sanitary sewer system is anticipated t project. Solid Waste 4.17.2.4 32 The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 281, Based on the projectÓs estimated annual waste generation, the Ci CityÓs remaining allocation at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, there is sufficient capacity within the CityÓs contract with Newby Island and at the landfill to serve t(Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.3 Conclusion Impact UTIL Î 1: The projectÓs impact to the storm drainage system from increase would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation meas UTIL Î 1.1. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 31 Oberg, John. City of San Jos. ÐRe: water lines.Ñ E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004. Based on sewage generation rates of 136 gallons per day for apartments, 0.076 gallons/sf/day for retail uses, and 1.04 gallons/sf/day for restaurant uses. 32 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rate January 4, 2012. Accessed March 22, 2012. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/default.htm Based on a solid waste generation rate of 0.046 pounds per square foot of commercial retail space, 4 pounds per residential unit per day, and .0108 tons per square foot of rest City of Cupertino 115 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 439 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than PotentiallySignificantLess Than NoBeneficial Information SignificantWithSignificant Impact Impact Source(s) Impact MitigationImpact Incorporated 1)Does the project have the potential to degrade p.16- the quality of the environment, substantially 113 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? 2)Does the project have impacts that are p.16- individually limited, but cumulatively 113 considerable? (ÐCumulatively considerableÑ 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)? 3)Does the project have environmental effects p.16- which will cause substantial adverse effects 113 on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 4)Does the project have the potential to achieve p.16- short-term environmental goals to the 113 disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 4.18.1 Project Impacts The project includes mitigation measures to avoid or reduce biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and construction period noise impacts to a less than significant level. As described in the respective sections of t would not result in other significant environmental impacts or substantially adversely affect human beings directly or indirectly (refer to Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts on pages 16 Î 113 of this Initial Study). 4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts A number of projects have been recently approved or are reasonably foreseeable in the City of Cupertino and other communities near the project site. These in redevelopment of residential, commercial, and public uses. Whil result in significant impacts in particular issue areas, it is a City of Cupertino 116 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 440 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts existing regulations and statutes, and will incorporate mitigati impacts to a less than significant level, if necessary. For exa incorporate best management practices and comply with local and impacts to water quality to the maximum extent feasible. A disc projectÓs impacts to contribute to cumulatively considerable imp Air Quality 4.18.2.1 Past, present and future development projects contribute to the regionÓs adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its nature, air pollution is largely is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively signifi projectÓs contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, air quality would be considered significant. As described in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the total increase in average daily emissions of regional pollutants from to be below the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact for regional pollu For toxic air contaminants, a project would have a cumulatively total of all present and foreseeable future sources within a 1,0 source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contributio following: Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or, An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or 0.8 g/m3 annual average PM2.5. Since the City of Cupertino does not have a qualified risk reduc TAC and PM impacts upon sensitive receptors was completed. Based on the s 2.5 the cumulative risk to new residents at this site would be less Biological Resources 4.18.2.2 Build-out of a number of the approved and pending developments w vegetation and habitats in the City of Cupertino. Typically, th required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to special-status species and habitats to a less than significant level, and would be required to comply w regulations for the protection of special-status species and Cit As discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project could have impacts on migratory birds if they are present and nesting in the project vicinity during c include measures to reduce impacts to trees remaining on-site. reduced to a less than significant level through the implementat in the project. The project is not anticipated to impact sensit City of Cupertino 117 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 441 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts or oak woodland. Therefore, the project would not substantially significant cumulative impact on special-status species or other biological resources. Transportation Impacts 4.18.2.3 The two study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions both without and with the project. Therefore, the pr considerable contribution to any identified cumulative transport Transportation Impact Analysis). Construction Impacts 4.18.2.4 With the implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts from the effects of project construction on air quality, quality. The construction of the anticipated or pending project impacts at various locations throughout the area. The cumulativ throughout the City, their construction schedules are different, occur over the next several years. In addition, projects would standard measures and controls to further reduce construction im construction impacts associated with the pending projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Direct and Indirect Impacts 4.18.2.5 The project could also result in noise and greenhouse gas emissi construction impacts discussed previously. With the implementat included in the project and described in the specific sections o Section 4 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts), the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Conclusion 4.18.2.6 The project includes mitigation measures to reduce its impacts t resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and construction period noise to a less than significant level. Given the size and location of the project, its contribution to other impacts, when taking into consideration recently approved and reasonably fores Cupertino and other communities near the project site, would not be cumulatively considerable. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impacts) 4.18.3 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Environmental Goals The proposed project would not achieve any short-term environmen long-term environmental goals. The project includes measures th state in achieving long-term goals related to transportation, ai gas emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 118 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 442 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental spec assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding cond of the project plans. 2. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. 3. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Im. Map. 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clea. September 15, 2010. 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environ Quality Guidelines. May 2011. 6. Arbor Resources. An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project Boulevard (Biltmore Adjacency). February 24, 2012. 7. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. 8. PII Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 3 Parcel Biltmore Adjacency Project. July 25, 2011. 9. Cornerstone Earth Group. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Bil. November 16, 2011. 10. LandAmerica Assessment Corporation. Phase I Environmental S Biltmore 10159 South Blaney. December 13, 2005. 11. PII Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Up Biltmore Adjacency Project. November 23, 2011. 12. PII Environmental. Phase II Shallow Soil Characterization R Project. December 12, 2011. 13. Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Wildfire Maps and Information. July 29, 2011. Available at: http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/viewer.htm. 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate M May 18, 2009. City of Cupertino 119 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 443 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 15. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Environmental Noise Assessment. February 27, 2012. 16. Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis January 2012. 17. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Biltmore Apartment Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. March 20, 2012. City of Cupertino 120 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 444 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Arbor Resources. An Arborist Review of the Proposed Project at (Biltmore Adjacency). February 24, 2012. Arborwell. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue Pre-Construction Tree Protection Plan. November 21, 2011. Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Prog Wildfire Maps and Information. July 21, 2011. Available at: http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/ Fire_Threat_WUI/viewer.htm. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean A. September 15, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmen Guidelines. May 2011. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Impor. Map. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. Cornerstone Earth Group. Preliminary Geotechnical Report Biltmo. November 16, 2011. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. 18, 2009. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Biltmore Apartments Î Transportation Impact Analysis. March 20, 2011. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 20030 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Bilt Noise Assessment. February 27, 2012. LandAmerica Assessment Corporation. Phase I Environmental Site Biltmore 10159 South Blaney. December 13, 2005. PII Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Project. July 25, 2011. PII Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Report, 4 Parcel Biltmore Adjacency Project. November 23, 2011. Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis 200 January 2012. City of Cupertino 121 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 445 Section 5.0-References Persons Contacted: Chatwani, Usha. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Associate Civ Ducote, Michael. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Senior Developmen Girod, Eric. BKF Engineers, Associate Project Manager. Vidra, Michael. BKF Engineers, Project Engineer. Vuong, Simon. City of Cupertino, Assistant Planner. City of Cupertino 122 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 446 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS Lead Agency City of Cupertino Community Development Department Aarti Shrivastava, Director Gary Chao, Planning Manager Simon Vuong, Assistant Planner Consultants David J. Powers & Associates Environmental Consultants and Planners Nora Monette, Principal Project Manager Will Burns, Project Manager Tanya Cottle, Assistant Project Manager Stephanie Francis, Graphic Artist Hexagon Transportation Consultants Transportation Consultants Gary Black, Principal Brian Jackson, Senior Associate Trisha Dudala, Associate Illingworth & Rodkin Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants Michael Thill, Project Manager City of Cupertino 123 Screencheck Draft Initial Study 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Biltmore Apartments April 2012 447 April 23, 2012 Mr. Michael Ducote Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 150 San Mateo, CA 94403 Ms. Aarti Shrivastava Mr. Gary Chao Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014-3255 Re: 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard & Biltmore Apartments Cupertino, California Dear Mr. Ducote, Ms. Shrivastava and Mr. Chao: Our firm has accepted the assignment of reviewing the retail porreferenced project and making recommendations that will result in creating viable and successful retail at this location; success being defined as prompt lease up, to quality tenants and with minimal turnover. Qualifications Please refer to the attached summary of mixed-use projects. Property features The retail element of the project is comprised of approximately 7,000 square feet; exterior dimensions are approximately 45 feet deep by 190 feet in length. It is a freestanding building advantageously paralleling Stevens Creek Boulevard versus being perpendicular to Stevens Creek Boulevard. All tenants will have the benefit of a storefront facing highly trafficked Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is a mid-block location without the benefit of being on a corner. South, adjacent and horizontally connected to the retail, there currently are 179 luxury apartmen owned and managed by Prometheus with 101 new luxury apartments t Prometheus. There is direct connectivity between the apartments and retail v placed walkways as part of the plans for the new development. Goals The retail development goals include designing a higher quality at speaks to being neighborhood-embracing in terms of its scale and tenancies and to be pedestrian-customer friendly. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 250 San Jose, California 95126 408.553.6135 Fax 408.553.0896 www.srsre.com 448 Mr. Michael Ducote April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Recommendations Site Plan The bay depths of approximately 40 feet are consistent with demand from shop tenants, which will also allow for more tenants and more variety. Increasing square footage will diminish tenant interest on the part of national and independent retailers restaurants seeking shop space. Increasing the length of the building is not advised as this willcompromise vehicular access points and highly visible parking from Stevens Creek Boulevard; a critical factor in creating successful retail at this location. The planned outside patio will be a great amenity for outside dinning and further signal the building to be retail and a shoppThere is, approximately, lk to provide a comfortable and inviting environment for customers further promoting the desirability of the retail to potential high quality tenants. Elevation We commented previously to the City and developer to widen the g Elevation. We are happy to see that the developer made such changes. We also agree with city staff that by demising the spaces appropriately, the double doors can be centered to the storefront for each tenant space and provide symmetry at the exterior to the building. Notwithstanding the retail signing to Stevens Creek, most customers may enter the retail spaces from the south side of the building; directly from the parking dedicated for the retail. Access doors and a sense of entry will need to be designed into these entrances. We recommend selecting a color palette that is vibrant, stands out and is not muted. Signage Unfortunately, many retail projects consider signage after the b instead of being integrated as part of the overall design. We have provided Prometheus with direction for retail signage that will aid in securing quality tenants. It is our understanding that Prometheus is providing a conceptual retail signage plan as part of the Planning Commiss submittal for their review. The plan will include criteria for a monument sign, fascia and blade signs as well as accompanying lighting. It is also critical to plan for appropriate exterior materials for a fascia mounting system which would limit the amount of exterior scarring to the building when tenants turnover. Parking Parking for this project is available, visible and accessible from the street. At either of the entrances flanking the building there are visible and convenient parking spaces. At the southern entrances to the building there is additional dedicated customer parking. The amount of parking dedicated to the retail is adequate (unlike the under parked Pan potential for additional shared parking opportunities with the rntial is excellent. Conclusion Per the C, we looked at the existing retail uses of the property in the context of its retail square footage decreasing with the propose -era site plan, elevation and tenant mix. The existing retail has been unable to compete for newer retailers and restaurants. Such tenants have opted for better retail centers featuring more upbeat design, strong identity from the s-tenancy with larger or nationally recognized chains. Consequently, space in the existing center has been leased to 449 Mr. Michael Ducote April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 tenant uses, including services, which generate modest customer interest and revenue, much of which is not taxable. The exchange of a new mixed-use project, anchored by a modern and high quality retail building of approximately 7,000 square feet, for approximately 2-and- tired retail suggests this project to be a solid trade for improved neighborhood services and Stevens Creek aesthetics. Two mixed-use projects, Travigne and Metropolitan, have failed to deliver quality and consistent retail/restaurant tenancies. These projects fail as a result of insufficient, proximate, accessible and exclusive parking for the retail. Moreover, the ground floor that should serve a completely different use from the difference. Both projects signage programs are weak. The Metropolitan bay depths are not sufficie We have prepared a demising plan that will line up with elevation features and not terminate against glass storefronts. The architectural plans submitted as part of the Planning Commis submittal reflect this demising plan. We are in the process of formulating a tenant-mix plan for the project that will include tenant uses and are of a caliber that residents of Cupertino will want to fr. We have commenced talking to retailers and restaurateurs and believe we will have most of the building pre-leased prior to the completion of construction. We will keep you apprised. Sincerely, SRS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS Randol Y Mackley Bruce H. Frazer Senior Vice President Senior Vice President 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject Fiscal year 2012-13Budget Recommended Action Conduct the first of two public hearings on the FY 2012-13Budget. Description The purpose of tonight’s hearing is to continue the preliminary review of the annual budget and to give the public an opportunity to comment before its adoption on June19, 2012. Discussion An in-depth review of the budget was presented to City Council at the budget work session on May 30, 2012. During the study session, the Council discussed our general fund financial situation, the fiscal strategic plan, change in program levels, departmental budgets and the five- year capital improvement program. Fiscal Impact Discussedin proposed budget for fiscal year 2012-13dated May 30, 2012. _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Woo, Finance Director Reviewed by: Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments:None 507 PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 4, 2012 Subject Annual approval and renewal of thecollection ofexisting storm drain fees at no increase in rates for fiscal year 2012-2013. Recommended Action AdoptResolution No. 12-____. Discussion Since 1992, the Nonpoint Source Program, mandated by the State of California and the US Environmental Protection Agency regulations, has been funded locally from a storm drain fee applied to each property in the City. The fee, collected by the Santa Clara County Tax Collector and provided to the City, is subject to annual review and approval by the City Council. The existing storm drain feessupport the City’s State and federally mandated programsand State water quality control requirements.Also supported by these fundsare the operation and maintenance of storm drain facilities (to the extent not covered by existingGeneral Fund activities), a portion of the annual street sweeping contract, funding for regional watershed monitoring, local public outreach education,and other compliance work conducted on behalf of the cities and agencies by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). The fees have remained the same since they were first levied in 1992 and no increase is proposed. The annual fees for each property category are as follows: CategoryRate per Year Single-Family, Town homes, Condominiums$ 12.00 / premise Commercial/Industrial/Apartments$ 144.00 / acre Unimproved/Recreation$ 36.00 / acre Fiscal Impact The fee schedule when levied on all properties in the City of Cupertino generates approximately $370,000. The proposedprogram budget for FY 2012-2013isapproximately$449,000.This budgeted amount represents necessary staff time for mandatory inspectionsand data trackingto 508 prevent illegal discharges and connections to the City storm drain system and impact to State waters. The budgeted amount is necessary to meetincreasingly stringent State and Federal clean water requirements, higher municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) fees proposed by the State and an increase in SCVURPPP(countywide collaborative) program costs. The difference between the budgeted amount and the revenue from fees is proposed to continue to be supportedby the General Fund. Any increasein the current fee amount would be subject to the provisions of Proposition 218 and no change is recommended at this time. In conjunction with the 2011-12 Budget, Council approved a comprehensive analysis of our existing storm drain fees (not increased since 1993) and, if a Godbe community survey reported a favorable outcome, a subsequent property owner mail-in ballot vote proposing to raise these fees to fund all current program needs and eliminate all General Fund subsidy would be proposed. The fee study was completed with the results proposing fees at approximatelytwo times the current rate. Staff then looked at the timing of a mail-in ballot (approval at 50% plus one versus 2/3rds in a special election). Our analysis of the required timeline showed that the City could not survey and meet the requirements of a mail-in ballot prior to the November election. Since we are not able to meet this timeline, and since the Santa Clara Valley Water District is moving forward with their own clean creek ballot measure in November 2012,the project will remain on the active list for the Fiscal Strategic Plan and will be included in the Proposed 2012/13 budget document. Staff will plan for the mail-in ballot election next year. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan, Interim City Manager Attachments: A.Draft Resolution, Approving the Renewal and Collection of the Existing Storm Drain Fees 509 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE RENEWAL AND COLLECTION OF THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN FEES AT NO INCREASE IN RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has previously enacted Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 for the purpose of meeting the City’s federally mandated Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Management Program and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a storm drainage service charge; and WHEREAS, a report concerning the method of assessing an environmental fee to fund the City’s Stormwater ManagementProgram was prepared by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section 3.36.080(B) ofthe City’s Municipal Code and filed with the City Clerk onMay 2, 2012.A report, entitled “Engineer’s Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program,”was prepared by the Director of Public Works and is datedMay23, 2012; and WHEREAS, thereport, filed with the City Clerk,was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds and determines as follows: 1.Afterconsidering the report entitled “Engineer’s Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program” and the testimony received at this public hearing, the City Council hereby approves the report and herein incorporates itin the resolution. 2.There is a need in the City for the continuation of a storm drainage service charge to cover the costs of the federally mandated program as heretofore described, in that properties within the city will not otherwise contribute their fair share towards this program and without the availability of such storm drainage service charge, the City’s general fund will be depleted. 3.The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for this fee and the impacts for which this fee shall be used, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the properties, which are to be charged this fee. These relationships or nexuses are described in more detail in the abovereferenced report. 4.The amounts of the fee for each category of property, as set forth below, are reasonable amounts as such fees are based on runoff coefficients established in the Master Storm Drain Study. 5.It is further determined that each and everyparcel of land contained in said report will, and has received a benefit of the storm drainage system and that the charges imposed herein on each such parcel are in conformity with the benefits that such parcel has received as further described in the report. 510 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, that: 1.Charge. The storm drainage service charge shall continue to be charged to each parcel within the city to cover the costs of the City’s federal and state requirements for Nonpoint Source Control and aStormwater Management Program. 2.Use of Revenue. The revenue derived from said charge shall be used in connection with implementing and enforcing Chapters3.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code entitled “Storm Drainage Service Charge” and Chapter 9.18 entitled “Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection.” 3.Schedule of Charges. (a) Annual fees for each category of property will be assessed and collected as follows: Residential premises$12.00/parcel Apartment premises$144.00/acre Commercial/Industrial premises$144.00/acre Unimproved/Recreational$36.00/acre (b) The following public properties are exempt from, and shall not be assessed the environmental fee: Cupertino Sanitary District Santa Clara County Santa Clara Valley Water District Southern Pacific Transportation Company State of California The Santa Clara County Fire Department The City of Cupertino The Cupertino Union School District The Foothill-De Anza Community College District The Fremont Union High School District The Midpeninsula Regional Park District United States of America 4.Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to challenge, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date of its adoption. 511 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Councilof the City of Cupertino this 4th day of June,2012, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 512 EXHIBIT A ENGINEER'S REPORT ASSESSMENT OF FEES FOR STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSES NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM A.Program Description and Purpose The purpose of this assessment is to collect fees for funding the City of Cupertino's Nonpoint Source Pollution Program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Regulations by the EPA and the State of California require cities to take specific actions to eliminate or control pollutants in waters of the State. The term "nonpointsource pollution" represents a process whereby pollutants, debris, sediment and chemicals which accumulate on streets, in neighborhoods, construction sites, parking lots and other exposed surfaces are washed off by rainfall and carried away by stormwater runoff(via drain inlets and pipes installed for flood control)into local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Sources of these pollutants may include automobile exhaust and oil, pesticides, fertilizers, eroded soil, detergents, pet waste,paint, litter and other material carried through the storm drain system, without treatment, directly to the Bay. Many of these pollutants are hazardous to aquatic and human life. The City of Cupertino has implemented several mandated and optional programs to mitigate this problem. Among other activities, these programsinclude elimination of illegal discharges and waste disposal into storm drains, street sweeping, inspection and maintenance of storm drain structures, public educationat City eventsanda City and school district-wide third-grade creek education&field trip program. The State San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) approvedthe MunicipalRegional Permit (MRP)on October 14, 2009. The permitwas issuedto 76 agenciesor co-permittees (including the City of Cupertino) which discharge storm water through drainage systems to the San Francisco Bay. TheMRP includesseveral mandated requirements that are beingphased inover five years. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) has had to increase its co-permittee assessmentsby about20% to meet these new requirements. The City must alsoinspectand clean itsdrain inlets and storm drain conveyance systemannually prior to the rainy season.With theseand various other MRP requirements on the horizon the City has hadto increase the NPS budget to ensure continued compliance.While Proposition 218 essentially prevents the City from increasing stormwater fees, it isimportant that the fees that have been inplacesince 1992continue to be collected. 513 B.Estimated Expenditures The total estimated budget to implement the required programs described above for fiscal year 2012-2013is approximately $449,000. The breakdown of costs is outlined as follows: Countywide Program $120,000 Regional Watershed Monitoring State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Fees Public Education, Public Awareness and Staff Training CA Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Guidance Manuals SCVURPP Program Fee -Collaborative Implementation of Permit Requirements Municipal Permit Compliance Policy Implementation Operations and Maintenance $160,000 Catch Basin Cleaning Street Sweeping On-call Spill Response City Public Education Awareness $50,000 Public Outreach Materials & Events Third-Grade Creek Education for Local Schools Support for High School Watershed and Creek Education Support for De Anza College and Community Environmental Education Local Programs $119,000 Administration and Ordinance Revisions Annual Reports to State SF Bay Water Board Database Administration Illegal Discharge Detection & Elimination Investigation and Enforcement Industrial/Commercial Inspection andEnforcement Program Construction Site Inspection and Control Program New Development Implementation ofLow Impact Development (LID) Trash Management Requirements and Litter Abatement _______ TOTAL $449,000 C.Revenue andAssessment Revenues generated to fund this program are based on a factor calculated from the City's Master Storm Drain Study runoff coefficients and average area of impervious surface per acre based on type of land-use development. The factor for each category is based on a comparison to an average residential parcel assigned a factor of one. 514 The following table represents the approximate revenue stream for different categories of development. No. ParcelsAnnualRevenue DevelopmentCategoryFactoror AcreCost/UnitGenerated Residential115,667Pcl$ 12.00$188,004 Commercial/Industrial/ Apartments121,049.41Ac$144.00$151,115 Unimproved/Recreational3878.72Ac$36.00$31,634 _________ TOTAL $370,753 PARCEL Each parcel has been identified and a fee established in a separate report entitled ASSESSMENT REPORT. ____________________________ Timm Borden Director of Public Works 5/23/12 515 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject:Objections to proposed removal of brush and order abatement of potential fire hazard. NOTE: County Fire inspected all properties again and they are all in compliance so there is no need for a hearing. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 516 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject Alternative Retirement System for Temporary and Part-Time Employees Recommended Action Adopt resolution Description Approve an Alternative Retirement System provided by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) in lieu of Social Security for employees not eligible for enrollment in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS)and direct the City Manager to execute the trust agreement and all necessary documents. Discussion Prior to passage by the United States Congress of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) in 1990, part-time, seasonal and temporary employees of a public agency were exempt from participating in a retirement program. However, the passage of OBRA mandated that public employees who were not members of a retirement program as of January 1, 1992 be covered by Social Security or an alternate retirement system. All permanent and part-time employees who work more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year are covered by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), but part-time, seasonal and temporary employees are not eligible to enroll in CalPERS. After the passage of OBRA, the City chose to enroll its part-time and temporary workers into Social Security. As a result of participation in Social Security, both the City and the temporary, part-time or seasonal employeehave contributed6.2% of salary, for a total contribution of 12.4% to Social Security.Recently, the 2010 Tax Relief Act reduced the employee Social Security tax rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011, and this tax holiday for employees was renewed for 2012. The employer Social Security tax rate remains at 6.2%. Staff has researched alternative plans and determined the benefits for the City and effected employees of participating in an alternative plan. Based on this research, staff is recommending that Council adopt a resolution authorizing participation in the PARS Alternative Retirement System for all part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees who are currently enrolled in Social Security. PARS has about 250 client agencies in the Alternative Retirement System program and has been providing retirement services to public agencies since 1983. Staff recommends that the employee continue to pay the same amount as would be paid to Social Security, with the City contributing the remainder of the 7.5%. Currently, that would mean that the employee’s contribution would be 4.2% and the City’s would be 3.3%. When the employee Social Security rate returns to 6.2%, the City rate would be reduced to 1.3%. 517 There are a number of benefits for part-time temporary employees and the City from participating in the Alternative Retirement System (PARS) rather thanSocial Security.PARS requires only a 7.5% total contribution to a fully vested retirement account, and the PARS contributions by the part-time temporary employee are pre-tax, whereas contributions to Social Security are post-tax.This means that the effective employee contribution rate is lower than the Social Security rate after considering the tax benefits, which results in additional take-home pay for the employee. Another advantage is that it saves 79% or more in payroll costs for the City. PARS plan participants are also fully vested in their individual accounts from the first day of coverage versus 40 credits required in Social Security. In the event of a participant’s termination of employment, retirement, disability or death, assets in the participant’s account may be distributed as a lump-sum to the participant; rolled over to an IRA or other qualified retirement plan; or used to purchase CalPERS service credit, if eligible. There is no such option with Social Security. Fiscal Impact Based on acurrent employee contribution rate of 4.2% for 2012, the City would experience approximately $49,000 in annual savings the first year. Assuming the tax credit will end and the employee rate returns to 6.2%,city savings will increase to approximately $72,000 per year. ____________________________________ Prepared by:Maria Jimenez, Human ResourceTechnician/Benefits Reviewed by: Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments:Draft Resolution Draft Agreement 518 RESOLUTION 12-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SYSTEMAS THE QUALIFYING RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR ITS PART TME, SEASONAL AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, it is determined to be in the best interests of the City and its employees to provide a Qualifying Retirement System for its part time, seasonal and temporary employees not currently eligible for such a Qualifying Retirement System, thereby meeting the requirement of Section 11332 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA 90) and Section 3121 (b)(7))F) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); and WHEREAS,the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) has made such a system available to the City and its eligible employees and qualifies under OBRA 90 Section 11332, IRC Sections 3121(b)(7)(F) and 457(b), and meets the meaning of the term “retirement system”as given by Section 218(b)(4) of the Federal Social Security Act. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby adopts the PARS Trust, including the PARS Section 457 FICA Alternative Retirement Plan, effective_____2012, the Effective Date for the benefit of employees on the date and hired thereafter; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino hereby appoints Carol Atwood, Director of Adminstrative Services or her successor or designee as the City’s Plan Administrator for the PARS Section 457 FICA Alternative Retirement Plan/Trust; and WHEREAS, that the City’s Plan Administrator ishereby authorized to implement the plan(s), execute the PARS legal and administrative documents on behalf of the City and to take whatever additional actions are necessary to maintain the City’s participation in PARS and to maintain PARS compliance of any relevant regulation issued or as may beissued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the City’s PARS plan(s). PASSED AND ADOPTEDat a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino th this 15day of May 2012by the followingvote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________________________________________ Grace Smith, City ClerkMark Santoro,Mayor 519 520 AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES This Agreement for Administrative Services (“Agreement”) is made this 4thday of June, 2012, between Phase II Systems, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, doing business asPublic Agency Retirement Services (hereinafter “PARS”) and the City of Cupertino (“Agency”). WHEREAS, Agency has adopted the City of Cupertino PARS Section 457 FICA Alternative Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) effective June 4, 2012in conjunction with the PARS Trust Document (“PARS Trust”), and is desirous of retaining PARS, as Trust Administrator to the PARS Trust, to provide administrative services; WHEREAS, by written resolution and pursuant to Sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the PARS Trust, the Agency’s governing body has appointed by position or title a Plan Administrator to act on its behalf in all matters relating to the Plan and PARS Trust (“Plan Administrator”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the PARS Trust, the Agency has the power to delegate certain duties related to the Plan, and PARS accepts those duties pursuant to the terms contained in the Agreement, and that this Agreement represents the entire delegation of duties to PARS from the Agency with regards to the Plan; WHEREAS, PARS accepts the terms of this Agreement with the understanding by the Agency and Plan Administrator that PARS does not hold custody of any assets of the Plan, and does not have any independent authority or discretion for the investment, distribution or escheatment of Plan assets without the express consent of, and direction from the Plan Administrator. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE: Services. 1.PARS will provide the services pertaining to the Plan as described in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1A” (“Services”) in a timely manner, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement. Fees for Services. 2.PARS will be compensated for performance of the Services as described in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1B”. Payment Terms. 3.Payment for the Services will be remitted directly from Plan assets unless the Agency chooses to make payment directly to PARS. In the event that the Agency chooses to make payment directly to PARS, it shall be the responsibility of the Agency to remit payment directly to PARS based upon an invoice prepared by PARS and delivered to the Agency. If payment is not received by PARS within thirty (30) days of the invoice delivery date, the balance due shall bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. If payment is not received from theAgency within sixty (60) days of the invoice delivery date, payment plus accrued interest will be remitted directly from Plan assets, unless PARS has previously received written communication disputing the subject invoice that is signed by a duly authorized representative of the Agency. Fees for Services Beyond Scope. 4.Fees for services beyond those specified in this Agreement will be billed to the Agency at the rates indicated in the PARS standard fee schedule in effect 1 521 at the time the services are provided and shall be payable as described in Section 3 of this Agreement. Before any such services are performed, PARS will obtain prior Agency authorization and provide the Agency with written notice of the subject services, terms, and an estimate of the feestherefore. Information Furnished to PARS. 5.PARS will provide the Services contingent upon the Agency providing PARS the information specified in the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit 1C” (“Data”). It shall be the responsibility of the Agency to certifythe accuracy, content and completeness of the Data so that PARS may rely on such information without further audit. It shall further be the responsibility of the Agency to deliver the Data to PARS in such a manner that allows for a reasonable amount of time for the Services to be performed. Unless specified in Exhibit 1A, PARS shall be under no duty to question Data received from the Agency, to compute contributions made to the Plan, to determine or inquire whether contributions are adequate to meet and discharge liabilities under the Plan, or to determine or inquire whether contributions made to the Plan are in compliance with the Plan or applicable law. In addition, PARS shall not be liable for non performance of Services if such non performance is caused by or results from erroneous and/or late delivery of Data from the Agency. In the event that the Agency fails to provide Data in a complete, accurate and timely manner and pursuant to the specifications in Exhibit 1C, PARS reserves the right, notwithstanding the further provisions of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement upon no less than ninety (90) days written notice to the Agency. Suspension of Contributions. 6.In the event contributions are suspended, either temporarily or permanently, prior to the complete discharge of PARS’ obligations under this Agreement, PARS reserves the right to bill the Agency for Services under this Agreement at the rates indicated in PARS’ standard fee schedule in effect at the time the services are provided, subjectto the terms established in Section 3 of this Agreement. Before any such services are performed, PARS will provide the Agency with written notice of the subject services, terms, and an estimate of the fees therefore. Plan Distributions. 7.The Plan Administrator is responsible for notifying PARS of any Participant’s eligibility for a distribution, and PARS accepts the Plan Administrator’s contractual delegation of distribution processing and certain escheatment responsibilities. PARS is entitled to rely on,and is under no duty whatsoever to audit the efficacy of the Agency’s procedures for identifying an employee’s change-in-status or eligibility for a distribution. Non-Contribution Reports. 8.PARS prepares and submits a periodic Non-Contribution report to the Plan Administrator which includes all Participants who have received no new contributions for a period of time, as specified by the Plan Administrator. PARS is not obligated by law or otherwise to provide a Non-Contribution report and this report in no way obligates PARS to generate distributions without specific instruction from the Agency’s Plan Administrator as outlined in Section 7. Escheatment of Unclaimed Accounts. 9.PARS will administer the escheatment of Participant accounts which are deemed unclaimed pursuant to applicable state and federal laws, under the conditions further described in the provisions of this Agreement. It is acknowledged by the Agency and Plan Administrator that any escheatment duties that PARS has arise only as a result of contractual, not statutory, obligations that PARS accepts as a delegatee of the Plan Administrator, as contained in this Agreement. For the purposes of determining the timing of distributability under any unclaimed property law, a Participant account becomes “payable or 2 522 distributable” as of the date on which the Plan Administrator notifies PARS, in an acceptable form of notification, of a change-in-status together with the proper authorization to commence the distribution process. Records. 10.Throughout theduration of this Agreement, and for a period of five (5) years after termination of this Agreement, PARS shall provide duly authorized representatives of Agency access to all records and material relating to calculation of PARS’ fees under this Agreement.Such access shall include the right to inspect, audit and reproduce such records and material and to verify reports furnished in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. All information so obtained shall be accorded confidential treatment as provided under applicable law. Confidentiality. 11.Without the Agency’s consent, PARS shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan except to duly authorized officials of the Agency, subject to applicable law, and to parties retained by PARS to perform specific services within this Agreement. The Agency shall not disclose any information relating to the Plan to individuals not employed by the Agency without the prior written consent of PARS, except as such disclosures may be required by applicable law. Independent Contractor. 12.PARS is and at all times hereunder shall be an independent contractor. As such, neither the Agency nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have the power to control the conduct of PARS, its officers, employees or agents, except as specifically set forth and provided for herein. PARS shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due its employees in connection with this Agreement and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation and similar matters. Indemnification. 13.PARS and Agency hereby indemnify each other and hold the other harmless, including their respective officers, directors, employees,agents and attorneys, from any claim, loss, demand, liability, or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred by the other as a consequence of PARS’ or Agency’s, as the case may be, acts, errors or omissions with respect to the performance of their respective duties hereunder. Compliance with Applicable Law. 14.The Agency shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding the administration of the Plan. PARS shall observe and comply with federal, state and local laws in effect when this Agreement is executed, or which may come into effect during the term of this Agreement, regarding Plan administrative services provided under this Agreement. Applicable Law. 15.This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event any party institutes legal proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement, venue and jurisdiction shall be in any state court of competent jurisdiction. Force Majeure. 16.When a party’s nonperformance hereunder was beyond the control and not due to the fault of the party not performing, a party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by such cause, including but not limited to: any incidence of fire, flood, acts of God, acts of terrorism or war, commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government, or a material act or omission by the other party. 3 523 Ownership of Reports and Documents. 17.The originals of all letters, documents, reports, and data produced for the purposes of this Agreement shall be delivered to, and become the property of the Agency. Copies may be made for PARS but shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from Agency. Designees. 18.The Plan Administrator of the Agency, or their designee, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of the Agency as set forth in this Agreement, subsequent to and in accordance with the written authority granted by the Governing Body of the Agency, a copy of which writing shall be delivered to PARS. Any officer of PARS, or his or her designees, shall have the authority to act for and exercise any of the rights of PARS as set forth in this Agreement. Notices. 19.All notices hereunder and communications regarding the interpretation of the terms of this Agreement, or changes thereto, shall be effected by delivery of the notices in person or by depositing the notices in the U.S. mail, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: (A)ToPARS: Public Agency Retirement Services 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660,Attention: President (B)To Agency: City of Cupertino; 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; Attention: Carol Atwood [PlanAdministrator] Notices shall be deemed given on the date received by the addressee. Term of Agreement. 20.This Agreement shall remain in effect for the period beginning June 4, 2012 and ending June 30, 2015 (“Term”). This Agreement will continue unchangedfor successive twelve month periods following the Term unless either party gives written notice to the other party of the intent to terminate prior to ninety (90) days before the end of the Term. Amendment. 21.This Agreement may not be amended orally, but only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto. Entire Agreement. 22.This Agreement, including exhibits, contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter set forth in this Agreement. In the event a conflict arises between the parties with respect to any term, condition or provision of this Agreement, the remaining terms, conditions and provisions shall remain in full force and legal effect. No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by any party shall be construed by the other as a continuing waiver of such term or condition. Attorneys Fees. 23.In the event any action is taken by a party hereto to enforce the terms of this Agreement the prevailing party herein shall be entitled to receive its reasonable attorney’s fees. Counterparts. 24.This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and in that event, each counterpart shall be deemed a complete original and be enforceable without reference to any other counterpart. 4 524 Headings. 25.Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret or construe its provisions. Effective Date. 26.This Agreement shall be effective and control the obligations and duties of the parties hereto as of the date first above written. AGENCY: BY:______________________ TITLE:______________________[Plan Administrator] DATE:______________________ PARS BY:______________________ TITLE:______________________ DATE:______________________ 5 525 EXHIBIT 1A SERVICES PARS will provide the following services for the City of Cupertino PARS 457 FICA Alternative Retirement Plan: 1. Plan Installation Services: (A) Meeting with appropriate Agency personnel to discuss plan provisions, implementation timelines, benefit communication strategies, data reporting and contribution submission requirements; (B) Providing the necessary analysis and advisory services to finalize these elements of the Plan; (C) Providing the documentation needed to establish the Plan for review by Agency legal counsel, which must be reviewed and approved by the Agency, as demonstrated by the execution of this Agreement prior to the commencement of PARS services. 2. Plan Administration Services: (A) Monitoring the receipt of Plan contributions made by the Agency to the trustee of the PARS Trust (“Trustee”), based upon information received from the Agency and the Trustee; (B) Performing periodic accounting of Plan assets, including the allocation of employer and employee contributions, distributions, investment activity and expenses (if applicable) to individual Participant accounts, based upon information received from the Agency and/or Trustee; (C) Acting as ongoing liaison between the Participant and the Agency in regard to distribution payments, which shall include use by the Participants of toll-free telephone communication to PARS; (D) Coordinating the processing of Participant distribution payments pursuant to authorized written Agency certification of distribution eligibility, authorized direction by the Agency, the provisions further contained in this Agreement, and the provisions of the Plan; (E) Directing Trustee to make Participant distribution payments, pursuant to the Agency authorization provisions in this Agreement, and producing required tax filings regarding said distribution payments; (F) Notifying the Trustee of the amount of Plan assets available for further investment and management, or, the amount of Plan assets necessary to be liquidated in order to fund Participant distribution payments; (G) Coordinating actions with the Trustee as directed by the Plan Administrator within the scope this Agreement; (H) Preparing and submitting a periodic Non-Contribution report which includes all Participants who have received no new contributions for a period of time as specified by the Plan Administrator, unless directed by the Agency otherwise. PARS is not obligated by law or otherwise to provide a Non-Contribution report and this report in no way obligates PARS to generate distributions without specific instruction from the Agency Plan Administrator as outlined 6 526 in Section 7 of this Agreement; (I) Preparing and submitting a monthly report of Plan activity to the Agency, unless directed by the Agency otherwise; (J) Preparing and submitting an annual report of Plan activity to the Agency; (K) Preparing individual annual statements and mailing in bulk to the Agency, unless directed by the Agency otherwise. 3.Plan Compliance Services: Coordinating and preparing amendments to the Trust, Plan and other associated legal documents required by federal and/or state agencies to maintain the Plan in compliance, for review by Agency legal counsel. 4.PARS is not licensed to provide and does not offer tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial advice. 7 527 EXHIBIT 1B FEES FOR SERVICES 1. PARS will be compensated for performance of Services, as described in Exhibit 1A based upon the following schedule: (A) A distribution fee equal to $20.00 per terminated Participant (“Distribution Fee”), which shall be deducted solely from the terminating Participant’s account or paid by the Agency. Distribution Fee Payment Option (Please select one option below): Distribution Fee shall be paid solely from the terminating Participant’s account Distribution Fee shall be paid by the Agency (B)An annual asset fee paid by the Agency or from Plan Assets based on the following schedule (“Asset Fee”): For Plan Assets from: Annual Rate:ANNUAL RATE: $1 to $500,0002.00% $500,001 to $2,500,0001.50% $2,500,001 to $5,000,0001.25% $5,000,001 to $10,000,0001.00% $10,000.001 and $Above0.75% Annual rates are prorated and paid monthly. The annual Asset Fee shall be calculated by the following formula [Annual Rate divided by 12 (months of the year) multiplied by the Plan asset balance at the end of themonth within each asset range]. Asset based fees are subject to a $400.00 monthly minimum. If the Asset Fee is taken from Plan Assets, the total Asset Fees due in a given month shall be allocated proportionately among Participants of the Agency’s Plan inthat month, based on account balance. Trustee and Investment Management Fees are not included. The monthly minimum is subject to an st automatic cost-of-living increase of 2% per year commencing the 1 of the month following the Term as defined in Section 20 above. Annual Asset Fee Payment Option (Please select one option below): Annual Asset Fee shall be invoiced and paid by the Agency. Annual Asset Fee shall be paid from Plan Assets. (C)A fee equal to the out of pocket costs charged to PARS by an outside contractor for formatting contribution data on to a suitable magnetic media, charged only if the contribution data received by PARS from the Agency is not on readable magnetic media (“Data Processing Fee”). 8 528 EXHIBIT 1C DATA REQUIREMENTS PARS will provide the Services under this Agreement contingent upon receiving the following information: 1. Contribution Data –transmitted to PARS by email or on an IBM formatted disk (360K, 1.2 MB or 1.44 MB) in ASCII code or Excel formats containing the followingitems of employee information related to the covered payroll period: (A) Agency name (B) Employee’s legal name (C) Employee’s social security number (D) Payroll date (E) Employer contribution amount (F) Employee contribution amount 2. DistributionData –written Plan Administrator’s (or authorized Designee’s) direction to commence distribution processing, which contains the following items of Participant information: (A) Agency name (B) Participant’s legal name (C) Participant’s social securitynumber (D) Participant’s address (E) Participant’s phone number (F) Participant’s birthdate ’ (G) Participants condition of eligibility (H) Participant’s effective date of eligibility (I) Signed certification of distribution eligibility from the Plan Administrator, or authorized Designee 3. Executed Legal Documents: (A) Certified Resolution (B) Plan Document (C) Trust Agreement (D) Trustee Investment Forms 4. Other information pertinent to the Services as reasonably requested by PARS. 9 529 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:June 4, 2012 Subject League of California Cities Annual Conference September5-7 in San Diego Recommended Action Designate voting delegate and up to two alternates Discussion The League’s 2012 Annual Conference is scheduled for September5-7 in San Diego. An important part of the Annual Conference is the General Assembly Annual Business Meeting at noon on Friday, September 7. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate, and may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Reviewed by: Carol Atwood, Administrative Services Director Approved for Submission by:Amy Chan,Interim City Manager Attachments: Staff report Conference Information 530 531 532 533 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-77-3366 davek@cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 4, 2012 Subject Resolutions clarifying when the use of teleconferencing in connection with its City Council meetings is permitted. Recommended Action Consider adopting the attached resolution clarifying the conditions under which teleconferencing may be used or adopting the attached resolution deleting the teleconferencing option. Description On May 3, 2011, in Resolution 11-074, Council adopted a policy enabling council members to attend council meetings via teleconferencing in the event they are unable to attend personally. Council members Wong and Mahoney requested review of that policy. The 2011 discouragesOne of the proposed resolutions further defines discouragedand permits teleconferencing only if the council member is out of town on official city business or if they are unable to attend due to a medical emergency in their immediate family. The remaining portions of the policy would remain unchanged. The alternative resolution deletes the teleconferencing option. Resolution 11-074 is attached for your reference. Submitted by: Amy Chan, Interim City Manager Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Proposed Resolution deleting the teleconferencing option C. Resolution 11-074 534 RESOLUTION NO: 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING RESOLUTION 11-074 AND THE POLICY FOR TELECONFERENCING DURING COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City Council previously established a policy for teleconferencing in Resolution 11-074; and WHEREAS, the City Council now finds that the policy should be repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The use of teleconferencing by a Council member to attend a City Council meeting is not permitted and Resolution 11-074 is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __________day of __________, 2012 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED ________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mark Santoro, Mayor 535 RESOLUTION NO: 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING A POLICY FOR TELECONFERENCING DURING COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, Government Code 54953 permits a legislative body to use teleconferencing in connection with attendance at its meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council established guidelines for teleconferencing in Resolution 11-074; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the guidelines should be clarified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: (1) The use of teleconferencing for a Council member to attend a City Council meeting is permitted, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act (Government Code 54953), as amended. These provisions permitting teleconferencing shall apply solely to the Council members for their attendance at open and closed sessions of regular and special City Council meetings either for entire meetings or a specific agenda item. (2) Councilmember attendance at a Council meeting by teleconferencing is strongly discouraged and is only be permitted in the event of a medical emergency in the Councilm family, or in the event the Councilmember is out of town on official City business. (3) Only one Councilmember per meeting may attend a Council meeting by teleconferencing. (4) One week advance written notice must be given by the Council member to the City Clerk's office; the notice must include the address at which the teleconferenced meeting will occur, who is to initiate the phone call to establish the teleconference connection, and the phone number of the teleconference location. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __________day of __________, 2012 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 536 ATTEST: APPROVED ________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mark Santoro, Mayor 537 538